How To Really Save Planet Earth: A Test About Al Gore

by: Jeff Popick


If you really want to bring the Earth back from the brink of disaster, who should you be listening to? A. Al Gore of "Live Earth" and "An Inconvenient Truth" B. Diane Sawyer of ABC's "Seven Ways to Help Save the World" C. Michael Brune of "Rain Forest Action Network" D. Conservative commentator Glenn Beck of "CNN Headline News" "An Inconvenient Truth" left out the most inconvenient truth of all, and the Live Earth concerts were an environmental joke (and the music was really bad, too). Ms. Sawyer's suggestion to cut back on toilet paper is a bit of poo itself. Then, with a golden opportunity to enlighten and empower Americans, Michael Brune of the Rain Forest Action Network only highlighted the problem with even our "environmental" groups. Therefore, and by way of deductive reasoning, the answer must be … and is … (drum roll, please) … Glenn Beck. Yep, that's right. Glenn Beck, the ultra-conservative, speaks out on CNN Headline News while interviewing Michael Brune and tells people how to really save the environment. In speaking about the Live Earth concerts, Glenn said, "There's nowhere in here about vegetarianism or anything like that, that would make a real impact on the environment ... It is animal gases that produce more CO2 than any of the cars we're driving." To which Michael Brune disagreed. Michael? HUH? Earth to Michael … Come in, Michael. The fact is, a HUGE portion of our environmental problems come from eating meat and dairy (and from producing meat and dairy), and Glenn Beck, of all people, hit the nail square on the head. Global warming, rain forest destruction, coral reefs dying off, topsoil erosion, poisoned water and polluted air are all a result of animal agriculture, and everybody – including our "environmental" groups – refuses to connect these dots. Thanks, Glenn, for doing what Al Gore, Diane Sawyer and even Michael Brune have refused to do. "A report released by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization last November charged that raising livestock produced more "greenhouse gases" globally than the international transportation system." http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11543779/ The U.N. report tells of a tragedy in the making on everyone's dinner plates, and it doesn't stop there; global warming concerns are now keeping kids up at night. http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=24717 Kids, and all Americans, need to know that they are the empowered ones. This is not a political or governmental issue. WE, each of us, has a hand in global warming, and, therefore, its cure. If we stop eating animals and their secretions, we will stop killing the planet. It is as simple as that. Concerts galore, one million TV shows on the "Top Seven Ways ..." and pseudo-environmentalists be damned. Without veganism for all people, nothing else can possibly save our doomed planet. The great news is, if we each switch to eating a vegan diet, we will no longer have to "save the planet." Veganism allows the planet to save itself. Major kudos to Glenn Beck.

About The Author
Jeff Popick, known as "The Vegan Sage," is a keen visionary & a leading expert on the diverse effects our diet has on our health & environment. Jeff is putting together a contest for students with a grand prize of one million dollars called “The Great Earth Contest,” aimed at enlightening kids on the cause of our planet’s problems – and the real solution. For more info go to http://www.JeffPopick.com or http://www.TheRealForbiddenFruit.com .

Political Correctness Is On Par With Communism - The Bitch!

