Monday, October 29, 2007

Senate Dream education bill death well- deserved

                                                                   “Dream” death well deserved

Cynthia Tucker’s Column (Editorial page Editor Atlanta Journal Constitution)”Young immigrants’ dreams die in Senate” was
long on idealistic rhetoric and short on understanding that Americans are not willing to do virtually anything to reward
illegal immigrants, or their children.
    Illegal means illegal, and wishing for a back door to give status is not fair and will not be accepted by Americans.
    That’s why the Senate voted against it. That’s why this and many other proposals looking to get “a nose under the tent’ for
 illegals just won’t stand.
    You can offer many justified comments about the American body politic that highlight apathy, unfocused values, even
laziness, but on this issue Americans see the basic unfairness of allowing illegals a reward which they feel millions of
other legal immigrants have earned by following the rules. 
    And since when are we willing to paint a character portrait of illegals that makes them better than legal Americans of the
same stature and standing?
    Finding examples of outstanding students who are illegals is just as easy as finding examples of U.S. citizens who are
legal, and who deserve the opportunity to be credibly educated, maybe using funds that Ms. Tucker would use otherwise.
    Did Ms. Tucker calculate the cost of educating the illegal Mr. Marcos through high school? (About $$85,000)
What would those funds have paid for helping legal citizens?
    The educational cost of all illegal immigrant children K-12 runs about 60 Billion dollars a year- that’s Billions with a
big “B” folks! That’s a lot of educational improvement for U.S. citizens!
Like $20,000 a year college tuition for each of 3,000,000 legal citizens. Or 2,000,000 college tuitions,  
AND after school programs for 4,000,000 K-6 poor  children.
    And, lastly, character assassination (“craven White House, elected leaders quake and cower,”) of those who want
social and educational benefits reserved for citizens and legal immigrants is unworthy of Ms. Tucker and her sponsors
and more, deserve condemnation and a retraction by Ms. Tucker. Those who disagree with Ms. Tucker are still operating
under the assumption that America’s greatest freedom, that of Free Speech, is still intact.
    Or, would Ms. Tucker change that little law also?

Posted by Mediaman at 19:35:21 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, October 18, 2007

FDA -Foolish Drug Authorization?

 

FDA -Foolish Drug Authorization?

I have begun to wonder-actually for years now-why the FDA continues to approve drugs whose side effects are worse that the symptoms they are offered to relieve. Or worse, have fatal side effect potential for even treating allergies, or hives, or even minor discomforts.
The labeling required and the Disclaimers in advertising are designed to put the public on notice of side effects, but beg the question of why in the first place. I seem to remember a time when drugs were developed as cures.
When was the last time you saw a cure offered?
Ninety-nine percent of FDA approved drugs offered today are for symptomatic relief, not cures.
And yet the number of life-threatening diseases and the millions affected by them continues to grow. The drug companies have sidelined and under-emphasized most of their research into cures, preferring instead to work on high-profit drug development for relief of symptoms.
Erectile Dysfunction?– a wonderful series of products, multiple drugs from multiple manufacturers, helping millions of men have satisfying sex. All came out within a year or so of each other, virtually same day in FDA approval terms.
Sleeplessness? Same story, multiple drugs. Ever wonder how they all show up at the same time?
I do.
Do the drug companies get together and sit around a table and say. “Let’s try to do something about insomnia. Or, how about Erectile Dysfunction? My wife wants more sex.”
Cancer? Oops, sorry nothing yet. That is, we have chemotherapy, radiation. But the underlying cause, discovery and prevention is just not there, and it looks like forever will come first.
Arthritis? Many billions for symptomatic relief, no cure on horizon.
Alzheimer’s? Some Symptom relief drugs being offered or in trials, no cure yet.
Drug companies emphasize that high drug prices are required to provide money for research and development of new drugs. If that were true, wouldn’t there be years when R&D costs would cause losses? Yet for most drug companies, their Return on Equity, Return On Investment, Gross Profits and Net Profits remain higher than any other industry, when viewed over a consistent period for the last twenty years.
Tax policies, using your tax dollars, help immensely. 
Why is most cancer research being conducted or sponsored by National Cancer Institute, instead of at drug companies on their own dime? A cure would mean Billions, even Trillions in sales.
Here’s what really gets me. Causes are pretty well known for most diseases, some cancers.
Is it more profitable for drug companies to treat symptoms over a lifelong period as in Arthritis, or develop a cure for which the period of usage and profitability are much shorter?
Here’s something else I wonder. Would we have all these diseases without modern technology and the chemicals and accoutrements that go with our standard of living?
If X-Rays can cause cancer and radiation from many things can cause cancer, why is there no discussion about the proliferation of radio waves and TV frequencies, which are just a shorter form of X-Ray waves?
How? Radiation causes cell mutations  to interact negatively with your cells. When it happens often enough, you get the big “C” Cancer. Sunlight is just another form of radiation, ergo Melanoma, skin cancer.
Since it’s unlikely that radio and TV stations and satellites will stop broadcasting, the need for a cure becomes all the more pressing.
What do you think?

