Last week Jan Brewer, Arizona's Governor, signed into law an undoubtedly unconstitutional law making people of obvious Hispanic descent victims. I must admit to spending way too much time on Huffington Post making counterpoint after counterpoint to the rabid supporters of this law. While there have been many participants on my side, I doubt that we have changed any minds. They are focused on a tiny percent of theoretical wrong doers and have no compassion at all. (So much for compassionate conservatism. Even Bush wanted to offer amnesty to the "illegal" immigrants.)
First let me explain why I think the law is unconstitutional. Citizens who look to be of Hispanic descent are now subject to being stopped by Arizona law enforcement for any "reasonable suspicion." While most of these "excuse" infractions may be real, I'll be willing to bet that a very low percentage of non-Hispanics will ever be stopped for the same infractions. Once stopped the citizen will be asked to show proof of legal residency. I for one do not carry around any such "proof," unless my driver's license would be considered proof, but I know that it is easy to obtain a driver's license whether illegal or not. Thus a citizen is deprived of their right to be "safe and secure in their person" by what can only be described as a police state activity.
Constitutional or not, what I really don't like is what is says about an already too large of a segment of our population and thus about all of us. The fact that there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration when the constitution was created does not take away our right to police our borders, protecting both our property and our rights, but Arizona is going about it the wrong way. They are making a target of Mexicans, Mexicans who are already so badly treated in their own country that they have risked everything to illegally immigrate to the U.S.
Once here they are often exploited by individual citizens and employers who pay them less than they legally should, while at the same time cheating the U.S. government out of a proper share of taxes and fees, including payments into the Social Security fund, payments that would definitely be made if the worker were a citizen or less exploited. If the "illegal" immigrant is provided with false identification, paid at least the minimum wage, and has all of the appropriate taxes and fees taken from their earnings, they will never be able to gain the benefits that these payments are for. (In fact, it was just written into the Health Insurance Reform bill that the insurance exchanges are NOT available to "illegal" immigrants, as if the insurance companies needed any reason to discriminate.)
Just think, since their Social Security Number cannot be their own and is often supplied by their employer, when the employer bothers to pay FICA on their wages, they will never be able to collect. Should they be laid off, they are not able to collect unemployment.
But the greatest problem I see from this law is that it makes them victims of crimes without recourse. It may very well be true that truly unsavory characters are mixed among the "illegal" immigrants. I am certain that those unsavory characters, who are probably representatives of drug gangs, already have real or forged documents that would pass police scrutiny at any random stop. So the law will do nothing for what I read as the expressed greatest reason for the law. It certainly deprives the non-criminal, except for crossing a boundary without papers, any ability to report these criminals, the exploitive employer criminals, or the white supremacy thugs who prey on them.
Protecting the exploitive employers may be the whole purpose for the law, as if it were needed for that. Since Arizona made it illegal to hire "illegals" a couple years ago, a grand total of two companies have had their wrists slapped.
While their lives are certainly changing more than mine, I never thought I'd live in a police state. Show me your papers, indeed.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
The more things change...
Why am I writing this in Life Changing? There are only three things that are supposed to radically change a person: a frontal lobotomy, deep psychoanalysis, or a religious conversation. Since this is somewhat on the topic of religion even though it is more about how human nature is unchanging, hence the title "the more things change ...," this entry is made here. (The full quote is "The more things change the more they stay the same." According to Yahoo Answers, it is a Proverb attributed to French novelist Alphonse Karr (1808-90).)
During a recent "long" drive through Portland, where I didn't stop at my favorite book store, Powell's Books, I happened to listen to at least a portion of a segment on a radio channel that I no longer remember, if I ever knew. (This I do not attribute to age but rather the effect of hitting seek and not noticing the channel it lit upon.)
Anyway, there was this female radio personality interviewing a male representative of the Culture and Media Institute who was waxing long, if not eloquently on the anti-Christian bias of HuffingtonPost's new religion tab. Now, I like HuffingtonPost and its format/forum which generally presents both news and a collection of generally well written blogs about a variety of topics and allows comments to both.
