Category: Chris Freind

Threats Prevent True Justice

Threats Prevent True Justice
By Chris Freind

To many, the “unthinkable” occurred in 2012 – President Barack Obama was re-elected. Despite cries that America would be ruined beyond repair, two things occurred:

1. The country, despite its many problems, is still here, intact and chugging along.

2. The president, unpopular as he may be, is also intact.

There were no assassination attempts, riots, or military coups. In fact, life has been pretty normal for most Americans. Just like always.

And given the recent Republican landslide, many Democrats are extremely distraught, yet they are protesting the GOP’s ideas politically – and peacefully.

Dealing with change in a tranquil manner proves just how amazing Americans really are. With all our bickering, it’s easy to forget that which makes us unique – our ability to accept, without reservation, the transition of power from one political party to the other, peacefully and honorably.

To be sure, we’ve endured our share of tragedies, from Lincoln to Kennedy, but through them all, the show still went on. America refused to allow such acts of evil to affect who we were, or destroy the system we fought so hard to attain. Our respect for the rule of law, and the order and stability it produces, has been a bedrock value for so long that it is often taken for granted.

But that seems to be changing.

And nowhere is that on display more than in Ferguson, Mo.

By now, we all know the storyline: Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year old black man, who had allegedly just committed a felony inside a convenience store, got into a physical confrontation with white police officer Darren Wilson. Wilson shot Brown multiple times, resulting in Brown’s death.

Riots ensued, with bedlam lasting for weeks. The situation became so untenable that Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon called in the National Guard to help quell the unrest.

Irrelevant to the rioters were those pesky things called facts, many of which weren’t known then, and remain undisclosed today.

To get to the bottom of what really happened, a grand jury has been investigating the case. After sifting through mounds of evidence, it is due to release its findings – namely, whether to charge Officer Wilson with a crime – at any moment.

In anticipation of problems, Nixon has mobilized not just thousands of police, but more significantly, the National Guard. And for that, he has been sharply criticized by, among others, Brown supporters and armchair analysts nowhere near Missouri. They contend that, by doing so, he is enflaming tensions and throwing fuel on the fire, which could actually incite violence.

That criticism is so misplaced, so devoid of common sense and logic, that it defies belief. Here’s a sobering look at a very tense situation:

1. First things first. Nixon’s media conference call on the security situation turned into a debacle when he couldn’t even articulate who would be in charge of the operation – the police (and if so, which force?), or the National Guard. Since that would be an obvious question, Nixon’s fumbling the answer didn’t help matters.

But looking foolish doesn’t make Nixon wrong. Mobilizing the Guard was the prudent thing to do.

2. Nixon has also declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the grand jury decision, and was right doing so. He deserves credit for being decisive even though he was boxed into a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation: if he didn’t act pre-emptively by mobilizing the National Guard and ordering a large police presence, and chaos ensued, he would have been demonized for being asleep at the switch while Ferguson burned. And, as we’ve seen, by acting proactively, he catches hell from the “offended” class who cry racism and accuse him of strong-arm tactics.

Given the threat to life and property, especially in view of Ferguson’s track record, it’s infinitely wiser to err on the side of caution.

3. Let’s be very clear: the government’s response is not directed at protesters, but those intent on violence. And they are completely different. People have the freedom to protest peacefully, no matter how ill-informed they may be. But those engaging in vandalism are simply using the situation as an excuse to loot and hoot, taking advantage of the chaos to break the law.

4. Here’s the elephant in the room: where are we going as a society when the National Guard and riot police need to be mobilized every time a case has a racial element (perceived or real) to it? Why are leaders of all races and both parties not condemning the violence (and ignorance) in stronger fashion? Why do we not call out the agitators – the ones with ulterior motives rooted in self-interest – who use inflammatory language and tactics to rile people up and ignite the powder keg? When are we going to stop cow-towing to political correctness and start leading based on facts, not color?

5. America’s justice system is certainly not perfect, but it is, and always has been, the best in the world. We must have faith that the grand jury will come to the correct conclusion, and that justice will be served. Wilson should not get railroaded because jurors fear riots if they clear him. Nor should Brown’s death be in vain, regardless of prior criminal acts, if excessive force was used.

America’s racial gulf widens when disingenuous leaders want it both ways: organizing protests and tacitly condoning violence when convenient (Ferguson, the Trayvon Martin case, the Los Angeles riots), but not when the circumstances don’t fit their agenda, such as when O.J. Simpson was acquitted. The result is more racial tension.

The result is that all blacks become guilty-by-association, and that is a tragedy, since it wipes out the tremendous work done by black pastors, civic leaders, and others to advance equality and keep the peace. The louder the obnoxious ones are (and the more media coverage they receive), the more overshadowed the genuine leaders become. That must change.

It is time that Americans – all Americans – remember who we are, and what makes us so special. We may not always agree with judicial decisions, and we should continue to fight for fairness, but we must hammer those who resort to intimidation, threats and violence every time they don’t like something.

That principle couldn’t be more black-and-white.

Threats Prevent True Justice

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming
By Chris Freind

Let’s face it. Smoking is cool.

Yet as the last minority with no rights, smokers get kicked in the butt: high taxes make cigarettes expensive, and society hammers them for their lifestyle choice. Enough already! It’s time we stop shaming smokers for just doing what makes them feel good.

So what if smoking causes cancer and heart disease? Who cares that smokers drive up the cost of health care for everybody else? And how dare anyone (especially the government) air commercials showing the effects of puffing tobacco: smokers talking through holes in their throats, amputees, women’s faces that look like they were run over by a bus, toothless men, and babies in intensive care because their mothers smoked during pregnancy.

If smokers are comfortable with themselves, why should we be concerned? After all, it’s not how they look on the outside that matters – shame on us for being so prejudicial – but what’s on the inside.

Right?

Wrong.

Most people would vehemently disagree with the above, and justifiably so. Since smoking is unhealthy, the shock-and-awe campaigns aimed at reducing it and preventing young people from trying it are widely accepted. And they are, unquestionably, effective.

“Smokers have told us these ads help them quit by showing what it’s like to live every day with disability and disfigurement from smoking,” said Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers For Disease Control. Despite declines in smoking, however, the CDC says the campaign is still needed, as 18 percent of adults still smoke cigarettes and 21 percent use a tobacco product every day.

