Open Wide and Swallow

Welcome To the Cure

"Step right up, America! Welcome to the world of miracle health cures! Products are available for anything that ails you: Drugs to make your penis bigger, drugs to enhance your sexual fulfillment, drugs to induce your dramatic weight loss, drugs to cure your arthritis, drugs to shrink your tumors, drugs to restore your youth. Take advantage of evolutionary innovations, scientific breakthroughs, exclusive products, and secret ingredients. And, every product comes with a  money-back guarantee. If after 30 days you are not satisfied with the product, your uncashed check will be returned to you."

Have you tried the "miracle cold buster" Airborne? Airborne is line of popular herbal supplements marketed as On-the-Go and Airborne Nighttime to Airborne Gummi and Airborne Power Pixies, which is sweetened for children. Oprah Winfrey, Howard Stern, and Kevin Costner endorsed the products. Airborne's teacher-inventor appeared on the “Dr. Phil” and “Live With Regis and Kelly” television shows bragging about the product's effectiveness -- “if a schoolteacher who’s around germy little kids all the time can find something that keeps her from getting sick,” then her solution should work for anyone, right?

Wrong.  The makers of Airborne have decided to settle the false-advertising complaints in a class-action lawsuit for $23.3 million. While agreeing to reimburse customers for up to six purchases of Airborne products, the company made no stunning admissions. “Defendants deny any wrongdoing or illegal conduct, but have agreed to settle the litigation,” the company said in a statement.

The fact remains that that Airborne Inc. reportedly took in more than $100 million from sniffly consumers through 2006. (Mike Nizza, "Makers of Airborne Settle False-Ad Suit With Refunds," The New York Times, March 4 2008)

  
Pharmaceutical Companies and Big Pharma

Pharmaceutical companies are commercial businesses whose focus is to research, develop, market and/or distribute drugs. They can deal in generic and/or brand medications. And, these companies are subject to a variety of laws and regulations regarding the patenting, testing, and marketing of drugs, particularly prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry is constantly looking for better, quicker methods to get their best, safe innovations to market.

From its very beginnings at the start of the 19th Century, the pharmaceutical industry began a steady development as one of the most successful and influential industries. It has been for many years either the #1 or #1 most profitable industry in the United States. The industry is “one of the largest employers of scientists in the United States – and its success or failure relies heavily on their ability to make breakthroughs,” according to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.  The U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics reports that this industry -- as well the overlapping, interdisciplinary field of biotechnology -- rank among the fastest growing industries in the United States.

Fast growing industry indeed -- in the United States, prescriptions have increased over the past decade to 3.4 billion annually, a 61 percent increase. The retail sales of prescription drugs jumped 250 percent from $72 billion to $250 billion, while the average price of prescriptions has more than doubled from $30 to $68.
(pharmaceuticalsalescompanies.com)

No doubt, the United States is a "pill popping nation." A Kaiser Family Foundation study found the average number of retail prescriptions per capita increased from 8.9 in 1997 to 12.6 in 2007. In this relentless stream of pills, aren't you glad you can still rely on prescription drugs and their trustworthy manufacturers as safe allies against terrible illnesses? Well, you may want to rethink both your reliance on numbers of Rx medications and on the drug industry.

A dangerous misconception in the United States, among both patients and physicians, is that when you're sick you need a drug to feel better. Of course, in many cases ill people require a drug, but drugs are overused and overprescribed, even in cases where the risks far exceed any potential benefits. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine (November 2010) found absolutely no correlation between spending more on drugs and improved patient outcomes. (Maggie Fox, "More Drugs Do Not Always Mean Better Care: Studies," Reuters, November 3 2010)

In this study, Yuting Zhang of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health found big variations in how much doctors and hospitals spend on drugs to treat Medicare patients across the United States, but there was no correlation between that spending and how well patients did. "That contradicts the idea that high spending leads to better prescription practices," Zhang said in a statement.

Her team used data from the records of 500,000 patients using Medicare, the federal health insurance plan for the elderly. In regions with higher overall per capita medical spending, they found that patients were also more likely to be given prescriptions for riskier drugs.

People do beg their physicians for some new, more effective drug. Still, one of the major facilitators of a "pill popping nation" are the physicians who are too willing to take their information (as well as gifts, sometimes small, sometimes large) from pharmaceutical company representatives), rather than from more reputable sources. No one involved in perpetuating the existence of the "pill popping nation" should be greedy, take valuable gifts or money from associates, nor be affected by advertising. Instead, these doctors should apply their attention to the principles of conservative prescribing:

Rule #1: Use the drugs that they know are safe and work, 

Rule #2: Be cautious of new “miracle drugs."

In addition to doctors, more of the big facilitators of pharmaceuticals are modern medical organizations, paid Key opinion leaders (KOL), even medical journals that uncritically publish some of the drug companies' written studies. And, of course, most importantly, the pharmaceutical companies, themselves.

You might think, at least, that the rise of prescription drug distribution and consumption of pills makes America a healthier nation. But, with all these drugs, many people are not in stellar health. Instead, chronic disease rates are rising as evidenced in a study conducted by Columbia University health policy professors Peter A. Muennig and Sherry A. Glied and published in the academic journal Health Affairs.

The study revealed that the United States now ranks 49th for male and female life expectancy worldwide, a ranking that has fallen sharply from fifth place in 1950.(Sahil Kapur, "US Slips to 49th in Life Expectancy," Healthcare-Now, October 25 2010)

The report by Muenning and Glied found the prime culprit of the plunge to be America’s deteriorating health care system, marred by ever-rising costs and growing numbers of uninsured and under-insured individuals.

Noting that the United States spends over twice as much per capita on health care than other industrialized nations, the report adds: “The observation that Americans are spending relatively more on health but living relatively shorter, less healthy lives has led some critics to allege that the US health care system is ‘uniquely inefficient.’”

Certainly, a large part of this rabid spending is going toward the excessive and unnecessary use of prescription drugs. Certain medical procedures require their extensive use. Dr. Paul Griner of the University of Rochester estimated that unnecessary or inappropriate tests and procedures add up to about 20 percent of health care spending.(Maggie Fox, "More Drugs Do Not Always Mean Better Care: Studies," Reuters, November 3
 2010)

A Closer Look At Marketing Prescription Medications

In 2005 money spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the US was estimated at $29.9 billion with one estimate as high as $57 billion. (CB Sufrin & JS Ross JS, "Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing: Understanding Its Impact on Women's Health," Obstet Gynecol Surv 63, September 2008) When the US numbers were broken down, 56% was free samples, 25% was detailing of physicians, 12.5% was direct to consumer advertising, 4% on hospital detailing, and 2% on journal ads. (www.medicine.mcgill.ca)

Currently, there are approximately 90,000 pharmaceutical sales reps in the United States pursuing some 830,000 pharmaceutical prescribers. A pharmaceutical representative will often try to see a given physician every few weeks. Representatives often have a call list of about 200 physicians with 120 targets that should be visited in 1-2 week cycles.

The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry.