by: Michael Knell


Well Darlings, There has to be a reason for it. It is unnatural. Perhaps it is to do with some of the modern foods people eat these days? Or something in the coffee? I hope it isn't anything to do with all the Chinese ingredients companies now add to so many of our foods today without telling us. If Chinese food has been killing the dogs in America and making people ill, as I read recently, I don't want to be eating it! Whatever it is I'm looking for, it needs to be found quickly for it is responsible for a pronounced lack of common sense in too many people. Some of these people shoulder enormous responsibilities, and we rely on them to use their common sense to keep us from harm. One such person is the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers. Leyhill Open Prison in Gloucestershire - it has no perimeter security fence whatsoever - has been ordered to house up to 50 very high risk criminals, including a "relatively large group of men" sex offenders. This is the prison where almost 400 inmates simply walked out between 1999 and 2006. During that time the inmates here were disappearing at the rate of more than one a week. Mostly they were those convicted of robbery and burglary offences, but alarmingly they also included 22 murderers and 7 rapists. Anne has at least had the common sense to question the "appropriateness" of placing such higher-risk inmates in open jails, but still wallows around in a fudge of uncertainty. Like so many today, if it isn't written down somewhere exactly what to do, she appears to be at a loss. She talks of the guidance on whether such offenders should be in open prisons as being "unclear", and complains there are no clear rules on whether high risk prisoners should be put on normal resettlement programmes where they work in local colleges or companies. What? She needs guidance and rules for this? Has she no savvy? I have to question why any person should need to be guided in order to know whether or not murderers and sexual offenders, some of them rapists, should be kept in open prisons where they can simply walk out. Even just a modicum of common sense will say: no, they must always be kept in secure accommodation - and yet strangely it has been the Prison Service's policy to send these offenders to Leyhill for years. In my mind, whoever decides prison policy might well benefit from a trip to the convent in Lisieux where St. Thérèse, the Patron Saint of Common Sense, spent some years - and if they don't find any, perhaps they should stay there! Other than that they should be forced to take up residence with their families somewhere close to Leyhill - given time, I'm sure a few of the inmates would love to pop in on them to say thanks! I hate having to bring it up yet again, it is becoming tedious, but it really does need to be kept in the news. Our appalling NHS has suffered a scathing attack by the Scottish newspaper the Daily Record under the front page headlines: Scotland's Killer Hospitals. The paper revealed that almost 1 in 10 patients pick up an infection in a Scottish hospital, and in one Glasgow hospital the rate is nearly 1 in 5. The hospital acquired infections (HAIs) kill more than 500 patients a year in Scotland alone and cost the NHS a staggering £183million. In England and Wales, where HAIs are almost as prevalent, to add to this deplorable situation we now learn that more than 24,000 hospital patients were reportedly given the wrong treatment last year. In some cases this has led to serious injury and even death. Our NHS really cannot be allowed to continue on in this state. It never used to be like this, so why is it now? All the money they are spending - wasting? - on various "health issues" in an attempt to take the focus off their own gross failings must cease immediately, and they must knuckle down and address the real health threat to the nation - themselves! That money needs to be spent in the hospitals cleaning them and teaching the staff and doctors basic hygiene standards. A 1 in 5 chance of catching an infection that might kill you, and if it doesn't it is still most unpleasant, has to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I have little doubt that someone still with some common sense left needs to be brought in to give those in the NHS the "guidance" and "direction" that so many people cannot seem to function without these days. The worrying factor is: people with common sense are becoming increasingly harder to find. Britain has 4.2 million CCTV cameras, 1 for every 14 people - that's more than in the rest of Europe all put together! - and yet we still have some of the worst crime rates in Europe. Cameras are an easy "cop out" for politicians - it makes it look like they are addressing the problem - and whilst cameras have been invaluable recently in tracking the movements of terrorists, so we do need them, they are a long way from being the answer to preventing crime on our streets. Proof of this comes from the Holloway Road in London. With more than a hundred cameras along its two-mile length it is the most spied upon road in Britain, and yet last year, over a period of just 6 months, we're told 430 offences were committed there, including 29 serious assaults, 15 robberies and 32 burglaries. What does common sense suggest to you? A few more police needed on the street? It's something worth a try, isn't it? But I doubt that they will get them - they'll probably install another couple of cameras, so pulling yet another copper off a street somewhere to stare at a screen. So, where has all our common sense gone? Have we just lost it, or has it been stolen? Only those who have managed to retain at least some of theirs will know the answer to this one. Common sense has been stolen from us by those who forced us into political correctness. Wherever they encountered it, these people took it away from us. No-one is allowed the freedom now to analyse anything for themselves and come to their own sensible conclusions anymore - to use their own common sense - as we are told precisely how we must react to everything and every situation. We have become little more than a nation of zombies, unable to think for ourselves and just going through the motions of life like some bored repertory actors. However, with Gordon Brown's pledge to bring back competitive sport for our children, there is a slight glimmer of hope on the dark horizon. It needs to be grabbed and nurtured. Common sense has always said to me that the winners are likely to be the best ones to do the job. Political correctness has for decades taken away competitiveness, so we have never really known who was best - we just guessed, or waited for a palm to be greased! School sports were banned in case those not good at them should feel inferior, and so too for a long time, and for the same reason, were many school examinations. Where common sense said everybody should have equal opportunities and achieve what they could from them, political correctness said everybody should be equal. The former is an admirable concept and is easily attainable; the latter is an utter impossibility, unless we are all dumbed down to the lowest possible denominator. Political correctness is on par with communism: we are all equal, except we find some are far more equal than others - and they will be the ones who make up the rules. If you still have your common sense with you, it will be immediately apparent that, under this system, those least able to do a good job of making the rules are equally likely to be those doing just that job. Is it any wonder we are in such a state today? Isn't it about time we threw out political correctness, and started using some common sense? Equal rights for everyone under the law - yes! But an equal (downtrodden) people, where one size fits all - no! We are all individuals. Our Creator made us that way, and no man has the right to change that! "The Bitch!" 13/07/07.

About The Author
Michael Knell "The Bitch!", a weekly UK News Review column, is hosted by the author and columnist Michael Knell. These articles appear on the Blackpool Gay Directory website, but are not specifically gay in content. More information on the author: http://www.michaelknell.com and on the directory: http://www.astabgay.com.

