George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
London,
P.C.
www.asthma-drsprecace.com
RAPID
RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section. It will
offer fresh,
quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in
this rapid-fire world of ours. Of course, as in military
campaigns,
a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed
by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction. Charge that to
"the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or
military
campaign must maintain to be effective. But the mission will
always
be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick",
supported
by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.
That's all I promise.
GS
|
Click
here
to return to the current Rapid Response list
MONDAY, May 30, 2011
MEMORIAL DAY
SATURDAY and SUNDAY, May 28 and 29, 2011
Sounds right to me. Or is this another example of cynical
expediency, like "mainstreaming" those with mental illness since
the 1960's without providing professional and community support - and
producing "homelessness"? GS
Practical prison policy trumps raw
emotion
Published 05/29/2011 12:00 AMUpdated
05/26/2011 05:28 PM
For the past two decades a state by state debate has taken place about
crime and punishment.
From one side has come the emotional response to "lock 'em up," leading
to "three strikes" laws and other harsh sentencing mandates requiring
long-term incarceration and providing judges little or no leeway to
evaluate individual cases. With every sensational, violent crime came
new calls for tougher penalties.
Countering that argument have been those who contend that when
substance abuse, mental illness or both are at the root of criminal
behavior, alternatives to imprisonment should be available. Opponents
of the life imprisonment after three strikes approach contend that the
justice system needs the leeway to consider the unique circumstances of
every offense.
For the most part, Connecticut and its elected leaders have fallen on
the side of reason, rather than emotion. A majority of lawmakers have
resisted the politically attractive, tough-on-crime mantle that the
three-strike approach provides, instead opting for good public policy.
The evidence continues to mount that Connecticut made the right choice.
In Connecticut the prison populations are declining. Outside of a brief
increase during the recent recession, criminal behavior has been on a
downward trend for two decades. Conversely, in state's adopting a harsh
sentencing approach, prison populations continue to swell, but with no
corresponding abatement in criminal activity.
If locking people up were the answer, the United States would be the
safest place on Earth. It's not. According to statistics compiled by
The Economist, the U.S. prison population is 2.3 million, which would
make it the 36th largest state. That figure well surpasses any other
nation, with China a distant second at 1.6 million. No other country
imprisons more than 1 million of its people.
With 753 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens, the U.S. leads
that category, too.
This past week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a controversial 5-4
decision upholding a lower court ruling ordering California to release
tens of thousands of prisoners. California must reduce overcrowding so
out of control that state officials acknowledge it creates conditions
that violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment.
In California, direct ballot initiatives have led to three strikes and
other harsh sentencing laws, while at the same time blocking the taxes
needed to build prisons. A state prison system designed for 80,000
inmates holds twice as many. Supreme Court justices viewed photos of
mentally ill inmates confined in cages, gyms turned into massive
prisoner dorms and viewed statistics showing that suicides and medical
neglect kill one prisoner weekly,
In the 1970s California prisons held a little more than 20,000 inmates.
Now, thanks in large part to tough-on-crime laws, the number approaches
160,000. Discharged prisoners are more hardened, hopeless and likely to
reoffend than ever before. The state is not alone. In Alabama, another
law-and-order, but anti-tax state, prison populations are also double
capacity, with resulting deplorable conditions.
Conversely, Connecticut's prison population is 17,486, the lowest since
May 2000. Prisons are closing. The population will decrease by another
3,000 over the next two years. As for the violent crime rate,
Connecticut ranks 38 among the states, while tough-on-crime California
is the 15th highest violent-crime state.
Newly passed legislation will continue to move Connecticut in the right
direction. It gives greater leeway to the Department of Correction to
transfer inmates serving time for certain drug possession crimes,
drunken driving and suspended licenses to home confinement, using new
global positioning technology to track them.
Another measure allows sentence reductions for some offenders (no more
than five days per month) who exhibit good behavior and participate in
education, mental health or substance abuse programs. It aims squarely
at reducing recidivism.
It may feel good to "lock 'em up and throw away the key," but it hasn't
made California safer and created a nightmare prison system.
Connecticut has made the better choices and continues to do so.
FRIDAY, May 27, 2011
Let's
all jump on this band wagon: Here's to cultural diversity.
Bedbugs And Islamic Maniacs At The UN
If you haven't seen this Brit before, you've missed
an extraordinarily erudite speaker. He is serious when he is funny and
he is funny when he is serious. And, boy, is he on point! This (see
link below) is his
latest, and I think the first of 2011.
Along the lines of this clip there was a story in
today's WSJ about a woman being arrested in Saudi Arabia for driving a
car.
THURSDAY, May 26, 2011
The
best analogy yet!
I bought a bird feeder. I hung
It on my back porch and filled
It with seed. What a beauty of
A bird feeder it was, as I filled it
lovingly with seed. Within a
Week we had hundreds of birds
Taking advantage of the
Continuous flow of free and
Easily accessible food.
But then the birds started
Building nests in the boards
Of the patio, above the table,
And next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was
Everywhere: on the patio tile,
The chairs, the table ..
Everywhere!
Then some of the birds
Turned mean. They would
Dive bomb me and try to
Peck me even though I had
Fed them out of my own
Pocket.
And others birds were
Boisterous and loud. They
Sat on the feeder and
Squawked and screamed at
All hours of the day and night
And demanded that I fill it
When it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even
Sit on my own back porch
Anymore. So I took down the
Bird feeder and in three days
The birds were gone. I cleaned
Up their mess and took down
The many nests they had built
All over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like
It used to be .... Quiet, serene....
