Archive for the ‘health reform’ category

Bilingual Politics – Should Immigrants Be Allowed to Vote?

December 16th, 2010
Wendy Pan asked:




Bilingual Politics would create mass confusion among any nation that uses the voting system to select members of office. The United States of America is an English speaking country since it’s very beginning. Any person entering the United States of America whether it is on a Work Visa Permit or illegally should never be able to vote unless they have become a U.S. citizen. If a person has dual citizenship with another country, such as Mexico, they need to specify which country will be their primary country before they are allowed to vote.

By allowing Bilingual Politics gives people the impression that we as a nation will allow illegal immigrants the right to vote in any and all elections. What about new laws. By allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote, our state and federal laws could very well change to reflect special privileges to illegals. If immigrants enter the United States of America, they should be required to speak English or be given a time span of three to six months to learn English as a second language.

Any nation should set a language as their primary language. That required language should be the only language taught in any school. All other languages would be classified as foreign languages. All foreign languages should only be taught as elective classes and not as a required classes in order to graduate from high school.

In Bilingual Politics the question arises “Would we have Spanish, Italian, Iranian, Japanese, Chinese, or German senators or representatives in our Senate and Congress? God forbid!!! One nation and one language. The word K.I.S.S. which means KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID is never more true than in politics and dealing with immigrants. Or the phrase “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, which means if our system electing political men and women into our government and our system of voting laws into office is working, why change it? Never add confusion into the system. If you think the United State of America is in serious shape, allow illegal aliens to vote, then see what happens. Japan or China allow illegals into their countries and permitted voting and state or federal aid to those illegals and add in their economic crisis on top of that

They would be in the same shape as the United States if not worse. You will never find any country outside of the United States of America that allows illegal aliens like we do. There is the unmentioned “open door” for anyone who wants to come here, can, no matter what their nationality is or even their religious beliefs and practices. It is enough to make a grown person weep. This is my opinion and mine alone, and please accept my apologies if I have offended anyone. But I have very strong opinions in all these situations.

Butalbital APAP caffeine

Revolutionary War Political Cartoons

December 14th, 2010
Ian Pennington asked:




Revolutionary War political cartoons are the very first American cartoons. These appeared in both mainstream and subversive newspapers that were circulated as the tension between England and what would be America built up. They were made by statesmen as famous as Benjamin Franklin as well as by anonymous authors. Usually made from woodblock prints, these pieces of artwork usually fall into one of a handful of themes.

A Need for Unity

Many of these cartoons focused on the need for the colonies to unite together to fight a common evil: the oppressive government of Great Britain. Most famous in this category is the well known “Join or Die” picture which shows a snake divided into pieces, each named for one of the American colonies. While many people supported the Revolutionary War, just as many people were reluctant because of the danger to their lives and property. Papers and political cartoons helped round up support for this necessary revolution.

Criticism of Britain

Many Revolutionary war political cartoons also poked fun at Great Britain, which was perceived as a bloated and overbearing entity feeding off colonies around the world. These cartoons helped to rally the colonists behind a common cause and encouraged them to be more open in their disdain toward England. Because Britain at the time was truly not much better than its critics made it out to be, it was easy to find jokes and cartoons at the country’s expense.

Criticism of the New Government Structure

There was a lot of jostling for power and bickering over the new government’s structure even before the new government had won its independence. Some people thought that the concept of government by the people was too populist to be successful, while others doubted the ability of farflung and very different states to agree and work together on causes for the common good. Revolutionary War political cartoons reflected these different opinions and showed the diverse opinions of colonists at that time.

Being involved in the making and distribution of any criticism of the establishment was risky business at the time. Great Britain had no qualms about hunting down subversive elements and making an example of them. However, this did not stop the tenacious American colonists. They used these cartoons to gather support for their cause and eventually were able to overthrow the British government.

Political cartoons from the Revolutionary War era are treasured pieces of history. They allow modern American citizens to see the mindset of the people who had a huge role in the forming of our nation. Thanks to these preserved cartoons, we will always have a record of the sentiments that our Founding Fathers felt in the early days of the United States of America.

Carisoprodol soma

Health Reform Bill – Impact on Medical Device Industry

December 11th, 2010
Gregory Piche asked:




There were not any easy choices in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”)as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (“HCEAR”), except perhaps the opportunity to stick it to the perpetually tanned Rep. John Boehner (R.Ohio), by imposing a 10 percent excise tax on tanning salons using ultraviolet lamps. The Congress did impose a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sales of medical devices which is expected to raise $2OB in revenues to fund the expanded coverage of health care reform. (The original proposal was for $40B.) (See section 9009 of the PPACA and section 1405 of the HCEAR) In addition new rules on proof of safety first and the implementation of “effective research” requirements are expected to further raise the cost of doing business in the Medical Device field.

One of the hallmarks of American health care has been the speed at which innovation in medicine reach the market. Americans are early adaptors of new technology. The hunger for new cures and new technology has been a significant driver of health care costs as well as a spur to faster, better and safer interventional products. The Edwards Laboratory heart valve replacement through catheterization being tested by the FDA is such a transforming device.