NAACP Decides to Symbolically Bury the "N" Word in a Major Move Forward

by: Ed Bagley

The NAACP put to rest a long-standing expression of racism Monday (7-9-07) by symbolically burying the "n" word in a ceremony. The timing for the burial ceremony could not have been better as the NAACP was having its annual convention at Detroit's Cobo Center. Delegates marched about a quarter mile to Hart Plaza as two horses pulled a pine box adorned with a bouquet of black roses. The n-word has been used as a slur against blacks for more than a century, as an Associated Press article noted. What was different about this move by the NAACP was the recognition that the very word that was being buried is also used by blacks when referring to other blacks, especially in comedy routines, rap and hip-hop music. I believe the stance by the NAACP could potentially do more for race relations than any single move by special interest and civil rights groups in recent years. "While we are happy to have sent a certain radio cowboy back to his ranch," said NAACP National Board Chairman Julian Bond (referring to a racially charged comment by talk show host Don Imus which cost him his job earlier this year) "we ought to hold ourselves to the same standard." Black leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both have also apparently challenged the entertainment industry and the American public to stop using the n-word and other racial slurs. As a white American I applaud this move by the NAACP and such media savvy black leaders as Jackson and Sharpton. Among the honorary pallbearers for the funeral was hip-hop legend Kurtis Blow, who apparently has been a rapper and in hip-hop music for about 35 years. Blow has said that he has never used the n-word in recording more than 150 songs. I personally do not listen to either rap or hip-hop music and consequently have never heard of Kurtis Blow, but I most certainly admire and appreciate his not using the n-word to help sell and promote his music. I believe using the n-word is no different than cussing. Do not be deceived by cussing. Cussing is no more or no less than a sign of a low self-image. If you think listening to a man cussing on a recording is cute and so impressive because he is making a real statement about himself, you are wrong. It is not cute or appropriate at any time, and especially around children. Period. There are no exceptions. Neither blacks nor whites (or people of any other color) should be using the n-word to refer to blacks or whites or anyone else. It is inappropriate and counterproductive to human relations and respect for everyone. There are millions of educated, literate blacks who have not used the n-word under any circumstance on their way to prosperity and success in America. These same blacks struggle as many of us do in their climb to success and yet are able to take advantage of opportunities, take responsibility for their actions and become positive role models for people of all races and ethnic groups. These same black people do not need to use the n-word to define who they are or make a public statement about themselves or others, and every one of them deserves my respect and admiration. Copyright © 2007 Ed Bagley

About The Author
Ed Bagley is the Author of Ed Bagley's Blog which he Publishes with Original Articles on Current and Past Events, including Analysis and Commentary on Lessons in Life, Movies, Sports, Internet Marketing, Jobs and Careers that are intended to Delight, Inform, Educate and Motivate Readers. Visit Ed at . . . http://www.edbagleyblog.com http://www.edbagleyblog.com/MovieReviewArticles.html http://www.edbagleyblog.com/LessonsinLifeArticles.html

