Porn The Vote

First and foremost let me say that I am American/Iranian and very proud of my Persian heritage. Unfortunately because of the turmoil in Iran, my family was never able to visit the country. My father has only been able to visit in recent years because as a young doctor, his American citizenship was not recognized and he would have been drafted into the Shah’s army. 

It was unusual occurrence to have Persian American unions when my parent’s married, so when I was born, my birth announcement was the front of the local news. I grew up around many Persian relatives and friends and understand the culture, traditions and lifestyle. Many immigrants during that time, from different countries wanted so badly to be American citizens, that they rejected their own cultures and languages and teaching them to their children. The consequence of that is that I don’t speak Farsi. 

Just because I am half Persian certainly doesn’t make me an authority on the politics of Iran. I am grateful that I have been exposed and educated to the culture of my father as the insight keeps me from being bigoted. Ignorance and propaganda lead to hatred of other people all over the world. 

So here is my take on the election in Iran. Corruption and recounting votes seems to be the trend of all elections these days. From what I understand, this is really a family battle between two families in Iran, almost like a mafia type scenario one would see in New York City in the 1960’s. 

Mamoud Ahmadinejad (the incumbent president) supposedly won 63% of the votes and Mir Hossein Mousavi won 33%. Rafsanjani, Chairman of the Expediency Council resigned and Mousavi was placed on house arrest after the election and the protests of corruption occurred. The support of the Ayatollah’s in the Holy City of Qom are essential for the election to be successful. Iran is already having a civil war; with a possible coup de tat, this situation will only get worse. The majority of the younger population is progressive and any oppressed people want freedom, hence the violent protests. 

As far as the United States involvement with Iran, we would ultimately like to be friends and allied with Iran. Our friendship to Israel coupled with Ahmadinejad’s antisemitism prevents this possiblity. The problems of the middle east are ancient, spiritual and deeply personal. Our involvement is strategically essential for several reasons, one being oil supply. A solution and answer for this is not an easy one. World peace? Bah  humbug! That is like saying one day there won’t be power struggles, war, greed, and all cardinal sins. It is human nature to err.

The City of Palm Beach is passing an ordinance to apply a curfew for teenagers under 18 years old. Evidently, teenagers are hanging out in droves on Climatis street until late hours of the night. I say “Thank You” to the city officials enacting this law. 

Now the problem starts with a parent who is fighting for the teens first amendment rights and is suing the city. As a parent who raised a teenager that was not allowed to loiter in public places, or watch MTV or South Park, I find this parent sending a bad message. 

Teenagers are difficult people. Their hormones are flying everywhere and they are fighting between becoming adults and being dependent financially. The teens that act out the most are the ones who need the most guidance and restrictions. What are the consequences when teenagers  hang out on a street that has bars and restaurants? I will tell you what…trouble. Teenagers need adults to guide and discipline them so they can be prepared to be responsible adults. Maybe this hostile parent(s) can start a teen club where these energetic teens can network in a safe environment. 

I don’t know about the rest of you, but as an adult, I want to walk down the streets of my downtown and not be concerned about unsupervised youth running wild.

Persia Monir 

PornThe Vote! Send your comments!

Where are our congressmen, our govenors, our President? The politicians do such a great job of taking off their sport coats, rolling up their white collar sleeves and loosening their ties while campaigning. Smiling, preaching, rubbing elbows with people in the community. These things give the American public hope; hope that we will vote genuine leaders into office that will change bad policies. 

Our United States is becoming an impoverished, third world country. We seem to elect these egomaniacal Presidents that weakly delegate while visualizing how they will make a mark in history. What about the unemployed and starving Americans on the street? 

Roll your sleeves up Mr. Governor, Mr. Congressman, Mr. President! Feel our pain. Gas prices are climbing, people and the Banks are hoarding money. You are our leaders! 

The solution is simple. Reach out to your neighbor, carry a bag of apples in your car to hand to the homeless, and go shopping at least once a week before the dollar diminishes to dust! 

Comments are encouraged. Please Porn The Vote!

Persia Monir

The purpose of treating mentally ill persons is to restore them to a functional level of sanity.  Prisons not only fail to achieve this goal, but prisoners are defined as beyond any hope of rehabilitative redemption by the very officials who have suggested building prisons for the mentally ill!  We have here a very clear per-formative contradiction.  Or at the very least, an example of Orwellian double-speak.