During the same period, the two trade groups donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats. (R. Jeffrey Smith & Jeffrey H. Bimbaud, "Drug Bill Illustrates Lobby's Pull," The Washington Post, January 12 2007) 

The potential for financial conflicts of interest, bias, and ethical dilemmas impacts both the pharmaceutical  industry and physicians. Activities once considered independent of promotional intent, including continuing medical education and medical research, are used, including paying to publish articles about promoted drugs for the medical literature and alleged suppression of unfavorable study results. (Jane E. Henny, "Safeguarding Patient Welfare: Who's In Charge?" Annals of Internal Medicine)

Steinman and colleagues provide numerous examples of conflicts that arise when physicians receive compensation or other benefits from manufacturers in exchange for assistance with the marketing of drugs for off-label uses.Whether the audience is a single patient or a group of fellow physicians, when the physician has accepted financial or other support (for example, slide preparation) from a manufacturer and has not told the audience about the arrangement, then that physician has gone over the line. (MA Steinman, LA Bero, M Chren, CS Landefeld, "Narrative Review: The Promotion of Gabapentin: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents," Annals of  Internal Medicine 145, 2006)

In October 2002, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a draft Guidance Document for manufacturers. It pointed out that the Medicare and Medicaid anti-kickback statute is an avenue for prosecution when industry uses gifts or other inducements to increase prescribing by physicians, whether on- or off-label.

Still, in response to concerns about continuing medical education and research programs, a compromise permitted the industry to finance continuing education and other activities through grant-making instead of marketing. (S Chimonas, DJ Rothman, "New Federal Guidelines for Physician-pharmaceutical Industry Relations: The Politics of Policy Formation, Health Aff 24, 2005)

So, you see, in the 21st century, more people than ever are taking prescription medications that have been aggressively and successfully marketed. Despite the productive marketing, the fact is that some of the medications have questionable safety records. The entire process of marketing Rx drugs calls for some tough questions:

1. What clinical trial data do pharmaceutical companies' selectively suppress?


2. How does the pharmaceutical industry influence what gets published in medical journals and taught in continuing medical education courses?


3. Are the federal institutions that oversee pharmaceutical research too closely linked to the industry?


4. How do bioethicists who provide consultations to pharmaceutical companies manage their delicate roles? 

Evidence shows that marketing practices can negatively affect both patients and the health care profession. (CS Landefeld, MA Steinman, “The Neurontin Legacy – Marketing Through Misinformation and Manipulation," New England Journal of  Medicine 360, January 8 2009) 

The following is a sterling example. In May, 2004, the so-called Neurontin Affair was exposed  as the result of the heroic efforts by a young biologist David Franklin who worked for Parke-Davis. Warner-Lambert agreed to plead guilty to pay more than $430 to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities. The next day, a class-action suit was filed in federal court on behalf of private parties who had paid for illegally marketed Neurontin. This extraordinary settlement was appropriate given the series of marketing "tactics" that included education, publications, and research whose promotional intent was disguised, plus more transparent activities such as advertising and sales visits.

It is illegal to market for non-FDA-approved indications, but Parke-Davis did it aggressively and effectively, with Neurontin's sales rising from $98 in 1995 to nearly $3 billion in 2004.

The company commissioned “research” to show the drug’s effectiveness, suppressed publication of studies that showed it had no effect on neuropathic pain, and in the words of epidemiologist Kay Dickersin, who performed a “recently unsealed 318-page analysis of research sponsored by Parke-Davis…concluded that available documents demonstrate 'a remarkable assemblage of evidence of reporting biases that amount to outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of the scientific truth…’” (Josh Freeman, "The 'Neurontin Legacy,'" Medicine and Social Justice, January 22 2009)

The evidence uncovered in the Neurontin Affair supports something many already suspect about the nature of pharmaceutical company promotion.“Promotion,” write Landefeld and Steinman, “was neither discrete, compartmentalized, nor readily apparent; instead, it was intercalculated in nearly every aspect of physicians’ professional lives, from the accoutrements of practice to lectures, professional meetings, and publications. Although some pharmaceutical marketing may be less opaque, deceptive and manipulative, evidence indicates that drug promotion can corrupt the science, teaching and practice of medicine.” (CS Landefeld CS and MA Steinman, “The Neurontin Legacy – Marketing Through Misinformation and Manipulation, NEJM 360,  January 8 2009)

The $430 million fine was a small part of the profits that Parke-Davis/Warner-Lambert/Pfizer made through the off-label use of the drug.

Dr. Marcia Angell argues that problems with the industry run even deeper. In her new book, The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine contends that the industry has become a marketing machine that produces few innovative drugs and is dependent on monopoly rights and public-sponsored research. (Peter Meredith, "The Truth About Drug Companies," Mother Jones, September 6 2004)

Dr. Angell claims that the pharmaceutical industry is not “engine of innovation” perceived by many Americans. According to her, the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research. At least a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies, writes Angell, but they’re sold to the public at inflated prices.

Ralph W. Moss, PhD, cites that Taxol, the cancer drug discovered by the National Institutes of Health. Bristol-Myers Squibb charges hapless consumers $1,000 per treatment, or eight times what it cost the NCI to synthesize. The National Cancer Institute spent $32 million of taxpayer's money researching taxol, a toxic drug made from the bark of Pacific yew trees. It then gave exclusive rights to harvest the yew, as well as "monopoly control over the data from federally funded research," to Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest producer of chemotherapy.  In this sweet deal, BMS pays no royalties on taxol sales and only a pittance for the rights to the yew tree bark. The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug. (Ralph W. Moss, PhD, "From the Cancer Chronicles #20," The Moss Reports, March 1994)

Linda Marsa uncovers an "entangled financial web between government, industry, and academia" in her article for Omni. Marsa states that drug makers have "their own network of principal investigators (PIs), scientists, and doctors at leading medical schools around the country...."(Linda Marsa, "Unhealthy Alliances," Omni, February 1994)

Dr. Angell reports that the majority of the new products the pharmaceutical industry puts out are “me-too” drugs, which are almost identical to current treatments but “no better than drugs already on the market to treat the same condition.” She says around 75 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA are me-too drugs. They can be less effective than current drugs, but as long as they’re more effective than a placebo, they can get the regulatory green light. (Peter Meredith, "The Truth About Drug Companies," Mother Jones, September 6 2004)

The drug industry, no matter its enterprising marketing, lives on taxpayer-funded research to a large extent. And, it thrives on government-granted monopoly rights in the form of patents and FDA-conferred exclusivity.
Shouldn't the industry have more obligation to the public that helps fund it? Dr. Angell believes they should open their books so that the public knows more about their business and more about the "justified" claims they make.

Findings in a recent study (2008) published by the Public Library of Science support the position that "the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry, while arguing in flavor of a change in the industry’s priorities in the direction of less promotion." The numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim.The research supports petition in favor of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction of more research and less promotion.(MA Gagnon & J Lexchin, “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States,” PLoS Medicine, January 3 2008)

  
Saving the Worst for Last 

Shane Ellison, M.Sc., summarizes the rise of OxyContin so well that this long quote is essential for relating the story of the popularity of this potential lethal drug. Shane holds a Master's degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand industry experience with drug research, design, and synthesis.(Shane Ellison, "False Advertising of OxyContin (trademark)" ConsumerHealthDigest.com, 2010)

"According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Purdue Pharma L.P. circulated false Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising through their endorsements of OxyContin in the world's most prestigious medical journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).


"The division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications of the FDA sent a letter to Purdue Pharma stating that they were in clear violation of FDA regulations. Their violation: making unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness and grossly overstating the safety profile of OxyContin while promoting it for obtaining a "Life with Relief." Despite Purdue Pharma's non- compliance with the law, the FDA did not press charges.