Hmmm. Something doesn’t taste right. Let’s review:

An ad campaign employing heavy use of shame, aimed at reducing the number of people engaged in this unhealthy lifestyle choice, is perfectly fine.

But swap out “smoking” for “obesity,” and you get the opposite response: a massive firestorm from America’s overweight as they circle the food wagons, labeling any such effort as ignorant, insensitive, discriminatory, sexist, bigoted, counter-productive, and, of course, sizeist (love that one!).

Most baffling, they object despite overwhelming evidence that shame campaigns work. In the 1970’s, over 40 percent of American adults smoked. Yet the more anti-smoking campaigns became in vogue, the more smoking rates dropped. Now, fewer than one in five smoke.

Tough as this is to stomach, the number of overweight adults has ballooned, doubling since the 1970’s (also doubling among children, and tripling among adolescents).

Despite the vitriolic protests from the overweight “I’m-offended-by-everything” class who cries foul anytime someone calls out their lifestyle, they’re wrong. They can’t have their cake and eat it, too, approving shame so long as it doesn’t apply to them. The statistics speak for themselves.

Shame works. And it’s time for them to chew the fat on that concept.

• • •

The latest episode in America’s Fat Wars is a Change.org petition that takes big offense to Old Navy (owned by The Gap) selling women’s plus-size jeans for more money than men’s plus sizes. It is a story that has gotten huge headlines, but unfortunately has been weighted down by extraneous issues.

First, to Old Navy’s credit, the company is standing its ground – a rarity given that corporate courage is in thin supply. Old Navy explained that it utilizes more resources when designing and manufacturing women’s plus-size jeans, as its fashion experts craft them to be more flattering. Since men care significantly less about such things, their plus-size jeans are an easier design, and thus less expensive.

But the petition organizer, seemingly ignorant of the reality called “business,” called Old Navy’s pricing model “sexist” and “sizeist.”

Sexist? Not a chance. Sizest? Absolutely. And that’s the way it should be. For the 99 percent of overweight people who aren’t fat due to a thyroid condition (though you’d think that’s the cause of fatness for almost everyone), that’s the price you pay when you indulge in an unhealthy lifestyle. To think you’re entitled to being treated like those of normal weight is both naïve and obnoxious.

Here’s food for thought on combatting obesity:

1. The world doesn’t revolve around the obese, so they need to stop throwing their weight around and bullying those who take issue with their sense of entitlement. It’s simple: if you don’t like how Old Navy does things, don’t buy their jeans. Same goes for patronizing the other companies eaten alive by the obese crowd: Victoria’s Secret for using thin models (hello? It’s a lingerie company!), Wal-Mart for its fat-girl Halloween costume, and the Carrot Fit app that uses tongue-in-cheek insults to motivate the user to lose weight, to name a few. The beauty of America is that everyone, even the waistline-challenged community, has the freedom to choose.

The biggest irony is that those most opposed to “shaming” are actually using it against the companies with whom they disagree.

2. Stop blubbering that shaming should not be part of the discussion. It should unequivocally be on the table, and those opposed, rather than simply hurling insults, would serve themselves better by having a rational conversation. If either side has a thin skin, the problem will only grow.

3. It’s not just smoking where shame works. Shaming those who used drugs, shoplifted, got convicted of DUI, and even got detention at school, have had considerable success. Why then are so many ducking the obesity issue by ranting about bullying, hurt feelings, sexism and sizeism? Here’s a novel idea: let’s focus on the actual problem, not irrelevant tangents.

4. Some critics claim shaming only makes a situation worse. If we’re going to indulge that thought, there must at least be a morsel of evidence that something else is better. So what is it? Is it positive reinforcement? More education? Counseling? Well, they’ve all been tried (typically in the absence of shame), and, no surprise, they’re not working. So given that the problem is, in fact, growing, doesn’t common sense tell us we need to try something else?

5. The problem with the anti-shaming movement is that it cracks open the door to government intrusion. How soon until legislation is introduced banning companies from charging different rates for what a bureaucrat sees as “the same thing?” How long until venues are required to widen their seats, and airlines are told they cannot charge obese people for two tickets even though their girth disenfranchises other passengers? How long until the obese movement tries to become a protected class under federal law?

• • •

The real issue is how to gnaw away at obesity (it accounts for over 20 percent of health-care spending) and the correlating rise in diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Insurance premiums keep increasing to subsidize the obese, and worker productivity is down. Most alarming, America’s youth are being desensitized to obesity and its negative effects. In a “do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good” society, that’s a dangerous recipe. The way to change that “fatitude” is not through government mandates, nor a “pie-in-the-sky, all-will-be-OK” mentality.

There’s too much at stake not to lighten America’s load. It’s time we tip the scales against obesity by embracing shame.

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming

Shoot For The Stars Again

Shoot For The Stars Again
By Chris Freind

On Jan. 28, 1986, seven Challenger astronauts “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.” But then — tragedy. For the first time, America had lost astronauts in flight.

President Reagan captured the moment:

The astronauts “had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. We’ve grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we’ve only just begun. We’re still pioneers. … painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery … part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.”

But almost 30 years later, has America followed them? Has our nation taken manned space flight and exploration to the next level?

The answer is a resounding “no.” It’s time we change that.

“From out there on the Moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.’” — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut

Once upon a time, America’s leaders articulated bold visions for aggressive space programs, making them pillars of their administrations. From Kennedy to Reagan, that leadership captivated Americans and unified a nation.

We charged into the unknown, a country driven to put America on top in the space race, and in doing so, become part of the most exciting time in all of civilization. Our explorers opened up the final frontier, an astounding achievement that taught humankind that no dreams were too big, and that people could aspire to do things greater than themselves. “The sky is the limit” spirit literally became true.

Undisputed American leadership was as ambitious as it was purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study math and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no one else had ever done — to be on the cutting edge of not just technology, but humanity.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that indomitable spirit.