Bin Laden's 1998 Atomic Message

by: John Stanton

Bin Laden’s 1998 Atomic Message & the Neocon Dream Houston on August 6th and New Orleans on August 9th ? “Nothing can stop you except retaliation in kind…Your religion does not forbid you from killing innocents.” Osama Bin Laden* “U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place... It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Robert Zoellick, Peter Rodman, Richard Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, et. al.* In May 1998, Osama Bin Laden fielded questions from a group of reporters including ABC’s John Miller. Bin Laden made it clear that war had been declared on US international assets but held out the hope that the American people would remove then-President Bill Clinton from office and put into place an administration that would listen closely to Bin Laden’s story and, perhaps, talk with him about it. “The American government is leading the country towards hell...We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests…If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil, just as Ramzi Yousef and others have done. This is my message to the American people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth...” During the course of the interview he stated his position and grievances articulately, intelligently and with a firm understanding of US history, particularly its global military and intelligence operations since the end of World War II. That history is one of documented military interventions, orchestrated coups and unflinching (and still ongoing) support for corrupt leadership in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordon and Israel. These are countries that the US need not support. As it is, the US has armed each of them with cutting edge US weaponry and provides billions of dollars a year in foreign aid that could best be spent on US domestic programs. The US election of 2000 produced the US Supreme Court’s choice to lead “an American Patriotic government” and that was George W. Bush and a group of disgruntled American zealots (the neocons) who would continue the post-WWII policies that Bin Laden and his followers loathed. They would lay claim to the greatest strategic blunder made by a group of Americans holding the reigns of US power:: the invasion and failed occupation of Iraq, and the public lynching of Saddam Hussein. Dumb and Dumber: Clinton & Bush Administrations In January of 1998, the same year Bin Laden was announcing his game plan, a group of disgruntled Americans writing out of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)—see names attached to quote above--sent a letter to then-President Bill Clinton (later to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) begging for the US to attack Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a free, democratic Iraq. This would, in their view, pay big dividends to moderate Arab states (the ones propped up by US military and economic largess), Israel and US corporate oil interests. Like Bin Laden, they said exactly what they would do if their demands were not met. Unlike Bin Laden, they would fail to understand history. Within two months of Bin Laden’s interview, the US Embassy in Kenya and Ethiopia were attacked. Not long after the election/placement of George W. Bush came September 11, 2001. Bin Laden kept his promise of 1998 staging a brilliant attack on “American soil”. The result was the complete destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York City, and significant damage to the Pentagon based in Arlington, Virginia. It was perfect in every way. Two symbols of American economic and military supremacy destroyed/damaged. Meanwhile, the disgruntled folks formerly holed-up at the PNAC were now in control of the US government and military. Thanks to September 11, 2001, their dream of a retooled Middle East in the image of the US, or at least Israel, could be made into reality quicker and easier. Anyone looking at their plan—no doubt Bin Laden--had to ask the What If and What About questions: Can Afghanistan be pacified? What about Pakistan and its loyalty to Bin Laden? Will Turkey tolerate a Kurdistan? What if the Iraq occupation fails? What if the Shia take control? What about displaced Iraqis? What effect will displaced persons have on Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait? What about Iran? What about Israel and the Palestinians? What about the Horn of Africa? What about the economic costs? What about our troops? What about history? Bin Laden got it right again. Two post-WWII US administrations ostensibly run by the best and brightest America had to offer could not muster the brain power to think it all through. They would be defeated by Osama Bin Laden--a master in Sun Tzu’s art of war. It’s 2007 and he even has air travelers taking off their shoes before boarding a flight. Irony? Shoes must come off before entering a Mosque. There’s no questioning the intelligence, or cold calculation, of Bin Laden and his reading of history. And if his past provides any insight, it’s that he is a man who sticks to his word. And that’s very worrisome, particularly when each August 6th and 9th come around. “After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, America has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans.” Duck and Cover The time seems ripe for Bin Laden to act again on US soil, particularly since America has no leaders currently capable of reversing the US course to Hell. With the US expanding its military operations and presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf; the PNAC crowd—and the US Congress--screaming bloody murder for either a US or Israeli invasion of Iran; the detiorating conditions in Pakistan and Turkey (with the latter’s threat of invasion into Kurdish Iraq); the ongoing destruction of the Palestinians; US military intervention in Somalia; an already grotesquely funded 2008 US election with principals pandering to all interests except those of the American people; a slowing economy and unstable dollar--plus the costs of ongoing global war on everything; Climate Change; the Russians balking at US/NATO plans to surround that country with ABM missiles designed exclusively to humiliate Moscow; world opinion of the US at an all time low; and Americans distrustful of their own government suggests that any type of attack on the US mainland would fracture the country perhaps beyond repair. Bin Laden’s network/affiliates may have already engineered the deployment of nuclear weapons to US soil. US military and intelligence operatives surely know this. The matter has been discussed by the US security establishment since 1998 and actively monitored through intelligence operations. Nothing has happened yet but now the timing seems about right for an attack. There are far too many instabilities, like those mentioned above, playing havoc with the world’s governments and economies. A devastating blow to a couple of US cities would further weaken the US economy. Following a nuke attack, where would the US strike back? Millions of Americans would believe such an event was the handiwork of the US government like 911. Millions would call for an invasion of some country, any country—even if innocent. Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook. That means going for two cities on the Gulf of Mexico that play a key role in US energy production and interstate commerce. Houston and New Orleans are two such cities. Both are in close proximity to US oil refineries. Houston has the 10th largest port in the world and houses companies who lead the energy industry in the development and production of oilfield equipment. New Orleans is home to a port that is the 5th busiest in the USA handling a sizeable share of US exports and imports. Lockheed Martin and Newport News Shipbuilding operate in close proximity to New Orleans. The stability of the US economy depends, in part, on the free flow of goods that traverse the Mississippi River to and from New Orleans. “In today’s wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land. …Americans have committed unprecedented stupidity. They have attacked Islam and its most significant sacrosanct symbols … . We anticipate a black future for America. Instead of remaining United States, it shall end up separated states and shall have to carry the bodies of its sons back to America.” It’s time for some serious conversation with those the US brands as terrorists and rogue nations. Absent that, both sides will continue a fight that may spiral out of control and lead to a global conflagration: just what zealots on both sides want. But what the Hell, die in a war or die from the effects of Climate Change. Either way, we are all on a suicide mission. *Interview with Bin Laden from pbs.org *PNAC Letter from pnac.org

About The Author
John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national security and political matters. Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com. His new book Talking Politics with God and the Devil in Washington, DC will be published later in 2007.

