It’s critical to correctly assign responsibility and accountability

Commentary by James Shott

In a matter of minutes on December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza killed 26 people – 20 of them school children – at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. This horrific act was the work of a crazed 20 year-old. Lanza killed his mother, took her gun and headed off to Sandy Hook school. After killing 26 innocent people, he killed himself.

At the time, and still today, people blame the weapon Lanza’s mother had legally purchased instead of the mentally ill shooter, or his mother who ignored years of warnings about his psychiatric anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The school system also ignored signs of mental problems, according to The New York Times, which reported on findings that resulted from a mandate for the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate to “conduct investigations of child fatalities and issue public reports with the particular focus on preventing future child deaths.”

The Times noted “the report faulted the school system for not doing a better job of monitoring Mr. Lanza’s progress, educationally and emotionally, each time he was allowed to receive his education in a ‘homebound’ environment because of difficulties he had in social settings.”

But those who had the responsibility to act to protect the public from this dangerously mentally ill person – Lanza’s now-dead mother and the school system – are not the targets of a wrongful-death lawsuit. Instead the plaintiffs have targeted the manufacturer, the distributer and the seller of the legal weapon the mentally ill Lanza used to kill and injure.

The plaintiffs whose lawsuit targets these businesses are the families of nine of the victims and one survivor of the Sandy Hook attack, who understandably are still desperately trying to cope with having their world turned upside-down. A lawsuit filed on their behalf asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle Lanza used, described as “military style” in The Times story, should have never been available for purchase by civilians.

A motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the companies involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of the rifle was denied by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, who rejected the gun companies' position that gun businesses are protected from civil lawsuits by a 2005 federal law that protects against lawsuits for criminal acts committed with their products.

The case against the manufacturer of the rifle, Remington Arms Co., firearms distributor Camfour Inc., and the now-defunct Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Conn., that sold Lanza's mother the rifle two years prior to the Sandy Hook shooting, will go forward with a court session scheduled for this week.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “[a]ttorneys for the family are pursuing a claim under an exception of the federal law known as a negligent-entrustment claim. Under such a claim, a seller can be held liable for supplying a product to a person it reasonably could have known posed a risk to themselves or others.”

This situation raises several questions, among which is how could the manufacturer, the distributer, or the seller know that a mentally ill relative of a potential purchaser would take it from the owner and use it to commit a criminal act?

Another question: If Lanza had used a .38 revolver or 12-guage shotgun, guns that are clearly not designed for military use, would the plaintiffs have brought the case, and if so, would the judge have denied the challenge and allowed the case to go forward?

Like a handgun or a shotgun, the AR-15 is not restricted for sale to the public by law. So it is merely the opinion of the plaintiffs that it should not be available for purchase by the public.

If instead of using a gun Lanza had driven a vehicle into a group of children waiting for a school bus, would the plaintiffs have sued the vehicle manufacturer and the car dealer? What if he had used a knife, or a bomb in a pressure cooker or a soft-drink can? Would there be any legal action?

If this lawsuit ends with one or more of the defendants being found liable, the door will be opened for dozens or hundreds of similar legal actions targeting not the perpetrator of a crime, but manufactures, distributors, or sellers being held responsible for criminal activity they had nothing to do with. If manufacturers can be held liable for deaths or injuries resulting from the criminal misuse of their legal, non-defective products, how many businesses or entrepreneurs will want to take the risk to make and sell something?

It is a nearly automatic response to have great sympathy for the families of those murdered children and the survivors of Sandy Hook. But sympathy, however great, and the circumstances of the event, however horrible, are not compelling reasons to punish legal businesses for making and selling legal products that were deliberately misused by someone with diagnosed mental health issues, and in this case someone other than the owner of the legal product.

Solving these kinds of problems requires focusing on the actual causes, not in shifting the responsibility to uninvolved third parties. Adam Lanza, his mother and the school system bear sole responsibility for this tragedy.

Cross-posted from Observations

Higher education under attack from within, by disaffected students

College campuses – once the bastion of diverse opinion, a garden where ideas thrived, where contrary viewpoints were freely expressed – are fast becoming cesspools of narrow-mindedness that stifle free speech, where political correctness rules over common sense, where free thinking is discouraged, and they are occupied more and more by students offended because someone expressed a different opinion, didn’t pay proper deference, or wore the “wrong” costume on Halloween.