And no one demanding their
Rights to a free meal.
Now let's see.
Our government gives out
Free food, subsidized housing,
Free medical care and free
Education, and allows anyone
Born here to be an automatic
Citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the
Tens of thousands. Suddenly
Our taxes went up to pay for
Free services; small apartments
Are housing 5 families; you
Have to wait 6 hours to be seen
By an emergency room doctor;
Your child's second grade class is
Behind other schools because
Over half the class doesn't speak
English.
Corn Flakes now come in a
Bilingual box; I have to
'press one ' to hear my bank
Talk to me in English, and
People waving flags other
Than 'Old Glory' are
Squawking and screaming
In the streets, demanding
More rights and free liberties.
Just my opinion, but maybe
it's time for the government
To take down the bird feeder.
MONDAY through WEDNESDAY, May 23
through 25, 2011
Excellent.
And
nothing has changed, except for the worse.
GS
Winston Churchill .....prescient as
always
Sir Winston Churchill 1899 (He
would only have been 24 at the time.)
This is amazing. Even more amazing is that this
hasn't been published long before now.
CHURCHILL
ON ISLAM
Unbelievable,
but the speech below was written in 1899... (check Wikipedia - The
River War).
The
attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in
1899 when
he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the
current
views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of
phrase and
use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir
Winston
Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th
and 20th
centuries.
He
was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary
politician
and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom
the
Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in
his own
time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90
and, after
a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.
HERE
IS THE SPEECH:
"How
dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides
the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in
a dog,
there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent
in many
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture,
sluggish
methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the
followers of
the Prophet rule or live.
A
degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the
next of
its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every
woman
must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a
wife, or
a concubine, must delay the final extinction of
slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great
power among men.
Individual
Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No
stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being
moribund,
Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has
already
spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every
step; and
were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of
science, the
science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of
modern
Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ."
Sir
Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages
248-250
London).
Churchill
saw it coming...
FRIDAY through SUNDAY, May 20
through 22, 2011
It's time for another update on your
future health
care. This industry and the related professions are
undergoing a revolution
whose outcome is very much in doubt: for the ever - increasing number
and
severity of sick people, for the physicians and other health care
workers who
provide that care in return for progressively reduced reimbursement
over the
last twenty years, and for the economic health of the
Nation.
Obama-Care is a Christmas Tree of "wants" without hardly any
consideration of health reform "needs" that are begging to be
addressed. This is tantamount to returning to the "bleeding"
treatment of the Middle Ages instead of the judicious use of
antibiotics.
To document some of the problem, I offer several readings:
- "Obama's Running Mate",
Editorial of the WSJ Thursday, May 12, 2011, pA14;
- "WellPoint Shakes Up Hospital
Payments", by Janet Adamy, WSJ Monday, May 16, 2011, pB1;
- "The Millionaire Retirees Next
Door", by John Cogan, WSJ Thursday, May 12, 2011, pA15...an
effort to promote generational strife, in my opinion. What is the
value of $500,000. contributed by and for an average worker over 30 or
40 years of gainful labor, and invested as a fiduciary on his promised
behalf by the Federal Government over that time? At least $1
Million.
- "The Case Against Accountable Care
Organizations (ACO)", by myself. See below.
Pay
attention,
folks. This is your welfare...and your life.
GS
THE
CASE AGAINST ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS
(ACO)
BY
GEORGE A.
SPRECACE, M.D., J.D.
APRIL
21, 2011
Three tiers of
ACO’s have been described. The following refers only to Tier lll,
involving partial or full
capitation. A
bibliography of supporting articles and
data is available.
A)
A
QUESTION OF ETHICS. Tier lll ACO’s, and
any other system involving “capitation”, a form of health care payment
wherein
the provider agrees to provide all necessary health care for a patient
for a
period of time for a fixed and pre-determined fee – in effect becoming
the
insurer of that patient’s health or disease needs – is Unethical:
1) it is a breach of the physician’s fiduciary responsibility to the
patient in
that it is based upon an inherent conflict of interest that cannot be
waived by
the patient; 2) it properly undermines the critical trust of a patient
in his
or her physician; 3) it undermines the integrity of a learned
profession and
should therefore be considered as against public policy; 4) it is a
blatant attempt
on the part of the government to make the physician impose a rationing
of
health care, an action properly in the realm only of the public in a
democracy;
5) it is an insane risk for any physician to take upon himself, given
the fact
that about 50% of all health care needs are life-style related, under
no
control of the physician.
B)
FINANCES.
- A Loser.
- A clear invitation and expectation
for “bait and switch” tactics by the payor.
- “Price Transparency” can lead to
anti-competitive practices and even to increased prices.
- Implementation can easily impact
the following laws: Stark Laws; Anti-Trust laws; Civil Fraud
Legislation; Fraud and Abuse statutes and their attendant “Qui Tam”
actions.
- Great limitations of data and
indices used by the government in setting payment levels and other
rules.
C)
ACO DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND
ANALYSES SO FAR….
D)
THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT U.S. HEALTH CARE
E)
THE REAL NEEDS (vs WANTS) FOR HEALTH
CARE
REFORM. Please see my articles and
analyses dating back to the 1970’s, to be found on www.asthma-drsprecace.com
F)
ONE OF
THE BASIC NEEDS IS COORDINATION OF CARE
AMONG A PATIENT’S MULTIPLE
PHYSICIANS…SOMETHING TOO OFTEN LACKING IN THE MEDICAL PRACTICE OF
TODAY, AND
SOMETHING THAT CAN BE UNDERTAKEN BY ANY ONE OF THOSE PHYSICIANS,
REGARDLESS OF
SPECIALTY.
