By: Don Caldwell
How much freedom are you willing to give up for the sake of safety?
Over the past few years you may have noticed all of those traffic cameras that have gone up in towns and cities across America. Local governments have been making a great deal of money off of these cameras, with some bringing in up to 2 million dollars for a single camera per year.
Some would argue the effect this has on safety, while others would argue how this has become an excuse for local governments to find additional ticketing revenue.
Excerpts italicized:
In order increase safety and reduce crashes at intersections, a number of cities have been using red light cameras to catch drivers who violate the law and run through them. This controversial practice has been called an invasion of privacy by some, but now a new survey found that there is high support from drivers for these efforts and fatalities in those cities have dropped.
The survey by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that two-thirds of drivers in 14 major cities who have red-light cameras support their use. This study is a follow up to the recent finding that these cameras have reduced fatal red-light-running crashes by 24 percent in the same cities.
Critics of the red-light cameras are quite vocal saying they are an invasion of privacy and that the cameras are meant to make more money for the cities, not increase safety.
More than a quarter of respondents said the cameras can make mistakes and some noted that they make the roads less safe. Voters in eight cities have rejected the cameras in the past three years.
Last year, IIHS noted that speeding and running red lights were the most important traffic safety issues that needed to be addressed to help reduce the deaths on America’s roads.
Benjamin Franklin once said “trade freedom for safety”
You can have either a society focusing on freedom or one that focuses on safety but not both. As we give greater power and responsibility to our governments to control the various aspects of our lives (health care, education, social security, etc.) we lose freedom in the process. Obviously complete freedom is a state of anarchy, but a people should keep in mind that by the time you realize you don’t have much freedom, it is probably a little too late to do much about it. As it is always twice as hard to get something back once you’ve lost it than to have kept it in the first place.
Then you should question whether you would prefer to live in a free society or a socialist society. They both may be democratic, but only one has freedom.
Which do you choose?
P.S. One last thing of note. In New Jersey, the state recently did away with the annual “safety” aspect of bi-yearly car inspections. Where now the only aspect of one’s vehicle checked are of emissions. You could be driving a car with missing airbags, three wheels, and a missing seatbelt, but all that the state really cares about is if you are putting out too much carbon dioxide.
I am not saying that either is not important, but wouldn’t a greater emphasis be placed on driver safety…or is it the bottom line?
(ORIGINAL LINK)
Support for big brother: Survey finds use of red light cameras favored
By: Don Caldwell
Why are so many mothers avoiding Hospitals?
Excerpts italicized:
A rather significant trend is gripping the United States in the way we go about giving birth to our children. More frequently are expectant mothers choosing to avoid the Hospital in favor at giving birth at home. Many different reasons bring about such a decision (high cost, lack of personalized care, etc.), but (like with anything) this is perhaps both a good thing and a bad thing.
One mother chose home birth because it was cheaper than going to a hospital. Another gave birth at home because she has multiple sclerosis and feared unnecessary medical intervention. And some choose home births after cesarean sections with their first babies.
Whatever their motivation, all are among a striking trend: Home births increased 20 percent from 2004 to 2008, accounting for 28,357 of 4.2 million U.S. births, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released in May.
White women led the drive, with 1 in 98 having babies at home in 2008, compared to 1 in 357 black women and 1 in 500 Hispanic women.
Sherry Hopkins, a Las Vegas midwife, said the women whose home births she's attended include a pediatrician, an emergency room doctor and nurses. "We're definitely seeing well-educated and well-informed people who want to give birth at home," she said.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which certifies OB-GYNs, warns that home births can be unsafe, especially if the mother has high-risk conditions, if a birth attendant is inadequately trained and if there's no nearby hospital in case of emergency. Some doctors also question whether a "feminist machoism" is at play in wanting to give birth at home.
But home birthers say they want to be free of drugs, fetal monitors, IVs and pressure to hurry their labor at the behest of doctors and hospitals.
