Occasionally, someone of influence brings forth an idea that is so moronic that I have to deviate from the discussion of pure finance, economics or market movements and just rant. Based on his recent antics and promotion of his upcoming socialist agenda train wreck titled “Sicko”, we’d be better off living in Cuba and letting the government manage our healthcare.

Of the themes Michael Moore has espoused during his recent promotional tours, the most egregious is that "America's health care system should be regulated like fire and police departments because it’s that important".

At a press conference before the California Senate Health Committee, Moore said “I’m pushing for three simple things”:

1. Health care for every American and person residing in this country, 2. Remove the profit making insurance companies from the equation, and 3. I want the pharmaceutical companies strictly regulated like a public utility.

Regarding point #1 - Michael Moore rightly highlights the plights of everyday people who don't have adequate access to healthcare. This is certainly unfortunate; I can't imagine not being able to get my children the health care they need. But nothing is free in this world, someone pays. In this free market that is America, citizens strive to work for a renowned company with solid health benefits. If their employer doesn't offer adequate health benefits, they're free to seek employment with a company that does. If their skills are not commensurate with this type of accoutrement, they have opportunities to improve their skill sets via the best secondary eduction system in the world. This is perhaps an oversimplification, but moves to FORCE employers to fund health care are inappropriate intrusions on free market forces, especially on small and mid-size businesses. A fair number of these uninsured at the Walmarts and other low-cost employers of the world are younger workers covered under their parents' plans or are adults under a spouse's plan. I'm a shareholder in a lot of companies that may not offer health benefits that their employees find to be suitable. Should I have to fund their healthcare through my investment holdings in broad market index funds? I don't see how this is a government mandate that is appropriate, whereas worker safety and harrassment policies, etc. are appropriate.

There are safety nets in this country for the disabled, infirmed and impoverished. I'm sure gaps exist that will appear in the movie and my heart goes out to those people who can't get the same care that is available to my family, but the system is working for the vast majority of legal citizens. In fact, it services a substantial population of illigal residents; I will be interested to see how Mr. Moore proposes the "government" services the current 12-20 million illegal residents (with hundreds of thousands per year still crossing the Mexican border each year - and accelerating with talk of amnesty). As it stands now, any citizen is generally provided emergency service without having to provide insurance or personal identification. Again, there are exceptions, and I'm sure they're highlighted in the movie, like when a man has to chose between which severed finger to keep based on the additional cost to bring in a special surgical team from another locale.

Regarding some other countries Mr. Moore praises, France may supply their constituents with guaranteed 35-hour workweeks, lifelong employment and free access to healthcare, but their unemployment rate is double what it is in America. Do you know how hard it is to start a business in France? Do you know how much sleep an employer loses over hiring an employee there? No matter how bad they are, it will be next to impossible to dismiss them. As evidenced by the recent riots throughout the countryside, France isn't exactly paradise either - class distinctions exist there. There is no perfect solution that will satisfy everyone.

Cuba...that's an entirely different world. Without delving into the obvious, the pristine hospitals and convenient Rxs dispensed for pennies were certainly not representative of the type of treatment available to routine citizens in Cuba. Cuban dissident groups and journalists that have been to Cuba have reported horrid conditions in hospitals and sub-par health care in general. Was the visit to the locale in the film completely random? Would it have made the cut for the movie if the conditions weren't so immaculate? I don't know; perhaps after the movie, more will surface on this detail like some past documentaries.

Regarding Mr. Moore's affinity for Cuba, attached are some sentiments from the CIA Factbook:

"Current situation: Cuba is a source country for women and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced child labor; Cuba is a major destination for sex tourism, which largely caters to European, Canadian, and Latin American tourists and involves large numbers of minors; there are reports that Cuban women have been trafficked to Mexico for sexual exploitation; forced labor victims also include children coerced into working in commercial agriculture.

Tier rating: Tier 3 - Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so."

Way to go, Mr. Moore, in glorifying this wonderful Utopia!