"Putting wealth before health, Purdue Pharma L.P. distributed 15,000 copies of an OxyContin video to physicians without submitting it to the FDA for review. Entitled I Got My Life Back: Patients in Pain Tell Their Story, the video presented pain relief experiences of various patients and the pain medications, including OxyContin, they had been prescribed. 


"FDA regulations require pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit all promotional materials for approved prescription drug products to the FDA at the time of their initial use. Purdue Pharma L.P. did not comply with this regulation. Thus, the FDA did not have an opportunity to review the video to ensure that the information it contained was truthful, balanced, and accurately communicated. Purdue and the FDA acknowledged the oversight of not submitting the video to FDA for approval. No action was taken.


"Releasing a second version of the video, Purdue Pharma L.P. followed legal procedure by submitting it to the FDA for review. Though, in its report to Congress, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) stated that the FDA failed to review the video. Later, it was discovered that it, like the first video, made unsubstantiated claims and minimized the risks associated with taking OxyContin. Most astounding, Purdue Pharma L.P. claimed that OxyContin had been shown to cause addiction in less than 1 percent of patients - a damned lie.


"Pushing for approval by the FDA in 1995, Purdue Pharma L.P. insisted that OxyContin be used only for cancer pain. Purdue Pharma sold $1 billion worth of OxyContin in less than five years from the time of its approval thanks to false DTC advertising. In addition to profits, false marketing has led to devastating effects on those people who were prescribed Oxycontin under the wrong conditions. Consider that the number of people who used OxyContin for illicit purposes at least once increased from 399,000 to 957,000 in a single year.


"Recognizing the dangers of OxyContin, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has listed OxyContin as a Schedule II controlled substance in the USA. According to the DEA, since its release on the market, the annual number of prescriptions for the "synthetic morphine" has risen from around 300,000 to nearly 6 million. During that same period, the number of oxycodone-related deaths has skyrocketed by 400%. Currently, OxyContin is the number one prescribed Schedule II narcotic in the United States.


"False advertising is the number one tool used by drug companies to turn perfectly healthy people into patients. While the FDA has acknowledged Purdue Pharma's indiscretions by acting as a paper tiger, it has done nothing to ameliorate it. They have failed as the self-proclaimed custodians of national health." (http://www.consumerhealthdigest.com/oxycontin.htm)
  
The group RAPP, Relatives Against Purdue Pharma, is comprised of family members, friends and concerned citizens, committed to changing current Government and FDA guidelines concerning the powerful prescription narcotic, Oxycontin. RAAP conducts peaceful protests, nationwide, in an effort to have this dangerous drug more closely regulated and returned to the medical purpose of it’s development and manufacture – administration to cancer patients and patients with severe chronic pain. (http://oxyabusekills.com/katey.html)

The group boldly cites many alleged examples of Purdue Pharma's corporate greed, which they have documented in newspapers, magazines, television, and the book, Painkiller, by Barry Meier, a New York Times journalist:

   

*Sales representatives for Purdue Pharma have come forward to reveal the aggressive marketing practices that Purdue trained them to use. They reported the tactic of "targeting general practitioners,” advising them that less than 1% of patients get addicted and that OxyContin is less likely to be abused. One representative for Purdue Pharma claims to have been fired for refusing to deal with “PILL MILL” doctors.

 *Purdue Pharma was aware of the doctors who were writing HUGE numbers of prescriptions for OxyContin, but never once offered this data to law enforcement, even after they received a large number of death reports resulting from over prescribed OxyContin.

*In the year, 2001, Purdue Pharma spent two hundred million dollars in advertising to promote OxyContin, even after they had knowledge of the hundreds of addiction and death reports.

*"The former Acting Director of FDA Review Division", was the lead actor and prime mover to get OxyContin pushed through FDA approval. After retiring from the FDA he was given a job by Purdue Pharma.

*Many of the death reports are from relatives and the addiction reports from patients, many of whom should never have been prescribed OxyContin.

*Purdue Pharma reported they were shocked that people were crushing OxyContin in spite of the proof that Purdue Pharma was warned that this had also happened to another one of their time-released drugs, MS Contin.

*A Clinical Researcher employed by Purdue Pharma alleges in a lawsuit filed against the pharmaceutical company that he had informed Purdue management of a flaw in the design of the drug’s time-released coating. In addition, this employee claims that he was advised to not alert Purdue Pharma’s in-house drug regulators of this flaw, including the government. Shortly thereafter, this employee’s job was terminated.

*Purdue Pharma approached the FDA for OxyContin’s approval, claiming that their “research” revealed that less than 1% of those who used the drug would become addicted; however, recent media reports refute that claim, contending that Purdue Pharma had evidence that the addiction rate would be much higher.

*Many elected officials, along with law enforcement who once fought the OxyContin epidemic, have been hired by Purdue Pharma and, now, as paid employees of the company, tout OxyContin’s “safety and effectiveness.”

*“Cutting a deal” with Florida’s former State Attorney General, Bob Butterworth, on his last day in office, included Mr. Butterworth accepting a two million dollar donation for a prescription monitoring program to be engineered by one of his closest friends who Purdue Pharma had hired as a lobbyist, under the terms that the state would drop its investigation into Purdue Pharma’s marketing practices.

*The FDA produced warning letters to Purdue Pharma, addressing their “false and misleading” advertising in magazines and promotional materials.

*A New York Federal Judge recently ruled that Purdue Pharma misled government officials to prevent other companies from marketing a generic form of OxyContin.

*Purdue Pharma is now attempting to get approved a time-released Dilauded pain killer to treat moderate pain called Palladone, and it is reportedly ten times stronger than OxyContin.

"They have bought politicians and doctors. They've looked at everyone and anyone who could stand in their way and they're thrown money at them. The only hope we have is a grassroots revolution that will make the politicians decide they love votes more than drug company money."  -Dr. Marcia Angell

 

 

Random Drug Testing and Welfare Benefits

 

Kentucky state Rep. Lonnie Napier (R-Lancaster) has introduced a bill that would enforce random drug testing for all adult Kentuckians who receive food stamps, Medicaid, or other state assistance. He says this legislation would "get people off drugs" and save money for the state. On the surface, passage of this bill seems so logical and so conducive not only to encouraging responsible behavior but also to cutting unnecessary spending. But, if people scratch beneath the surface of such proposals, they may have some serious questions about the  bill.

Drug testing people on public assistance in not a new idea. Similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s.

Though surprising to many, an early experiment with such a policy in Michigan proved ineffective, experts say. "A decade ago, Michigan implemented mandatory testing in three welfare offices. Out of 258 new and continuing applicants tested, 21 tested positive for illicit substances. All but three of these women tested positive for marijuana only. In light of such experiences, few states have chosen to pursue similar efforts," says Harold Pollack, the Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. (Laura Bassett, "Kentucky Lawmaker: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Would Save 'Millions and Millions,'" January 18 2011)

After Michigan imposed random drug testing on welfare recipients, it found that 10 percent tested positive for illicit drugs, with 3 percent testing positive for hard drugs such as cocaine. "These rates are consistent with the general population," according to the liberal Center for Law and Social Policy.

In 2003, a federal appeals court halted Michigan’s attempt to impose mandatory drug tests on all welfare recipients. The judge seemed especially concerned with the rights of ordinary citizens whose only offense is that they are in need of government help. U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that no one should have to choose between their constitutional rights and providing for their families.


