Drug Testing and Privacy

Copy and send this letter!

To the editor,

Employee drug testing is a civil liberties violation and a highly flawed practice. The U.S. Department of Labor has reported that 9% of current employees and 12% of job applicants test positive for illegal drug use. Given these numbers, and the fact that drug abuse is estimated to cost business $100 billion per year in lost profits, it is no wonder that many businesses react with knee-jerk simplicity by requiring drug testing.

The urine and blood in my body is sacrosanct, personal, and it is my choice and my business to do with it as I will. That choice and that privacy should not become a personal dilemma under pressure from an employer. This is the primary reason why I will never work for an employer who begins our relationship by testing my body for illegal drugs. There are several other reasons why employees, applicants, and employers should be against workplace drug testing.

Drug testing amounts to unequal treatment under the law. There are hundreds of thousands of employees hooked on pain killers and anti-anxiety medications. Are they compelled to an invasion of privacy and then discriminated against? No. What about alcoholics coming to work with a hangover every day? Are they tested and then discriminated against? No. Fairly distributed employee testing should include pharmaceutical addicts, alcoholics, the chronically fatigued, the emotionally unstable, the attention deficit sufferer, the dyslexic, the hyperactive, and the ill-tempered. Imagine the uncounted trillions of dollars of profit lost to these human flaws.

Human error in the lab, or the test's failure to distinguish between legal and illegal substances, can make even a small margin of error add up to a huge number of false positives. In 1992, an estimated 22 million tests were administered. If 5% yielded false positive results (a low estimate), 1.1 million people could have been fired, or denied jobs because of a mistake.

Drug testing can be abused in many ways. In 1988, the Washington, D.C. Police Department admitted it used urine samples collected from drug tests to screen female employees for pregnancy, without their knowledge or consent.

Drug testing is a slippery slope. If we all sit idly by while this widely-accepted invasion of privacy continues unchallenged, then the genetic traits of you and your family will become the next accepted form of invasion used to discriminate.

Stop the War on Marijuana!

To the editor,

If the government trusts us to use alcohol responsibly, it is ridiculous to assume that citizens are incapable of using marijuana responsibly. Marijuana poses nowhere near the health and welfare danger that goes with alcohol. Freedom from the tyranny of prohibition of this widely used product is desperately needed. Police agents at all levels trample on our Bill of Rights by conducting illegal car searches, phone and email taps, garbage scrounging, and door busting night raids upon harmless people.

According a study by Harvard economist Jeffery Miron, legalization could save 7.7 billion a year in enforcement savings, while producing 6.2 billion a year in tax revenues alone.

In 13 states further liberty is granted where the possession of marijuana is no longer criminalized. In a Gallup poll of 2005, 55% say possession of personal amounts of marijuana should not be criminal. In a Rasmussen poll, 51% say alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana while only 19% say the opposite. The American Medical Association has recently called for a new policy to review marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug in the federal Controlled Substances Act.

In the end of prohibition millions taking anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication may find that marijuana fulfills the need for these prescription drugs. Cancer patients, Glaucoma patients, and persons with chronic pain find marijuana to be an irreplaceable product. In many situations the calming effect of marijuana could prevent domestic violence. The psychoactive properties of marijuana can readily replace far more harmful substances.

Today hundreds to thousands of individuals will be arrested for possession of a personal amount of marijuana. Tonight, to relieve stress, at least a million Americans will sit on their couches and light-up a joint. Tomorrow they will return to work rested and ready to perform without a hangover or a physical addiction.

Doctors as Bean Counters

Wouldn’t it be nice if doctors stood out of the way, let consumers shape health care reform, and take what they get? After all they are supposed to be serving us, the consumers, right? Not the other way around. And they are supposed to be healers, not social scientists or economists, or “bean counters,” as the President recently exclaimed.

It should go without saying that doctor’s and all health care provider’s care given, should remain the same in quality and quantity, and only be allowed to get better under any new health care reform. Democratically appointed boards or committees of health care representation should see to that, and I don’t doubt that’s what we’ll see when health care universality is complete.

