Media reports and people believe

We are on the cusp of the timeframe where candidates declare themselves as running in the 2016 presidential election.  Once again the media is getting ready to dig up as much dirt as they can on the candidates.  What's wrong with that don't the people have a right to know?

There is an old song from the 80's that helped to bring in the music video era. Dirty Laundry. 
it talks about how people love to hear bad news as long as its not about them.  This is so much more true today.  Scandal and bad press sell news.  When it involves a political candidate its even better.  When someone is running for office don't we as the voting public have a right to the truth?  Absolutely!!!!

So what is my problem with the media reporting the bad things about the candidates?  The media is famous for taking things out of context.  Anything from voting records to quotes.  They have a penchant to take something harmless and make it damaging. They like to only report the facts that paint the candidate in a bad light instead of the whole picture. They do not report the truth.  Why not report the truth?  The truth is often boring and boring doesn't sell news.  The media is the biggest PAC there is but they are not registered as one.  Since the media doesn't need to pay themselves to find ways to discredit those that don't align with their agenda there is no oversight for what they do in order to further the cause of their favored candidate. 

For those favored candidates.  Watch out!  Don't turn your backs on them.  One wrong move and you could find yourself in their crosshairs and on the downswing.

As you go into the 2016 presidential election season, don't take the media's word on anything.  If they report what seems to be a negative voting record, look at what they voted either for or against in its entirety.  If they report a quote that seems derogatory in nature, find out exactly where the quote came from and place it in context.  When the media reports that a candidate did something that a lot of people won't like, then look further into it and get all of the facts. 

Apprently there is no such thing as the common cold

So the question was asked why isn't there a cure for the common cold?  We have flu vaccines so why not for colds.  Well the common cold is a myth.  What we all call cold symptoms is the bodies immune response to viruses and infections affecting the respiratory tract.  There are literally hundreds of viruses and bacteria that cause cold symptoms.  Including over 100 different strains of rhinovirus.

So it appears that everyone's colds are as unique as they are.  So the symptoms may be common, but the causes are not so much.  All the different causes make it impossible to create a vaccine that would be effective against all causes of the cold symptoms we all suffer.  Who knew?  Well scientists of course.

Here is the thing.  Personally I don't think we need a cure for cold symptoms.  Getting sick is the body's way of telling us that we need to slow down an take care of ourselves.  If we eliminate  these early warning signs then our bodies will have no choice but to increase the severity of the warnings.

The ups and downs of digitized medical information.

It used to be that all medical records were done on paper.  On the up side it kept your private information private unless you gave permission for that info to be shared and only with the party you give permission for it to be shared with.  The downside of that is if you needed to see a series of specialists to get either a diagnosis or treatment you either had to sign a release form and wait for the records to arrive or personally hand carry your medical records to each doctor and that is only if the doctor was willing to release them to you.  Doctors were reluctant to hand medical records to the patient to decrease risk of those patients handing their records over to lawyers for lawsuit.  The additional upside was that if there was certain information that had no bearing on the current health issue than there was no need to divulge that information.

Now you go into a medical office and if you have been to any doctor before all your medical information is at their fingertips already just by pulling up your file from the centralized medical database.  The good thing about this is that there is no need to fill out endless forms each time you see a new doctor.  The bad part of this is that there is no longer any medical privacy.  If you are having a respiratory issue then the Dr. has no need to be made aware of you being treated for an STD 20 years ago, but its right there in black and white.  If you need to have your broken leg casted then there is no need for the specialist to know that you are seeing an Ears, nose and throat Dr, but there it is right there in your records for all to see.

Here is the other downside to central medical record digital storage.  When you go to get life insurance and the insurance requires a medical examination your entire life's medical history is available to the insurance company through their Dr.  It doesn't matter that your bout of depression was episodal 10 years ago your premium will be more expensive or insurance denied altogether.  It won't matter that you quit smoking 20 years ago your insurance premium will be higher.  It won't matter if you have completely changed your lifestyle past history will affect you insurance premiums as much if not more than your current history.

Its more than that if you visit a medical website on your computer and register your identity that information will get back to the insurance carriers.  Your spending habits will get back to your insurance carriers, the people you associate with will get back to them etc.  Everything that you do that can get information digitized and in a database somewhere will get out to those same insurance companies.  It won't matter that their assumptions are wrong it will cost you. 

The moral of the story is anytime that you do something that will get your personal information digitized or on the internet, think again.  Unless it is something completely positive with no negative associations it will affect you somewhere in your pocketbook down the line.  Consumer beware.

