http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress Idaho Common Sense® Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:02:45 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Welcome to - The truth as I see it™. Dr. Bosley writes sociopolitical columns with a conservative view that is well articulated and defended, provoking thought and discussion without telling people what to think. He poses questions, while offering his personal views and reasoning for them, allowing readers to better understand his opinions as they develop their own. His advice to himself - "Writing the truth as I see it; trying not to offend those who will disagree." Craig L. Bosley, MD no Craig L. Bosley, MD webmaster@craigbosley.com webmaster@craigbosley.com (Craig L. Bosley, MD) 2010 Craig Bosley The truth as I see it™ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/rss_default.jpg http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/category/society/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/going-home/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/going-home/#comments Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:36:37 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1586 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/going-home/feed/ 2 Christmas,Emergency department,family,High school,Nebraska,Omaha Nebraska,Parenting,Swimming pool For several months, I have been spending some time working in an emergency department in a suburb of Omaha, Nebraska; a few weeks ago taking a day off and driving 210 miles to the small town where I was born a little over 60 years ago, Holdrege, For several months, I have been spending some time working in an emergency department in a suburb of Omaha, Nebraska; a few weeks ago taking a day off and driving 210 miles to the small town where I was born a little over 60 years ago, Holdrege, Nebraska. It was 52 years ago that we moved from Holdrege, and this was my first visit since that move. Following my brother's directions, I found the home where I was born and lived in during the first months of my life. I asked the owner if I could see the home and take a few pictures. It was a yellow painted cinder block house of about 500 square feet, little changed from 1950. And just a few houses down the street were the homes my dad built during summers off from teaching high school history and coaching high school basketball. Both homes were still there and by comparison, they were "huge," nearly 700 square feet. I talked with the owner of the brick front home I lived in and she gave me a tour, showing me where they removed a wall, adding one of the bedrooms to the living, dining and kitchen area to create a great room. She also showed me the original oak hardwood floors they discovered when they were replacing some carpet about 15 years earlier, the oak as tight as the day dad laid it 60 years ago. My oldest brother helped dad pour the concrete foundation, mixing and pouring one wheelbarrow load at a time. Dad did everything himself, except the electrical, the plumbing and digging the foundation. Still decorating a wall in my garage are many of the tools dad used to build those homes. My oldest brother told me the reason dad built two homes. The first was the larger of the two because dad thought he could afford the mortgage payment. When he realized he could not, he put it up for sale and built a smaller home next door, the one I remember living in. Dad asked $22,000 for the larger home, but it was not selling. One day, a man offered him $20,000 and dad agreed. When the realtor listing the home learned about this, he came to the house, relieved when dad told him he had not signed any papers because that meant dad was not legally bound to the agreement. The realtor told dad he could get $21,000 for the home, but dad explained that he could not accept the higher offer because he gave his word. The realtor, not realizing the discussion was over, pressed his argument for the higher offer. According to my brother, dad finally got "fed up" and told the realtor in very understandable language to get out of his house. The $1,000 dad turned down to honor his word? It was equal to about six months of his income. The homeowner also showed me what used to be my bedroom window, which faced the backyard. Mom's mother, grandma Gerbeling, lived with us, and although I did not know anything was wrong at the time, she had Alzheimer's and became one of my best friends. Whenever I got in trouble, and it seemed I did with some regularity, dad would send me to my room. Shortly after, Grandma would sneak in to my room, the two of us able to open the window so I could "escape." Then, when dad would head out the backdoor to "fan me," all four foot ten inches of Grandma would run behind him hollering, "Don't you touch him. Don't you touch him. I did it. I did it." Looking around the backyard, I could still see the aluminum ringed, 3-tiered strawberry patch in the backyard, along with the large garden that dad maintained with his rototiller. When I was about 3 years old, dad could not keep the rototiller running. Finding dirt in the gas tank, he told me if it stopped one more time I would get "fanned." Mom said I came running into the kitchen, telling her I knew it would stop again and I needed her to spank me so when dad came in she could tell him I had already been spanked. In fact, she said I made her spank me three times, each time telling her it was not hard enough to convince dad. Living in the home next door, the one dad sold, were the Fowlers. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 8:57 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/spoiled-dependent-entitled-indentured-enslaved/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/spoiled-dependent-entitled-indentured-enslaved/#comments Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:38:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1573 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/spoiled-dependent-entitled-indentured-enslaved/feed/ 2 Education,England,Indentured servant,Lyndon B. Johnson,Politics,Poverty,Slavery,socialism,Star Parker,Uncle Sam,United States,War on Poverty Are spoiled children born that way? According to British writer Roald Dahl, "Some children are spoiled and it is not their fault, it is their parents." Spoiled children have parents who give them everything they want instead of teaching them to earn wh... Are spoiled children born that way? According to British writer Roald Dahl, "Some children are spoiled and it is not their fault, it is their parents." Spoiled children have parents who give them everything they want instead of teaching them to earn what they want, instead of teaching them responsibility and independence. Quite simply, parents of spoiled children fail to heed the advice of "The Country Parson," Frank A. Clark, who said, "The most important thing that parents can teach their children is how to get along without them." Well, my dad did not have a problem teaching us how to get along without him. He supported my dreams, saying I could do anything I wanted and I could have anything I wanted. All I had to do was pay the price, which always involved sacrifice and hard work. He saw many of the complexities of life as relatively simple, work hard and pay your own way. And if you want more? No problem; work more. How well is our parent government teaching us to get along without it and to stand on our own? Is it teaching us responsibility and independence? Is it teaching us to work hard and pay our own way? Or is it teaching us to depend on it for our wants and needs, teaching us we cannot get along without it, and spoiling us all the way to socialism? More than any other president, Lyndon Johnson led this charge with his "War on Poverty" he claimed would "lift people out of poverty." His plan included massive numbers of welfare programs, which, rather than lifting people out of poverty, taught them to depend on the government for their needs rather than standing on their own and paying their own way. And to ensure that people did not try to regain their independence, the government changed the name from welfare to entitlement. We are entitled to this or that from the government. Moreover, we cannot feel bad receiving an entitlement; it's a right. Have decades of entitlements "lifted people out of poverty?" No. They created perpetual poverty, perpetual poverty through dependence on the government. Political commentator Star Parker wrote a book about government entitlements, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," comparing entitlements to Southern slave plantations. Our socialist-minded politicians created lifetime entitlements, not short-term aids to "lift people out of poverty." The government designed entitlements as career choices, not as a means to gain independence, not as a means to "get along without it." The government designed entitlements not only to last a lifetime, but also to be passed on to the next generation like an inheritance. The socialist-minded politicians created perpetual poverty, perpetual entitlements, perpetual indentured servants, servants Ms. Parker writes, who are dependent on "Massah Uncle Sam." Ms. Parker "found her way out" of welfare entitlements, moving from the indentured servitude of socialism to "wealth-producing capitalism." But, as she writes in a recent column, the government is back on the path to socialism, back on the path to "Uncle Sam's Plantation" where people remain dependent. And this path to "Uncle Sam's Plantation" is short and our government understands this all too well. It courts the entitled votes, the dependent votes. It promotes bussing the entitled to the polls. It promises ever more entitlements in exchange for votes. It cannot deport illegal aliens because they are 12 million potential entitled voters. The government does not court the votes of dreamers and builders. It fears them. It fears dreamers and builders. It fears responsibility and independence. And it works to suppress those traits by "sharing the wealth" with those who are entitled to it. Spoiled. Dependent. Entitled. Indentured. Enslaved. This is what the government needs; otherwise we might dream of leaving the plantation of "Massah" England, "Massah" South, or "Massah" Government. The price of getting our wants and needs met for free? Our freedom. The founding fathers thought the price too high. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:29 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/things/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/things/#comments Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:27:23 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1565 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/things/feed/ 0 Attractions,Games,Home Depot,Mother's Day,Recreation,Roller coaster,Steve Martin,Theme Parks In the movie "Parenthood," the family's grandmother offered advice to her son who was distraught; he quit his job and his wife was pregnant. Of life she said, "You know, it was just so interesting to me that the roller coaster could make me so frighten... In the movie "Parenthood," the family's grandmother offered advice to her son who was distraught; he quit his job and his wife was pregnant. Of life she said, "You know, it was just so interesting to me that the roller coaster could make me so frightened, so scared, so sick, so excited and so thrilled all together! Some didn't like it. They went on the merry-go-round. That just goes around. Nothing. I like the roller coaster. You get more out of it." Steve Martin looked at her like she was nuts, but was she trying to tell him something important, something that more than 90 years of life taught her? The current poor economy has affected most of us to some extent. There are things we used to do that we no longer do. There are things we used to buy that we now postpone. Looking at a potential purchase, my son told me that he and his wife ask if it is a want or if it is a need; they only buy needs. I tried it. I don't like it. How was I to know that a new fly rod is a want rather than a need? The economy changed the rules. What was affordable a few years ago is not so affordable now. My 14-year-old vehicle with 130,000 miles is good for another 100,000 miles. And the fly rod? Well, maybe it was a want rather than a need. But does that mean the new Colt 45 is also a want rather than a need? How many things do we need for happiness? How many toys must we buy to find it? Which new thing will be the one that gives it to us? What catalog sells it? What store stocks it? Didn't we work hard? Don't we deserve it? Just tell me how much it costs. When the economy was good, did we give up times of happiness for more time working so we could buy what we thought we needed for happiness? Sounds a bit odd, but could it be true? Is it possible to find happiness without seeing every new movie as soon as it is released? Is it possible to find happiness without a new fly rod or a new gun? How often do we need a new car? How many times a month do we need to eat out? How big a home? How many toys? How many things? What did we do before we learned about the things we needed to be happy? Was I happy when I lived on Kraft macaroni and cheese? Was I happy selling "my stuff" to pay for tuition and books? Maybe fly rods, guns and other things are not the source of happiness. Art Buchwald suggested, "The best things in life aren't things." Is he right? Could it be that simple? Maybe happiness is in my backyard having lunch with my wife. Maybe it is a Sunday afternoon picnic in the park followed by holding hands while walking through the zoo, no schedules. Maybe it is getting a hot dog from the vendor who is sometimes across the street from the courthouse, eating it while sitting on the grass watching traffic. Maybe it is an early morning mountain bike ride, seeing a moose along the way. Maybe it is a standing date with my wife to go to a movie on any "dollar" Tuesday I am not working. Was grandma right? Do we want the merry-go-round when the real fun in life is on the roller coaster? Do we need to spend more time together and less time buying things together? There is a difference. My wife and I do carry over a tradition from the "hard" times. On Mother's Day, we go to church, get a hotdog at Home Depot for lunch and go to a movie. Am I cheap? Probably, but could this be the happiness we are trying to find with the "things" we buy? You decide. Printable Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/20100823-Things.pdf) (http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=dbd7903f-46d6-46b9-bbe8-7d6e60a46007) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 3:51 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/rape-rape/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/rape-rape/#comments Mon, 02 Aug 2010 06:08:39 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1491 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/08/rape-rape/feed/ 1 Domestic worker,Dominican Republic,Human trafficking,Illegal drug trade,Slavery,United States,Whoopi Goldberg,Women's rights Whoopi Goldberg said of producer Roman Polanski and his rape conviction of the 13-year-old girl he drugged and sodomized, "It wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape." Whoopi Goldberg said of producer Roman Polanski and his rape conviction of the 13-year-old girl he drugged and sodomized, "It wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape." Have our values so deteriorated that we no longer recognize rape? Polanski is a free man, living in Europe where the cultures are more enlightened, progressive, understanding and tolerant than ours, the very words used by our progressives when they demand we accept each new debased definition of right and wrong. Where does this attitude of "it wasn't rape-rape" lead us? What happens to our ability to see wrongs when the line of right and wrong is just a blur? If we cannot recognize rape, what other degradations of fellow human beings go unnoticed? Sindiswa had AIDS, tuberculosis and was three-months pregnant, left to die on a street, no longer of value. Less than a year earlier, a woman offered her a job in a neighboring town, only to sell her to a human-trafficking syndicate. She would die in the next few days while listening to the roars of the soccer fans at a World Cup match in South Africa where billions of dollars were spent preparing for the event. Human trafficking ranks second only to drug trafficking as the most profitable crime, generating billions of dollars each year. It spans the spectrum from ten-year-old girls sold into sex slavery to men and women sold as indentured servants, never able to pay their claimed debt. More than 30 million human beings are slaves in the world today, more than at the height of the trans-Atlantic slave trade with the early American colonies. Children are favorite targets of sex traffickers because of their demand and because they can be more easily indoctrinated. Traffickers target them, recruit them, extract them from their home community and control them with extreme violence, often including repeated gang rapes. Every day the traffickers threaten to kill their families if they do not willingly comply. And when they are finally broken, finally compliant, they are sold. We like to think human trafficking only happens in places like Thailand, where travel agencies advertise "erotic sexual adventures." In 2003 the country had 11 million foreign visitors, about two-thirds unaccompanied men. Do you really think that millions of men were in Thailand just for business ventures? We convince ourselves this is just an Asian, European, Central American or African problem. That's where the human trafficking occurs. Really? The CIA estimates that more than 50,000 people are trafficked into or through the United States each year. Nena Ruiz, a retired Filipino schoolteacher was enticed to come to Hollywood to work for a wealthy couple as a domestic servant. She had her passport taken, spent years sleeping on a dog bed, worked 18 hour days and cooked gourmet food for the couple's dogs while she ate several-day old leftovers. The motion picture vice president's wife was sentenced to three years in prison. In the United States, human trafficking is more in the form of forced labor masquerading as domestic servants, agricultural migrant workers, hotel workers, construction workers and even strip club dancers. Just how difficult is it to "buy" workers in America? A business owner in any American city can make a phone call specifying age, race and number of women needed for a strip club and the women arrive within a few weeks. No problem. In 2009, a group of Missouri employers were indicted for human trafficking. They imported workers from Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines, charged them exorbitant fees for their travel, gave them substandard housing and leased them to big name hotels. The workers were indentured servants; they were slaves. This can't be true. Not in America. The domestic servant came here willingly and she could have escaped if she wanted. The strippers had to know what they were getting into and could have left if they wanted. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:49 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/subject-or-citizen/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/subject-or-citizen/#comments Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:43:17 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1363 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/subject-or-citizen/feed/ 2 Conservatism,Freedom of information,government,Government Operations,Great Britain,John Adams,Politics,United States "Oh posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make a good use of it." - John Adams, second U.S. president American statesman Dean Alfange, born in Istanbul in 1899, "Oh posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make a good use of it." - John Adams, second U.S. president American statesman Dean Alfange, born in Istanbul in 1899, reflected the values of an American citizen when he wrote, "I do not choose to be a common man; it is my right to be uncommon . . . if I can. I seek opportunity . . . not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the State look after me. I want to take the calculated risk, to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole; I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence, the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of Utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid, to think and act for myself, to enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say: 'This, with God's help, I have done.'" We faced the wrath of Great Britain and risked our lives for these values. We had been subjects. We demanded to be citizens. We knew the price of being subjects, of security. We knew the price of becoming citizens, of freedom. The founding fathers decided to pay that price for our freedom, for our citizenship. They willingly traded security for freedom. Do we still want to be citizens? Are we still willing to pay the price? Perhaps Alfange's words no longer matter, no longer are relevant. Perhaps the thought of a "mother" government deciding what's best for us and making decisions for us is what we want. Maybe the price of freedom is too high, the security of a subject preferable. Maybe we claim to want freedom, but really want "caveat" freedom, freedom with the caveat, "but only as long as." We demand independence - but only as long as handouts continue. We demand freedom - but only as long as it's easy, no hardship. We demand a government subservient to us - but only as long as it does not require us to sacrifice. We demand the freedom to dream and to build - but only as long as the government accepts the risk if we fail. We demand to experience the joys of life - but only as long as the government guarantees to build our "Utopia" if we cannot. We