Posted by Mediaman at 02:02:34 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, October 11, 2007

No government coups here! Lots less criminals, too!

My gun, my safety.

U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights
Amendment II
     A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

     The U.S. Constitution, as quoted above, is the watchword of individual freedom in the United States. We currently worry, and rightly so, about all the firearms used in robberies, and other criminal acts.
     But, do we wonder at what would really happen if our duty to keep and use firearms should be abridged in the many ways some well-meaning legislators have sought?
    For instance, no army general, no officeholder, would possibly think, even today, of attempting a coup, or otherwise usurping the government. Why? Because the millions of households that do have firearms, from hunting rifles to pistols and shotguns, would be an impossible force to overcome, even if hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers could be convinced to shoot at their neighbors, and I don’t think they could be so convinced.
     The Founders envisioned a free society in which citizens having arms could be enlisted in a militia to defend the country and themselves as necessary. The Founders were considering at the time the certain possibility of attack from outsiders, and saw a future where they wanted to make it impossible for an errant government, even our own, to take over the country. If every citizen was armed and ready to fight, there was not much chance of any army being able to conquer ours. And we were the very best guerrilla fighters in the world at that time! Some might offer that we are no less a frontier country today, because the criminals have guns, and many of us don’t. We should change the equation.
     So besides contemporary worries about the criminal element, we really need to take our responsibility as Citizens seriously.
In that vein, I think every high school graduate should be required to take and pass a course in handling firearms. Upon passing and at graduation, part of the graduation would be a firearm license, allowing that person to obtain a hand gun and other arms as allowed, mainly being hunting and sport firearms, and shotguns and pistols for personal protection.
     Yes, there would be jerks who did bad things, but no more than today. The upside is that many of the criminals who have firearms today would find less willing victims; potential victims who could and would shoot back, rapidly reducing the criminal population. Yes, there would be mistakes, yes there would be unintended deaths. But overall, there would be a rapid decrease in the criminal element. I cynically note the substantial cost savings in housing the prison population, although much of that is drug-based. ( More on drugs later).
     So, let’s take our Constitutional responsibilities as Citizens more seriously. Every household should have at least one person licensed to carry firearms for personal protection, and all those over eighteen should be trained in their safe use.
     For those worried about our Privacy Rights, this might help; no government would attempt a coup if they were facing over 200 million armed resisters! For those worried about all those criminals with guns, how many armed robbers would be left after a year or so?
     Answer: Not many.

Posted by Mediaman at 22:55:29 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, October 5, 2007

Standardized Student Testing absolutely necessary

This was a letter to Marilyn vos Savant, a columnist for Parade magazine and a noted genius with an above 200 IQ.

 

     I respect your intellect and your thinking ability. However intelligence is of little value when moral and philosophical judgments get in the way.
     While it may be true that standardized tests have problems, the problems are minor in relation to the test’s value; that is they measure the relative performance against some established standards of performance, enabling evaluation by college admission boards, and others.
     You might consider that you, as a spokesperson for the intelligentsia, have a real obligation to offer solutions instead of opinions. Perhaps the limitations of short comments in the publication prevented you from offering more.
One could even go further and offer that you, of all people, have an obligation to use your considerable intellectual resources to offer the solutions that logic dictates, even if they are philosophically and socially unpopular.
     In the case of standardized tests, your failure to state the obvious, that cultural and parental failure is responsible for the desire to somehow provide other ways for under performing students to get a chance at a societal “A.”
     The inclination of commentators and pundits like you to offer “pity me” commentary in the absence of postulating real solutions just extends the time it takes to realize that solutions require real societal “tough love.” Ignoring or excusing circumstance only prolongs a lack of recognition of assigning responsibility.

     A Maryland college president, Freeman Hrabowski III, a black educator of some repute and accomplishment, recently noted “We have to admit to ourselves that large numbers of parents are not as involved… as they need to be.”
     His comments were part of a Baltimore Sun article on September 23 called “a hard look at the achievement gap.” My feeling also is that the failure to achieve can be laid directly at the feet of parents, and further at community and religious leaders. Educators can only work with the materials (the students) they receive; if children are unmotivated and unprepared because of a lifetime of neglect, and misplaced values, it is way too late in the process for us to be expected to correct parental and societal failure.
     Blaming the objectivity of testing is a poor substitute for demanding a solution of parental involvement and perhaps consequences for those who do not provide parental motivation.
      If I have somehow misinterpreted your comment, or unwittingly extrapolated from your comment, I apologize.
     But my opinions haven’t changed.

