taken from America's Retarded: http://americaisretarded.com/cancer.html
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
Judge in Virginia Strikes Down Federal Health Care Law
As if any thinking intelligent person thought this bill was going to viewed any differently, a federal judge rejected a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law as unconstitutional Monday, ruling the government cannot require people to buy insurance.
This is exactly what should have been on the minds of every politician working on this bill. How can any politician possibly think they can force the American public to pay for something they don’t want? Well, I’ll tell you what allowed them to think this was going to pass. Arrogance.
Politicians have become so entrenched in the wasteful process of writing new legislation, solely for the purpose of justifying their positions, that even though they knew this law was not going to fly they would rather waste taxpayer money in writing this legislation, debating it, and then voting on it.
This is exactly what should have been on the minds of every politician working on this bill. How can any politician possibly think they can force the American public to pay for something they don’t want? Well, I’ll tell you what allowed them to think this was going to pass. Arrogance.
Politicians have become so entrenched in the wasteful process of writing new legislation, solely for the purpose of justifying their positions, that even though they knew this law was not going to fly they would rather waste taxpayer money in writing this legislation, debating it, and then voting on it.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Why Do We Allow Profit From Other People’s Pain and Suffering?
I believe that making a profit on people’s pain and suffering is immoral, but in our capitalist society profit takes a high priority over anything else. To balance the two, profit and morality, is the crux of many problems in America.
The business of providing health care can still be profitable without destroying the lives of those who cannot afford to pay. The question becomes how much profit should be made? And if we begin talking about limiting profits are we really talking about socialism, a charge that is so generally tossed about today? This, I believe, is what scares many Americans today.
So what do we do? Do we provide free heath care to everyone? Of course not, someone has to pay. If we are to have an equitable system of health care for everyone then everyone is going to have to pay into the system. Does this mean that the federal government is actually going to run the health care system? No.
A reformed health care system will not look exactly as it does today, with people paying monthly premiums in hopes of building up a large enough bank to rely on in times of sickness. We will be able to visit a doctor when we need to and get the necessary care we can only wish for under the current system.
At this stage of our nation’s development the federal government is the only entity large enough to handle this venture. Is this socialism? Absolutely not.
Look, it behooves everyone, from the company owners to the workers, to have a healthy populace. What many anti health care reformers fear is paying for the health care of others. It is particularly distasteful to pay for the health care of those who simply refuse to care for themselves. This, I think, is a very valid point. If we begin caring only for those who care for themselves, i.e., proper diet, proper exercise, etc, then we have become exclusive. This then comes back to the moral issue.
Should the government pay people to stay healthy? Things could very well come to this. Especially if it is determined this long term expense is cheaper than if we wait until we have contracted diabetes or heart problems, something that would have been prevented by proper exercise and diet.
It is also beneficial to the country to eliminate bankruptcy due to medical bills. Something like 60% of the bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. This is outrageous.
We need to make it happen and we need to stop with the scare tactics and lies and the innuendos. The one thing that would help us all the most right now is if we had a main stream media that would actually report what the health care reform bill is and give us an accurate analysis of it instead of headlining rent-a-crowd antics at town hall meetings.
The bottom line is, trying to pass health care reform has been tried by both parties over the last 60 years, and the profit makers have always managed to shoot it down. When are we going to get out from under their thumb and do what is right for ourselves? I wish I could see it happen during my lifetime.
The business of providing health care can still be profitable without destroying the lives of those who cannot afford to pay. The question becomes how much profit should be made? And if we begin talking about limiting profits are we really talking about socialism, a charge that is so generally tossed about today? This, I believe, is what scares many Americans today.
So what do we do? Do we provide free heath care to everyone? Of course not, someone has to pay. If we are to have an equitable system of health care for everyone then everyone is going to have to pay into the system. Does this mean that the federal government is actually going to run the health care system? No.
A reformed health care system will not look exactly as it does today, with people paying monthly premiums in hopes of building up a large enough bank to rely on in times of sickness. We will be able to visit a doctor when we need to and get the necessary care we can only wish for under the current system.
At this stage of our nation’s development the federal government is the only entity large enough to handle this venture. Is this socialism? Absolutely not.
Look, it behooves everyone, from the company owners to the workers, to have a healthy populace. What many anti health care reformers fear is paying for the health care of others. It is particularly distasteful to pay for the health care of those who simply refuse to care for themselves. This, I think, is a very valid point. If we begin caring only for those who care for themselves, i.e., proper diet, proper exercise, etc, then we have become exclusive. This then comes back to the moral issue.
Should the government pay people to stay healthy? Things could very well come to this. Especially if it is determined this long term expense is cheaper than if we wait until we have contracted diabetes or heart problems, something that would have been prevented by proper exercise and diet.
It is also beneficial to the country to eliminate bankruptcy due to medical bills. Something like 60% of the bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. This is outrageous.