While I can agree that most of the blogs are of a liberal bias and the commenters seem to be a plurality of liberals, I had not actually gone to the "Religion" tab/page to get any impression of its bias, if any. And while I have done so now, I don't think that the HuffingtonPost is all that selective in its "news" so as to be biased or slanted in a way to be anti-Christian. I do think that the news that is current casts religion, and particularly, Christianity in a less than favorable light but this is not of HuffingtonPost's manufacture.
The current stories headlined there are of the potential Catholic coverup of Priests committing long-term acts of pedophilia. Rather than their removal from the situation that allowed such acts, they were believed to be contrite, committed to "sin no more," and forgiven. Another is of the Hutaree, a self-proclaimed Christian Militia. But there are also stories on the "news" of religions, namely: Easter and Passover, as well as acts of faith and charity. Admittedly fewer of the latter than the former but the HuffingtonPost is about presenting all the news and like most news organizations with a more conservative bias, i.e., Fox News, it is also about controversy and traffic, ratings.
For the most part, except for many of the comments, I have found HuffingtonPost's written contributions to be well thought out and worded. Many of them do express the authors' opinions of the facts, generally also well presented, If, as I've already admitted, this is a liberal bias, then it's because the facts tend to support that bias or that the subjects selected naturally have those kinds of facts.
What really got me in the interview was the Culture and Media representative going one step further and saying that HuffingtonPost was attacking prominent Christians, mentioning Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum specifically. His advocacy for anyone who chooses to call themselves Christian is worse than blind, particularly when that reinforces equally strongly their blatant non-Christian actions as role models.
My mother always used to say, "Christian is as Christian does." Pointing out the blatant lies and hypocrisy of such "prominent" self-proclaimed Christians is not an attack on Christianity but rather its only hope for salvation. Allowing anyone to practice uncaring greed, lying to deceive, and portraying those acts as Christianity to the world is horrendously damaging to Christianity. If those public figures want the mantle of Christianity, then they should act like Christians.
Blindly supporting any conservative, who is generally only conservative about their own power and money and not conservative in any other way, because they also "say" they are a Christian, fails to promote either conservatism or Christianity.
During a recent "long" drive through Portland, where I didn't stop at my favorite book store, Powell's Books, I happened to listen to at least a portion of a segment on a radio channel that I no longer remember, if I ever knew. (This I do not attribute to age but rather the effect of hitting seek and not noticing the channel it lit upon.)
Anyway, there was this female radio personality interviewing a male representative of the Culture and Media Institute who was waxing long, if not eloquently on the anti-Christian bias of HuffingtonPost's new religion tab. Now, I like HuffingtonPost and its format/forum which generally presents both news and a collection of generally well written blogs about a variety of topics and allows comments to both.
While I can agree that most of the blogs are of a liberal bias and the commenters seem to be a plurality of liberals, I had not actually gone to the "Religion" tab/page to get any impression of its bias, if any. And while I have done so now, I don't think that the HuffingtonPost is all that selective in its "news" so as to be biased or slanted in a way to be anti-Christian. I do think that the news that is current casts religion, and particularly, Christianity in a less than favorable light but this is not of HuffingtonPost's manufacture.
The current stories headlined there are of the potential Catholic coverup of Priests committing long-term acts of pedophilia. Rather than their removal from the situation that allowed such acts, they were believed to be contrite, committed to "sin no more," and forgiven. Another is of the Hutaree, a self-proclaimed Christian Militia. But there are also stories on the "news" of religions, namely: Easter and Passover, as well as acts of faith and charity. Admittedly fewer of the latter than the former but the HuffingtonPost is about presenting all the news and like most news organizations with a more conservative bias, i.e., Fox News, it is also about controversy and traffic, ratings.
