This week is one of the holiest for Jews and Christian. Passover, which celebrates the Israel's deliverance from Egypt, and Easter, when Christians of all denominations and sects come together to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus following his crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Indeed, Easter can be said to be the crux of Christianity. Both events celebrate good over the evil; of faith in God so save the righteous. Yet, today, both religions, along with Hinduism, Buddhism, and numerous others, are under threat again. This time it’s by radical Islam, which calls for the establishment of a global Caliphate and worldwide enforcement of the extremist interpretation of Sharia law. While most religions would choose to live in peace, radical Islam has literally declared a “jihad” or “holy war” on anyone, including non-conforming Moslems that don’t accept their rule. The penalty is death. There is no “compromise”. There is no “negotiation. After all, in their eyes, how do you “negotiate” with God?
Over the past several years, dozens of churches have been destroyed. Christians have been beaten, threatened, harassed, and murdered. Just last week, Moslem troops in the African state of Ivory Coast, murdered 1000 Christians. Yes, you read that number correctly. Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists have fared little better. Who doesn’t remember the brutal assault of radical Moslem attacking Mumbai India in 2008 or the destruction of Buddhist statues, hundreds of years old in 2003? Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, not to mention Zoroastrians, Taoists, and others have often faced the same fate as Christians with beatings, murders, and the ubiquitous decapitations.
We are at war. This war has little to do with geopolitics, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It has to do with God. It’s a global religious war, and whether or not we want to accept it make little difference to do those who are waging it. Perhaps, from their perspective, it’s even better. Taking a lesson from Sun Tzu, its good strategy to talk peace or be seen as promoting peace while engaging in war. What better way to expand your influence?
What can we do? First, we have to acknowledge it. We can expect our current administration to do nothing. Washington is not just leaderless, it’s clueless. We must build a grassroots movement of interfaith to not just focus on religious tolerance, but demand it. We should encourage and support moderate or liberal/sectarian Moslems to speak up and speak out. After all, it’s ultimately their faith being hijacked. For those living in the West, we should encourage the adoption of western dress, values, and language. If they don’t “buy into” Western Culture, how they can be expected to defend it? This is, of course, the near opposite of multiculturalism which wants to be everything to everybody while undermining the essence of what it means to be an American, or German, or English, or French, or Russian. Multiculturalism is ultimately cowardice.
The West, and I include Eastern Europe and Russia as well, must come together with a zero tolerance of radicalism in their own countries. Radicals must be dealt with swiftly. Prisons are the fastest breeding ground for radical Islam. It must stop. Moderate Islam must be introduced and encouraged in the world’s prisons. India too must take the same steps to curtail the growth of extremists groups. The World must not just protest acts of atrocity, they must demand swift action. These countries, which allow churches and temples to be burned, and the murder innocents depend on the West for their economic survival. Perhaps we should flex our economic might by demanding immediate and public justice. The fact that most of these acts happen in poor and often illiterate countries, shows why education (especially of females) is so feared by radicals. Education requires empirical thought---reason and logic. That’s something radicalism can’t tolerate any more than cockroaches can tolerate the glare of light.
My hope is the realization of the meaning of both Passover and Easter, which is namely the celebration of freedom from intolerance, fear, and tyranny, be it from a Pharaoh, the Romans, religious fascism, or globalism.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Illegal Immigration: What's the Latest?
As regular readers of AO know, I take a particular interest in illegal immigration. I see it as a national security as well as an economic threat to this country. In additional to the estimated 12 million illegal residents now in this country they are an untold number of individuals from nations hostile to the US. ICE agents have repeatedly found money and paraphernalia from countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and the like. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said that 663 individuals from countries with know terrorist ties were arrested in 2010. It’s only a matter of time before one or more of these groups make good on their threats of killing Americans. Of course Congress, Homeland Security, and the President will condemn the act and there will be the usual investigations and condemnations, but by then it will be too late. There will be dead Americans.