Student protests are returning to 1960s/70s levels, and arise because some students think that there aren’t enough minority professors on campus while others decry a lack of “social justice,” and some have called for hunger strikes over what they perceive as a lack of support for students of color.

If students don’t like a professor’s point of view, or they detect “microaggressions” in the classroom, they feel led to demand the professor resign or be fired. You are a Hispanic kid and someone wears a sombrero and a poncho on Halloween, it’s time for a protest.

And did you know that the First Amendment makes some college kids feel unsafe? Would you ever have imagined that such an idea could take hold on an American college campus?

The vice president of the Missouri Students Association, Brenda Smith-Lezama, told MSNBC last week, "I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here." Poor little thing must be terrified listening to rap or watching television or movie drama. And she suffers under the delusion that her comfort is more important than someone else’s.

While these kids have yet to accomplish much, they believe the world must work to calm their fears, perceptions that may be adequate to drive protests and hunger strikes, but their perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality. The concerns expressed by these students are precisely the types of things the liberal attitudes that prevail on campuses today work to eliminate.

Many of the complaints have a racial element, but they really center on hypersensitive feelings about things that have always been normal aspects of life. Suddenly, these normal campus happenings that students – white students, black students, Asian and Hispanic students, female students – have dealt with successfully for decades and with little or no difficulty, are now scary and threatening.

College once was a place where kids learned to think. Today, many of them seem to know only how to feel; emotion rules rationality. Listening to different ideas used to be enlightening, mind-expanding. Now, it makes the kiddies cry for their mommies.

Missing from these children-in-adult-bodies is even the suspicion that not everything revolves around them, that they are not the be-all and end-all of the known universe.

And they also want someone to pay their college loans off for them, because … well, just because.

The process of gaining entry to an institution of higher learning is long established and has worked well for decades. Colleges and universities are places where the qualified my go to advance their education, and most of the onus is on the student to fund their education through parental help, scholarship assistance, student loans, the GI Bill, or good old hard work. And then it is the student’s responsibility to perform as expected academically to complete their degree requirements, and then go out and get a job and become a productive member of society.

That is called “life,” and life is not a smooth ride, most times. But tens of millions of Americans have successfully navigated the sometimes-troubled waters successfully without being coddled and nursed along the way. Conquering challenges and facing adversity head-on build character.

The whining behavior demonstrated on several campuses recently shows a fundamental failure of thousands of young people to have learned the basic rules of life, and have their minds grow up at the same rate as their bodies.

However, bowing to the whims of students is letting the inmates run the asylum. College is a place for learning, or once was. Professors led the learning process, administrators ran the school, and the students worked hard and did what they had to do to master the material at a satisfactory level. If students weren’t happy in a particular environment, or couldn’t hack it, they were free to leave. Or they could simply adapt. If that dynamic isn’t restored very soon, we may as well shut down colleges, because they will no longer provide a benefit.

As bad as this is for higher education, it is much worse for America. A generation or two with millions of young people among them who can’t cope with the simplistic problems of going to college surely won’t be able to be good citizens, to hold down jobs in a productive economy, or staff a strong, able military capable of defending the country, or even make sensible decisions about for whom they will vote. They can hardly be expected to weigh complex arguments rationally, when anything that doesn’t agree with their narrow ideas makes them hide under their beds.

This is what liberalism hath wrought, and it will most likely get worse.

When you are self-absorbed, you can’t see the forest for the trees

Commentary by James Shott

Life provides lessons for us in unusual ways. Occasionally, it is someone totally missing something obvious that provides the lesson. Here is a very good example of that.

A photograph posted on Facebook shows a woman holding up a sign. The sign says: “I have a Master of Arts degree in Women’s Studies. However, the only job I can find is as a bartender at a local restaurant. I owe over 60k in student loans. I am forced to rely on food stamps and WIC to support my son. Is this the ‘American Dream’ I worked so hard for? I am the 99 percent occupywallstreet.org.”