GS
TUESDAY through THURSDAY, May 17
through 19, 2011
Finally
lancing a
festering boil called Public Education. GS
New London's courageous
reading and writing policy
Published
05/22/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 05/19/2011 11:09 PM
The most surprising thing about the New
London Public Schools' new policy that will require high school
graduates to demonstrate proficiency in reading and writing is that it
wasn't required already.
How is it possible that students at New
London High, or any high school in the state for that matter, could
obtain a diploma without demonstrating their English literacy ability?
It would appear a basic assumption that high school graduates be able
to write complete and coherent sentences and speak intelligently and
logically.
As it turns out colleges and universities
across the country, including even the most prestigious, are forcing
some freshmen into remedial classes before allowing them to participate
in the usual higher education curriculum because they cannot read or
write at a high school level. Too many high school graduates are not
prepared for college, or the workplace. And educators and employers
know that.
That sad reality is in part what prompted
the Connecticut General Assembly to pass a sweeping reform of the
state's secondary education laws last spring - legislation that is now
stalled because of a shortage of funds. New high school graduation
requirements - including end-of-senior-year proficiency tests - were
supposed to take effect with the class of 2017. The state is now
delaying implementation, possibly until 2020.
Students can make their way through the
school system unable to read or write, but lawmakers are going to wait
nine years to fix the problem? That's unacceptable, and fiscal
constraints should not be an excuse for allowing the mediocrity to
continue.
Thank goodness New London is forging
ahead.
Concerns that high school graduates were
not ready for the workplace or higher education prompted the district's
new policy, said the city's superintendent of schools, Nicholas A.
Fischer. The school board approved the policy May 12, starting with the
graduating class of 2015.
"As I have listened to employers and
colleges and community colleges and vo-tech schools, the message is
clear," said Dr. Fischer. "Our kids need to be coming in with a higher
level of skills.
"I think our expectations need to be
higher, and we need to be more demanding," he said.
New London's new literacy policy will be
a district-wide effort, focused on the necessary reading and writing
skills for every class at every level with a goal of helping students
to become proficient at the 10th-grade level. There will be various
testing options and mechanisms, including a separate evaluation for
special education and English Language Learners, and students will have
to prove they meet the criteria to get a diploma.
Support in this effort will be available
for every student up to age 21. For some students that might mean
taking online courses or attending adult education, whatever is
necessary to reach the new standard.
Connecticut is a home rule state where
local districts can implement their own tougher standards without a
state mandate. That is what New London is doing with its new literacy
policy.
"It is going to be more work," said Dr.
Fischer. "But obviously we need to do it because we're not where we
need to be.
"But with this policy, if we send
students out there with diplomas, what we'll be saying to the community
at large is that these students have the skills that will help them to
be successful as adults."
Now that's a very good policy.
TUESDAY through THURSDAY, May 17
through 19, 2011
Dear Atty.
Sekulow,
As I told the Syrian Ambassador about a year ago when he made a
presentation to
the Southeastern Connecticut Committees on Foreign Relations at
Connecticut
College, the U.S. will forever defend Israel exactly as we would defend
the
State of Connecticut. He seemed taken aback by that statement.
However, as I have posted several times on my website (www.asthma-drsprecace.com),
and as I
have discussed a number of times with some Jewish friends and meighbors:
"HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY."
George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D.
Dear
George,
Today,
President Obama delivered an unprecedented rebuke of the Israeli people
by an American president. In words that were designed to reach more
Muslim
citizens than United States citizens, Obama called Israel's legitimate
West
Bank settlements an "occupation"; and by calling for a return to the
1967 borders, he is calling for a divided Jerusalem. He continued to
press
Israel to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and,
subsequently, with
the "Unity Government" the PA has formed with the terrorist group,
Hamas.
If
there was ever any question about the intent of those whom President
Obama
expects Israel to negotiate with, this week's news report gives a clear
answer:
"A member of the Palestinian Authority parliament spelled out his
organization's vision for the genocidal annihilation of the Jewish
people ...
[giving] Arabs 'the honor' of annihilating 'the evil of this gang.'"
While President Obama
may not recognize the threat a terrorist-run Palestinian government
poses to
Israel, we do and we're taking action. The ACLJ is
stepping up
its efforts to defend Israel in the diplomatic and legal war being
waged by
Hamas.
Will
you stand with the ACLJ and Israel by supporting our efforts to defend
America's greatest ally in the region? Please make a tax-deductible contribution in defense
of Israel
today.
I am now en route to
Washington, D.C., to personally lead our legislative team's work with
Congress
to prevent U.S. tax dollars from going to the terrorist-run government
and to
coordinate our work at the United Nations (U.N.) to prevent the U.N.
from
recognizing the Palestinian Authority as an independent nation. I have
also
assembled a special senior legal team that will be in Israel to work in
conjunction with Israeli officials on our legal efforts.
President
Obama's disconnect from the facts on the ground in the Middle East is
obvious. News reports show that the Hamas terrorist group has "not
given
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas permission to negotiate with
Israel,"
and now he all but abandons Israel in favor of giving in to the demands
of
terrorists.