Objections To A Single-Payer Plan In America

by: Kate Loving Shenk

1) The government can't run anything. I don't trust the government. The current gang in Washington may be a good reason not to trust the government to do ANYTHING right. However, Medicare and Social Security are good examples of systems that run well and on time. People receive their checks the same time every month and health care is provided: on time. 2) I'm a free market person and don't want any part of "socialized medicine." Single Payer Insurance is defined as a single government fund with each state which pays hospitals, physicians and other health care providers, thus replacing the current multi-payer system of private insurance companies. It would provide coverage for the fifty million people who are uninsured. It would eliminate the financial threat and impaired access to care for tens of millions who do not have coverage and are unable to afford the out-of-pocket expenses because of deficiencies in their insurance plans. It would return to the patient free choice of health care provider and hospitals, not the choice that only the restrictive health plans allow. It would relieve businesses of the administrative hassle and expense of maintaining a health benefits program. It would remove from the health care equation the middleman-the managed care industry-that has broken the traditional doctor-patient relationship, while diverting outrageous amounts of patient care dollars to their own coffers. It would control health care inflation through constructive mechanisms of cost containment that improve allocation of our health care resources, rather than controlling costs through an impersonal business ethic that robs patients of care so as to increase profits for the privileged few. Single Payer Universal Health Care would provide access to high quality care for everyone at affordable prices. 3) Canadians have long waiting periods and come to the U.S. for their health care needs. Therefore, such a plan would make for waiting periods in the U.S. First of all, ask almost any Canadian if they would trade our system for theirs. The answer is a resounding "NO." They may have to wait for elective surgeries, for instance, but we have to wait for these kinds of surgeries, as well. Canadians have the option to buy extra coverage to get heroic measures covered, say in the case of Cancer treatment. At 9% of their GDP, they are spending much less than we are as a nation. We, the wealthiest nation on earth, spend 14 % of our GDP. 4) Our country cannot afford to insure everyone. Our country already has enough funds dedicated to health care to provide the highest quality of care for everyone. Studies have shown that under a single payer system, comprehensive care can be provided for everyone without spending any more funds than are now being spent. Not only do we have more than sufficient funds, we are also a nation that is infamous for our excess health care capacity. Typical of these excesses is the fact that there are more MRI scanners in Orange County, CA than in all of Canada. With our generous funding and the tremendous capacity of our health care delivery system, the delays would not be a significant limiting factor in the U.S. 5) Americans do not want "Socialized Medicine." Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the facilities, and the providers of care are government employees. In sharp contrast, a single payer system uses the existing private and public sector health care delivery systems, preserving private ownership and employment. The unique feature of a single payer system is that all health care risks are placed in a universal risk pool, covering everyone. The pool is funded in a fair and equitable manner so that everyone pays their fair share in taxes, unlike our current defective system in which some pay far too much while others are not paying their share. The funds are allocated through a publicly administered program resulting in optimum use of our health care dollars. A single payer system has no more in common with socialized medicine than our current Medicare program. Socialism is a dirty word in this country. Universal health care for all has been equated with socialism, and much propaganda has been communicated by the press, by right wing politicians, by medical groups such as the AMA or anyone else who has an agenda to keep the 1500 plus health insurance companies a thriving market with profits that undoubtedly help to pay for their agendas. 6) A Universal Single-Payer would lower the standard of care to a level of mediocrity for everyone, preventing the affluent from exercising his or her option to obtain the highest level of care. Our current system is characterized by essentially two alternatives: either no insurance with severely impaired access to even a mediocre level of care, or being insured by a managed care industry that has whittled down what is available until mediocrity has become the standard of care. Only the relatively affluent have access to unlimited care. The generous level of funds that we have already dedicated to health care, adding to this a more efficient administration with an exclusive mission of optimum patient care well above the mediocrity that we now have, lays the foundation for a universal health care system in America. A single payer system does not preclude the affluent from paying, outside the system, for a penthouse suite in the hospital, or for cosmetic surgery or for any other service that would not be part of a publicly funded program. But if Americans knew the truth, and would turn off their TVs and use that time instead to change this country, using the power of grassroots politics, to make a single payer universal system a reality for all, then we would finally have the best health care system in the world. Any group with the passion to change the world, one issue at a time, with a loving intent, can do it.

About The Author
Kate Loving Shenk is a writer, healer, musician and the creator of the e-book called "Transform Your Nursing Career and Discover Your Calling and Destiny." Click here to find out how to order the e-book: http://www.nursingcareertransformation.com Check Out Kate's Blog: http://www.nursehealers.typepad.com

Global Warming

by: Daniel J. M. Galpin

This issue is receiving much attention in the news with many declaring the end of the earth as we know it and insisting that we take immediate action or it will be too late. They enlisted many entertainment professionals to aid in their declaration, but is it fact or fiction? One thing is curtain, haste makes waste. I raise this question for many reasons. One being that while many scientist claim it is fact, many others claim it is not. One side says if you listen to real scientist, you will see that they say it's true, but the other side claims to have real scientists too. Apparently real scientist are in disagreement, thus I repeat, haste makes waste. Secondly, 20 years ago scientists were claiming the next ice age and that we must be ready and 15 years before that they warned of global warming and prior to that the next ice age. Thus can we really trust those groups currently claiming global warming? Thirdly, those same scientist claim that evolution is how we all got here and they claim it to be science, yet true science is defined by something that is testable, observable and repeatable. Neither evolution or creation, for that matter, fall into the definition of science. Both are merely beliefs of how we got here. Beliefs, while good intentions are not science! Therefore can the scientists be trusted to evaluate climate conditions? And if the beliefs of evolution is true, why would we be fighting the next step? Again, haste makes waste. I will concede to the fact that weather conditions appear to be changing. We are having hotter days and colder days. We are having cold when it should be hot and hot when it should be cold. The past two winters where I live have been much warmer than many before them and this summer seems to be cooler. The climate patterns we are accustomed to seem to be changing. In addition, frequency and intensity of natural disasters seem to be growing. However, is that due to human activity or is there another possible answer? I propose just as there is a long standing debate regarding our beginnings: Evolution Vs. Creation, there is also another possible explanation for the climate changing conditions. Those that claim global warming, warn that the end is near, if we don't do something soon. While I disagree about their conclusions regarding what is causing climate change, I do agree, the end may be near. The most accurate history book available to the human race also declares meteorological disasters will increase towards the end of time as we know it. The Bible warns they are like a woman's birthing pains. Thus, disasters will increase. I leave this as a second possible cause for our planets change in climate. While we can see the changes taking place and observe them, compare them to past records and thus conclude such change is occurring, we merely believe and cannot prove that humans are responsible. This would require us to test, observe and repeat the past actions of our ancestors and that is something we can not do. I place my belief in a trusted source, the most accurate history book in history, the Bible. I do believe we need to prepare for the end, although the end that is coming is unavoidable and certain. Humankind cannot fix it. We will have to endure it and either accept or reject the one that is causing it: the Lord and Savior of all humanity, Jesus Christ. JUST SAY NO to DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN VOTE INDEPENDENT Dan Galpin for President! You don't have to vote for me, but vote Independent! http://www.dangalpinforpresident.dangalpin.com

