The Independent Voice

Posted By admin on December 20, 2009

I do not consider myself an environmentalist at least not in the sense of a torch bearing gun-toting advocate. Nevertheless, not to perceive that we humans are detrimentally affecting the environment is blind stubbornness.

You need only look at the smoke stacks emitting their billows of thick chalk colored smoke.  Drive down a freeway with your windows rolled down and gag from the fumes. Look at the millions of acres stripped naked of their natural growth like a boot camp haircut.

If you cannot give this observation any credibility, then you do not stop to smell the roses.

Is this affecting the melting of our glaciers and the warming of our poles? Scientists cannot agree.

I know that we are the masters of the earth. Masters charged with the command to subdue Mother Earth and to have dominion over it and its kingdom.

I do not think that command implies desecration. It implies responsibility. What ruler that plunders and rapes is respected by his subjects? Fear and force will triumph for only so long before revolution festers and overthrows.

You may argue that there is a difference. You may argue that a soul that rules over another in discord and malevolence is different from dominion over the inanimate.

Mother earth has a soul. It may not be a soul defined by religion, but it has a soul, an essence. Look at Nature all around you. Can it be denied that Mother Earth lives? I think not.

Have we not become parasites that gnaw at the surface and devour the bowels of this living creature we call home? We need its resources to survive. Must we devour it to satisfy those needs? We take from the bowels of earth. What have we done to replace what we have removed?

A wise man saves a few kernels of corn to plant and grow food for another day.

I am for individual freedom and for our capitalistic way of life. But, with that freedom comes responsibility. How do we hold ourselves responsible without strangling individuality? Unfortunately, only binding treaties and more laws can stymie the plunder of our planet. We can’t do it on our own.

What do you think?

Bookmark It

Category: Environment | No Comments »
Tags: climate change, Environment, environmentalist, glaciers, melting, poles

Posted By admin on December 7, 2009

One of our local TV stations regularly does a health care bit as a community service. This one was particularly interesting.

Did you know that a very high percentage of children are poisoned by medications. In my state it’s about 45%.  That is a very high percentage.  There ought to be a law.

Well there is. There are child safe medicine bottles. You know the kind. I often have trouble opening them, but then I am way over sixty and sometimes I can’t get a grip on the caps.  I just cannot get them open.

In 1982 the Federal Food and Drug Administrarion (FDA) passed their Tamper-resistant Packaging Regulations to prevent poisonings. That was a long time ago.

You have to ask why then are so many children still poisoned by medicinal drugs? One suggestion is that parents and grandparents leave the bottles open because they too have difficulty getting them open. Consequently, inquistive little tots get to them.

That might be a good explanation. Here is another, remember that TV show I mentioned at the beginning? Well, it turns out a bunch of kindergartners were given empty tamper-resistant bottles to open. The game was to see how fast and if they could open them.

What do you think happened? Yep, the bottles were opened. Some were opened in less than a minute! I checked around and found that throughout the country the results are the same.

This begs the question, are our children any safer now than they were before 1982? I doubt it. Ultimately, it is the adults’ responsibilty to keep children out of harm’s way.

All this raises another question, who paid for this? Who has paid for the salaries of the enforcers, the bureaucrats, the designers, engineers, and the maufacturers of the tamper-resistant bottle caps? Can you guess? Yes, you are right again. You and I.

If there were a proven benefit, then maybe it would have been worth it . There hasn’t been.

Just another law by those who know better than you do,what is best for your welfare.

Am I right?

Bookmark It

Category: Law | No Comments »
Tags: child, FDA, Law, medications, poison, tamper-resistant

Posted By admin on December 6, 2009

Admin: It is not often that one finds a citizen concerned enough to actually read what Congress is attempting to impose on its people. Dr. Stephen E. Fraser wrote a letter to Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) about his concerns regarding the House health reform bill.

 We have included the letter in its entirety. Dr. Fraser cites his concerns line by line. Unfortunately, the time spent reviewing and analyzing this document may have been wasted in that the Bill Dr. Fraser refers to, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’, is no longer the Bill being considered.

Nevertheless, it is our duty felt obligation to applaud Dr. Fraser for his efforts and to publish that effort.