Even
members of President
Obama's own party have recognized that we cannot support the
Palestinian
Authority now that the terrorist organization, Hamas,
has
joined the "Unity Government." Twenty-seven Democratic Senators have
sent a letter urging President Obama to defund the new terrorist-run
government.
Hamas
continues to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, emphatically
stating that it will stick with its "plan of resistance and not
negotiations." How
can President Obama demand that Israel negotiate with an organization
that
continues to utilize terrorism against it? It's absurd.
If
President Obama will not defend Israel and continues to tell them to
negotiate with terrorists, we must take a stand.
Support our senior ACLJ legal team in its mission to
Israel by
making a tax-deductible contribution today. Your gift will help
provide the
resources we need to prepare this critical defense of Israel in
Congress and at
the U.N.
It is
abundantly clear that as long as Hamas is a part of the Palestinian
government, there can be no peaceful solution in the Middle East. We
must not
allow American funds to be used to support this terrorist-run
government, nor
can we allow Israel to be pressured into negotiating with terrorists.
Thank
you for your continued support as we engage in this battle to defend
America's most trusted ally, Israel. It is through your generosity that
we are
able to mount this legislative and legal defense.
As
always, I will continue to keep you informed as developments unfold in
this
critical fight. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Jay
Sekulow
ACLJ
Chief Counsel
MONDAY, May 16, 2011
May
8th, 2011
Jerry Taylor & Peter Van
Doren
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Dear Mr. Taylor and Mr. Van
Doren,
I appreciate your credentials
as Senior Fellows at the Cato Institute, but after reading your April
25th Forbes
Magazine article, I decided that the subject
warranted a detailed, direct response. You claim that “renewable
energy is quite literally the energy of yesterday”,
specifically the “13th century”. This is akin to saying that planting
food crops in soil also practices 13th Century
technology. Responding point by point:
First, your negative
description of green energy as “diffuse” is easily applied to certain
conventional fuels. One
could argue that the trainloads of fossil fuel energy
in one nuclear pellet make them too “diffuse” for their own
good. These fuels do not simply materialize from the
ground (often half a world away) directly into a generator
furnace. The extraction, transportation, and
refinement (all requiring large amounts of energy) that are necessary
before they can be used do much to “diffuse” the
nature of these fuels.
Second, your claim that green
energy is too costly to efficiently implement lacks context. Capital
costs are by
definition high whenever new technology develops.
But, they drop precipitously when they are affected by
improvement, market share, and the laws of supply and
demand. There is no aspect of life or sector of an
economy that is more affected by supply and demand
(often needlessly, in the case of the fossil fuel industry)
than energy production. Just as automobiles and
telecommunication technologies entered the free market as
toys for the rich, mass production enabled most
people to reap the benefits of their mobility and networking, not
the least of which was a sharp increase in popular
self-reliance. Mass-produced, varied sources of energy would
do the same for us as individuals, and as a nation.
Also, forty years ago when computer and materials
technologies were in their relative infancy, the
claim was that efficient green technology development would take
decades. Forty years have come and gone, with
monumental advances in these technologies, yet we have
virtually nothing to show for it in large-scale green
energy, thanks to the continued parroting of this ‘the technology
just isn’t here yet’ claim.
You noted that wind and solar
are “generally produced far from where consumers happen to live”.
Conventional
power contracts throughout the country often involve
generators residing hundreds of miles from consumers. If
the significant cost of long-distance transmission
and line loss inherent in these systems were crucial to the
economics of energy, power generation would be
restricted to proximity to its users regardless of its source.
Third, you note that “the wind
doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine”. Varied power
sources
accommodate these inconsistencies. Just as we have
learned to build homes and transportation systems that
deal with the “vagaries of the weather”, the
consistency of energy needs requires that we diversify its production
so that the limitations of no one type of production
physically, economically, or geo-politically interrupt that
consistency.
Fourth, the “reliably
continuous” qualifier you place on the real estate needed by wind and
solar to meet energy
demand does not hold up. Wind, solar, and biomass
energy do not have to be produced by potentially monolithic
companies which would have undue influence on rates
and availability. This means that a home in Minnesota or
North Dakota won’t rely on solar as much as one in
the Southwest. It means that energy independence can be
focused toward regionally efficient power sources.
Other examples are wave-motion plants providing power to
the Nova Scotia region. Granted, there is no better
place on Earth to exploit tidal energy, but as with anything in
life one must build on one’s strengths. These
regional systems do not suffer the degree of line loss created by
transporting electrons over great distances; neither
do they incur the added support costs for large-scale
transforming that is necessary in systems requiring
millions of volts to move long-distance power.
Finally, regarding inefficient
battery technology, remember the Chinese adage about the journey of a
thousand
miles. I agree that power doesn’t like to sit around,
but it would be more stable in a local battery (whose efficiency
can only improve) than it would in its raw state
under the culturally, politically, religiously, and/or economically
shifting sands of the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela,
Mexico, Africa, and many regions outside North America
and Northern Europe.
Green energy is not a panacea.
But, your claim that fossil fuels are comparatively cheap is not
intellectually
honest. I agree that government subsidies are most
often wasteful. But, their inefficiency is also directly related
to incessant attempts by conventional energy concerns
to smother this baby in the cradle. What do you think
happens to the cost of wind power when a conventional
company refuses to allow a privately-financed wind
turbine to power a region of homes in that company's
politically-determined, monopolized sphere of influence,
AND who lobbies for laws preventing those homeowners
from either tying in to company lines OR cabling their
homes privately? How’s that for government waste?