demand our pride and dignity - but only as long as government subsidies continue. If Alfange reflected today's values, might he disappointedly write, "I choose to be a common man; it is too hard to be uncommon . . . and I no longer can. I seek security . . . not opportunity. I expect to be a kept citizen, willingly humbled and dulled by having the State look after me. I will not take a calculated risk. I do not want to dream and to build. I will not risk failure to succeed. I will always barter incentive for a dole. The challenges of life are too hard; I want a government guaranteed existence. I have no interest in the thrill of fulfillment; I want the stale calm of Utopia. I will always trade my freedom for beneficence and my dignity for a handout. I will cower before my government and I will bend to its threats. It is now my heritage to crouch, ashamed and afraid, to no longer think and act for myself, to no longer dream of new creations and to no longer face the world and say: 'This, with God's help, I have done,' . . . because I traded my freedom to the government." I am a subject. Again. Printable Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/20100719-Subject-or-citizen2.pdf) (http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=e42a8289-b2db-4893-b951-2387f713fc49) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:12 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/gratitude-is-a-burden/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/gratitude-is-a-burden/#comments Mon, 17 May 2010 12:46:16 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1109 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/gratitude-is-a-burden/feed/ 3 Business,Complaint,Customer service,Education,Educators,High school,Positive feedback,Quarterback "Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure." Tacitus, 56 AD - 120 AD, Roman historian Does this sound a bit too much like today, suggesting we may have progressed little this past 2, "Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure." Tacitus, 56 AD - 120 AD, Roman historian Does this sound a bit too much like today, suggesting we may have progressed little this past 2,000 years? Is gratitude still a burden? Is revenge still a pleasure? Is complimenting difficult? Is complaining easy? Think of the signs in stores pointing to the customer service department, the successor to the original complaint department. Have you ever seen a sign for a compliment department? I haven't, and even if they existed I doubt people would stand in line waiting to offer a compliment. Maybe we do better in restaurants. How often do we complain if the service is poor? More important, how often do we compliment when the service is good? Do we want the answers to these questions? What about the business world? Maybe we do better there. Businesses do put a lot of effort and resources into teaching and getting staff to complement one another, even providing drop boxes with forms designed to compliment fellow workers. Nevertheless, we need no reminders to point out when something is wrong. Speaking for myself, I know I can see what's wrong much more quickly than I can see what's right. Does complimenting require more effort than complaining? Needing a real-life example, a few weeks ago I became my own good "bad" example. My wife and I had some difficulty with a business I believed had treated us unfairly. Anticipating the worst-case outcome, I prepared a letter of complaint to the owner. But, before I could even proof the letter, my wife received a call outlining how they wanted to deal with our concerns. I was excited when she told me what happened but disappointed with my response. In my excitement I said, "Now I don't need to send a letter to the owner." But I should have added, "Instead, I am going to send a letter describing how well his staff solved the problem." And adding insult to injury, I didn't even realize my oversight until I sat down to work on this column. I was quick to revenge, slow to gratitude. Is retaliation easier than repaying a kindness? Is revenge easier than gratitude? Is complaining easier than complimenting? I suspect our answers to most of these questions leave us uncomfortable. But maybe that's just the way we are and we have no choice. Not necessarily. Years ago, when I was the team physician for Highland High School athletes, I watched a coach deal with his quarterback on the sidelines. The quarterback made a dumb mistake during a critical game. The coach motioned the quarterback off the field and I waited for what I assumed would be a lot of hollering. But there was none. Instead, the coach put his arm around his quarterback and walked him away from the sidelines saying, "You're doing a great job out there. Let's talk about that last play and what we might do differently next time." Where did he learn that? Grade school. Remember grade school? I know that coach must have learned more in grade school than most of us. It was a wonderful time; teachers dwelled and thrived on telling us what we did right. They were masters of positive feedback, intuitively knowing how to get us excited to do more and to do better. Remember the stars the teachers drew or stuck on our papers? I know I got lots of stars I didn't deserve. More important, I can't remember why I got the stars; all I remember is how great the stars made me feel. Now that we are "grownups," how often do we get stars? More telling, how often do we give stars? Are the answers disappointing? Gratitude is a burden Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20100517-Gratitude-is-a-burden.pdf) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:05 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/racism-or-common-sense/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/racism-or-common-sense/#comments Mon, 10 May 2010 03:51:52 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1106 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/racism-or-common-sense/feed/ 3 Federal government of the United States,Illegal immigration,Law,Martin Luther King,Mexico,Stanford University,United States,United States nationality law Reading about Arizona's new law dealing with illegal aliens, I got the impression that Arizona had done something radical by requiring non-citizens to carry documents proving their legal status in our country. Not so. Reading about Arizona's new law dealing with illegal aliens, I got the impression that Arizona had done something radical by requiring non-citizens to carry documents proving their legal status in our country. Not so. The new Arizona law only enforces existing federal law, the Alien Registration Act passed by Congress in 1940. Arizona is only enforcing federal law the federal government refuses to enforce. This is an act of necessity, of common sense and is Arizona's latest attempt to deal with 450,000 criminals in the state. Remember, illegal aliens are criminals, not undocumented immigrants. Three years ago, Arizona passed an employer sanctions law that punishes businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. The result? About 100,000 illegal aliens self-deported from Arizona, some to Mexico and some to other states. Why did they voluntarily leave? One illegal alien complained that he no longer wanted to live in the United States because of the "oppressive environment." Others returned to Mexico because "they didn't want to live in fear, in terror." Another added, "The new law gives us no other option than . . . going back to Mexico where we feel more comfortable." Isn't that what we want? Don't we want criminals to feel oppressed and uncomfortable? Don't we want criminals to live in fear and terror? Don't we want illegal aliens to self-deport, which is the ideal cost-effective solution. And when more states pass similar laws, self-deportation will increase the flow of illegal aliens to Mexico rather than other states. Further, this is not an act of racism as claimed. Arizona is on the Mexican border, leading to the logical assumption that most of its illegal aliens are from Mexico. Arizona is only profiling criminals for arrest and deportation. Remember, profiling is not synonymous with racism. Israeli profilers are the proof that behavioral profiling both works, and is not racist. Clarence B. Jones, Scholar in Residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Institute at Stanford University suggests that if people want to protest, they should protest against the inaction of our government and Mexico's government. These governments failed, not Arizona. Mexico is more than willing to allow us to support its citizens. And, our politicians are more than willing to call them undocumented immigrants rather than illegal aliens, pandering for votes rather than doing their job. The President suggested Arizona's new law is irresponsible and "undermines (the) basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Really? How can that be true when all Arizona is doing is enforcing existing federal law? Apparently, the federal government now defines basic fairness as spending $3 billion on "cash for clunkers" while expecting Arizona to spend $1.3 billion every year for the medical care, education and incarceration of illegal aliens. This is a "basic notion of fairness?" Our federal government willingly does what the Constitution does not allow while refusing to do what the Constitution demands. And contrary to what we hear from Washington, we do not need new laws to deal with illegal aliens; we just need the federal government to enforce existing law. All Arizona did was say, "Enough is enough," its governor describing it well when she said her state is trying to "solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix." If Al Sharpton wants to rid Arizona of his claimed racism, then deport the illegal aliens and free American citizens of Hispanic descent from the unfair stares questioning their citizenship. They deserve to be just another citizen. Although unfair, in a state spending billions of dollars supporting illegal aliens who are mostly from Mexico, it is understandable that non-Mexican citizens will look at all Mexicans as potential illegal aliens. The real discrimination is the federal government expecting American citizens to pay for the cost of its negligence. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:47 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/michael-tiger-and-ed/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/michael-tiger-and-ed/#comments Mon, 03 May 2010 15:28:25 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1101 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/michael-tiger-and-ed/feed/ 1 Ed Freeman,Jerry Springer,Michael Jackson,National Enquirer,Tiger Woods,United States,Vietnam War,Walter Cronkite Do you recognize these men? I suspect you know two of them. Michael is Michael Jackson, his death garnering more media attention than President Reagan's funeral. Tiger is Tiger Woods, his philandering capturing near continuous media attention with each... Do you recognize these men? I suspect you know two of them. Michael is Michael Jackson, his death garnering more media attention than President Reagan's funeral. Tiger is Tiger Woods, his philandering capturing near continuous media attention with each new girlfriend revealed. But who is Ed? We know every detail about Michael, the little boys, the drugs, everything. We know every detail about Tiger, even which golf club damaged his car and the name of every woman he "encountered." But who is Ed? Do we know anything about Ed? Do we care? Should we care? How does the media decide who is newsworthy? To whom do the media answer? Remember, the media is a business, and like any other business they must generate a profit or fail. If no one watches their shows, if no one buys their magazines or newspapers, they will go out of business. And just like any other business, they analyze what we want – and they deliver. They deliver the scandals, the gossip, almost celebrating the failures of others. But who is Ed? Ed is Ed Freeman, a footnote on a busy news day. He died Aug. 20, 2008, his obituary briefly shared across the nation. Why even bother noting his death? Do any of us know who Ed Freeman is? Should we be interested? What did he do wrong? Did he use drugs? Was he an adulterer? Maybe a pedophile? Perhaps a Wall Street crook? Did he rate a federal investigation or criminal charges? What was his failure, his demise, his downfall making his death newsworthy? Who is Ed? Capt. Ed Freeman is a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, a hero. During the Vietnam War, he flew a non-combat lift helicopter, an unarmed helicopter, nothing glamorous. One day he overheard radio traffic about a battle going very badly for the American infantry. An overwhelming force surrounded them and they were taking significant losses. The enemy fire was so intense the commanding officer on the ground refused to allow any more Medi-Vac helicopters to land, no more ammunition or supplies and no more evacuations of the wounded. Capt. Freeman knew they must be nearly out of ammunition and he knew they had critically injured soldiers. Both he and the officer giving the order knew what the outcome of the battle would be if the order was followed. So Ed did something. He did something 14 times. He ignored the order 14 times. Fourteen times he flew his unarmed Huey into the heart of the battle, each time taking enemy fire from less than 200 yards away, delivering ammunition and evacuating the injured. He saved the lives of the soldiers he evacuated, along with many others with the ammunition and supplies he provided. Really think about what he did. Fourteen times he flew into enemy fire to get the wounded, each time facing probable death. Why didn't he get the same round-the-clock news coverage Michael or Tiger got? Most people blame the media, claiming they are anti-military, anti-American and don't care about what is really important, preferring to emulate the National Enquirer. Are they right? Is the media full of nothing more than tabloid-style journalists? Again, the media is a business, publishers and producers responsible to generate a profit. Yes, they do want to report "real" news. Nevertheless, they accept the reality of delivering what the readers and viewers want, generating the income needed for their business to survive so they can provide the small amounts of "real" news we will tolerate. And what is it we want? We want trash. We want gossip. We want calamity. We want handcuffs and jail time. We want the dirt. We want Jerry Springer, not Walter Cronkite. Which show would get the most viewers and the best ratings, a show about the heroism of Ed Freeman or a competing show about Tiger’s girlfriends? Should the media be embarrassed? Or, should we be embarrassed? Who is Ed? Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20100503-Michael-Tiger-and-Ed.pdf) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:36 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/elite-universities-principled/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/elite-universities-principled/#comments Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:48:20 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1077 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/elite-universities-principled/feed/ 0 Don't ask don't tell,Harvard University,Reserve Officers' Training Corps,United States,United States Naval Academy,Vietnam War,Wall Street Journal,Yale University Some of our nation's elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, Stanford, Cornell, Princeton and Penn, produce many of our nation's leaders. But, do they model the values we want in our leaders, Some of our nation's elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, Stanford, Cornell, Princeton and Penn, produce many of our nation's leaders. But, do they model the values we want in our leaders, the principles we aspire to as a country? Are they the principled guardians of the academic freedom and independent thought they claim to be? Do they really represent the best of America? Many of these defenders of academic freedom ban ROTC and military recruiters from their campuses, even though they once educated large numbers of military officers. In past decades, Yale actually produced more Navy officers than the Naval Academy. Why this animosity toward the military? During the Vietnam War, these universities faced anti-war student protests, providing their faculties and leaders with an excuse to ban the military from their campuses. Although Princeton, Dartmouth, Penn and Cornell have allowed ROTC to return to campus, it is without college credits. With Vietnam long over, the current excuse to continue the ban is DADT - the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals. These elite universities, self-proclaimed guardians of academic freedom, are refusing to allow their students to develop their own opinions of the military. They hypocritically accuse the military of the very prejudice and intolerance they practice. Perhaps it is easy because they so readily sold their ethics when the Solomon Act was passed in 1995, which allowed the government to block all federal monies to any university that refused to allow the military on campus. In essence, the military politely told them to put their money where their mouth was. What happened to their principled stance then? Rather than losing hundreds of millions of dollars of federal aid, some of these universities, including Harvard, which alone stood to lose $450 million, had a surprising change of heart and allowed military recruiters to return to campus. Sadly, these universities model these flawed values and ethics for our youth. No wonder so many of our government leaders have confused ethics. Columbia, showing more moral bankruptcy than Harvard, proclaims on its Internet site its patriotism and support of ROTC, even though it is one of the schools requiring students to drive to other schools for that training. Columbia revealed even more hypocrisy when it claimed defense of academic freedom by welcoming the Iranian terrorist Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Its values? ROTC is barred from campus because the military bans gays from openly serving while Ahmadinejad, who aids and supports the killing of Americans, is welcomed. Think about the principles of the leaders and faculties of these universities. While they are unwilling to risk anything for their claimed principles, the banned ROTC students are willing to risk their lives for their principles. What values do we want? What principles should we model? Do the elites have other ethical lapses? Yes. They also sell admissions to the highest bidder with a unique admissions program called "affirmative action for the wealthy," including legacy applicants who are the children of previous graduates. Some of these universities are more adept at buying favors than Congress, referring to legacies as "check-writing graduates." According to the Wall Street Journal, Harvard accepts 40 percent of legacy applicants but only 11 percent of other applicants and when one irate father told an admissions officer that his son should be accepted despite a 2.4 grade-point average, he was asked, "Have you built a building?" Some universities additionally target children of the rich and famous even if they had no previous connection to the university, calling them "development cases," ignoring their poor academic performance in lieu of "other areas of leadership." The ethics of the elites are for sale to the highest bidder - be it the government, wealthy alumni, or rich and famous parents. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:36 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-choice/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-choice/#comments Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:15:50 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=998 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-choice/feed/ 0 Federal government of the United States,History,Nazi Germany,Prussia,Twentieth Century,United States,United States Department of the Interior,World War I "The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstein Larry Echohawk, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of Interior, "The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstein Larry Echohawk, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of Interior, recently commented on the mistreatment of the "first Americans" by the United States government. Mr. Echohawk described "very dark chapters" of United States history, including "government atrocities against the Indian people." Because of the strong emotions that accompany such statements, exploring these remarks could lead us through a bed of hot coals. But, it's worth the risk because this topic deserves more discussion. What do we do about past failures? Is the United States unique with its past "dark chapters" or is it a snapshot of world history? Can we move forward with what we are today or must we remain what we were yesterday? Do any of us have ancestries without blemish? My ancestors are mainly English and Prussian with some Scottish thrown into the mix. Do I have ancestors who are less than the pride of the ancestral tree? More important - "How far back in that tree do I share responsibility for any failures?" My English ancestors came to America in the 1600s, so more than likely I had ancestors in the Crusades. The book "Crimes of Christianity" said of the Crusades, ". . . every atrocity the imagination can conceive disgraced the warriors of the Cross." Do I share responsiblity for what happened over 800 years ago? Walter Bosley, the first Bosley in our family tree in America, settled in Maryland in the early 1600s. I found his will, which included a handwritten list of his belongings; but I was ill prepared for what was on that list. One male slave. Although I know about slavery and its evils, this was somehow different. A