For the most part, except for many of the comments, I have found HuffingtonPost's written contributions to be well thought out and worded. Many of them do express the authors' opinions of the facts, generally also well presented, If, as I've already admitted, this is a liberal bias, then it's because the facts tend to support that bias or that the subjects selected naturally have those kinds of facts.
What really got me in the interview was the Culture and Media representative going one step further and saying that HuffingtonPost was attacking prominent Christians, mentioning Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum specifically. His advocacy for anyone who chooses to call themselves Christian is worse than blind, particularly when that reinforces equally strongly their blatant non-Christian actions as role models.
My mother always used to say, "Christian is as Christian does." Pointing out the blatant lies and hypocrisy of such "prominent" self-proclaimed Christians is not an attack on Christianity but rather its only hope for salvation. Allowing anyone to practice uncaring greed, lying to deceive, and portraying those acts as Christianity to the world is horrendously damaging to Christianity. If those public figures want the mantle of Christianity, then they should act like Christians.
Blindly supporting any conservative, who is generally only conservative about their own power and money and not conservative in any other way, because they also "say" they are a Christian, fails to promote either conservatism or Christianity.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Network Marketing
Some number of years ago some strangers met me in a coffee shop and tried to talk me into joining a Network Marketing pyramid for Amway. I enjoyed the latte they bought me and politely said, "No! No way! Never me!"
At the time I considered Multi-Level Marketing to be nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Now, particularly with the right product(s), I consider it an alternative and perhaps even better way to get the word out. Certainly the Network Marketing commissions are no more expensive than advertising costs, which are also part of the cost of the product, not to mention the retail profit margin.
Now I've found a suite of products that I believe in, primarily because some very respectable people have talked more about the science behind them and their own personal benefit from their use than that Network Marketing means getting rich. Unfortunately, they are available only at something that approaches a reasonable price only if you are in the network. Not that making some money doesn't appeal to me. It does, particularly now with my layoff and the stock market collapse delaying, if not bursting my business or early retirement dreams.
Ever since Marilyn passed away, I've kept my eyes open for anything that improves the immune system. For the last year and a half I have been a vegan. Unfortunately, being a vegan requires a lot of study and planning to get the right quantity and combinations to maximize its benefits. Supplements help, indeed some are required, vitamin B-12, but the supplements also have a best pattern of being taken and it isn't always made explicit. Much of what I know came from the Gerson Therapy that Marilyn was on. For everything but the cancer, and it may have been working slowly on the cancer until she stopped, it was obviously working miracles for the rest of her. They had her taking supplements before, during and after meals (and a lot of juices in between).
Even now there isn't a magic pill but there is a set of products that helps revitalize the immune system without all the juices and coffee enemas. These products are all from Orenda International.
I will be taking O-Tropin, Immune, and possibly the All in One Male. I'm recommending my sisters take at least the Immune and All in One Female. The Oki product helps muscles recover faster, improving the benefits of exercise.
There are other people I know who could benefit from these, and other, of the Orenda products. Hey, that is Network Marketing.
At the time I considered Multi-Level Marketing to be nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Now, particularly with the right product(s), I consider it an alternative and perhaps even better way to get the word out. Certainly the Network Marketing commissions are no more expensive than advertising costs, which are also part of the cost of the product, not to mention the retail profit margin.
Now I've found a suite of products that I believe in, primarily because some very respectable people have talked more about the science behind them and their own personal benefit from their use than that Network Marketing means getting rich. Unfortunately, they are available only at something that approaches a reasonable price only if you are in the network. Not that making some money doesn't appeal to me. It does, particularly now with my layoff and the stock market collapse delaying, if not bursting my business or early retirement dreams.