Regarding point #2 - The insurance companies are an easy target in today's world of denied claims, Katrina stories and the like. The current health insurance system isn't perfect, but to suggest turning it over to the government is like forcing UPS and FedEx to yield to the U.S. Postal Service. While these entrepreneurial services are able to deliver our packages quickly, inexpensively and intact, the U.S. postal service continues to raise costs annually, use tax-payer dollars to advertise their services to compete, and still come up with abysmal performance. I see the man in brown running, literally, running back and forth to his truck with packages. I like our local postal delivery guy, but come on, have you ever seen a postal worker hustle like that? The amount of corruption, theft, bureaucracy and ineptitude routinely exhibited and tolerated within the ranks of government agencies is no panacea. Ever hear the phrase "good enough for government work"? Lifelong employment and full pensions by government run institutions are no match for the public sector in terms of competitive performance. Nothing against government workers individually; I have several in my family, but as a system, the performance of government agencies is abhorrent. Talk about special interests? How about the earmarks and pork spending that our government engages in? In my company, people are shown the door for unethical behavior and conflicts of interest. What happens in government? I'll take free market competition and industry any day.

Point #3 is especially concerning - When I hear people start talking about usurping free market principles, it's on par with altering the Constitution to me. Free market competition, the risk of failure and allure of rewards for risk-taking innovative behaviors is what made this country great.

The age-old cliche call for selling drugs at cost is juvenile and wrongheaded, but surprisingly, it piques the interest of politicians and populous alike because it sounds like something for free. What I don't hear is that Microsoft should have to sell versions of Vista for the dollar it costs to transfer the code to a CD or for your local cable company to offer you programming, internet and phone for the pennies it costs to transmit the data now that their infrastructure has been deployed. These are Multi-BILLION dollar investments in capital expenditures and human resources that are developed and deployed AT RISK. The only reason corporations assume this level of catastrophic level of risk is that the net present value of all their portfolio investments is positive, inclusive of research, development, and failures.

Consider Pfizer: It spent around $800 million to develop torcetrapib, only to drop it due to safety issues that arose in late stage clinical trials. This is the nature of the pharmaceutical business. This $800 million dollar loss and the hundreds of other new drug entities that are dropped along the way need to be offset by significant profit margins for the few drugs that actually do make it through the increasingly complex regulatory regiment. Does Mr. Moore actually expect that these companies should first assume these losses ad naseum and then for the few drugs that make it through, sell them at cost?

What is the assured outcome of this arrangement? The end of innovation. This is a recipe for perennial negative earnings and the eventual demise of the industry. The development of new cures and vaccines for new therapeutic categories will cease, for there is no profit motive. My lineage has particular maladies that I'd like to see my children avoid. If the innovation engine in this country (and hence, world) is ceased and new, innovative medicines are no longer sought and developed, my children will suffer same ailments as my ancestors. Mr. Moore will have us kill the next cure for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Malaria, Hepatitis C...for HIV.

Consider what happened to the worldwide vaccine business over the past few decades. In 1988, there were 25 manufacturers. Currently, there are 4 primary ones left. Following years of litigation, misplaced injury claims and a general lack of profit motive (making one dose for life per patient vs. a lifetime of daily tablet treatments for chronic patients is a no-brainer from a profit margin standpoint, especially when considering the litigation environment), the vast majority of the existing companies exited the business to pursue higher margin new drug entities. Only now that some stability has set in, are companies returning to the business. If the same were to happen for all pharmaceuticals and biologics, innovation as we know it is over.

What concerns me about Mr. Moore taking a wrecking ball to the industry (disclosure - I work in the industry incidentally) is that this intellectual property and innovation is one of the last bastions of hope for our economy. Most low-complexity manufacturing has left our borders. Not only are these jobs being outsourced to areas that can perform the functions more efficiently, but our service industries will continue to fall prey to outsourcing as well. India has amassed X-Ray technicians to read charts throughout the night and accountants to process tax returns. Korean schools are teaching 3rd graders English at night after their full day of U.S.-beating Korean curriculum. The cultures have young, ambitious people that want what we have and they're willing to work harder for it! In the future, will we really need U.S. based financial analysts, consultants and other service industries we take for granted here? The day we give up on innovating new products here in the U.S., we continue an alarming trend that we will not be able to reverse.