The American People have, for over well over a decade, demanded loudly and repeatedly for government to solve the border crisis; not ‘band-aid” it over and not ignored it. Former president Bush promised a wall. We never got it. It was only partially funded and all but dropped. Border Patrol agents are understaffed, under funded, and often under orders not to engage. Gangs control whole sections of US territory along the border. Our own government even put up warning signs for US citizens to stay out. According to Texas Congressman John Culberson, an illegal alien crossing the border had an 84% chance of not being prosecuted.
The report went on to say that of the 447,731 illegals apprehended by US Customs last year (2010), 73, 263 (or 16.4%) were actually prosecuted. Along the Tucson area, where the majority of arrests occurred, the percentage was even worse, with only 14.5%. If you were going to commit a crime and had an 84% chance of success, with little in the way of punishment, what would you do? Congressman Culberson added that enforcement was so lax, that many of those arrested were held only a few hours and “had a chance to home for dinner”.
Of course, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claims that our southern border has never been more secured! Perhaps she’s thinking about the days of Poncho Villa or the Mexican-American War! Seriously, however, Secretary Napolitano is actually distorting the number the way politicians and bureaucrats often do. In claiming the southern border secure, Napolitano is only looking at instances of arrest and prosecution, which accounts for about 15% of the total rather than all those arrested. Furthermore, Napolitano admitted the DHS “deferred” action on 900 cases in 2010.
Did you that more people along a Mexico-Texas border town were killed in 2010 than in the war in Afghanistan? Ciudad Juarez Mexico, which just across the Rio Grande from El Paso Texas had more deaths, all related to its losing drug war with local drug cartels, than the entire country of Afghanistan. There 3,111 individuals murdered compared to 2421 civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is moving ahead with its lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070, which, as you’ll recall, did little more the codify under state statute the various laws which now exist at the federal law and added more “teeth”. The Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, alleges in his complaint, that regulating US borders is a federal matter.
The AG is right…sort of. Arizona isn’t attempting to establish foreign policy. They are simply incorporating existing federal law at the state level. Furthermore, while states may not weaken a federal law, they may strengthen a federal law, which is what Arizona has done. Arizona’s Governor, Janet Walker publicly stated that the State carefully studied the issue from every point possible, and even requested legal opinion from the US Attorney General’s office. Who will prevail? Hard to say. Certainly legal opinion rests with Arizona (and several other states that are looking at imposing similar laws). However, the Obama Administration is pushing hard to keep these illegal immigrants in American (the current running joke is that Obama is wanting to discourage the use of the name “illegal immigrants” and start calling them what they are, “undocumented Democrats”).
President Obama, speaking with Hispanic reporter, recently said that illegals had nothing to worry about if they were doing “all the right things”, which included a job, staying out of trouble, and I assume, keeping a low profile. Wouldn’t “doing all the right” mean obeying US law? Anyway, I digress. Obama was simply making it clear that his administration intended to drag its feet, delay, and otherwise impede any efforts to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, what at what cost?
Well, with the federal government’s version of proctology exam upon us, that is, Tax Day---April 15. Let’s look for a moment at what Obama’s efforts to protect illegal immigrants actually cost you and me. According to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the tax burden for welfare, estimated welfare care, and education exceeds $100 billion per year. That breaks down to $1000.00 per taxpayer per year (and no, you can’t claim them as a dependent). Of those who do pay into the system, for every $5.00 in services they take, they pay in an estimate $1.00. I’m no accountant, but I do know a thing or two about economics, and I can tell you those numbers don’t work for long (see: http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation#p/u/4/H8lLU7XjcWc).
Meanwhile, while states are working to stop illegal immigrants, other states have given the green light to illegal residents. Both Washington State and New Mexico remain easy places for illegal to get a driver’s license. In both states, recent bills were passed to allow illegal immigrants to apply for drivers licenses. One can only assume that the driver’s test was not in English either. In Maryland, the State Legislature voted to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens. The bill, which passed 27-20, allows illegal aliens to attempt Maryland colleges at a reduced rate, saving them (or is it Maryland taxpayers?) $10,000 per year in tuition. US residents from neighboring states, however, were not afforded the same privilege.