If you wish to follow along with his review, we have included the link to the document that Dr. Fraser’s letter refers to: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf. 

The Senate version of the Bill sponsored by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) can be found at this link: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s4/show.

 We have verified that there exits a Dr. Stephen E. Fraser that resides and has a medical practice in Indianapolis, IN.  We have not attempted to contact him. We post this letter under the assumption that it is an open letter and not subject to copywrite.

 The letter follows:

 Senator Bayh, 
   
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed. 
   
I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens. 
 
Page 22 of the HC Bill:  Mandates that the Govt. will audit books of all employers that self-insure!! 
 
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill:   THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get. 
 
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
 
Page 42 of HC Bill:  The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice! 
 
 Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise. 
 
Page 58 HC Bill:  Govt. will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a ‘National ID Health card’ will be issued! 
   
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24:  Govt. will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. 
   
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN). 
 
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt. mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ’Exchange.’ 
   
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill:  Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans –The Govt. will ration your health care! 
  (more…)

Bookmark It

Category: Health Reform | No Comments »
Tags: congress, Health Reform, insurance

Posted By Walt on December 1, 2009

Senator Udall,

First, thank you for championing the interests of your constituents and those of us outside of Colorado as well.

And, second, thank you again; now here comes the “but” part.

After you have protected us from usurious lenders who can do pretty much what they want, consider why you even have to go to bat for us for such blatant and egregious acts of greed. Instead of looking upon us as relatively helpless pawns in an astronomically huge commercial mugging of the American consumer, afford us the respect of being moderately intelligent people who are forced to play in a game that isn’t just stacked against us but that was invented by the banks.

Why do elected officials always go the perpetrators of the problem to get consultation on a solution? The monetary system is not supposed to be in place to accommodate the institutions that implement it. It’s supposed to work for the American people.

(Yes, our nation was founded by white, male, landed gentry and, in fact, their first mission was to benefit their own mercantile class. But like yourself, they got off to a good start. Others have improved on their first draft. It’s up to us to provide the still needed embellishments.)

Why not rewrite the rules for us? Because the banks would just scoff and threaten to not loan anybody anything? Do your really think so? For how long? Once the new rules of the game are applied nationally, i.e., they can’t just freeze out markets on a state-by-state basis, and are accepted as the new, permanent way of doing business, all the players will do just that – do business and resume playing to benefit themselves as much as possible. But because the new rules are written to put us on equal footing, maybe we won’t be treated with disdain anymore or lose quite nearly as often.

We aren’t naive. This would take a lot of political stock. You and some of your congressional allies might lose an election here and there in the process. It would take courage and intelligence. The bill would have to be carefully crafted. I’d be glad to help do that.

Credit is not something that people can chose to opt out of these days. I offered to rent a car for my nephew a couple weeks ago. I thought I’d pay for it in cash. The rental company would take only a credit card – no checks and no cash! I used my credit card because I have one. Some people don’t. Credit ratings, late charges, and interest rates are used to financially bludgeon people. Remember when you couldn’t pay ahead on your credit card to make sure you wouldn’t miss a payment? Why was that? Because they wanted to give you a narrow enough window that you couldn’t help but miss one sooner or later.

Banks keep records on our financial behavior and punish us when we stray out of bounds. They all share this information via credit bureaus, etc., so that they know who among us is not quite as quick with the checkbook or as punctual with the calendar. Banks make errors all the time. Even worse, they do some bad things on purpose. (Ask me about Key Bank.) But who keeps track of their transgressions? Where is their rating as a credit lender kept? And what would really happen if they got a low score? We deserve to be able to monitor and hold accountable the banks just as they get to scrutinize our transactions. If a bank racks up enough demerits they could be constrained from charging interest above a certain rate. We would need an Office of the Financial Ombudsman to investigate consumer as well as institutional complaints and to mediate and arbitrate remedies.

Please don’t continue to ask the banks and insurance companies and all the other corporate predators how you can help them to better manage us. Write the rules for us so we can stop looking so stupid. It hurts to get taken advantage of, but it hurts a lot more when the con men get to act like you didn’t know any better. We know better. All we need is a rule-maker with guts. Is that you by any chance?

