Booze earned itself a label.
Cigarettes certainly have one.
Even a bag of peanuts comes with a warning.
As we dig through our mailbag and click on some of the many links that were sent our way from thoughtful subscribers, we scratch our head and wonder just how long it will be until the oh-so-beloved smartphone finds itself with a warning label.
The device that stirs addiction, causes depression, wreaks hell on our social skills and leads to countless traffic accidents each year (we were forced off the road this weekend by a texter)… gets a pass.
So we ask readers… when will things change?
When will your phone come with a friendly warning from the surgeon general?
And yet if the deep pockets of Silicon Valley have their way… it never will.
As we turn to our mailbag, we’re reminded just how rich the topic has become.
Our Man on the Inside
It’s our piece on the scientific effort to prove that cellphones cause cancer that brought the most attention.
Readers from inside the industry are eager to give us more.
I have been with you since day one of Manward Digest, simply the best finance newsletter out there. You spoke about different frequencies and the power that sends out and receives these signals. I am here to tell you that you once again have hit the nail on the head. The more powerful signals on the frequency spectrum produce the most radiation at any given time.
When I would visit the cell towers on these peak hours, you could feel the surge of signaling in the air from the static electricity in the air of these support buildings. The hair on my arms would stand straight up as well as the back of my neck.
I am here to tell you that you are onto the truth being kept secret from the general public about the dangers of cellphone radiation due to usage of cellphones. It has become a tool everyone on the planet uses and probably could not do without. But very soon we will see more and more information come out about these dangers. What will be interesting is the reaction of the cellphone companies as more cancer cases pile up and the facts irrefutable. – Lifetime Subscriber N.G.
Thanks, N.G. The cellphone companies have plenty of blood on their hands. But we can’t blame them. After all, it’d be pure suicide for them to admit any fault. Even volunteering to slap a warning label on their products would open them to a slew of troubles.
Instead, we must wait for the fine folks in Washington to do their job.
But don’t short shares of Apple just yet… it will be awhile.
As we wrote earlier this month, our healthcare system and the bureaucrats who run it need a healthy dose of capitalism.
I really enjoy your daily “thought provoking” Digests. Would like to add one point for consideration to today’s. If the big three (Bezos, Buffett and Damon) are successful with their healthcare concept, could we not also save money by getting rid of the FDA, which has become extremely protective and bloated, and maybe even the DEA, which seems to just protect the big pharmaceutical companies anyway?!
Again, thank you for your daily Digests, we the people need to use the gray matter we were blessed with! Keep up the good work! – Reader S.E.
Getting rid of the FDA would be nice. But it’s not going to happen. The best we could hope for – and vote for – is a massive shakeup.
The FDA is the leading reason healthcare in America costs, well, an arm and a leg.
The private sector would certainly do a much better job at a much better price.
Trusting the System
On a sadly similar note…
I just read your article for today about the death of trust. I am confused as to your definition of “populist.” My understanding is that it is the political position of being for “ordinary folks.” Am I being naive in my understanding? Can you enlighten me as to why “populism” is a bad thing? I kind of thought your example of Hitler was a bit of a stretch. – Reader D.M.
If you haven’t read the piece D.M.’s referring to, here’s a link to it.
Populism is a tough subject. It seems as though everybody has their own definition of the idea these days.
We support the classic idea of the notion – that ordinary people should run the government.
But the modern version – that essentially says if it feels good, do it – is pure junk.
Either way, readers would be wise to take another look at our essay. We didn’t merely mention “populism.” We included a vital caveat… “dangerous populism.”
We could muse for hours on the idea. But the argument we’ll make today is quite simple.
The fact is that when the people are in charge, they vote for what’s good for themselves, not their neighbors and certainly not their country. It’s how we get massive welfare. It’s how we get huge, unsustainable debt. And it’s how we get political leaders who stick out their arms when it’s time to leave office.
Railing against a government that’s run for and by the elite is a worthy cause that we’ll stand behind. But running a country based on what “feels good” is flat-out dangerous.
Speaking of which…
I think your publication and perspectives are so biased toward men that you can’t see the forest for the trees. What is happening with the “Me Too” movement had to happen to shake men up and demand that they engage in acceptable, respectful behavior in the workplace. If they are afraid to be alone with women, perhaps it is because they are guilty of sexually abusive behavior and they know that their days are numbered.
Since you preach to men, you have an opportunity to teach them how to behave and not cut their noses off to spite their face. Women are by far the greatest asset to a company’s growth. Women know how to get things done. They are insightful, organized, motivated, and are the movers and shakers.
So be careful about the propaganda that you are spreading as it is very destructive. – Reader R.K.
Nope, no harmful generalizations in that note. (The “propaganda” in question, by the way, can be found here.)
We beg the reader to, well, keep reading. There’s a lot to learn.
But not everybody has to stick around. Manward Letter subscriber S.K. asked for her money back and we happily obliged.
She’s not our kind of people…
I signed up for your newsletter because I saw something in you that seemed different and uplifting. So I went to your website, clicked on Manward Letter and decided to start out with January 2018. After reading just a few lines, I came across “toxic masculinity.” I did not much care for that kind of characterization, but I continued reading. Then the “Political Goddess” stopped me.
You asked for our opinions. Here is mine. George Washington did not want to have anything to do with political parties because he said they tear nations apart. And as long as we want to categorize actions as toxic masculinity or call a presidential candidate a political goddess, the division between us as a nation of individuals will only become bigger. We have to be able to listen to each other and really listen with some respect for another human being if we are ever going to be any different than we are today.
I do not want to receive your newsletters. – Former Subscriber S.K.
It makes sense. Read a few paragraphs, tell us that we don’t listen to other opinions… and then quit reading.
We’ll miss you, S.K.
You could have learned a thing or two… and who knows, you could have taught us a thing or two as well.
Keep the questions and comments coming. Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. We read every email we get – even the notes we don’t agree with.