Technology and ADHD
EDITOR: Has society considered that extreme changes in childhood activities over the past 25 years might be a contributing factor to increases in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("Worries rise on surge in ADHD," Monday)? My children, who graduated from high school in 1984 and 1986, were raised without cellphones and computers. We owned one television, which was seldom watched during the week and never at dinner. Our family had the usual car pools to school sporting events, as well as ballet and piano lessons.
Today, the lives of many American children are dictated by multi-tasking, which can change the circuitry of the brain, and a plethora of electronic devices. The art of conversation hardly exists in children's lives. Teens don't speak or write in complete sentences, and their speech is so fast and enunciation so poor that often they cannot be understood by anyone but peers.
Until parents realize they are allowing technology to ruin the attention spans of their children, we should expect cases of ADHD to escalate. Will we choose to let newer, better, faster, cheaper electronic devices deplete the attention spans of our children and destroy their ability to control impulses? Or might families return to a few habits of what were once known as manners, such as no phone calls during the dinner hour?
Why just two?
EDITOR: The same-sex marriage controversy is, for all intents and purposes, over. The larger question is why should marriage be limited to two people? The premise of same-sex marriage is based on sexual preference and a loving commitment to another person, regardless of their sex. Why can't someone be married to two people, or four, or any number they choose?
Why can't a bisexual man marry a gay man and a heterosexual woman if there is a loving commitment? Why can't that heterosexual woman also be married to a heterosexual man, and so on? Same-sex marriage is on par with polygamy, which is against the law.
Changing the definition of marriage makes polygamy legal by default.
With the traditional definition of marriage declared unconstitutional, the doors will be open for everything goes, and everything will go. The culture of a heterosexual family unit will be irrevocably altered. How can it not be? The traditional definition of marriage may not be perfect, but are we ready for the alternative? I hope our legislative Supreme Court justices consider the downsides to changing the traditional definition of marriage.
Taxes and economy
EDITOR: John Washam ("The percent solution," Letters, March 29) bemoaned that the 1 percent are paying too much in taxes. I'd like to present some facts that Washam chose to ignore.
One, 70 percent of the U.S. economy comes from consumer spending. Several years ago, the top 1 percent received 9 percent of the national income. They now receive 22.5 percent. This transfer has left the consumers of this nation with less money to spend and is a significant factor in our current economic malaise. You can't expect people to spend more money when you've reduced the money available to them. It also explains why the stock market is booming while we have high unemployment.
Second, the top income tax rate in the U.S. once was 91 percent, and you know what, the economy was stronger than it is now. And there was no massive out-migration of executive talent.