“But we are speaking for our patients! That’s why we don’t want government run health care! For our patients!” Say the doctor’s opposed to change. Gibberish I say. The truth is a doctor in America knows that if he or she takes Medicare recipients, that there is a cap, or a “ceiling” on reimbursement that is far lower than what private insurance pays for its own customers. And that is the measure the doctor’s use to analogize a newer system created by government. And so they fear a money reduction. The answer to how much reimbursement lay somewhere in between. An average perhaps. That average would truly speak for the patients. And in only the interest of the patients, economists and social scientists, who should be the only one’s creating a universal health care system, would be speaking for the people – speaking only for the patients.

We want doctors to live above the average pay line, far above it. We want them to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. We want them to have nice homes, multiple cars, country club memberships and exotic vacations. We don’t want doctors who earn millions. We don’t want them to grow used to mansions, limousines, second homes in foreign lands and luxury motor yachts and tax loopholes.

Obama and Clinton: the Hopeful and the Practical

Senator Barrack Obama speaks in inspirational tones that invoke hope from current national despair, and speaks clearly to the empathetic minded voter. To those voters that’s very practical.

Senator Hillary Clinton has a different type of inspirational speak, she speaks of practical matters and practical solutions, and to the practically minded that’s very inspirational.

National shame has been brought about by the worse president ever in office. Americans are primed for hope and “faith in America.” To the man on a desert island an immature coconut looks great and inspiring.

In a time of public despair, of economy, of invasion and occupation, Obama’s words are of the reparative type. He is our father yelling at us to not be scared, to go through with whatever it is that causes us hesitation. Obama’s words speak to those of us who are empathetic, those of us who feel the shame and for whom that shame matters the most. Senator Obama is the only one, of the two remaining contenders in the race for the Democratic race for delegates to the convention, speaking as he does, with church like reverence dominating his oratory.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama inspirational talk won’t cut-it at the polling place. “She really seems to know what she’s talking about,” will be the echoing words between the ears of U.S. voters come November. It also appears that with nearly %25 more of Senator Obama’s nationally cumulated permanent delegates; Senator Clinton’s message of rational practicality is getting through across the United States.

Besides Hillary’s masterful grasp of the issues and a suitcase full of sound bites to back it up, shes got the women. Every woman ever dissed by men repeatedly. If just half of all women registered to vote, vote for her, she wins. If just over half of all women registered to vote Democratic chose her, behind the curtain, she’s a cinch for the nomination and for president of the United States. Give also that there are %5 more women than men in the United States; the numbers are already advantage Hillary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another thought; I think the country is still moderate. Ready to vote for that safe bet, middle of the road candidate, as the nation always has in the past – its true! Once in office, the candidate may or may not turn out to be moderate, but so long as the appearance is during the campaigns, voters are more comfortable.

Bill Clinton knows this little secret and he’s taught it to Hillary. No. He has hammered this little factoid in, for the sake of his wife’s success.

Life Entirely Without Beliefs - On Life's Terms

It is possible to go through life, living and functioning much like anyone else, with no beliefs at all . . . none. “What?” You say. “What the hell do you stand for, what about your morals?”

Morals are determined by belief, if you are on shaky ground with your morals, then beliefs would be convenient as a support tool for those shaky morals. Philosophy is what guides us. That philosophy taught by our parents and that we are cornered into by the norms and consequences of our actions in society.

First let’s informally define belief.

It is several things all at once or several things conveyed or experienced individually. Belief is a disposition. Belief is a state of mind. Belief is knowledge unrealized, or unjustified. It is confidence or trust. It is spiritual and supernatural. It is used to hold hope and wishful thinking. It is voluntary or placed from without to be engrained within. It is words used in excess in language with abandon. But most important of all the concept of belief is not necessary at all, never.

Belief can be voluntary. For example belief can require maintenance, or up-keep, like going to church weekly to get one’s belief supported and polished. Belief can be involuntary. For example belief’s superstition and mythology can be engrained at an early age, as a very young child, causing belief to be an assumption to the mind and very tough to overcome.

Belief is commonly used to describe a personal position on whether or not a thing is true in the absence of evidence or other proof.

Belief is used to convey trust and confidence in another person, i.e. “I believe in you, you can do it!”

Belief is holding to be true that which you can not prove, i.e. “I believe the president has very small testicles.”