Despite walking on the moon a mere 66 years after the Wright brothers’ first flight, we haven’t been back in over four decades. Dark side of the moon? Unexplored. Manned missions to Mars and Jupiter’s moons, which hold the promise of life? Off the table. And it’s not for lack of money, as we spend trillions on everything else under the sun, no pun intended.

NASA proudly claims it will return to the moon in 2020, but that begs the question: Why will it take six more years to go back to a place that where we landed a half-century prior? That’s not progress, but failure. The fact that NASA doesn’t know the difference shows that it’s run by space cadets.

Most appalling, America can no longer transport astronauts into space, an unfathomable lack of foresight.

Instead, we are forced to call on the Russians — the same people with whom we are at serious odds. So to access the International Space Station (which we constructed and put into orbit), we must rely on the country we vanquished in the space race.

How is that possible? How could we allow so much American ingenuity to become vaporized? How could our best and brightest kill the Shuttle with no replacement?

And a more down-to-earth question: How does a parent answer a starry-eyed child mesmerized by the lure of outer space who asks, “Dad, how do we get astronauts into space?”

“Well, we put our space ships into museums, so now we have to hitch a ride with the Russians. They used to be our enemy.”

If America’s space situation doesn’t lend itself to the euphemism of a deep space probe getting stuck in Uranus, nothing does.

Neither Party is prioritizing the immense commercial, science and security benefits of a space program, let alone realizing its ability to instill national pride. Instead, the cancer of partisan politics eats away at The Dream, as space initiatives get defunded in favor of valueless pork projects or simply because members of the opposite Party supported them.

With that lack of leadership, where will America’s space program find hope?

Hollywood, of course.

The Science Channel has just kicked off its “Space Week” with great fanfare, airing highly rated programs on all aspects of space, sparking the allure of the unknown to a whole new generation.

Tinseltown, the most influential marketing machine in the universe, continues to ignite people’s fascination with outer space. Iconic films like “Star Wars”, “Star Trek”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “2001, A Space Odyssey” all achieved cult status and continue to be immensely popular.

Dramas such as “Apollo 13” and “From The Earth To The Moon” captured the hearts and minds of untold millions. And recent films continue to stoke that passion. ‘Gravity’ blasted off at the box office last year, just like the much-hyped “Interstellar” is now poised to do. These productions are wildly popular because audiences believe addressing eternal questions — Where did we come from? Are we alone? What’s out there? — is a crucial aspect of being human.

Hollywood reflects America, at least in this case. Given the public’s demand to once again push the space envelope, Washington should listen.

“The possibilities are limited only by our imagination and determination, and not by the physics.”

— NASA Geologist Michael Duke.

One of the answers to getting Americans in space again is the private sector. Visionaries like Elon Musk (SpaceX), and Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic) are charting new paths into space, adamant that their out-of-this-world dreams will be realized. Their place is an important one.

But let’s face it. We still need America’s resources to accomplish the biggest, most ambitious projects. And for that to occur, our leaders need to understand that space is, and always should be, a priority.

Those who lived through the space race in the ’50s and ’60s will mistily recount how America was united while launching its boys into the great unknown. Were there political disagreements? Of course, but reaching for the stars made folks realize that they could rise above petty arguments and work together for the greater good.

Pushing the limits of human ability and venturing into what was literally a dream for 50,000 years’ of humankind gave Americans the justifiable pride that they were indeed special — and that they weren’t just traveling through history, but making it.

Defying gravity and making science fiction come true have been uniquely American traits. It’s time for America to break free of its self-imposed black hole and once again claim the space leadership mantle that it not just owned, but invented.

So let’s fire up the engines and blast off while remembering President Reagan’s famous words: “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great … We can follow our dreams to the distant stars.”

Shoot For The Stars Again
Shoot For The Stars Again

Shoot For The Stars Again

Corbett Legacy Is GOP Do Not Lesson

Corbett Legacy Is GOP Do Not Lesson
By Chris Freind

The GOP tidal wave was massive, as Republicans won from coast-to-coast. Preeminent among them was a man who, after achieving a stunning 10-point victory in America’s sixth-largest state, instantly became a leading contender for vice president — and perhaps one day even something higher.

It was 2010, and Tom Corbett had just become governor of the critically important swing state of Pennsylvania. With near-record Republican majorities in the Legislature, he had it all, poised to usher in a new era of prosperity and help the Keystone State regain its former glory.

Four short years later, Corbett was absolutely humiliated by being the only Republican incumbent in the country to fall, and the first governor in modern Pennsylvania history to lose re-election. Even more unfathomable, he lost in the biggest GOP landslide since Herbert Hoover was president.

Now, two words say it all: “Tom who?”

Let’s put the results in perspective:

Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate by flipping nine seats (Louisiana’s runoff election is a done deal), and possibly, though not likely, 10, as Virginia’s race is extremely close. Congressional Republicans added to their majority, controlling more seats than at any time since 1932.

In Pennsylvania, senate Republicans bolstered their ranks by winning three seats, now controlling 60 percent of that chamber. And the House GOP picked up eight seats, standing at a whopping 119 members (102 is a majority).

Most embarrassing for Corbett is that every other incumbent governor won. The GOP was even victorious in the deep “blue” Democratic strongholds of Massachusetts, Maryland, and President Obama’s home state of Illinois.

But there is a silver lining. Corbett’s defeat — one entirely of his own making — can serve as a blueprint for what not to do. And make no mistake. He didn’t lose because he was too far right, as the left propagates (the overwhelming GOP gains prove that). Nor was it the (incorrect) perception that he cut public education spending. Such simplifications would be too easy. The loss was an across-the-board failure by a governor way out of his league, one who should never have run in the first place, and certainly shouldn’t have been renominated by his out-of-touch party hierarchy.

Here’s a post-mortem looking at the real reasons for Tom Corbett’s defeat. Regardless of party affiliation, failure to learn from these mistakes will result in history repeating itself.

Consider:

1. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA), said it best discussing the election: “We had great candidates … governors who get things done win votes. Rick Scott in Florida, Paul LePage in Maine, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Snyder in Michigan.”