Pursuant to the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice Chapter 23 - Legal Status of Prisoners - Standard 23-4.3 Availability of Rehabilitative Programs, I quote, “Corrections Authorities after consultation with the Prisoners and consideration of their records, should determine the types of rehabilitative programs, including self-improvement and educating programs, that will benefit them, and should thereafter seek to provide access to as many such programs as feasible, either by establishing such programs or by contracting with outside agencies or individuals for such services.”

Please note that “should”, unlike “shall”, is not mandatory language.  Officials are not obligated to comply with “shoulds”.  That said, if officials were at all interested in rehabilitating not only the mentally ill, but inmates in general, they would seem to be inclined to providing the types of programs recommended by the American Bar Association.  In practice, the Department displays no such inclination and, in fact, makes every effort to work against such rehabilitation.

Consequently, one must ask, why then, would officials want to build more prisons for the mentally ill?  What purpose is served?  Put bluntly, the objectives are to merely warehouse the mentally ill, manage them via psycho-pharmacology to treat their root problems.  Remember, officials have asserted that prisoners cannot be rehabilitated. 

True prisons for the mentally ill would be very costly to construct and operate.  The Florida tax payer would be stuck footing the bill with minimal or no commensurate return on invested tax dollars.  The only cure here is a superficial and geographical one.  Out of sight may be out of mind, but it does nothing to practically address the problems that are caused by mental illness, and not by criminal behavior.  Once these facilities are filled, then what?  It does not eliminate the mentally ill from society.  More mentally ill persons will take their place.  Do they propose more prisons to house the mentally ill?  Almost certainly.  Where does it end?  When, if I may pun on the subject matter, does any sense of sanity begin to assert itself and prevail?

Currently, the Florida Department of Corrections operates numerous prisons that are designated for the mentally ill who may also require medication.  I mentioned Washington Correctional Institution in the first part of this blog.  Other such facilities include Apalachacolla C.I., Jefferson C.I., Union C.I., Tomoka C.I., Zephyr Hills C.I., Lake C.I., Dade C.I., amongst others.  Some of these facilities are better than Washington, a few are dismal, most are worse.  None successfully treat mental illness.  Why build still more prisons for the mentally ill, when those that already exist are failures?

Nearly ten years ago, a former DOC staff member Connie Schenk wrote a detailed report for the Florida Senate Criminal Justice Committee, detailing the systematic failures of mental health problems caused by hostile prison administrations at Taylor C.I., Liberty C.I. and others.

Ms. Schenk is a medical doctor and psychologist.  Her chilling report reveals how abusive corrections staff are towards inmates in general, and mentally ill inmates in particular.  Ms. Schenk became the target of Institutional Administrative ire because of her attempt to do her job properly.  She tried to treat the mentally ill inmates in her care, and to protect them from the deprivations and abuses of sadistically motivated prison employees.  As a result, she was run out of her job by coworkers who had turned on her.  Blowing the whistle got her ostracized and silenced.

Worse, after receipt of Ms. Schenk’s detailed and objective report, the Florida State Senate Criminal Justice Committee did absolutely nothing to address the issues raised by Ms. Schenk.  In fact she was dismissed as a disgruntled former employee!  She was punished for attempting to do what was morally right. 

Now not only must we question why the state wishes to build several new prisons for the mentally ill, we must also ask how we can bring the prisons that already exist to treat mentall ill prisoners into functional compliance with their designated purpose.  This will be the subject of the next part of my blog.  To be continued…

Michael Wachter

mw452002@gmail.com

Prisons for the Mentally Ill ( Part I )

By Michael Wachter

This has never been tried before, and it may take time for it to be explored as a practical means to expose medical negligence, malpractice and violations of state and federal laws in Florida prisons. To be continued…

Michael Wachter

 mwachter452002@gmail.com

Banning embryonic stem cell research is necessary for both ethical and practical reasons.  Ethically it is necessary because obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of the embryo, and would very likely lead to embryo farming to acquire such stem cells.  Creating life merely to destroy it to reap more stem cells is beyond the pale of acceptable ethics and arguably a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.