What is likely omitted from the movie is the patient assistance programs whereby most pharmaceuticals provide free or cheap drugs to U.S. citizens without the means to pay for them. I've seen multiple pharmaceutical companies actually advertise this in print and on television. Of course, there are the tax and public relations benefits, but certainly, it's not improving the bottom line by giving away your product.

Tony Blair put it best when he said a good measure of a country is how many people want in compared to how many want out. The last time I checked, Floridian natives weren't risking their lives to sail to Cuba. Countless Cubans have lost their lives attempting to reach our shores. Mr. Moore, everyone in the world wants to come to America!

I have relatives in Canada that are ashamed of their socialist leadership and lifestyle. Is it worth having free health care when you have to wait weeks to see a doctor (the doctor prescribed to you, not the one you pick)?

So, where is Mr. Moore on other worldly issues:

The genocide in Darfur? 500,000 and counting.

The MILLIONS of children that die annually from vaccine-preventable diseases? 2.5 Million per year and counting. Our legal system that mandates three-strike sentencing for a man stealing a bike or peddling some pot to spend life in prison, while child molesters with excessively high rates of recidivism simply have to voluntarily register for a list with an unacceptably low rate of compliance?

Drunk Drivers - True Story - A few years back, a drunk driver travelling at an excessive rate of speed slammed into my wife's car at a stop sign from behind with our son in the back. Both cars were totalled and my wife and son were ushered to the emergency room (ironically, the drunk driver is almost never injured in such accidents). We soon learned from the responding officer that this driver had another DWI accident within the same month but was still driving legally; this had been his 5th such incident! He hit them at NOON on the way to test-drive a motorcycle of all things. It gets better. Months later, in order to perform her civic duty, my wife went to a hearing to testify about the accident and help ensure he was sentenced appropriately. Following the hearing, we watched him get in a different car and drive away. Incredulous, we asked the corresponding officer how he could possibly be driving legally. She said she ran his plates and confirmed that at that time, he was in fact still driving legally. This is how slow the system was. In 2006, about 18,000 people were killed in alcohol related accidents. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children 2 to 14 years old. Enough is enough! Where is Mr. Moore on this?

On the left: The lack of diversity of thought within America's universities where only liberal views are espoused to impressionable college students? Professors (especially non-tenured) best not vocalize a conservative thought in public, while the liberal treatises abound. Some statistics from a recent study by George Mason University: "72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative...the disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative." Where is Mr. Moore on this disparity?

On the right: The chokehold that that religious right has on the Republican party. What does religion have to do with the governing of this great country? I'm concerned about the influence a faith has on the power structure in this country. Some of Bush's statements interweaving faith and the invasion of Iraq didn't sit well with me as I'm sure they didn't overseas. At least we know where Mr. Moore was on Iraq, but how about religion and politics in this country as a movie?

I have to say this about Michael Moore. I was listening to him on Howard Stern the other day. He is actually an affable guy in interviews and I think he really believes in what he's doing. I do think he loves America and wants to see it do better. I just think he's wrong. He did anonymously contribute $12,000 to an anti-Moore blogger whose wife couldn't afford her insurance premiums. I'm not the first person to say this, but Americans need to take more personal responsibility for their own health, Mr. Moore included, by the looks of him (Congratulations on losing 30 pounds recently though). We live in a country where people are eating themselves to death while a large portion of the world is malnourished. Regarding his proposals, what he has prescribed for our country's healthcare system is simply Un-American.

