Never Forget: September 11, 2001

I originally wrote this post last year on my (now retired) other blog, but it is fitting to repost it here today:

I will never forget the events of September 11, 2001. So many men and women lost their lives in the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I think about it almost every day. Sometimes people seem to forget (or pretend to forget) what happened. They talk about the “War on Terror” in such a negative way without reflecting on the real reasons behind it. Listening to Darryl Worley’s song Have You Forgotten? and looking at archival footage from that day make me wonder if maybe we should show images from 9/11/01 every day. Americans need to remember what we learned and what we are really fighting for. This is just as important now as it was seven years ago.

President George W. Bush will be remembered in history for being a wartime president (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing in itself is debatable). Although there are so many nasty things the Left has called our president (i.e. “retarded cowboy,” “war criminal,” “bumbling buffoon”), one thing is certain: Bush has kept our country from another terrorist attack. As Daniel Henninger wrote in an article today for The Wall Street Journal, “Lest we forget, as someone said, let’s revisit the bare details of that day. This presumably is the reason for anyone’s post-9/11 antiterror policies.”

One of my heroes is Todd Morgan Beamer. I did not know him personally, but I have read and connected with his story. He was one of the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93. A group of brave men and women would not surrender and they fought the hijackers. They succeeded in preventing the plane from reaching its targeted destination (presumably the White House or the U.S. Capitol) by crashing it into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Todd Beamer’s last audible words to a 911 operator were “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” A motto that is near and dear to my heart.

Source(s):

http://911digitalarchive.org/

http://www.september11news.com/

Universal Health Care Would Ruin U.S.

Before you get your panties in a bunch, I realize that the Obamassiah’s health care plan is not “universal health care,” but it is one step closer toward socialized care. When talking about letting our government run our national health care system, there are a few questions you need to ask yourself:

1) Do you really want the federal government in charge of YOUR health care?

Not one department in the U.S. government runs 100% efficiently (or anywhere near it). And you can’t expect them to with all the bureaucratic forces running against them. Politics is a dirty business and I would like to keep all of the baggage that comes with government-run agencies outside of hospitals. The best analogy I’ve heard is this: Would you rather your health care plan be like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles (single-payer, government-run) or a department store (you decide where to go)? Furthermore, do you really want the federal government in charge of something as vital to you as your health care? Malpractice lawsuits would erupt into an even bigger issue f people could sue their government for every botched procedure.

2) What is the actual cost of nationalized health care?

Competition is essential in keeping our free market stable. “Free” universal health care is like everything else: NOT FREE. The only way to pay for everyone’s health care plans is to have taxpaying citizens pay even higher taxes. You know how much the Dems love their taxes. Not only will individual taxes go sky-high, but corporate income taxes and Social Security taxes would also hit the ceiling. If health care is all-inclusive, doctors’ offices will fill up every time someone catches a sniffle and organs will not be the only things on waiting lists. In this kind of system, healthy people will be paying for those who lead unhealthy lifestyles (i.e. smokers, obese). Not only would private practices take a huge hit, but so would the medical industry. Patients wouldn’t be able to choose their doctors and doctors wouldn’t be able to choose their patients. Additionally, who would want practice medicine with government officials breathing down their neck? In short, lots of tax dollars will be spent for less-than-adequate care. Sounds like a raw deal to me.

3) Will universal health care solve the real problem?

The Dems often cite the millions of uninsured Americans as being the flaw of today’s current health care system. Just because they are uninsured, does not mean they cannot receive treatment from nonprofits and government-run hospitals. It is also illegal to refuse emergency medical service to someone without insurance. But If the government starts handing out free medical care to every person (including those living on welfare), the system will inevitably collapse and it will take our capitalistic economy with it. “Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a ‘right’ by the public, meaning that it’s politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control” (from BalancedPolitics.org).

Aside from all the socioeconomic reasons, nationalized health care is not a response to the real things people are suffering from. The leading causes of death in the U.S. are heart disease, cancer, and stroke. These diseases and biological attacks cannot be treated by one quick trip to the hospital (government-run or otherwise). Peter Huber writes in his editorial, “The cholera of our times is a stew of molecules, concocted by genes, gluts of cigarettes, beer, ice cream and other delicious consumables, and by whatever attitude problems we might have about eating our peas or taking our pills.” We are in the era of chronic disease and what we need to invest in is new medicine, not a new health care system. I admit that our health care system does need some reform, but socialized medicine is not the cure we need.