This is a true story. Repeat this scenario nationwide and
you will see one reason why green energy is so
“comparatively” expensive.
It is true that fossil fuels
“will burn and produce energy whenever you want it”, provided the
people who control the
ground from which they come sell them at a reasonable
price without interruption. What is the reliability of
cleaner-burning low-sulfur coal (most from Colombia,
Venezuela, and Indonesia) from which a growing
percentage of America’s electricity derives? What
about the approximately 25% of our total fossil-fuel energy that
comes from comparatively UNreliable sources in the
Middle East, Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia?
Please use these added unnecessary real and
speculative fossil fuel costs in your calculations of comparison to
green energy. Regarding nuclear subsidies and
“impossible-to-price regulatory preferences”, the fact that it is
nuclear power helps explain decades of government
waste. Rube Goldberg could not have devised a more
needlessly complicated method of boiling water.
I understand enough about power
generation, transmission, and storage to see its direct relationship to
both
individual and national prosperity. I also understand
the simplistic notion that peddling a bicycle in motion
requires less energy than getting one started from a
standstill. A growing part of the world no longer accepts the
age-old claim that fossil fuel delivers the most bang
for its buck. There is more than enough information,
innovation, and growing economic and geo-political
variability to round out the field in that race. Fossil fuels
cannot be reasonably and efficiently substituted
overnight with green technology. In some sectors they will
remain staples. But, the longer they remain THE
source of the vast majority of global power generation, the
higher the price we will pay when we transition out
of them. At that point, your $2.5-4 trillion dollar building cost
and writedown estimate will seem like a bargain.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Perrin Sprecace
La Crescenta, CA
SUNDAY, May 15, 2011
In
the Sunday edition
of The Day, May 15, 2011, and reprinted from the Washington Post, is an
Op-Ed
article entitled "The Muslim - American: Reclaiming My Identity".
Well written, and upsetting to me for what the author and others have
evidently
had to endure in this "Land of the Free", the exposition articulated
for me what I, as an American - American of Italian heritage, am having
to
endure at the same time from the Articulate, Arrogant and Asinine Far
Left of
America's current political spectrum. Many of the Rights guaranteed to
us
Americans in the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights are now being
denigrated,
attacked and endangered by a political point of view which is foreign
to me and
to most other Americans...and which is really un-American. And it
is far
more dangerous than what occurred in Germany in the 1930's and in
Russia in the
1920's and 1930's. For there are no Black Shirts or Red Shirts marching
in the
streets carrying weapons and destroying persons and property...an
action which
would immediately mobilize the largest army in the world:
American
citizenry. Rather, and despite the loud and crass support given
to it by
its deluded supporters, it presents as a siren-song.
WAKE UP, AMERICA. Just as Moderate Muslims will have to deal
assertively
and effectively with the Fundamentalist cancer in their midst, we who
have
learned and recall the true nature of this country will have to deal
assertively and effectively with a similar...if more
slow-growing...cancer in
our midst. So, GET INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF YOUR
COUNTRY.
Get and stay informed. Advise your legislators of your positions;
for
they should be operating only with your consent. And VOTE...AND
GET OUT
THE VOTE AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. The life and future you save may
be your
own, and that of your children and grandchildren. I assure you:
this is not
an over-reaction on my part.
GS
SATURDAY, May 14, 2011
Once
again, I draw
the reader's attention to an article by Charles Krauthammer ("It's
Demagoguery 101", in The Day Saturday May 14, 2011, pA7).
My
reason for doing
so is not to underline that Barack Obama is a much better politician
than he is
a President. The main reason is to publicize the facts about our
lack of
control of our southern border, and to point out Dr. Krauthammer's
position on
comprehensive immigration reform. That his position coincides
precisely
with mine, as articulated several times in this section, is "purely
coincidental".
GS
WEDNESDAY through FRIDAY, May 11
through 13, 2011
FYI.
THANK YOU
CONGRESSMAN COURTNEY. GS
Dear
Dr. Sprecace,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the No Social
Security for Illegal Immigrants Act. I appreciate your comments
and having the benefit of your views.
Current law prohibits any individual living and
working in the United States illegally from receiving Social Security
payments or other forms of government assistance. In many
cases, an individual's entire work history – even work done while they
were in the country illegally – can count toward Social Security
benefits if the individual later becomes a legal resident.
However, under the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-203), signed into law by President Bush on March 2, 2004, those
individuals that did not have authorization to work in the U.S. before
January 1, 2004 would not receive credit towards Social Security
benefits, even if they receive work authorization or become a citizen
after that date.
As you are aware, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has
introduced the No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2011
(H.R.787). This legislation amends the Social Security Act to
exclude all wages earned while an individual was working in the U.S.
illegally from being credited towards Social Security benefits they may
earn when they become a citizen. This legislation has been
referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it awaits further
consideration. Please be assured that I will strongly consider
your views on this legislation come before me for a vote in the House.
You may be interested to know that I have
been a consistent supporter of the E-Verify program, which allows
participating employers to confirm that their newly hired workers are
in the country legally. Although initially proposed as a
temporary five-state pilot program in 1998, the program has grown
nationwide with more than 125,000 businesses voluntarily
participating. In addition, as of September 8, 2009, all
contractors and subcontractors with federal contracts over
$100,000 are required to use the E-Verify system. Under the
requirement, contractors will have 30 days after receiving a contract
to enroll in the program, and 90 days to begin verifying the
immigration status of their workers. This is an important step
towards ensuring that those receiving federal funding are complying
with our immigration laws.
