So I started researching the issue and found this article entitled “Pharmacy cigarette sales must end.” At first glance I saw the Ph.D. and stupidly assumed this guy was a practicing doctor (he’s not). He’s actually a “Professor of Pharmacy at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy.” He’s also a member of several professional pharmacist organizations and the author/editor of the Pharmacist Activist Newsletter. Anyway, my complaint is not so much about what this dude is saying as what is actually happening.

According to the article, “In December, the Boston Public Health Commission approved a ban on the sale of tobacco products at health and educational institutions, including pharmacies and drug stores and college and university campuses. This ban does not include exceptions based on the type of store (e.g., grocery stores) in which the pharmacy is located.” Tobacco has a long history of being sold in American pharmacies. It is not only the nostalgia of the Wild West’s “general pharmacy,” but the reality of consumer demand that keeps cigarettes in stores. For many living in Boston (myself included), CVS/pharmacy is the “grocery” store closest to their homes. Why can’t we rely on capitalistic practices our country was founded on? If there’s a market demand for something and the companies want to fulfill that need, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

Lobbyists and so-called “healthcare experts” are fighting what they consider the contradiction of pharmacies selling products not good for people’s health. They are pushing pharmacies (the big retail chains in particular) to remove cigarettes from their shelves. It’s the notion that pharmacies are somehow responsible for general public health. The slippery slope argument also applies here; the city of Boston banned cigarettes at CVS/pharmacy. Cambridge is on its way to doing the same. What’s next? My guess is candy, soda, and sugar cereals (Cheerios too!). When lobbyists start dictating what they think is “good” or “healthy” for the public, they are taking the decision away from individual companies and consumers. People vote with their wallets every day as to what products should be made available; I don’t want some nutjob pharmacist “concerned” with public health to choose what goes on store shelves. We live in a democracy; leave it for the people to decide.

General Mills’s Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Cereal has recently come under fire by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for illegally marketing itself as (what the FDA considers) a “drug.” Because a standard box of Cheerios claims “You can lower your cholesterol by 4% in 6 weeks” and “Heart-healthy diets rich in whole grain foods, can reduce the risk of heart disease,” it is a misbranded label. If according to the FDA, cereal is a drug then anything we consume can be considered a drug.

The FDA writes in a letter to the company, “[W]e have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” And as such, Cheerios “may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.”

General Mills is being a good sport about the whole thing. They released a statement saying, “The science is not in question … the clinical study supporting Cheerios’ cholesterol-lowering benefit is very strong. [...] We look forward to discussing this with FDA and to reaching a resolution.”

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. The FDA is abusing its power by trying to regulate the way a product is advertised. To say an unauthorized health claim on a box of cereal is a violation of federal regulation is an extreme position. Who cares if the claims on the Cheerios box are true? If they make people buy it and eat a healthier cereal (as opposed to really sugary cereals), it’s a win-win. That’s called successful marketing.

So kids, the next time you want to do drugs, try getting high off a box of Life®. Call up the FDA and see what they have to say about that.

• Rep. Mike Pence
• Sen. Jim DeMint
• Gov. Mike Huckabee
• Former Gov. Mitt Romney
• Joe Scarborough
• David Horowitz
• William J. Bennett
• Ann Coulter
• Rush Limbaugh

I heard many of these speakers and they were great. The turnout of over 8500 people, many of whom were students, was impressive. Surrounded by like-minded people, the atmosphere was electrifying. I did not feel the ‘woe is me’ attitude that the MSM reported was going on at the conference. In fact, I felt an increasing urge toward political activism. I do not want to sit idly as the Obama administration destroys capitalism and the American way.

I realize that I have not written much on this blog lately, but I have been microblogging on Twitter (follow me @imac4life). I plan to write more posts and become increasingly active in promoting conservative politics.

Look out, liberals, here I come!

Every year, people around the globe invest in billions of dollars into “green” products. How did the Greens (the term for these environmentalist whackos from Paul Johnson’s article) accomplish this? They used a different kind of green: money. The Greens, predominately made up of the liberal elite, have convinced the rest of America (and the world at large) to invest in the “environmentally-friendly” programs that they run. They have bullied us into buying “green”: green appliances, green cars, and green shopping bags. It is a myth that “going green” will have a significant effect on Earth’s climate. In fact, many of these so-called green items do more to harm the environment than help it. (Check out Ellen Gamerman of WSJ’s “An Inconvenient Bag”.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-environment, but I am anti-global warming propaganda. I do not deny that climate change exists, but I refute the notion that it is man-made and thus we are mandated (note the pun) to somehow put a stop to it. The actual science behind global warming is shaky at best. You can’t tell me there is proof when there is scientific evidence showing the exact opposite. The scary thing is that global warming has become both a science and a religion for these environmentalist nutjobs. Eminent British historian and author Paul Johnson articulates it well in his column “The Nonsense of Global Warming”:

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels–the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming–has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory’s conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists’ target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world’s sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.

