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/world-issues/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/02/mediocrity-and-entitled/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/02/mediocrity-and-entitled/#comments Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:00:43 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1784 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2012/02/mediocrity-and-entitled/feed/ 5 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/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/#comments Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:48:46 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1274 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/sanctuary-cities-and-arizona/feed/ 1 Arizona,Attorney general,Federal government of the United States,Illegal immigration,immigration,Law,United States,World War II Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates. Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates. The federal government has ignored illegal aliens for decades, President's Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower the only presidents who seriously tried to solve the problem, Hoover during the depression, Truman following World War II and Eisenhower following the Korean War. Since then, illegal aliens have poured across our southern border, essentially unabated. And as their numbers rose, "sanctuary" cities passed ordinances banning use of municipal funds to support federal immigration laws, in essence aiding and abetting illegal aliens. They did this despite federal laws stating that "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens" is a felony and also in defiance of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which states that cities could not ban municipal employees from reporting workers immigration status to federal authorities. Like these sanctuary cities that responded to the government's negligence, Arizona also decided to take action. But unlike the sanctuary cities that disregard federal law, Arizona decided to pass state laws supporting federal immigration laws. Although having no comments about sanctuary cities, the President did have comments about Arizona, saying it threatens to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." What does the President think is unfair about securing our borders? What does he think is unfair about arresting and deporting people here illegally? Does the President think the Arizona rancher murdered on his own land did not have a right to the fairness the he so freely claims for illegal aliens? Did the President offer the same support to this American family that he offers illegal aliens? So, what does the government do about the sanctuary cities ignoring federal immigration laws while Arizona supports them? It sues Arizona, letting the sanctuary cities continue to do whatever they choose. Attorney General Eric Holder claims Arizona is interfering with federal immigration responsibilities, saying Arizona's law "will (negatively) impact the entire country's safety." How is a secure southern border a threat to our safety? The suit further claims Arizona is interfering with "the numerous interests the federal government must balance" and is "supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy." Is it possible for Arizona to interfere with and supplant a regime and policy that is essentially non-existent? Maybe the Attorney General meant to say that since the federal government's policy is to ignore our southern border and to ignore the illegal aliens in the country, Arizona's attempt to enforce federal law really is interfering with federal policy. Why does the government have unlimited resources to sue Arizona but does not have the resources needed to secure our southern border and deport illegal aliens? Why would our government ignore its constitutional responsibility? Why would it allow up to 20 million people to live here illegally? Why would it continually promise to secure our borders with no intent to do so? Why would it sue a state trying to secure our southern border while ignoring cities that flaunt federal laws and harbor illegal aliens? Could our elected officials have less interest in the Constitution and more interest in the potential votes of 20 million illegal aliens? Are these 20 million potential voters an incentive for negligence? Could our Washington political aristocracy be more interested in themselves and their political parties than in our country? Does the federal government have an unofficial, unconstitutional policy of ignoring illegal aliens, of not securing our borders, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:32 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/#comments Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:02:35 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1145 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/impenetrable-borders/feed/ 0 Alien (law),Citizenship in the United States,Civil and political rights,Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,Law,United States,United States Constitution,United States nationality law Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program. Further, Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program. Further, his solution for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here is to create a way for them to become U.S. citizens. But won't that just increase future illegal entry into our country rather than eliminate it? Although I think the president's approach is wrong, we can solve the problem. We can prevent most illegal aliens from entering our country and we can promote most of the illegal aliens already living here to self-deport. Moreover, not only can we do so comparatively inexpensively, we already have proof it will work. When President Eisenhower carried out a program to deport illegal aliens, for every illegal