Barack Obama took office in the worst recession in more than half a century, amid fears of a complete economic implosion. The Onion, the satirical news organization, described his election at the time: “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.” Three years later Obama’s ratings are said to be at an all-time low for a president at this juncture in the four year term. Conservatives initially set up a steady drumbeat of torrid criticism with one stated intent in mind; As the minority leader of the Senate put it “Our highest priority is to see that Obama is a one term president.” Obama has been criticized in given situations for doing too little, or too much depending, apparently, on the weather or the credibility of the critic. The remainder of this blog serves to highlight the actual accomplishments of the man who in my opinion will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United Sates.
His administration helped us back from the brink of economic ruin. Obama oversaw an economic stimulus that, while too small, was far larger than House Democrats had proposed. He rescued the auto industry and achieved health care reform that presidents, including Richard Nixon, have been seeking since the time of Theodore Roosevelt.
Foreign policy has been Obama’s strongest suit. He deserves great credit for killing Osama bin Laden, acting for the liberation of Libya, getting behind the Arab quest for freedom, winding down the war in Iraq, dealing repeated blows to Al Qaeda and restoring America’s battered image. In doing so, he took a couple of huge risks. He approved the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, and despite much criticism led the international effort to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi without one American soldier touching ground or losing a life.
Despite the virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has weaned the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while strengthening public schools.
The Web site PolitiFact, the Pulitzer-winning fact-checking service, recently did a thorough debunking of Republican claims that Obama’s 2009 stimulus program created, quote, “zero jobs.” In fact, the checkers established, using the Congressional Budget Office, that the stimulus created or saved a couple of million jobs. The Republicans just keep on repeating the "zero jobs" claim, but the fact is that as of March 31, 2011, Obama’s efforts had created 1.8 million private sector jobs since Jan 2010.
Some of the specifics of Obama's healthcare plan must be addressed because, while there is significant disapproval of the effort, most of those in opposition clearly don’t know what the plan contains. It was common to see senior citizens at Tea Party events yelling about keeping government out of their lives, all the while demanding that Obama protect their Medicare and social security. Others yapped about death panels without any clear idea of what the provision being attacked meant.
These are the basic points of the plan:
1) Coverage can’t be denied to children with pre-existing conditions.
2) Adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ health plans.
3) Free preventive care.
4) Rescinding coverage is now illegal.
5) Eliminating lifetime limits on insurance coverage.
6) Restricting annual limits on insurance coverage.
7) More options to appeal coverage decisions.
8) $5 billion in immediate federal support to affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions.
9) $10 billion investment in Community Health Centers.
10) Create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees.
11) Cutting prescription drug costs for the nation’s seniors reduce the size of the "donut hole" in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit.
12) Provides a $250 rebate to 750,000 Medicare Beneficiaries who reach the Part D coverage gap in 2010. As of March 22, 2011, 3.8 million beneficiaries had received a $250 check to close the coverage gap, according to an HHS report.
13) Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 35% of employee premiums effective 2011 and a 50% tax credit effective 2013.
14) Creates a state option to provide Medicaid coverage to childless adults with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. By 2014, States are required to provide this coverage.
15) Provides a 10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care services and also a 10% Medicare bonus payment to general surgeons practicing in health professional shortage areas.
16) Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requires that insurance companies spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the proportion of the premium dollars on clinical services. As an example, WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in California has reduced its proposed rate increase.
17) Provides that all Americans carry insurance. It is this issue that his currently under appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court and if it turns out to be politics as usual on that Court, this particular aspect of Obama's plan will be defeated. The ability to carry out and pay for the remaining provisions set forth above will be in doubt if the mechanism for the funding is rejected by the Court.
