American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
We didn’t hear much about Global Warming during the recent political campaigns. However, that doesn’t mean the issue is settled or that it wasn’t considered challenging enough to make it into the public discourse. Both Obama and McCain appear to have bought into the argument that Global Warming exists and have advocated energy policies that reflect their beliefs.
Al Gore, the leading proponent of Global Warming, has stated on numerous occasions that the science is settled, that man is the cause and that the power of government must be used to control it. Although his strenuous advocacy was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize, he is now being challenged by a growing list of scientists who disagree with his conclusions. In September 2007, the Hudson Institute reported, “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.”
A long list of environmental predications have been made by scientists over the years, all of which have all been proven wrong. Walter Williams (Ph.D), writing in Townhall.com (Environmentalists’ Wild Predictions), observed: “At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, Nigel Calder warned: ‘The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.’ C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, ‘The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.’ In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and ‘in the 1970s…hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death…’”
Dr. Williams further noted, “…doomsayers have always been wrong, “citing as examples claims that there was ‘little or no chance’ of oil being discovered in California…in 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years…in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.”
Examples of panics that have been caused by rumor, innuendo, false or erroneous research and incorrect conclusions have been common throughout history, and the experts have always been wrong. Global Warming fits the historical model of bad science driving public policy that usually only serves to make the situation worse.
Walter Williams raises some important questions about this: “In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?”
Mandating programs like “Cap and Trade” or taxing energy producers and consumers to regulate carbon emissions are just two of the extreme measures being touted to save the earth, which many scientists now believe will not accomplish anything, except to enrich those who participate in the financial windfall that will be generated by the process that’s developed to save us from ourselves.
Global Warming is just another form of the environmental fanaticism that has been driving public policy in recent years. What’s next?
The passage of Proposition 8 marked another milestone in the Culture War that has been prominent in California’s political scene for many years. It’s about rights. In this case, the right to marry someone of the same sex.
But, California is not the only battlefield in the ongoing struggle between those who believe traditional marriage should be limited to unions between one man and one woman and those who are demanding the same “right” for gay couples. Arizona and Florida voters have joined Californians by adopting so-called “defense of marriage” legislation or constitutional amendments.
Since the Massachusetts courts legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, thirty states have amended their state constitutions to preserve traditional marriage.
Wikipedia notes: “Twenty-seven defense of marriage amendments have been adopted. Of these, eight make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional, seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional, and two are unique. Hawaii’s amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Virginia’s amendment is also unique; it prevents the state from recognizing private contracts that ‘approximate’ marriage…”
We seem to have reached the point in America that whenever people are unable to get what they want at the ballot box, they demand their “rights,” often resorting to demonstrations and violence.
But, one man’s right may be another man’s tyranny. In the case of California’s Proposition 8, a majority of “the people have spoken,” and they opted not to allow same-sex couples to legally marry. However, gay couples can have all the rights and benefits of marriage through contractual agreements that are sanctioned by the state: hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, insurance rights, among others, even the right to have their relationships dissolved in court, much the same as divorce.
So, what more do they want? According to them, they want their “rights,” which, in this instance, translates to the right to marry. Three lawsuits have already been filed to invalidate Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds and/or errors in process. However, as with so many issues, the right of same-sex couples to marry is not directly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, it is inferred as being an extension of equal rights.
Marriage in America has been defined and/or limited by legislation for centuries. For example, prior to the Civil War, African-Americans could not marry in many areas of the country; at least sixteen states prohibited inter-racial marriage until a U.S. Supreme Court decision made it legal in 1967; and common-law marriage is recognized in eleven states and the District of Columbia, but not in California.
Traditional arguments in favor of defining marriage as being one man and one woman are generally based on religious belief, but they can also be secular. Those who oppose Proposition 8 view it as an attempt to legislate morality, while the efforts to overturn it are viewed by those who favor it as an effort to legislate immorality.
Marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for thousands of years, and one does not have to be religious to believe that the primary purpose of the institution is to procreate and raise children. In my opinion that should not be changed to accommodate any particular group.
Albert Einstein is credited with making the observation that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
That’s what the government appears to be doing with the War on Drugs, as the nation’s drug problem worsens. The War was launched by President Nixon in 1971, and after 37 years of increasingly draconian punishment and confiscatory laws, we don’t seem to be any closer to winning. If anything, the problem has gotten worse, much worse.
The Drug War Clock (www.drugsense.org) notes the following facts, among others, about the War on Drugs:
“The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second…State and local governments spent at least another $30 billion.”
“Arrests for drug violations in 2008 are expected to exceed the 1,889,810 arrests of 2006. Law enforcement made more arrests for drug law violations in 2006 (13.1 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense.”
“Police arrested an estimated 829,625 persons for cannabis violations in 2006, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of those charged with cannabis violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds.”
“Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 percent are sentenced for drug law violations.”
“Nearly 4,000 new HIV infections can be prevented before the year 2009 if the federal ban on needle exchange funding is lifted this year.”
Another consequence of the War on Drugs is forfeiture of property that’s connected with violations of drug laws. Property has often been confiscated and sold, even though the owner was not involved in any way. They did not even have to be accused or charged with a crime. The police have been able to go to court and, without a trial, obtain a court order to confiscate and sell the property of someone who was suspected of a drug crime. The mere fact that the property was involved in some way has been sufficient.
The theory that makes forfeiture possible is based on “a technicality in the law that allows the government to claim that it is suing only the item of property, not the property’s owner.”
Congressman Henry Hyde noted in June 1993 that “80 percent of the people whose property (was) seized by the federal government under drug laws (were) never formally charged with any crime.” Research literature on the subject is replete with examples of American citizens whose property has been confiscated and sold by law enforcement officials at every level of government, Federal, state and local, often without having been convicted of any crime, and between 1980 and 1985, incarceration for drug-law violations in the U.S. grew tenfold.
Dealing with America’s drug problem is complicated, involving such considerations as mandatory sentencing laws that incarcerate people for many years for nothing more than “possession” to dealing with those who abuse destructive drugs, such as cocaine, crack, ecstasy, heroin, meth, or morphine.
After the British relaxed the penalties for the possession of cannabis in January 2004, within three years the use of marijuana dropped to a 10-year low.
One of the consequences of keeping drugs illegal has been an increase in illegal production and distribution around the world, from the opium growers and processors in Afghanistan to the drug warlords in Mexico and Latin America, who corrupt governments and authorities, as happened in Columbia.
Perhaps it’s time to recognize that what we have been doing hasn’t worked and consider a new approach. People go ballistic when the idea of making drugs legal and taxing the products is broached, but it may have merit. I know, there are arguments that drug use is a slippery slope and opening the door to their use will lead to using the really bad stuff, but why not give it a try? At least the tax dollars that are generated could be used to treat users and pay the cost of policing, to say nothing of huge savings in the costs of incarcerating thousands of people whose only crime was simple possession.
Furthermore, we could change the U.S. farming industry in a major way by allowing farmers to grow and sell hemp, which our drug laws currently prevent because of the mistaken belief that it contains an ingredient that can be readily used as cannabis.
Alcohol use remains legal, in spite of the fact that abusing it often results in injury or death. It’s generally recognized as a health problem and treated accordingly. So, why not do the same with drugs?
Here we go again, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a host of other organizations, medical practitioners, researchers and trial lawyers telling us how and what we should eat. I know obesity is reported to be epidemic, or so they say, whoever “They” are. I once asked someone who “They” are, and I was told it’s the “International Order of They.” So, to whoever “They” may be, I say, “Keep your cotton pickin’ hands off my food, out of my refrigerator and the restaurants I like. What I eat is none of your business.”