Noticeable absent was Corbett, because, using Christie’s rationale, Corbett was A. a terrible candidate and B. he didn’t “get things done.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Sidenote: An issue that could dog Christie is why, as RGA chairman, he gave $6 million in donor money to a Corbett campaign that was beyond hopeless — especially when that money may well have been enough to propel Republican candidates to victory in Connecticut (15,000 flipped votes would have changed the outcome) and Rhode Island (6,000 votes). Fiscal responsibility isn’t limited to government, and throwing that amount of good money after bad was seriously irresponsible.

2. Corbett seems to truly believe he fought gallantly, sacrificing himself by doing the right things for Pennsylvania. He said, “I am proud of what we did,” and complained that he was hurt by taking on issues “no one else would touch.”

Sorry, but that’s bull. He didn’t “do” anything. Getting blown out doesn’t earn Tom Corbett the right to conveniently write his own flowery epitaph.

Here’s the truth behind Corbett’s historic defeat:

He didn’t govern as a conservative, nor moderate. He didn’t govern at all.

He failed miserably at his two big initiatives: pension reform and liquor privatization. Despite the vast majority of Pennsylvanians favoring both, he continuously alienated Republican legislative leaders and got nothing.

His communication and oratory skills, comparatively, made John McCain look like Daniel Webster.

He disingenuously trumpeted his “achievement” of balancing the budget all four years. Hello? The budget gets balanced every year, no matter who’s in power, because doing so is a constitutional requirement. People saw right through that gimmick.

He spent four weeks on the campaign trail trying to undo four years of silence on the education issue. Way too little, too late, as he was forever branded an enemy of public education. Making matters worse, he failed to enact any education reforms.

His claim of not raising taxes is patently false. Among his several tax increases, the gasoline tax he strongly championed will, when fully phased in, give Pennsylvanians the highest fuel prices in the nation — by far. This job-killing tax flies in the face of his campaign rhetoric claiming to have helped “free enterprise” thrive.

And he made no effort to lower some of the nation’s highest corporate taxes, keeping Pennsylvania’s business climate near the bottom of the barrel.

He talked about being fiscally responsible, yet gave sweetheart deals to the state’s public sector unions, and used taxpayer money to build ships in Philadelphia that had no buyers, and a new stadium for the Yankees’ AAA baseball team. And his awarding of lucrative state contracts to big-dollar campaign contributors rivaled that of former Gov. Ed Rendell.

He resembled Don Quixote for whimsical pursuits of irrelevant issues, from attempting to privatize the lottery and outsource its management to a foreign firm (why?) to frivolously suing the NCAA for its sanctions against Penn State — which Corbett himself had approved.

He abandoned his signature issues of Voter ID and banning gay marriage, infuriating his base while not gaining himself a single “moderate” vote.

He strong-armed the Republican State Committee to endorse a candidate for U.S. Senate who had supported Barack Obama and former Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak, angering the GOP rank-and-file.

Above all, he could not shake the biggest albatross around his neck: The wide perception that his handling of the Jerry Sandusky investigation was politically motivated. Thousands of former supporters could no longer back a man whom they felt prolonged a child predator’s time on the streets. And Corbett’s steadfast refusal to answer reasonable questions on that issue incensed many voters that much more.

If you didn’t know better, listening to Tom Corbett’s concession speech gave the impression that Pennsylvania’s problems were unique — that no other states faced the same types of education, transportation and fiscal issues. But as we know, they all do. So how could Republican governors in those states “get things done,” but Tom Corbett struck out on all counts?

Because he lacked the attributes that make for an effective Governor: competence, transparency, effective communication, being scandal-free, and, above all, trustworthiness.

Got that, governor-elect Wolf? Your 15 minutes have just begun. Good luck.

 

Corbett Legacy Is GOP Do Not Lesson

Ebola Entitlement Is Poison

CHRIS FREIND Ebola Entitlement Is Poison
By Chris Freind

We’ve talked about Ebola’s lethality and the government’s staggering ineptitude.

Now it’s time to admit Ebola likely is here to stay. That’s not because it’s an efficient killer. It’s much more basic. Ebola will thrive because it is being enabled by America’s Big Three diseases which have been gnawing at our core for years: Arrogance, Incompetence, and Entitlement.

Yet we won’t use the antidote – common sense and intestinal fortitude – because of our denial that we are the problem.

Let’s look at the recent spate of mind-blowing developments helping Ebola gain a foothold:

1. Nurse Kaci Hickox, upon returning from West Africa where she treated Ebola patients, registered a fever at Newark airport. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie placed her under the state’s mandatory quarantine. But she threatened to sue, of course. Her confinement was inhumane, and her civil rights violated! Oh the horror of sleeping, eating, giving interviews and watching movies while keeping the public safe!

But rather than standing his ground, Christie released her into America’s most densely populated region so she could go home to Maine. And what a shocker: she is defying her quarantine order there, choosing to ride a bike and frolic in public.

“I will go to court to attain my freedom … I don’t plan on sticking to the guidelines,” Hickox says.

Grow up, Kaci. First, you are free. If you don’t believe it, visit Cuba. Second, since we still don’t know what we’re dealing with, quarantine is part of the gig. If people don’t like that, they don’t have to go to Africa. But you did. Deal with it.

The hard fact is that we have no idea whether Ebola is lurking in her system, since its incubation period is (usually) 21 days or less. If it slowly manifests itself while Hickox is out and about, she could infect others – thus the absolute need for quarantine. What part of this can’t they understand?

2. Christie should not have discharged her. While he claims he didn’t buckle under pressure from the White House and medical “experts,” that’s clearly what he did. Releasing her to a private transport company, especially given her flagrant disdain for the rules, was especially troubling. In his first true presidential-caliber test, Christie failed, and his capitulation should hurt him in the presidential primaries.

3. Dr. Bruce Beutler, an American immunologist and geneticist who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology, doesn’t think Christie is being strict enough.

“I favor (the quarantine) because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” Beutler said. “It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease … there’s a lot of variation with viruses.” And given a recent study (backed by the World Health Organization) showing that 13 percent of Ebola-infected people never exhibit a fever, that should be all the science we need for instituting quarantines.

4. Kaci’s attitude isn’t surprising. We Americans have come to believe we are entitled to everything, and cry that we’re “bullied” anytime someone advocates personal accountability. The “I-deserve-what-I-want, when-I-want-it” mentality has decimated common sense and respect for others. No society can prosper when basic actions for the greater good are flushed away.