Posted by Mediaman at 00:45:34 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, October 4, 2007

License Owners..or Pets…or Both?

License pets… or Owners…or Both?

 

 

 

 

 

    According to the various animal associations and U.S. government figures, there are 60,000,000 dogs, 50,000,000 cats and millions of birds, hamsters, mice, rats, snakes, lizards, tigers, and other pets in the U.S.

 

     If a free society offers rights of ownership to it’s citizens, which apply to everything from homes to cars, to pets, why not make the licensing and responsibility structure an integral part of the rights of citizenship?

     Maybe we are doing it backwards.

     If we license the right to own a pet, in addition to and preceding the right to license and obtain the actual animal, and make that license commensurate with the attendant responsibility and incidents of ownership, might we have a better system?

     And, more importantly, wouldn’t the licensing process establish standards of care and community responsibility, which would allow us to hold owners responsible for consequences?  In a free society, rights are supposed to be mutually balanced with the responsibility to care for and protect those rights, along with the concept of respecting the rights of your fellow citizens.

     Owner licensing is commensurate with the tenants of a free society including “user fees” that allow management and enforcement. Owners and individual animal fees allow the hiring of necessary enforcement personnel, and maintenance of the infrastructure to manage the process.

     Setting community standards, including owner responsibility, could and should include insurance against the actions of the pet. No insurance, no pet ownership license. We don’t allow a driver’s license without proof of insurance, why should we allow other “citizenship” rights without the necessary licensing process? For example, the liability insurance for a bird or a mouse, might be $1.00 or $2.00 annually; for a pit bull or other aggressive breed, $50.00 or $100.00 annually.  Some part of those licensing fees could be used to set up an injured persons fund, similar to what we do for crime victims. Also, a reward could be offered for information leading to discovering illegal and unlicensed animals and owners.

     Obtain a pet illegally and get caught? Sell a pet without a license?

     Animal is destroyed; owner forfeits right to future animal licenses and ownership, and may be subject to fines and jail time. Animal injures another? Then the owner is personally responsible for damages. Catch an unlicensed animal on the street or through the enforcement process? Confiscate the animal and prosecute the owner.

     No insurance? Felony jail time plus unlimited personal responsibility if convicted when animal injures another animal or person. If a dog gets loose and bites or kills someone, then the owner is responsible for medical bills, even felony prosecution where warranted. Who says that owners have a right to train pit bulls and other breeds and even other animals, to maim and kill, to fight?

     With over 125,000,000 pets in the U.S., the time has long passed for a more comprehensive animal ownership structure which protects society and animals.

Posted by Mediaman at 22:54:36 | Permalink | No Comments »

A New Non Profit Mission - stopping Mission “creep”

A New Mission - Stopping Mission Creep
     “Mission creep” refers to charitable associations evolution over a period of time from a doable, supportable mission to a somewhat different, always larger, fully paid and supported “staff,” organization which bears little or vague resemblance to the original altruistic concept.
     The justification for this expansion varies from the nominal, probably true, ”the need is there and growing,” to the hidden; larger organizations raise more money to pay directors and  growing staff more money and benefits, seemingly a vicious circle.
     By continually expanding the “mission” horizontally-more beneficiaries- and vertically-more mission “components,” justification for larger staff receiving more pay is achieved. Achieved as well is a sense of never-ending growth in demand for “more” support from donors. Carried to it’s ultimate conclusion, the “wall” is reached; not enough donors to support the expanded mission(s) and staff costs.
      Conclusion: redefine the mission of charitable organizations to include self-limiting geographical and infrastructure parameters, and, concurrently change the fund raising mission to include an “endowment” which would provide the basic operating income necessary to fulfill the mission, through diligent fund management. Donors could be persuaded that an extra ten percent or more annual donation over a ten year period would do the job.
     Boards of Advisors and Directors should be charged with ensuring that Directors and staff adhere to the revised plan, no exceptions, particularly finding reasons, however altruistic, to dip into the endowment.
     Donors may be particularly attracted to the “horizon” concept, knowing that supporting the “new mission” and fund raising goals actually achieves an viewable end to constant solicitation.
     Nothing in this concept would preclude future adoption of additional worthwhile and rational extensions of the basic mission; but with the Board setting parameters, particularly restrictions on expansion, the abyss of ever-increasing clamors for support would be muted, even successfully eliminated.
     Is this rational, necessary?
     Many business donors are becoming jaded to constant solicitation from an ever increasing number of charitable organizations, to say nothing of requests for ever more support year over year from traditionally sponsored organizations.
     The concept is perhaps a bitter pill, “bad tasting medicine for bad habits,” but deserves consideration.
      There’s more depth here, but you get the idea, I trust.
Posted by Mediaman at 00:14:49 | Permalink | No Comments »