Some home birthers cite concerns over cesarean sections. The U.S. rate of C-sections in hospitals hovers around 32 percent, soaring up to 60 percent in some areas. In some cases, there's a "too posh to push" mentality of scheduled inductions for convenience sake
Gina Crosley-Corcoran, a Chicago blogger and pre-law student, had a C-section with her first baby and chronicled nightmarish pressure from nurses and doctors to abandon a vaginal birth with her second. She followed up with a third child born at home in April.
"I do think there's a backlash against what's happening in hospitals," she said. "Women are finding that the hospital experience wasn't a good one."
By some accounts, in 1900, 95 percent of U.S. births took place at home. That slipped to half by 1938 and less than 1 percent by 1955.
A study in the British Medical Journal based on nearly 5,500 home births involving certified professional midwives in the United States and Canada. The study, considered one of the largest for home births, showed 88 percent had positive outcomes, while 12 percent of the women were transferred to hospitals, including 9 percent for preventive reasons and 3 percent for emergencies.
The study showed an infant mortality rate of 2 out of every 1,000 births, about the same as in hospitals at the time
This issue brings attention to several different problems facing us today.
The high (and rising) cost of health care, has led many to seek cheaper (and possibly more dangerous) alternatives to the exorbitant costs associated with most health care and hospital deliveries.
The lack of proper care in a hospital, as mothers are spending less and less time in hospitals after delivery as health care providers attest to the lack of need to stay more than a day or two. (One has to wonder whether or not this is motivated more by a financial reason as compared to the well-being of the mother.)
Are unnecessary C-Sections being pushed by hospitals for conveniences’ sake?
It is also interesting how many professional health care providers are joining this trend. I, like many, would prefer to do what the doctor does not just what he (or she) says.
Why are so many more white women doing this as compared to other minorities? Are white women given lesser quality care? Is care for a white woman more expensive? One could argue that white women tend to be more affluent and therefore have higher quality (or more likely to have) health insurance. Then why are they 3.5 times more likely than African-American women and 5 times more likely than Hispanic women to do so?
Why is the mortality rate (about 2 in every 1000 births) with home-births about the same as in hospitals? Shouldn’t the level of care be higher?
But, as noted in the article (and as any history teacher can attest), people have been having babies for thousands of years without the need of a hospital without the need for C-Sections. The article even points that out (5 percent in 1900). Do we really need (outside of complications of course) to continue to go to Hospitals?
Or has God / evolution done a good job of designing the process as it is?
(ORIGINAL LINK)
Home birth on the rise by a dramatic 20 percent - Yahoo! News
By: Don Caldwell
Are parents doing a worse job then they used to, or are we living in a less child-friendly society? What about both?
Excerpts italicized:
During an interview with the owner, patrons apparently favored this action 11 to 1, noting that most of the complaints came from other parents themselves looking to enjoy a quiet dinner….
The owner also notes that children have begun to become more disruptive due to lack of parenting.
A restaurant in western Pennsylvania says it's no longer allowing children under age 6.
McDain's Restaurant and Golf Center in Monroeville says the new policy will take effect July 16.
Restaurant owner Mike Vuick said there's "nothing wrong with babies, but the fact is you can't control their volume." He said all that screaming and crying disturbs many of his customers.
Some restaurant customers said they support Vuick's right to set rules that he thinks are best for his business. But others said they're offended by the policy.
Vuick said that children might be the center of their parents' universe, as it should be. But he says they're not the center of everyone else's universe too.
Do restaurants have the right to create the atmosphere they want? The people seem to have agreed with the actions of this particular restaurant, but what does that really say?
It generally seems as though kids are becoming less” well behaved” as parenting skills take a nosedive, but is this also a reflection on a society that is less family oriented?
In the western world, people are having fewer and fewer kids (per capita) which every passing year, and those same children are spending more and more time being raised by secondary care-givers ( i.e. day-care). One could argue that the lack of parenting (both in times spent with children, and with parenting style) has led to children becoming more “disruptive”.