Ever since Marilyn passed away, I've kept my eyes open for anything that improves the immune system. For the last year and a half I have been a vegan. Unfortunately, being a vegan requires a lot of study and planning to get the right quantity and combinations to maximize its benefits. Supplements help, indeed some are required, vitamin B-12, but the supplements also have a best pattern of being taken and it isn't always made explicit. Much of what I know came from the Gerson Therapy that Marilyn was on. For everything but the cancer, and it may have been working slowly on the cancer until she stopped, it was obviously working miracles for the rest of her. They had her taking supplements before, during and after meals (and a lot of juices in between).
Even now there isn't a magic pill but there is a set of products that helps revitalize the immune system without all the juices and coffee enemas. These products are all from Orenda International.
I will be taking O-Tropin, Immune, and possibly the All in One Male. I'm recommending my sisters take at least the Immune and All in One Female. The Oki product helps muscles recover faster, improving the benefits of exercise.
There are other people I know who could benefit from these, and other, of the Orenda products. Hey, that is Network Marketing.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Stimulus Sedation
In my current condition of unemployment coupled with a stock market meltdown, real property collapse, and an inability to refinance a mortgage to a better [for me] cash flow, you'd think I'd be all in favor of a stimulus. I am but ...
With a record debt, continuing budget and trade deficits, and finally a little more rational consumerism, because of all the economic worries, any government stimulus spending will have at best a marginal contribution to improving our economy and only if it is large enough and spent on the right things to overcome the increased debt it causes.
For governmental deficit, stimulus, spending to have a maximum impact, it should be a rather unique event. Instead the U.S. has continually run unneeded deficits because the politicians have been unwilling to live within our means. Historically both Democrats and Republicans have dropped the ball with too much spending on items that are operating costs, not capital investments, and an unwillingness to tax appropriately to cover either, let alone both. (I know you can point to the budget surpluses of the Clinton era, but the Great Society/Vietnam War of the Johnson era trumps that and besides, the surpluses of the Clinton era were mostly a matter of luck rather than the politicians doing anything positive to achieve them.)
Of course, the massive spending and revenue reduction of both the Reagan and Bush eras top everything. Without their $8 trillion addition to the national debt, a stimulus package now would have a much greater effect.
In some ways you can say that our need for a stimulus now is partly driven by the inappropriate stimulus of the unnecessary deficit spending in years past. We've been stimulated so much we are addicts. It is much like a sugar high that is followed by a crash. Our government's massive debt is at least partially responsible for the credit contraction as it has to borrow money from the credit markets to finance its debt. This is exacerbated by a reduced source of cheap money from the Social Security fund as it turns to a net outflow. Further, the artificial exuberance, lack of regulation, and indeed the encouragement of some sectors, say housing, contributed to a bubble that requires correcting. Unfortunately, when everything corrects at the same time, we get a depression.
To keep the stimulus from being a sedative instead, kind of like an Irish Coffee, additional revenue must be found very quickly. This revenue has to come from the people and corporations that have money and can pay. If we are not going to do away with Corporate Income Taxes in favor of a Value Added Tax, or its equivalent, we need to immediately institute a flat tax on all corporate worldwide profits based on the proportion of business they do in the U.S. This will take care of a company's ability to use international transfer pricing to artificially understate their U.S. profits. (We should also eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, not limited to but certainly inclusive of selling off our national resources, such as trees, at below market rates.) If we are not going to do away with a progressive income tax on individuals, then it needs to be dramatically simplified with fewer tiers and much less taxation of the lowest income tier and much more taxation of the highest income tier.
A government that lives within its means and makes appropriate investments for the future would be more than refreshing, it would be--stimulating.
With a record debt, continuing budget and trade deficits, and finally a little more rational consumerism, because of all the economic worries, any government stimulus spending will have at best a marginal contribution to improving our economy and only if it is large enough and spent on the right things to overcome the increased debt it causes.
For governmental deficit, stimulus, spending to have a maximum impact, it should be a rather unique event. Instead the U.S. has continually run unneeded deficits because the politicians have been unwilling to live within our means. Historically both Democrats and Republicans have dropped the ball with too much spending on items that are operating costs, not capital investments, and an unwillingness to tax appropriately to cover either, let alone both. (I know you can point to the budget surpluses of the Clinton era, but the Great Society/Vietnam War of the Johnson era trumps that and besides, the surpluses of the Clinton era were mostly a matter of luck rather than the politicians doing anything positive to achieve them.)