Finally, on October 15, 2009, I voted for the
Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R.
2892). This measure extends authorization of E - Verify for
three more years and provides $137 million to operate and improve the
program. President Barack Obama signed this bill on October 28,
2009, which is now law (PL 111-88).
Should you have any additional comments or
suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
For more information on my views on other issues or to see what I have
been working on in Congress, please feel free to visit my official
website at www.house.gov/courtney and sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,
JOE COURTNEY
Member of Congress
TUESDAY, May 10, 2011
THIS
WAS A VERY GOOD
PRESENTATION MADE AT THE MARCH MEETING. IN FACT, ALL SPEAKERS ARE
EXCELLENT. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER JOINING THE ORGANIZATION. GS
SECCFR members:
Ambassador Donald
Gregg, whose topic at the March SECCFR meeting was "Update on
North
Korea," recently wrote a letter to the New York Times.
I am sending
it to you after it appeared in yesterday's ACFR NewsGroup.
As a SECCFR
member, you may subscribe to the NewsGroup gratis and receive
foreign
affairs articles from various sources several times weekly.
If
interested, go to the ACFR web site, www.acfr.org, and follow the prompts.
Best regards,
Virginia
Montgomery
ITEM
21a: Don Gregg: "Hooray for the professionals!"
NY
Times, May 6, 2011
To
the Editor:
As
one who long ago directed rudimentary C.I.A. paramilitary operations in
Vietnam, I believe that the “new raid detail” referred to in your May 5
front-page article should not diminish our admiration for the Seal
team’s
professionalism as the commandos attacked the Bin Laden compound, or
President
Obama’s courage in using their skills.
The
president could easily have had the compound bombed, leaving all its
occupants dead and the United States with no intelligence and no idea
of whom
we had killed. Today, thanks to the Seal team’s split-second judgments,
women
and children are alive, we have a trove of intelligence, and Bin Laden
is at
the bottom of the sea.
A
live Bin Laden in our hands would have provoked widespread retaliatory
kidnappings, something we should be very grateful not to have to deal
with.
Today, intelligence should be a scalpel, as it was in this case, not a
broadsword. Hooray for the professionals!
DONALD
P. GREGG
Armonk,.
N.Y., May 5, 2011#
The
writer served with the C.I.A. from 1951 to 1982 and was ambassador to
Korea
from 1989 to 1993.
MONDAY, May 9, 2011
WHAT'S
A CITIZEN TO
DO?
On the one hand we have a President whose left-wing partisans insist on
increasing the size, intrusion and spend-thrift ways of Federal
Government at
the expense of and to the detriment of average Americans, present and
future.
On the other hand, we have a strained Republican Party which has
difficulty
maintaining and developing constituencies, whether by its principled
stands
(ie. regarding Abortion) or by its unnecessarily doctrinaire positions
on
homosexuality, immigration, anti-taxation, pro-Wall Street,
anti-environmental
protection, etc.
And then we view an excellent interview with President Obama on 60
Minutes
regarding the bin Laden affair, wherein he actually looked and sounded
Presidential. I am far from making my mind up about 2012.
But let's
just say that I will finally remove my McCain bumper sticker from my
car. Is that progress...or just more
confusion?
GS
SUNDAY, May 8, 2011
OBESITY:
THE LATEST
AND MOST LETHAL “COMMUNICABLE DISEASE”
Listen up. Folks: The life you save will
be your
own.
- This country is now in the grip of
four epidemics: Obesity; Diabetes Mellitus; Obstructive Sleep Apnea;
and Alzheimer’s Disease. And these four
conditions may well be connected by a common cause: chronic suffocation
of our body’s tissues, including the brain.
- At a recent meeting of the
American Academy of Neurology, David Wilson, PhD reported that
beta-amyloid, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s Disease in the brain
is markedly increased by acute –and quite possibly chronic – low oxygen
levels. Obesity, by means of its promotion
of the other epidemics listed above, is very likely operating through
this mechanism to promote even this deadly neurologic disease.
- Obesity is defined by the Body Mass
Index, relating height and weight as it impacts health and disease. A BMI of under 25 is normal.
A BMI up to 30 is Overweight. A
BMI of 40 or over is Morbid Obesity.
- Other factors in the increased
morbidity and mortality associated with Obesity include: EXCESS
ABDOMINAL GIRTH; WEIGHT GAIN DURING ADULTHOOD; AEROBIC CONDITIONING;
AND ETHNICITY / GENETICS.
- The Pathophysiology of Obesity is
complex…nothing like the earlier idea that fat cells (adiposities) were
merely storage bags for fat cells. It
involves Central Nervous System connections and also the fact that
fatty tissue turns out to be an endocrine organ (like the pancreas or
the thyroid) that secretes hormones. One
of these hormones is Leptin, which controls satiety – the sense of
fullness that pushes us back from the table. Problems
with Leptin can be either those of quantity / secretion or of
sensitivity to its effects.
- There are at least 30 genetic
determinants related to obesity.
- The prevalence has increased by 75%
in the U.S. since 1980: 65% with BMI over 25 and 33% with BMI over 30. 17% of children are now obese.
Worldwide, obesity exceeds chronic malnutrition. And it is
clearly associated with urbanization.
- Obesity is a causal factor for many
diseases, besides those mentioned above, and a cause of pre-mature
death. It has become the #1 cause of
Cirrhosis of the Liver, as Fatty Liver, exceeding Alcoholism as a cause. In fact, the losses from Obesity may soon
outpace the gains in longevity from smoking cessation, leading to the
first reduction in life expectancy in our history.