About The Author
Dan Galpin is running as a write-in candidate for the 2008 Presidential election. You don't have to vote for me, but vote Independent! http://www.dangalpinforpresident.dangalpin.com

WE THE PEOPLE... What Does It Really Mean?

by: Daniel J. M. Galpin


As a child growing up in America I was taught from a young age that our nation was a nation ruled by the PEOPLE. I was told we elect representatives to serve us in political office and they are to do the will of the PEOPLE. I'm still told this today. Our nation is a nation of the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE. I'm a bit confused by this. Why, you ask? Simply put, I don't see this as a reality. The PEOPLE want illegals out and for the nation to enforce border security, but Washington DC wants to give them amnesty and continue to keep the borders open. The PEOPLE want the death penalty enforced, but it's not done. The PEOPLE are against sodomy, yet those who practice it, do so openly AND they want special rights given to them. The PEOPLE want swift justice, but would settle for simple justice period, yet there seems to be less and less each year. The PEOPLE want accountability in government, we get self-serving, over indulgent bureaucracy. How then is America governed by “WE THE PEOPLE...?” Simply put, we're not! WE THE PEOPLE has been replaced by we the COROPATIONS, we the LOBBYIST, we the MINORITY, we the RICH and most recently, not to mention, most ridiculously: we the ILLEGALS. This is not the government American founding fathers created. This not the government they risked their lives, their families or their fortunes to create. This is not the America our forefathers went to war to protect. This is not America, not the real one. I believe the true American is still here, hidden, robbed, and beaten down. I saw glimpses of it when our recent Senate, Congress and President ALL, amazing as it is, finally agreed on something: the recent Immigration legislation. The TRUE America STOPPED this bill, the TRUE America is still alive, although weak and spread out. The TRUE America has proved, if we STAND TOGETHER, we can prevail against the greatest threat to national security: Both Houses of Representatives. The Indians once controlled this great land, but had it taken from them because they DID NOT stand up TOGETHER. Early settleters picked them off one tribe at a time while they fought internally against themselves. We who are TRUE Americans MUST learn from how they suffered and UNITE or soon America will be a memory, pages in a history book that teachers teach uninterested students about. The greatest fear is that if we STAND, we will lose our lives, our families and our wealth. The TRUTH is, if we do not stand, we lose these things anyway. When I was a teenager I fell in love for the first time. She was my neighbor and lived just a few houses away. I was crazy about her. We were BEST friends. I was so worried I'd lose her as a friend, I never told her how much I loved her. Even after I learned that she was interested in me, fear controlled me and I still did not act. I had a choice to make; I had to tell her I loved her and RISK losing our friendship if things didn't work out or KEEP her as a friend. I lost her forever because I did not act. I was to immature to understand that as we grow up, our friendships change and because I kept her as a friend, we drifted apart. My point is this, I had two options 1) tell her and maybe lose her or maybe marry her and maybe still be married to her OR 2) stay her friend and let time take her away. One way, I lose for sure and one way I might lose or I might not. I've learned over the years as I gained maturity, when faced with certain loss or a possibility of loss, the best choice is to go with the possibility. I LOVE my country as does any TRUE American. It is time to ACT. If we stay as we are, America will be lost in the pages of history. If we ACT, America may still become a mere memory, but it may flourish once again. We must return to what made America great and not depart. We must remove those in Washington DC that oppose America and we must be willing to take the risk both our founding fathers and forefathers took. We must defend America from both the terrorist and even more from the politicians! JUST SAY NO to DECORATES and REPUBLICANS VOTE INDEPENDENT Dan Galpin for President! You don't have to vote for me, but vote Independent! http://www.dangalpinforpresident.dangalpin.com

About The Author
Dan Galpin is running as a write-in candidate for the 2008 Presidential election. Copyright (c) Dan Galpin. All Rights Reserved.