Of course, the massive spending and revenue reduction of both the Reagan and Bush eras top everything. Without their $8 trillion addition to the national debt, a stimulus package now would have a much greater effect.
In some ways you can say that our need for a stimulus now is partly driven by the inappropriate stimulus of the unnecessary deficit spending in years past. We've been stimulated so much we are addicts. It is much like a sugar high that is followed by a crash. Our government's massive debt is at least partially responsible for the credit contraction as it has to borrow money from the credit markets to finance its debt. This is exacerbated by a reduced source of cheap money from the Social Security fund as it turns to a net outflow. Further, the artificial exuberance, lack of regulation, and indeed the encouragement of some sectors, say housing, contributed to a bubble that requires correcting. Unfortunately, when everything corrects at the same time, we get a depression.
To keep the stimulus from being a sedative instead, kind of like an Irish Coffee, additional revenue must be found very quickly. This revenue has to come from the people and corporations that have money and can pay. If we are not going to do away with Corporate Income Taxes in favor of a Value Added Tax, or its equivalent, we need to immediately institute a flat tax on all corporate worldwide profits based on the proportion of business they do in the U.S. This will take care of a company's ability to use international transfer pricing to artificially understate their U.S. profits. (We should also eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, not limited to but certainly inclusive of selling off our national resources, such as trees, at below market rates.) If we are not going to do away with a progressive income tax on individuals, then it needs to be dramatically simplified with fewer tiers and much less taxation of the lowest income tier and much more taxation of the highest income tier.
A government that lives within its means and makes appropriate investments for the future would be more than refreshing, it would be--stimulating.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business
Arguments about marriage, married, and all other variants are just semantics. We say married to one's job, marriage made in heaven and use divorce just as frequently in semantically similar constructs.
Since California's Supreme Court ruled similarly to the Massachusetts' Supreme Court, there has been an uproar about legal semantics, with Proposition 8 seeking to make a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between a man and a women. (While statistically there is not a large population of transexuals, I wonder where they fit in this definition.) Already in California a person can be ordained via the Internet in the Universal Church of Life and be authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies.
Both presidential candidates have stated that they support Civil Unions for other than a man and woman but one campaign is against modifying the state constitution and one is actively campaigning for it.
I only mention it because the state should only be in the business of Civil Unions for everyone: gays, straight, men, women. The only reason that the state should be involved at all is to establish the property, access, and progeny rights formally and legally. This service should cost as should the dissolution of the contracts.
And these are contracts. As contracts, Civil Unions should be allowed between any consenting legal entity, or perhaps even entities. What they allow are family rights, (insurance, visitation, ...), and family responsibilities, (debt, support, ...). Entering into these contracts should not be done lightly and exiting should only be possible with agreed to splitting of the responsibilities.
In the final analysis, marriage is just a word. Even if my wife and I were "Civil Unioned" instead of "married," I would still call what we had a "marriage." It was even blessed by a church, well a pastor of a church, Presbyterian I believe.
Since California's Supreme Court ruled similarly to the Massachusetts' Supreme Court, there has been an uproar about legal semantics, with Proposition 8 seeking to make a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between a man and a women. (While statistically there is not a large population of transexuals, I wonder where they fit in this definition.) Already in California a person can be ordained via the Internet in the Universal Church of Life and be authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies.
Both presidential candidates have stated that they support Civil Unions for other than a man and woman but one campaign is against modifying the state constitution and one is actively campaigning for it.
I only mention it because the state should only be in the business of Civil Unions for everyone: gays, straight, men, women. The only reason that the state should be involved at all is to establish the property, access, and progeny rights formally and legally. This service should cost as should the dissolution of the contracts.
