Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the editor:

I genuinely appreciate the L.A. auxiliary bishop's reminder of the subversive nature of the Christmas story. And in that spirit, I'll quote the bishop and hope that everyone had “a subversive little Christmas.”

I'd also like to remind everyone of subversive Catholic groups like Roman Catholic Womenpriests (whose name says it all) and DignityUSA, which speaks for many lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender Catholics.

The people these groups represent often find there's no room at the inn for them, but hopefully Catholic authorities will remember the subversive story of Jesus in the new year.

Roel Hinojosa, Los Angeles

Note from KBJ: The Church's position on these people is clear: They have an "objectively disordered" condition and are to be pitied. They are not to act on their perverted desires. See here, paragraphs 2357 to 2359.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

“Clinton Confidently Embracing Her Husband’s Economic Record” (news article, Dec. 23) should cause us to consider how President Bill Clinton’s policies ultimately affected the American economy.

Mr. Clinton’s administration gave us the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which greatly accelerated the loss of American manufacturing jobs and started the race to the bottom in wages paid for what was left, and the partial dismantling of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which set us up for the housing bubble and the Great Recession.

Sure, the economy boomed during the Clinton years, but Mr. Clinton’s policies did much to create the mess that followed, which is still with us.

While I agree with the Clintons that a Democrat should be in the White House, these facts, as well as Bernie Sanders’s nice Op-Ed explication of cronyism at the Federal Reserve (“To Rein In Wall Street, Fix the Fed,” Dec. 23), have greatly helped me determine whom to vote for in the Democratic primary. It’s not Hillary Clinton.

LOUISE QUIGLEY

Braintree, Mass.

Note from KBJ: Free trade has been a disaster for this country. It makes the rich richer and gives people access to cheap foreign-made goods, but it destroys the important things, like American industry, community, family, and culture.

I had the same thought as Scott Adams, namely, that Hillary Clinton is not well. The Clintons are (1) pathological liars and (2) ruthless in pursuing power, so they would have no hesitation in lying to the American people about Hillary's health (or lack thereof). They want to get her into the White House by hook or by crook.

Here.

Here.

Reformation (2003).

To the editor:

Jonah Goldberg has it right: The U.S. government has been practicing medicine without a license. ("Working the refs on nutrition science," Opinion, Dec. 22)

Its intervention goes back to at least World War II, when multivitamins were added to the list of benefits for our fighting men overseas to show that adequate nutrition was provided by the government. The critical amount of each vitamin needed for health has been revised almost every year and is still inadequate for most of us.

In the 1950s, eating too much cholesterol was thought to be the source of heart attacks and strokes. Since then our government has advocated a very low dietary cholesterol intake.

We now know excess carbohydrate and calories are the real culprits. The revered food pyramid with its broad carbohydrate base has finally been discarded as not adequate.

Nutrition should be left to the nutrition experts and practitioners and not to the politicians, who might sell their votes to the highest bidder. Furthermore, we should require physicians to learn about nutrition from experts and not from food industry hacks and their representatives.

Jerome P. Helman, MD, Venice

To the editor:

This Democrat says bravo (for once!) to Goldberg for his attack on the longtime politicization of the government-appointed nutrition advisory panel. While good in concept, the panel should not be part of the Department of Agriculture, with the many political winds buffeting it—from a senator's favorite nutritionist to the many food industry lobbyists.

As he notes, the decades-long “low fat, high carbohydrate” message from the panel, largely undertaken at the behest of one influential doctor and without any scientific backing, has been a disaster for the American public, helping it to grow more obese and diabetic.

The indoctrination is so complete that it will take decades to reverse the damage, with nutritionists, doctors and patients being incredulous that diets high in fats and low in carbohydrates have actually been scientifically supported all along.

David Weaver, San Juan Capistrano

Leftists and establishment Republicans won't want to hear this, but Donald Trump is far smarter than they are. As I like to put it, he's "five steps ahead of everyone" (which is what one would expect in someone who makes high-stakes deals for a living). I didn't always believe this. In fact, it wasn't long ago in this very blog that I was calling Donald Trump a buffoon. Now, after watching him in action for several months, I think he's brilliant. He is the odds-on favorite to be our next president. If you think Hillary Clinton will demolish him in debate, you haven't been paying attention—or else you're not very smart. He will do to her what he has done to Jeb Bush, namely, make her seem petty and insignificant. See here for another observer's take on Trump.