 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought June 26, 2005 WELCOME!
Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
Alan
Caruba Just what is the level of risk that you might get Mad Cow Disease? Zero! That’s right, the odds of contracting Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) come as close to non-existent as possible. You have a far better chance of being hit by a bolt of lightning. Dr. Ron DeHaven, the United States Department of Agriculture’s chief veterinarian says, “beef is absolutely safe to eat.” His colleague, Dr. Ken Peterson of the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service says, “Clinical studies tell us there’s virtually zero risk.” That’s why Mad Cows don’t scare me, but that doesn’t stop groups with names like the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Friends of the Earth, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and more than a dozen others from flooding the media with claims that hamburgers, steaks, veal, and all those other delicious beef products are too dangerous to eat. Aside from the scare campaigns intended to frighten everyone, the economy suffers when other nations refuse to import US beef products. An article in a June edition of the Houston Chronicle noted that the USDA’s delays on the announcement of recent test results, typical of any huge bureaucracy, “sent cattle prices falling and, of course, raised new questions about its ability to protect the public.” It doesn’t take much to scare Americans, but the real story of the USDA’s and the US Food and Drug Administration’s response to a single detected case of BSE back in December 2003 actually demonstrates what a great job they have done in protecting Americans. That cow never entered the food supply. (Editor's note: Another cow was diagnosed with BSE last week. It also did not enter the food supply thanks to the protections in place.) The system of multiple firewalls maintained by Federal agencies protects Americans from possible exposure to BSE. What made a lot of news was the decision to recall a lot of meat at that time. None of it represented a risk, but no risk was deemed better than even the possibility of any risk. Given the often-wasteful nature of other government agencies, that’s what your tax dollars pay for. Back in 1998 the USDA commissioned the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to conduct an evaluation of the US regulatory measures to prevent the spread of BSE into our food supply. The Harvard study concluded that, even if BSE slipped into the country, the preventive measures currently in place insured that it would be extremely unlikely that BSE could become established in the US. Since 1998 the USDA has banned imports of live ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats, and most products from these animals from countries known to have BSE. The subsequent ban on US beef products by these nations appears to be more an act of retribution than safety. In 1997, the FDA prohibited, with some exceptions, the use of protein derived from mammalian tissues in animal feed intended for cows and other ruminants. And, on January 8, 2004, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued new rules to further enhance safeguards against BSE. Keep in mind, the US case of BSE found in December 2003 was an imported Canadian cow. Recently, in mid-June, reports that “an older animal tested positive” reignited fears that foreign countries would use this as an excuse to shun US beef. This animal, first tested in November 2004, did not enter the human food or livestock feed supply. Since June 1, 2004, USDA has tested almost 400,000 high-risk cattle for BSE and found no cases. The good news is that whether this animal tests positive or negative is irrelevant because of the safeguards in place that protect both humans and animals from exposure to BSE. Why aren’t you reading or hearing of these protections? Because the mainstream media is salivating while waiting around to write about Mad Cow disease. Bad news sells newspapers and increases ratings, but the good news is that Americans can enjoy beef products. That, of course, didn’t stop the scaremongers and occasional politician from putting out their news releases in a blizzard of demands for greater safety. If you want to do a little research on your own, I recommend a visit to http://www.mad-cow-facts.com. You are at higher risk of death driving to the supermarket to fill your cart with some of the finest beef produced anywhere in the world than ever getting Mad Cow disease. When one contemplates how filled with risk life is, it is wonderful to contemplate that life expectancy in America these days exceeds 76 years of age. More Americans are living longer than ever in the history of this nation. Part of the reason is that meat is good for you. Your body benefits in many ways from eating meat and your entire digestive system is designed to eat meat. And America has the safest supply of beef products than anywhere else in the world. A variety of federal agencies insure that safety and so do the cattle producers who utilize every safety measure to protect their herds. That’s why Mad Cows don’t scare me and shouldn’t scare you. |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Has anybody noticed that we haven’t had a single judge appointed to the Supreme Court since the Republican revolution in ‘94? Not a single judge has made it through without the approval of what is now the minority (and for a darn good reason) in the Senate and Congress. One of the people responsible for the ethical cave-ins to the left-wingers is the left-wing favorite McCain. I was slightly amused at the Washington Post's view