Lawmakers in other states have offered similar, but more modest proposals.West Virginia has considered drug tests for those on food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare programs.  Similar laws have been passed or are being considered in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Hawaii, Florida and Minnesota. At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - require drug testing for convicted felons and parolees seeking public assistance.

Points To Consider

1. Is Random Drug Testing Constitutional?

Critics of these bills also say they're not just misguided but unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that no individual in America can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime. Welfare recipients are poor; however, being poor is not a reasonable suspicion for a crime, at least not yet.

A new law in Arizona was enacted in 2009 with regard to government intrusion. There, all adult recipients of cash assistance must now fill out a new three-question statement on illegal-drug use to apply or reapply for Department of Economic Security benefits. If answers on that statement provide "reasonable cause" of illegal-substance abuse, the department notifies the adult that he or she must complete a drug test within 10 days, at the state's expense.Asking everyone without exception gets around some of the legal questions involved in random testing.

Arizona drug-test results are usually available within 48 hours. Those who test positive are denied cash-assistance benefits for a 12-month period. In addition, DES officials administer tests based on reports of possible drug abuse received from law-enforcement or other government agencies, according to DES spokeswoman Kevan Kaighn. (Amy B. Wang, "Welfare Recipients Face Drug Tests," The Arizona Republic, November 25 2009)

Arizona hopes to save $1.7 million a year from people dropped from welfare in this way. "This isn't a benevolent statute where we want to provide services," reports Ellen Katz, director of the William E. Morris Institute for Justice in Phoenix. "The whole purpose of this statute was to terminate people from the program."

Liz Schott believes Arizona is still guilty of violating rights. Any program savings, she says, will come from people who refuse to answer such questions — preserving their constitutional rights, but disqualifying themselves from receiving benefits.

In addition, how will most prospective employers view those cut from welfare roles because of positive drug tests? The answer to this question is evident.

What if those found to be drug abusers want to further their education to pull themselves out of poverty?

Students convicted of drug offenses committed while receiving Federal Financial Aid may be ineligible for federal financial aid for one (1) or more years from the date of conviction. Federal Aid includes:

• Federal Student Loans
• Federal PLUS Loans
• Federal Grants
• Federal Work Study.

2. Would Random Drug Testing Hurt the Most Vulnerable?

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," says Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. (Tom Breen, "States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients," Fox News, March 26 2009)

"This is really bad policy," states Crabtree. "These are the most vulnerable people in our society, and their children are even more vulnerable. These are people of whom the legislature has no fear. They have to deal with the problems of daily life to such a degree that they are not as politically active, and that makes this bill just seem like a bullying tactic." To demean these people is a very insufficient reason for enacting legislation.

3. Are Welfare Recipients More Likely To Abuse?

Are people on welfare more likely to be substance abusers? According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, (2002) 9.6 percent of people living in households that receive government assistance used illicit drugs in the previous month, compared with a 6.8 percent rate among families who receive no assistance. So, the answer is that 2.8 percent more welfare recipients actually abuse drugs than other members of the public, hardly a significant difference.

The administration also found that heavy alcohol use was slightly lower in households receiving assistance than in those that do not. (Alan Greenblat, "Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?" NPR, March 31 2010)

4. Does Random Drug Testing Consider the State of the Economy?

Are the proposals coming at the right time? Consider the economy. The effects of cutting assistance now would likely hurt one group many people consider worthy of help. The numbers of people collecting unemployment insurance nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next." (Tom Breen, "States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients," Fox News, March 26 2009)

5. Will Random Drug Testing Cut Efforts Offering Intervention?  

It's already a given in most state welfare programs that if a recipient is suspected of using drugs — because of current behavior or past history of abuse — he or she will be referred for treatment or screening. This current intervention is vital for saving lives. Surely, addicts will continue their severe drug addictions without such help -- to cut assistance in this area seems counterproductive. Isn't it important to help drug users go straight?

"There are plenty of options under federal law," says Liz Schott, a welfare expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a group that promotes government programs that support the poor. Means of correction in cases of drug abuse already exist. "They don't need to change their laws to do it." Measures are already available. (Alan Greenblat, "Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?" NPR, March 31 2010)

6. What Is the Actual Dollar Cost of Random Drug Testing?

How about the costs of testing the public? Although individual drug tests run $75 or less, the costs of testing large numbers of recipients, users and non-users alike, would add up. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that for every individual user discovered, the state's expenses would be $20,000 or more. (Alan Greenblat, "Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?" NPR, March 31 2010).

If the state does not save money by drug testing, such legislation actually goes against the intended purpose envisioned by many of those sponsors who encourage such changes. That bottom line for support of random testing is drawn at less money spent. Yet, overall, a savings may never occur.

7. Would Random Drug Testing Add More Bureaucracy?

"I oppose such legislation for both philosophical and practical reasons," says Darin Preis, executive director of Central Missouri Community Action, which works with poor families. "The proposal here would have state social workers taking on yet another task for which they are not prepared. This will add cost and more bureaucracy, and with our state budget in the fix it is, I don't think we can pull this off," he reports. (Philip Smith, "Feature" Bills to Require Drug Testing for Welfare, Unemployment Pop Up Around the Country," stopthedrugwar.org, March 19 2009) 

"Philosophically, I think we should be holding people accountable for what we want them to do, not for what we don't want them to do," states Preis. "People want to take care of their families, to do the right thing. It just doesn't make sense to me. Taking away benefits from someone struggling with substance abuse issues isn't going to help them; it will only make matters worse."

8. Does Random Testing Include Testing For Alcohol and Nicotine?

Tobacco, nicotine, and cigarettes in general , are by far the most abused drugs in the world, with more than 46.5 million smokers within the United States alone. More than 400,000 deaths are reported annually. And, the act of smoking adds to the danger of tobacco and nicotine addiction for both smokers and whose breathing the smoke. 


Alcohol is next in line in the order of drugs most abused. In addition to alcohol-related health problems, alcohol is often related to traffic fatalities, domestic violence, and child abuse. Alcohol is common at the scene of the crime in many murders, especially those between acquaintances and family members. (Valerie Belew, "Addiction: Ten Most Abused Drugs...")

Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance, says, "And they're (drug tests) are extremely discriminatory in that they focus on someone smoking marijuana, but don't address at all whether someone is blowing his check on alcohol or gambling or vacations. The bottom line is that even if someone is using drugs, that doesn't mean they should be denied public assistance, health care, or anything else to which citizens are entitled. These bills are unnecessarily cruel and they show that some politicians still think it's in their best interest to pick on vulnerable people with substance abuse issues."  

9. Would Random Drug Testing Harm Those Seeking Unemployment Benefits?

Why would people want to hurt those who have earned income and earned benefits? Bill Piper says, "Unemployment compensation is something that people pay into when they're working, that's not a gift from the state." (Philip Smith, "Feature" Bills to Require Drug Testing for Welfare, Unemployment Pop Up Around the Country," stopthedrugwar.org, March 19 2009) Why should someone have to prove anything to anyone in such circumstances?   

10. What Other Bags Does Random Drug Testing Open?

Arizona's Legislature has since considered bills that would bar welfare recipients from subscribing to cable television, owning cell phones or smoking cigarettes, but none of these proposals has gotten very far.A bill (2009) in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees.