will with my surname on it listed a human being as property along with tables and chairs - a human being valued like furniture. I felt sick reading that a man could be considered so trivial. Do I share responsibility for what happened over 300 years ago? Before World War I, Prussia was the most powerful German state. It led the unification of Germany, which set the stage for what would become Nazi Germany. Although some of my Prussian ancestors came to America before this occurred, others stayed behind and may have become a part of the evils of those wars. Do I share responsiblity for what happened over 50 years ago? How many people can find similar stories in their ancestory? Must we try to stay separate peoples with separate "dark chapters" in our histories or can we become one people, become one people out of many peoples? Can we become just Americans? The Americas were the last lands of the world inhabited by people. Many "first Americans" are descendants of the northern Asia Mongols who migrated across a land bridge in the Bering Strait. Research continues on the origins of the peoples of the Americas, but it appears there were several more migrations or immigrations from diverse groups rather than a single migration. Peoples from at least three major immigrations settled the Americas. Besides the Mongols of northern Asia, other people came from Africa by way of Australia and from southern Asia. It seems America has always been the world's melting pot. America has always been a country whose people have become one out of many. Our national motto, adopted in 1782, is E pluribus unum, Latin for "out of many, one." Does it accurately describe the United States of today and the Americas of antiquity? So, what do we do? We are the United States of America and we are one people, Americans. We can learn from the past or live in the past. We can meld into one people or maintain divides. We can gain strength from diversity or weakness from division. We have a choice. It's worth some thought. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/20100301-Its-our-choice.pdf) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:32 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/#comments Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:36:16 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=471 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/feed/ 0 Add new tag,John Adams,John Jay,Law,Supreme Court,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, "we the people" in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional. Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790, Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, "we the people" in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional. Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790,... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 2:06 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/#comments Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:47:26 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=130 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/feed/ 0 congress,Law,Oliver Wendell Holmes,Separation of powers,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers? In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers? In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, trying to preserve the checks and balances in the Constitution said, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained."  He was addressing Congress, explaining that Congress could not decide if a law it passed was constitutional, that checking power reserved for the Supreme Court. Sadly, subsequent Justices used this process of judicial review to place themselves above the Constitution, and unlike their ruling on Congress, seeing no need for checks and balances on themselves.  Is this unlimited, unchecked power constitutional? How do Judges and Justices view the United States Constitution?  Do they revere it as they should?  Do they defend it as they should?  Or do they perceive themselves superior to the Constitution, the Supreme Court becoming the American equivalent of the Iranian Guardian Council, a supreme oligarchy deciding all law? In 1920, Associate Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes may have violated the Constitution when he said, "The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.  We must consider what this country has become in deciding what (the Tenth Amendment) has reserved."  Where does the Constitution grant the Court this intuitive power?  Can a Supreme Court Justice continue to serve if he or she seeks constitutional rulings outside the Constitution? In 1949 Associate Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter insulted our intelligence when he said, "The words of the Constitution . . . are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free . . . to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life."  Should  a Justice who claims the United States Constitution is immaterial be impeached and removed from the Court? In 1992 Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sevnth Circuit said, "We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by the framers of the Constitution."  Could he not recall his oath was to uphold the Constitution, not to fix it? Were the framers of the Constitution so flawed they failed to foresee it not addressing all that it should, needing Judges and Justices to fill in the gaps?  No.  Fully aware of this probability, they addressed changing the Constitution in Article V, allowing us to amend it when needed. The unacceptable rub for the courts?  "We the people" must approve amendments to the Constitution.  Nowhere in it is the Supreme Court granted the power to rule based on it "reading life" rather than "reading the Constitution."  Only "we the people" decide changes.  And this is as it should be. Justices can be impeached; yet Congress continues to turn a blind eye to its constitutional responsibility to impeach Justices who fail to "hold their Office during good Behavior." The Supreme Court has become the American version of the Iranian Guardian Council, the Constitution subservient to its supreme power, just as in Iran.  The only difference?  The Iranian Council has six theologians and six jurists who each serve six year terms; we have nine near-deities who serve for life. Is it time to take back the unconstitutional powers the Justices have usurped?  Is it time to demand the Supreme Court and Congress submit to the United States Constitution?  The Justices and Congress have claimed powers not theirs.  Is there a power above the Supreme Court?  If so, what should happen? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:26 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-consitution-v-the-federal-government/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-consitution-v-the-federal-government/#comments Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:12:45 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=129 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-consitution-v-the-federal-government/feed/ 0 Articles of Confederation,British Empire,Federalist Papers,James Madison,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,United States,United States Constitution The Declaration of Independence states, “. . . these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”  This sentiment was reaffirmed in 1781 in the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, The Declaration of Independence states, “. . . these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”  This sentiment was reaffirmed in 1781 in the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, ... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:42 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-bill-of-prvileges/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-bill-of-prvileges/#comments Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:11:02 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=128 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-bill-of-prvileges/feed/ 0 Bill of Rights,James Madison,McDonald v. Chicago,Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court,Washington D.C. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, was ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791. The Constitution was ratified four years earlier in 1787. Our Bill of Rights came into existence amid debate and delibe... The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, was ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791. The Constitution was ratified four years earlier in 1787. Our Bill of Rights came into existence amid debate and deliberation. Many anti-federalists who supported it previously opposed ratification of the Constitution because that document did not provide many of the individual protections that would be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But the federalists, voiced by Alexander Hamilton, considered the Bill of Rights unnecessary, believing “the people surrender nothing” in the Constitution, and offering protections of specific rights would imply that any unmentioned rights were not protected. With obvious disagreements, the Bill of Rights, proponed by Thomas Jefferson, was introduced by James Madison during the First United States Congress in 1789.  Near-prophetically, these anti-federalists feared the Constitution created too strong a national government which was a threat to individual rights and would lead to the President becoming a King.  Thomas Jefferson offered this resigned assessment:  “Half a loaf is better than no bread.  If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.” So was born the Bill of Rights, our constitutionally guaranteed rights protecting us from the government.  And there lies the problem.  Which government?  Until the early 1900s, the Supreme Court held the view that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, a fact supported by the failure of Madison to get any specific mention of state governments into the Bill of Rights. The high court did not change its interpretation until decades after ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Rep. John Bingham, the framer of the 14th Amendment, argued that it applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states, the ninth and tenth not referring to specific individual rights. He believed the first eight amendments to the Constitution, ratified by the states, better represented the people’s wishes than case-by-case rulings of the Supreme Court. He did not want the justices arbitrarily deciding how to apply the 14th Amendment to the states, contending the needed individual “due process” protections of the 14th Amendment were already present in the first eight amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed.  