With many more real problems worldwide, it is such a tragedy that we have been suckered into this global warming scam. Environmental waste is a problem, but buying off your “carbon footprint” is not the solution. I should give credit to the liberals for coming up with such an ingenious idea: Make every day Earth Day and make everyone else pay for it. In all likeliness, we will use up our oil supplies and run out of food, as a result of these eco-friendly projects, before the Earth ignites into a giant fireball. Now that’s the inconvenient truth.

Why are these little things so important to people? When customers asked me why I didn’t give them a sleeve with their tall-nonfat-no whip-white chocolate mocha, they sounded like it was the worst thing that could happen to them all day. It is as if I told them that we ran out of coffee. I believe customer satisfaction is critical to any business, but I don’t think it has to come with the cost of unnecessary waste. It is such a disgrace that almost every customer mindlessly puts a sleeve on their drink every time. (I have seen people put them on iced drinks, too!) There is no excuse for being wasteful.

Incidentally, the cups are well designed so that hot sleeves are NOT required. (The only exceptions might be a Venti tea and Americano because of the hot water.) Saying it’s more “environmentally-friendly” than using a second paper cup is not a good enough excuse. Drinking (good) coffee is a privilege, not a right. Being able to put a sleeve on a drink you deem to be too-hot-to-handle is also luxury. You do not have a right to a drink sleeve. It’s amusing to me that some customers now call the sleeves “holders” (as if it is required in order to “hold” the cup).  I think people are becoming too dependent on such luxuries that they now view them as indispensable.

I believe Starbucks should stop giving away the sleeves so involuntarily. There should not be trays full of them on every surface where drinks are handed over. Customers should have to ask each and every time they want a sleeve. These pieces of cardboard do cost money. And what happens to them when a hot drink cools off in five minutes? I would not be completely opposed to the idea of charging people a little extra for the luxury of having a sleeve on their latte. This discussion has provoked an interesting question in my mind, “Would our ancestors really be complaining about things as trivial as cup sleeves?” I think people need to grow thicker skin.

I would like to hear what my sensible audience has to say about this. I want your honest opinion, but I don’t want a lecture about possible lawsuits. If the cup is really too hot to hold, it must be too hot to drink, too.

I have decided it is more practical to tackle the blogosphere by separating myself into two distinct parts. (Think Voldemort and his horcruxes.) As Extraordinarian, I will be writing about the extra/ordinary days in my life. Currently, it is also being used as a memory blog for my digital media class, but I have plans to expand from personal to communal as time goes on. My hope is that although these blogs will sound/look/feel different from each other, they will be connected by a common purpose (that being my impression of the world around me).

Having two blogs should make it easier for me to organize my thoughts and comments into their respective sphere of influence. (I give mad props to blogger Kate for splitting herself between The Grammar Vandal and Kate’s Adventures). This will (hopefully) be the only time I need to promulgate my “other” blog through this one. So if you care to see the other side of Mr. Sensible, meet Extraordinarian at:

http://extraordinarian.wordpress.com

Anyway, one of the first assignments we are doing is called a “Mind Map.” Although one cannot possibly render a complete, composite map of a vast mind like my own (2-D, 3-D, or otherwise), I will do my best to try. (I’m sounding a little bit like Rush Limbaugh.) The instructions read thus, “Using all technologies and techniques covered in class and software training to create an interactive map of your most formative memories and experiences.” It’s pretty much an open-book assignment. The first part is a hand-drawn map of images and places that relate to memorable experiences in my life. Please ignore my artistic skills (or lack thereof). The map will become more interactive as I link it up with various digital mediums (i.e. animations, videos, social networks) and in doing so will make it more engaging.

Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_map

1) Do you really want the federal government in charge of YOUR health care?

Not one department in the U.S. government runs 100% efficiently (or anywhere near it). And you can’t expect them to with all the bureaucratic forces running against them. Politics is a dirty business and I would like to keep all of the baggage that comes with government-run agencies outside of hospitals. The best analogy I’ve heard is this: Would you rather your health care plan be like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles (single-payer, government-run) or a department store (you decide where to go)? Furthermore, do you really want the federal government in charge of something as vital to you as your health care? Malpractice lawsuits would erupt into an even bigger issue f people could sue their government for every botched procedure.

2) What is the actual cost of nationalized health care?