The imposition of greater regulatory oversight and the imposition of an excise tax that is expected to reduce manufacturer profits by a sixth could substantially restrict start up medical device company access to capital and substantially consolidate and compress the industry, not to mention limit public access to medical innovation. The tax will go into effect in 2013 and will be imposed on everything from defibrillators to bed pans. Fortunately some medical products have been spared. Condoms, eyeglasses, contact lenses, tampons and hearing aids are spared, but stents, valves, insulin pumps and the like will be impacted. The industry will reap the benefit of greater coverage and therefore greater sales, but it is staring at its own looming excise tax “donut hole” in its profits as American health care undergoes its overhaul. Expect a lot of lobbying to kill off this tax before 2013.

Taking Tramadol

Sovereignty and Conflicts

December 6th, 2010
Artur Victoria asked:




Once governments are seen as representatives of those whose consent they have obtained, an entirely new question arises: What powers have the people consented to delegate to their representatives? To a constitutional lawyer, this issue is strangely absent from much international law. One of the core elements of constitutionalism is that there must be constitutional authority for every action by a public body. This is reinforced by the ‘closure rule’ in public law that: ‘whatever is not permitted is prohibited’.

Domestically, this principle is sometimes reconciled with sovereignty by seeing the people as sovereign and the only power a public body has is that which has been specifically authorized by the constitution which has been agreed (or at least accepted) by the sovereign people. Raising such questions means that the international community would have to take domestic constitutions seriously. State international representatives would be seen as just that: representatives, with only the power they have been given. In some cases, different constitutionally endorsed bodies might be authorized to exercise different elements of the people sovereign power.

Methodologically, the question of what powers public bodies exercise will become a matter of international as well as domestic constitutional law. This will automatically introduce critical elements of domestic constitutional content and doctrine into international law. In the other direction, the actual limitations on state power caused by globalization and the increasing domestic reach of treaties will mean that international doctrine and methodology will infuse domestic law in all forms. As the walls between states break down so will the walls between domestic public law and public international law.

By the same token, the growing reach of international business and the growing recognition of international agencies mean that public and private international law will be increasingly linked. Domestic corporate law will at least be linked, and probably fused, with the new emerging global public law. If anything, it actively encourages human rights abuses by rewarding the successful exercise of force to secure dominion over a particular territory. It rewards those who mount anti-democratic coups. It rewards those who rig elections. It rewards those who intimidate the population or who rule through and for one ethnic or social group against others.

If sovereignty is seen as extending only over those to whom the sovereign power is democratically accountable, then this principle provides members of any group over which that sovereign power is claimed a right to democratic participation. It also accords a right to those who have been excluded to democratic participation in that or another state. Sovereignty is no longer the recognition of a power over a people but the collective right of a people to participate in, and benefit from, an independent political community, participating as an equal in the community of nations. To put it another way, sovereignty becomes a human right.

The fact that the group in power is only seen as representing those whose consent it has sought and to whom it is accountable has important consequences for international legal personality. Initially only states had international legal personality. The above paradigm shift would change the nature of the international legal personality of states. The excluded groups consent is not sought and to who the group in power is not accountable have a right to demand full participation in the processes by which consent is sought and accountability delivered. If that right is denied, then the group in power does not have the right to represent them in the international community. This provides a lacuna which the excluded people have a right to fill and gives those who represent the excluded a particularly important right to be heard. A form of international legal personality has to be extended to such representatives. If the group in power prevents the emergence of such groups, the right to be heard is not extinguished; the individual members of the excluded group retain it. The attempt to silence the representatives of excluded groups would only have the effect of giving every member of the excluded group a right to be heard in international forums.

Taking Tramadol

The American Abolitionist Movement

December 5th, 2010
Karen L Cole asked:




The abolitionist movement, which represented the earliest days of the American Civil Rights Movement, succeeded in every northern state by 1804, although there were still at least a dozen “permanent apprentices” listed in the 1860 census. Three northern organizations advocating this reform were the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Pennsylvania Antislavery Society, and the New York Manumission Society.

This latter group was run by powerful Federalists John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. The Federalists opposed State’s Rights, arguing for federal legislation abolishing slavery. New York finally abolished slavery, gradually, starting in 1799, making this the largest emancipation of American slaves in history before 1863. New Jersey was the last northern state to abolish slavery, in 1804.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed to allow the federal government to abolish the international slave trade, and by that time, all the existing states but Georgia had passed laws abolishing or severely limiting the slave trade. Georgia finally passed similar laws in 1798 – and the importation of slaves into the USA was officially abolished on New Year’s Day in 1808. This was a major move in the direction of abolition.

However, in the 1830s, the Postmaster General refused to allow the U.S. mails to deliver abolition pamphlets to the South. Northern teachers suspected of anti-slavery “tendencies” were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned in those states. Southerners were claiming that incidents like John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry in 1859 to start a slave uprising was proof northerners were conspiring against them to cause war through slave rebellions.