The lesson is there for all to see, but the woman – let’s call her “Ms. OWS,” – not only didn’t learn from her experience, she didn’t even suspect there was a lesson there. That experience was only an opportunity to complain that America hasn’t provided a better life for her.
The lesson that unless you are independently wealthy or have someone to support you while you go to school, you don’t borrow 60 grand to pursue a degree in a subject area that will not equip you to support yourself and your child and pay for the education that you have just received totally escaped her notice.

Like the make-believe class college kids used to joke about, “Underwater Basket Weaving,” Women’s Studies, is not a viable career field. To prepare for supporting yourself you study accounting, engineering, computer technology, law, medicine, chemistry, elementary or secondary education, or one of the other majors where jobs are available. But Ms. OWS, probably without a gun to her head, instead chose Women’s Studies.

The Occupy Wall Street movement with which Ms. OWS so closely identifies, includes some pie-in-the-sky idealism, like:
    •    The right to economic justice, including a living wage for all, regardless of the job, or the level of skills or experience one has
    •    Debt forgiveness for all debts
    •    Free college education
    •    Open borders

These goals are not merely unrealistic; they are dangerous. None would be good either for the country or for its inhabitants. Someone has to pay for the higher wages, the free college education, and the debt forgiveness, and that won’t be the people who think about life like Ms. OWS does; it will be the people who approach adulthood responsibly, and prepare to take care of themselves.

Movements like Occupy Wall Street seem to attract those disaffected souls who, for whatever reason, have not learned what life is about, expect to be provided for, and become indignant when life does not provide to them the rewards to which they believe they are entitled, due to nothing more significant that they were not aborted and draw breath.

Like Ms. OWS, they float through life indulging in the things they like, neglecting to seek out things that will prepare them for life as a responsible citizen, and then contributing to society and the wellbeing of our country.

Perhaps it’s not entirely their fault. We have a segment of our society that imagines it is possible to achieve Utopia, and a large group of pandering vote-seekers all too willing to promise it to them, and who provide a few goodies at taxpayer expense in return for votes and a cushy career in government.

And then there’s government, itself, at all levels. Even in cases where young people show some initiative, and take steps to help themselves, they are often thwarted by bureaucratic absurdity, as in these examples reported by The Daily Signal:

** Chloe Stirling started a business in her kitchen called “Hey, Cupcake!” In addition to selling her goods to friends and neighbors, she donated some to charitable events, including a fundraiser for a student with cancer, and delivered cupcakes to residents in a senior home. Not good enough! Illinois health officials declared that she lacked the necessary permit to operate and told her to close up shop.

** A zoning official in Holland, Mich. shut down a 13-year-old’s hotdog stand because he was supposedly competing with nearby restaurants.  Nathan Duszynski had planned to sell hotdogs to raise money for his disabled parents. The boy’s mom has epilepsy and his dad has multiple sclerosis. Within minutes of opening his stand, a zoning official ordered him to cease operating because he lacked a license.

Bah! Humbug!

Is this a great country, or what? On the one hand there’s a substantial number of people who think they are entitled to whatever they think they are entitled to, and lack the motivation to get off their duffs and earn their rewards, and on the other hand people in government stupidly apply rules to punish young people who take the initiative to earn something through work.

But then there was a pleasant breeze of tolerance and common sense wafting its way north from Dunedin, Fla. where 12-year-old T.J. Guerrero operates a lemonade stand to raise money for summer activities with his friends and family. After one neighbor complained to the city, Mayor Dave Eggers visited the stand, enjoyed some lemonade, and praised the youngster’s initiative.

Perhaps all is not lost. But we must be vigilant.


Cross-posted from Observations

Planned Parenthood president thinks when life begins isn’t relevant

Commentary by James Shott

Many of us living today remember when pregnancy was regarded as the beginning of a new life, was usually a welcome and celebrated event, and religious people often viewed pregnancy as a gift from God. There were baby showers where the mother was treated to gifts for use after the birth of her child, and a positive air about the “blessed event.”

Abortion was considered taboo by society and was illegal, and because of the social and legal strictures, it was rare. As a result, abortions were usually performed in secret by the woman or by some shady character. It was dangerous to the mother because of the unsanitary “back alley” conditions of the procedure. A physician rarely performed an abortion, unless the life of the mother was at stake, or some other unusual situation required it.

