The Worthless Prize

When Alfred Nobel established the Nobel Prize in the 1901, he had one intention in mind: to reward excellence. It appears excellence has been replaced by mediocrity and even worse, popularity. If the most coveted prize the world has to offer is to be handed out like Halloween candy, it no longer deserves a noble name. It seems the "Ignoble" prize is more appropriate.

Racism Is Not Dissent

'Racist!' The recent outcry from the left in response to public dissent. Perhaps they are a bit confused, so we should clarify.

Main Entry: rac·ism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Main Entry: dis·sent
–verb (used without object)

1.to differ in sentiment or opinion, esp. from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often fol. by from): Two of the justices dissented from the majority decision.
2.to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.
3.to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.
–noun

4.difference of sentiment or opinion.
5. dissenting opinion.
6. disagreement with the philosophy, methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government.
7. separation from an established church, esp. the Church of England; nonconformity.

One considers given individuals to be subjects of an opinion. The other sets an opinion against the subjection of one individual to that of another, whether it be one, few, or many.

Colonists were considered subjects to the royal authority among the British loyalists. The loyalists were not quite racist, but the general opinion certainly reflects racist ideology.

A lack of dissent may lead to unrestrained power; the minority at the mercy of "well-intentioned" leaders. However, as history has taught us, good intentions differ from person-to-person.

Legal Protection: A National Crisis

The following is my commentary regarding an excellent point brought about in an Opinion article from the Wall Street Journal:



The legal industry is in complete disarray. Individual citizens charged for a crime are not provided the 'best possible' legal protection, so 'change' must ensue within the entire field of law. The current problem is not merely one of bad lawyers, but includes all of the administrative factors and practices that are currently undertaken as common practice. The solution? A complete legal industry reform led exclusively by a doctor panel. Doctors fix problems associated with the human mind and body, and since it was the human mind that created jurisprudence and body that built the US court system, than doctors are the ideal choice to lead the overhaul of the legal system. The physician panel will convene once a month to discuss issues pertaining to the courtroom, litigation process, legal advertisement, legal records, and contingency fees. Next, they decide on those that will work quickest to better the current system and take action on their plan. Lawyers may know how to win an argument but their inability to understand the human mind, makes them secondary to doctors for a systematic legal change. Besides, lawyers have been provided sufficient time to fix the serious issue of 'poor protection' so it is time for them adhere to the direction of the physician panel, which will set the terms of legal practice and turn it around once and for all.

We have finally reached a turning point in this crisis, for New York City radiologist Dr. Rafal offers a viable solution. He is listed as a top candidate who will successfully lead the Doctor's Panel of Legal Overview(DPLO) to 'cure' the disorder that has enveloped the US legal system.

-MFE

Milton Friedman on Healthcare

Are healthcare costs a problem? Depends on who you ask. Arguments from both sides of the spectrum argue a government "do more" approach countered by a "do-nothing" approach. Both are somewhat correct, but not to the degree that they would initially presume. Presently, there are two ways to limit the costs of healthcare: complete government control or no government control. The former does so at the cost of innovation and medical technology, with personal responsibility placed in the hands of our representatives. While the latter reduces costs while exponentially expanding innovation/technology yet places the ball in our court to be more responsible with our decisions.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman decribes...which do you prefer?

-MFE