that McCain and Hillary would be unstoppable if they ran together in 2008. I am about as interested in their opinion regarding that as I am the leftist approval of any judge anywhere. It has about as much validity as the left-wing choice of Tim McVeigh as being representative of Christians. But I started to point out what kind of judges the liberals have "allowed" to be appointed. Here is a glowing example of the kind of things they tend to do. In the city of New London, Connecticut the city formed a non-profit corporation so they could raze a few blocks and raise a few hackles. They want to put up a series of office buildings so they can harvest more taxes. In order to accomplish this feat, they will have to throw a bunch of people out of their houses. Some of them aren’t willing to leave either. Here is how the Supreme Court voted: In favor of shafting the public for more taxes: Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Kennedy. Not in favor of shafting the public for increased tax revenue: O’Conner, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. One of the people who really doesn’t fit into this discussion is Justice Thomas. The Liberals fought him tooth and nail, but capitulated when Thomas showed the lefties to be the racist scumbags they really are. Most of the rest of the judges were put into place using a Neville Chamberlain kind of courage. Thomas and his supporters didn’t give up. This nice little town and the state it is within voted for Kerry and gave him 54% of the vote. This is what they elected. This is what they keep electing: people that promise to raise their taxes. What the heck; if they can’t raise taxes they can always steal property. As Bastiat said in his essay The Law:
Leftists one way or another approved each of those Supreme Court Judges during their forty-year reign of terror that should have ended in ‘94. It is time to start ignoring them. While I was writing this, I decided to watch C-Span. One might ask why I would do that, so here it is: Seeing this rather nasty landmark decision of the Supreme Court, I decided to see what the idiots were doing that come up with things like this. They were supposed to be discussing the Energy Bill, and Teddy Kennedy did the usual. That pompous bag of wind got up and talked about the war in Iraq. I guess he was trying to get his face on Al-Jazeera like Senator Turbine, I mean Durbin. Ooops! He said many areas of Iraq don’t have enough water. I bet he wishes he had driven his car into not enough water many years ago. He accused Rumsfeld of lying about the progress in Iraq and ignored what the Generals were saying. I have received quite a few letters from those who have been over there, and they paint a different picture than our media and Blue Zone tyrants. He says we went to war ill prepared with an inadequate army and when the military in Iraq said you go to war with what you have. He tried to make it sound like it was a complaint. I get really tired of hearing how much these people claim to care about the military and the people there when they were the ones that cut the military to the bone. I also get tired of hearing how much more they care than I do when I, unlike they, have two boys who have been there and are going back, particularly those who can’t even stay on topic. What a buffoon! Hillary and the rest of the left are upset that they are being called to task for generating sound bites for Al-Jazeera. I have a suggestion for them: Sit down and shut your mouth. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
George Bush needs help. Fast. And I’m going to give it to him. I am thoroughly convinced that if things keep going the way they’ve been going, the end is near for this president. All signs are pointing directly towards impeachment. His poll numbers are sinking faster than a ship off the coast of the Isle of Lies. Every aspect of his war on terror is falling apart. Republicans are now joining Democrats in calling for troops to come home from Iraq. Left and Right are uniting in their criticisms of Gitmo. And just last week, House Republicans helped vote down a part of the Patriot Act. Bush is now a lame-duck president. Republican legislators have nothing to lose and everything to gain by tossing his rotting skull and bones to the fire, if public opinion suggests it’s timely to do so. Here’s the problem: After four and a half years in office, Bush is suffering from creative complacency. Simply put, it’s been a while since the man had a bright idea. Americans don’t like that. We want strong leaders—leaders committed to finding new ways to obscure old problems. Lucky for Bush, I’ve got more bright ideas than I know what to do with. So let’s start with Gitmo. Opponents of Team Bush’s “enemy combatant” prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are complaining that hundreds of “people” are being held there indefinitely, without access to the usual privileges of the American criminal justice system. Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican, has challenged the administration to define the detainees’ rights—whatever they may be. Amnesty International calls Gitmo a gulag. And many opponents are demanding the administration simply shut the place down. But the White House says Gitmo is necessary. Giving detainees due process might expose valuable national security information. And simply releasing them into the wild means they’d go back to fighting America again. So what to do? Compromise, Mr. President. The name of the game is compromise. Here’s your solution: Nuke Gitmo. That’s right. Just nuke it. Detainees included. This way, you won’t have to worry about releasing the prisoners, and your opponents won’t have to worry that you’re denying the prisoners their rights. After all, they’ll be dead if you nuke them. And dead people don’t have any rights. See what I mean? Leadership is all about having bright ideas. Next, let’s talk about the Patriot Act. The provision the House curtailed last week was the one allowing the FBI to seize library records. Opponents of this particular police power say it’s a clear violation of civil liberties. Proponents, however, say that to rescind it is to make libraries a “safe haven” for terrorist research activity. Once again, let’s look at the true heart and soul of the problem. Let’s get creative. Did you ever think maybe the real issue here isn’t terrorists, or civil liberties, but the simple act of reading? Think about it. We put such a premium on reading in this country. Reading is fundamental, we say. But why? The only thing reading is good for is making people smarter. And as any smart person will tell you, the fewer smart people, the better—less competition. So there’s your solution. Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act. Get rid of RIF. And above all else, Mr. President, stop teaching kids how to read. Who needs the Patriot Act? In five to ten years, terrorists will be the only ones even entering libraries. At that point you could simply arrest ‘em, ship ‘em to Gitmo, and nuke ‘em to a 451 degree crisp. Bright ideas. I’m telling you, it’s all about having bright ideas. Finally, Iraq. The London Times recently published British intelligence memos from 2002, which suggest the Bush administration never intended war in Iraq as a “last resort.” Indeed, they planned to invade from the very beginning, and “facts were being fixed around the policy.” Many of Bush’s closest associates openly advocated Iraqi regime change in the late ‘90s; they claimed they needed a “new Pearl Harbor” to make it happen, and on September 11th they got it. The administration used the fear after 9/11, cemented by the anonymous anthrax mailings, to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Yet Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and he apparently didn’t even have weapons—the “facts” were “fixed around the policy.” Anyone with a functioning brain can plainly see this war was a sham now. Even if you still support it, even if you still think good things will ultimately come from it—the original reasons for going to war simply don’t hold up. And this is bad if you happen to be the president. So now critics are saying we should end the war. People are dying for no good reason. Things are a mess. It’s not worth the costs. But the White House worked very hard to make this war happen. They’re committed to it. They say we should stay till we finish our objectives. So what’s the solution? Easy: Outline our objectives. Plain and simple. Let people know what the hell troops are dying for. See? Bright ideas. That’s what I’m talking about. Good luck, Mr. President. Go get ‘em! Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
I read with enthusiasm today about a private venture involving G. Reid Lyon, who is going to be developing a "for profit" teacher education program. I saw his name associated with the project and thought to myself, where do I sign up? I was encouraged to read that, in this teacher training model, the courses would be evidence based. What got me even more excited was that half of the instruction would take place on a campus in a suburb of Chicago and the other half of the program is to be offered on line. How convenient it would be to obtain a degree in education leadership or curriculum and instruction under these circumstances! But disappointment set in when I read that the first group of students would consist of veteran teachers working for the same school district or new teachers who are going to be working in the same school district. In either case, the common denominator is that those enrolled have classroom instructional positions so that new ideas can be implemented with their students. Since I no longer work in an instructional setting, I would not be eligible for what sounds like a very promising opportunity. I envy any teacher who gets accepted into this program because it is with almost complete certainty that they will be learning among colleagues who realize that much of the mediocrity that passes for educational pedagogy, and is the basis for instruction in most educational settings, is a bunch of … well … crap. Yes, I said it. In my estimation, teachers who enroll in the American College of Education are finally going to be learning tried and true methods for instructing students and proven management techniques for maintaining control of the classroom, colleagues, and subordinates. How can I be so sure of my assessment? Because Mr. Lyon has been at the forefront of a movement to bring research based instruction to the classroom and he has almost single handedly discredited the whole language approach to reading, a methodology which can be implicated for the inability of countless numbers of children to achieve a level of reading at or above grade level. As previously mentioned, I am no longer a classroom instructor. As much as I would have liked to continue teaching, I took a semi permanent leave of absence for a number of reasons –one of which was that I refused to take more courses from mediocre teachers espousing mediocre methods for instruction to maintain the established mediocre standards on which my teaching credentials are based. I would have had to pay my hard earned money to be the beneficiary of more ideologically based research, which I've found to be ineffective. Frankly, I have found better ways of expanding horizons and honing the instructional approach. While I have stepped away from the front lines, it pleases me to see that those fighting the war on illiteracy will be sent into the trenches with better tools for meeting the needs of the students they will likely encounter. They will be given proven techniques for actual situations. Ivory tower ideology has no value in the real world. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