Garbage - by The Bitch! (not literally!)

by: Michael Knell


Well Darlings, There has been a hell of a lot of rubbish talked about our refuse collections lately. Under the pretext of it increasing the recycling of waste - a theory now being dismissed as having no substance - 140 authorities have already moved to alternate weekly collections where recyclables are collected one week and other waste the next. What long-term implications this will have on public health remain to be seen. Despite the stories of increased vermin, flies and maggots everywhere this system has been adopted, with such a lousy summer this year any major adverse affects are hardly likely to be noticed - but what of the years when we have a good summer? A long, hot, dry summer? Though we tend to easily forget them, summers with hot, dry spells are not so infrequent that they should be dismissed. Local authorities using alternate week collections claim there is no clear evidence of any adverse public health effects, but the devil is in the detail of that claim. The difference between "evidence" and "clear evidence" can be as vast as the imagination. We can only have clear evidence after something has been tried, tested and proven, whereas evidence alone can be based on things we have already learned, perhaps in different situations. By now most people will have seen the pictures of undulating carpets of maggots on pavements and on wheelie bins. They are simply the result of leaving waste around for too long. Whilst in this stage these creatures that seem to appear from nowhere are usually quite harmless, it must not be forgotten that every one of them is a potential fly of some sort - and they are not harmless. They are a danger to our health - and of that we do have clear evidence! Whilst there is no clear evidence of harm to public health with this system so far, and only so far, it can be said just as equally that there is no clear evidence that a summer heatwave of any substantial length will not result in some epidemic, or even a plague. In hot countries like (say) India the bugs there pose very little threat to the locals, they have become immune to them over many centuries, however we do have evidence that when we visit that country we frequently go down with what is affectionately known as Delhi Belly, and that is simply because we are neither used to these bugs nor immune to them. Based on that evidence, we have to accept that any change to our hygiene standards here that might promote bugs we are not used to, such as keeping festering garbage within our communities for long periods so that flies and vermin proliferate, could be hazardous to our health. We can suspect this based on the evidence we already have, but if we want clear evidence then we might have to wait until people start becoming seriously ill, or dying. Should we have to do this? Common sense tells us: we should not live in a dirty, filthy, fly and rat infested environment. This poses a very serious question: should our local authorities only work on clear evidence? It is an extremely risky policy for them if they do so, for often it will mean abandoning common sense - and that, in the event of something like a life-threatening epidemic, could easily leave those responsible liable to prosecution. Don't you find it somewhat strange that all those Health & Safety regulations which prohibit us doing so much these days, have not stopped our authorities from taking these risks? I mean, have they not carried out their risk assessments, like we all have to for everything now? Blow soap bubbles at a kid's party? No, you mustn't do that! It's no longer allowed in case someone should slip up. Venture into the unknown, with no clear proof it won't be a risk to our health? Oh, that's okay! Hmm . . . It stands to reason, the good old common sense I love to talk about so much, that the quicker we dispose of our waste, the safer we shall be. We learned this as long ago as 1665 when fleas from the rats feeding off our rubbish decimated the population, wiping out whole communities in what became known as the Black Death - so why are we abandoning it now? Can you imagine our over-stretched health service trying to cope with something on that scale? It can't cope now - we could be decimated again! During the summer months one only has to put their nose near to (say) an empty dog food can, or even a fast food container, just two days after it has been used to know that what unseen things there are living in it now aren't good news. The smell can be appalling, and bad smells are often nature's way of telling us: avoid! We're told councils being approached with these problems of infestations and smells are advising the public to wash out all their cans, disposable trays etc., and wash and disinfect their wheelie bins too. Really? Washing and disinfecting hasn't done much to prevent our hospitals from killing us with the bugs that proliferated since they changed their standards of hygiene, so is it really likely to work on our streets? The best way to stop an epidemic is not to give it a chance to start! Cleaning a wheelie bin is not the easiest of tasks even for the able-bodied, so how are some of our pensioners and disabled people expected to cope? Some grannies are not much taller than these monsters - I can picture one of them falling inside never to reappear! But something perhaps far more important than a disaster such as that is: with every household now expected to wash out their refuse bins, microwave-meal disposable trays, sauce bottles, cans, and many, many other items of waste in an attempt to keep smells, maggots, flies and vermin at bay, aren't we going to be wasting an awful lot of that what we are told will, in the not too distant future, become one of the planet's most valuable items? Water. With all the torrential rain and flooding we have suffered this year, it may be hard to believe water is that precious - but it really is. Where gold was, and oil currently is, fresh water will one day become the world currency. People will die for it. At the rate our climate is changing worldwide, with deserts being rained on and once green pasture lands now suffering year after year of drought, who knows how soon that day might come? Nobody talks of a hundred years any longer. Having so inaccurately predicted the melting rate of the ice caps, few scientists will now put a date on any eventuality. One adverse affect of the bi-weekly collections already being experienced is that they have produced yet another brigade of little Hitlers - as if we needed more of them! Not a week passes by now without us reading about someone, often many people, whose bin was not emptied because it was "contaminated" by a small piece of something that should have been put into a different bin. The refuse collectors now rummage through our garbage feverishly looking for contaminating items, but ridiculously (because of Health & Safety, so we're told!) they are not allowed to simply remove them and then empty the bin. Instead of anything that easy, they slap a ticket on the bin - and unless its owner pays around £12.00 for a "special" collection it won't be emptied until the following fortnight. Now, not everyone can afford to pay for a special collection - to some people £12.00 is a lot of money - and there will be others who won't even bother or care about the bin not being emptied, so that means the offending bin will now hang around stinking for a whole month, perhaps even longer if the "contamination" hasn't been removed correctly by the time of the next collection. These bins are not completely air-tight, so every fly, bluebottle, rat and unwanted beast for miles around will be attracted to the bin, and that's nice for the neighbourhood, isn't it? A system made for money grabbing? Another stealth tax? Of course it is! If the real reason for this system being adopted was truly an attempt to save the planet, then it makes no sense whatsoever to not empty a bin, only to then have to use up more of our vital resources in providing a special collection. As carbon footprints go, this one is large and utterly indefensible! Like so many ideas rushed into lately, and eagerly taken on board by those who are genuinely concerned for our planet, bi-weekly refuse collection is an ill thought through scheme, but one that was quickly seized upon by local authorities because they could see it was an easy way of making money. However it is slowly being realised it is likely to do far more harm than good to the planet, and the consequences of it could prove unimaginable. Frightened now by some of those possible consequences, and despite all the revenue that they might have squeezed out of us, some authorities are already having a change of mind and rapidly making plans to revert to the weekly collections. That is at least some good news. Recycling our waste makes sense. We must all do it. But how we do it needs to make sense too! Before I go, I must just mention another ill-conceived idea: Britain's first desalination plant. This has got the go-ahead and will be built in the Thames Gateway at a cost of some £200 million. In return for the meagre supply of fresh water the plant will provide - a mere 140 million litres of drinking water a day - it will pump into the atmosphere a massive 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year - and that's every year. Every single day in London 915 million litres of drinking water are lost through the old underground pipes leaking. A one-off purge to replace all the decrepit water pipes (like we replaced our gas pipes in the seventies) would supply London with more than six times the water this new plant will produce and, once the work was completed, without any extra greenhouse gases being emitted whatsoever - and that's every year too! If you were in charge of the nation, and you really wanted to save the planet, what would you be doing? "The Bitch!" 21/07/07.