We need to make it happen and we need to stop with the scare tactics and lies and the innuendos. The one thing that would help us all the most right now is if we had a main stream media that would actually report what the health care reform bill is and give us an accurate analysis of it instead of headlining rent-a-crowd antics at town hall meetings.
The bottom line is, trying to pass health care reform has been tried by both parties over the last 60 years, and the profit makers have always managed to shoot it down. When are we going to get out from under their thumb and do what is right for ourselves? I wish I could see it happen during my lifetime.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Food Safety Program Needs Restructuring, Not Another Agency
In the wake of the recent salmonella outbreak that killed 9 people and sickened over 600 others, food safety concerns have become a pressing issue.
The Food and Drug Administration takes the brunt of the responsibility and is the most pressured to find the cause and correct it.
However, at least 15 agencies are involved in making sure food is safe under at least 30 different laws, some of which date back to the early 1900s. it doesn’t matter how old a law is as long as it works. And if those 30 laws work then they should remain in place. However, it seems there needs to be some re-thinking as to how often food gets inspected and by whom.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., have been proposing an overhaul of the nation's food safety structure for more than a decade. Food safety advocates agree.
I don’t believe we need another bureaucratic agency to add to the convoluted maze, just shore up practices already in place. The system will work if given enough inspectors with the proper guidelines and abilities.
The Department of Agriculture should inspect anything grown or raised on a farm, domestic and imported. The FDA should cover everything else that enters the human body (drugs, etc), domestic and imported. They need to agree on a schedule of inspections and they both need the ability to shutdown operations if a threat is discovered.
Obviously, an alert system needs to be in place to notify the general public of a possible contamination of food, possible source(s), and where the product was shipped. And this alert needs to take place within days of the discovery not months as is currently the case.
It seems reasonable that if any manufacturer has to face the possibility of a shutdown (cutting into their profits) then it would be in their best interest to ensure their product is safe.
Raw food inspections covered by USDA, this covers growers. Processed foods covered by FDA, this covers processors.
An additional safety net would be provided by the health department to inspect facilities and ensure workers are following safe food-handling procedures.
This means that some foods will be inspected more than once. The bottom line is that all possible sources of contamination needs to be inspected, as the source of all tainted food has come from mis-handling of food and/or contamination of facilities.
The Food and Drug Administration takes the brunt of the responsibility and is the most pressured to find the cause and correct it.
However, at least 15 agencies are involved in making sure food is safe under at least 30 different laws, some of which date back to the early 1900s. it doesn’t matter how old a law is as long as it works. And if those 30 laws work then they should remain in place. However, it seems there needs to be some re-thinking as to how often food gets inspected and by whom.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., have been proposing an overhaul of the nation's food safety structure for more than a decade. Food safety advocates agree.
I don’t believe we need another bureaucratic agency to add to the convoluted maze, just shore up practices already in place. The system will work if given enough inspectors with the proper guidelines and abilities.
The Department of Agriculture should inspect anything grown or raised on a farm, domestic and imported. The FDA should cover everything else that enters the human body (drugs, etc), domestic and imported. They need to agree on a schedule of inspections and they both need the ability to shutdown operations if a threat is discovered.
Obviously, an alert system needs to be in place to notify the general public of a possible contamination of food, possible source(s), and where the product was shipped. And this alert needs to take place within days of the discovery not months as is currently the case.
It seems reasonable that if any manufacturer has to face the possibility of a shutdown (cutting into their profits) then it would be in their best interest to ensure their product is safe.
Raw food inspections covered by USDA, this covers growers. Processed foods covered by FDA, this covers processors.
An additional safety net would be provided by the health department to inspect facilities and ensure workers are following safe food-handling procedures.
This means that some foods will be inspected more than once. The bottom line is that all possible sources of contamination needs to be inspected, as the source of all tainted food has come from mis-handling of food and/or contamination of facilities.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Hillary should be muzzled
Another lie, excuse me, ‘mis-speak’. Hillary is showing us that she is accustomed to s t r e t c h i n g the truth to gain attention and/or votes.
This time her ‘mis-adventure’ brings discredit on a hospital in Athens, Ohio by saying the hospital refused health care to an uninsured pregnant woman and this refusal resulted in the death of her baby and then herself. All because the woman could not come up with a $100 fee. In fact, the woman was insured. In fact, the woman was never refused treatment.
Sounds like just the ‘poster patient’ Hillary needs to push her health care package. So what if her lie disparages the hospital, so what if ‘mis-speaking’ will cause irreparable damage to the hospitals reputation, as long as she can gain a few points toward getting what she wants.
Hmmm. I wonder what other lies she has told or will tell in order to get her way.
This pathological need to lie shows a proclivity to manipulation and coercion which identifies a need to control. In her choice of stories to lie about, those whose facts can so easily be verified and therefore discredited by the news media shows a level of irrationality. All of you Hillary backers better be paying attention.
Prepare yourselves to have to sort through her stories and double check everything this woman says from now on. That sounds like an awful lot of extra work that we should not have to do concerning a president of the United States. Actually, reflecting back on the lies the last few presidents have told, it sounds like just what this country seems to want.