And let’s not forget Dr. Craig Spencer in New York, who, after working with Ebola patients in Africa, ignored self-quarantine and misled authorities about riding in subways and taxis, dining out, and bowling – then developed Ebola. And who picks up the tab for the decontamination costs in Dr. Spencer’s case?

One of the first things taught in medical school is that patients lie. We should assume the same for healthcare workers, since, as Dr. Beutler correctly stated, some “behave very irresponsibly.”

Bottom line: if “elite” medical professionals can’t be trusted to follow the rules and tell the truth, what makes us think that Ebola can be contained?

5. The Ebola Wars are not without comedy. Some in the medical community, the CDC in particular, have scolded leaders for establishing quarantines. Accusing them of making decisions based on politics, they argue that they, not politicians, should be calling the shots.

Are they serious? The same people who have been monumentally screwing up from the beginning are now trying to act with moral authority? That’s like Lindsay Lohan preaching temperance. If laughter is indeed the best medicine, well CDC, mission accomplished.

6. Most Americans favor quarantines and travel restrictions, yet their concerns are being ignored by the White House, even as more countries adopt those strategies. (Australia just suspended entry visas for people from Ebola-affected countries).

America’s answer? The State Department wants to bring foreign health care workers infected with Ebola to America for treatment. It’s hard to fathom the stupidity of that plan.

8. What if Ebola arrives at a nearby hospital? Do you send your kids to school if a classmate’s parent works in that hospital? What happens when 30 people become infected, and medical teams can no longer give their undivided attention to a single patient?

Most chilling, what’s the plan for dealing with non-“model” Ebola patients, i.e., those who don’t seek treatment – the illegal alien scared to come forward; the person having an affair who won’t list his mistress as a close contact; “co-habitating” college students who think they’re invincible; the homeless; even the Average Joe. In other words, damn near everybody. This is exactly how Ebola can efficiently spread throughout the most mobile society on Earth.

Not enough people are asking these questions. Instead, too many are dismissive of Ebola as a major threat, or focused on politically correct measures that make Ebola’s inroads that much easier.

Hippocrates said,” Extreme remedies are very appropriate for extreme diseases.” After 2,400 years, it’s pretty scary that many “experts” still haven’t learned from history.

 

Ebola Entitlement Is Poison

Houston Government Endangers Liberty

Houston Government Endangers Liberty
By Chris Freind

Houston, you’ve got a problem.

Based on disturbing events in Texas’ largest city, it’s clear that Ebola is a distant second in the “greatest threat” category.

That honor goes to political extremist Annise Parker, the mayor of Houston.

In a move that is anathema to religious liberty and freedom of speech, Houston, under Parker’s direction, has issued wide-ranging subpoenas to five pastors who attempted to overturn the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). An “anti-discrimination” law, HERO is also known as the “Bathroom Bill” because a provision allows transgender people to use either male or female restrooms, which the pastors opposed.

After HERO became law in May, the pastors helped gather more than 50,000 signatures to place the issue on a ballot referendum. Since only 17,000 signatures were necessary, it appeared Houstonians, not the mayor and city council, would ultimately decide the fate of the ordinance.

Not so fast.

Even though Houston’s city secretary certified the signatures, city Attorney David Feldman deemed 38,000 — yes, thirty-eight thousand — to be invalid, killing the referendum initiative. Not only do some legal experts contend Feldman acted without legal authority, but much of his reasoning is flawed (such as circulators having to be registered voters, a requirement that has been consistently invalidated by federal judges nationwide).

A lawsuit filed by several citizens challenging the city’s action led to subpoenas of massive scope, demanding privileged information from the pastors in 17 different categories. According to the Houston Press, subpoenaed information included:

–Anything related to Parker, Feldman, HERO or any HERO drafts, and any copies or drafts for the petition to repeal the ordinance;

–Anything related to “the topics of equal rights, civil rights, homosexuality, or gender identity;”

–Any language related to rest room access or “any discussion about whether or how HERO does or does not impact rest room access;”

–Communication with anyone at the religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has criticized the ordinance.

–“All speeches, presentation, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by your or in your possession.”

Hell, they might as well try to find out who killed JFK.

After heavy criticism, the mayor slightly revised the subpoenas, “removing” sermons, which means nothing since sermons are actually speeches, and Parker acknowledged some could still be fair game.

Let’s analyze:

1. None of the subpoenaed pastors are even party to the lawsuit against the city.

2. Parker’s rationale is, “We want the instructions on the petition process.” In other words, how the preachers instructed their congregants regarding the petition drive. The mayor claims that if preachers are politicking from the pulpit, sermons and other communications are fair game. Two problems:

First, this case is only supposed to be about whether there are enough valid signatures to warrant a referendum. The pastors’ viewpoints on the mayor and HERO are completely irrelevant.

Second, one needs to define “politicking.” It’s true that a preacher advocating the election of a particular candidate from the pulpit may place the tax status of his church in jeopardy. But there is nothing illegal about a religious organization advocating positions on various issues. That has been a time-honored tradition in America and, no pun intended, thank God for that.

For example, the push to outlaw slavery was rooted in northern churches as pastors encouraged their flocks to support the abolitionist cause. Same goes for much of the impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement.

America’s freedoms are supposed to prevent religious persecution by government. The actions of Mayor Parker fly directly in the face of that.

3. One has to ask, “Why?” Why is the mayor pushing these subpoenas? Does she have a hidden agenda? One can reasonably conclude that it may be an attempt to intimidate religious leaders — who face jail time for contempt of court if they don’t comply — into accepting the radical agenda of a political ideologue hell-bent on social engineering. In other words, flat-out political retribution.

If the mayor believes so strongly in the ordinance, she should do the honorable thing: Agree to the referendum. If it passes, great. If not, Parker should start doing what the people elected her to do: govern a world-class city, albeit one with many problems.

4. This case has the possibility of setting groundbreaking legal precedent. If the mayor’s actions are upheld, America’s unique freedoms are in mortal danger. The door will be opened for more rights to be obliterated — and once that door is opened, it will never close.

