It amazes me how "thin skinned" the Israelis are. Whenever an organization says they aren't going to buy stock in Israeli companies they scream discrimination. When an organization initiates an "academic boycott" they scream The American Studies Association (ASA) says its academic boycott is not discriminating against Israelis. | UTSanDiego.com. When members of the US Government complain about Israel's continuing to build settlements on Palestinian land, they complain loudly and act insulted. However, on the other side, they have continued to defy the US by building settlements, they have just blown up many Palestinian homes and slaughtered thousands of people calling it "defense". They say they are a "friend and ally" of the US -- but have not supported the US in any war with troops or weapons, even though the US has bought most of their weapons for them. I haven't heard of Israel supporting any of our efforts to stop ISIS, even though ISIS is a threat to Israel as well as Iraq. Also, they are the only Middle East government that has directly attacked US ships, and the only one from whom the US routinely arrests spies. .
Thursday, October 30, 2014
How to save the planet? Stop having children | Frankie Mullin | Society | The Guardian
The Guardian had this article that points out that the root of the world's problems are overpopulation.
How to save the planet? Stop having children | Frankie Mullin | Society | The Guardian
There have always been concerns about the world's population and predictions that humans would run out of food for the teeming masses. So this isn't all that new. Maybe we aren't in danger of running out of food or space to live. But it is clear now that we are affecting the global environment and we are squeezing out other species of plants and animals who live in the world. When humans run out of land to live on and grow food, we will probably begin to inhabit and farm the oceans. By doing that, humans can continue to survive, but the cost may be the loss of most of the other "non-useful" species of life.
The overpopulation problem has been delayed by the many plagues and wars that have destroyed massive amounts of population and slowed down the growth. However, now with modern medicine, we have conquered most of those diseases, and there will not likely be any plagues that will make a large dent in the population. I had always expected a World War III to occur during the cold war, and envisioned a post-nuclear war world that could take centuries to get back to today's population. It appears, at least for the present, that we may not have a nuclear holocaust.
Small changes can have huge effects on the world over time. Reducing the birthrate would have a tremendous effect on the world's environment in 50 to 100 years from now. I agree that medical practitioners in the US should help families make intelligent decisions on family size and assist their patients reach those goals using modern medical techniques.
However, the world also needs to put pressure on the religions of the world who are trying to grow and spread their religions by having more babies. Muslims, Catholics, Hasidic Jews, and Mormons, for example seem to want to have as many babies as possible to promote their religion. More babies means more people paying to support the church, and more people to proselytize and spread the religion. The Catholic Church, carefully developed a theology several hundred years after Christ that started the restrictions on birth control See this article on Slate It wasn't until the 1930s that the Catholic Church made birth control "a sin" . Other religions later seemed to adopt the same belief in order to try to maintain their "population" in competition with the Catholics. Somehow, world opinion needs to be changed to discourage this sort of destructive behavior and families who do have more than a few children need to be financially penalized for that decision. Should the world pay for those very large families health care? Free education? Reduced income taxes?
How to save the planet? Stop having children | Frankie Mullin | Society | The Guardian
There have always been concerns about the world's population and predictions that humans would run out of food for the teeming masses. So this isn't all that new. Maybe we aren't in danger of running out of food or space to live. But it is clear now that we are affecting the global environment and we are squeezing out other species of plants and animals who live in the world. When humans run out of land to live on and grow food, we will probably begin to inhabit and farm the oceans. By doing that, humans can continue to survive, but the cost may be the loss of most of the other "non-useful" species of life.
The overpopulation problem has been delayed by the many plagues and wars that have destroyed massive amounts of population and slowed down the growth. However, now with modern medicine, we have conquered most of those diseases, and there will not likely be any plagues that will make a large dent in the population. I had always expected a World War III to occur during the cold war, and envisioned a post-nuclear war world that could take centuries to get back to today's population. It appears, at least for the present, that we may not have a nuclear holocaust.
Small changes can have huge effects on the world over time. Reducing the birthrate would have a tremendous effect on the world's environment in 50 to 100 years from now. I agree that medical practitioners in the US should help families make intelligent decisions on family size and assist their patients reach those goals using modern medical techniques.
However, the world also needs to put pressure on the religions of the world who are trying to grow and spread their religions by having more babies. Muslims, Catholics, Hasidic Jews, and Mormons, for example seem to want to have as many babies as possible to promote their religion. More babies means more people paying to support the church, and more people to proselytize and spread the religion. The Catholic Church, carefully developed a theology several hundred years after Christ that started the restrictions on birth control See this article on Slate It wasn't until the 1930s that the Catholic Church made birth control "a sin" . Other religions later seemed to adopt the same belief in order to try to maintain their "population" in competition with the Catholics. Somehow, world opinion needs to be changed to discourage this sort of destructive behavior and families who do have more than a few children need to be financially penalized for that decision. Should the world pay for those very large families health care? Free education? Reduced income taxes?
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Border Patrol dragging their feet investigating Mexican Civilian killing
The LA times had a front page article (by Brian Bennett and Joseph Tanfani) about the border patrol killing a Mexican man who was having a picnic with his family. See this link: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-shooting-20141019-story.html#page=1
The article reported that the border patrol officer shot into a crowd of civilians on the Mexican side of the border because they were throwing rocks at their boat. It would seem to me that any country shooting a civilian across the border would be an international incident. I can't imagine what would have happened if a US civilian were killed by a mexican law enforcement officer by shooting across the border.