Even the word “believes,” is a fallacy in our language, a misnomer, a word to fill-in for several others at time. How often do we Americans say something to the effect of “I trust in you Bob, evidence shows, you can do this.” Or perhaps “I feel this is not right, after all, there’s just no evidence for it.”

In none of these instances and uses above is “belief” needed to communicate, to live, to function technically, to live structured. Belief is just not necessary, period. The concept of belief, and the word, so abused as it is, is totally unnecessary.

Giving up beliefs will take a person decades, but it can be done. Superstition is the greatest hurdle to overcome; it lasts long after one thinks he has rid him or her self of belief. “Step on a crack, break your mother’s back?”

The language a newly non-believer uses is as important as his or her determination to give up belief. Using the correct language in daily situations will assist the non-believer wanna-be to verify the uselessness of the “b” words. Try using variations of the following prefaces to open sentences when speaking or writing:

“It appears that this is the case . . .”

“I think you’re right about this, because it shows . . .”

“I have confidence in your ability to do this . . .”

“Evidence supports that thesis . . .”

“Evidence would indicate you’re right . . .”

“You had better know its true . . . .”

What do you personally lose when you successfully give up belief and the use of belief?

Superstition and fate and destiny are lost as your mind reminds you when you are being silly, as these feelings reoccur periodically. Hope is partially lost as it is realized to be a negative that must be believed in. Hope is replaced with wanting with good feelings, i.e. “wouldn’t that be great!” You stop saying “believe” and your conversational language changes to a more geeky persona. You lose a fantasy life that you walked through every day. It may feel as though you have lost a crutch of sorts. A support of non reality that had been holding you upright is gone.

What do you personally get when you stop believing?

Life on life’s terms is what you get without beliefs. Because with beliefs goes superstition and that feeling of fate, of destiny, which are also unnecessary concepts. This does not mean you are any happier or more sad in your life. You are however living more grounded to reality than most people around you.

Try to imagine one moment in your life when having a belief or conveying a belief to someone else was absolutely necessary. Try to remember one time when speaking in terms of belief was necessary for anyone. Okay, if you were Jim Jones and you wanted eight hundred people to drink your poison Kool-Aid, then using the concept of belief was necessary. So, try to remember one time in history when there was a non religious use of the “b” word that was absolutely necessary to accomplish anything productive. Comment in the comments section of this blog if you can think of anything.

Thank you and stop believing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

Understanding Evolution in Part

Evolution theory (yes it’s a theory, which means it’s been tested and retested, and peer reviewed and peer accepted) states that all life on Earth arose from a circumstance of need for survival and need to proliferate.

Generally this change due to a need to proliferate, and synonymously to survive, is called “Natural Selection.” Natural as in: happened in nature, or happened with an effort of naturally cooperative materials, i.e. life forms, and energies. Selection as in: to chose and keep, to make one’s own, to incorporate a part or in whole an addition. “Natural selection,” is a process that is chief in understanding Darwin’s evolution.

The spiked and bristled weed grows in the forest. Insects leave it alone, unable to eat of it’s topsides due to the inhospitable climb to the top. The weed proliferates, its species surviving. Did God give it bristles? Preferring to save the pollen on top for the bees? No, a mutation occurred (like a third arm or a Siamese twin) that proved advantageous to the weed, proved necessary.

Creationists dismiss evolution’s merit due to the unlikely “chance of random events creating such complex structures in life!”

Very little about evolution is dependent upon a random “falling” or “bumping into” of one structure of life upon another. It’s not about random it’s about necessity.

A junkyard sits in the path of tornado velocity wind storms. The idiot who put the junkyard there is no where to be seen. Along comes the fierce winds and lifts every piece of metal up into the air, twists them all around, and drops it all on the ground where it originated. A pile of randomized, chaotic, junk is what’s left. Then imagine the winds come back five hundred times. Now we have something, not a Timex watch the size of a house, but a sturdy metallic windproof junk pile. Environment can cause life to form complex structures towards better survival and more procreation.

If we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still here? Simple, we didn’t evolve from them, we created an evolutionary branch. Most likely the branch is the result of many mutations which favored the species before it, but presupposed an advantage for the species ahead, us homo-sapiens.

If water is wet on the other side of this universe, which it very very likely is, then evolution is a process in place in millions of forms of evolution on the other side of the universe, and everywhere in the universe. In fact examination of stars and galaxies indicates that the entire universe is life form in an ongoing process of evolution. Praise be science and evolution!