Are you ready for the next trade agreement? Before denouncing all those anarchists for disrupting the peaceful tranquillity of a Miami afternoon, think about all those additional benefits from an entire Western Hemisphere expansion of NAFTA. Go directly to the latest November 21, 2003, third draft of FTAA agreement for proof that America will be restricted from enacting protective measures to stem the hemorrhage of the trade deficit. Article 5. Tariff Elimination Program
Are you ready for a dramatic increase in outflow of wealth from the United States to the rest of the Americas? Yep, that’s what you get under the Free Trade deception. Remember all those promises that exports to Mexico would raise the standard of living on both sides of the borders? Well, you should already know this sad record. So why do we, the American public, need another sell out trade agreement? Obviously the masters of the supra global corporate/state want to increase their strangle hold on international commerce. Still have doubts, try this one on for size: Inter-governmental agreements
[Legal][designated]monopolies
State enterprises
So it’s OK to have, maintain or create a monopoly if it is approved and it is appropriate for governments to engage in state enterprises for profit. Sounds like the free aspect of trade has a privileged status and the economy for the public has a socialism that only profits the STATE. But don’t be too concerned about these conclusions. The prime objective is to maintain order and those demonstrators in Miami are out to disrupt the progress of a unified economy for the New World! So when “Eight legal observers sent to monitor Miami police during trade protests were arrested, and four were beaten by officers”, why should you care? Surely, you can’t have a Seattle rampage in every city that holds a trade meeting, so say the defenders of the corporate model that ensures the economic domination of government regulation. The silence from the mainstream press is always directed away from addressing what economic policies will benefit the average American taxpayer. The coverage is always directed at the agitators who are opposed to capitalism. And you can always count on the spin that sells the false notion that the version of business that directs the global economy is representative of free enterprise. Contrary to such bull . . . the distorted vestiges of capitalism have already been destroyed and substituted with a telluric economy of, for, and by the plutocracy. The alternative is certainly not a fanciful redistribution from the wealthy to the underprivileged. Only naive fools would place their faith in a government solution to create prosperity. Proponents of benevolence, expropriated from the productive are economic midgets. However, the masters of the universe that advance global regimentation, as the control of all the means of production is consolidated among their own kind; are antagonists of all mankind. Since the civil liberties of a free society are being sold at discount, don’t expect that there will be a holiday rush to stock up on tolerance. Both the affluence of Americans and the freedoms from government intervention will be diminished with an expansion of trade agreements that favor only elites. When the anti-globalists speak out they have their own agenda for gaining political influence. Yet, the substance in their argument often offers a compelling case. In the view of Mexican parliamentary Deputy Carlos Heredia Zubieta of the center-left opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution speaks to the NAFTA experience: “If you look at the macroeconomic figures, it's true: Inflation is under control, the deficit is manageable, there is fiscal and monetary discipline, and exports are growing," Heredia Zubieta said. "But the beneficiaries are only a small circle of corporations with ties to the international economy, to the detriment of the majority of small and medium-sized local companies and workers and citizens in general," he argued. Domestic firms have registered zero growth or worse, while only the export sector, represented by local subsidiaries of transnational corporations, has expanded. "The domestic market is not growing. On the contrary, the buying power of Mexicans has fallen steadily over the years.” Proponents of the Free Trade Area of the Americas are unable to substantiate that this new trade agreement would alter this pattern. Without a vigorous, open and public debate on all the issues related to international trade, the imbalances that are harming our own domestic economy will never be corrected. The press is beholden to the corporate/state consortium, they will not moderate such a discussion. The multinational cartels are driven to eliminate real competition. And most elected politicians are too fearful to buck a system that helped to create and continually protect. Miami will not be the last demonstration. The riot police will persist in applying their tactics. The IMF and World Bank will extend their micromanagement. And the rest of us will be forced to reduce our expectations for future economic independence. Not exactly the formula of abundance for a free people...
|
||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, July 3, 2005 9:33 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||