On behalf of military veterans and their families Obama has delivered a wide ranging series of benefits which recognize the support and respect these veterans need for their service to the country. A list of these benefits include: 1) A $112.8 billion VA budget, an increase of 15.5 percent over 2009, the largest percentage increase for VA requested by a president in more than 30 years.2) Implemented a strategic planto increase the hiring of Veterans and Military spouses throughout the Federal civil service.3) Provided for the expenses of families of to be at Dover AFB when fallen soldiers arrive.4) Passed the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009 increasing the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans.5) Declared the end of the war in Iraqi bringing back nearly 100,000 U.S. troops home to their families.6) Donated 250K of Nobel prize money to Fisher House, a group that helps provide housing for families of patients receiving medical care at military and Veterans Affairs medical centers7) Ended media blackout on war casualties; giving access to the return home of a dead US soldier for the first time since an 18-year ban on coverage was lifted.8) Create a 'Green Vet Initiative' to promote environmental jobs for veterans9) Signed into law the 2009 Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, that will allow military spouses to claim residency in the same state as their sponsor and retain that residency as long as the service member is in the military, in the process avoiding the states where they currently reside from taxing their earned income.10) Signed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
So, Mr. President, other than this partial list of wonderful contributions to our American way of life, what have you done for us lately?
P.S. Keep up the good work.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Nice Work If You Can Get It
What’s all this hoopla about Newt Gingrich’s prior business dealings before he decided to be the anti-Washington outsider in his run for the Republican presidential nomination? A spokesman for one of his “businesses,” the Center for Health Transformation, set forth clearly what Gingrich’s acitivities were prior to his run. It is said that Mr. Gingrich did not take policy positions for pay; but rather clients sought him out because of the views he already held and his expertise in communicating ideas. As reported in the New York Times on November 18, 2011,“Newt’s vision didn’t change to meet the needs of his clients,” Mr. Hammond, an employee of the Center said. “They came to the Center for Health Transformation because they wanted to learn and understand the free market ideas Newt was putting forward.” One of the “views” that Newt conveyed to his paying clients was that billions of dollars of life-end medical expenditures could be saved by advanced medical directive planning. Four months later, he flipped his position and joined Sarah Palin in decrying the “death panels” set forth in the Obama healthcare plan.
One of the points of view he held concerned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who paid him nearly two million dollars through another subsidiary of his for stating his “opinions” to Republicans in Congress. He now says that Barney Frank should go to jail for causing the excesses that led these mega-institutions into trouble. In fact the excesses were recommended by Gingrich and approved by Republicans who were in control of Congress from 1998 through 2007. It wasn’t until Senator Dodds and Rep Frank ran legislation through the Dcmocrat-controlled congress in 2007 that the brakes were put on the self-destruction of these entities. The current situation is that the only deficits of these two entities were incurred during the Republican era. Everything has been stable since the controls were put into place by the Democrats.
Gingrich claims that he wasn’t a lobbyist during this time but functioned as a “historian.” Nice work if you can get it, but it seems to me that one of the first things a historian needs to do is get one’s facts straight.
One of the points of view he held concerned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who paid him nearly two million dollars through another subsidiary of his for stating his “opinions” to Republicans in Congress. He now says that Barney Frank should go to jail for causing the excesses that led these mega-institutions into trouble. In fact the excesses were recommended by Gingrich and approved by Republicans who were in control of Congress from 1998 through 2007. It wasn’t until Senator Dodds and Rep Frank ran legislation through the Dcmocrat-controlled congress in 2007 that the brakes were put on the self-destruction of these entities. The current situation is that the only deficits of these two entities were incurred during the Republican era. Everything has been stable since the controls were put into place by the Democrats.