Popularity, the President and Congress

“Congress are a bunch of cowards! They need to get a spine! Hell man they’re up against a president with a %24 favorable rating and they can’t get anything done!”

If the popularity of the president, belonging to a party, was the main criterion for accomplishing passage of laws in congress, then the minority party might as well go home for the entire session. But that wouldn’t really work; the president would just veto everything he didn’t like, popular opinion and polls be dammed. In congress the minority may not be voting with the president per say, they just happen to feel similarly about an issue, like withdrawal from Iraq, or spending a sliver of our annual budget on additional health care insurance for kids.

That minority party voting has been enough to stall vital legislation. That voting causes the majority (the Democratic Party) to duck and rethink the session ahead of them. What rationally can be passed becomes the dogmatic prerogative for the Senate. So, what was a full steam ahead charge to stop the occupation, to get health care for kids, becomes a slow and gentle nudging of hold-out Senators to get their points of view changed.

The House of Representatives, the south side of the Capital Building, has voted pretty well in terms of listening to their constituents. But they don’t have to have %60 to get a bill off the floor and into the committee process. The Senate does have to achieve %60, which, even in sheer mathematical ideal is a strong majority. Are they cowards? I say not. The Senate is like a person bound with rope, hopping around the basement floor, trying to reach the stairway, unsuccessfully.

Lets Undertand Our Own Economy

Fractions Thereof and Percentages are Understood

Another thing that must change for the sake of understanding and truthfulness is how we report income of the masses to the masses. Income must, from now on, be reported as percentages of everything relevant and everything being compared with income. Percentage relative to average personal earnings. Percentage of income from per capita persons in existence as earners. Percentages of comparisons, for example “2-1 or 66% of earners below $50,000.” Percentages are fractions and fractions are more easily understood by everyone and place our numbers in relative terms. By expressing our national economics in percentages and fractions, we allow for the less numerically practiced working Americans, to understand economy.

A great specific example of poor reporting on numbers that effect us all, is when we hear the common reporting of “the wage gap between the top 1% of earners verses the bottom 20% of earners is getting larger!” Few if any newspapers or television news reports will explain what this means. It means the bottom 20% is earning less and the top 1% is earning more (not the same . . more . . increasing). Why count these fractions of the population as first 1/5th and then 1/100th? Its easier to count the rich verses the lower middle class and poor, who are more elusive, sometimes don’t even file taxes (not enough income), so getting more participants in the polling of the lower middle class and poor means a more accurate result. The reporting of the “gap” getting larger means that upward mobility in America, a trait that few would disagree grows the middleclass and thus grows productivity and grows the nation in general, is faltering, worse . . . it could be said, actually causing our economy to move backwards.

Truth in Budget Reporting

Few realize that since Ronald Reagan was forced to make-up for his frivolous tax breaks for the upper class, the Social Security trust fund has been raided in budgets every year, save for a few during the Clinton administration. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear this number when the numbers of the annual budget were released, how much of the Social Security trust fun has been stolen (errr borrowed) from? Perhaps the added attention would bring added outrage from the voters?

The same type of reporting needs to be given to the state of Medicare and Medicaid. Two related programs suffering a hemorrhage from rising health care costs, treatment happy doctors, corrupt secondary providers, greedy health care accessories makers, and the programs take a bruising from an uncompassionate congress, which year after year (during republican reign), chose to cut the budgets. These cuts were seldom if not too quietly reported to the people. The people should know, loudly and widespread, when these programs are being cut and or changed in anyway significant.

Understanding our Wallets

For so many people, economics and mathematics are nasty words, to me grammar is a nasty word. Just explaining something mathematical involves negative terms like “ . . then you have to . . .” But television news could do a great job of helping Americans break through this negativity barrier, by using fractions and percentages only whenever possible, by using colorful graphics, funny graphics, memorable images. I know, asking the media to do the right thing is next to impossible if ratings can’t be proved before hand. But the media should consider that this is one of those new and fascinating shticks what’s novel presence alone might just get better ratings for any television news show or newspaper. Percentages, fractions thereof, graphics . . a more understanding population may lead to a congress that writes responsible budgets, and increases all around accountability in programs.