Where the Buck Stops?

A 1988 ruling by the Department of Transportation specified that nearly four million private sector employees with safety or security related responsibilities (airlines personnel, truck drivers, certain railroad and mass transit employees, and employees who handle pipelines carrying natural gas or hazardous substances) will be subject to mandatory random drug and alcohol tests. These regulations require not only tests for job applicants, but also random tests of current employees and specific tests of any employee involved in an accident.

The ruling further specified that "testing of employees is conducted in a manner that protects the privacy and dignity of individuals, while at the same time insuring the integrity of the sample." People who test positive must be removed, although they can be reinstated if a medical officer certifies they have been rehabilitated. (CG Bakaly, JM Grossman, 1989: 344)

These measures are needed. In such professions, improper performance can have immediate, serious and irreversible consequences for others. And, the use of certain drugs increases the chance that an employee will perform in ways which harm others. Random drug testing is probably the best way to prevent such harm.


But, some politicians think the reason people are poor is that they're on drugs, and that's just wrong. Most people are in favor of an America free of drug abuse, and these people believe anyone who exhibits strange, suspicious behavior should be tested. Strictly random drug testing of a poor economic group presents many problems.

This may be the best idea. Elected officials who propose such things would be an excellent place to start. Let the politicians lead by example. Let's require random drug testing of all elected officials. Do you believe that would fly in state legislatures?

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"  -Matthew 25:41-45

Karma Is a Chameleon

I get so dad gum tired of people talking about Karma: "Karma is a bitch. At least karma will take care of it. My karma ran over your dogma." Everyone in America seems to parrot some line about karma when someone else does them wrong. Most have no idea what they are professing when they use this term. Rote has made it virtually meaningless to the popular culture of the United States.


Yes, I'm sure when some people refer to karma as punishment for someone's wrong, they mean "that person deserved that." However, what do Christians truly mean when they profess a believe in karma? Aren't they actually saying they believe that "what goes around, comes around"?

Karma (from the Sanskrit word karman, meaning "to act") is defined as "the total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny." Those who believe in karma believe the effect of one's actions brings upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation.

Karma is a religious belief system adopted by Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophies. In Hinduism, maintaining good karma is one means of reaching Brahman -- the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in the Universe. Now that is quite a thorny affirmation.

The theory of karma is all about the cycle of cause and effect. Actually, karma is not about punishment or reward. To believers, an understanding of karma makes a person responsible for his own life and how he treats other people. This belief also dovetails into a person's self-determination and strong will power to abstain from inactivity because his actions, both good and bad, come back to him in the future, helping him to learn from life's lessons and become a better person.

The belief differentiates human beings from other creatures of the world. Karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well. The law of karma also states that the actions performed in previous births play a crucial role in future births. So, karma involves keeping a running tab of accountable actions throughout multiple lives.


According to karma, a person cannot escape from his actions. Good deeds will take a person closer to bliss on earth (Moksha) and bad deeds lead to suffering. Karma thus serves two main functions within Hindu philosophy:

1. It provides the major motivation to live a moral life, and

2. It serves as the primary explanation of the existence of evil.

Many Hindus believe the soul, at death, is carried by a subtle body into a new physical body which can be a human or non-human form (an animal or divine being). The goal of liberation (moksha) is to make people free from this cycle of action and reaction, and from rebirth. (Gavin Flood, "Hindu Concepts," BBC, August 24 2009) 


The theory of karma harps on the Newtonian principle that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction: every time people think or do something, they create a cause, which, in time, will bear its corresponding effects. And this cyclical cause and effect generates the concepts of the world (samsaru), birth and reincarnation. It is the personality of a human being (the jivatman),with its positive and negative actions, that causes karma.

In karma, everything affects everything else. In The Secret Doctrine Blavatsky does not see karma as a mechanical "eye for an eye" law at all. She sees karma continuously restoring the harmonious state of the cosmos whenever it is disturbed. She calls it "the source, origin and fount of all the laws which exist throughout Nature".

The theory that humans live in an interconnected, interdependent universe in which all things everywhere exist in a complex and dynamic web of interrelationships, is fast gaining acceptance in philosophical and scientific circles. This is in tune with the underlying essence of the karma doctrine.Its fundamental aspect is its balancing role in nature. 

The karmic law is more organic than deterministic.Aldous Huxley reminds us that the karmic equivalence of action and reward is not always obvious and material. "The bad man in prosperity may, unknown to himself, be darkened and corroded with inward rust, while the good man under afflictions may be in the rewarding process of spiritual growth," says Huxley.( P. Prabhath, "Hinduism -- Understanding the Workings of Karma,"www.lifepositive.com)



According to the ways of life chosen by a person, his karma can be classified into three kinds:

1. Satvik karma without attachment, selfless and for the benefit of others


2. Rajasik karma where the focus is on gains for oneself


3. Tamasik karma, supremely selfish and savage, undertaken without heed to consequences

In this context Dr. D N Singh in his A Study of Hinduism, quotes Mahatma Gandhi's lucid differentiation between the three. According to Gandhi, the tamasik works in a mechanic fashion, the rajasik drives too many horses, is restless and always doing something or other, and the satvik works with peace in mind.

 Where Does Karma Clash With Christianity?

Most Christian scholars believe the laws of karma are not all at all compatible with Christianity. Christianity teaches that human all have done bad things, and they all deserve punishment, but they can't atone for their misdeeds by trying to do good deeds. Salvation and eternal life (the reward) is only found through Christ. No person is more or less deserving of the reward.

Some confusion is bound to exist with the Biblical reference "you reap what you sow." Christianity holds that God can thwart the reaping of the wicked. But, on earth, many wicked souls prosper in their material ways. God, alone, determines their heavenly rewards.

In Jeremiah 12:1 one can see that the wicked actually REAP (prosper) in this world! “Righteous are You, O LORD, that I would plead my case with You; Indeed I would discuss matters of justice with You: Why has the way of the wicked prospered? Why are all those who deal in treachery at ease?”

Understand that Christianity believes in grace, not in karma. They are two completely contradictory ideas. How can a true believer profess adherence to both?  Karma says you get the reward or punishment that you deserve. Grace says, "You get the reward even if you deserve the punishment."

According to the Bible, atonement and forgiveness may be gained only through the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation is based solely upon the work of Jesus Christ, not upon a person's merits. The concepts of reincarnation and karma are in clear contrast to Hebrews 9:27. "For it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." Paul clearly states that the soul does not transmigrate into another living body, but goes to await judgment.

Reincarnation? For the Christian, Paul promised that death is the means to being in the presence of Jesus. 2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord (heaven). It is clear that the Bible does not allow for the Hindu concept of reincarnation. (Mark Van Bebber, "Reincarnation: Does the Bible Allow for This Possibility?" christiananswers.net)


To Christians, nothing people think, say or do determines a karmic cycle, for the Bible tells them that their “righteous works” are as filthy rags to the Lord. Isaiah 64:6 proclaims: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Their righteousness is only in Jesus Christ, their Savior (2 Corinthians 5:21).

It is not by faith in one's works (karma), but by one's faith in Him whereby he is saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 states: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

In fact, those who have the attitude of “entitlement” because of good works (even works done in His name) will be told to “Depart from Me, you who work iniquity!” (Matthew 25:41).