This isn’t a Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal issue, as its outcome will affect every American. Even supporters of the HERO ordinance should be extremely concerned, for anyone who thinks attacks on free speech and religious liberties are limited to one side of the political spectrum is dangerously misinformed.

Just as those on the Right would be wise to accept the right to burn the flag or protest military funerals, no matter how tasteless, the Left should be up in arms about this frontal assault on the liberties that allow us to express who we are and what we believe, without fear of government intrusion.

Perhaps more than any other state, Texas knows a thing or two about fighting oppressors and protecting rights. So here’s hoping they take the steer by the horns and throw the subpoenas right where they belong — in the trash.

Otherwise, start saying your prayers.

 

Houston Government Endangers Liberty

Black-ish Race Conversation

CHRIS FREIND Black-ish Race Conversation
By Chris Freind

Jerry Seinfeld to priest in confessional: Well, I should tell you that I’m Jewish.

Father: That’s no sin.

Jerry: Oh good. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.

Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.

After watching ABC’s new “black-sitcom” “Black-ish,” a Seinfeld-ism must be invoked. I was offended — not because I’m white, but because it wasn’t funny.

* * *

Is it offensive that a show openly touts race in both its title and content? Not at all. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

We’re supposed to be grown-ups. We can change the channel if something doesn’t meet out tastes.

That’s called live and let live, where people don’t have to scream in righteous protest over every single thing they dislike. But that type of tolerance is in increasingly short supply, replaced by double standards that inflame tensions and needlessly generate intense resentment between races.

Could you imagine the backlash if a network tried to air “White-ish?” Producers would get fired, actors blackballed and the network would spend countless hours issuing nauseating apologies and mandating racial-sensitivity training.

But it will never happen. Just as there will never be a White Caucus in a legislature or White Entertainment Television.

And that is where our system breaks down.

The issue isn’t the racially descriptive entity, but the increasing resentment among white Americans who, as the oddballs, are not allowed to do likewise. Their perception, not without merit, is that they have become the only race without the same rights as everyone else.

White comedians get censured for saying the same things as their black counterparts. Black politicians openly advocate the election of black mayors. Whites lose out on job opportunities and college admissions in the name of “diversity.”

Racial discrimination, in all its forms, must be battled. And that includes reverse discrimination.

But unfortunately, selective discrimination has been deemed acceptable, even trendy, in today’s America. Far from creating racial harmony, as its advocates naively believe, reverse discrimination is quickly becoming the flashpoint in the powder keg of America’s race relations.

Nowhere is that more on display than in Missouri.

First, in Ferguson, 6-foot-4, 300-pound, 18-year-old Michael Brown, who had allegedly just committed a felony, was shot after disobeying, then physically engaging a police officer.

It should have made no difference that the officer was white and the shooting victim black, since, until it was unquestionably proven otherwise, race played no part in the shooting. But that became the headline and riots and violent protests ensued, facts be damned. Black anger erupted nationwide, directed at both whites and the police.

Now, it’s Round 2, as an off-duty police officer working as a security guard shot and killed a man near St. Louis who police say engaged him in a gunfight.

Large protests were organized as people were bused in from near and far. The heart of the protests was, of course, “racism,” since the officer was white and the shooting victim black. But no one has the guts, on either side, to ask the most important question: “So what?”

Lost on the protestors, a smorgasbord that grew to include the Occupy movement, unions, gay-rights activists and those protesting the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (must have been a boring weekend for a lot of people), were the pertinent facts that A.) The victim was wearing an ankle bracelet at the time he died, a court-ordered monitoring system as a condition of bail in a gun case, and B.) The police claim that he fired several rounds at the officer and was attempting to shoot more when his gun jammed.

The deceased’s family says he was unarmed, carrying only a sandwich. So either turkey clubs have become the new gun of choice, or he was, in fact, armed when he shouldn’t have been. Whether excessive force was used and whether the shooting was even justified remain questions that will be answered only after a thorough, impartial discovery process.

That’s why God made investigations. And in this case, it will be immeasurably easier than the Ferguson shooting to determine the truth.

So, to automatically assume “race” is simply wrong.

Does anyone of sound mind really believe that, in this day and age and in light of recent events, a white officer is going to deliberately seek out and shoot a young black man “for no reason?” Not only would his freedom be in jeopardy, but his life. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but a long list of other possibilities must be exhausted before coming to that conclusion.

Yet, inciting and woefully inaccurate statements, from the victims being “executed” to leaders stating they were both shot from behind (medical examiners determined neither were), serve only to push race relations closer to the edge. Sooner or later, when we go over the cliff, there will be a backlash of epic proportions, which could make the riots of the 1960s look tame.

If we ever hope to eradicate racial tensions, we need strong leaders of all races to unite and demand colorblindness for America, from police to entertainment to the workplace. “Equal opportunity for all, special treatment for none” should be our motto, where race should be an afterthought.

America’s uniqueness makes it the envy of the world, where even its most downtrodden can overcome adversity to become extremely successful.

But that rise must never come because, or at the expense, of race. When it does, we all lose a part of what makes us so special, our common bond: being Americans, and ultimately, members of the only “race” that matters: The human race.

 

Black-ish Race Conversation

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government
By Chris Freind

 

Ring. Ring.

“Hello? CDC? Yeah. Quick question. I just took care of a guy with Ebola. Maybe you heard of that virus. Anyway, I was wondering — should I fly on a commercial airplane? And I should let you know that I have a fever.”

CDC: “Oh, fever, schmever. Sure. Why not? Enjoy the friendly skies. What’s the big deal?”

* * *

This conversation is obviously a parody of the real call that took place between a nurse that had direct contact with Ebola patient Thomas Duncan, and the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

Unfathomably, the CDC, did, in fact, give the thumbs up to Amber Vinson to fly commercially, despite having full knowledge that A.) she had been caring for an Ebola patient, B.) her colleague, nurse Nina Pham, had already contracted Ebola from Duncan, even though she had worn protective gear, and C.) Vinson had a fever — a symptom of the disease.

How is that possible? It is so immensely stupefying that, for once, this writer is at a loss for words, except to say that the American government is, undeniably, broken.