And these are contracts. As contracts, Civil Unions should be allowed between any consenting legal entity, or perhaps even entities. What they allow are family rights, (insurance, visitation, ...), and family responsibilities, (debt, support, ...). Entering into these contracts should not be done lightly and exiting should only be possible with agreed to splitting of the responsibilities.
In the final analysis, marriage is just a word. Even if my wife and I were "Civil Unioned" instead of "married," I would still call what we had a "marriage." It was even blessed by a church, well a pastor of a church, Presbyterian I believe.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
December 23, 2007
My life changed forever on this date as my wife of almost 30 years passed away from her cancer. For the last six months I have been burying myself in my work and crying on my own time. I have started a memorial, The Marilyn Westbrook Garment Fund, with the kind assistance of Saskia Thiadens and her National Lymphedema Network.
http://www.lymphnet.org/patients/westbrookFund.htm
I may never get back to this blog, but will be starting another one with the theme of Memories of Marilyn. It will be for two purposes: document Marilyn's life for the grandchildren who will never meet her in person and to encourage donations to the Marilyn Westbrook Garment Fund.
My personal funds are limited so all I could seed the fund with was a modest life insurance amount I received from my employer. I want this memorial to be a lasting benefit for two reasons: the cause is so worthy and, of course, to keep the memory of Marilyn alive through this good purpose.
Doyle Westbrook
Loving husband of Marilyn Westbrook
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Gerson Therapy Part I
While I am truly a believer in most of the claims for the Gerson Therapy, namely that it enables the body to heal itself from an amazing assortment of diseases, it doesn't do so without an almost obsessive-compulsive adherence to a regimen that is very difficult to sustain. It is mostly difficult due to the obstacles that politicians and AMA have put in its way. It is also very consuming, both for the patient and the care-giver.
Its premise rings true with me: remove all the obstacles to the body healing itself and the body does exactly that. Unfortunately, modern obstacles are many with pollution, flouride, and AMA medical care. Also unfortunately, it may be a slower process than some aggressive cancers. For the aggressive cancers you need surgery but chemotherapy and radiation are strong carcinogens and destroy the body's ability to heal itself. Even the anesthetics used during surgery and the disruption of the surgery itself depresses the immune system.The full therapy is life changing, during and after the treatment phase. The treatment phase is even longer now than when first created due to the greater number of toxins in everyday life. Charlotte Gerson has said that during the treatment, the care-giver may have intervals as much as 20 minutes of freetime, particularly if the patient cannot do much for herself. If the schedule is strictly adhered to, there is a block of time after 7:00 PM that is free, unless night time clay packs, teas, or other treatments are needed. This is to go on for two years, or more.
I would have gladly done this as long as necessary for a cure. Unfortunately, my wife was not as obsessive-compulsive as required and certain actions by our HMO, Kaiser, made it impossible for her to continue.
Its premise rings true with me: remove all the obstacles to the body healing itself and the body does exactly that. Unfortunately, modern obstacles are many with pollution, flouride, and AMA medical care. Also unfortunately, it may be a slower process than some aggressive cancers. For the aggressive cancers you need surgery but chemotherapy and radiation are strong carcinogens and destroy the body's ability to heal itself. Even the anesthetics used during surgery and the disruption of the surgery itself depresses the immune system.The full therapy is life changing, during and after the treatment phase. The treatment phase is even longer now than when first created due to the greater number of toxins in everyday life. Charlotte Gerson has said that during the treatment, the care-giver may have intervals as much as 20 minutes of freetime, particularly if the patient cannot do much for herself. If the schedule is strictly adhered to, there is a block of time after 7:00 PM that is free, unless night time clay packs, teas, or other treatments are needed. This is to go on for two years, or more.
I would have gladly done this as long as necessary for a cure. Unfortunately, my wife was not as obsessive-compulsive as required and certain actions by our HMO, Kaiser, made it impossible for her to continue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
