Sunday, July 17, 2005
New Militia...I don't hear any complaints.
In the Southwestern United States the new militia has been getting a lot of press.
As far as I can tell, it is a group of Americans who have taken it upon themselves to police the US-Mexico border.
Yet, despite all the negative press, I don't hear anyone trying to stop them.
Again, like many of the issues I address, I can see how both sides have a valid argument.
On one side, anytime citizens take the law into their own hands the potential for disaster increases. Do they have the training to show appropriate restraint? Do they have adequate knowledge of the legal system to protect themselves and protect the rights of the accused? Where does the line get drawn between the rights of the citizen and the law.
However, when do the citizens have the right to stand up for themselves when the government fails them? With the ever increasing Latino-American population it is becoming political suicide to address the uncontrolled illegal immigration from Mexico. And it is not just Mexicans, anyone from any country that can get to Mexico can get a good shot at crossing the border. Uncontrolled immigration is detrimental to the US on so many levels:
1. Every new wave of illegal immigrants continues to undercut the Latino-Americans who are already here by continuing the illegal-immigrant-stereotype.
2. A never-ending supply of cheap illegal labor undercuts any attempt at raising fair wages.
3. Illegal labor robs the US Government of much needed taxes which must be made up by legal employees, especially when those illegal immigrants are recieving aid via those same taxes.
4. In this post 9/11 (and now 7/7) age, any shortcomings in border control directly become shortcomings in national security!!!
these are just a few...
Now, I would never deny a hard working person the right to make money, just do it legally.
So, we have a group of motivated Americans who have decided to police the border. They are trying to make a difference. How can you blame someone for trying? If a stranger jumped my fence and was illegally hanging around my backyard I would have a right to defend my property. These "militia men" have taken it upon themselves to protect "America's backyard," I say let them be. If they break the law, then arrest them and prosecute them. But, if they are going to at least try to defend this country, and indirectly defend our lives, why stop them. I would recommend you just say thank you and commend these people for upholding the principles this fine country was found on; and more importantly, thank them for doing something most Americans do not have the time or the stomach to do themselves.
And I will take the collective silence from Washington as un-official permission to continue.
As far as I can tell, it is a group of Americans who have taken it upon themselves to police the US-Mexico border.
Yet, despite all the negative press, I don't hear anyone trying to stop them.
Again, like many of the issues I address, I can see how both sides have a valid argument.
On one side, anytime citizens take the law into their own hands the potential for disaster increases. Do they have the training to show appropriate restraint? Do they have adequate knowledge of the legal system to protect themselves and protect the rights of the accused? Where does the line get drawn between the rights of the citizen and the law.
However, when do the citizens have the right to stand up for themselves when the government fails them? With the ever increasing Latino-American population it is becoming political suicide to address the uncontrolled illegal immigration from Mexico. And it is not just Mexicans, anyone from any country that can get to Mexico can get a good shot at crossing the border. Uncontrolled immigration is detrimental to the US on so many levels:
1. Every new wave of illegal immigrants continues to undercut the Latino-Americans who are already here by continuing the illegal-immigrant-stereotype.
2. A never-ending supply of cheap illegal labor undercuts any attempt at raising fair wages.
3. Illegal labor robs the US Government of much needed taxes which must be made up by legal employees, especially when those illegal immigrants are recieving aid via those same taxes.
4. In this post 9/11 (and now 7/7) age, any shortcomings in border control directly become shortcomings in national security!!!
these are just a few...
Now, I would never deny a hard working person the right to make money, just do it legally.
So, we have a group of motivated Americans who have decided to police the border. They are trying to make a difference. How can you blame someone for trying? If a stranger jumped my fence and was illegally hanging around my backyard I would have a right to defend my property. These "militia men" have taken it upon themselves to protect "America's backyard," I say let them be. If they break the law, then arrest them and prosecute them. But, if they are going to at least try to defend this country, and indirectly defend our lives, why stop them. I would recommend you just say thank you and commend these people for upholding the principles this fine country was found on; and more importantly, thank them for doing something most Americans do not have the time or the stomach to do themselves.
And I will take the collective silence from Washington as un-official permission to continue.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
You can't have your drugs and complain too.
In Newsweek this week, while threatening to ban bulk drug exports, the Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh was quoted as saying:
"Canada cannot be a drugstore for the United States of America - 280 million people cannot expect us to supply drugs to them on a continuous, uncontrolled basis."
This quote raises an interesting contradiction in America with regards to drug access.
Personally, if I have a fatal-untreatable illness I would definitly opt for a dangerous and experimental drug. The worst that could happen is that I would die anyway, and I would always rather die fighting. But the flip side to this choice: If the experimental drug makes me sicker I have no right to complain.
Here are the two sides:
First: The American people, especially during the 2004 Presidential Race, complained that the U.S. Government should not keep cheaper (and often below FDA standards of testing) foreign drugs from entering the USA and treating our sick and suffering. This is a legitimate argument, let the people decide if the risk is worth it.
Second: As soon as a drug company has to pull a product (read: Vioxx) the same American people complain that the U.S. Government should be more stringent in testing drugs before the American people can purchase them. This too is a valid argument, do not let the public have a drug until it is FDA approved under the strictest of testing standards.
You can not have it both ways!
You cannot complain that cheaper and/or riskier drugs need to be available, and then turn around and complain when a drug causes an adverse effect. Now, I understand that "foreign" drugs does not automatically mean "unsafe;" but, it does usually mean "untested," or not tested to FDA standards.
So I ask you, the American people, to please make up your mind.
Are you educated enough to make your own choice with medication, or do you need a government agency to approve a drug to allow you piece of mind?
For those of you that are still confused, here is quote which may help you:
"You cannot have your cake and eat it too."
"Canada cannot be a drugstore for the United States of America - 280 million people cannot expect us to supply drugs to them on a continuous, uncontrolled basis."
This quote raises an interesting contradiction in America with regards to drug access.
Personally, if I have a fatal-untreatable illness I would definitly opt for a dangerous and experimental drug. The worst that could happen is that I would die anyway, and I would always rather die fighting. But the flip side to this choice: If the experimental drug makes me sicker I have no right to complain.
Here are the two sides:
First: The American people, especially during the 2004 Presidential Race, complained that the U.S. Government should not keep cheaper (and often below FDA standards of testing) foreign drugs from entering the USA and treating our sick and suffering. This is a legitimate argument, let the people decide if the risk is worth it.
Second: As soon as a drug company has to pull a product (read: Vioxx) the same American people complain that the U.S. Government should be more stringent in testing drugs before the American people can purchase them. This too is a valid argument, do not let the public have a drug until it is FDA approved under the strictest of testing standards.
You can not have it both ways!
You cannot complain that cheaper and/or riskier drugs need to be available, and then turn around and complain when a drug causes an adverse effect. Now, I understand that "foreign" drugs does not automatically mean "unsafe;" but, it does usually mean "untested," or not tested to FDA standards.
So I ask you, the American people, to please make up your mind.
Are you educated enough to make your own choice with medication, or do you need a government agency to approve a drug to allow you piece of mind?
For those of you that are still confused, here is quote which may help you:
"You cannot have your cake and eat it too."