Sources:

Michael Moore Statements from Recent Interviews Promoting "Sicko":

californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/michael_moore_a.html

democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/18/1326235

topix.net/forum/world/cuba/TIDDLD4V3NE3Q3Q8I/p16

France - Riots, Unemployment Rate:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

indexmundi.com/france/unemployment_rate.html

Cuba CIA Factbook: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Econ

Pharma Patient Assistance Program: pparx.org/about.php

Illegal Immigration: csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Drunk Driving Statistics: madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html

Party Affiliation of Professors at U.S. Colleges: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

Darfur Death Toll: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-darfur-deaths.html

Vaccine-Preventable Deaths in Children Worldwide: cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5518a4.htm

By: Dan Pritch
Everydayfinance Blog: http://www.everydayfinance.blogspot.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Information portal.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

Comment from I am Canadian June 30, 2007.

if your relatives are really that ashamed of Canada,,tell them to get the deleted out,,,we dont need their attitude as they receive FREE health care,,,yes FREE,,,sometimes you wait because useless deleted take up valuable doctor time with their incessant whining,,,so you dont like my country? get out,,go home,,,
when my daughters appendix was inflamed,,,did we wait for a top surgeon? NO,,did we mortgage our house,,take out a loan? NO,, she had an expensive operation, hospital stay,,, at NO COST TO US.

A recent headline points out why it wouldn't be a bad idea to post the Ten Commandments in our schools.

"Theft Rising at U.S. Wal-Mart Stores" noted a recent Associated Press business story. The article pointed out that the retailing giant is being hit by a tidalwave of shoplifting. Employers and customers alike are hauling out goods without paying for them.

Now, the AP report says that Wal-Mart is not saying much on the record about the thefts. However, its inventory is getting smaller and smaller. The AP surmises that the shrinkage has been caused by "shoplifting, employee theft, paperwork errors and supplier fraud."

Last year, Wal-Mart decided it was not going to prosecute minor shoplifting cases. Instead, it chose to concentrate on major shoplifting rings. While the AP claims that Wal-Mart has cuts its security force, the news organization also reports that the company denies it has reduced security staff.

Of course, Wal-Mart, just like any other company, has a right to decide how best to police shoplifting and fraud. But I don't think the issue here is whether the company is cracking down hard enough on thieves. The real issue is this: some people walking through Wal-Mart's doors believe that they are entitled to steal.

While it may seem astounding to think that entitlements now include theft, it only makes sense, given the permissiveness of our society. If schools, courthouses, and municipal buildings don't post the command, "Thou Shalt Not Steal," it stands to reason that children would grow up believing that stealing isn't all that bad.

One union-backed group has apparently indicated that worker discontent is playing a part in employee theft—a truly mind-boggling claim. If I'm unhappy with my boss, does that give me the right to steal from him? Also, it should be noted that Wal-Mart officials say that employee morale is actually on the rise, which blows a hole through the theory that staffers are trying to steal their way to happiness.

It should be noted that this problem goes well beyond Wal-Mart. The National Retail Federation is reporting that theft cost retail outlets $41.6 billion last year. Sam Walton once referred to theft as one of retailers' top profit killers. And it should be duly noted that anything that kills profits, in the end, kills jobs. So it's actually in the best interests of worker advocates to do all they can to condemn employee theft.

However, instead, we hear rationalizations for employee theft. Consider this Associated Press quote from a former Wal-Mart bakery worker in Texas, "I am not the type to steal, but because we are so mistreated, when I saw things I just didn't do anything." The old-fashioned response to a controversial corporate policy was to raise one's voice in complaint. The 21st century answer is to turn a blind eye toward pilfering.

I have news for the former Wal-Mart baker: many of us—customers and employees alike—disagree with some of the things that the world's largest retailer does. But the moral response is not to give tacit approval to stealing from the store aisles. Because, in the end, stealing from Wal-Mart doesn't just hurt the big executives. It hurts the senior citizen trying to earn extra spending money as a greeter. And it hurts the family of four down the road trying to buy enough groceries to keep going. And it hurts the kids who are looking to us adults to provide some moral compass for their lives. I would hope that the lesson to be learned from this is: thou shalt not steal from Wal-Mart—or anyone else.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

Liberals frequently complain that the right poses a threat to democracy and freedom of speech. They are quick to brand right wing opinion of the outspoken variety as extremist. But are outspoken individuals more of a threat to our freedoms than an orchestrated cultural agenda that effectively puts a chill on free speech?

Political correctness, as it was originally conceived, was an ideologically driven concept derived from Marxist theory. When communism was attempting to make inroads in Western nations, the chief obstacle was seen as individualism. After all the free thinking individual of Western societies is the polar opposite of the comrade who takes his or her meaning from the group.