alien arrested and deported another ten self-deported. So, we need a different perspective, a different focus. Rather than spending billions of dollars trying to stop people from entering our country illegally or deporting those already here, we need to eliminate the reasons they come. Previously I suggested our porous southern border entices illegal entry, and to a certain extent, it does; but the rewards awaiting illegal aliens in America are the real reason they risk everything to get here. We need to make living here illegally uninviting and unrewarding. And how do we do that? First, rather than granting citizenship to illegal aliens, pass a law stating that no one caught illegally in this country can ever apply for citizenship. Next, review the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, passed in 1866 to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and to protect their civil rights. Ignoring the intent of the amendment, the government has allowed automatic citizenship to a child born to an illegal alien. This interpretation is an abuse of the Constitution. Do you think the authors of this amendment intended it to promote and reward illegal entry into our country? An obstetrics nurse working in a community hospital near the Mexican border told me that nearly 50 percent of their deliveries were illegal aliens. This must end. Following the Fourteenth Amendment as intended is neither racist nor immoral. The law needs to specify that if you are here illegally and have a baby, the baby is not a United States citizen; he or she is an illegal alien. Last, eliminate all job opportunities for illegal aliens, all financial incentives to come here illegally. Federal law already requires non-citizens to carry proof of their legal status "at all times." This is fair and needed. Along with this, for each offense impose a $100,000 fine on any employer who cannot prove the legal status of a non-citizen employee. The burden of proof should not be on the government to prove the employer knowingly hired an illegal alien. Instead, the burden of proof needs to lie with the employer and non-citizen employee. It is the individual's responsibility to provide the needed documentation and the employer's responsibility to have that proof. I recently applied for a medical license in Nebraska, required to provide proof of my professional activities for the past 38 years. It was onerous, but it was not unfair or discriminatory. Rather it was a reasonable demand to protect the residents of Nebraska from someone trying to practice medicine without proof of training. In the same way, we need to expect non-citizens who are here legally to offer proof of their legal status to get work. This protects taxpayers from spending billions of dollars on illegal aliens. If employers don't want $100,000 fines and non-citizen employees want to work, then they can provide the needed documentation that federal law already requires. The result of these measures? Not only will the number of people crossing the border decrease to a dribble, most of those already in this country illegally will self-deport. Fair or racist? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:37 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/#comments Sun, 30 May 2010 21:11:59 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1134 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/another-price-of-ignoring-our-borders/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/forgetting-the-evil/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/forgetting-the-evil/#comments Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:22:34 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1096 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/forgetting-the-evil/feed/ 0 Edmund Burke,Extermination camp,Gas chamber,History,Holocaust,Jew,Josef Mengele,Soviet Union "I ask nothing of the Jews except that they should disappear." - Hans Frank, Nazi governor of Poland Last week I apologized to a Jewish friend for again forgetting the evil, the third year in a row I promised myself I would not forget. "I ask nothing of the Jews except that they should disappear." - Hans Frank, Nazi governor of Poland Last week I apologized to a Jewish friend for again forgetting the evil, the third year in a row I promised myself I would not forget. I am exactly what evil wants, what evil needs to succeed; wondering if Edmund Burke might have described me when he said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." By ignoring, by standing on the sidelines, by not remembering, are we not condoning evil? In 1982, Congress acknowledged the Holocaust with the "Days of Remembrance;" this year observed on April 11. Have you heard of this? How much attention does it get? Will the anniversary of Michael Jackson's death garner the same brief attention? What is there to remember? Only that the Nazis controlled territory that is now 35 separate European countries, those countries once home to nearly 8 million Jews, the slaughter successfully eliminating 6 million. 