About The Author
Michael Knell "The Bitch!", a weekly UK News Review column, is hosted by the author and columnist Michael Knell. These articles appear on the Blackpool Gay Directory website, but are not specifically gay in content. More information on the author: http://www.michaelknell.com and on the directory: http://www.astabgay.com.

Emergency Bottled Water and Purified Water

by: Jon M. Stout


Emergency supplies of drinking water require planning to meet maximum demand during an emergency. As the world enters the tropical storm season and faces other serious emergencies that may affect the drinking water supply, federal, state and local government agencies need to plan ahead to meet peak demand. All of Society is Affected When disaster strikes it affects everyone. Federal, state and local relief agencies are called upon to provide assistance to the community ands top of their supplies list is drinking water. In addition these agencies also require s supplies of pure drinking water for their own staffs to function properly. This includes fire, police, national guard, public utility personnel, hospitals and every individual requiring fresh, pure drinking water. Advanced Planning is Critical In the face of a disaster immediate demands are made upon the existing municipal water supplies and traditional water suppliers are unable to supply fresh drinkable water. This includes not only municipal water providers but all bottled water suppliers who exceed their production capacity during normal times. During an emergency, municipal water is in short supply and often polluted and in past emergencies, traditional bottled water suppliers have often failed to meet the heavy drinking water demands of an emergency. Everyone affected by a disaster needs to plan for emergency water supplies and advanced planning before a disaster is critical. Emergency Capacity of Bottled Water Suppliers Those agencies that are affected most by disasters need to identify bottled water suppliers with capacity that can be allocated in an emergency. Attempting to producer supplies from a bottled water suppler that is at capacity or draws water from a spring that may itself become polluted during a disaster may result in a shortage when pure water is required most. There are suppliers, however with excess capacity in the marketplace and these should be identified before a disaster strikes. Proper Storage is Important Many federal, state and local agencies are required to maintain emergency supplies of pure drinking water but, depending on the source off the water, these supplies may have a limited life. Spring water contains contaminants from their source springs that may reduce the shelf life of stored water as minerals in the water interact with the plastic in PET packaging. Purified water, that has all contaminants removed by a distillation/oxygenation process does not interact with PET packaging and has an unlimited shelf life if stored properly. Choose a Reliable Supplier in Advance As part of a well thought out emergency plan, emergency planners should consider a reliable bottled water supplier with the capacity to meet peak demand and provide water with a long shelf life. Planning for a disaster will help reduce the impact and increase your chances of survival.

About The Author
Jon M. Stout is Chairman of the Board of Element H2O. For more information about bottled water, private label bottled water and bottled water delivery go to http://www.elementh2o.com

The Ultimate Way To Stop Global Warming

by: Jessica Brown


The Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them. Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, the temperature of the planet earth is rising. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of world carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. All these have dramatically reduce the lifespan of living earth. The quest for efficient energy affects every country on the planet. Worldwide there is an increasing interest in developing clean, reliable alternatives to petroleum fuels. Many smart, safe, and clean alternative power sources are available in the market. People can easily install these clean power sources at their home as alternative energy to help reducing carbon dioxide emission as well as reducing their utilities bill. In recent year, people has come up with alternative power sources run their cars in order to reduce the spending on petrol gas and of course, reduce the carbon dioxide emission. Please play your part on global warming. It is easy and at the same time, you could save money!

About The Author
Jessica Brown has successfully installed alternative power source on her car. She never pumps gas ever since. Recently, she sold her 10 year-old car to a company. Visit: http://www.fczones.com