Gingrich claims that he wasn’t a lobbyist during this time but functioned as a “historian.” Nice work if you can get it, but it seems to me that one of the first things a historian needs to do is get one’s facts straight.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Moment(um) of (Un)truth
When I go to Detroit Tigers baseball games at Comerica Park, there is an interesting event that takes place in a between-inning time slot sponsored by Dunkin Donuts. On the large screen out in left field, three candidates (a donut, muffin and bagel) line up at a starting line, hear a starting pistol and then race around a track with eventually one of the three winning the race on behalf of one third of the fans in the stands. This all takes about two minutes and serves as a pleasant diversion. The last time I was there (when the Tigers beat the Yankees in the third game of the American League division series) the Republican party was well into their series of presidential debates. At the time of the game I was struck by the similarity between the two events; namely, the stark superficiality of both events. Did you notice the donut stumbling just before the finish line allowing the muffin to win? In the debates, viewers have been treated to a spectrum of human conduct of the candidates and viewing audiences that tell us what kind of world these people envision in our near future. Example #1; A soldier risking his life daily while serving in Iraq was booed by the audience for the mere fact that he is gay. #2; An audience soundly applauds Rick Perry for executing over 200 people even though the procedural apparatus for making those killing decisions have been found wanting, to put it mildly, in Texas. #3; An audience cheers in support of allowing a man in a coma without health insurance to die. #4; A candidate has denounced the use of a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer (Bachmann said it was potentially dangerous and reported that one woman said the shot caused mental retardation in her child and, #5; The candidates other than Perry trashed him for allowing in-state tuition to qualified students of illegal immigrants (the only hint of compassionate conservatism in all the debates). Since that game, the candidates have gone on to systematically regurgitate a whole variety of ideas that appear to them in the same whim and fantasy as the Dunkin Donuts production. Thus, Michelle Bachmann promotes her “Two Happy Meals” tax plan. Rick Parry bats .667 on telling us which two of the three cabinet departments he would eliminate. He strikes out on the third. Oops. Meanwhile Ron Paul stands right next to Parry and says the number of cabinet departments eliminated should be five while Romney guesses that the EPA is the department that Parry is trying to recall. Herman Cain dances toward the finish line, pursued by the bagel and the donut, as he maintains that his sexual aggression towards women is a figment of their respective imaginations, in spite of the fact that one of these women received a $45,000 settlement. Excuse me, an agreement? Having practiced law for thirty five years and settled (agreed upon) hundreds if not thousands of cases, I can assure you two things; There is no distinction between the two and that the sum of $45,000 is a substantial figure of settlement, not a nuisance value as suggested by Fox (what would you expect them to do?)
Who has the character and integrity to distinguish themselves from this field by standing up and addressing this “bat-shit crazy” stuff rather than fawning all over the people who advocate such things? I vote for the muffin.
Who has the character and integrity to distinguish themselves from this field by standing up and addressing this “bat-shit crazy” stuff rather than fawning all over the people who advocate such things? I vote for the muffin.
Friday, October 21, 2011
For Pete's Sake I'm Running for Office
A new study designed to address critiques of climate science by skeptics has confirmed that “global warming is real” and that the world’s average land temperature has risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the mid-1950s. Eight years ago, a courageous former governor of one of our fifty states correctly summed up the dilemma of the impact of current industrial energy practices by supporting environmental controls on a coal-fired power plant, despite warnings that the plant might be closed,. He declared “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people.”
Actually, that was Mitt Romney, back in 2003 — the same politician who now demands that we use more coal. The same guy avers that "Romneycare," which serves as the Massachusetts model for so-called "Obamacare" is different from the latter because, while 65% of the people in Massachusetts are strongly supportive of the Romney plan, it would be socialism if Obama's plan were to extend to the rest of the nation. Go figure! But these limited observations, and there are more (such as his switching positions on abortion, DADT, etc.), are understandable by consideration of the most honest statement that Romney has made in his six year run for the presidency during the latest Republican debate in Las Vegas. In reacting to Rick Perry's accusations that he had flip-flopped on immigration issues and previously hired illegal workers to work on the lawn of his estate, Romney shared the conversation that he apparently had with the owner of the lawn care company about this issue. In effect, he said that he told the owner that he could not use illegal immigrants to work on his lawn because "For Pete's sake, I'm running for office."