According to a recent article, Lana Reed, a former social service case worker, testified before the Kansas legislature’s House Judiciary Committee, that case workers were required by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services policies to ignore fraudulent documentation by immigrants, and thus, in effect, facilitate fraud against Kansas taxpayers. Finally, Utah passed three laws that, among other things, granted amnesty to “guest workers” as well as concluded an agreement between Utah and Mexico to provide businesses to migrant workers ( (HB 116 and HB 466). Funny, isn’t that a foreign policy issue? Wonder when US Attorney General Holder intends on filing a lawsuit against Utah for butting into a federal matter? (see: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23944&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#4).
Lastly, do you remember the outcry from the Left (especially the media) over the deportation of 4 year old? The child, a girl named “Emily”, whose parents are illegal aliens, refused to accept custody from DHS agents after her grandfather, who was accompanying her on a flight to New York, was detained on an immigration charge.
Spokesman Lloyd Easterling said "CBP strives to reunite children who are citizens with their parents. If the parents decide not to take custody of their children, the CBP works with other agencies to guard the security and the well-being of these children. That includes handing them over to other families”.
Easterling added that, “In this case, Emily's parents were offered the opportunity to pick her up, but they decided to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather”. I wonder why the media didn’t report this part of the story. Just asking.
The American People have, for over well over a decade, demanded loudly and repeatedly for government to solve the border crisis; not ‘band-aid” it over and not ignored it. Former president Bush promised a wall. We never got it. It was only partially funded and all but dropped. Border Patrol agents are understaffed, under funded, and often under orders not to engage. Gangs control whole sections of US territory along the border. Our own government even put up warning signs for US citizens to stay out. According to Texas Congressman John Culberson, an illegal alien crossing the border had an 84% chance of not being prosecuted.
The report went on to say that of the 447,731 illegals apprehended by US Customs last year (2010), 73, 263 (or 16.4%) were actually prosecuted. Along the Tucson area, where the majority of arrests occurred, the percentage was even worse, with only 14.5%. If you were going to commit a crime and had an 84% chance of success, with little in the way of punishment, what would you do? Congressman Culberson added that enforcement was so lax, that many of those arrested were held only a few hours and “had a chance to home for dinner”.
Of course, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claims that our southern border has never been more secured! Perhaps she’s thinking about the days of Poncho Villa or the Mexican-American War! Seriously, however, Secretary Napolitano is actually distorting the number the way politicians and bureaucrats often do. In claiming the southern border secure, Napolitano is only looking at instances of arrest and prosecution, which accounts for about 15% of the total rather than all those arrested. Furthermore, Napolitano admitted the DHS “deferred” action on 900 cases in 2010.
Did you that more people along a Mexico-Texas border town were killed in 2010 than in the war in Afghanistan? Ciudad Juarez Mexico, which just across the Rio Grande from El Paso Texas had more deaths, all related to its losing drug war with local drug cartels, than the entire country of Afghanistan. There 3,111 individuals murdered compared to 2421 civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is moving ahead with its lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070, which, as you’ll recall, did little more the codify under state statute the various laws which now exist at the federal law and added more “teeth”. The Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, alleges in his complaint, that regulating US borders is a federal matter.
The AG is right…sort of. Arizona isn’t attempting to establish foreign policy. They are simply incorporating existing federal law at the state level. Furthermore, while states may not weaken a federal law, they may strengthen a federal law, which is what Arizona has done. Arizona’s Governor, Janet Walker publicly stated that the State carefully studied the issue from every point possible, and even requested legal opinion from the US Attorney General’s office. Who will prevail? Hard to say. Certainly legal opinion rests with Arizona (and several other states that are looking at imposing similar laws). However, the Obama Administration is pushing hard to keep these illegal immigrants in American (the current running joke is that Obama is wanting to discourage the use of the name “illegal immigrants” and start calling them what they are, “undocumented Democrats”).
President Obama, speaking with Hispanic reporter, recently said that illegals had nothing to worry about if they were doing “all the right things”, which included a job, staying out of trouble, and I assume, keeping a low profile. Wouldn’t “doing all the right” mean obeying US law? Anyway, I digress. Obama was simply making it clear that his administration intended to drag its feet, delay, and otherwise impede any efforts to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, what at what cost?
