PITTSBURGH, PA -- I had an interesting discussion with a brother-in-law this morning. He claimed that Democrats (or, to be more accurate, liberals), were more generous than Republicans (i.e. conservatives). I contended, based on some stats that I recalled reading one time, that people from conservatives parts of the country gave much more to charities than the liberal parts of our nation.
The proof is in the pudding... check out the stats, notice how few blue states are listed in the top. Red states (states that Bush won in 2004) blow away their counterparts when it comes to generosity. 17 of the 20 "least generous" states are blue states that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states). What's really funny is that my brother-in-law's home state, Massachusetts, is at the bottom of the list, next to last.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone... blue and red!
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Happy Thanksgiving
I want to wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving.
For me, I am thankful that I am surrounded by awesome family, friends and clients.
I'm also thankful that every morning I get to wake up in a country where the fruits of my efforts knows no bounds and that I can speak my peace without fear of tyranny. For these things I am blessed.
God bless you all.
For me, I am thankful that I am surrounded by awesome family, friends and clients.
I'm also thankful that every morning I get to wake up in a country where the fruits of my efforts knows no bounds and that I can speak my peace without fear of tyranny. For these things I am blessed.
God bless you all.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Prescriptions drugs Part Dos
One of the things I've never understood are the patent laws as they pertain to the pharmaceutical industry.
The copyright for "Hey Jude", I believe is 99 years and yet patent protection for a pharmeceutical drug is 15 years, which means that the pharmeceutical companies are under extreme pressure to get out their drugs and, if necessary, promote additional uses of the drug.
I'm no apologist for the pharmceutical companies. If I have to see another commercial telling me there is a drug to cure my toe nail fungus, acid reflux, or for my right butt cheek that sags a little more than the left, I'm going to puke.
Nonetheless, I don't think there is an orchestrated conspiracy to poison the American public.
I remember a guy telling me head and shoulders shampoo made your hair fall out. My only response was if that was true, P&G couldn't sell me any more shampoo. What would be the motivation in that?
The copyright for "Hey Jude", I believe is 99 years and yet patent protection for a pharmeceutical drug is 15 years, which means that the pharmeceutical companies are under extreme pressure to get out their drugs and, if necessary, promote additional uses of the drug.
I'm no apologist for the pharmceutical companies. If I have to see another commercial telling me there is a drug to cure my toe nail fungus, acid reflux, or for my right butt cheek that sags a little more than the left, I'm going to puke.
Nonetheless, I don't think there is an orchestrated conspiracy to poison the American public.
I remember a guy telling me head and shoulders shampoo made your hair fall out. My only response was if that was true, P&G couldn't sell me any more shampoo. What would be the motivation in that?
Monday, November 20, 2006
Ending Poverty?
It makes me wonder what people are thinking when they say they want to "end" world-wide poverty.
Unless everyone in the world is earning the same amount of money and has the same quality of life, there will always be someone making less money and living is worse conditions than someone else. And even if we were able to set a world-wide, monetary benchmark to define what poverty is, and brought everyone's earnings up over that value, all that would do is requalify what equates to poverty. The word itself is too relative to even use on a world-wide scale: everyone would agree that living in poverty in the U.S. is a lot better than living in poverty in India. It's a waste of energy to even suggest that it's possible.
Now don't get me wrong... there's nothing wrong with trying to help and teach people to make a better living for themselves. But try to stop using meaningless, feel-good, cliches to describe it.
Unless everyone in the world is earning the same amount of money and has the same quality of life, there will always be someone making less money and living is worse conditions than someone else. And even if we were able to set a world-wide, monetary benchmark to define what poverty is, and brought everyone's earnings up over that value, all that would do is requalify what equates to poverty. The word itself is too relative to even use on a world-wide scale: everyone would agree that living in poverty in the U.S. is a lot better than living in poverty in India. It's a waste of energy to even suggest that it's possible.
Now don't get me wrong... there's nothing wrong with trying to help and teach people to make a better living for themselves. But try to stop using meaningless, feel-good, cliches to describe it.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Anti-medicine
Why do the liberal Democrats continually attack the pharmaceutical companies (i.e. big drug companies)? Like I mentioned in a previous post about oil companies -- there’s always going to be bad seeds in any industry. But, look at all the good that comes out of their line of work. They have saved or extended countless lives. They’ve improved the quality of life for countless more. They continue to look for ways to better people’s lives. But because they also make money doing it, they are frowned upon by the liberal Democrats.
One of the Democrats goals for next year’s session of Congress is to allow the federal government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. This is clearly a way to begin the road back towards federalized medicine, something Bill and Hillary Clinton already tried back in the early 1990’s.
The way I see it, if you remove the incentive of making money from the pharmaceutical industry, you will see less research, which will lead to fewer discoveries and fewer new medicines.
One of the Democrats goals for next year’s session of Congress is to allow the federal government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. This is clearly a way to begin the road back towards federalized medicine, something Bill and Hillary Clinton already tried back in the early 1990’s.
The way I see it, if you remove the incentive of making money from the pharmaceutical industry, you will see less research, which will lead to fewer discoveries and fewer new medicines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)