DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Pain and unhealthy levels of inflammation are fast becoming default bodily states in the industrialized world. While in most cases we can adjust the underlying pro-inflammatory conditions by altering our diet, and reducing stress and environmental chemical exposures, these approaches take time, discipline and energy, and sometimes we just want the pain to stop now. In those, often compulsive moments, we find ourselves popping an over-the-counter pill to kill the pain.
The problem with this approach is that, if we do it often enough, we may kill ourselves along with the pain...
Take ibuprofen as an example. This petrochemical-derivative has been linked to significantly increased risk of heart attack and increased cardiac and all-cause mortality (when combined with aspirin), with over two dozen serious adverse health effects, including:
Anemia[1]
DNA Damage[2]
Hearing Loss[3]
Hypertension[4]
Influenza Mortality[5]
Miscarriage[6]
Ibuprofen is, in fact, not unique in elevating cardiovascular disease risk and/or mortality. The entire category of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) appears to have this under-recognized dark side; of the 100 unintended adverse health effects associated with their use, cardiovascular disease and cardiac mortality score highest on the list.
So, what does one do? Pain is pain. Whether it happens to you, or you witness it in another (which can be worse), finding relief is a top priority.
In November, Americans will have a chance to speak their minds.
And there's one thing everyone should agree on:
America just isn't working right now.
It's not just Americans who aren't working. It's America itself, a country whose economy once worked for almost everyone, not just the rich.
In the old America, if you worked hard, you had a good chance of moving up.
In the old America, the fruits of people's labors accrued to the whole country, not just the top.
In the old America, there was a strong middle class, and their immense collective purchasing power drove the economy for decades.
No longer.
Over the past couple of decades, the disparity between "the 1%" and everyone else has hit a level not seen since the 1920s. And there is a widespread and growing sense that life here is not fair or right.
If America cannot figure out a way to fix these problems, the country will likely become increasingly polarized and de-stabilized. And if that happens, the recent "Occupy" protests will likely be only the beginning.
The problem in a nutshell is this:
In the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
And that's not just unfair.
It's un-American.
Pipes draining directly from the WWTP into the Wicomico River.
Man made stream with 2 Cat diesel generators pumping water from the Plant to the River.
The above image shows what happens when you pump sludge into a River.
The above image shows piles of human feces stored with NO liner, (by law) drying out in an area the MDE was completely unaware of. The City was fined $10,000.00.
The above is the notorious "sludge pit" that was illegal and had a liner in it that was guaranteed for 30 DAYS and was in there for 20+ years. The pit was the size of a football field and whenever there were heavy rains the pit would over flow into the Wicomico River. The City was forced to remove it.
The above shows sand bags attempting to stop the sludge from exiting the pit and down the hill to the river.
Looking at the above image you can see the Plant in the upper right hand corner. The MDE was NOT aware of the illegal activity going on at the Plant because it was being done in a wooded area center of the picture. This is an image I took from a Plane but believe me, when your on the ground level you would have had NO idea it was there. A small road took you back to that area where the MDE wasn't welcome.
Once the City was forced to remove the sludge pit, the image above shows the actual sludge in huge dumpsters with plastic liners on top. 
If your looking for some great entertainment, come to the Melson Power Show tomorrow night. I will be there with friends and we'd love to meet you in person, face to face.
What will you do with your children for the summer now that school is out?As The New York Times would put it, when in 1996 "President Bill Clinton delivered on his pledge to 'end welfare as we know it'...he signed into law a bill forcing recipients to work and imposing a five-year limit on cash assistance." Back then this supposedly cruel deed was one "Hillary Rodham Clinton supported." The Times says that "some accused the Clintons of throwing vulnerable families to the winds in pursuit of centrist votes as Mr. Clinton headed into the final stages of his re-election campaign."
Now, just consider the way the Times words all this. By ending parts of the welfare state, the bill amounted to "forcing recipients to work," etc. That is like claiming that when one no longer provides support to certain people who become accustomed to getting it, one is "forcing them to fend for themselves." In fact, of course, it was the government that was forcing all those it taxes to support the recipients in the first place and with the bill in 1996 it finally lessened the load on them. Taxation is what amounts to deploying force against people. Welfare is a form of coercive support. But support should never be coerced but provided only voluntarily by fellow citizens to those who are in need of it.
But for The New York Times − and this is in a news report, not an editorial opinion − withdrawing some of this forced transfer counts as forcing people to work! But nothing forces anyone to work other than the fact that one needs to earn a living, needs to feed and clothe oneself. It is, to put it bluntly, reality that applies the force. It wasn't Bill Clinton, Congress, or the supportive First Lady.
Here is a good case of journalistic bias which is disguised within a so-called straight news report. By wording the "report" as The New York Times did, the newspaper's editors and writers tried to make it appear that those who aimed for the contraction of the massive welfare system were perpetrating some kind of oppressive action against welfare recipients. But this just isn't so.