As one example, the life expectancy of a NFL player is
currently 50 years!
- OBESITY TREATMENT is multi-pronged,
but always based on reducing caloric intake and substantially
increasing energy expenditure (exercise). One
of the proven best approaches to diet and life-style modification is
the Mediterranean Diet and Life-Style, as highlighted on this web-site (www.asthma-drsprecace.com) There is a small role for
medications, although the recent report of an
experimental drink containing alginate could be helpful.
By contrast, several anti-psychotic medications promote
weight gain. Increasing restful sleep
can definitely promote weight loss, just as inadequate sleep promotes
weight gain. Here, diagnosing Obstructive
Sleep Apnea, one of the epidemics noted above, is vital…and easily
treated. The probably central role
of refined sugars is addressed in a recent article in the
NYTimes Magazine (April 17, 2011) entitled: “Sweet and Vicious: The
Case Against Sugar”, by Gary Taubes. And
Bariatric Surgery has now become Standard of Care for many obese and
especially morbid obese persons. This
includes the Roux-en-Y procedure, which can now sometimes be performed
by laparoscopy.
- Some psychologic support
is always necessary, and can be as simple as regular visits to one’s
physician or even regular telephone consultations with trained medical
personnel. In some cases, psychologic or
psychiatric follow-up – in the form of “talk therapy”…much more
important than medications…is necessary and very useful.
SO, THERE YOU HAVE IT, FOLKS.
IT’S DECISION TIME. WHAT
WILL IT BE: DIABETES MELLITIS,
HYPERTENSION – HEART ATTACKS – STROKES, OTHER CHRONIC NEUROLOGIC
DEFICITS,
CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER, MULTIPLE JOINT REPLACEMENTS DURING MANY YEARS
OF PAIN,
CHRONIC SUFFOCATION, OR ALL OF THE ABOVE AS YOU PROCEED TOWARD
ALZHEIMER’S
DISEASE?
IT’S ALL RELATED TO OBESITY, A VERY TREATABLE
DISEASE. YOUR CHOICE.
GS
SATURDAY, May 7, 2011
Run, Peter, Run!! GS
Fine
platform for New London mayor, but I won’t run
By PETER J. ROBERTS
Publication: The Day
Published 05/01/2011 12:00 AMUpdated
04/28/2011 08:37 PM
New London will elect a strong mayor in November and
many are flexing their biceps. (How much can you bench press?) To end
rampant speculation, I make the following announcement.
I am not running.
I could win in a landslide, of course. I'm not an
attorney, which would help get the honesty vote, and I don't have a
Napoleonic complex. I've not been on the City Council, so what we've
got ain't my fault.
If I were mayor, I'd be a benevolent despot.
My strong-mayor rule would begin with the annexation
of Fishers Island. The residents of this moated community need to join
the real world and there's no better place to start than in our hip,
little city. Welcome to New London.
Meanwhile, New London's homeless would be shipped off
to a few mansions on New London's newly acquired Fishers Island. Taken
by eminent domain. I would transform the island into a luxury spa for
the indigent and vacationers. The ferry to the island would be free.
I'd ban all gambling and lottery sales in New London,
putting more money into resident's pockets. Stores could use the freed
shelf space to sell fruit, vegetables and real food.
Drive-through fast food windows would be outlawed.
New Londoners would have to walk a few feet for their three-pound
burger with extra cheese. They could use the exercise.
Throwing a bone to convenience, however, I would give
pizza delivery cars the same status as emergency vehicles. There'd be
no cold pizza in New London. "Move over buddy. I've got two extra large
pies. This is an emergency."
On taxes, the Roberts administration would offer an
ala carte tax menu; pick what you want to pay for. (If your house is on
fire and you didn't pay for the fire department, you'd better grab a
hose.)
I'd keep the mayor's annual salary at the median
income for the city, around $33,000. Half the city would make more than
the mayor and half less. I think the mayor should have to live like
everyone else. A strange concept I know, but even as a despot, I'm old
school.
There would, however, be a special tax exemption for
males born in Brooklyn, N.Y. in November of the mid-year of the last
century. (These qualifications just came to me, but they seem both
familiar and entirely reasonable.)
As for our school system, New Londoners would have to
go back to the eighth grade for two weeks a year. Residents would learn
how to make change without a machine, what side America was on in World
War II and why the flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes. Anyone who thinks
afterwards that teachers are overpaid, will then have to teach for two
weeks.
There'd be a citywide dress code. Cotton would be
mandatory as would button-down oxfords. No clothing would be allowed to
shine and pajamas allowed only indoors.
Everyone in New London would get an award; a job I'd
leave up to the Supreme Citizens Award Commission (SCAC). (Attorneys
may not compete.)
I'd ban profanities and the word "Mystic."
Expanding on the city's enlightened deforestation
program (it's a brave tree that has its roots in New London), I'd cut
them all down, replaced by plastic facsimiles for each of the seasons.
The October Plastic Foliage Tree Festival would prove to be quite the
draw.
That's my platform, if I were running, which I'm not.
Peter Roberts lives in New London. In lieu of
contributions to his political action committee, donations may be sent
to New London Breakfast, care of First Church (where he is a deacon),
66 Union St., New London, CT 06320. Funds received will be used to feed
the homeless.