Its handling of the Ebola crisis — or, more accurately, the lack thereof — was, and remains, pathetic. Despite knowing that this Ebola outbreak, which began almost a year ago, was bound to come to America, the CDC made mistake after inexcusable mistake. One would think the “pregame” jitters would have subsided by now, and with it, the incompetence.

But it hasn’t.

In fact, the Dumb And Dumber show continues unabated.

* * *

The problem isn’t just with the CDC. And it’s not just the Obama Administration and Congress. It’s the entire government, at all levels.

Once upon a time, America solved its problems by rolling up its sleeves and getting the job done. From putting a man on the moon to foiling the Soviets during the Cold War, and from passing Civil Rights legislation to building a world-class transportation infrastructure, our leaders used common sense and an iron will to keep America moving forward.

But that has changed.

Somewhere along the way, we fell, and are now stuck in a malaise of stagnation, with far too many comfortable with mediocrity. Gone is the pioneering spirit that embodied what America was — a nation with an unbreakable self-confidence, and a people who innately understood that with a bold vision, and the courage to see it through, nothing was impossible. Whereas once we would never settle for second-best, now we are content with simply being “better than most.”

Which, as this writer has pointed out many times, is like being valedictorian of summer school.

Nowhere is that more apparent than the government’s failures. And before the partisan barbs fly, let’s not forget that it isn’t Obama’s government, nor was it Bush’s. It’s ours. We alone are responsible for picking the captain of our ship, and have no one to blame but ourselves for the course we have taken.

From the DMV to the White House, the failures of government have taken a serious toll on Americans’ optimism, the hallmark that, above all, has set us apart from every other nation.

Common sense has gone out the window. It has been replaced by politicians jockeying for the 30-second sound bite to gain cheap points and throw red-meat to their bases, with zero regard for actually coming up with a real solution.

The result is an America that either charges headlong into a situation before considering the ramifications, or, on the opposite end, sits idle and does nothing, paralyzed to act. When we do emerge from the fog, the crisis is already upon us, forcing us more often than not to make ill-fated decisions.

Consider:

–America ended its space shuttle program despite having no replacement; now, we must rely solely on the Russians to ferry us to our space station.

–Educational achievement levels continue to decline, yet no innovative solutions are offered; instead, we throw more money at the problem, despite knowing it won’t fix anything.

–We invade country after country with absolutely no clue about how to proceed once regime change is achieved; the results speak for themselves.

— Both Parties talk incessantly about reforming immigration, yet neither has any interest in doing so, creating a huge crisis on the southern border.

–Our onerous tax structure and unfavorable trade policies harm America’s companies, while foreign competitors continue to woo American jobs overseas.

— Despite full knowledge that America’s health care system was not equipped, let alone trained, to deal with the Ebola crisis, the government continues to drop the ball. Now, Americans routinely reject government reassurances that all will be okay. Instead, panic has set in, causing major volatility in the markets.

* * *

Whether it’s the miles of red tape, unaccountable bureaucrats, the bowing to political correctness, an overall aloofness to the concerns of Main Street USA — or all of the above — the causes for Americans’ growing pessimism must be addressed. Quickly.

The alternative is ever so bleak.

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All
By Chris Freind

Mindboggling. Astounding. Incomprehensible.

All perfectly describe the string of mistakes and idiotic actions of government officials and health care professionals dealing with the Ebola virus on American soil.

But the most important descriptor cannot be omitted.

Expected.

Since we are willfully letting Ebola in, how could we not expect unintended consequences and detrimental results? History teaches us it’s inevitable.

It’s bad enough that we allowed Ebola-stricken Americans to enter the U.S., but by granting unrestricted access to anyone who has traveled to West Africa within a 21-day time frame (Ebola’s incubation period), we asked for big trouble. And now that Thomas Duncan, a Liberian national who flew to America and became the first person diagnosed with Ebola on U.S. soil, we got it. Lots of it.

But don’t worry, we’re told. The “experts” have everything under control. America is more-than-prepared to contain Ebola and wipe it out.

So nothing to fear, right? Wrong. Dead wrong.

Given that Ebola happens to be one of the deadliest viruses in human history, and knowing this year-long outbreak in Africa was unprecedented, we should have been prepared. But in modern America, being proactive is treated with contempt, and as a result, Ebola was given a free ride.

So in the interest of preserving human civilization, let’s look at why Ebola, despite being downplayed by the government, needs to be considered such a grave threat:

HIV/AIDS is the world’s most infectious killer, but contracting it is quite difficult, making the average person’s risk factor virtually nonexistent. The risk to those engaged in certain sexual practices (where intimate physical contact is required for transmission) can be substantially mitigated if simple, medically advised precautions are taken. Yet despite that, a staggering 36 million people worldwide have died since 1981. Thirty-six million!

Contrast that to Ebola, which has a mortality rate of up to 90 percent and where person-to-person contact is not necessary to contract the virus, and it should be immediately obvious what we are facing. Yet officials continue living in la-la land, not seeing, or at least not admitting, that Ebola presents a potentially unstoppable pandemic, especially if it mutates.

Too many view pandemics, such as the Black Death, as relics of the ancient past, arrogantly believing modern medicine is equipped to stop anything. But in doing so, they forget 20th-century history. The Spanish Flu of 1918 devastated the world, including America (and Philadelphia in particular), infecting more than 500 million. It killed with startling efficiency, and as many as 100 million people perished (5 percent of the global population), leading Spanish Flu to be called “the greatest medical holocaust in history.”

Given that Ebola’s lethality is, at a minimum, 300 percent greater than the Spanish Flu, with its 10 to 20 percent mortality rate, it’s anything but alarmist to think we should be pulling out all the stops to halt Ebola. But we’re not. Consider:

1. Continuously admitting Americans infected with Ebola into the U.S. is playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in a six-round gun. We should spare no expense in setting up a Level-4 bio-hazard lab on a remote island to treat all Americans. No exceptions. But instead, the borders, especially at airports, remain wide open, warmly welcoming Mr. Ebola. That’s not compassionate. That’s suicide.