Justice Felix Frankfurter said the court would decide which sections of the Bill of Rights should apply to the states by determining if abridgment of the right would “shock the conscience,” meaning the court would decide, case-by-case, if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. The first real application of the Bill of Rights to the states occurred in 1925, when the Supreme Court ruled that states must uphold the First Amendment right of “freedom of speech.”  And so started an ongoing application of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states; most cases using the “Due Process Clause” of the 14th Amendment as the basis for the new application of the Bill of Rights. The process continues today, the justices deciding our constitutional rights, injecting personal biases of what they want the Constitution to say.  The court is currently hearing the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which asks the court if the Second Amendment “right of the individual to keep and bear arms” applies to states rather than just federal enclaves like Washington, D.C. Some 218 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, we continue going before the Supreme Court, trying to regain our rights.  We the people “plead our case,” hoping the court will return to us constitutionally guaranteed rights—constitutional rights that are to protect us as citizens of the United States, regardless of our state of residence. Perhaps I was too hard on President Clinton.  Perhaps he was truthful when he expressed confusion over “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  As it turns out, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 2:20 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/humans-are-more-important-than-hardware/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/humans-are-more-important-than-hardware/#comments Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:28:14 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=127 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/humans-are-more-important-than-hardware/feed/ 0 Airport security,American Civil Liberties Union,Ben Gurion International Airport,Christmas,Israel,Middle East,Rafi Ron,Tel Aviv,Transportation Security Administration,United States On Christmas day, a Nigerian man boarded Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb he planned to detonate over the United States, his success prevented more by luck than skill. The President responded saying there were "human and syst... On Christmas day, a Nigerian man boarded Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb he planned to detonate over the United States, his success prevented more by luck than skill. The President responded saying there were "human and syst... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:32 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/12/politically-correct-bad-science/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/12/politically-correct-bad-science/#comments Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:11:25 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=125 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/12/politically-correct-bad-science/feed/ 0 DDT,Environmental Defense Fund,Environmental Protection Agency,Global warming,San Francisco,United States,United States Environmental Protection Agency,World Health Organization The accuracy of environmental science research is critical because decrees by the United States impact the world, along with the consequences of that science.  So, shouldn’t we question environmental science?  And, if that science is solid, The accuracy of environmental science research is critical because decrees by the United States impact the world, along with the consequences of that science.  So, shouldn’t we question environmental science?  And, if that science is solid, shouldn’t questioning be welcomed, rather than feared? One of the problems with  environmental science is that it can become politically influenced; leading the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and international organizations to conclusions  and rulings with too little questioning. Moreover, the likelihood of reversing an erroneous EPA ruling is slim because hell can no longer freeze over now that global warming is “fact.” But this discussion is not about global warming.  No, this is about something that happened in 1972, following decades of questionable science.  The world was saved when the EPA banned the chemical DDT.  Science triumphed over profit.  Or, did political correctness triumph over science? Just a decade before DDT was banned, the National Academy of Science said, “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT.”  It’s use had prevented over 500 million deaths from malaria.  And conveniently, the United States and most of the industrialized nations of the world did not ban DDT until they had eliminated malaria in their own countries. What happened following the EPA ruling?  Most public and private donors to Third World countries followed suit, no longer funding DDT use and effectively ending its use in most of these countries. And the cost to stop using DDT?  Only 50,000,000 lives.  What a great investment for the health of the world, especially since no American or European lives were lost.  We can sleep well knowing we rid the world of DDT — and millions of children. Guess what?  The science was bad.  The science was full of half-truths.  The science was politically motivated.  And millions died.  And millions are still dying—over 2,000,000 every year. Why was DDT banned?  Was it science or was it politics?  In the Oct. 5, 1969, Seattle Times, Charles Wurster, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, the activist group behind the ban on DDT, summed it up nicely saying, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.  In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.”  Impartial scientist or biased activist? DDT is not responsible for many of the evils claimed.  Of DDT and breast cancer in humans?  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 stated that the authors found “no evidence that exposure to DDT and (its metabolite) DDE increases the risk of breast cancer.” And what about DDT and the thinning of egg shells of birds of prey, especially eagles?  In 1968, Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson claimed “increased eggshell fragility” in birds of prey was caused by DDT. Years later they admitted the egg extracts they studied had little or no DDT and they were now pursuing other chemicals as the cause. What happened?  What went wrong?  What is still going wrong?  The failure of the science was that it set out to prove DDT was the problem; starting with the desired conclusion and then finding only the data that supported it.  Bad science.  Biased science.  Politically motivated science. More than 20 years later, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that “after 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization (WHO) reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria.”  The WHO stated, “There’s no evidence that spraying DDT in the amounts needed to kill mosquitoes imperils crops, animals, or human health.” Sadly, this was a short-lived victory.  Because of well-placed lobbyists, the WHO quietly did an about face, continuing to promote much more expensive, and much less effective, insecticide-treated nets manufactured by those well-placed lobbyists.  DDT, tremendously effective and much less expensive, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:50 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/12/what-is-public-and-what-is-private/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/12/what-is-public-and-what-is-private/#comments Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:21:08 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=122 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/12/what-is-public-and-what-is-private/feed/ 0 Atlanta Journal-Constitution,Defamation,Freedom of speech,Mass media,Media,Newspaper,Press freedom,Richard Jewell,Thomas Jefferson,Tiger Woods Does the public have a right to know everything?  Does freedom of the press have any limits?  Is anything private?  Is everything fair game?  How might Tiger Woods answer these questions?   "Yes, no, no, yes."  Moreover, Does the public have a right to know everything?  Does freedom of the press have any limits?  Is anything private?  Is everything fair game?  How might Tiger Woods answer these questions?   "Yes, no, no, yes."  Moreover, these questions have little to do with any claimed right to privacy, and all to do with the Constitution.  As it turns out, most anything the media reports is constitutionally protected by "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press."  You would assume this scrutiny is reserved for a public figure, whatever that is.  But public figure is a legal term used when suing for defamation of character.  Moreover, if the court decides you are a "public figure," proving defamation is not enough, you must also prove the media acted with "reckless disregard for the truth," acted with malice. Adding more difficulty, defining a public figure has grown far beyond politicians and celebrities.  It also includes "limited public figures," people who might voluntarily become publically involved in an issue.  And as long as the media reports focus on their involvement with that issue, that person is a public figure. Further, you can also become an "involuntary public figure," resulting from publicity, even if unwanted and uninvited.  Probably one of the saddest and most famous was Richard Jewell, who hit the media spotlight first because of the lives he saved during the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing in 1996.  He then quickly became known by the newly popularized term, "person of interest," a thinly veiled suggestion that he may have planted the bomb. For 88 days, the media turned his life inside out.  He sued several news agencies, three settling out of court.  But the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper fought and won because Richard Jewell was a public figure and they did not report with malice. With this history, Tiger Woods has little prospect of maintaining any privacy.  And as long as the media does not show any "reckless disregard for the truth," most anything goes. But in defense of the media, it is a tremendous benefit to the people, a part of the checks-and-balances to government, and rightly so.  The press was considered so important to the Founding Fathers that Thomas Jefferson said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." The press is vital to our freedoms, but why is the implosion of Tiger Woods' life worthy of front-page coverage?  Have you ever seen a full-page article on Mr. Woods' charitable work?  Did you know he has a foundation working with inner city children?  Did you know a sponsor learned that part of the agreement to get his endorsement was a contribution to that foundation?  