This shooting happened two years ago and is still "under investigation" by the FBI. Video of the situation may be available from border cameras, but the Border Patrol has refused to release it.
This seems crazy to me! The evidence should be presented ASAP both to the Mexicans and to the US "Court of Public Opinion". If the officer was guilty of murder, he should be prosecuted as soon as possible too. Two years is much too long!
We clearly need a Federal law that sets up a Federal register of all law enforcement shootings. I don't think the country knows if law enforcement agencies are abusing deadly force. If we don't have statistics we will never know.
The article reported that the border patrol officer shot into a crowd of civilians on the Mexican side of the border because they were throwing rocks at their boat. It would seem to me that any country shooting a civilian across the border would be an international incident. I can't imagine what would have happened if a US civilian were killed by a mexican law enforcement officer by shooting across the border.
This shooting happened two years ago and is still "under investigation" by the FBI. Video of the situation may be available from border cameras, but the Border Patrol has refused to release it.
This seems crazy to me! The evidence should be presented ASAP both to the Mexicans and to the US "Court of Public Opinion". If the officer was guilty of murder, he should be prosecuted as soon as possible too. Two years is much too long!
We clearly need a Federal law that sets up a Federal register of all law enforcement shootings. I don't think the country knows if law enforcement agencies are abusing deadly force. If we don't have statistics we will never know.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
St Louis police officer shoots dead black teenager while off duty | US news | theguardian.com
Here we go again! Another unexplained police shooting of an unarmed black man. You would think that the police departments in that region would have gone through some additional training after the Ferguson incident.
St Louis police officer shoots dead black teenager while off duty | US news | theguardian.com
It appears to me that this police department is making some of the same mistakes that the Ferguson police made. They are hiding the details, refusing to provide the name of the police officer etc. There are some items that should be made public ASAP.
1. The Police say they have recovered ballistic evidence that the 18 yr old had fired three bullets -- Why not release that information to the press? Or is the evidence "shaky at best"...
2. Why is the Police department supporting the officer? This was an off-duty employment for the officer. His employer should be involved, not the City Police department.
3. Why was the officer chasing the men? Did they do anything wrong other than run away from him? Were they committing a crime when he encountered them?
4. As an off-duty officer working as a security guard, why would he chase down a suspect -- particularly if he thought the suspect was armed?
5. I'm sure the officer had a phone or radio. Did he call for backup? Or call the police if he thought a crime was in progress?
6. Why on earth would he shoot the man 17 times? That is crazy? Why not fire warning shots? Wound the man? Call for additional police backup and try to capture him?
'
St Louis police officer shoots dead black teenager while off duty | US news | theguardian.com
It appears to me that this police department is making some of the same mistakes that the Ferguson police made. They are hiding the details, refusing to provide the name of the police officer etc. There are some items that should be made public ASAP.
1. The Police say they have recovered ballistic evidence that the 18 yr old had fired three bullets -- Why not release that information to the press? Or is the evidence "shaky at best"...
2. Why is the Police department supporting the officer? This was an off-duty employment for the officer. His employer should be involved, not the City Police department.
3. Why was the officer chasing the men? Did they do anything wrong other than run away from him? Were they committing a crime when he encountered them?
4. As an off-duty officer working as a security guard, why would he chase down a suspect -- particularly if he thought the suspect was armed?
5. I'm sure the officer had a phone or radio. Did he call for backup? Or call the police if he thought a crime was in progress?
6. Why on earth would he shoot the man 17 times? That is crazy? Why not fire warning shots? Wound the man? Call for additional police backup and try to capture him?
'
Sunday, October 5, 2014
60 Minutes: High Cost of Cancer Drugs
60 Minutes reported this evening on the absurd high prices of cancer drugs that extend the life of cancer patients, but often drive them and their families into bankruptcy --even when only paying the copays. Here is a link to the text of the interviews and the video: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-cost-of-cancer-drugs/
As an investor in several "big pharma" companies, I do understand how expensive it is to develop, test and get approval of a new drug. The time a company has to recover those costs is often limited by the life of the patent, the chance of complications, and the likely chance of obsolescence as new drugs are developed. The companies do take huge risks, spend immense amounts of money on development and have teams of smart, inspired professionals.
On the other hand, I'm appalled that these same drug companies are able to negotiate with other countries and sell those same drugs at much lower prices than to American citizens. US R&D is generally subsidized at US universities. Our FDA spends a lot of money to support the approval process etc. Why should US Citizens pay more for the drugs than Canada, EU, Australia or Japan?
I think either the US should either allow Government agencies to negotiate drug company prices, or pass a simple law that says that drug companies can't sell drugs in other countries at prices lower than used within the US. That will "spread" the costs over more of the world.
As an investor in several "big pharma" companies, I do understand how expensive it is to develop, test and get approval of a new drug. The time a company has to recover those costs is often limited by the life of the patent, the chance of complications, and the likely chance of obsolescence as new drugs are developed. The companies do take huge risks, spend immense amounts of money on development and have teams of smart, inspired professionals.
On the other hand, I'm appalled that these same drug companies are able to negotiate with other countries and sell those same drugs at much lower prices than to American citizens. US R&D is generally subsidized at US universities. Our FDA spends a lot of money to support the approval process etc. Why should US Citizens pay more for the drugs than Canada, EU, Australia or Japan?
I think either the US should either allow Government agencies to negotiate drug company prices, or pass a simple law that says that drug companies can't sell drugs in other countries at prices lower than used within the US. That will "spread" the costs over more of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)