Conclusion

Ok, you say, "I just use the word karma in general terms, not as a profession of faith." I have no problem with that. But, couldn't we who have religious professions other than reincarnation, etc. just make the reference a cliche and leave it alone for a generation or two. Instead of thinking karma will punish wrongdoers, maybe we should be leave the judgment to God. Let's replace "Karma is a bitch" with "God's grace be upon you."

"Love conquers everything, even karma." -L. Mettrie

America: Dumbing Down...Down...Down

Why do many Americans show arrogance about their lack of knowledge? The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. According to Susan Jacoby, , this attitude is known as "anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse." (Susan Jacoby, "The Dumbing Of America," The Washington Post, February 17 2008)

"Dumbing down" is a perceived over-simplification of education, news, and television (among other things), or a commonly accepted view of real cultural trends in education and culture. People associate "dumbing down" with a decline in creativity and innovation; a slide of artistic, cultural and intellectual standards; and even attempts to undermine or trivialize cultural, artistic, and academic creations. (John Algeo & Adele Algeo, "Among the New Words," American Speech, 1988)

The American system of public education has been repeatedly accused of "dumbing down" curriculum in the wake of poor student achievement and creating a society full of undereducated individuals. To account for critical demands of improvement by the public, states have initiated proficiency tests and have implemented special graduation exit requirements. 

One might ask how much of this "dumber" view of modern America is used deliberated by the social engineers to create an educational crisis in order to move their agendas forward by offering radical reforms that can be sold to the public as magic bullets for fixing the crisis -- which they seem never to do.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt in her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, (1999), says, "The new reforms simply set the stage for the next crisis, which provides the pretext for the next move forward. This is the dialectical process at work, a process our behavioral engineers have learned to use very effectively. Its success depends on the ability of the 'change agents' to continually deceive the public, which tends to believe any lie the experts tell them."

Is America, in fact, "dumbing down"? Based on their past experience, most of the older generation would readily answer "yes." However, how much of this view is complicated by the vast expanse of new knowledge and the advent of the computer age and its impact on what is essential knowledge?

Consider the importance of a skill many consider very important -- cursive writing. Carl Brown, principal of Manatee Elementary in Viera, Florida contends,"With all the other subjects we must teach, we just don't have the time to spend a lot of effort on cursive." He claims that's a big change from years past when even he had to attend a summertime handwriting camp because of his illegible scrawl.

"Nowadays, parents would be pretty upset if we sent kids to handwriting camp," he said. "Kids just don't write letters now. They send e-mails or text messages. ... A lot of those old ways are going away. How many bills do you pay by writing a check anymore?" (Megan Downs, "Schools Debate: Is Cursive Writing Worth Teaching?" USA Today, January 23 2009)

A good question may be, "Without cursive instruction, how are the children going to sign a paycheck?" But, that question could be answered the sophistication of identification advances. Still, non-cursive writing students will hopefully be able to read the cursive document, the Declaration of Independence.

If America is "dumbing down," what is to blame? Many people blame various causes: media, television, computers, poor nutrition, lack of parental involvement in child rearing, schools from K-college, lack of reading skills, short attention spans, gluttony, materialism, the forgotten middle class, corporate brainwashing. It gets to be so overwhelming that the very ideas of understanding change and reforming become lost. 

The signs are there. Without getting into discussions of politics, economics and other scholarly subjects, I will present some of my "pet" peeves that may serve as signals for "dumbing down."

1. Why does everybody have to get a trophy?

Today it seems awards for mediocrity are dished out repeatedly. At one time, if an individual or the team didn't win the top slots, they did not receive an award. Special meaning was attached to attaining the trophy. Now, everyone worries about the feelings of those who lose. Losing can teach valuable life lessons, but being rewarded when competition is the goal detracts from the purpose of the reward.

2. Why have we experienced the death of unbiased journalism?

Most get their news from television these days.When Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of the News Corporation, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association this summer, he may have given an even bigger gift to its opponents. The Democratic Governors Association said its call to match the Murdoch contribution raised $1.7 million. Ginning up a fight with Fox News, which is owned by the News Corporation, “helped fire up the base,” said Nathan Daschle, the association’s executive director. (Brian Stelter, "Candidates Running Against, and With, Cable News," The New York Times, October 23 2010)

The topics, news spins, and opinions are clearly political on these networks, yet many Americans choose to believe the views presented in their favorite propaganda without comparing it to other, unbiased sources. It is rare to find real news without sensation and without interpretation. Too many rely on talking heads to spoon feed them meaning.

3. Why does a political party exist merely to make the other party fail?

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have engaged continuously in creating a bloated, power-grabbing “national” government at the direct expense of people's liberty and their property (through excessive taxes and confiscatory statutes). No candidate Republican or Democrat can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her.  And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. So, the parties, with discipline in the ranks, vote as a block. Add to that that lobbyists help fund re-election campaigns.  A statesman encouraging bipartisanship? Forget it.

4. Why does everyone insist that drinking bottled water is better than drinking tap water?

Most purchased water is just tap water run through a special filtering system. But bottled water prices can run up to1,900 times the price of tap water. Why don't people purchase a filtration system for the house if they are that concerned?

Unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry is not required to disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. Tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted.

Researchers state: "Analyses conducted by the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory of these 10 brands of bottled water (brands not given) revealed a wide range of pollutants, including not only disinfection byproducts, but also common urban wastewater pollutants like caffeine and pharmaceuticals (Tylenol); heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of other, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants." (Olga Naidenko, PhD, Senior Scientist; Nneka Leiba, MPH, Researcher; Renee Sharp, MS, Senior Scientist; Jane Houlihan, MSCE, Vice President for Research, "Bottled Water Contains Disinfection Byproducts, Fertilizer Residue, and Pain Medication," Environmental Working Group, October 2008)

5. Why do comedy shows such as America's Funniest Home Videos keep showing clip after clip of embarrassing groin shots?

Groin shots (nut shots, ball busters) debilitate the recipient. In brief, they are agonizing. Every man on this planet can tell you the date and circumstances surrounding the worst time that he got hit in the "boys." It’s not that funny when you are the recipient. Groin shots are terribly over-distributed on television and on the Net as hilarious comedy.

Notice, these video clips never show reactions of women being "groined." Evidently, that is not as funny or not as painful. Do women get a special charge out of watching a man in agony? To most men, even seeing a groin shot sends chills down his spine.

Here is what happens. A male's testicles have many nerves on them, which when struck cause extreme pain. Simultaneously, when a male is hit, the abdominal muscles contract, which causes loss of breath. A man also usually doubles over because of the muscle contraction and to prevent further damage to the testicles. The majority of pain occurs in the abdominal cavity, this is because the nerves run to the abdominal cavity, from which the testicles descended so it is where the pain runs. Some men also experience nausea, sometimes leading to vomiting. Often times there can be a persistent pain for anywhere from minutes to hours depending on the severity of the strike. Also, if a man's testicles are struck with sufficient force, the testicles can rupture, causing possible infertility and pain.

6. Why do many women insist on getting "boob jobs" for strictly cosmetic reasons?

Shame on any man who suggests that a woman needs a boob job. And, shame on any woman who thinks she is inferior without one. Huge, enhanced, basketball-size breasts look very unusual to most. I sincerely believe most "breast men" even impose their own average limits.What is the thinking strategy of those who insist "bigger is better"? Do many women actually believe that a girl is more attractive or "more of a woman" with bigger breasts? Are most men rabid over humongous "knockers"?