Back then, people accepted responsibility for their behavior and took great care to prevent pregnancy until they were ready for parenthood. In those comparatively rare times when an unwanted pregnancy occurred, the man and the woman most often became parents, or perhaps the mother gave the baby up for adoption. Unwed mothers were a rarity.

Through the decades unintended and unwanted pregnancies have increased from rare episodes of bad luck and careless behavior to epidemic proportions, and instead of being seen as a reason to make changes to accommodate the new life that had been created, unwanted pregnancy is viewed today as an intrusion on the woman’s freedom, an inconvenience that demands relief, not so different from a headache or a cold. And to accommodate many women’s preference not to have the baby they have created, abortion has evolved from a rare thing to a routine procedure performed thousands of times each year. Now, many view a woman deciding to end the life of the child developing inside her as a right she may exercise as freely as the right to speak her mind.

Today, half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about 40 percent are terminated by abortion. Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, end in abortion.

In 1981, world-renowned scientists and physicians testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that life begins at conception, which was the traditional view through the centuries. However, the question of when life begins is now being questioned by abortion advocates, and knowing the exact instant that life begins after conception and before the birth of a child is an important, if difficult to identify, piece of data to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.

However, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards thinks when life begins is not important.

Appearing on Fusion TV's America with Jorge Ramos, she was asked, “For you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”

“This is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries,” she said.

“But for you, what's that point?” Ramos asked.

"It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation,” she said. “I think every woman needs to make her own decision,” she finally said.

"But why would it be so controversial for you to say when do you think life starts?" Ramos pressed.

"I don't know that it's controversial. I don't know that it's really relevant to the conversation," she replied.

“I'm the mother of three children,” she finally said. “For me, life began when I delivered them,” adding that her children have “probably” been the most important thing in her life since their birth.

“But that was my own personal, that's my own personal decision,” she said.

The abortion industry certainly does not want to know the absolute point at which life begins, because then it would be clear that aborting a fetus is at some point killing a child. That would not be a good thing for those who perform abortions for money, for organizations like Planned Parenthood that get federal money for advising women on unwanted pregnancies, or for those who think women should have a right to end an inconvenient pregnancy at anytime.

From this less strict attitude about when life begins all sorts of horrors might evolve. And they have.

For example, some Planned Parenthood officials have gone so far as to advocate infanticide, giving women the right to end their child’s life after it has been born.

And only a little further down that slippery slope are the preposterous acts of Kermit Gosnell, the disgraced and imprisoned former physician who was in the habit of ending the lives of babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive his efforts to abort them by clipping their spinal cords after they were born alive. He is in prison for life after being convicted of murdering three babies.

An interesting sidebar to this story is that the baby-killer managed to spare himself a death sentence when he waived his right to appeal in return for a life sentence, an option millions of aborted babies never had.

It must be pointed out that all of those who support the unfettered right for women to abort their babies have already been born.


Cross-posted from Observations

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion is still a national disgrace

Commentary by James Shott

An abortion-related event occurred last week, and if you were paying close attention to the news, you might have been aware of that. Hundreds of thousands of abortion opponents gathered in Washington, DC for the “March for Life,” protesting the grisly process that has terminated about 55 million future Americans in the womb since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

It wasn’t easy to find news accounts of this event. The Media Research Center reports, “the broadcast networks combined devoted a total of just 46 seconds to the March. ABC offered 24 seconds and NBC gave it 22 seconds, correctly noting the ‘huge turnout’ despite brutal weather conditions. CBS didn’t bother to cover it at all.”

This coverage totaled about 18 percent of the coverage the birth of a panda cub at National Zoo received a few days earlier. In the eyes of our dedicated network news people, one new panda is six times more important than 55 million aborted potential children, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who braved the cold to make their position known.

This helps confirm the long-held idea that we do not have a news media that furnishes the public with what it needs, but instead provides what it wants the public to know.

A fact sheet published by the Guttmacher Institute tells us that at least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45. Given that the cause of pregnancy is not a medical mystery, that is a shocking statistic.

