March 2015 Archives

Vaccinations: do we have the right to say "NO?"

It's reasonable to ask:  "If I had my children vaccinated against - let's say measles - and you failed to do so with your children, how does that harm my children?"  It seems the only persons to be harmed are those children belonging to other parents who failed to have their children immunized. 

In today's world it is incredibly common to hear someone say they refuse to take a flu shot - and yet there is not a national movement to force them to get a doctor's note to avoid the shot!

I can remember the time when the polio vaccine was first made available - most people (if not all) rushed to get their children vaccinated because polio was such a realistic and devastating disease.  Even so - no politician had the nerve to pass a law requiring everyone to get vaccinated.

The "busy-body" society.

Today, it seems, everyone is attempting to tell their neighbors what to do.  As a society, we claim our democracy is so great that everyone - and particularly those in the Middle East - should be required to have democratic rule.  Accordingly, if I have my children vaccinated, then everyone should do the same. 

And there is considerable mis-information circulated and even promoted by seemingly intelligent people.  In example, the public is constantly exposed to anti-smoking advertisements which often defy logic - so how is it possible that my health is at greater risk from "second hand" smoke than that poor guy who is inhaling the smoke directly into his lungs?

There is more at stake here than our health - our liberty and right to make our own decisions as an adult in a free society must take priority over all other considerations!

It is a rare moment to open the monthly PG & E bill and not find another request for a rate increase.  Because PG & E is a legalized monopoly, utility customers are captive and cannot go elsewhere for service.

According to a recent Monterey County Herald news item, PG & E is proposing the installation of 25,000 electric car charging stations and they want their utility customers to pick up the tab.  The estimated price tag is $653.8 million which will cost rate payers 70 cents a month for five years.

We are left to wonder: "Are these charging stations metered so that motorists utilizing these fast charge stations would pay for the service?"  If so, it would appear logical for this metered service to include the cost of original installation thus relieving utility customers of any set up costs.

Years ago Pacific Bell installed public telephone booths and managed to do so without charging all their ratepayers the installation costs.  Pay phone customers handled these costs on a pay as you go basis. 

Our political leaders have complained that pollution free automobiles do not buy gasoline and therefore do not pay road tax which has led to diminished road taxes.  It would seem logical for a metered service at these charging stations to include some road tax. 

It appears PG & E and politicians have one thing in common; they have never seen a tax or rate increase they did not like.

Ironically, when referring to the 5^th Amendment to the US Constitution, most people recall the prohibition against self- incrimination and double jeopardy.  Little thought is given to other important  protections provided by this amendment:  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law . . ."

The proposed legislation (AB 443) advanced by Assemblyman Luis Alejo (Democrat from Watsonville) in conjuction with State's Attorney General Kamala Harris would provide prosecutors with unprecedented power to freeze assets - $10,000 or more - prior to securing an indictment against designated crimes which includes nearly every criminal activity known to man.   Specific language of this bill allows the court to grant this action provided: "(B) There is substantial probability that the prosecuting agency will file a criminal complaint or seek a grand jury indictment against the defendant."

The "due process of law" clause of the 5^th Amendment would seem to require the accused to be indicted, tried and convicted prior to being deprived of life, liberty or property.

There is little doubt every victim of crime desires those responsible for criminal profiteering to be held accountable, but must we give up our 5^th Amendment rights in order to get the job done?  And if we give in to this invasion of the 5^th Amendment, what's next?

I find it fascinating that many have reached a conclusion the human species is polluting the earth and fouling the air with CO2 plus other noxious gases.  These concerns have resulted in various theories and plans to correct the problem. 

 Not all that long ago there was a proposal (covered by the Fresno Bee) that dairy cows were passing volumes of methane gas into the atmosphere.  It was suggested these herds should be reduced.  It is understood that while the offending herds are passing gas, literally hundreds of cars are passing by discharging unknown quantities of pollutants into the air.

Politicians have proposed various tax solutions including an incredible "Cap and Trade" scheme to exact taxes from huge corporations which are passed on to the consumer.  And now many are suggesting we need a "back-up" plan in case all these brilliant plans, including "geo-engineering," might not work.

I hasten to add that, as a back-up plan, we might consider reducing the human population.  There was a time, many years ago, when massive forests existed on the face of the earth including the rain forests of Africa and South America which scrubbed the air of CO2.  Of course, in those days the population was measured in the millions (not billions) and there was no need to cut down trees to provide land for food and living space.

I am reminded of that infamous poster picturing a land mass completely covered by humans standing shoulder to shoulder and restricted only by the world's oceans.  

Possibly, one might recall the movie "Soylent Green" starring Charlton Heston and Edward G Robinson.  This movie pictured a disturbing view of a future society plagued with over-population and life threatening pollution.  The frightening solution to hunger in this future world was feeding the masses with recycled humans. 

All I'm saying is that, as long as these smart intellectuals are considering backup plans, why not take a long look at over-population.