Article(s):

Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets

How The New Medicine Renders Universal Health Care Impossible

Resource(s):

Balanced Politics: Universal Health Care

Global Scamming

I have been quite convinced for some time now that this whole “global warming” phenomenon is part of a scam from the Left wing of American politics. The whole thing really took off around the time Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth came out. (The fact that he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the IPCC is immensely disturbing.) The American Left, along with their friends in the MSM, have been able to convince us that we are somehow responsible for a shift in global climate change.

Every year, people around the globe invest in billions of dollars into “green” products. How did the Greens (the term for these environmentalist whackos from Paul Johnson’s article) accomplish this? They used a different kind of green: money. The Greens, predominately made up of the liberal elite, have convinced the rest of America (and the world at large) to invest in the “environmentally-friendly” programs that they run. They have bullied us into buying “green”: green appliances, green cars, and green shopping bags. It is a myth that “going green” will have a significant effect on Earth’s climate. In fact, many of these so-called green items do more to harm the environment than help it. (Check out Ellen Gamerman of WSJ’s “An Inconvenient Bag”.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-environment, but I am anti-global warming propaganda. I do not deny that climate change exists, but I refute the notion that it is man-made and thus we are mandated (note the pun) to somehow put a stop to it. The actual science behind global warming is shaky at best. You can’t tell me there is proof when there is scientific evidence showing the exact opposite. The scary thing is that global warming has become both a science and a religion for these environmentalist nutjobs. Eminent British historian and author Paul Johnson articulates it well in his column “The Nonsense of Global Warming”:

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels–the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming–has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory’s conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists’ target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world’s sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.

With many more real problems worldwide, it is such a tragedy that we have been suckered into this global warming scam. Environmental waste is a problem, but buying off your “carbon footprint” is not the solution. I should give credit to the liberals for coming up with such an ingenious idea: Make every day Earth Day and make everyone else pay for it. In all likeliness, we will use up our oil supplies and run out of food, as a result of these eco-friendly projects, before the Earth ignites into a giant fireball. Now that’s the inconvenient truth.

Article(s):

Top Ten ‘Global-Warming’ Myths

The Nonsense of Global Warming

Global warming — myth, threat or opportunity?

Pharmacy ≠ Public Health Monitor

A couple of weeks ago, my friend Sara (her blog) told me that CVS stores with a pharmacy (very prominent in Boston) had stopped selling cigarettes. I am not a smoker myself, but I was surprised by the news. The CVS/pharmacy that I regularly go to always had cigarettes behind the counter. The next time I went to CVS, I noticed all the tobacco products were gone. I asked the woman working what had happened and she said, “We’re a pharmacy. We don’t sell cigarettes.” Ummm… okay?

So I started researching the issue and found this article entitled “Pharmacy cigarette sales must end.” At first glance I saw the Ph.D. and stupidly assumed this guy was a practicing doctor (he’s not). He’s actually a “Professor of Pharmacy at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy.” He’s also a member of several professional pharmacist organizations and the author/editor of the Pharmacist Activist Newsletter. Anyway, my complaint is not so much about what this dude is saying as what is actually happening.

According to the article, “In December, the Boston Public Health Commission approved a ban on the sale of tobacco products at health and educational institutions, including pharmacies and drug stores and college and university campuses. This ban does not include exceptions based on the type of store (e.g., grocery stores) in which the pharmacy is located.” Tobacco has a long history of being sold in American pharmacies. It is not only the nostalgia of the Wild West’s “general pharmacy,” but the reality of consumer demand that keeps cigarettes in stores. For many living in Boston (myself included), CVS/pharmacy is the “grocery” store closest to their homes. Why can’t we rely on capitalistic practices our country was founded on? If there’s a market demand for something and the companies want to fulfill that need, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

Lobbyists and so-called “healthcare experts” are fighting what they consider the contradiction of pharmacies selling products not good for people’s health. They are pushing pharmacies (the big retail chains in particular) to remove cigarettes from their shelves. It’s the notion that pharmacies are somehow responsible for general public health. The slippery slope argument also applies here; the city of Boston banned cigarettes at CVS/pharmacy. Cambridge is on its way to doing the same. What’s next? My guess is candy, soda, and sugar cereals (Cheerios too!). When lobbyists start dictating what they think is “good” or “healthy” for the public, they are taking the decision away from individual companies and consumers. People vote with their wallets every day as to what products should be made available; I don’t want some nutjob pharmacist “concerned” with public health to choose what goes on store shelves. We live in a democracy; leave it for the people to decide.

Article(s):

Could Cambridge ban cigarettes in pharmacies?

Pharmacy cigarette sales must end.

Cigarette Sales in Drugstores Come Under Fire.