But, “They” say, “the grocery chains, the food processors and the fast food industry are making us fat. So fat, in fact, that high blood pressure, artery disease, heart trouble, diabetes, and a host of other ailments that are all caused or made worse by obesity are running rampant throughout our society.
And, “They” argue, “That drives up the cost of health care, which raises everyone’s taxes.”
For one thing, I don’t believe widespread obesity in our society is caused by the food processing or restaurant industries. We eat too much in general and a lot of fattening foods in particular. But that’s nothing new. People have been doing that for generations. There was even a time in some societies when being fat was fashionable. It was considered a sign of success and affluence, and well-to-do citizens were fat because they could afford it and wanted to flaunt it.
The cause of obesity in some people is genetic. In others, it’s just the result of eating too much or too many fattening foods. So, are we now going to be told how to live in order to change that? The Food Police seem to want to tell us what we should eat, presumably for our own good or, according to their thinking, for the greater good of society.
The World Health Organization has accepted that there are “a number of factors” for the world-wide increase in obesity, concluding that it is the result of “a global shift in diet towards increased energy, fat, salt and sugar intake, and a trend towards decreased physical activity due to the sedentary nature of modern work and transportation, and increasing urbanisation.”
People eat they way they do for a variety of reasons: religious, cultural, psychological, social, or because they just love to eat. Whatever the reason, one thing seems clear: no one, not the researchers or the do-gooders who want to tell everyone else what and how to eat, and not even our all-seeing, benevolent government types have any real understanding of the effect of diet on our health, and their conclusions keep changing.
For example, when I was growing up (in the 30s and 40s), butter and milk products were thought to be among the healthiest foods one could eat. People used to slather butter on everything, many still do, piling it up on bread, drenching corn on the cob with it, putting it on steaks, grits, oatmeal or pancakes, using it on the griddle or in frying pans, cooking vegis in it, etc., etc. Today, it is pretty well agreed that all that butter, or lard, is not good for us, although many people still cook and eat that way.
Times change and customs with it. So, what are we to make of the current obsession of Americans with being thin, so-called health foods, organically grown vegis, vitamins and supplements, and a host of other health products. The media is constantly reporting on research that one condition or another is the result of our dietary or lifestyle choices, and their conclusions change just about every week, while the drug industry deluges us with commercials about their products, which will cure everything that ails us, including being overweight and a multitude of conditions we never knew existed.
We are told that drinking too much wine is bad for us, but the French and Italians drink buckets of the stuff, starting at a very early age. It’s good for the heart, it’s bad for the heart, it’s fattening, it’s good for digestion, etc.
Trans fats are another dietary issue that has been headlined by the media, and Steven Malloy, on his Junk Science website, has noted:
…the trans fat scare is a great new rationale for food manufacturers to introduce new and, perhaps, more expensive products that they market as “good for you.” Food companies learned long ago that there’s more profit in reformulating and marketing new and “healthier” products rather than trying to fight the bad science wielded by the well-funded, well-entrenched and essentially unaccountable public health bureaucracy.
Of course, the trans fat scare doesn’t work for every company in the food industry. Some can’t reformulate. Several years ago due to pressure from CSPI, McDonald’s announced that it would switch cooking oils to eliminate trans fats. But CSPI wound up suing the company after McDonalds could not find a substitute cooking oil that met its standards.
There are two other facts to consider as you are bombarded with media reports and advertising about the alleged dangers of trans fats.
Thirty years ago, the diet police scared us away from animal fat-based butter and began singing the praises of what they said was a healthier alternative: Trans fat-based margarine. Now, the diet police have done an about-face and want to scare us away from those same trans fats – all the while omitting mention that their butter scare was bogus from the get-go.
So what exactly would be the basis for trusting the alarmists this time around?