The mounting lies this woman is telling indicates that she is feeling the intense pressure of this presidential candidacy. The fact that she believed, and then repeated, this story without verifying the facts from the hospital itself is very discouraging. Can she be so easily misled?
Doesn’t she realize yet that the news media and millions of internet users will verify everything she says and that her reputation as a liar has caught up with her?
The Democratic party needs to distance itself from this type of politician quickly. The American people deserve better than this type of politician. If a candidate has to resort to lies then he/she has no faith in the truth. Do we really need another George W Bush?
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Let the cops chase real criminals
Why are we continuing to arrest people for marijuana use?
FBI stats, just released in September 2007, show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006. Up by 43,000 from 2005.
The number of arrests for simple possession totaled 738,916. This is about 90% of all marijuana arrests and does not include trafficking, just possession.
By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.
This amounts to a lot of manpower and expense thrown at taking a natural herb off the streets that has never been shown to cause violent behavior in anyone. In fact, scientific studies have shown, long ago, that, compared to alcohol, marijuana is much safer. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive with only 9% becoming addicted as opposed to 15% for alcohol users. Marijuana use has never been shown to cause any permanent harm to the body whereas, it is well documented, alcohol damages the brain and liver to the point that it leads to death. Alcohol, also well documented, incites violence and aggression, marijuana does not.
Cops love to keep marijuana illegal because it keeps their arrest numbers up which ‘proves’ to our community that their services are needed. Also, marijuana users are more docile than alcoholics and therefore are easier to arrest, with less chance of fighting back. Whereas, violent criminals tend to endanger them and the citizenry by using weapons to prevent being arrested.
Where cops are really needed is on our roadways where their heightened presence is more likely to catch drunk drivers that tend to kill us. Their presence would help decrease the number of speeders who are more likely to lose control of their vehicles and kill us. Their presence is needed to prevent careless and reckless drivers from killing us. Their presence is needed to help prevent road rage that can kill us.
There has never been one documented case in which a marijuana user has caused the death of anyone.
Does this show that the priorities of law enforcement officers are misplaced? You bet it does.
With these arrest figures carried out to daily arrests, this means that every 38 seconds of every day a marijuana user is arrested.
Since most people don’t really take anything seriously until it affects their finances, let’s look at some numbers. It is estimated, by people who spend a lot of their time examining such mundane things, that if marijuana was a taxable commodity, the U.S. government could conceivably collect $31 billion from the estimated $113 billion annual marijuana business. Wow! How much healthcare could that figure cover?
The extra time that cops would have on their hands for not arresting these non-violent people could now be focused on catching the actual violent offenders who are still on their most wanted lists.
Taxes collected on marijuana sales could help fund cancer research since they are damaging their lungs through inhaling smoke. Because let’s face it, tobacco smoke has already been proven to cause death from lung cancer, why would you think marijuana smoke is any different. Personally, I think it is foolish for anyone to put such carcinogenic substances into your body. Everyone would condemn anyone who purposefully did this to another human being and call it torture and cruel and unusual punishment (true, it would take a long time to work and you would be happy along the way, but it still will kill you). But hey, it’s your body.
In case you are too high to pick up on it, I don’t think marijuana is a ‘crime’ that warrants this much time, effort and money pursuing. I think cops should spend their time on more worthwhile endeavors. I certainly do not think that marijuana users should be labeled as ‘hardened criminals’. And I don’t fall in step with our drug czar in the all too common belief, shared with other non-drug users, that smoking marijuana leads to harder drug use. This is just urban legend. True there are some smokers that will occasionally experiment with harder drugs but it is by no means the next ‘logical’ inevitable step. The number of those that do is no higher than for those who never smoked pot and went straight for the harder stuff.
I think marijuana users, and alcohol users, are wasting a lot of money that could be better spent on things like a savings plan for the future, either theirs or for their kids. That money could be better spent to improve your living conditions.
It has been proven through studies, and I am sure you have seen this yourselves, that smoking marijuana causes stupidity. If you smoke pot and are one of the lucky few to still have a job, don’t jeopardize it. Too many of you are smoking at work or getting stoned on your way to work. This is just stupid. One, because just having marijuana is still illegal, two, you could get fired if caught with it (let’s face it, if you are stoned at work, you cannot hide it for very long) and most importantly, your job performance suffers and you could cause injury to your self or someone else, depending on what you do for a living. Come on people, keep it strictly recreational if you are going to insist on continuing to use it.
If marijuana was legalized, following in the steps of alcohol legalization in the 1930’s, then there would not be any profit for gangs and other criminals to fund their other criminal, and more violent, enterprises. This is just a no-brainer. By leaving any involvement with marijuana illegal, the legal system has created, and is maintaining, a criminal underground that is more dangerous to this society only because it’s use is illegal. If you want to argue that marijuana impairs your driving and therefore that makes it a danger to society then I have to agree with you. But so is alcohol. And since they are both detrimental to safe drivers everywhere why is one illegal and the other not?