Why are people surprised by morality clauses?

Okay the story goes that you want to work for a certain company.  This company is founded by religious owners or organization.  You apply, you interview, you are offered the position.  As you go through all the paperwork that has to be filled out before you can be hired you come across a long document.  As you read this document it becomes clear that this job has a morality clause and that their moral standards are far different than your own.  At the time you think who cares.  My private life is my own its not their business so you go ahead and sign the clause because you really want the job.

Fast forward a few years.  You have been happily working at this company, but something has happened quite publicly in your life that goes against the morality clause that you signed before you began you job.  With the public nature of the situation your bosses have found out that you have gone against their morality clause and you are called into their office and promptly fired.  You are shocked and angry that the company would do this to you a loyal and hard worker.

Why are you surprised.  The company was upfront about what they expect from their employees.  You signed on the dotted line that you agreed to live by their morality standards while you where employed by their company.  The fact that you don't live by those standards has come to light in a very pubic manner.  Because of the contract that you signed the company has every right to terminate your employment.

Why should employers have the right to do this?  As a company looking for employees they have the right to look for the best fit within their company culture.  This does include what you do in your free-time and what your belief system is especially if you publicly represent this company.  As a person looking for work you should also be looking for the best fit for you.  The pay may be great, but if you are opposed to the companies philosophies in some areas than the company is not the right fit for you.  By willingly signing a contact stating that you accept the company's philosophy and agree to live by it when you have no intention of doing so is in fact being deceitful.  If you lie on an application or in an interview any company will terminate you.

As an individual looking for work you make a choice.  You do not have to work for a company that is opposed to your lifestyle or philosophy.  You may say that the money is better working for that company.  So what, you either look for a company that fits your personal philosophy at less money or you actually change your lifestyle to reflect your employers expectations. 

It is that simple yet I see it over and over again.  A person is fired for breaking the morality clause and they are shocked and angry that the company they worked for had the gall to terminate their employment.  They go to the media, they file lawsuits etc.  Anyone who signs a morality clause as part of their employment contract and fails to abide by it must expect that they will eventually get caught and they should expect their employment to be terminated, not be surprised when it happens.

Legalizing vices only makes sense

It has been said that you can't legislate morality.  This is true.  Over the ages various vices have been banned or made illegal by law, but it hasn't stopped people from indulging in those vices.  Instead these vices have gone underground and become large criminal endeavors.  There is even a vice squad in the big cities all devoted to going after these criminal operations.  So much time and money is spent trying to put a stop to peoples own lack of self control.

For example drug use.  Alcohol was once banned.  Alcohol is a drug that is widely used and after the prohibition years where it was proven that people would not give up alcohol just because it was illegal, the ban was over-turned.  When prohibition was overturned the machine behind the criminal enterprises were left without businesses.  They did eventually turn to other criminal endeavors but there was a short time where they floundered.  Most other drugs are illegal but drugs such as nicotine in cigarettes and cigars, caffeine in coffee, chocolate and soft drinks and alcohol are all legal substances.  These substances are just as damaging to the body and lifestyle as the drugs deemed to be illegal.  As far as I am concerned they should make all drugs illegal or all drugs legal.  Just because a drug is commonly used doesn't make it a good thing.

So why legalize all drugs instead of making them all illegal.  First of all by legalizing drugs you remove the criminality of it and free the police to work on burglary, assault, kidnapping and murder cases.  Second if the government legalizes the industry and regulates the heck out of it then the available drugs won't have the possibility of being lethal at first dose.  Third if you legalize drugs and tax them to the max as the government does with alcohol and tobacco then it becomes a line of revenue that can be used for treatment programs.  The bottom line is that people are going to use.  By legalizing it you take away the thrill of the forbidden for those who do things because they are illegal.  You make the drugs as safe as possible, create a line of revenue for the government and stop spending copious amounts of money on law enforcement on a vice that people are not going to avoid just because its illegal.

Another example would be prostitution.  Prostitution has been around since the dawn of time and is known as the oldest profession.  Men and women are victimized and exploited all in the name of sex.
Making it illegal has not stopped it and never will.  Prostitutes are rounded up time and time again to just be released once again to ply their trade.  Men troll the streets looking for those willing to service them for a price often putting wives and girlfriends in danger through unsafe sexual practices.  The people who are employed in this manner are in unsafe environments and are usually lured into the trade through drugs or deception. 