Why are these wonderful activities not as newsworthy as his supposed extra-marital affairs? Has the media started treating us, the people, the way it treats the government, a sort of checks-and-balances on society?  You might assume news includes the good and bad of life.  Does it?  Moreover, whose fault is it?  Is it the media or the consumer that thrives on bad news, on gossip masquerading as news?  Would we be riveted to non-stop television coverage of Mr. Woods' charitable work the way we are his personal problems? Yes, he may deserve all that is going wrong in his life; he may have done all that we hear.  But when is enough enough? The differences between mainstream media and tabloid media used to be clear.  But that line has all but blurred into oblivion.  Does the mainstream media research and investigate something wonderful about someone with the same attention used to catch them, to bring them down? The public's right to know?  Guess what?  I just heard on Fox News that a fourth woman has come forward to discuss a claimed affair with Mr. Woods.  Won't that be a great interview?  I can't wait to see it.  I wonder how much more money he will offer to pay his wife for this one. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:17 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/the-damnpolitician-and-the-farmer/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/the-damnpolitician-and-the-farmer/#comments Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:39:10 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=121 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/the-damnpolitician-and-the-farmer/feed/ 0 Hunting,Kansas,Politician,Politics,President of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,Washington,Washington DC Last week, I proponed the Founding Fathers had only two requirements to be president of the United States because they wanted to protect the people's power to choose the president.   They did not want those writing the Constitution and those later "int... Last week, I proponed the Founding Fathers had only two requirements to be president of the United States because they wanted to protect the people's power to choose the president.   They did not want those writing the Constitution and those later "interpreting" it to be able to limit our choices.  They assumed people like you and me would give time to our country and return home to live as everyone else, rather than staying in Washington becoming a member of the political aristocracy, becoming a career politician.  Perhaps one of the greatest failures of the Founding Fathers was not anticipating the career politician. When hunting pheasants in Kansas, one of my brothers was staying with a farmer he knew.  One day the farmer told him he was in his 40s before he learned that "damnpolitician" was actually two words -- and he is still suspect that it is not true. But, what if we could pick who runs for president.  What if we could pick someone more like us and less like "them?"   What if we could pick someone who is not a damnpolitician?  Who might we select? I was thinking back to where I was raised in rural Nebraska.  Fall Saturdays were reserved for pheasant hunting which meant talking with the many farmers dad knew so we could get permission to hunt on their land.  Without knowing it, I learned a lot about values, character and common sense while listening to dad and the farmers. The Founding Fathers could have demanded a certain education, certain schools, certain careers of those who would lead our country.  But they did not.  Was it because they were more interested in the very same values, character and common sense I experienced listening to dad and his friends? And what about the farm work ethic?  I cared for a retired farmer some time ago.  Explaining to him he needed to let me admit him to the hospital, he informed me he was retired and could do just as well at home.  So I asked him what he did the last few days.  He helped one neighbor unload some cattle and another put up some hay, his wife adding, "Twelve hours each day."  That is what he considered to be retired; 70 years old, ill with pneumonia, and still able to outwork me and most other men. And how do farmers treat their source of income, their land?  They rotate crops, rest the soil and take good care of the land, maintaining its productivity.  They do not just take and take and take until the land is destroyed with nothing left to give. Sadly, the government is not as smart as the farmer; it takes and takes and takes with no concern about destroying its source of income -- the taxpayer.  Imagine if we could teach a politician to treat the taxpayer with the same reverence and respect the farmer treats the land. So, what could a rural family farmer really bring to the most powerful office in the world?  Probably not an Ivy League education.  Probably not a law degree.  Probably not the proper status in society.  But a farmer would bring the character and values we sorely need in Washington, the rural common sense and seasoning in such short supply. Consider the benefits of a family farmer as president.  They do not spend money they do not have.  They save for what they need.  They run one of the most difficult businesses there is and love it. They can pull a calf, drive a tractor, set a budget, meet a payroll and balance the books while deciding what to do as they watch a hailstorm destroy their crop. And when the day's work is finally done, they sit back and say, "What a great life.  Thank God I'm an American." Maybe anyone wanting to run for the presidency should be required to spend a year on a family farm -- working, learning, seasoning.  It couldn't hurt. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/20091130-The-damnpolitician-and-the-farmer.pdf)  Craig L. Bosley, MD no 3:41 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/09/teaching-children-to-murder/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/09/teaching-children-to-murder/#comments Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:35:16 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=111 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/09/teaching-children-to-murder/feed/ 0 Guns,Handgun,High school,Human,Littleton Colorado,Murder,Recreation,Semi-automatic firearm,Television,Video game,Video game controversy,Violence and Abuse Littleton, Colorado, 1999; Santee, California, 2001; Cold Springs, Minnesota, 2003; Jacksboro, Tennessee, 2005; Cleveland, Ohio, 2007.  These are just a few of the 60 school shootings occurring since Columbine in 1999, double previous decades. Littleton, Colorado, 1999; Santee, California, 2001; Cold Springs, Minnesota, 2003; Jacksboro, Tennessee, 2005; Cleveland, Ohio, 2007.  These are just a few of the 60 school shootings occurring since Columbine in 1999, double previous decades. The pro... Craig L. Bosley, MD no http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/09/our-children-violence-and-murder/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/09/our-children-violence-and-murder/#comments Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:00:00 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=110 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/09/our-children-violence-and-murder/feed/ 0 Adolescence,Advertising,Anti-Gun Rights,Canada,Child,Gun Control,Gun politics,Gun violence,Murder,Roy Rogers,South Africa,United States What is happening to our children? Children with guns murdering children. Does this support the need for gun control, as advanced by the media and the politically correct, both with a fanciful capacity to not allow facts to interfere   with their opini... What is happening to our children? Children with guns murdering children. Does this support the need for gun control, as advanced by the media and the politically correct, both with a fanciful capacity to not allow facts to interfere   with their opinions? But if the data shows guns are not the cause of violence, and gun control does not work, why then have we witnessed rises in all types of school violence during the last several decades, including bullying, non-gun violence and gun violence. Maybe school violence has always been with us, just more publicized now than before. But the types of school violence we now see did not start until the late 1960s.   What happened that led to the rise in school violence? In 1972, the surgeon general offered a look at a possible cause, issuing a report on "The Impact of Television Violence." This was followed by a confirmatory article in the 1975 Journal of the American Medical Association. Think about it. We do not allow cigarette advertising on television because of the risk to children, but we freely advertise murder. By age 12, the average child has witnessed over 8,000 murders and over 100,000 acts of violence on television. Does this desensitize children to violence? Can there be a link? Ask Nike, Toyota, Budweiser and others if television influences behavior. An interesting analysis published in a 1992 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association offered a causal relationship between television and escalating child violence. The authors first pointed out   that younger children cannot distinguish fact from fantasy, "accepting the images on television as how the world really is." Moreover, as children get older, even though they learn to distinguish fact from fantasy, the "deepest impressions have already occurred." The authors then analyzed   television access and homicide rates in three countries--the United States that got television about 1945, Canada that got television about 1950, and South Africa that did not get television until 1975. The findings? Comparing the United States to South Africa, the homicide rate in the United States doubled 10 to 15 years after introducing television, while the homicide rate remained stable in South Africa. Comparing Canada to South Africa yielded the same results.   Why 10 to 15 years? If homicide was mostly an adult crime and if television exerted its most negative influence on young children who could not distinguish fact from fantasy, it would take 10 to 15 years for those children to become young adults and commit murder. Further, if the authors were correct, children would also behave differently throughout their growth years, throughout the 10 to 15 years after their introduction to television. And they did. Younger children who had been exposed to television had higher rates of bullying, followed by escalating non-gun violence in adolescence, culminating in rising homicide rates as they became young adults. Television changed lessons in life. Roy Rogers and Trigger quickly gave way to violent cartoons along with Marshal Dillon and boot hill.   