From a practical point of view, negligible results or none at all have been obtained using embryonic stem cells.  Consequently, it is logical and ethically imperative to direct research and attention to the practices yielding positive treatment results.  Otherwise researchers begin to act with a lack of not only ethics, by which they are bound, but also a lack of sanity by Einsteinian definition.  Einstein pointed out that insanity becomes evident when one repeats over and over again the same process while desperately hoping for a different result.  Embryonic stem cell research is thus, by definition, insane.

Some facts about stem cell research are:

•  Not one single positive result has been achieved using embryonic stem cells, unless you consider cancer a positive result, which HAS happened!
• The use of adult stem cells has proven successful in treating 70 diseases, ranging from auto-immune to Type 2 Diabetes.
• Embryonic stem cells are valued because they are pluri-potent, however, scientists can now take adult human cells and reprogram them from being merely multi potent, and make them pluri-potent.  These are called IPS Cells (Induced Pluripotent Cells).  They are made by taking one human multi-potent cell and simply introducing four genes into the nucleus.  The result is indistinguishable, you just don’t get the satisfaction of killing babies this way.

This makes me wonder why President Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research.  Maybe he is a big fan of cancer.

To suggest that embryonic stem cells will yield miracle results, and continuing to experiment when no valuable results have been reaped, is just a waste of time, research funds, and above all, a betrayal of the ill and the infirm.  Especially when these researchers are ignoring the fact that regular stem cells and umbilical cord T-cells are generating stunning results in treating Parkinson’s, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Nerve and Brain Damage, amongst others.

Passing a law banning fetal/embryonic stem cell research would enforce ethical practice, as well as utilize scientists for the research of non-embryonic cells.  Medical practitioners and researchers who are working with stem cells must be encouraged to follow viable paths that result in positive medical advances.

Comments? Please post a response, or email me at mwachter452002@gmail.com

Michael Wachter

One would think that during difficult economic times in a nation that city and government officials would be the first to initiate cash flow in the community. EXXXOTICA Miami 2009 was held at the Miami Convention Center this past weekend. The admission price was $45.00 a head and more if you wanted a VIP pass. A bottle of water or soda was $4.00 and a very, flavorless sandwich started at $10.00. The exhibitors at these shows pay thousands, not hundreds for a display booth. After the overhead to get in, the public cannot afford to purchase items for sale if they wanted to!!!! The merchant’s efforts to advertise and sell goods are sabotaged by the cities greed. How can we survive these times if cities like Miami continue to take from main street and not create cash flow in the marketplace???? The adult shows are shrinking because of this example. I am glad that I don’t have a youngster that would want to attend a sporting event in Miami. It must cost hundreds to take children to a ball game these days. TSSSSkkkkkk! TsssssKKKKKK!

Persia Monir

Nadya Suleman giving birth to octuplets raises a number of questions concerning the point at which ethical parameters begin to caution restraint.  Simply because the technology exists to do something, should that be done?

Science has achieved stunning advances in technology.  Unfortunately, as technology has rapidly expanded, the moral and ethical values that would inhibit unchecked use of technologies has seemed to contract.  Our core human values, our decency and sensitivity, out ability to recognize the need of boundaries and limits are taken over by the arrogant assumption that we are Gods by right of our ability to perform awesome feats of technology.

Nowhere is this more self evident that in the case of Nadya Suleman’s octuplets.  The creation of life has been hijacked by fertility doctors whose arrogance goes beyond audacity, with the assumption that they can act in defiance of natural order.  This is a terrifying delusion of grandeur.  The “Gods of Science” do not possess consciences that recognize moral and ethical restraint in committing acts of loftiness.  We are not Gods, only irresponsible humans playing with power we have no business meddling with.

Towards the end of World War II we discovered how to weaponize our ability to split the atom.  We created the very weapons of mass destruction in which we are now so frightened that Iran, or some other Islamic State, will use against us.  Sixty-five years later, we are no more able to responsibly use the technology we create.  We discover it is possible to do something and we absolutely must do that something, regardless of the consequences.  We may delude ourselves by thinking we act with the power of God, but we are, in our manners and morals, only spoiled, petulant, selfish children.