Web4Health explains that sex without contraceptives carries an 85 percent likelihood of pregnancy, and if the most effective contraceptive methods are used properly, the chance of pregnancy drops to eight percent or less, but abstaining from sexual intercourse has a zero percent pregnancy rate, except for in vitro fertilization.

According to Guttmacher, fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76 percent of pill users and 49 percent of condom users report having used their method inconsistently. Forty-six percent of women who had abortions used no contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

Other factors contribute to unwanted pregnancy. Some men and women are uneducated about how to have responsible sex, and contraceptives can be expensive for some.

Abortion was, in fact, the solution for more than a million women who got pregnant unintentionally last year. But as long as abortions are an easy corrective for bad luck, carelessness or bad judgment, it seems unlikely that more responsible use of contraceptives will occur.

The problem with abortion is that at some point in the pregnancy the fetus will have developed enough to be justifiably considered a human being. That point may or may not be the same point as when the fetus can survive outside the womb, but whenever that point occurs and afterward, abortion is murder. The debate goes on over just when the fetus reaches that point.

It is commonly accepted that at 20 weeks the fetus can feel pain during an abortion, and at least one researcher believes that as early as eight weeks after conception the neural structures needed to detect certain stimuli are in place. As science progresses more and more becomes known about fetal development, pushing backward toward conception the point at which the fetus is a person.

Be that as it may, it is absolutely scandalous that in America in the 21st century so many women get pregnant who don’t want to, and that so many of them choose to abort the developing life inside them.

It ought to be a point of humiliation that the great majority of unwanted pregnancies result from carelessness or negligence in the use of contraceptives, or not using contraceptives at all.

A major provider of abortions is Planned Parenthood for America, and it receives more than $500 million each year in taxpayer funds to deliver “vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” according to its Website, “the key program [of which] provides essential health care to women, the Title X Family Planning Program.”

Planned Parenthood provided 360,000 abortions in 2013. Providing abortions to women who are pregnant and don’t want to be is not planning for parenthood.

There are couples all across this nation who cannot conceive a child and would gladly adopt an unwanted child given up for adoption. Perhaps Planned Parenthood could shift its focus from abortion to adoption, and nurture women through their unwanted pregnancy to an end that both honors life and helps those who want children, but can’t have their own.

How many great writers, scientists, artists, inventers, athletes, etc., have been summarily snuffed out before they got started?

A young pregnant wife was hospitalized for a simple attack of appendicitis and had ice applied tfso her stomach. Afterward, doctors suggested that she abort the child, because the baby would be born with disabilities. The young wife decided not to abort, and the child was born. That woman was the mother of Andrea Bocelli.

Cross-posted from Observations

The Low-Information Voter’s Guide to Politics

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

by Oleg Atbashian

Are you typically lost when co-workers discuss current events around the water cooler? Do you have trouble figuring out the national debt or who that Ben Ghazi dude is, but you know what’s on Kim Kardashian’s grocery list?

If you think you only deserve fun answers to all life’s questions … you’re right! This primer will help you look smart and morally superior in any political discussion. Just memorize these big words, explained in easy terms you already know from TMZ and The Daily Show:

BIASED: If you have a weird friend who goes to church and her parents are still married, that’s what they are.

ELECTIONS: These are like the Teen Choice Awards: the coolest and most popular wins. Democrats always win because they are cool and popular. Republicans are more like your weird friend’s parents.

DEBT CEILING: This is like Lindsay Lohan’s probation: by law, she should go to jail if she gets arrested, but we all know she won’t.

PUBLIC EDUCATION. Think Memento. Remember how the guy in the movie learned to go through life and fight enemies by relying on snapshots, notes, and tattoos? Public education does that on a national level as a free service.

IM-MI-GRA-TION: Whew, that’s a long word — just like that velvet rope outside nightclubs. When really fun people arrive, you just open it right up.

QUAN-TI-TA-TIVE EASING: Remember Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can, and how he printed his own checks? Well, that’s what the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, does. It’s really cool.

TRILLION DOLLARS: This is a silly number. If someone says: “The U.S. national debt has topped 16 trillion,” take it easy. Remember how Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to fifteen life terms while having only one life?