Thank you again, Senator. You’re headed in the right direction. Let me know if I can help. By the way, where do my two Senators, Cantwell and Murray, stand? Are they with you? I’ll be glad to call them if they need encouragement.

Sincerely.

Walter R. Jorgensen
former City Councilmember, Tumwater, WA

Bookmark It

Category: Banking | 1 Comment »
Tags: Banking, credit cards, Udall

Posted By admin on November 23, 2009

I suspect you have an answer to this question- “Is America a Democracy?” I further suspect that you have answered in the affirmative. Well you are, unfortunately, WRONG.

The United States of America is a Republic. That is right. I said a republic, not a democracy. The media, politicians, bureaucrats, and all of us have mistakenly labeled our country a democracy. A democracy is not synonymous with a republic. Let me repeat, we are a republic, not a democracy. There is big difference.

A democracy is a nation ruled by majority. A republic is a nation ruled by law. You may ask. What is wrong with being a democracy? Allow me to explain with an example.

Let us assume a community of people. We will also assume that there is a rapist or murderer among them. Someone of the community names and identifies a suspect.  Fearing for his well-being, the suspect runs away. A group of people set out to find him and they capture him.

In the heat of emotion and because the crime was so horrendous, the group decides that justice must be served there and then. They take a show of hands. Most agree that he deserves swift and just punishment. The majority decides to punish the suspect.

I hesitate to call this group a mob. They are God-fearing, rational people. They are convinced of the suspect’s guilt. The majority believe in his guilt. So, majority rules. That is a democracy.

Luckily, for the suspect the police chief arrives and says, “Stop! You cannot take the law into your own hands. This man must be judged by the rule of law. He must be tried before a jury of his peers.”

Not only must the suspect be tried before a jury of his peers, but also the jury’s verdict must be unanimous. In a republic, the rule is by law not by a majority’s consensus.

Are you living in a democracy or a republic? You get to choose.

There are those that will argue that a movement like Civil Rights is proof of democracy in action. Wrong, again.

The Civil Rights movement and subsequent enacted laws did nothing but follow the rule of law, our Constitution, the law of the land. It guarantees equal rights before the law. At the time, that was something that was not recognized.

You and I know that some of the signers of the Constitution were slave owners. But, by design or by forgetfulness the Constitution harbors no allusion to the superiority of one individual over another. If such language did exist, it was wisely omitted or discarded.

Politicians love democracies because they need only appease the majority. If politicians governed by the rule of law, some would agree and some would disagree, but all would know that the rule of law protects their rights.

Are your rights protected? The Constitution is no more than an expansion of the Golden Rule. Are you following the Golden Rule?

Bookmark It

Category: Politics | No Comments »
Tags: congress, Constitution, democracy, republic

Posted By admin on November 22, 2009

I have a question, just how many of our Senators and Representatives do you think have actually read the Health Reform Act? Yes, I think you are right.

Not very many.

Regardless, it seems to me that it is not within Congress’ authority (House or Senate) to dictate to any citizen whether an individual must carry health insurance. How about you? How do you feel about it?

It is like the automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. In my naive way of thinking, I cannot accept being fined for not wearing my seatbelt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seatbelt will hurt any one else.

So then, this law, the seatbelt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by “do gooders” for my own good. Whatever happened to my unalienable rights? I realize that those unalienable rights are not part of the Constitution but they are words on which this nation was founded (The Declaration of Independence).

There are some that would argue that enacting a mandatory Public Health Policy requiring health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional prerogative or right and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree. Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation.

However, it is not their prerogative, duty or right to dictate the general welfare. Promoting and dictating are two distinct words with completely different meanings.

Any law that would require a citizen to insure himself for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is enforcement, not a suggestion.

Do not confuse the likes of auto liability insurance, which is an enforced law in most of the country, with a required health insurance mandate.

Liability insurance protects you from the consequences of someone else’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Liability insurance protects you from someone else’s negligence not your own.

Requiring liability insurance is promoting the general welfare. That mandate protects you from others. Health insurance protects you for you. It does not protect you from someone else.

Requiring me or anyone else to have medical insurance under penalty of prosecution is just plain wrong.

Bookmark It

Category: Health Reform | No Comments »
Tags: congress, Constitution, Health Reform, insurance, Law