6 million Jews? Come on. Are we really supposed to believe that? Do we even know if it really happened? Some people suggest it was nothing more than war propaganda, like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Further, Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad, claims the Holocaust was a "myth," created by the Europeans to legitimize stealing Islamic lands for the Jews. Was it real? Was it the evil I was taught? Abraham Malik described the police coming to his home saying, "They started banging (on) houses . . . One baby started to cry . . . The other baby started crying. So the mother urinated in her hand and gave the baby a drink to keep (her) quiet. (When the police had gone), I told the mothers to come out. And one baby was dead; . . . from fear the mother had choked her own baby." Eliminating the Jews with guns was inefficient, time consuming and wasted needed ammunition. The Nazis created a superior "final solution" for disposing of the Jews, hydrogen cyanide gas chambers. These were a tremendous advance, the pride of Nazi efficiency, some camps "processing" up to 10,000 Jews a day, only slowing long enough for other Jewish prisoners to pull gold-filled teeth from the corpses on the way to the incinerators. The smoke bellowed overhead day and night, the unimaginable stench drifting over neighboring towns making it impossible to not know what was happening. But the world did not want to know. The world did not want to believe. The world remained silent. And the extermination continued. Perhaps the "lucky" Jews, if one can pervert the definition of lucky, were those who believed they were being "relocated in the east," arriving at the death camps with their luggage. Hastily, they were ordered to disrobe and enter the "delousing" showers; twenty minutes later dead and dumped into incinerators. Others were not so "lucky." In the Soviet Union near the city of Kiev, over 33,000 Jews arrived for their "relocation in the east;" the notice said, "Failure to appear is punishable by death." A truck driver watched as the Nazis ordered the Jews to undress and enter a ravine that was about 150 yards long and 15 yards deep. They were forced to lie down on top of the Jews who had already been shot, neatly stacked layers of death. A Nazi marksman walked across the bodies, stepping from one to the next, shooting each one in the head as he passed by. The "unluckiest" Jews, the children, held a special fascination for Dr. Josef Mengele, who had the children call him "Onkel Mengele." But he saw them as nothing more than research animals, there for experimentation. Survivor Vera Alexander remembers "Onkel" taking twins Guido and Ina away. When they finally returned, she heard their death screams, the twins surgically turned into Siamese twins, their backs sewn together. The screams continued day and night until they died, after which Mengele dissected them, just as he would any other lab animal. To the Jews of the world, I apologize for forgetting. We must forever remember. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:46 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/no-more-apologies-part-ii/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/no-more-apologies-part-ii/#comments Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:22:09 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1070 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/04/no-more-apologies-part-ii/feed/ 0 Department of Defense,Economic,Education,Executive Branch,government,Gross domestic product,Unified Combatant Commands,United States We grovel before Gadhafi and hide our flag. Critics claim we are a self-centered and selfish country, providing less foreign aid than twenty-one other countries when comparing the aid as a percentage of gross national income. Are our critics right? We grovel before Gadhafi and hide our flag. Critics claim we are a self-centered and selfish country, providing less foreign aid than twenty-one other countries when comparing the aid as a percentage of gross national income. Are our critics right? Are we not what we believe? Well, how might we fare if we looked at total foreign aid rather than percentages? In that case, the United States is first, giving more than $25 billion in 2008; the next 21 nations combined giving only $85 billion. The United States provides nearly 30% of the world's foreign aid. So which are we, self-centered or generous? Although using percentages of gross national income is a more accurate way to compare foreign aid, is it a truthful representation of United States assistance to other nations? Or is it misleading, lying by omission, leaving out data to prove a pre-determined outcome? It turns out the data ranking us twenty-second in foreign aid is misleading, just one piece of a much larger pie the United States bashers tend to overlook. Most of the other twenty-one nations provide little private philanthropy. Moreover, most are "socialist," their citizens believing it is the government's responsibility to give aid to other countries, not theirs. Pretty much the way they view everything else in their lives. Which country does provide the most private charity? The United States, of course. Even when compared to other nations as a percentage of gross domestic product; we give more than twice what any other nation gives. Not bad for a self-centered people. That said; a third area of foreign aid needs examination. Most of the free world, with few exceptions, expects the United States to provide their military protection, a tremendous financial windfall for them. We are no longer the United States military; we are the world's military. In 2008, world military spending was $1.47 trillion, the United States responsible for 48% of that total. Removing Chinese and Russian spending, the United States pays for nearly 56% of the free world's military needs. And, we actually provide much more because most countries adeptly find "reasons" they must stay on the sidelines, sitting at home, refusing to step up to the plate while American men and women die in their place. Since our critics compare us to other countries as a percentage of gross domestic product or gross national income, what dollar value do they place on American lives? Can they explain how to calculate American lives as a percentage of gross domestic product or gross national income? Foreign aid, philanthropy and military expenditures are all pieces of the same pie. Selecting only one piece and using the data to denigrate America is nothing more than lying by omission. But, if we look at the whole pie, the United States takes care of the world. We provide more foreign aid than any other nation. Our citizens provide more charitable contributions than any other nation. And we provide military protection for the free world, including the lives of our men and women. Maybe we are not the self-centered people the critics claim. Too often, our critics, both foreign and domestic, treat the United States the way a spoiled child treats a parent; rather than appreciative of what they are given, they resent they are not given more and they continually ask for more. Further, they become indignant if expected to contribute anything. In their view, they are to have whatever they want, whenever they want and if the parent, the United States, fails to comply, temper tantrums and threats can follow. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to allow some of the world's spoiled countries to provide for themselves, to protect themselves, time to allow them the opportunity to grow and appreciate the United States for what it really is - the world's provider and protector. Remember, the United States, with all its blemishes, is still the greatest country in the history of the world, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:34 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/no-more-apologies-part-i/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/no-more-apologies-part-i/#comments Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:49:41 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1064 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/no-more-apologies-part-i/feed/ 0 Libya,Libyan government,Moammar Gadhafi,Pan Am Flight 103,United States,United States Department of State,West Berlin,World War II Once again, the United States drops to its knees, this time apologizing to the terrorist leader of Libya, Moammar Gadhafi. Remember him? He was behind the 1986 bombing of a West Berlin nightclub and was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight... Once again, the United States drops to its knees, this time apologizing to the terrorist leader of Libya, Moammar Gadhafi. Remember him? He was behind the 1986 bombing of a West Berlin nightclub and was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:30 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/1046/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/1046/#comments Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:19:30 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1046 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/1046/feed/ 0 Business,capitalism,Freedom of speech,Politics,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,United States of America,United States Supreme Court "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." George Jean Nathan American drama critic and newspaper editor I watched a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College, "Make Mine Freedom," which tells the story of Ism elixir. "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." George Jean Nathan American drama critic and newspaper editor I watched a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College, "Make Mine Freedom," which tells the story of Ism elixir. If you have already viewed this, my apologies. If not, let me share the tale of Ism. The cartoon starts with a reminder of our good fortune to live in America with the freedom to work, freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble, freedom to own property, protection from unlawful search or seizure, the right to a speedy and public trial, protections against cruel punishments, the right to vote and to worship God in our own way. But the government grows powerful, promoting divisions, labor believing management is "lousing" up everything, management convinced labor is "ruining the country" and the politician telling each one they are correct. Then Dr. Utopia arrives, offering his "sensational new discovery," Ism elixir, a cure for everyone. Laborism elixir guarantees higher wages and shorter work hours. Managementism elixir grants enormous profits and no strikes. Politicalism elixir gives the government control and politicians the power to vote on their own salary. Moreover, it's free. All that's needed is a signature on a "little scrap of paper." All are ready to sign, no need to read it. The only naysayer? A questioning John Q. Public, who dares ask to read the agreement before signing – "I hereby turn over to Ism Inc. everything I have, including my freedom and the freedom of my children and my children's children, in return for which said Ism promises to take care of me forever." He quizzes Dr. Utopia about the foolishness of signing away our freedom, then explains the many wonders that our less than perfect free enterprise system has given us. He recalls the countless number of people our freedom allowed to "dream their dream and tinker," dreamers who borrowed money from friends and neighbors, turning them into capitalists. He describes businesses expanding, hiring and training more skilled laborers, showing it was dreamers and laborers who helped create our great nation. John Q. asks everyone to think before throwing away our freedom for "fancy double talk." He suggests they taste the Ism elixir before signing, getting a glimpse of what they would get in exchange for their freedom. Labor tastes and sees a worker threatening to strike, but the government forbids strikes. He sees a worker threaten union action, but the unions collaborate with, and are controlled by, the government. Management tastes and sees the government giving money to private business, then taking control of it with new and ever-changing rules. Management then threatens to go to the Supreme Court, but is rebuffed, told the government's decisions are final and without appeal. On tasting the Ism elixir, the hapless politician sees himself quickly "educated" to regurgitate the party line, "Everything is fine. Everything is fine. Everything is fine." Seeing the future, they fearfully and intelligently pour out the Ism elixir as John Q. tells them that "anybody who preaches disunity or tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives." With pride he adds, "Working together to produce an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values for all. That is the secret to American prosperity." I was stunned; a 1948 cartoon becoming a prophesy come true in 2010. The Ism elixir? Promise everything, don't read anything, give money to private business, then control them, pit unions against management, ignore the people, let politicians set their own salaries, speak only the party line and most important - ignore the United States Constitution. President Lincoln reminded us that a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:53 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/well-intentioned-missionaries-or-criminals/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/well-intentioned-missionaries-or-criminals/#comments Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:06:48 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=631 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/well-intentioned-missionaries-or-criminals/feed/ 0 Caribbean,Child,Dominican Republic,Haiti,Human trafficking,Idaho,Orphanage,United States This is the question Haitian courts will answer to determine the fate of the jailed Idaho missionaries who tried to take children out of Haiti illegally. When arrested, the missionaries initially claimed they were trying to "rescue" orphaned children f... This is the question Haitian courts will answer to determine the fate of the jailed Idaho missionaries who tried to take children out of Haiti illegally. When arrested, the missionaries initially claimed they were trying to "rescue" orphaned children from the disaster caused by the earthquakes. But, the changing story makes it difficult to decide how truthful they are. First, we heard they were taking orphans to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic. When authorities learned most of the children had families, the missionaries quickly claimed the families willingly gave them their children. Then, their attorney in the Dominican Republic fired their Haitian attorney amid rumors he was trying to bribe officials to release the missionaries. Not long after, the Dominican Republic attorney himself faced questions about his possible link to a human trafficking case. Now, questions are surfacing about the group's organizer. Reportedly, she was near-obsessively determined to open an orphanage in Haiti's neighbor, the Dominican Republic, planning to use the orphanage as a base to arrange adoptions by Americans, the Haitian earthquake simply accelerating her plans. Prior to leaving the United States, she repeatedly contacted a couple in Kentucky who had already received permission to adopt three Haitian children, telling them she would "like to pick up their kids" for them. Despite the couple's continual refusals, the missionaries went to the orphanage where the children were living and tried to convince the caretakers to give them the children, the couple saying she even told the orphanage she was a family friend. When this failed, the missionaries went to other orphanages literally begging for children, despite the reality that those children were already receiving needed care. That failing, they expanded their search to include children from intact families - families they claim freely gave them their children. With 33 children, only 13 of them orphans, they headed for the border where authorities stopped them and arrested them - potentially for child trafficking. Why was the group, or at least the group's organizer, recklessly trying to get children out of the country? The many unanswered questions, the many coincidences and the ongoing changing explanations make it hard to believe all they were doing was trying to help. The seriousness of the questions parallels the vagueness of the answers. Are these missionaries, as the Journal suggested, rescuers rather than criminals? Are caring and good intentions enough to enter an area like Haiti? Was their goal to save children or something more? Did they have the right to take children from their families in the midst of this crisis? Did the families who gave up their children really have a choice? Imagine being in the parents' situation. Imagine losing everything, no home, no income, nothing. Imagine the fear of not being able to care for your children. Imagine life an unreal blur. And then, just when you lose hope, strangers approach, explaining the many wonders they can offer one or more of your children. All you have to do is give them your children, receiving nothing more than a promise that one day they will return. What might you do? How easily could you be convinced to give away your children in this situation? Did these missionaries offer families hope or did they offer coercion? Unfortunately, similar situations occur in our hospital emergency departments with families crushed by unexpected tragedies. It is difficult to help people in a crisis sort through the life and death decisions they need to make and well intentioned is not enough. Without skill, experience and the proper motive, you could easily get people to agree with what you think best, rather than helping them decide what they think best. These missionaries set out to find children for American families, and find them they did. But, what they did was neither proper nor defensible. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:26 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/2010/01/guns-the-constitution-and-switzerland/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/guns-the-constitution-and-switzerland/#comments Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:37:36 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=126 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/guns-the-constitution-and-switzerland/feed/ 0 government,Gun politics,Law,second amendment,Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,Supreme Court,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court A fact regularly ignored in much of the gun debate – the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In 2008, the Supreme Court revisited the constitutional meaning of the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms, A fact regularly ignored in much of the gun debate – the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In 2008, the Supreme Court revisited the constitutional meaning of the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms,” and unequivocally affirmed our constitutional right of individual gun ownership. That should end the debate because a constitutional right is not the same as a governmental privilege; neither the legislature nor the Supreme Court can change a constitutional right.  Yet, gun control advocates continue discounting this reality with ongoing legislative assaults on our rights. The diatribe continues with tired and illegal arguments.  One popular “explanation” for limiting gun ownership is that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to have muskets; therefore, anything beyond a hunting gun is not protected by the Constitution. False.  First, the Constitution makes no mention of limiting gun ownership in any way, to any type of weapon.  Second, the muskets owned by citizens of the time were the very same muskets carried by the military.  In other words, the Founding Fathers intended the citizens’ weapons to be the same as the military’s, precisely because the Second Amendment was to arm us to protect ourselves from the government, should that be needed. Another argument is that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, evolving with the times and needs, reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. False again.  There is no language in the Constitution suggesting the government or its agent, the Supreme Court, can reinterpret or change the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers clearly stated the only way to change the Constitution is via Article V, an amendment.  The Constitution is amendable, but it is not re-interpretable. Another popular false argument is that gun control reduces crime.  Even if it were true (which it is not), the government simply does not have the legal authority to take our guns. I have a proposal.  Let’s copy the Swiss.  The Swiss build shooting ranges like we build golf courses.  Those who advocate taking our guns away would cringe at the Swiss, labeling them gun nuts.  Guns are everywhere in Switzerland. Why?  Because every able-bodied male is required, at the age of 20, to attend the Swiss equivalent of military boot camp and remain in the country’s national guard until the age of 30.  During those years they keep in their home their military rifle, similar to our military M-4. And when they complete their military obligation, they have the option to keep their weapon, once the fully automatic feature is removed, making it similar to our civilian AR-15. While every able-bodied Swiss male serves in the military, less than 1 percent of United States males ages 18 to 24 serve in our nation’s armed forces, according to the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, a “project dedicated to collecting and distributing United States census data.” Moreover, the Swiss love of guns goes well beyond the military, with the government building gun ranges, sponsoring shooting competitions and holding gun training clinics for all citizens.  Only two nations have more guns per-capita than Switzerland and it has more people trained to use guns per-capita than any place in the world. And guess what?  It is one of the safest places in the world, although one could argue this does not prove a link between gun ownership and less crime because other factors could be involved.  But Switzerland is an excellent example that gun ownership does not mandate increased crime as we are continually threatened it will. And there might be an added benefit.  What if we could get Congress as excited about spending money building shooting ranges and providing the citizens with weapons as they are about spending money on water taxis and bridges to nowhere. Remember, Congress has repeatedly proven its desire to spend huge sums of money, with little concern on how the money is spent. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:13 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/2009/07/the-czars-of-the-u-s-s-a/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/the-czars-of-the-u-s-s-a/#comments Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=107 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/the-czars-of-the-u-s-s-a/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/01/israel-or-palestine/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/01/israel-or-palestine/#comments Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:06:33 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=14 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/01/israel-or-palestine/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/08/the-united-states-the-worlds-provider-and-protector/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/08/the-united-states-the-worlds-provider-and-protector/#comments Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:51:16 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=74 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/08/the-united-states-the-worlds-provider-and-protector/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/04/should-america-boycott-beijing/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/04/should-america-boycott-beijing/#comments Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:53:57 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=57 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2008/04/should-america-boycott-beijing/feed/ 0