High on Life

Word on the street is that there’s a new drug in town. This one doesn’t get you high, improve your focus, pump your muscles, or give you longer-lasting erections, but what it does do is lower your cholesterol (with diet and exercise). No, it’s not a cousin of Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, or Tricor. In fact it doesn’t end in “or” and it’s located in a different store aisle entirely. It’s in the cereal aisle.

General Mills’s Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Cereal has recently come under fire by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for illegally marketing itself as (what the FDA considers) a “drug.” Because a standard box of Cheerios claims “You can lower your cholesterol by 4% in 6 weeks” and “Heart-healthy diets rich in whole grain foods, can reduce the risk of heart disease,” it is a misbranded label. If according to the FDA, cereal is a drug then anything we consume can be considered a drug.

The FDA writes in a letter to the company, “[W]e have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” And as such, Cheerios “may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.”

General Mills is being a good sport about the whole thing. They released a statement saying, “The science is not in question … the clinical study supporting Cheerios’ cholesterol-lowering benefit is very strong. [...] We look forward to discussing this with FDA and to reaching a resolution.”

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. The FDA is abusing its power by trying to regulate the way a product is advertised. To say an unauthorized health claim on a box of cereal is a violation of federal regulation is an extreme position. Who cares if the claims on the Cheerios box are true? If they make people buy it and eat a healthier cereal (as opposed to really sugary cereals), it’s a win-win. That’s called successful marketing.

So kids, the next time you want to do drugs, try getting high off a box of Life®. Call up the FDA and see what they have to say about that.

Article(s):

Goldstein, Jacob. “FDA Warns General Mills: Cheerios Is a Drug.” The Wall Street Journal 12 May 2009. URL

Leave the Sleeve

Just the other day, my Starbucks store ran out of sleeves. (In interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I am employed part-time by Starbucks Co.) If you don’t know what “sleeves” are, they are those pieces of cardboard that fit nicely around your Starbucks coffee cup. So anyway, our store ran out of them and for whatever reason we were not able to get more from the nearby stores. One would think this would be a minor incident: causing no direct harm to anyone, other than having to handle a warm cup without the added comfort of a heat buffer.

Why are these little things so important to people? When customers asked me why I didn’t give them a sleeve with their tall-nonfat-no whip-white chocolate mocha, they sounded like it was the worst thing that could happen to them all day. It is as if I told them that we ran out of coffee. I believe customer satisfaction is critical to any business, but I don’t think it has to come with the cost of unnecessary waste. It is such a disgrace that almost every customer mindlessly puts a sleeve on their drink every time. (I have seen people put them on iced drinks, too!) There is no excuse for being wasteful.

Incidentally, the cups are well designed so that hot sleeves are NOT required. (The only exceptions might be a Venti tea and Americano because of the hot water.) Saying it’s more “environmentally-friendly” than using a second paper cup is not a good enough excuse. Drinking (good) coffee is a privilege, not a right. Being able to put a sleeve on a drink you deem to be too-hot-to-handle is also luxury. You do not have a right to a drink sleeve.  It’s amusing to me that some customers now call the sleeves “holders” (as if it is required in order to “hold” the cup).  I think people are becoming too dependent on such luxuries that they now view them as indispensable.

I believe Starbucks should stop giving away the sleeves so involuntarily. There should not be trays full of them on every surface where drinks are handed over. Customers should have to ask each and every time they want a sleeve. These pieces of cardboard do cost money. And what happens to them when a hot drink cools off in five minutes? I would not be completely opposed to the idea of charging people a little extra for the luxury of having a sleeve on their latte. This discussion has provoked an interesting question in my mind, “Would our ancestors really be complaining about things as trivial as cup sleeves?” I think people need to grow thicker skin.

I would like to hear what my sensible audience has to say about this. I want your honest opinion, but I don’t want a lecture about possible lawsuits. If the cup is really too hot to hold, it must be too hot to drink, too.

Open Up Your Chakra

The other day I had my first Reiki treatment. Reiki is a simple technique, but it is part of a more complicated lifestyle. It is neither massage nor mediation, but a combination of the two. The main thing to know is that it is a Japanese technique used for stress reduction, relaxation, and healing.

My neighbor took some classes and has been offering free treatments to family and friends so that she could practice. I decided to give it a shot, not knowing what it really was about, with an open-mind. The experience was quite interesting to say the least. Basically what happens is that you lie on a table (with your clothes on) and the practitioner places her/his hands on/over different parts of your body. She focused on each of the 12 areas for about five minutes. I kept my eyes closed and ears tuned into the trippy, New Age music. She told me it was fine if I fell asleep, but I really wanted to stay awake to see what I would feel.

What I felt surprised me immensely. Minutes after the first position (hands over eyes and face), my head cleared up. I am not exaggerating this. I was relatively stressed the whole morning and, as usual, I had some much going on inside my head. Nevertheless, I could feel the pressure released and pleasant thoughts filled my mind. I started daydreaming of green pastures and waterfalls. (No joke.) As the treatment continued, my muscles started to loosen up. By the time the hour was up, there was a tingly sensation pulsating throughout my body. I walked around my house feeling light as air. The sensation continued for the larger part of my day. Reiki is my new friend and I will do it again.

I have started to research the philosophy and practice behind Reiki, but reading about chakras, auras, meridians and symbols are making my head spin. According to this website, the “root chakra” is located “between genitals and anus.” Ummm… All I can say is my first treatment was not focused on that area. Maybe that’s next time.

Blood DoNOTor

I will NOT donate blood. I absolutely refuse. It is not because I’m selfish. I know how extremely important it is to donate blood. (I was the Blood Services Chairman on the American Red Cross Youth Council. No idea how that happened.) I would much rather donate my time, skills, and energy than my red blood cells, plasma, and platelets. A few years ago, my doctor told me that I needed to get a blood test done. Mind you, this was a syringe-full and not a whole pint. He left the room to get the needle. My head started spinning. My body went cold. I turned ghost white. He came back into the room and said that he wouldn’t do it that day because I looked like I was going to pass out. About a week later, I went to a blood clinic to get the test done. I still remember how it felt when the vampires sucked the life-sustaining liquid out of me. I’m not afraid of needles per se, but the feeling of blood leaving my body makes me queasy. I cannot imagine sitting awake for an hour while my blood is drained into a little baggie. The thought is repulsive to me. Bruce Almighty and I share the same blood type: “Well I’m IB positive. I be positive they ain’t touching me with no needle.”

Snuggle Up With A Good Audiobook

I recently got into an argument with one of my coworkers about audiobooks. I consider listening to an audiobook to be reading. I am aware it may not be an “intellectual” equivalent. (Cite all the scientific studies you want.) However, I believe the experience is comparable, if not enhanced. There is a good New York Times article on the subject entitled, “Loud, Proud, Unabridged: It Is Too Reading!”

Oral tradition predates the written word. Books are not a superior form of communication; they are just a different mode. One can read with one’s eyes, ears, and/or fingers. I like audiobooks because they are portable for carrying, convenient for multitasking, and fantastic for commuting. I can listen to more hours of audio than I can read pages of 12-point, single-spaced text. It is NOT lazy to want to listen to a book read to you by an experienced orator or the author him/herself.

All of the opinions I’ve read for/against audiobooks highlights that it’s simply a matter of taste. I disagree. I believe taste plays a role, but I believe the effectiveness has more to do with the way you learn. Some people are auditory learners, some are visual, and others are kinesthetic. I am in the 30% of people that prefer to learn by hearing. The qualities of an auditory learner include: never stops talking, are good storytellers, has ten excuses for everything, and can memorize easily. (That is exactly me! Ask my mom.) People say that listening to audiobooks is the equivalent of listening to music or watching television. They could not be more wrong. I can absorb and retain the same amount of information from listening to an audiobook that one could get from reading a handheld book. That’s not all. The experience of listening to a good audiobook is absolutely incredible. It’s intellectually stimulating and it’s fun. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it!

Let me know which audiobooks you recommend and I’ll be happy to review them. Happy reading!

Holy Cow, Delicious Cheeseburger

I don’t have a problem with vegetarianism, but vegetarians often have a problem with me. I am an unabashed, meat-eater. When it comes to meat, the redder the better. I believe humans were designed to eat meat, whether it is cows or chickens. I don’t have a problem with eating healthy, but I also believe meat is an important part of a healthy diet. Meat, especially lean meats, are a high source of protein, iron, zinc, and B-12 vitamins.

Given the obvious nutritional benefits of eating meat, why do people become vegetarians? The ones I have talked to say they have become vegetarians either because of health reasons or because of “animal rights,” and sometimes it’s both. Vegetarians are part of a cow-worshiping cult, like Hindus without their religious practices. However, those are not the ones I mind so much. The vegetarians I have a bone to pick with are the ones who actively campaign to get others to join their cause. I’m not going to stop eating meat because someone showed me pictures of cattle being slaughtered or chickens being cooped. I feel as though some people become vegetarians to start arguments. The top point on their political agenda is to make people feel bad about themselves. That’s one kind of politics I don’t want to talk about over the dinner table. You can have the salad; just give me the cheeseburger.