Once you owe more than you can pay, numbers stop making sense. Anything above that is free money; spend it fast so you can get more.

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: It’s like Whitney Houston upping her dosage to get the same high, always needing to use more and more to “chase the dragon.”

SE-QUE-STRA-TION: This is just a made-up word that Republicans say to make you feel stupid.

FAIR SHARE: Someone you know has three Louis Vuitton handbags and you only have one. As many as you can get somebody else to steal from them and give to you — that is your fair share.

ENTITLEMENTS: This is like celebrities getting a $30,000 bag of goodies for showing up to the Oscars, so that the givers get more street cred and respect. And votes.

FOREIGN POLICY: Think Lady Gaga’s world tour: it’s totally awesome but can also get weird — like, she’s hot in places like Europe and Japan, but gets booed and canceled in places like Indonesia.

IRAN: Think Robert Downey Jr. — he may be calm at the moment, but if he gets his hands on the wrong stuff, he could trash his neighbor’s house and pass out naked on the lawn.

MUSLIMS: These are like the blue people from the movie Avatar — they live in a magic tree and don’t need human technology or any of our laws like gravitation, because they have a miraculous energy source inside their planet. Humans must respect that, and send them humanitarian aid. But instead, an evil corporation from Earth brings drilling equipment; that’s why all humans get killed.

ISRAEL: This is like the evil corporation from Avatar that landed on the blue people’s planet.

OIL: Think magic energy source on planet Pandora that humans want to steal. Get over it, humans!

OCCUPY WALL STREET: People in this movement are fighting greed by forcing Michael Douglas’ character in Wall Street to give more money to the 99% of people like us. We need to support their stand against corporations by friending them on Facebook™ and re-Tweeting them on Twitter™.

MEDIA: The good media are like paparazzi and E! Entertainment who keep it real by telling us all the truth about interesting people. The bad media are like bullies who make good people look bad. Nobody listens to them except for your friend’s weird parents.

HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES: These do not contain expensive perfume samples that you can rip out while waiting at your hair salon. See GUN CONTROL.

GUN CONTROL: If Naomi Campbell had a gun, she would be shooting at her maids all the time. Without a gun she just beats them with a cell phone and then gives them compensation. Everyone is alive and happy. As long as the government keeps guns away from the citizens, Rihanna and Chris Brown will always be together.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Think Brad Pitt, dashing A-lister who can’t do anything wrong.

FIRST LADY: She is like Kim Kardashian, only with other people’s money.

VICE PRESIDENT: Think Steve Carell, a lovable nincompoop who likes to make others laugh.

WHITE HOUSE: This is like Cribs, a really fancy pad where celebrities hang out and party instead of working.

MIDDLE CLASS: These are like the extras in movies — kind of important but nobody cares who they really are.

CON-STI-TU-TION: It sounds almost like Cosmopolitan, except it’s really old and has no make-up ads or sexy pictures, but some people are really into it, like Antiques Roadshow.

What about personal responsibility?

Originally posted at Right Truth

Governments now want to decide what we can eat, drink, read, watch, and probably soon, what we can wear. I want to know whatever happened to personal responsibility? It's not the government's place to decide these things for us, or for our children.

Take Connor McCreaddie, an 8 year old who weighs 99kg (217.8 pounds) and lives in London. The government has met with his parents to discuss his weight and what should be done about it. The government will make a decision 'on whether to take the boy away from his mother'. I wondered how long it would take for this to come to the United States. I heard on Fox News about a young girl in the same situation as Connor McDreaddie, but I can't find a source to back it up.

Yesterday I heard about efforts to ban Girl Scout Cookies.

The Milburn-based organization National Action Against Obesity called for a boycott this year, claiming Do-Si-Dos and Samoas are contributing to the country's obesity epidemic.

"Using young girls as a front to push millions of cookies onto an already bloated population further exacerbates an alarming crisis, no matter how cute the uniforms are," says NAAO President MeMe Roth in a press release. (Courier Post Online)

Good grief Charlie Brown. What are these people thinking. One site offers advice on how to consume Girl Scout Cookies 'moderately'. Girl Scouts is an excellent organization for girls, teaching them life skills and the cookie drive is considered a valuable "business leadership model for girls".