To summarize, we now know why Romney holds the views that he says he does. He's running for office. The views are not based on principle or core beliefs. I suppose that smart independents should take a great deal of reassurance from this knowledge, because the subliminal message to us is that Romney is really not who he currently claims to be. He is, in fact, a wolf in sheep's clothing, namely a liberal who is simply pretending to be a conservative so that he can obtain the right to run for the presidency. The analogy to Reagan's site selection for starting his presidential campaign in a red neck hot bed of racial animosity is a perfect fit. Without saying more, Reagan made it clear as to what his values were and he carried the deep South in nearly landslide fashion. Romney is doing the same thing. He is telling us moderates that while he was once for us, he must now be against us, so that he can be for us again.
Actually, that was Mitt Romney, back in 2003 — the same politician who now demands that we use more coal. The same guy avers that "Romneycare," which serves as the Massachusetts model for so-called "Obamacare" is different from the latter because, while 65% of the people in Massachusetts are strongly supportive of the Romney plan, it would be socialism if Obama's plan were to extend to the rest of the nation. Go figure! But these limited observations, and there are more (such as his switching positions on abortion, DADT, etc.), are understandable by consideration of the most honest statement that Romney has made in his six year run for the presidency during the latest Republican debate in Las Vegas. In reacting to Rick Perry's accusations that he had flip-flopped on immigration issues and previously hired illegal workers to work on the lawn of his estate, Romney shared the conversation that he apparently had with the owner of the lawn care company about this issue. In effect, he said that he told the owner that he could not use illegal immigrants to work on his lawn because "For Pete's sake, I'm running for office."
To summarize, we now know why Romney holds the views that he says he does. He's running for office. The views are not based on principle or core beliefs. I suppose that smart independents should take a great deal of reassurance from this knowledge, because the subliminal message to us is that Romney is really not who he currently claims to be. He is, in fact, a wolf in sheep's clothing, namely a liberal who is simply pretending to be a conservative so that he can obtain the right to run for the presidency. The analogy to Reagan's site selection for starting his presidential campaign in a red neck hot bed of racial animosity is a perfect fit. Without saying more, Reagan made it clear as to what his values were and he carried the deep South in nearly landslide fashion. Romney is doing the same thing. He is telling us moderates that while he was once for us, he must now be against us, so that he can be for us again.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Jeff's Latest Adventure
I was going to go on and on about Jeff's latest adventure. Rather than me doing so I will simply provide the details on what my oldest grandson has to say:
START OF FULBRIGHT – ECUADOR!
On October 16, 2011 by admin
Latacunga Ecuador
October 15, 2011
Cotopaxi
I am not afraid of flying. That does not mean that I don’t take precautions.
I buckled my belt and performed my once-over of the plane using my limited aviation knowledge:
Wings…CHECK.
Engines…CHECK.
Pilot…
While leaning over my neighbor trying to see into the cockpit I knocked his beer (where did he get that?) all over his lap. He calmly looked into my eyes, and inquired as to my current state of mind. Confused by his question, I assured him that I had been nervous lots of times, and that I was sorry for his pants.
“Do you know how many backup systems there are on this plane?” He continued. He gave me a technical overview of how crash-proof planes are, and by the time he finished his pants were dry and I was convinced a lapdog could keep a 747 aloft.
And so it began.
My friends and family have suggested many reasons for me leaving again. Most are along the lines of ‘personal edification’ and they are partly right. Other theories put forth are “attachment dysfunction,” me being a “hopeless romantic,” involvement with American intelligence agencies, and my personal favorite, that I have been a step ahead of bounty hunters for the last six years, and have to leave the country every so often to keep them off my trail.
The reality is much less mysterious and much more pragmatic. After graduation I went right to work in Europe leading bike trips in France and Italy. As great as it was, something was missing. I wanted to do something more related to my Biology degree and I missed academia and graduate school seems to be beckoning; completing a Fulbright grant had the potential to help hone in on a program. The U.S. Department of State placed me in Latacunga Ecuador where I will be teaching at a local university as a TA while conducting my own side project which will involve environmental sustainability, ecology, public health or something else not yet known to me.