Also, our jails would not be so crowded, because, believe it or not, a large population of inmates, 44% in 2006 according to the FBI, are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. Arguably the least criminal characters in jail today. Is it really necessary to build more prisons to house these non-violent offenders?
America’s prison population totaled 2.1 million inmates as of mid-year 2006, according to Department of Justice Statistics.
The overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for possession of marijuana, and most persons in prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity.
Virtually all of these prisons are horrifically overcrowded. State prisons were operating at 99 to 113 percent of capacity, and the federal prison system was operating at 134 percent of capacity. This compounds the dangers and brutality of prison life. Inmates are exposed to physical and sexual assault, and put at risk for diseases such as HIV/AIDS or developing mental illness.
It does not take a excessive amount of brain power to figure out that by removing these non-violent ‘offenders’ from the equation, we could solve the over-crowding issue and not be faced with raising taxes to pay for more, even larger prisons.
FBI stats, just released in September 2007, show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006. Up by 43,000 from 2005.
The number of arrests for simple possession totaled 738,916. This is about 90% of all marijuana arrests and does not include trafficking, just possession.
By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.
This amounts to a lot of manpower and expense thrown at taking a natural herb off the streets that has never been shown to cause violent behavior in anyone. In fact, scientific studies have shown, long ago, that, compared to alcohol, marijuana is much safer. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive with only 9% becoming addicted as opposed to 15% for alcohol users. Marijuana use has never been shown to cause any permanent harm to the body whereas, it is well documented, alcohol damages the brain and liver to the point that it leads to death. Alcohol, also well documented, incites violence and aggression, marijuana does not.
Cops love to keep marijuana illegal because it keeps their arrest numbers up which ‘proves’ to our community that their services are needed. Also, marijuana users are more docile than alcoholics and therefore are easier to arrest, with less chance of fighting back. Whereas, violent criminals tend to endanger them and the citizenry by using weapons to prevent being arrested.
Where cops are really needed is on our roadways where their heightened presence is more likely to catch drunk drivers that tend to kill us. Their presence would help decrease the number of speeders who are more likely to lose control of their vehicles and kill us. Their presence is needed to prevent careless and reckless drivers from killing us. Their presence is needed to help prevent road rage that can kill us.
There has never been one documented case in which a marijuana user has caused the death of anyone.
Does this show that the priorities of law enforcement officers are misplaced? You bet it does.
With these arrest figures carried out to daily arrests, this means that every 38 seconds of every day a marijuana user is arrested.
Since most people don’t really take anything seriously until it affects their finances, let’s look at some numbers. It is estimated, by people who spend a lot of their time examining such mundane things, that if marijuana was a taxable commodity, the U.S. government could conceivably collect $31 billion from the estimated $113 billion annual marijuana business. Wow! How much healthcare could that figure cover?
The extra time that cops would have on their hands for not arresting these non-violent people could now be focused on catching the actual violent offenders who are still on their most wanted lists.
Taxes collected on marijuana sales could help fund cancer research since they are damaging their lungs through inhaling smoke. Because let’s face it, tobacco smoke has already been proven to cause death from lung cancer, why would you think marijuana smoke is any different. Personally, I think it is foolish for anyone to put such carcinogenic substances into your body. Everyone would condemn anyone who purposefully did this to another human being and call it torture and cruel and unusual punishment (true, it would take a long time to work and you would be happy along the way, but it still will kill you). But hey, it’s your body.
In case you are too high to pick up on it, I don’t think marijuana is a ‘crime’ that warrants this much time, effort and money pursuing. I think cops should spend their time on more worthwhile endeavors. I certainly do not think that marijuana users should be labeled as ‘hardened criminals’. And I don’t fall in step with our drug czar in the all too common belief, shared with other non-drug users, that smoking marijuana leads to harder drug use. This is just urban legend. True there are some smokers that will occasionally experiment with harder drugs but it is by no means the next ‘logical’ inevitable step. The number of those that do is no higher than for those who never smoked pot and went straight for the harder stuff.
I think marijuana users, and alcohol users, are wasting a lot of money that could be better spent on things like a savings plan for the future, either theirs or for their kids. That money could be better spent to improve your living conditions.
It has been proven through studies, and I am sure you have seen this yourselves, that smoking marijuana causes stupidity. If you smoke pot and are one of the lucky few to still have a job, don’t jeopardize it. Too many of you are smoking at work or getting stoned on your way to work. This is just stupid. One, because just having marijuana is still illegal, two, you could get fired if caught with it (let’s face it, if you are stoned at work, you cannot hide it for very long) and most importantly, your job performance suffers and you could cause injury to your self or someone else, depending on what you do for a living. Come on people, keep it strictly recreational if you are going to insist on continuing to use it.