2. After exhibiting symptoms of Ebola at a Dallas hospital, Thomas Duncan was sent home, even after telling health care workers he had just been to Liberia, Ebola’s Ground Zero. First, the hospital blamed a nurse for failing to pass along that hugely critical information, then claimed Duncan’s medical report wasn’t visible to doctors due to an electronic records glitch. Also false. Turns out everyone on the case had access to the information, but simply missed it. Incomprehensible, yes, but also expected.

3. It gets worse. The highly contagious Duncan was free to roam for days, possibly infecting God knows how many — and, truly, only God knows, because the “experts” have no idea. Their guess at Duncan’s “close contacts” keeps rising (it was eight, now it’s over 100). Even after Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola, his family and friends moved freely, including sending possibly exposed children to school.

The family was eventually quarantined in Duncan’s apartment, but why there? Incredibly, no officials deemed it important to remove the family and immediately decontaminate the apartment. Instead, the family was forced to live in a petri dish alongside Duncan’s potentially virus-ridden sheets and clothes. The first cleanup crew, as well as police entering the apartment, had no virus protection. And topping it off, the emergency services’ reverse-911 call to warn residents failed in embarrassing fashion.

The real culprit in all the snafus is Ebola’s biggest benefactor: Human error. And that is why, despite claims to the contrary, Ebola cannot be contained. We knew it was coming, yet inexcusably bad decisions were made, and things went horribly wrong. What happens when it appears in a different form on a mass scale?

All of which makes the statements of Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention — that “we are stopping it in its tracks in this country … There is no doubt in my mind we will stop it here” — ring hollow, huh?

The CDC keeps changing its story, out of both ignorance and deceit. Its leaders believe that by downplaying the extreme seriousness of Ebola and reassuring Americans that all is under control, the problem will go away. They couldn’t be more wrong.

 

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended
By Chris Freind

I was delirious with fever.

At first, I was certain it was Ebola. But turns out, it was much worse.

I found myself agreeing with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

For a columnist espousing common sense and responsible government, any consensus with Nutter could make a career go to pot. But fair is fair, and in turning over a new leaf, I must congratulate the mayor for his recent action — which is sure to make the grass greener in Philadelphia. For a half-baked administration that’s been in the weeds for seven years, much more smoke than substance, better late than never.

In what will clearly be a high for the city, Mayor Nutter signed a law decriminalizing marijuana.

Maybe now Philadelphia can end its doobie-ous distinction of always being a backwards town as the mayor tries to get the joint back on track.

Adherents of misguided, draconian drug laws stand opposed to decriminalization, but they are living in a fog, using arguments better suited for the Stone Age.

The decriminalization of marijuana is a smart move for Philadelphia, and hopefully other municipalities will follow its lead.

To be clear, there is a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana, meaning people can grow and smoke a limited amount of pot without penalty; consumption laws are similar to those governing alcohol.

Decriminalization doesn’t make pot legal, but, as is the case with Philadelphia’s law, police will no longer arrest low-level offenders possessing small amounts of pot. Instead, those caught with 30 grams or less will receive a citation and a $25 fine; smoking it in public will result in either a $100 fine or up to nine hours of community service. Selling or distributing marijuana, as well as possessing more than 30 grams, are still crimes carrying significant penalties.

Nutter also is launching a public awareness campaign to explain the new law. That is commendable, since the average person thinks decriminalization and legalization are the same thing. There is a fine line between government decriminalizing pot and not appearing as though it is encouraging marijuana use.

Here’s the straight dope on why decriminalization is a good idea:

1. Why not decriminalize? At the most basic level, what’s the difference between smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol? Virtually none. Both alter the mind with excessive use, which is where that almost forgotten commodity called personal responsibility comes into play. If you drive or work while intoxicated, there is a price to be paid. The same types of regulations should apply to pot, as Washington and Colorado have done.

And let’s be honest: some of the biggest lobbies against decriminalization and legalization are the alcohol companies, but not because they’re worried about our health and well-being. Their opposition is rooted in financial self-interest, as they justifiably fear a loss of revenue as consumers emerge from the shadows to spend their “recreational” dollars elsewhere.

Bottom line: Since most people don’t view recreational marijuana use as harmful, and studies show pot is not a springboard to other drugs, what’s the big deal?

Ironically, it took action by died-in-the-wool big government Democrats like Nutter to start dismantling Philadelphia’s nanny state. Who would have ever believed that — without being high?

2. Logjams in law enforcement, backlogs in courts, and overcrowding in prisons will be somewhat relieved due to thousands fewer being arrested and processed in the judicial system. Granted, there are many other reforms needed, but this no-brainer is a good place to begin.

3. Police have better things to do than chase recreational pot users. Last time we checked, Philly still had extremely high rates of violence and murder; in fact, the Mayor is still being blatantly disingenuous in how he reports murders. Rather than comparing murders year to year, which is the common sense way to measure progress, he compares them to murders in 2007, the high-water mark for killings. So while the claim is made that the murder rate is “down,” there have actually been seven more murders year-to-date than at the same point in 2013.

There’s a lot of work to be done to make Philadelphia safer for residents, workers and tourists; finding solutions should be the Mayor’s first priority, and this new law will help him focus on that.

4. In a larger context, Nutter has much bigger fish to fry. Philadelphia is one of the most heavily taxed cities in the nation, its schools are dismal and manufacturing plants (and the good jobs they generate) are a distant memory. This has created a vicious cycle: Because of these problems, few companies want to relocate to Philadelphia and many others leave. As businesses and jobs disappear, so do billions in tax revenue; those remaining pay ever-higher taxes despite a vastly decreased customer base. The result is a rapidly-shrinking middle class and continued residential flight.

Any initiative not centered on reversing those monumental problems — such as expending resources to apprehend low-level pot smokers — should be immediately jettisoned.

The decriminalization of marijuana is not waving the white flag of defeat in the “war on drugs,” nor a gift to “druggies” born out of a desperate “they’re going to do it anyway, so why not make it legal” mentality.

It is a smart, reasonable approach to dealing with cannabis and its storied history (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp) while not wavering on the fight against the real drugs that threaten society. Hopefully, decriminalization and legalization will also lead to more accepted medicinal marijuana for its undeniably positive attributes.

So kudos, Mr. Mayor. Moving forward, just don’t forget to exhale.

 

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended