New Year's Resolutions

I think most of us at least think about making resolutions at this time each year. Some follow through and make resolutions. Some even keep their resolutions. Me, I get to the making resolutions part, but 12 months is a really long time! This year, however I'm determined. I have two:

1. eat healthier (again) Hopefully I have more luck at it this time around.

2. Keep up with this blog. So far so good. I still keep hoping for more readers, but I haven't gotten discouraged yet. Patience....

I came across this posting which has some tips on being more successful in keeping your resolutions:

http://lifelessonsmilitarywife.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-years-resolutions-in-reality.html

What I have found in my own life, is that I have made a crucial change over the past couple of years. It was not related to a resolution, per se, but it has been a very important and positive change. I slowly pulled my head out of the sand and began paying a lot more attention to what is going on in the world. I guess this blog is the next logical step.

So I chose this topic for this post to ask all who read it to consider resolving a few things in this important election year.

1. Keep watching, listening to, and reading the news. Pay attention to what the candidates are saying, and pay attention to what media outlets are saying about the candidates. Be informed!

2. Keep in mind that media is NOT objective. Take everything with a grain of salt. Follow media on BOTH sides of the political playing field, and form your own opinions. Be an independent and critical thinker!

3. Make an active decision what issues are most important to YOU in this election -- give it some thought, and make sure you know the positions of the candidates.

4. VOTE! But cast an informed vote. Whatever your political leanings, the only "wasted" vote is one that has been cast thoughtlessly.

Our nation is at a critical point. The world is in great turmoil. I am not advocating any one candidate or party. I am urging you to sort through the oft-biased sound bytes and campaign ad propaganda to find out what the candidates are really about, what is important to you, and do your duty as an American citizen.

Sphere: Related Content

On Law, Religion, and Morality

I found this quote at

http://www.thomaspaineblog.org

“There are many things which in themselves are neither morally good nor bad, but they are productive of consequences, which are strongly marked with one or other of these characters.”
-Thomas Paine

I thought it very clearly stated something I've been grappling with but haven't quite been able to put my finger on -- a concept that has been a theme in some of my posts. Those of us who believe in some form of organized religion have a code of morality laid out for us. Religion and morality are inextricably intertwined. But how about those who are atheist or agnostic? Surely these people are not amoral. So morality is not the sole territory of religion.

So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong? The laws of the land provide us with clear guidelines about what is and is not legal...what behaviors will and won't be punished. There is clearly some overlap between law and morality, but unlike with religion, issues of law are not always issues of morality. For example, if I exceed the speed limit in my car, I do not feel the need to repent. However, sooner or later it is likely that some kind police officer will point out the error of my ways, and impose a consequence.

Further, for those of us who are Christian, our religion dictates that we follow the laws of the land, insofar as they are compatible with the laws of God. But we must put the law of God before the law of man -- creating quite the dilemma in circumstances where the laws of God and man are in conflict.

hmmm........

So let's apply this to an issue I have put forth:

Drugs -- illegal, (although medical uses of marijuana remain in a grey area); to my knowledge, religion does not speak directly to the issue of drug use; moral or immoral? the demonization of drug use that I have spoken of leaves one with the impression that there is a question of morality here, but I think Mr. Paine's words are appropriate -- drug use in and of itself is neither morally good nor bad, but use outside a doctor's care is a violation of law, and therein lies the moral issue. Given that, I reiterate my position that medical use of marijuana SHOULD be a legal option, provided continued study supports its benefits, and government sponsored needle exchange programs are also within the boundaries of morality.

Sphere: Related Content

Marijuana -- Time to Admit It's not All Bad

Ok, so here's the headline:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318526,00.html

Let me start by saying that I'm speaking as someone who has never taken an illegal drug. Never, not once, not only did I not inhale, but I've never even had the stuff near me.

I do not understand the resistance to the concept of Medical Marijuana. Street drugs -- bad. Illegal drugs -- bad. Abuse/misuse of prescription pharmaceuticals -- bad. But prescription of a chemical substance that can relieve some of the side effects of chemotherapy, or even inhibit the growth of some tumors -- NOT BAD.

I wrote in a previous post about the "demonization" of illegal drugs as it relates to Needle Exchange programs. With that issue, I can at least see the point of the other side. There is the potential downside of enabling drug addicts -- although I still believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. This manifestation of the demonization of illegal drugs, however, mystifies me. We are talking about, people coping with a potentally fatal disease finding some relief from their pain, and perhaps some hope for longer term survival. How is this a bad thing? Morphine, commonly given in hospitals for pain management, is highly addictive. Who is speaking out against morphine? Oxycodone abuse has become an issue in recent years, but it is still prescribed regularly. How about human growth hormone? Major League Baseball will never be the same again. But it is legal to be prescribed in specific situations. So why not marijuana?

It seems to be another example of misguided morality imposing itself where it does not belong. If it can help people, then USE IT. By all means regulate it, but USE IT.

Still not convinced? Check out what the AMA has to say:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html

Sphere: Related Content

Needle Exchange: Good or Evil?

Drug addicts in Washington DC will be allowed to exchange dirty needles for clean ones after a 9 year ban has been lifted. DC has the highest rate of AIDS of any major city in the nation -- significantly higher than the national average. So will needle exchange solve this problem? Statistics show that needle exchanges do have a positive impact in reducing the rate of AIDS in hypodermic drug users. But the question becomes, does that positive impact outweigh the possibility that these programs send the message that drug use is OK. Once again, a practical issue becomes mired in morality. Don't get me wrong -- I believe strongly that morality has its place, and that government does indeed bear some responsibility in this area. But "The War on Drugs" has demonized drug use to the point where practical solutions -- again looking at the greater good -- are criticized based on an overinflated sense of morality imposed on a legal/medical issue. Yes, drug use is illegal, and breaking the law is morally wrong, I get it. But drug addiction is a disease, and this too must be considered. Obviously the ideal would be to eliminate drugs, take away the addiction, and clean things up that way. But the war on drugs isn't going all that well -- DC being a perfect example of our country's failure in this area. Practically speaking, I believe that needle exchange programs serve the greater good. Further, I do not believe that the promise of free, clean needles will lure unsuspecting children into first time drug use. It is a less than perfect solution, but it is a step toward a solution nonetheless. Perhaps we can be more successful in the war on AIDS than we have been in the war on drugs.

Sphere: Related Content

My Blogging Debut

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hannukah, Joyous Kwanzaa and Jolly Yule, Happy Holidays to all (in case I missed anyone).
Blogging is something I've thought about in a general way for quite awhile. As someone who always has something to say (whether anyone wants to listen or not), I decided to take the plunge -- call it an early New Year's resolution. So the first question is what to blog about? I titled my blog "A Little Bit of Everything", because I tend to follow current events, sports, politics, etc. rather closely, and I most always have an opinion -- sometimes a very passionate one. It seemed a good place to start, and I guess we'll see where it leads me.
So, the issue which has been on my mind of late is one that is particularly sad and disturbing to me in light of the holiday season -- the sad fate of Nataline Sarkisyan -- a 17 year old girl whose sole crimes against humanity seemed to be having leukemia and wanting to live to see adulthood. Yet seemingly through the fault of many, she was allowed to die because it was deemed too costly to allow her to live. As a talk radio and internet news junkie, I have heard a variety of opinions on this tragic situation, and I have heard blame placed in a number of places: Cigna -- the insurance company that originally denied coverage of a procedure they deemed experimental; UCLA medical center -- the hospital providing care to the girl who chose not to perform the transplant without confirmation of insurance coverage; surgeons -- who did not perform the transplant without the hospital's support and consent;and even the girl's parents -- for not somehow finding the money on their own to pay for this procedure which they viewed as life-saving.
In my humble opinion, the heart of the issue is larger than one team of surgeons, one medical center, or even one insurance company, because let's face it -- not many of us would have been surprised to read the name of any of a number of different companies in that headline. The issue -- as the Democratic presidential candidates continue to remind us -- is a healthcare system desperately in need of repair. And yet, although I realize it is the holiday season, as much as I have heard said about this story I have been unable to find any comments made by any presidential candidate other than John Edwards (who uses the tragedy as a further rationale for his plan to take the power away from the insurance companies. This is probably one of the very few things I agree with John Edwards about -- the insurance companies have far too much power -- over the lives of individual Americans, and with their political contributions and lobbyists, over the legislative process. But is "universal healthcare" going to solve this problem? Apparently, Ms. Sarkisyan would have been better off had she not had health insurance at all -- in the past, UCLA has performed transplants on uninsured patients. So it would seem that mandating health insurance for all (Hillary Clinton) would not be ideal in some cases.
What this story plays on -- as do some of the candidates with their arguments for universal healthcare -- is our own individual desire to protect our loved ones. When looking at this story through the lens of my own family -- what if Nataline Sarkisyan had been one of my daughters? -- I feel genuine outrage at the seemingly needless death of this young girl. I am furious that insurance executives are making life and death decisions instead of medical professionals. I am incensed that a hospital allowed a patient to die, when they had the power to save her, but the funding was uncertain. There are undoubtedly the makings of a great Lifetime movie here! But the other lens we need to remember, is that of the greater good. What would the far-reaching implications for the hospital have beed if they had performed this procedure without clearance from Cigna? If insurance companies were to routinely cover "experimental" procedures (and I freely admit that the word "experimental" is still in question as of yet in this case) that are now routinely denied under most policies, what would that do to premiums? If forced to choose a more expensive policy that would cover these procedures, what would most Americans choose for their families? What could most families afford to choose? Although it is easy to place blame when a child dies, the miracle of modern medicine has elevated our expectations to a perhaps unsustainable level. Medical care is expensive. Someone has to pay, but who, and how much? Who is responsible to make these decisions? To what are we as Americans entitled to when it comes to our well-being, and the well-being of our families? I don't have the answers, but I haven't heard a politician yet who I believe has the answers either. What I hope we can take away from this tragedy, from the sad death of this young American, is the courage to ask these questions to those we expect to lead us into the future, and to demand as answers more than a sound byte that will gain points in the next poll.
My "little bit of something" for the day--
Tracy Brady

Sphere: Related Content