If marijuana was legalized, following in the steps of alcohol legalization in the 1930’s, then there would not be any profit for gangs and other criminals to fund their other criminal, and more violent, enterprises. This is just a no-brainer. By leaving any involvement with marijuana illegal, the legal system has created, and is maintaining, a criminal underground that is more dangerous to this society only because it’s use is illegal. If you want to argue that marijuana impairs your driving and therefore that makes it a danger to society then I have to agree with you. But so is alcohol. And since they are both detrimental to safe drivers everywhere why is one illegal and the other not?
Also, our jails would not be so crowded, because, believe it or not, a large population of inmates, 44% in 2006 according to the FBI, are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. Arguably the least criminal characters in jail today. Is it really necessary to build more prisons to house these non-violent offenders?
America’s prison population totaled 2.1 million inmates as of mid-year 2006, according to Department of Justice Statistics.
The overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for possession of marijuana, and most persons in prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity.
Virtually all of these prisons are horrifically overcrowded. State prisons were operating at 99 to 113 percent of capacity, and the federal prison system was operating at 134 percent of capacity. This compounds the dangers and brutality of prison life. Inmates are exposed to physical and sexual assault, and put at risk for diseases such as HIV/AIDS or developing mental illness.
It does not take a excessive amount of brain power to figure out that by removing these non-violent ‘offenders’ from the equation, we could solve the over-crowding issue and not be faced with raising taxes to pay for more, even larger prisons.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Another sales gimmick
A consumer watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest submitted a petition last November to the Food and Drug Administration advocating a national system of symbols to adorn packaged foods. The idea is to create an easy method for consumers to spot healthy food products so they don't have to read through the fine print while grocery shopping.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Is this group made up of a bunch of kindergarten teachers? Do they think people are too stupid to read the nutritional labels on food products? They have to give us little colored dots to tell us what foods are good for us and what foods are bad?
Are they next going to devise a plan to give good, healthy eaters gold stars?
This is an insult to consumers.
They are denigrating the fact that food shopping for nutritious foods is a very important process and should not be trivialized by using colored labels.
It is bad enough that food manufacturers have resorted to using cartoon characters and flashy pictures and symbols to appeal to children to buy their sugar drenched crap that passes for food, now consumer groups are talking down to us too.
Maybe they think our lives are so hectic and tightly scheduled that giving us colored dots will get us through the trauma of shopping so we get out of the store faster.
Maybe they think we can’t understand what the hell the food companies are printing on their labels.
“Gee, I don’t know, 13 grams of fat seems awfully high, Marge? Oh, I don’t bother with that old-fashioned, indecipherable printed label anymore. I just look for the green dot and place all of my faith in the company that made the product, they wouldn’t lie to us.”
I am all for forcing food makers to label their products so we know what we are eating, I also advocate restaurants telling us the nutritional value of their menu items. But we are not five year olds.
Maybe food companies are behind this campaign so they can cover up what is really in the package. Use symbols so people won’t look at the printed nutritional labels. Eventually they won’t even print the nutritional labels anymore. They will just go down to the local stationary store and buy up a bunch of colored dots and slap them on the package instead.
“Hello, Local Stationary? Yeah, send over some more of those green dots. No, don’t bother with the red dots, sales on those items are down. That’s right, and throw in a few yellow ones just to make consumers think we are actually rating this stuff.”
Our education system is crap and outdated compared to the rest of the world and this illustrates why. The people who came up with this gem are products of that same education system. This scares the hell out of me.
We need to start teaching more real life subjects like food nutrition, money management, critical thinking, ethics and social skills (which should include a healthy dose of anger management). Something that will actually prepare us for the real world. More emphasis on current events, science and math would help a lot.
The FDA is tasked with protecting the public's health and safety from products created and sold in the U.S. market. It is a monumental undertaking by an organization that is understaffed facing a mountain of new products every year. Drugs and food items are submitted to the FDA along with results of testing conducted by the manufacturer of these same products. This system is inherently flawed, as evidenced by this example. There are a host of other examples we hear about, only after the product has been on the market and usually after peoples lives have been damaged or lost.
If you leave it to food conglomerates to come up with their own labeling they will use cheery, cartoonish symbols designed to catch the consumers eye. Use of these labels will lead to abuse and consumers still will not be any better informed than they were with the printed labels.
The FDA cannot save everyone from themselves but they can treat those of us who actually use our abilities to read to think for ourselves about what is nutritious if we only had a definitive guide of what levels of nutrition we need.
The claims that organic food is best for us have been so skewed by companies jumping on the bandwagon with products that cannot possibly be organic that we don’t know what is best for us.
We hear claims that studies show that such and such causes cancer or organ damage and then we hear contradictory studies that ‘prove’ otherwise.
Vegans preach how eating only vegetables will give you a longer, healthier life. Meat eaters retort that humans have gotten stronger through eating meat. Studies can be found that contradict or prove both.
We consumers are alone in determining what is best for us to eat. We cannot count on the government to protect us. There are just too many untrustworthy people selling items with false claims. Sure, some companies get punished for their misconceptions but the tide is too great.