TUESDAY through FRIDAY, May 3
through 6, 2011
MAKING
A LEMON OUT OF
LEMONADE. Thank
God for the
Navy Seals. But this White House is "The Gang That Couldn't
Shoot
Straight". From the White House spokesman to the White House
halls, these people act like a bunch of teenagers. Or is it that
all that
happens in the world has to be seen by them through the prism of their
far
left-leaning, U.N hugging and very insecure psyche? You did
something
really good. Now, stop messing it up.
And then there are the media types, who must find controversy in every
story...or make it up. The talking heads are in a full
frenzy. Why
not follow the lead of the New York Daily News headline: "ROT IN
HELL". And let it be!
GS
Five Mistakes the
Obama Administration Has Made in the Aftermath of Bin Laden Killing
By MARK HALPERIN Mark Halperin – Wed
May 4, 12:15 pm ET
Aftermath can be heck.
The White House's brilliant conceptualization and execution of the plan
to bring Osama bin Laden to justice has, in the last 48 hours, been
complicated by mistakes.
No one can question the heroism of the US military, the doggedness of
the intelligence community, or the cajones of the President in making
the call. But the administration has since made real errors, some with
political costs, some with substantive costs, and some with both. (See
pictures of Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideaway.)
The major errors so far:
1. Not getting its story straight: Was bin Laden armed or not? What
woman served as a human shield? Who actually was killed beyond the main
target? The administration deserves mountains of credit for its
painstaking, conspicuous effort to brief the world on the mission,
knowing a lot of information would have to be held back to protect
sources, operatives, methods, and sensitive data. Which makes the
carelessness of the errors somewhat surprising. The costs: the media
coverage sours, the President's opponents (especially on talk radio) go
crazy, other details of the mission unfairly get called into question,
and the wild theories of global enemies and conspiracy seekers get a
foothold.
2. Not giving George W. Bush enough credit for helping bring bin Laden
to justice: Even if the White House believes the previous occupant had
nothing to do with OBL's ultimate demise, it would have been better for
national unity and Obama's own political fortunes if he had gone out of
his way to thank 43. His invitation to Bush to join the event Thursday
at Ground Zero (an offer declined) was the right idea, but belated.
(Watch "President Obama on the Death of bin Laden.")
3. Letting the photo debate get out of control: The decision about
whether to release images of a dead bin Laden is not an easy one. But
the administration's conflicting statements and public agonizing has
created an extended distraction. The White House has stumbled by
violating one of Washington's iron rules: when something becomes famous
inside the Beltway for not being released, the pressure from the media
to release it becomes unrelenting.
4. Letting the debate about the war in Afghanistan get out of control:
There are signs that some of the president's advisers are looking to
scale back the commitment in Afghanistan sooner rather than later. But
by failing to go on the offensive in defining and defending whatever
policy the President wants to pursue, the White House has allowed those
pressing for an end of the war to use bin Laden's death as rhetorical
leverage. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden's life of terror.)
5. Letting the debate about Pakistan get out of control: The
congressional and media demand for a radical change in America's
relationship with Pakistan is burning like wildfire. The administration
knows that a shift in policy is complicated and compromising, and not
necessarily in the United States' interest. Stoking the problem:
executive branch officials, publicly and privately, are expressing
incredulity that the Pakistanis were unaware bin Laden was hiding in
plain sight in their country. There should be and will be a debate
about all this, but the administration's actions and inactions is
making it less likely it will be on their terms.
SUNDAY and MONDAY, May 1 and 2, 2011 - Supplemental
OSAMA
BIN LADEN IS
DEAD.
LONG LIVE
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
How could the death of one man be so important? Well, it
is!
For nearly a decade, and really for much longer than that, the image
and taunts
of one man have embodied for the world and for some in this country all
that
seemed feckless in America. The gang that couldn't shoot
straight.
A nation divided unto itself. And of course: The Great
Satan.
Well, that now should be behind us. President Obama stated it
clearly, in
his announcement on the evening of May 1 from the White House, that
American
forces had killed bin Laden and had taken custody of his body. In that
announcement he emphasized the importance of unity within this great
country. He also emphasized that we are not at war with
Islam. That
latter point is for the Muslims of the world to receive, to digest and
to act
upon.
There is a word in the Italian language, "bestia", whose
meaning is not nearly captured by its common translation,
"beast". And what could be more "bestial" than the
Libyan dictator sacrificing his people and family, other "leaders" in
the Muslim world attacking their own citizens in ways great and small,
mobs
mass-raping women - their own and ours - with a sense of entitlement,
Muslim
men and their "religious leaders" insisting on their right to treat
and grossly maltreat their own sisters, wives and mothers as
chattel?
Bestial, indeed.
But is this an aberration of Islam...or is it Islam? If it is the
former,
moderate religious and secular Muslims must rise up and cleanse their
Religion
of this great stain on its legitimacy. And if it is indeed the
sum and
substance of Islam, then there will be a great war between Islam and
all the
other religions of Western and Eastern civilization. That does
not need
to happen. But it will, unless the Muslim world has its own
belated
Renaissance of religion, of political structure and of humanity.
The
choice is theirs. And credit or blame for the outcome will also
be
theirs.
Meanwhile, we are "one nation,under God, indivisible, with liberty
and
justice for all".
GS
SUNDAY and MONDAY, May 1 and 2, 2011
Our
President
President
Obama Confirms Osama Bin Laden's Death
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/president-obama-confirms-osama-bin-laden-s-death-25084937
Copyright Notice
(c) Copyright 1999-2024 Allergy Associates of New London, PC