OK, granted, when breasts start to lose their shape through age, the idea of having a boob job becomes a more and more realistic proposition. Having pert, solid breasts may be something that makes women feel more confident, and in our society that worships perfect female forms, it is unsurprising that so many women feel the need to 'fit in' with images shown on television, in film and in magazines.

Yet, isn't that still major vanity? Will implants on a woman's chest make a mate stop philandering, make the recipient more beautiful, or insure a woman's self-confidence? After all, sooner or later, gravity and time will sink the results of those operations. The proposed solution seems temporary, akin to belief in eternal youth.

Men will continue to stare at women's boobs and butts, but each man has his own ideas of perfection, not necessarily correlating with "super-size." The sexy concealment, the skill of sensual seduction, and the overall appeal of form create desire. Sexiness depends more on a woman's ability to use her brain than to rely on any other part of her body.

7. Why do many people believe so strongly in No Child Left Behind?

When the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was proposed, many believed a major improvement had been added to American education.The law requires schools to meet certain goals each year, based largely on students’ scores on tests like the ACT. Those schools that do not do so must take specifically mandated steps that may involve providing tutors, replacing school staff, restructuring or even privatizing the school.

In reality, NCLB has not been the biggest needed reform."The basic strategy is measuring and punishing," former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch says of No Child Left Behind. "And it turns out as a result of putting so much emphasis on the test scores, there's a lot of cheating going on, there's a lot of gaming the system. Instead of raising standards it's actually lowered standards because many states have 'dumbed down' their tests or changed the scoring of their tests to say that more kids are passing than actually are." (Steve Inskeep, "Former 'No Child Left Behind' Advocate Turns Critic," NPR, March 2 2010)

Every state was able to define proficiency as it saw fit, which allowed states to claim gains even when there were none. Some states contend that 80 to 90 percent of their children are proficient readers and have math proficiency as well, Ravitch notes. But in the same states, only 25 to 30 of the children test at a proficient level on national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Many parents and students did not want to leave their neighborhood school, even if the federal government offered them free transportation and the promise of a better school. In California, less than 1 percent of eligible students in "failing" schools asked to transfer to another school; in Colorado, less than 2 percent did; in Michigan, the number of transfers under NCLB was negligible; in Miami, where public school choice was already commonplace, less than ½ of 1 percent asked to move because of NCLB.(Steve Inskeep, "Former 'No Child Left Behind' Advocate Turns Critic," NPR, March 2 2010)

NCLB offered free tutoring, but 80% turned it down. The tutoring agencies blamed the districts for not giving them space in the public schools, and the public schools blamed the tutoring agencies for demanding space that was needed for extracurricular activities. The tutors complained about the cost of liability insurance, and the districts complained that some of the tutoring companies were ineffective or were offering students gifts or money if they signed up for their classes. It also seemed likely that large numbers of low-performing students did not want a longer school day, even though they needed the extra help.  

Yet adult interests were well served by NCLB. The law generated huge revenues for tutoring and testing services, which became a sizable industry. Companies that offered tutoring, tests, and test prep materials were raking in billions of dollars annually from federal, state, and local governments, but the advantages to the nation's students were not obvious.

8. Why are many teachers neglecting correction of errors in their students' spelling and grammar?

The English language has rules, structure, and formations for definite reasons. Spelling errors indicate both a lack of basic education and a lack of personal responsibility to detail. In short, right or wrong, many times a person is judged as ignorant or incompetent for blunders in spelling. Why not deal with reality and relay the truth to those seeking employment and common respect? And, now, with spell-check, how could someone beg an excuse for poor spelling skills?

Sure, in this world of online communications, hastily written texts and emails filled with spelling and grammatical mistakes are easily accepted in an individual's personal world. But they are still unacceptable in the business world.

Beth N. Carvin, chief executive of Nobscot Corp., a human-resources consulting firm, says, "Tell him (a poor speller) if he is serious about his ambitions, he can't risk being perceived by senior leaders as immature, illiterate or lacking attention to detail." (Toddi Gutner, "Can Poor Spelling Derail a Career?" The Wall Street Journal, September 1 2009)

9. Why do judges put so-called "deadbeat dads" in jail?

Is jail time going to help dad to pay child support? A man cannot seek employment when he is in jail. And jail costs money, as do court costs. If financial hardship is causing the father to be late with his payments, how are these extra costs going to help? Instead, make "deadbeats" work a job and garnish their wages.

10. Why does the History Channel, etc. show so many dumb programs about Nostradamus and his predictions?

Connecting up events with Nostradamus’s predictions after the event … isn’t prediction.

11. Why do American audiences squeal and cheer like fools when attending shows like the Ellen DeGeneres show or Jerry Springer?


This requires no explanation.

12. Why does America have a love affair with Starbucks?

Starbucks serves the OMFG COFFEE customer. This person is typically between 26 and 45, and relies on a double shot frappicino no-whip low fat extra mocha latte to get them through their work day. If they don’t manage to get their drink, they will complain for no less than 10 hours that they can’t function without their overpriced, over-marketed cup of $6 coffee.

13. Why does the fashion industry feature models that look like skinny anorexics?

The issue has long haunted the industry going back to the 1990s when the waif look swept fashion and helped launched models such as Kate Moss. But even, even those standards of thinness no longer seem to apply. A veteran of dozens of fashion campaigns and magazine covers, Filippa Hamilton was allegedly fired by fashion house Ralph Lauren for being too fat. She is 5’10″ tall and weighs 120 pounds, measurements that she says are essentially unchanged since she was 15. Too skinny is sickly.


Ana Carolina Reston was an anorexic model who did not get help. She died after consuming only apples and tomatoes as her “diet plan,” leaving her 5’8” tall body weighing only 88 pounds at the time of her death. Similarly Luisel Ramos died after eating only lettuce and diet coke for 90 days. Both models were only in their early 20s.

14. Why do parents put their young children into beauty pageants?


Most parents believe that their children are the most beautiful in the world. And in the subjective minds of the parents, they may be right. However, a beauty contest requires the parents to face subjectivity. Some say they are entering a child "for the child's sake." They say they are helping the child by boosting self-esteem, poise, public speaking skills, tact, and confidence.

So young? Children in pageants can range in age from 2 to 10 years old. There are frequent bouts of hysterical crying and outbursts. Everyone has only one goal-to win, though the question is being asked, ‘Whose dream, or fantasy, is being played out?”

Parents can contribute to the sexualization of their daughters -- for example, by entering their 5-year-old daughter in a beauty pageant in which she and the other contestants engage in behaviors and practices that are socially associated with sexiness: wearing heavy makeup to emphasize full lips, long eyelashes, and flushed cheeks, high heels to emulate adult women, and revealing evening gowns.

Hair extensions poufed and shellacked, fake tans, false eyelashes, fake teeth (called ‘flippers,’ masking baby teeth), fake nails and often, fake smiles -- it's just too much.

The Music Is My Special Friend

To me music has always been a blessed gift. The only times in my life I can remember resisting music were in the shackles of deep depression. I guess when I felt the worst, I didn't want my friend to get anywhere close to me. Maybe I felt as if I was protecting it from my terrible feelings. Whatever the case, I do love music. Music stirs my senses, offers kernels of meaning, and lifts my spirit. Yes, I guess it makes me high.