Using a bunch of brightly colored stickers and cartoon characters will not help us at all. They are only designed to sell, sell, sell.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Is this group made up of a bunch of kindergarten teachers? Do they think people are too stupid to read the nutritional labels on food products? They have to give us little colored dots to tell us what foods are good for us and what foods are bad?
Are they next going to devise a plan to give good, healthy eaters gold stars?
This is an insult to consumers.
They are denigrating the fact that food shopping for nutritious foods is a very important process and should not be trivialized by using colored labels.
It is bad enough that food manufacturers have resorted to using cartoon characters and flashy pictures and symbols to appeal to children to buy their sugar drenched crap that passes for food, now consumer groups are talking down to us too.
Maybe they think our lives are so hectic and tightly scheduled that giving us colored dots will get us through the trauma of shopping so we get out of the store faster.
Maybe they think we can’t understand what the hell the food companies are printing on their labels.
“Gee, I don’t know, 13 grams of fat seems awfully high, Marge? Oh, I don’t bother with that old-fashioned, indecipherable printed label anymore. I just look for the green dot and place all of my faith in the company that made the product, they wouldn’t lie to us.”
I am all for forcing food makers to label their products so we know what we are eating, I also advocate restaurants telling us the nutritional value of their menu items. But we are not five year olds.
Maybe food companies are behind this campaign so they can cover up what is really in the package. Use symbols so people won’t look at the printed nutritional labels. Eventually they won’t even print the nutritional labels anymore. They will just go down to the local stationary store and buy up a bunch of colored dots and slap them on the package instead.
“Hello, Local Stationary? Yeah, send over some more of those green dots. No, don’t bother with the red dots, sales on those items are down. That’s right, and throw in a few yellow ones just to make consumers think we are actually rating this stuff.”
Our education system is crap and outdated compared to the rest of the world and this illustrates why. The people who came up with this gem are products of that same education system. This scares the hell out of me.
We need to start teaching more real life subjects like food nutrition, money management, critical thinking, ethics and social skills (which should include a healthy dose of anger management). Something that will actually prepare us for the real world. More emphasis on current events, science and math would help a lot.
The FDA is tasked with protecting the public's health and safety from products created and sold in the U.S. market. It is a monumental undertaking by an organization that is understaffed facing a mountain of new products every year. Drugs and food items are submitted to the FDA along with results of testing conducted by the manufacturer of these same products. This system is inherently flawed, as evidenced by this example. There are a host of other examples we hear about, only after the product has been on the market and usually after peoples lives have been damaged or lost.
If you leave it to food conglomerates to come up with their own labeling they will use cheery, cartoonish symbols designed to catch the consumers eye. Use of these labels will lead to abuse and consumers still will not be any better informed than they were with the printed labels.
The FDA cannot save everyone from themselves but they can treat those of us who actually use our abilities to read to think for ourselves about what is nutritious if we only had a definitive guide of what levels of nutrition we need.
The claims that organic food is best for us have been so skewed by companies jumping on the bandwagon with products that cannot possibly be organic that we don’t know what is best for us.
We hear claims that studies show that such and such causes cancer or organ damage and then we hear contradictory studies that ‘prove’ otherwise.
Vegans preach how eating only vegetables will give you a longer, healthier life. Meat eaters retort that humans have gotten stronger through eating meat. Studies can be found that contradict or prove both.
We consumers are alone in determining what is best for us to eat. We cannot count on the government to protect us. There are just too many untrustworthy people selling items with false claims. Sure, some companies get punished for their misconceptions but the tide is too great.
Using a bunch of brightly colored stickers and cartoon characters will not help us at all. They are only designed to sell, sell, sell.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Who is protecting the American consumer?
This rash of recalls of China-made products needs to be looked at and the U.S. government does not seem too interested in taking any initiative. Why? Are they afraid of damaging relations with this behemoth of a trade partner? Are they worried that this lucrative market will take its business elsewhere? Not a chance. Are they actually choosing to make money over the safety of their fellow countrymen?
We have had a wide range of products recalled due to inferior quality that could result in injury or death to U.S. citizens. Contaminated pet food, faulty automobile tires, cancer-causing chemically-laden fish, toothpaste laced with chemicals and lead-laden toys have all been recently found coming from China. The scariest part is that these products were only discovered after they had reached the U.S. and most were already for sale to consumers.
Why don’t I hear more of an uproar about this problem?
There needs to be more oversight and inspection of these products before they reach our shore. One would think that given the fact that these items have been sent back (they have been sent back, right?) that China would do something more to ensure these problems are not repeated.
I understand that some of these products are made by U.S. companies that have either moved from the U.S. or have simply outsourced their production seeking cheaper labor costs. It is bad enough that these companies have forsaken the U.S. worker in order to save themselves money so they can realize a larger profit margin, but to completely disregard their fellow Americans health and safety to earn a buck is the height of greediness.
These companies need to be identified and their products boycotted.