If our children are (what most would consider…consciously) the most important things in the world, then why can we not give them the most important thing we have to give…our time?
(ORIGINAL LINK)
Noise Prompts Pennsylvania Restaurant to Ban Kids Under 6 - FoxNews.com
(VIDEO LINK)
Video Interview With PA Restaurant Owner - FoxNews.com
By: Don Caldwell
If someone was in danger of dying, would you stop and help?
Excerpts italicized:
An overloaded Russian passenger ship sank in a local river, killing many with many more missing. The worst part was that 2 ships just passed them by as the passengers and crew waved and (presumably) radioed for help.
Rescuers scoured the wide waters of a Volga River reservoir on Monday, searching with dimming hopes for survivors after an aged, overloaded cruise ship sank amid wind and rain. Nine people were confirmed dead, but more than 90 remained missing.
Exactly how many people were aboard the two-deck Bulgaria when it set off for a cruise on Sunday remains unclear but it was certain to be carrying more than its licensed maximum? Officials say anywhere from 185 to 196 people were aboard the ship that should have carried no more than 120.
Many children were aboard the boat, and Russian news reports cite survivors as saying about 50 children had gathered in the ship's entertainment hall shortly before it sank Sunday afternoon.
One survivor told the national news channel Vesti 24 that other ships refused to come to their aid.
"Two ships did not stop, although we waved our hands," said the man in his 40s, who stood on the shore amid weeping passengers, some of them wrapped in towels and blankets. He held another man, who was weeping desperately.
Did you think that something like this could not happen? Do you think something like this can happen here?
How many lives could have been saved if those two passing ships stopped to help?
So many of us would think that something like this could never happen, but it does every day. I mean, every time I see a movie or a TV show, they always stop and help. But how often do people really stop and help, how much do we really care about another person when we don’t have an audience watching us.
Maybe you thought they already called for assistance, or maybe you were running late. I would imagine the 2 passing ships just though the “sinking” ship just broke down and was stranded, and didn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility.
When was the last time you pulled over to stop and check on a car stranded on the side of the road?
What is the difference?
(ORIGNAL LINK)
9 Dead, More Than 90 Missing in Russian Ferry Sinking - FoxNews.com
By: Don Caldwell
How much is a Baby’s life worth?
Excerpts italicized:
A Fertilization clinic in the United Kingdom is offering free fertilization services to a few lucky winners (“Win a Baby”), and this has many people crying about how this belittles the value of children by making them something akin to a commodity…
A new lottery in the U.K. offering contestants the chance to “win a baby” through expensive in-vitro fertilization treatments is causing a stir.
The sweepstakes, run by the fertility charity To Hatch and set to launch this month, is drawing criticism by some ethical and medical groups who say it is “demeaning,” Reuters reports.
Some ethical and medical groups in Britain are outraged at this lottery. Britain's fertility regulator, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, said that this lottery was "wrong and entirely inappropriate," adding in a statement: "It trivializes what is for many people a central part of their lives," Reuters reported.
The founder and chair of the charity, Camille Strachan, told Reuters she wanted to create the "ultimate wish list" for those who are unable to conceive children.
If, as the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority states, children are “for many people a central part of their lives.”, then how can society condone so many of the things that threaten our children?
From fertilization clinics to abortion clinics, the “baby” industry is very much a profitable business. Various groups in the United Kingdom are upset that babies are being treated as a commodity, but are they any more or less a commodity than in the abortion industry? Many people instictivley know that we are all supposed to agree that a baby is “the most precious thing in the world” and all of that, but can you believe in that and still treat them as a commodity?
Can you believe babies to be so precious yet still support abortion? You can either see them as infinitely precious or as something significantly less (not saying that they are still not important to people).
You can’t have it both ways…at the very least it shows how society truly values human life (more than nothing…less than “precious”).
Don’t get me started on all of the toxic products that children are exposed to (children’s’ toys from China for example)
(ORIGINAL LINK)
Lottery to Win a Baby Sparks Controversy in Britain - FoxNews.com