Why Ecuador? My love for this country started with National Geographic and its stories on the Galapagos Islands. I was also inspired by the book The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner, and from watching the movie The Motorcycle Diaries. This inspiration led me to take a semester off during college to volunteer and travel in South America (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina) with Tyler Depke which gave me first hand experience working with environmental projects in Ecuador – especially Quito, Jipijapa, and Chiriboga. I had to come back.
The country with the most biodiversity per area, it is a naturalist’s dream. The ocean coasts, Galapagos Islands, high sierra, and Amazon rainforest transition zones and microclimates are enough to send shivers up my spine.
It is a country made of as many diverse people, languages and customs as geological formations. Regional foods, words and traditions keep mountains, rivers and caves company. There are always new places to explore, people to meet and things to do.
It is also a country in need of help. Some forests are protected, but this protection is threatened by the need for oil. Clear cutting for farmland is common even in areas where it is prohibited. Glaciers are disappearing and with them steady sources of water. Waste disposal is often limited to flushing sewage to the ocean or dumping garbage in non-safe conditions. Education systems are being restructured while budgets are becoming tighter. Larger cities are becoming more dangerous and tourist traps abound.
Senator Fulbright established the Fulbright Program after seeing all of the debt that European countries had accrued toward the US. He proposed a payback of cultural exchanges instead of hard currency, hoping that a cultural exchange between Americans and their host countries would grow stronger political bonds as well as increase mutual understanding.
It is refreshing then to reflect on the other ‘ambassadors’ that I have met through this program. Indeed the Fulbright program is still sending a strong message. I hope to add to this voice.
My photos, videos and writings contained in this blog will try to give my experiences in this magnificent and dynamic country a modicum of justice. I doubt they will.
I have found that the most important things that I bring with me when I travel are not in my suitcase. They are works in progress, but with these, any situation can be overcome:
Faith.
Patience.
Forgiveness.
Perseverance.
A sense of humor.
The love of people.
Reserved judgment.
A sense of adventure.
The curiosity of a child.
I’ll keep you updated with how it’s going. My early forecast? It’s going to be a great 10 months.
START OF FULBRIGHT – ECUADOR!
On October 16, 2011 by admin
Latacunga Ecuador
October 15, 2011
Cotopaxi
I am not afraid of flying. That does not mean that I don’t take precautions.
I buckled my belt and performed my once-over of the plane using my limited aviation knowledge:
Wings…CHECK.
Engines…CHECK.
Pilot…
While leaning over my neighbor trying to see into the cockpit I knocked his beer (where did he get that?) all over his lap. He calmly looked into my eyes, and inquired as to my current state of mind. Confused by his question, I assured him that I had been nervous lots of times, and that I was sorry for his pants.
“Do you know how many backup systems there are on this plane?” He continued. He gave me a technical overview of how crash-proof planes are, and by the time he finished his pants were dry and I was convinced a lapdog could keep a 747 aloft.
And so it began.
My friends and family have suggested many reasons for me leaving again. Most are along the lines of ‘personal edification’ and they are partly right. Other theories put forth are “attachment dysfunction,” me being a “hopeless romantic,” involvement with American intelligence agencies, and my personal favorite, that I have been a step ahead of bounty hunters for the last six years, and have to leave the country every so often to keep them off my trail.
The reality is much less mysterious and much more pragmatic. After graduation I went right to work in Europe leading bike trips in France and Italy. As great as it was, something was missing. I wanted to do something more related to my Biology degree and I missed academia and graduate school seems to be beckoning; completing a Fulbright grant had the potential to help hone in on a program. The U.S. Department of State placed me in Latacunga Ecuador where I will be teaching at a local university as a TA while conducting my own side project which will involve environmental sustainability, ecology, public health or something else not yet known to me.