In the final analysis, and speaking as one who comes from a family of compulsive eaters, for most of us there is a direct correlation between what and how much we put into our mouths and our girth. Eat too much and too much of the wrong kind of foods and just about anyone will put on more weight than they need or should have, especially if they don’t exercise enough. But, that isn’t the fault of the restaurants where we eat, fast food, gourmet, ethnic or otherwise, or the food processing industry.
We have choices, and if we make bad ones, that’s our own fault.
A lot of people seem to think America’s health care system is failing. For one thing, estimates of the uninsured range as high as forty-seven million, and the problem can only be solved by spending more money. However, as P.J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”
Do you think Barack Obama has the answers to providing health care in America? Or, John McCain? How about George W. Bush? Hillary Clinton? Or, for that matter, any politician?
Have the Canadians or the Brits solved the problem in their countries? Some people believe they have. However, England currently has a backlog of 750,000 patients waiting to be admitted to a hospital, and many Canadians come to the U.S. for critical care, such as bypass surgery or cancer treatment, because waiting times in their own country are interminable, sometimes a year or longer before they can get the care they need. In some communities, it can take months just to get an appointment with a doctor, and one-third of Canadian doctors send patients to the U.S. for treatment every year.
All state-run health care systems have one thing in common: rationing. Not necessarily involving the use of ration cards, but rationing nonetheless. Rationing of resources, that is. The cause is a devilishly simple principle that is present in all nationalized health care programs: It’s free or so low cost that it’s almost free, and basic economics clearly demonstrates that whenever something is free, demand increases significantly. The flip side of expanded demand is a shortage of supply, and without enough doctors, nurses, technicians, facilities or equipment to go around, rationing automatically becomes necessary. That’s what has been wrong with nationalized health care in England, Canada, Germany, Japan, the former USSR, everywhere it has been tried.
Socialized medicine in one form or another is the health care model that is gradually being adopted in America, and it is slowly but surely lowering the quality of the health care we are receiving.
But, you may say: “We don’t have socialized medicine in America!”
Perhaps not yet, but we’ve been moving in that direction for a while, and it’s a slippery slope. For example, consider Medicare and Medicaid.
But, these programs are not socialized medicine, you may insist.
Unfortunately, they are. For one thing, they are both single-payer systems. For another, they both employ price controls, which have never worked, ever, in any society at any time in history, dating back to 301 A.D., when they were imposed by the Roman emperor, Diocletian.
With roughly 30 percent of the U.S. population now covered by the Medicare and Medicaid programs, we are clearly headed in that direction, in spite of compelling evidence that it doesn’t work.
We only have to look at what has happened since 1984, the year the government changed its method of paying hospitals from cost plus to unilaterally setting the fees they pay for hospital services to Medicare and Medicaid patients. When the government began doing this, many hospitals started losing money.
The difference between a hospital’s normal fees for services and the amounts Medicare and Medicaid pay cannot be collected from the patients and must be written off. It’s take it or leave it, and that’s price control.
Furthermore, the government has generally limited annual Cost of Living fee increases to between one and two-and-one-half percent, in spite of the fact that hospital costs have been rising for many years at an annual rate of anywhere from six to fourteen percent.
As a result of Medicare and Medicaid limits on fees, many hospitals actually collect only about 50% of their total billings. The rest must be written off. In 2007, the California HealthCare Foundation reported that one-third of all hospitals in California operate at a loss.
With a national health care plan, many hospitals will eventually close or curtail their services. That’s been the pattern in every country that has nationalized its health care.
Like the proverbial frog being cooked in a pot of cold water, Americans are becoming increasingly aware that the quality of their health care is declining, even as costs continue to go up. It just hasn’t sunk in yet. When it does, they will undoubtedly demand more government control, regulation and oversight, and our politicians will be only too willing to oblige.
Nationalized health care in America is gradually overtaking the free market, and we are all being slowly cooked in the pot of government intervention. So, don’t be surprised if the quality of health care in this country declines further as we move closer to socialized medicine.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