Before television, if we hurt one of our friends while playing, our parents taught us it was wrong to hurt other people. But television brought different lessons to young children who blurred fantasy and reality; lessons on killing and murdering without anyone teaching them that hurting people was wrong. We parents did not think that was needed because we knew television was make-believe. Ignoring data to the contrary, we continue the myth of blaming guns. Why? Maybe we do not like looking back, accepting responsibility for allowing our children near unlimited access to television violence. Maybe we feel guilty we have not had the courage to challenge the media greed that promotes violence for profit, while hiding behind the claim of defending free speech.   Although the research nicely explains rises in most types of school violence, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:26 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-healthcare-agenda/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-healthcare-agenda/#comments Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:34:09 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=104 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-healthcare-agenda/feed/ 0 Health care,Health insurance,Insurance,Medicare,Nancy Pelosi,Rahm Emanuel,Social Security,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,White House Chief of Staff Why is the government continuing to push healthcare reform, ignoring, dismissing and disparaging anyone who disagrees?  Why have so many members of Congress refused to have town hall meetings during the August recess?  Why are they afraid to face us, Why is the government continuing to push healthcare reform, ignoring, dismissing and disparaging anyone who disagrees?  Why have so many members of Congress refused to have town hall meetings during the August recess?  Why are they afraid to face us, their employers? Even if we ignore the United States Constitution and agree that healthcare is a constitutional right, is government control the answer to the current failed healthcare system of state and federal programs, private programs and employer sponsored programs? The government is convinced it can competently run the healthcare system.  But, can it?  It runs the nearly bankrupt Social Security program, the nearly bankrupt Medicare program, and just last week admitted it underestimated the deficit by a mere $2 trillion.  Not much of a track record. And don't forget Nancy Pelosi saying, with frightening sincerity, that all new costs will be captured from the efficiencies of government management. Which is more worrisome--that she made this statement or that she might actually believe it? The government continues "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."  Einstein defined this as insanity. Why is government control the only option under serious consideration?  Are our leaders ignoring other options that might be better?  A healthcare expert, interviewed for an April 13, 2007, PBS report on universal healthcare, proposed a voucher system. Every citizen would get a voucher to purchase a basic healthcare plan.  The voucher would be risk adjusted for those people with medical problems whose basic plan might cost more.  Further, all private insurance companies would be required to offer the same basic plan.  Also, all government and all employer health plans would be cut out. Anyone who wanted more coverage than the basic plan provided could purchase more coverage at their own expense.  When asked about the unfairness that some people could afford more coverage than others, the expert said it is not the government's job to "provide everything that could possibly be done for everybody in the country."  What a nice, common sense understanding of the Constitution. Consider some of the benefits of this proposal.  It would allow continuity of coverage when changing jobs, when moving from state to state, and when transitioning from working to retirement. The reward?  The government is out of the healthcare business and the size of government decreases.  The risk?  Will the government agree to less control of our lives, less power over us, and less bureaucracy?  Has it ever before? Who offered these unique, heretical ideas?  Who thought of a new system rather than just patching an already troubled system?  Who dared propose less government? It was Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, a widely published expert on healthcare reform, and now an advisor to the president on healthcare reform.  Coincidently, he is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So, why are the administration and Congress ignoring a recognized expert on healthcare reform, especially since he was hired to advise the president?  Why do they want to patch a crumbling healthcare foundation rather than create a new solid foundation on which to build a better system? Does this suggest there might be another agenda behind this massive spending, including buying control of banks and private companies?  Does this suggest why the government is bankrupting generations of future Americans? The answer may be too simple to want to believe.  Are the self-proclaimed aristocracy of Congress and the administration convinced we citizens are no longer competent to control our own lives, let alone the government? Are they keeping us divided as Republicans and Democrats, fighting with one another to prevent us from coming together to oppose the government with a united front? While we argue petty party politics, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:14 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/can-claiming-racism-be-racist/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/can-claiming-racism-be-racist/#comments Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:46:45 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=103 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/can-claiming-racism-be-racist/feed/ 0 Associated Press,Bob Dylan,Henry Louis Gates,Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy,New Jersey,Police officer,Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations,Racial profiling,Racism Four police officers and two men; one black, a noted Harvard professor, and one Jewish, a famous singer --each with a recent police encounter. Returning from a trip, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates found his front door jammed. Four police officers and two men; one black, a noted Harvard professor, and one Jewish, a famous singer --each with a recent police encounter. Returning from a trip, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates found his front door jammed.  He tried to force it open and then he and his chauffeur got in through the back door.  According to Officer Figueroa's police report, a neighbor called the police saying she saw "a man wedging his shoulder into the front door as if to pry the door open."  And contrary to media reports, she did not identify the men by their race.  Further, Figueroa, the second officer on the scene, is also black. The first officer on the scene, Sgt. James Crowley, teaches a class on racial profiling and race relations, picked to do so by a former police commissioner who is black.  Sgt. Crowley was responding to a possible "crime in progress" and found two men inside the house.  Shortly thereafter, Figueroa arrived and witnessed the professor's behavior.   According to his report, professor Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley, calling him a racist and saying, "This is what happens to black men in America" and "You don't know who you're messing with." The encounter ended with the professor's arrest.  The next day President Obama issued a surprise summary judgment that the police "acted stupidly," this following an admission that he did not know all the facts. Although overlooked by most media, the president is a friend of professor Gates' which explains why Obama berated the police.  The next day when the president felt the backlash of his statement, rather than apologizing to the police as he should have, he said, "I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning Sgt. Crowley."  Is that true or was the president intentionally degrading the sergeant? The second man is Bob Dylan, a famous singer who is Jewish.  He was killing time before a concert in New Jersey and left his hotel to take a walk.  The Associated Press reported "a resident said a man was wandering around a low-income, predominately minority neighborhood." The resident called the police and a young officer arrived who had never heard of Bob Dylan.  He asked Mr. Dylan his name, what he was doing, and for some identification.  By then a second officer arrived, just as with professor Gates. Because Mr. Dylan did not have identification with him, the officers asked him to accompany them back to his hotel to verify his identity.  He willingly complied even though he had not done anything to justify this attention.  In contrast, in professor Gates' case the police believed they might be responding to a crime. We have four police officers interacting with two men who reacted differently.  Professor Gates shouted racism while Bob Dylan, a world famous singer, cooperated with the police. He did not shout, "Racism."  He did not shout, "This is how Jewish men are treated in America."  He did not shout, "You have no idea who you are messing with." I agree with the president; this is a "teaching moment."  It's just that the president missed the lesson. Who reacted racially, Sgt. Crowley or professor Gates?  Who behaved appropriately, professor Gates or Bob Dylan? Perhaps professor Gates was unable to bury past hurts and still sees racism everywhere, even when it does not exist.  Perhaps the professor's past brought him to this encounter with an attitude that the officer did not have the right to question him? Was professor Gates modeling how to ease racial tensions or was he, perhaps unknowingly, acting racist? The real lessons to consider?  Can past hurts lead to present misconceptions?  Can people of any skin color be racist? Can shouting racism when none exists be racist?  Can viewing today through the window of the past be unproductive?  Can we move forward if we spend all our time looking backward? It's worth some thought. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/20090824-Claiming-racism-can-be-racist.pdf)  Craig L. Bosley, MD no 3:56 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/#comments Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:16:15 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=101 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/equal-protection-of-the-laws/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/equal-protection-of-the-laws/#comments Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:46:20 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=100 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/equal-protection-of-the-laws/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/06/give-me-the-youth/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/06/give-me-the-youth/#comments Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:40:14 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=97 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/06/give-me-the-youth/feed/ 0