Some restaurants and fast food places have negative images now because some of their food contains trans-fats and you might gain weight if you eat too much. Should the government be telling restaurants what they can and can't serve to the public? Shouldn't the public have the right to choose?

In the United States of America you can 'choose' to kill an unborn baby, but you can't 'choose' to eat something greasy if you want?

I think parents should have the right to educate, feed, clothe, entertain their children without the government butting in. Just my opinion.

Yes there are health issues, the cost of health insurance, etc. But I think the government is getting way too big for it's britches.

If one can describe the state of politics in the United States as encompassing one single theme, it would be theme of government intervention into the lives of its citizens. The debate has raged since the fiery genesis of this great experiment in self-government, it has been defined as the engine that drove the country to civil war, and it is a debate still raging. The irony, of course, is that today’s debate has turned topsy-turvy. Those who traditionally fought against government intrusion into their personal lives are now at the forefront of the movement defending that very intrusion, ... (American Chronicle)

What say you?

Terrorism Preparedness Costs

Originally posted at Right Truth

Terrorism preparedness isn't cheep. It takes loads of money, lots of people, and practice. Securing our country isn't just the job of Homeland Security. Every agency, business, community and individual in the United States must do their part. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gives states about $1 billion a year to prepare for a bioterrorism attack or other health disaster by improving their laboratories, hiring staff and buying critical equipment. The problem is states are not using the money.

... according to a report by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More than $157 million —- nearly 16 percent of the amount awarded —- wasn't used during the program year ending Aug. 30, 2005, ... The health department upgrades funded by the CDC program are considered crucial to the nation's security, ... CDC has awarded about $4 billion to health departments, most of it since 2002 ...

If we are not using the money, American citizens need to know how much their state has been allocated, why some of those funds are not being used, and how they can best use funds available to them. 'To read the inspector general's report, which includes details on each health department's unspent balances, for 2004 and 2005, go to: oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region5/50500031.pdf'

John D. Negroponte, says the "complex and demanding" process of restructuring the U.S. intelligence community is still "a work in progress" after 22 months of effort. State and local efforts in terrorism preparedness are also a 'work in progress', but some communities are doing a much better job than others. What about your community? Do you have any idea what your state, county, or city are doing? Maybe you need to find out.

The CDC has granted a $135 Million dollar contract to Lockheed Martin to support terrorism preparedness and emergency response, as part of CDC's Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response (COTPER). That's not chicken feed. What do Americans get for that paycheck?

COTPER manages the CDC Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement which provides guidance and funding to state and local jurisdictions to enhance their preparedness and response capacity, oversees the CDC Emergency Operations Center, regulates entities that use or transfer biological agents or toxins, and manages the Strategic National Stockpile.

Lockheed Martin support to COTPER will include business consulting and the performance of technical, professional, logistical, engineering and administrative tasks. By applying continuous process improvement, the company will work to implement automated functions and processes where possible throughout the agency. (source)

It appears that any lack of preparedness cannot be blamed on lack of money. So if your state or community is not prepared, the problem could be lack of experience. Yes, many times we learn from doing. Conducting statewide terrorism preparedness exercises is an absolute necessity.

South Dakota recently conducted just such an exercise:

During this exercise they tested in real-time the complex communications necessary in a disaster and learned that a streamlined analysis process is critical when receiving information. They also learned that successful preparedness means having an adequately staffed, equipped and dedicated Emergency Operations Center at the hospital, local, regional and state level. ...

More than 300 individuals from 64 of South Dakota's 67 hospitals participated in the exercise in which fictitious concert-goers exposed to plague began jamming hospital emergency rooms approximately 48 hours after exposure.

"The beauty of this exercise was that it comprehensively tested every possible situation that would arise in this type of emergency," (source)

South Dakota worked with Global Secure Corp., who are experts in medical and public health exercises, and 'have the experience in conducting exercises involving hospitals and public health entities.'

The cost of terrorism preparedness is huge, but money isn't enough. Individuals need to be prepared, communities need to be prepared. What would your state, county, city, local community do in case of an attack, whether it be nuclear, chemical, biological, or other? What would YOU do? Do you have a plan for yourself and your family? Don't wait until it's too late.