Well, with the federal government’s version of proctology exam upon us, that is, Tax Day---April 15. Let’s look for a moment at what Obama’s efforts to protect illegal immigrants actually cost you and me. According to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the tax burden for welfare, estimated welfare care, and education exceeds $100 billion per year. That breaks down to $1000.00 per taxpayer per year (and no, you can’t claim them as a dependent). Of those who do pay into the system, for every $5.00 in services they take, they pay in an estimate $1.00. I’m no accountant, but I do know a thing or two about economics, and I can tell you those numbers don’t work for long (see: http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation#p/u/4/H8lLU7XjcWc).
Meanwhile, while states are working to stop illegal immigrants, other states have given the green light to illegal residents. Both Washington State and New Mexico remain easy places for illegal to get a driver’s license. In both states, recent bills were passed to allow illegal immigrants to apply for drivers licenses. One can only assume that the driver’s test was not in English either. In Maryland, the State Legislature voted to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens. The bill, which passed 27-20, allows illegal aliens to attempt Maryland colleges at a reduced rate, saving them (or is it Maryland taxpayers?) $10,000 per year in tuition. US residents from neighboring states, however, were not afforded the same privilege.
According to a recent article, Lana Reed, a former social service case worker, testified before the Kansas legislature’s House Judiciary Committee, that case workers were required by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services policies to ignore fraudulent documentation by immigrants, and thus, in effect, facilitate fraud against Kansas taxpayers. Finally, Utah passed three laws that, among other things, granted amnesty to “guest workers” as well as concluded an agreement between Utah and Mexico to provide businesses to migrant workers ( (HB 116 and HB 466). Funny, isn’t that a foreign policy issue? Wonder when US Attorney General Holder intends on filing a lawsuit against Utah for butting into a federal matter? (see: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23944&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#4).
Lastly, do you remember the outcry from the Left (especially the media) over the deportation of 4 year old? The child, a girl named “Emily”, whose parents are illegal aliens, refused to accept custody from DHS agents after her grandfather, who was accompanying her on a flight to New York, was detained on an immigration charge.
Spokesman Lloyd Easterling said "CBP strives to reunite children who are citizens with their parents. If the parents decide not to take custody of their children, the CBP works with other agencies to guard the security and the well-being of these children. That includes handing them over to other families”.
Easterling added that, “In this case, Emily's parents were offered the opportunity to pick her up, but they decided to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather”. I wonder why the media didn’t report this part of the story. Just asking.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Fat Tax
Granted, times are tough. People are doing whatever they can to cut back to save money. Governments across the board are cash strapped. Many municipalities and states are staring financial insolvency in the face like death at the door. We got a full court press on to cut and tax everywhere at a time when no one, literally no one, can afford it. So, I guess kudos of sorts needs to go to Arizona for a unique, though impractical, partial solution to their financial problems. Arizona legislators are looking at taxing that Whooper and fries you’re setting there eating (or maybe, it’s that pizza and beer).
Arizona is considering a $50.00 tax per year on fat people. Why only $50 bucks and not by the pound, is beyond me. I suppose the legislators don’t want to appear too greedy in grabbing their “pound of flesh” (sorry, couldn’t resist). However, according to the Arizona Health Care Containment System, individuals who are obese, smoke, or even have diabetes, could face the annual $50 charge if it was determined that they’re not following their doctor’s instructions to develop better health habits. Arizona’s legislature has been trying to come up with $500 million dollars in cuts to reduce its $1.5 billion deficit. Taxing people with unhealthy life styles is one option being considered given their cash strapped Medicaid program.
It’s no secret or great revelation that people with unhealthy lifestyles are more prone to diseases or illnesses than people who take care of themselves. Businesses penalize individuals who engage in unhealthy or unsafe behavior while those who do comply are generally rewarded with either additional benefits, or benefits at a cheaper cost. I see two issues with this move by Arizona’s legislature.
