Thursday, November 29, 2012

America's new morality



America’s new morality


 Acceptable levels of morality changed dramatically as the new millennium passed its first decade. Marriage once relegated to a man and woman found new meaning in laws enacted in nine states, with Maryland’s recent addition to this group. With same-sex marriage firmly accepted in these jurisdictions it is only a matter of time before the nation is pushed in the same direction. More recently, morality took another hit with changes in current thought concerning Marijuana usage. Eighteen states have decriminalized and or legalized this psychoactive pharmaceutical before the 2012 election. Colorado and the State of Washington went further by embedding into law the recreational use of small amounts of this drug. In these states someone 21 or older can go to a designated vendor and purchase one ounce of this mind-altering chemical. The unintended consequences of more pervasive usage of this weed, such as auto accidents, may cause these laws to be revisited in the near future. Not to be out done, the transgender and transsexual crowd decided that laws already in place do not protect them from discrimination. This group wants a set of laws carved out to improve their stance in any social or work setting. For example, a male dressed in female attire: should he use the male or female dressing room. Similarly, which bathroom would be appropriate for such individuals to use. Complex issues require complex answers with gender identity moving to the top of lawmakers’ list.   Where does society draw the line when challenged by issues that traditionalists find vulgar, indecent or outright irrational? Thirty-seven states, to their credit, have language in their Constitutions or other legal doctrine defining marriage as a heterosexual union. Are traditionalists wrong in attempting to obstruct the evolution of these segments of society so they will be perceived to be on equal footing with the rest of us? Nature found it biologically inconvenient to pair animals of the same-sex because of the obvious inability to propagate. Mankind has chosen a similar path knowing its future existence is at stake. Therefore laws were created to perpetuate and protect heterosexual unions, not the reverse. Those in same-sex partnerships or with gender identity concerns would naturally challenge the traditional basis for this rationale. Yet that very same rationale has successfully led this society into the future we are now living. Morality is contingent on standards established by a society in its entirety, not a subsegment of it. In 2012, those with gender identity issues will continue to prod politicians to give their concerns an airing and that may come soon. Gay marriage is making in-roads in legislative houses, but only the most progressive ones have given the go ahead for such unions. State Marijuana, laws reducing sanctions and penalties come in direct conflict with their federal counterparts. The question is: have states gone too far or not far enough remains for one our finer judges to determine. Mark Davis, MD.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Privacy may not be so private anymore

Privacy may not be so private anymore


Complex issues that surround the most recent scandals in Washington question whether the government has the right to review private emails. FBI has diligently reviewed the private emails of General Petraeus and a woman said to be his paramour. As this scandal spreads revelations that the privacy of many may have been violated by a government agency that is overreaching. Information to date notes that the FBI had no court order to check the Petraeus’ emails nor of other people involved, some yet to be identified. The question arises are our emails and other digital communications safe. For the last 5 days all spectrums of the media have debated this point with a consensus agreeing that privacy has been redefined in this digital age. In defense of FBI, former agents have noted that protocols require this agency to check emails where national security may be at risk. Classified documents have been found in the computer of General Petraeus’ paramour. Three days after the election it was determined the origins of these documents could not be traced to the former CIA director. Can your emails be gleaned for data at the will of a government agency? This issue becomes quasi in nature do to a number of issues. The Patriot Acted signed into law one month after the Twin Towers fell gives the government expansive abilities to monitor emails. One caveat is built into the law that requires several levels of approval for monitoring unless an extreme emergency exists. America’s newest government bureaucracy, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) also has power, under certain circumstances, to monitor your electronic mail. Software exists that can select out key words and phrases, that may be of a threatening nature, is utilized across the social media including emails. In the event a threat is perceived further investigation may be warranted.  Emails of all Americans including high ranking government officials, can be lawfully reviewed, without the knowledge of the writer as the law presently stands. No one should be surprised this is occurring because the nation lives under a level of fear not felt since the days of the Cold War. Becareful how you construct your emails, more than one person may be reading them. Mark Davis, MD

Thursday, November 8, 2012

2012 Election: Did anybody really win

2012 election: Did anybody really win


Prevailing notions that Obama had a clean sweep in the Electoral process may not be accurate. There was nothing clean about his assault on the opposing candidate. Campaign rhetoric usually takes on a vicious tone as Election Day approaches. Unfortunately, the democrats put their message before the public in a manner that sinks to new lows, for a president who wanted to retain power at all costs. Accusations that Romney was a murderer, a racist, a homophobe, a job killer, insensitive to the needs of the poor, anti-motherhood, a religious intolerant are but a few of the claims levied from the Obama camp against a very decent man. One of the strangest commercials, run by the democrats, was a young woman describing who she would like as her first sex partner, somehow relating that event to voting for Obama. Too many references are available describing the indecencies perpetrated by an Administration that was desperate to retain power.