The North, simply put, was dead set against the South’s prevailing attitudes about slavery. Eric Foner once stated: “Northerners came to view slavery as the very antithesis of the good society, as well as a threat to their own fundamental values and interests.” However, northern conservatives feared the migration of a large number of freemen into the North, as they tended to accept lower pay. They were being seen, like today’s illegal Mexican-American workers, as “undercutting prevailing wages.” It was feared that former slaves would cause deep pay cuts for all American workers, especially white ones.

In spite of such difficulties, one white abolitionist, Massachusetts’s Abby Kelley Foster, became an “ultra,” advocating not only abolition but full civil rights for all black people. An agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society, Foster, known usually as Abby Kelley, thought that free slaves should colonize the new African nation of Liberia. She also recruited Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone, other American feminist leaders, to the early Civil Rights Movement. Kelley, who inspired other young women to be known as “Abby Kelleyites,” often shared her platform with ex-slaves – despite the additional scorn this entailed. “I rejoice to be identified with the despised people of color. If they are to be despised, so ought their advocates to be,” was one of her famous quotes.

Another well-known abolitionist was the wizened but charming black woman known as Sojourner Truth. Her first speaking engagement was with Abby Kelley. Truth originally had the Dutch slave name Isabella Baumfree, but changed her name because “the Spirit calls me.” She wasn’t much for the white man’s religion, though, and frequently spoke against slavery and the mental picture of black women being “unladylike” and subhuman. She was born into slavery in New York, enduring frequent beatings at the hands of her white masters and mistresses.

At one point in time, she was on one of her many “sojourns,” or journeys, and a streetcar run by a white male conductor wouldn’t stop to pick her up, refusing her as a passenger. She bravely ran along the track and leaped into the path of the streetcar, gauging the distance exactly right, making the conductor stop for her. Her most famous speech was the simply put, “Ain’t I a Woman?” where she also gave us the following quote, revised from her 19th century dialect:

“If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it. The men better let them.” Maybe that reference is where Dr. King got the idea of making “valleys into hills and hills into valleys,” but it’s also a Biblical reference. I’ll tell you a bit more about the origins of American black religious faith and how they led to Dr. King being a minister toward the end of this section.

Anyway, this quote from Truth’s popular speech was spoken at the Ohio Women’s Rights Convention, and her recurrent theme was probably based on an incident where a heckler in the audience had called her a man. She proudly opened her blouse, revealing her breasts, a typically bold move on her part which likely led to “Ain’t I a Woman?” I guess even your enemies can help you be productive, as in the case in 1960′s Birmingham, where local black civil rights leaders said that Police Commissioner “Bull” O’Connor and his violent anti-black tactics were “helping the Movement,” due to all the media attention they were getting at the time.

The Catholic faith doesn’t tend to exalt the poor and their elevation, which is the general black meaning of “turning things around,” as much as the black version of Protestantism does. That may explain the general Catholic lack of sympathy for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s programs at first. Dr. King was the presumed head of the Civil Rights Movement in America in the 1960s.

But for Catholics, there was ample praise of Jesus’ faith in the resurrection of the spirit and his attendant faith in the spirituality of all people. Blacks at the time of slavery and in much later American history continued a tendency toward religion that influenced their culture and entire way of philosophy and thought immeasurably, but Truth was probably spiritually-oriented.

She didn’t like white men much, or their male-oriented religions. She organized white and black feminists alike to oppose slavery through abolition, but that and colonizing Liberia were not the only actions taken against slavery. Also, throughout American history, there have been movements to attempt the return of African-Americans to the Motherland.

Through the 1820s and 1830s, the American Colonization Society (ACS) kept proposing to stop slavery by returning to Africa, a movement which was broadly supported by both whites and blacks. They saw it as a preferable alternative to emancipation, and Black Nationalist pioneer Marcus Garvey would also start a similar movement. He founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) in 1914, opening a branch in Harlem, New York in 1916.

The UNIA was intended “to promote the spirit of race pride,” and was an attempt to cause worldwide unity among all black people, establishing the greatness of their African heritage. Garvey appealed to the black lower classes and rejected any ideals or notions of racial integration. He was certain that blacks could not secure their rights in countries like the USA, where they were a racial minority group, so he began a “back to Africa” movement, and he was considered the most influential black leader of the early 1920s.

However, in the early 1800s there was a series of small attempts to plant settlements on the coast of West Africa, where most of the slaves had been originally captured, and the colony of Liberia was established circa 1821-1822. In the next four decades, thousands of American former slaves settled there. They declared independence in 1847, although not many had survived the move, as they had succumbed to local diseases. The abolition movement caused support for the colony to fade quickly, but the new Liberians ruled their country until the bloody military coup of 1980 by army personnel who assassinated President William R. Tolbert.

Therefore, due to the lack of effective other methods for handling this major American issue, the work of the abolitionists is what finally managed to help end slavery. However, in spite of multiple efforts on the parts of many, it took just about forever to get the South to agree on this. Their intense stubbornness is what led to the continuing hatred and racism ongoing throughout 1960′s Birmingham, leading to the tragic deaths of many black children and the continuous bombings of dozens of peaceful citizens’ homes.

Buy Fioricet