In almost every situation in life when some crime or under-handed action is learned of it turns out to be only the tip of the iceberg. And with the limited resources available to organizations like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, who is responsible for recalling inferior and unsafe products, you can bet their hands are full. In fact, Scott Wolfson, the commission's deputy director for public affairs says he expects to recall about 450 products this year, about 60% from China - up from less than 50% in previous years.
The majority of these products are made in Southern China’s low-cost manufacturing hub that is notorious for it’s lax regulations. Why is it, that since we know where the problem with lax regulation is, the Chinese government isn’t doing something about it?
Or, maybe they are. To give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, that region has grown very rapidly in the past few years due to U.S. companies leaving the U.S. behind so they can take advantage of a cheaper labor force. In China, they don’t have to bother themselves with such ‘burdens’ as health care, social security, and workers compensation. Side note: if the U.S. had redirected the over one trillion dollars it has wasted to support the war in Iraq toward a better healthcare system and a better funded Social Security system and a better funded Workers Compensation program then these American corporations would still be in the U.S. spending their profits to pay American workers instead of foreign workers.
But, I digress. We will assume, until we have proof otherwise, that because the manufacturing region in South China has grown so fast that China has not had the time to create quality-control inspectors to ensure our safety. They have the incentive to do so. I know they are serious about product safety because they recently executed the head of their equivalent of out FDA for taking bribes. If only justice could be meted out that quickly here in the U.S. we would be infinitely better off in so many ways.
China needs to put safeguards in place quickly, and American companies in China need to be more vigilant about our safety, because the American public is, or will soon be, fed up with not being able to trust China-made products. Since, it seems, they are being ‘forced down our throats’ we better get used to the idea that China is going to be our biggest source of damn near everything. The first line of defense in preventing unsafe products from reaching our shores should rest with the companies producing those products. And the cost should be absorbed by them.
The second line of defense rests, now as it always has, with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, it is impossible to test all products coming into the country, especially considering the size of this regulatory agency. The commission has about 400 full-time employees, an amount some lawmakers say needs to be boosted. I agree and, again, if we wasn’t spending so damn much money on Iraq the commission could have more full-time employees to protect our citizens.
The FDA has a similar difficulty, in that it tests less than 1% of all imports, down from 1.5% in 1997. Here is another place where some of that money going to the pentagon could be spent where it would do more good.
So, you see, we never have had a history of inspecting 100% of all imports. To think we ever could would be fantasy. China has to step up and take responsibility for what they claim as coming from their country and the American companies that do business there need to work with the Chinese government to ensure that it happens.
For those of you who are interested, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web site lists trinkets, toys and other products recalled because of dangerous lead content or other safety violations. The FDA has a similar recall page on its Web site, or you can visit www.recalls.gov for a compilation of government agencies recalling products.
We have had a wide range of products recalled due to inferior quality that could result in injury or death to U.S. citizens. Contaminated pet food, faulty automobile tires, cancer-causing chemically-laden fish, toothpaste laced with chemicals and lead-laden toys have all been recently found coming from China. The scariest part is that these products were only discovered after they had reached the U.S. and most were already for sale to consumers.
Why don’t I hear more of an uproar about this problem?
There needs to be more oversight and inspection of these products before they reach our shore. One would think that given the fact that these items have been sent back (they have been sent back, right?) that China would do something more to ensure these problems are not repeated.
I understand that some of these products are made by U.S. companies that have either moved from the U.S. or have simply outsourced their production seeking cheaper labor costs. It is bad enough that these companies have forsaken the U.S. worker in order to save themselves money so they can realize a larger profit margin, but to completely disregard their fellow Americans health and safety to earn a buck is the height of greediness.
These companies need to be identified and their products boycotted.
In almost every situation in life when some crime or under-handed action is learned of it turns out to be only the tip of the iceberg. And with the limited resources available to organizations like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, who is responsible for recalling inferior and unsafe products, you can bet their hands are full. In fact, Scott Wolfson, the commission's deputy director for public affairs says he expects to recall about 450 products this year, about 60% from China - up from less than 50% in previous years.
The majority of these products are made in Southern China’s low-cost manufacturing hub that is notorious for it’s lax regulations. Why is it, that since we know where the problem with lax regulation is, the Chinese government isn’t doing something about it?
Or, maybe they are. To give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, that region has grown very rapidly in the past few years due to U.S. companies leaving the U.S. behind so they can take advantage of a cheaper labor force. In China, they don’t have to bother themselves with such ‘burdens’ as health care, social security, and workers compensation. Side note: if the U.S. had redirected the over one trillion dollars it has wasted to support the war in Iraq toward a better healthcare system and a better funded Social Security system and a better funded Workers Compensation program then these American corporations would still be in the U.S. spending their profits to pay American workers instead of foreign workers.
But, I digress. We will assume, until we have proof otherwise, that because the manufacturing region in South China has grown so fast that China has not had the time to create quality-control inspectors to ensure our safety. They have the incentive to do so. I know they are serious about product safety because they recently executed the head of their equivalent of out FDA for taking bribes. If only justice could be meted out that quickly here in the U.S. we would be infinitely better off in so many ways.