Here is what will happen if you legalize the trade.  Just like above it gets regulated and taxed.  Police are freed up to deal with other crime.  The environment these people work in become safe like the bunny ranch in Nevada.  The practicioners get weekly health check-ups for std's  and drug use.  I believe that sex workers should be screened for drug use because if they have to use drugs to get through their job then it is not a healthy place for them to be and they will find themselves in dangerous situations because their judgment is impaired.  Because of these check-ups innocent women will not be harmed by having their husbands or boyfriend bring home HIV or other Sexually Transmitted diseases. Or in some cases men won't have their women bring it home etc...

I personally don't believe that drug use or sex outside of marriage is a good thing, but I can't impose my beliefs on other people.  By making these vices legal you make the world a safer place due to regulation.  For those who are curious I do not hold this same view on abortion as abortion is the ending of innocent life and therefore harmful to the world.

If same sex marriage is okay than why not polygamy?

So more and more states are allowing same sex marriage.  More and more people are accepting same sex marriage as okay.  So why does polygamy still get a bad rap? 

Most Christian faiths are against polygamous marriages, why is that.  It all boils down to one thing.  In the 1800's there was only one Christian sect that practiced polygamy.  In an effort to destroy that Christian sect the country decided to outlaw the practice.  It didn't work( that sect has over 10 million members around the world) that Christian sect decided that they needed to choose between a tenet of their faith and following the law of the land.  One of the other tenents of that faith was to follow the law of the land so after much consideration the leadership of that sect decided to follow the law of the land and told their followers that they would no longer perform polygamous marriages but they would not disallow those marriages already in place.  There were a couple of groups that didn't agree with that ruling and those break-off sects continue to practice polygamy to this day.

Islam, budhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions allow polygamy, but if you want to come to this country and you have a polygamous marriage you can only bring one wife and must leave behind all other wives and their children.  Whatever happened to religious freedom?  Even those who profess to be proponents of religious freedom see nothing wrong with the ban on polygamous marriages even those based on religious practice.  All based on wanting to destroy a single religion. 

Here is the thing.  Which is worse a man who marries multiple wives who all know each other and may even live together or a man having women on the side where his wife has no idea?  In the first case all children are acknowledged and even raised together as a family knowing all their brothers and sisters.  In the second case any children produced from the illicit liason are often dirty little secrets hidden so as to not jeopardize the marriage. As long as all involved are consenting adults and amenable to the situation what is the problem?

The Browns of Sister wives are beginning the long road to fighting a law that infringes on religious freedom.  Our country was founded on religious freedom.  What is religious freedom but the right to practice your religion without government interference unless they are actually harming others.  This goes for Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Budhist, Hindu or any other religion or non-religion.  Those sects who include children in their marriage rights are harming them and should be jailed for sex abuse.  But otherwise polygamy when agreed upon by all participating adults harms no one.

History, a controversial subject !

So here we go again.  Teachers and students in Denver Colorado are protesting over a newly proposed history program.  This history program would focus on the positive side of US history such as patriotism, free world market, following authority, obeying laws and good citizenship. 

This is directly opposite of the history approach where we no longer teach about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. The current history program focuses on things like the civil war being about slavery( it was about states rights, slavery was just one issue within that)  The current history program wants to focus heavily on the civil rights and the women's movement and focus on how awful the founding father's were.

So which approach is better?  I say neither.  What should be happening is that students should be taught to be good citizens.  They should be taught self-government and how our government works. Outside that students should be taught history as it happened without bias.  Both the good and the bad in history should be taught so that the kids can learn from the negative as well as the positive.

There is a saying that those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat  it.  History should be taught as a whole through time periods and not focus on region.  History should be taught that during this time period these things were happening.  By doing time periods and showing what was happening all over that world at that time then it puts history in perspective.  It shows how events effect all parts of the world at one time.  Government studies should be done by showing how each form of government worked throughout historical events by using facts and not opinions. 

How do we do this?  We teach about the revolutionary war period by showing what was happening in each type of government in the world at the time.  What was happening in Spain, France, The middle east, Africa, Great Britain and the British colonies all over.  That puts the revolutionary war in context with the rest of the world at the time.  By looking at the rise and fall of governments throughout history in the context of the rest of the world at the same time a pattern develops as to why certain forms of government fail. By learning that we can learn from those failures and not repeat those mistakes.

So go ahead and protest the proposed history curriculum, but until history is taught factually and without bias then whatever form it takes will be one sided and warped.