Why Ecuador? My love for this country started with National Geographic and its stories on the Galapagos Islands. I was also inspired by the book The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner, and from watching the movie The Motorcycle Diaries. This inspiration led me to take a semester off during college to volunteer and travel in South America (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina) with Tyler Depke which gave me first hand experience working with environmental projects in Ecuador – especially Quito, Jipijapa, and Chiriboga. I had to come back.
The country with the most biodiversity per area, it is a naturalist’s dream. The ocean coasts, Galapagos Islands, high sierra, and Amazon rainforest transition zones and microclimates are enough to send shivers up my spine.
It is a country made of as many diverse people, languages and customs as geological formations. Regional foods, words and traditions keep mountains, rivers and caves company. There are always new places to explore, people to meet and things to do.
It is also a country in need of help. Some forests are protected, but this protection is threatened by the need for oil. Clear cutting for farmland is common even in areas where it is prohibited. Glaciers are disappearing and with them steady sources of water. Waste disposal is often limited to flushing sewage to the ocean or dumping garbage in non-safe conditions. Education systems are being restructured while budgets are becoming tighter. Larger cities are becoming more dangerous and tourist traps abound.
Senator Fulbright established the Fulbright Program after seeing all of the debt that European countries had accrued toward the US. He proposed a payback of cultural exchanges instead of hard currency, hoping that a cultural exchange between Americans and their host countries would grow stronger political bonds as well as increase mutual understanding.
It is refreshing then to reflect on the other ‘ambassadors’ that I have met through this program. Indeed the Fulbright program is still sending a strong message. I hope to add to this voice.
My photos, videos and writings contained in this blog will try to give my experiences in this magnificent and dynamic country a modicum of justice. I doubt they will.
I have found that the most important things that I bring with me when I travel are not in my suitcase. They are works in progress, but with these, any situation can be overcome:
Faith.
Patience.
Forgiveness.
Perseverance.
A sense of humor.
The love of people.
Reserved judgment.
A sense of adventure.
The curiosity of a child.
I’ll keep you updated with how it’s going. My early forecast? It’s going to be a great 10 months.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Perry and Who's At Risk?
Who’s at Risk?
Decisions about what government can do for (and to) citizens need to be placed in an appropriate perspective. In Virginia and 17 other states, lawmakers are considering requiring young girls to be immunized against a little-known virus that public health officials say is responsible for nearly 7,000 cases of cervical cancer each year. Legislatures are doing so at the urging of New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., which in June earned approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Gardasil, its new vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV). Suffice it to say that Merck stands to earn millions, if not billions, if its efforts to require the vaccination of female children are successful nationally.
There are two specific points here; first, this virus is transmitted by sexual activity, so why not require the vaccination for young boys too? (Just think how popular that would be with the electorate). Or better yet, why not vaccinate just boys and leave the little girls alone? If the contentions about this vaccine are correct, these male devils, eventually fueled by Viagra (does Merck have an erectile dysfunction drug?), will have a heck of a lot more sexual partners than the little girls over the course of a lifetime. As they sow their wild oats, they will also convey the virus to every sexual contact they make unless they have been vaccinated. In the past, thousands of young women died or were maimed by blood clotting from the side effects of birth control pills and intrauterine devices, so why not let little boys take the inevitable risks of being exposed to another pharmaceutical product this time? (Author's note; I am not a 'manophobe' as I have four wonderful grandsons in addition to four wonderful granddaughters. I am just trying to make a point here).
Second, what level of risk to the general population is required to trigger, absent the obvious profit motive of Merck in contributing financially to politicians, governmental action to protect the electorate? It is said that nearly 7000 women a year will develop cervical cancer as a result of the transmission of this virus. Let's talk about Texas inasmuch as it is the first state to mandate the use of the vaccine in young girls, not boys. As large as that state is, it is obvious that a figure substantially smaller than the total of 7000 will be "protected" from cancer. A generous estimate might be that less than 500 young Texas girls in the entire state are at annual risk if this vaccine is not administered to the entire young girl population. While there is no intent whatsoever to demean a young woman who has a diagnosis of cervical cancer, oftentimes the treatment is simple outpatient surgical ablation of cervical tissue. In short in many cases it is a minor procedure. But in fairness, the disease does have its victims and the figures suggest that it is important to diagnose and treat the disease early. The mortality rate for cervical cancer is stated to be:
2.7 white women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
5.9 African American women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
2.9 Asian American and Pacific Islander women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
2.0 American Indian and Alaska Native women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
3.7 Hispanic Latino women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
A brief purview of these statistics suggest that certain ethnic groups are at greater risk which carries with it the implication that these groups deserve better medical care than they are currently receiving. Perhaps the millions of dollars that Texas (and other states) are willing to spend to expose millions of young girls to the risks, known and unknown, of this vaccine (Yes Virginia, there are risks) would be better committed to the provision of a higher quality of medical care to these ethnic groups.
By way of comparison, Texas is the state with the second most drunk driving deaths of any state, having been edged out of first place by California in 2005. At least 1500 people each year since 1982 have died in alcohol-related traffic accidents in Texas. Do the math. That's more than 36,000 deaths! This is illustrative of a problem which is a national disgrace several degrees of magnitude greater than cervical cancer. All states have similar numbers proportional to the size of their respective populations. There is a drug called Antabuse which will make a person ill, nauseated, flushed, headache, etc. if alcohol is ingested while taking the drug. The purpose of the drug is to stop the drinking of alcohol when the drug becomes a problem. I propose putting Antabuse in the nation's drinking water. The stockholders of another pharmaceutical house, Wyeth, would love it.
Submitted by Tom Bleakley (author of Rx for Mass Murder)
7016 Whitemarsh Circle
Bradenton, Fl 34202
thbleakl@aol.com
313-640-9900
Decisions about what government can do for (and to) citizens need to be placed in an appropriate perspective. In Virginia and 17 other states, lawmakers are considering requiring young girls to be immunized against a little-known virus that public health officials say is responsible for nearly 7,000 cases of cervical cancer each year. Legislatures are doing so at the urging of New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., which in June earned approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Gardasil, its new vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV). Suffice it to say that Merck stands to earn millions, if not billions, if its efforts to require the vaccination of female children are successful nationally.
There are two specific points here; first, this virus is transmitted by sexual activity, so why not require the vaccination for young boys too? (Just think how popular that would be with the electorate). Or better yet, why not vaccinate just boys and leave the little girls alone? If the contentions about this vaccine are correct, these male devils, eventually fueled by Viagra (does Merck have an erectile dysfunction drug?), will have a heck of a lot more sexual partners than the little girls over the course of a lifetime. As they sow their wild oats, they will also convey the virus to every sexual contact they make unless they have been vaccinated. In the past, thousands of young women died or were maimed by blood clotting from the side effects of birth control pills and intrauterine devices, so why not let little boys take the inevitable risks of being exposed to another pharmaceutical product this time? (Author's note; I am not a 'manophobe' as I have four wonderful grandsons in addition to four wonderful granddaughters. I am just trying to make a point here).
Second, what level of risk to the general population is required to trigger, absent the obvious profit motive of Merck in contributing financially to politicians, governmental action to protect the electorate? It is said that nearly 7000 women a year will develop cervical cancer as a result of the transmission of this virus. Let's talk about Texas inasmuch as it is the first state to mandate the use of the vaccine in young girls, not boys. As large as that state is, it is obvious that a figure substantially smaller than the total of 7000 will be "protected" from cancer. A generous estimate might be that less than 500 young Texas girls in the entire state are at annual risk if this vaccine is not administered to the entire young girl population. While there is no intent whatsoever to demean a young woman who has a diagnosis of cervical cancer, oftentimes the treatment is simple outpatient surgical ablation of cervical tissue. In short in many cases it is a minor procedure. But in fairness, the disease does have its victims and the figures suggest that it is important to diagnose and treat the disease early. The mortality rate for cervical cancer is stated to be:
2.7 white women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
5.9 African American women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
2.9 Asian American and Pacific Islander women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
2.0 American Indian and Alaska Native women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
3.7 Hispanic Latino women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)
A brief purview of these statistics suggest that certain ethnic groups are at greater risk which carries with it the implication that these groups deserve better medical care than they are currently receiving. Perhaps the millions of dollars that Texas (and other states) are willing to spend to expose millions of young girls to the risks, known and unknown, of this vaccine (Yes Virginia, there are risks) would be better committed to the provision of a higher quality of medical care to these ethnic groups.
By way of comparison, Texas is the state with the second most drunk driving deaths of any state, having been edged out of first place by California in 2005. At least 1500 people each year since 1982 have died in alcohol-related traffic accidents in Texas. Do the math. That's more than 36,000 deaths! This is illustrative of a problem which is a national disgrace several degrees of magnitude greater than cervical cancer. All states have similar numbers proportional to the size of their respective populations. There is a drug called Antabuse which will make a person ill, nauseated, flushed, headache, etc. if alcohol is ingested while taking the drug. The purpose of the drug is to stop the drinking of alcohol when the drug becomes a problem. I propose putting Antabuse in the nation's drinking water. The stockholders of another pharmaceutical house, Wyeth, would love it.
Submitted by Tom Bleakley (author of Rx for Mass Murder)
7016 Whitemarsh Circle
Bradenton, Fl 34202
thbleakl@aol.com
313-640-9900
Saturday, September 24, 2011
What’s So Wrong with Letting Texas Secede?
One of the most difficult things about being a human being in these times is wrapping one’s arms around current affairs (I am not referring to Anthony Weiner’s hard drive or Senator Ensign’s employment practices where one helps themselves to an employee’s wife). What I am referring to is the ability to assess what is real, moral and right for our citizenry in a way that truly promotes the values and principles of our nation as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Let me be more specific. I am writing about assessing the timber (best word I could come up with) of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates. The ongoing series of debates has revealed characteristics and patterns about not only the presidential aspirants but of the populace that tends to support these candidates in one way or another, i.e., Republicans.
As these debates proceed, viewers have been treated to a spectrum of human conduct of the candidates and viewing audiences that tell us what kind of world these people envision in our near future.
Example #1; A soldier risking his life daily while serving in Iraq is booed by the audience for the mere fact that he is gay.
#2; An audience soundly applauds Rick Perry for executing over 200 people even though the procedural apparatus for making those killing decisions have been found wanting, to put it mildly, in Texas.
#3; An audience cheers in support of allowing a man in a coma without health insurance to die.
#4; A candidate has denounced the use of a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer (Bachmann said it was potentially dangerous and reported that one woman said the shot caused mental retardation in her child and,
#5; The candidates other than Perry trashed him for allowing in-state tuition to qualified students of illegal immigrants (the only hint of compassionate conservatism in all the debates).
Meanwhile, back in Texas, where once a man about to be killed by the state was offered the traditional last meal of choice, the procedure has been abolished since apparently one of the 200 plus people who have been killed had the audacity to order a nine course meal before he met his maker.
In keeping with the title of this blog, I make the rhetorical observation that maybe the rest of the country would be better off if Texas did secede from our Union. More importantly, in the wrap-around perspective, where are the candidates in the current Republican mix who have the character and integrity to distinguish themselves from this field by standing up and addressing this “bat-shit crazy” stuff rather than fawning all over the people who advocate such things?
This is not my father’s GOP. It’s mean, petty, and anti-intellectual, borderline barbaric. Caveat emptor, American voters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)