Romney’s laid back casual approach to politics did not attract the groups necessary to garner sufficient votes for his drive to the White House. Hispanics were not moved by his staunch aversion to allow illegals to roam the ranges of America unhindered by the law. Birth control became an issue when women were demanding free medications under Obamacare and Romney sided with the churches against this issue. Soccer moms were aloof from the Romney message perhaps because of his wealth or perceived detachment from his own children. Afro Americans had mixed feelings about his faith, wealth and most important his minimal campaigning amongst them. Romney’s message was clear, succinct and forward-looking but most wanted to keep the status quo alive. Many dependent on the government saw Romney as the person who would turn-off the financial spigot, leaving them with an uncertain future. Romney did not lose because he was a bad candidate. He lost because he was too good for those who have become accustomed to a free ride through government offerings. Obama was their man, full of hope and a lot of change for their pockets. The question did anybody really win on Election Day? The answer is a resounding no. Four more years of bad energy policies, an out of control EPA, health legislation that does not fulfill its stated intentions, schools on a downward slope, ongoing reductions in our military capacities, more redistribution of wealth, a foreign policy in tatters and more. America lost on November 6, 2012 and tyranny won. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Maryland's questionable questions: should you vote for them

Maryland’s questionable questions: should you vote for them


Question 4 takes Marylanders into the World of illegal immigration. This question is written in such a manner, one becomes dizzy after scanning it. Offering “illegal residents of the state” reduced tuition in 4 year colleges based on a list of criteria that would make sophists proud. These criteria note the illegal student must be filing income tax returns, graduated from a Maryland high school, registered with selective service system and accumulated 60 credit hours in a community college. Illegals are just that illegal. Does the liberal O’Malley administration want us to believe these illegals are registering for selective service and filing not necessarily paying income taxes? Maryland has a great heart when it comes to the down and out. The state’s insatiable treasury continues to raise fees, taxes, tolls and more to fund illegals in high schools, colleges and sundry other programs.  Why would anyone with a sound mind support a government that admits through its activities they are acting outside Maryland and Federal Law? Please read Question 4 closely, the money you save may be your own.

Question 6 moves gay unions into the realm of marriage legitimatizing their coupling into law. A key proviso of this intended question provides for certain protections of the clergy in the event they refuse to perform such ceremonies. This politically charged question divides Marylanders into two groups, the yays and the nays, of which this writer is the latter. Any legal argument generated by the gay and lesbian crowd for a marriage certificate can be countered with laws already embedded in Maryland statue giving them certain rights they seek. To redefine marriage redefines history, theology, biology and many other related topics. This is one question that a person will have to dig deep into his or her soul to decide. Medias’ convoluted perspective on this subject side steps many issues against this question. Before casting your ballot one way or the other, review this question thoroughly, the core of the country still sides against this issue.

Question 7 assumes that Marylanders have a pervasive level of ignorance. During the reign of Governor Bob Ehrlich gambling was cast in the media as evil. Tens of thousands would become addicted to these one arm bandits. Families would be destroyed and so forth. When the democrats took over the reins of the governorship, all the purported arguments against gambling vanished! Commercials running every ten minutes detail a state government that will collapse unless gaming expansion occurs. Children will not be educated if this question fails to pass. Jobs will be lost to neighboring states and a host of calamities will befall Maryland without more slots, more casinos and table games. The truth I noted in another article, Maryland’s deceptive casino ads, remains the truth. There is no legislation on the books or pending requiring casino money to be utilized for education. Adding more casinos dilutes revenues from those facilities already functioning. The lie that jobs will be fleeing to other states is just that a lie. My question is: who will build these new houses of gambling? Out of state workers, illegals or closed shop unions most likely will make the bucks. From every angle this law is perceived, Marylanders will not see the benefits purported by the state and their deceptive ads. When deciding on Question 7 ask your out of work friends or family members if they will have a chance at these new jobs. I would bet the house that most would say no. Mark Davis MD President of Healthnets Review Services,