First, individuals have a right to make specific behavioral choices for themselves. In doing so, they must bear the responsibility of their actions in terms of cause and effect (bad things will lead to bad results), and their associated costs. In the private sector, businesses try to spread the costs among its participants, but more often than not, companies are requiring individuals to bear the financial costs of their habits through higher premiums, limited or even denied coverage. It’s a choice issue. Others shouldn’t bear the costs of your choices. Fair enough right? But, what about government?
Putting aside for the moment whether or not government should be in the healthcare business, the issue of whether government has the right to regulate your lifestyle choices. Two points must be understood before we can go further. One is that government does not generate money. The argument that the government is paying for it doesn’t hold. Government, at all levels, derives its income from you and me through taxes and hidden taxes known as fees. In short, government takes from us and redistributes to others, allegedly, for the betterment of society as a whole. Sometimes it’s with our consent; sometimes not. Now, secondly, individuals who engage in unhealthy behavior use more (and more expensive) health care services, and over longer periods of time. That costs us more money. This is Arizona’s argument.
However, should, in the name of eliminating these extra costs, government be able to dictate specific behavior to us? If you want to set on the couch and stuff your face while watching Oprah, that’s your business. If you want to eat foods high in transfats, that’s a personal decision right? What about smoking? You know it’s stupid. You know what you’re doing to your body. But it isn’t anybody’s business but yours right? You and you alone should be expected to bear the costs of your actions. But, what about diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, or high blood pressure? What if you are trying to get these under control but can’t? Should you be fined? At what point does government have a right to impose any type of control on your behavior? Should government mandate a minimum amount of daily exercise? Where does it stop?
Well, government does, in fact, impose controls on your behavior already. It’s called laws, and they’re enforced by the judicial system. Some of these are health related, such as drug and alcohol use and abuse, food, water, and air standards, as well as clean and safe work areas or age restrictions. Even sex is regulated! There are penalties for violating and enforcing these rules which you and I pay for as taxpayers. So, there is some legal precedence for what Arizona is considering. But, it still doesn’t address the issue that, while possibly legal, is it justified from an ethical perspective? Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should do it.
There is one more factor to consider. A disproportional number of individuals who use government services, and who lead unhealthy life styles, are the poor; the very people who could least afford to penalized any amount of money. So, does government require these individuals to see a doctor (at taxpayer cost) and enroll in some sort of modifying behavior program (again at taxpayer cost), and who'll monitor them (we can already guess who’ll be paying for it). One could argue that if they can afford a carton of cigarettes every few weeks, they can afford a $50 dollar fine once a year. But is this what we want government to do; to become our “mother”?
Since you and I are paying for the welfare of our fellow citizens who use government services in the form of taxes, we should have a say in how our money is spent. Recipients should be allowed to buy only healthy items (many states already require this). That is means no unhealthy snacks or drinks, and certainly no booze or cigarettes. Recipients should be required to perform some type of public service if they aren’t actively looking for a job or preparing for a job (like school) while they’re on the public dole. Random drug and other screenings should be required. Three strikes and no benefits for 90 days; no exceptions and no excuses. Yes, we would still have to pay for it, but the numbers (and costs) will be lower and the uncertainty of coming up for a test would serve as a deterrent. Conditions which are genetic should be exempt. If you aren’t a US citizen or in the process of becoming one, you receive no taxpayer based assistance. Of course, you can always choose to opt out altogether.
On a related note, healthy habits are generally acquired young. Schools should remove all soft drinks and unhealthy snacks from vending machines. School cafeterias should serve only healthy foods (perferably bought locally) and some sort of exercise programs should be required. Informational flyers (aimed as much for the parents as anyone) about preparing healthy meals, snacks and exercise should be sent home often. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it’s better than the alternative.
Arizona is considering a $50.00 tax per year on fat people. Why only $50 bucks and not by the pound, is beyond me. I suppose the legislators don’t want to appear too greedy in grabbing their “pound of flesh” (sorry, couldn’t resist). However, according to the Arizona Health Care Containment System, individuals who are obese, smoke, or even have diabetes, could face the annual $50 charge if it was determined that they’re not following their doctor’s instructions to develop better health habits. Arizona’s legislature has been trying to come up with $500 million dollars in cuts to reduce its $1.5 billion deficit. Taxing people with unhealthy life styles is one option being considered given their cash strapped Medicaid program.