Despite the public outcry and outrage at Nadya Suleman’s irresponsibility, and at her doctor’s complete lack of ethical restraint, this debacle will soon be forgotten.  We are so desensitized and accustomed to such shocks.  Once the initial amazement wears off, it almost seems normal.  Or it will certainly seem so, once the next outrage, which will inevitably occur, eclipses this one. Doesn’t it worry you? Anyone?

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

I can appreciate Mr. Wachter’s study and fact finding. Each to his own opinion. I happen to be an Obama fan and I believe that he is a gentleman with solid values and compassion for the human race. I am pro-choice as I stated in my blog yesterday. Mr. Wachter’s rhetoric in reference to President Obama’s statements on abortion are twisted to support his own anti-abortion viewpoint. I seriously doubt President Obama would condone harm to people black or white. 

Persia Monir

During the Saddleback Forum, while campaigning for the Presidency, in response to the query, “At what point does a baby get human rights?”, Barack Obama responded, “Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

If I were confronted with a delicate question that I felt I were unable to answer because it exceeded my competence, I would remain neutral in regard to that question and not attempt to tinker with it, or the machinery surrounding it.  Not so Barack Obama.

From my perspective, President Obama’s response to the question was disingenuous and deceptive.  Had Obama answered the question truthfully, it seems to me that his response would have been, “I don’t care.”  Obama’s record in the senate votes show him favoring abortion 100%.

What I find truly astonishing about President Obama’s election, is the fact that approximately 98% of black voters voted for him.  In spite of the fact that his support of abortion supports a practice that disproportionately affects Blacks.  Over 1,200 Black abortions occur daily in the United States.

More to the point, black women constitute approximately 13 percent of the female population, ages 15 to 44 in the United States.  This group undergoes approximately 36 percent of all abortions performed in the U.S. each year.    * (statistics referred to available at the www.blackgenocide.org website)

Abortion has killed far more Blacks than the Ku Klux Klan ever lynched.  And this is a practice that President Obama supports absolutely!  While Obama evaded responding to the question of when a baby gains human rights, he had no problem at all promising his unwavering support for Planned Parenthood, giving them his promise to keep abortion legal and to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  Should this act become law, it would remove existing restrictions on abortion (e.g. on partial birth abortions).  It would also seriously compromise and/or remove conscience clause provisions protecting medical personnel from participating in practices they find morally or ethically objectionable, and, in effect, impose upon every American Citizen President Obama’s opinion that abortion is a fundamental right that women are entitled to.

President Obama would do this, despite the findings of a recent poll conducted by Harris Interactive, and sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which found the following results to reflect the opinions of the citizens he represents:

• That 72% of those surveyed strongly support/somewhat support that abortion providers inform women of potential risks to their health posed by abortion, and about alternatives to abortion.
• That 59% of those surveyed support laws requiring giving parents the chance to be involved in their minor daughters decision to seek an abortion.
• That 58% of those surveyed support laws that protect doctors and nurses from being forced to perform, or refer patients for, abortions against their will.
• That 53% of those surveyed were against partial birth abortion.
• That 47% of those surveyed were in favor of laws that prevent the use of tax payer funds for paying for abortions.

While Mark Twain once defined the three greatest lies as being the lie, the damn lie, and the statistics, there remains value nonetheless, in surveys as a barometer for measuring public opinion.  Where abortion is concerned, a majority of the public clearly does not support unrestricted access to abortion, which will be the result of the Freedom of Choice Act.

U.S.A Today on Thursday, January 22, 2009 printed a letter from Debbie Adkins of Roanoke Virginia, in which Ms. Adkins wrote, “I did not vote for a black President.  I voted for the man who I am sure can get us back to where we as Americans belong.”  While Ms. Adkins claims she did not vote for a black President, it is very obvious that 98% of black voters did.

In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that people will “Judge on what you can build, not what you can destroy.”  In the context of his speech, this observation was reference to terrorists, and terrorism.  However, I would assert it applies equally to President Obama’s position on abortion, which does not reflect the feelings of the majority of Americans he now represents, nor does it amount to a victory for the Blacks who voted for a black President, who, by his own actions, is a greater threat to his own people than White’s ever were, or ever will be.

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com