China needs to put safeguards in place quickly, and American companies in China need to be more vigilant about our safety, because the American public is, or will soon be, fed up with not being able to trust China-made products. Since, it seems, they are being ‘forced down our throats’ we better get used to the idea that China is going to be our biggest source of damn near everything. The first line of defense in preventing unsafe products from reaching our shores should rest with the companies producing those products. And the cost should be absorbed by them.
The second line of defense rests, now as it always has, with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, it is impossible to test all products coming into the country, especially considering the size of this regulatory agency. The commission has about 400 full-time employees, an amount some lawmakers say needs to be boosted. I agree and, again, if we wasn’t spending so damn much money on Iraq the commission could have more full-time employees to protect our citizens.
The FDA has a similar difficulty, in that it tests less than 1% of all imports, down from 1.5% in 1997. Here is another place where some of that money going to the pentagon could be spent where it would do more good.
So, you see, we never have had a history of inspecting 100% of all imports. To think we ever could would be fantasy. China has to step up and take responsibility for what they claim as coming from their country and the American companies that do business there need to work with the Chinese government to ensure that it happens.
For those of you who are interested, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web site lists trinkets, toys and other products recalled because of dangerous lead content or other safety violations. The FDA has a similar recall page on its Web site, or you can visit www.recalls.gov for a compilation of government agencies recalling products.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Robbing the poor to pay the rich
Yet another tale of a politician in the position to misuse taxpayers dollars, and guess what? He gets away with it again.
This time Representative (what a misnomer) Jerry R. Lewis is ‘appropriating’ $500,000 in taxpayer money to ‘beautify’ a park in an area that already has much more money than a vast majority of small towns across this nation.
Why does he think that money is better spent on a park in a ritzy neighborhood than say in a working class neighborhood where people are struggling to make ends meet while trying to keep their kids off drugs and trying to keep their kids in school so they can make something of themselves? You don’t have to look very far to learn the answer to this question. He owns a house just three blocks away from this ‘privileged’ park. Of course, he says that has nothing to do with why he would rather spend the money there than to help the poor taxpayer who provided the money.
How about allocating that money for larger police forces to patrol our nations highways to cut down on traffic lawbreakers and maybe save some lives?
How about allocating that money to research for cancer and other healthcare issues again to help save lives?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers to educate families on how to raise children so we can produce better well-adjusted adults?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers through the education system to pay for better teachers so we can increase our collective intelligence in this country?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers to help reduce the cost of health insurance?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers to help hard-working single parents pay for daycare?
How about not legally stealing that money for your personal use. Lets face ‘Representative’ Lewis, you are going to benefit from this expenditure and you know it.
In this age of ‘pet projects’ and ‘me first’ he is just doing what it seems every congressman is doing, simply grabbing a piece of that huge golden egg called taxpayer money. He is simply playing the game as it is played in Washington. He is engaged in a race to grab as much as he can, just as everyone else is.
I personally think that if there is enough money to fund wasteful projects such as this then maybe we are paying too much in taxes.
I also believe that since it is common practice to seek out money for pet projects then maybe we should replace the people who are 'grabbing' this money for themselves.
This time Representative (what a misnomer) Jerry R. Lewis is ‘appropriating’ $500,000 in taxpayer money to ‘beautify’ a park in an area that already has much more money than a vast majority of small towns across this nation.
Why does he think that money is better spent on a park in a ritzy neighborhood than say in a working class neighborhood where people are struggling to make ends meet while trying to keep their kids off drugs and trying to keep their kids in school so they can make something of themselves? You don’t have to look very far to learn the answer to this question. He owns a house just three blocks away from this ‘privileged’ park. Of course, he says that has nothing to do with why he would rather spend the money there than to help the poor taxpayer who provided the money.
How about allocating that money for larger police forces to patrol our nations highways to cut down on traffic lawbreakers and maybe save some lives?
How about allocating that money to research for cancer and other healthcare issues again to help save lives?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers to educate families on how to raise children so we can produce better well-adjusted adults?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers through the education system to pay for better teachers so we can increase our collective intelligence in this country?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers to help reduce the cost of health insurance?
How about allocating that money back to the taxpayers to help hard-working single parents pay for daycare?
How about not legally stealing that money for your personal use. Lets face ‘Representative’ Lewis, you are going to benefit from this expenditure and you know it.
In this age of ‘pet projects’ and ‘me first’ he is just doing what it seems every congressman is doing, simply grabbing a piece of that huge golden egg called taxpayer money. He is simply playing the game as it is played in Washington. He is engaged in a race to grab as much as he can, just as everyone else is.
I personally think that if there is enough money to fund wasteful projects such as this then maybe we are paying too much in taxes.
I also believe that since it is common practice to seek out money for pet projects then maybe we should replace the people who are 'grabbing' this money for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)