It’s no secret or great revelation that people with unhealthy lifestyles are more prone to diseases or illnesses than people who take care of themselves. Businesses penalize individuals who engage in unhealthy or unsafe behavior while those who do comply are generally rewarded with either additional benefits, or benefits at a cheaper cost. I see two issues with this move by Arizona’s legislature.
First, individuals have a right to make specific behavioral choices for themselves. In doing so, they must bear the responsibility of their actions in terms of cause and effect (bad things will lead to bad results), and their associated costs. In the private sector, businesses try to spread the costs among its participants, but more often than not, companies are requiring individuals to bear the financial costs of their habits through higher premiums, limited or even denied coverage. It’s a choice issue. Others shouldn’t bear the costs of your choices. Fair enough right? But, what about government?
Putting aside for the moment whether or not government should be in the healthcare business, the issue of whether government has the right to regulate your lifestyle choices. Two points must be understood before we can go further. One is that government does not generate money. The argument that the government is paying for it doesn’t hold. Government, at all levels, derives its income from you and me through taxes and hidden taxes known as fees. In short, government takes from us and redistributes to others, allegedly, for the betterment of society as a whole. Sometimes it’s with our consent; sometimes not. Now, secondly, individuals who engage in unhealthy behavior use more (and more expensive) health care services, and over longer periods of time. That costs us more money. This is Arizona’s argument.
However, should, in the name of eliminating these extra costs, government be able to dictate specific behavior to us? If you want to set on the couch and stuff your face while watching Oprah, that’s your business. If you want to eat foods high in transfats, that’s a personal decision right? What about smoking? You know it’s stupid. You know what you’re doing to your body. But it isn’t anybody’s business but yours right? You and you alone should be expected to bear the costs of your actions. But, what about diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, or high blood pressure? What if you are trying to get these under control but can’t? Should you be fined? At what point does government have a right to impose any type of control on your behavior? Should government mandate a minimum amount of daily exercise? Where does it stop?
Well, government does, in fact, impose controls on your behavior already. It’s called laws, and they’re enforced by the judicial system. Some of these are health related, such as drug and alcohol use and abuse, food, water, and air standards, as well as clean and safe work areas or age restrictions. Even sex is regulated! There are penalties for violating and enforcing these rules which you and I pay for as taxpayers. So, there is some legal precedence for what Arizona is considering. But, it still doesn’t address the issue that, while possibly legal, is it justified from an ethical perspective? Just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should do it.
There is one more factor to consider. A disproportional number of individuals who use government services, and who lead unhealthy life styles, are the poor; the very people who could least afford to penalized any amount of money. So, does government require these individuals to see a doctor (at taxpayer cost) and enroll in some sort of modifying behavior program (again at taxpayer cost), and who'll monitor them (we can already guess who’ll be paying for it). One could argue that if they can afford a carton of cigarettes every few weeks, they can afford a $50 dollar fine once a year. But is this what we want government to do; to become our “mother”?
Since you and I are paying for the welfare of our fellow citizens who use government services in the form of taxes, we should have a say in how our money is spent. Recipients should be allowed to buy only healthy items (many states already require this). That is means no unhealthy snacks or drinks, and certainly no booze or cigarettes. Recipients should be required to perform some type of public service if they aren’t actively looking for a job or preparing for a job (like school) while they’re on the public dole. Random drug and other screenings should be required. Three strikes and no benefits for 90 days; no exceptions and no excuses. Yes, we would still have to pay for it, but the numbers (and costs) will be lower and the uncertainty of coming up for a test would serve as a deterrent. Conditions which are genetic should be exempt. If you aren’t a US citizen or in the process of becoming one, you receive no taxpayer based assistance. Of course, you can always choose to opt out altogether.
On a related note, healthy habits are generally acquired young. Schools should remove all soft drinks and unhealthy snacks from vending machines. School cafeterias should serve only healthy foods (perferably bought locally) and some sort of exercise programs should be required. Informational flyers (aimed as much for the parents as anyone) about preparing healthy meals, snacks and exercise should be sent home often. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it’s better than the alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