I've often thought of my musical addiction. And, believe me, music, in my case, is addictive. I feel the need to possess it, listen to it, share it, collect it, and cherish it. I am the guy who has a bazillion CDs that is always looking for the better sound. My ears lap up music at every opportunity. I simply cannot be satiated -- the desire is too strong. One great song makes me want the high of more and more music.

Some people simply don't understand this fanatical draw towards music. Questions about its utility and about its logical usage abound: "How could you possibly listen to all of those CDs? What do you do, listen to hours of music every day? All recordings sound the same, why would you buy a new version of something you already have? Isn't this type of spending for music a silly expenditure? Can't you just listen to the radio?"

The answer to all the questions above is "no." The love of music is an obsession I feel I must feed. I don't live in a mansion, drive an expensive sports car, have a boat or a motorcycle (no expensive "man toys"), and I never hope to travel the world. I can live my life through music, recall my past through music, and, to a certain extent, see my future through music. Meaningful songs become dependable friends in my life.

I started this addiction as a kid well over fifty years ago with Hit Parade 45 singles that I used to listen to on a portable RCA record player. Along came Johnny Horton, Harry Belafonte, Perry Como, Tennessee Ernie Ford, the remnants of the big band era, the first smidgens of rock. I played my limited pile of records over and over while I dreamed of being older and affording a never-ending collection. I think I can still sing every word of each song I bought from that era.

I continued collecting music in a time when one chart contained country, rock, instrumental, vocals, movie themes, cross-over, blues, R&B, spoken word, and anything else that slid into public consumption. What a great time for music from all genres. I purchased 45s, albums (then available in stereo or mono), and 8 tracks. No male driver would be caught without an 8 track of Johnny Cash's "Live At Folsom Prison," Jimi Hendrix's "Are You Experienced," Cream's "Disraeli Gears," and Bread's "Anthology" (reserved for romantic dates).

By the time I was 19, I was a veteran of the Folk era, of Rockabilly roots, of the American hippie sounds, and of the English Invasion. I had already seen Hendrix and the Doors in person. I had decorated my room with album covers. (What an absolutely dumb but sure way to ruin the great artwork) I was playing guitar in a rock band. And, I was constantly buying music. Needless to say, nothing could ease my consumptive musical appetite. I continues to crave music every day of my life.

I am pretty eclectic in my musical tastes. Rock, R&B, older Country, Folk, Americana, Country Rock, Blues, Reggae, Vocals, Big Band, Jazz, Standards -- I sample it all for my favorite songs. My theory is that a great song is timeless, no matter what style. Isn't "Moonlight Serenade" by Glenn Miller on par with "In My Life" by the Beatles or "Kiss From a Rose" by Seal?

I don't worry about the primary value of the recording -- whether it's the singer or the song. And, usually, I am attracted to the music first, then I contemplate the lyrics. Very seldom do I try to make sense of every aspect of a preferred recording; instead, I just listen to it and let the vibe of the music do its magic. I love songs of rhythm and songs of lyrical content.

The mood a song projects is very important to me. Yet,  I don't categorize songs by by simple descriptions of an emotional effect such as "sad" or "happy." The palate of emotional hues in songs is infinite. The emotional content of a great song is what it is. It needs no critic's defense or explanation.

The experience or idea contained in a song may be important. Then again, it may be foolish, depending upon the encounter. I mean I love "Wooly Bully" by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs, and I love "The River" by Bruce Springsteen. To me one song is nonsensical and the other deeply reflective. The important aspect of theme is that each song offers a fresh insight, whether that new view is scattered or chiseled.

I prefer to have a song choose me as if it knows important intimate feelings I have and as if it knows the personal history of my life. A favorite song perfectly fits me, and I long for that quality much like a lover longs for a mate. The power of its seduction should not be measured on any scale, rather it should be thoroughly explored and enjoyed.

If people are willing to choose a sensuous but healing addiction, I suggest they inject some music. The catalog and the knowledge awaiting the novice are endless. The cost can be pricey, but I always compare it to the cost of smoking. Enjoying the hobby of music is much less expensive than buying and smoking cigarettes and much better for your physical well being. I hope my music remains accessible to the end. No doubt, my musical obsession is alive and well today.

What Others Say

"It's really about living in your head... just looking out at the world, then going back into your head and tossing around a lot of ideas and coming out with something interesting to say." -Lucinda Williams
 

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." -John Lennon

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." -Frank Zappa

"I'm going to Graceland
For reasons I cannot explain
There's some part of me wants to see
Graceland
And I may be obliged to defend
Every love, every ending
Or maybe there's no obligations now
Maybe I've a reason to believe
We all will be received
In Graceland" -Paul Simon

"The world is filled with people who are no longer needed. And who try to make slaves of all of us. And they have their music and we have ours. Theirs, the wasted songs of a superstitious nightmare. And without their music and ideological miscarriages to compare our songs of freedom to, we'd not have any opposite to compare music with --- and like the drifting wind, hitting against no obstacle, we'd never know its speed, its power...." -Woody Guthrie

"I like to sing ballads the way Eddie Fisher does and the way Perry Como does. But the way I'm singing now is what makes the money." -Elvis Presley

 

"This land is your land and this land is my land, sure, but the world is run by those that never listen to music anyway." -Bob Dylan

“I started recording because I was always complaining about the records that I was getting of my songs At least if I did them and messed them up, I wouldn't have anyone else to blame." -Randy Newman

"I'd have to say that my favorite thing is writing a song that really says how I feel, what I believe - and it even explains the world to myself better than I knew it." -Jackson Browne

"At that time, though, I wanted to get a song done by Elvis Presley. But as I was leaving after meeting with Elvis, (Presley's manager) Col. (Tom) Parker followed me to the door and said, 'I guess we won't be seeing you here again.' I said, 'Oh, really?' Parker wanted only songs to which he could get full publishing rights, and I didn't need Elvis to record 'MacArthur Park.' It was already a number one hit. Col. Parker was a crude man." -Jimmy Webb

“Beware the lollipop of mediocrity; lick it once and you'll suck forever.” -Brian Wilson 

"The song is the center; the song is the key. If you don't have a good song, you don't have anything by my value." -Carole King

"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." -Berthold Auerbach

“The best music is essentially there to provide you something to face the world with.” -Bruce Springsteen

"Music to me is spontaneous, writing is spontaneous and it's all based on not trying to do it. From beginning to end, whether it's writing a song, or playing guitar, or a particular chord sequence, or blowing a horn, it's based on improvisation and spontaneity.  -Van Morrison

"For the music is your special friend

Dance on fire as it intends

Music is your only friend

Until the end" -Jim Morrison

"I don't know what you mean by 'country music.' I just make music the way I know how." -Hank Williams, Sr.

"Some songs have to do with my personal relationship with the Lord, others are about certain situations that I've gone through." -Smokey Robinson

“My thing was to out-Sly Sly Stone. Sly was definitely sly, and his sound was new, his grooves were incredible, he borrowed a lot from rock. He caught the psychedelic thing. He was bad. I could match him though, rhythm for rhythm, horn for horn.”  -Norman Whitfield

"My mother would cry about my blindness and the hopelessness of my ever seeing, but I told her I wasn't sad. I believed God had something for me to do." -Stevie Wonder

"Music happens to be an art form that transcends language." -Herbie Hancock

"There's an edge to real rock 'n' roll. It's all that matters." -Neil Young