Competition is essential in keeping our free market stable. “Free” universal health care is like everything else: NOT FREE. The only way to pay for everyone’s health care plans is to have taxpaying citizens pay even higher taxes. You know how much the Dems love their taxes. Not only will individual taxes go sky-high, but corporate income taxes and Social Security taxes would also hit the ceiling. If health care is all-inclusive, doctors’ offices will fill up every time someone catches a sniffle and organs will not be the only things on waiting lists. In this kind of system, healthy people will be paying for those who lead unhealthy lifestyles (i.e. smokers, obese). Not only would private practices take a huge hit, but so would the medical industry. Patients wouldn’t be able to choose their doctors and doctors wouldn’t be able to choose their patients. Additionally, who would want practice medicine with government officials breathing down their neck? In short, lots of tax dollars will be spent for less-than-adequate care. Sounds like a raw deal to me.

3) Will universal health care solve the real problem?

The Dems often cite the millions of uninsured Americans as being the flaw of today’s current health care system. Just because they are uninsured, does not mean they cannot receive treatment from nonprofits and government-run hospitals. It is also illegal to refuse emergency medical service to someone without insurance. But If the government starts handing out free medical care to every person (including those living on welfare), the system will inevitably collapse and it will take our capitalistic economy with it. “Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a ‘right’ by the public, meaning that it’s politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control” (from BalancedPolitics.org).

Aside from all the socioeconomic reasons, nationalized health care is not a response to the real things people are suffering from. The leading causes of death in the U.S. are heart disease, cancer, and stroke. These diseases and biological attacks cannot be treated by one quick trip to the hospital (government-run or otherwise). Peter Huber writes in his editorial, “The cholera of our times is a stew of molecules, concocted by genes, gluts of cigarettes, beer, ice cream and other delicious consumables, and by whatever attitude problems we might have about eating our peas or taking our pills.” We are in the era of chronic disease and what we need to invest in is new medicine, not a new health care system. I admit that our health care system does need some reform, but socialized medicine is not the cure we need.

I will never forget the events of September 11, 2001. So many men and women lost their lives in the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I think about it almost every day. Sometimes people seem to forget (or pretend to forget) what happened. They talk about the “War on Terror” in such a negative way without reflecting on the real reasons behind it. Listening to Darryl Worley’s song “Have You Forgotten?” and looking at archival footage from that day make me wonder if maybe we should show images from 9/11/01 every day. Americans need to remember what we learned and what we are really fighting for. This is just as important now as it was seven years ago.

President George W. Bush will be remembered in history for being a wartime president (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing in itself is debatable). Although there are so many nasty things the Left has called our president (i.e. “retarded cowboy,” “war criminal,” “bumbling buffoon”), one thing is certain: Bush has kept our country from another terrorist attack. As Daniel Henninger wrote in an article today for The Wall Street Journal, “Lest we forget, as someone said, let’s revisit the bare details of that day. This presumably is the reason for anyone’s post-9/11 antiterror policies.”

One of my heroes is Todd Morgan Beamer. I did not know him personally, but I have read and connected with his story. He was one of the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93. A group of brave men and women would not surrender and they fought the hijackers. They succeeded in preventing the plane from reaching its targeted destination (presumably the White House or the U.S. Capitol) by crashing it into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Todd Beamer’s last audible words to a 911 operator were “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” A motto that is near and dear to my heart.

My neighbor took some classes and has been offering free treatments to family and friends so that she could practice. I decided to give it a shot, not knowing what it really was about, with an open-mind. The experience was quite interesting to say the least. Basically what happens is that you lie on a table (with your clothes on) and the practitioner places her/his hands on/over different parts of your body. She focused on each of the 12 areas for about five minutes. I kept my eyes closed and ears tuned into the trippy, New Age music. She told me it was fine if I fell asleep, but I really wanted to stay awake to see what I would feel.

What I felt surprised me immensely. Minutes after the first position (hands over eyes and face), my head cleared up. I am not exaggerating this. I was relatively stressed the whole morning and, as usual, I had some much going on inside my head. Nevertheless, I could feel the pressure released and pleasant thoughts filled my mind. I started daydreaming of green pastures and waterfalls. (No joke.) As the treatment continued, my muscles started to loosen up. By the time the hour was up, there was a tingly sensation pulsating throughout my body. I walked around my house feeling light as air. The sensation continued for the larger part of my day. Reiki is my new friend and I will do it again.

I have started to research the philosophy and practice behind Reiki, but reading about chakras, auras, meridians and symbols are making my head spin. According to this website, the “root chakra” is located “between genitals and anus.” Ummm… All I can say is my first treatment was not focused on that area. Maybe that’s next time.