An influential school of political correctness prior to WW2 was based in Frankfurt, Germany - the Institute for Social Research. An attempt was made to find a cultural application for the economic theories of Marx. Freudian ideas were also co-opted, in particular Freud's theory related to psychological conditioning mechanisms. The goal was to create a cultural tool that would subvert the freedom of the individual by challenging his/her independence as a source of ideas. Ideas in soviet Russia were mandated and frequently imposed. The individual only had value in so far as he/she reflected the group programming. Political correctness, then as now, also exploited the fear people have of 'standing out' and the inherent guilt that comes from bucking the status quo.

The inroads political correctness has made in American culture has been much like the effect of a stealth weapon - you don't see it coming but you sure know when it has arrived. The downside of being self-consciously understated along PC lines, is that every iffy word has to be weighed for fear of potential consequences. Sanitizing culture along these lines is more damaging than anything offensive speech has ever been held accountable for. If freedom of speech means anything - it means the right to use language people don't want to hear. It means the right to use language that may even offend some people.

The media has to a large extent become a partisan in the greater PC sanitization exercise. The belief that this helps to make for a more inclusive culture is only accurate in the sense that zombies or robots of various colors and sizes will reliably get along with one another because they share the same programming.

The more damaging aspect of this PC neutering process is that it has made Western societies vulnerable to exploitation by those who have in no way renounced their cultural and linguistic chauvinism. There are many instances of Islamists using PC rules to silence critics and guilt 'offenders' into making apologies.

PC culture provides protection to Islamist extremists. After all, nobody wants to be hung out to dry as a xenophobe and bigot. This is why even moderate critics with perfectly legitimate concerns tend to be silent, and no wonder. In the US the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has successfully mounted law suits and attacked media commentators, writers and others who are deemed guilty of criticizing Islam.

Islamists with their support for Al Qaeda and jihad are not an entity existing apart from the religion of Islam. Here in Ontario recently, Muslim moderates received threats for raising concerns about the influence of Iran and Saudi Arabia in mosque politics. The people who dominate the culture of a number of Ontario mosques are not in favor of the reformist agenda of moderate Muslims, and make this clear through threats and intimidation. Yet the media tends to persist in the view that Muslim extremism exists apart from the religion.

This denial extends to the UN. The Human Rights Commission recently adopted a resolution that in principle prohibits the criticism of Islam. Surely the protection of human rights should extend first and foremost to the protection of the individual, and not to the protection of a religion. This resolution damages the cause of reformist Muslims everywhere, by placing the rights of Islam above their right to criticize it along reformist lines.

PC logic is riddled with a double standard. It's really a political tool that is being used to control language and culture for political purposes, and it is easily exploited by those who are the enemy of individualism. If you can stigmatize parts of the language, you reduce the ability of your opponents to use proscribed terms to their advantage. Moreover the use of taboo language will result in loss of credibility in the eyes of the culturally neurotic. It's a form of cultural segregation, that manages to avoid the appearance of discrimination.

I am not arguing for a return of the bohunk or boor, but what I am saying is that we should resist the efforts to make language hostage to a political agenda.

By: Aidan Maconachy
Aidan Maconachy resides in Ontario, Canada. He has a BA Hons and a BEd. He taught in the UK and Canada, and has been a contributor to a variety of magazines and newspapers over the years. You can visit his blog at http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Information portal.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

As Bubba and I were taking our morning stroll, I met a young girl from the neighborhood. As I had not seen her for a while, I stopped to chat with her.

She was holding a note book and I asked why. She explained this was the last day of summer school for her and she was waiting for the bus.

I was confused. School had only ended a few short weeks ago, how could this be the last day of summer school? She explained summer school only lasted five days. This confused me even more. I asked how could someone learn enough in five days to pass a subject when they had all term to learn it and failed. She did not know.

I asked what subject was she taking and she replied Social Studies, which turned out to be American History. OK, so what have you learned about American History in five days? She replied, nothing. Our teacher gives us a paper with questions and the page the answer is on. We look up the page and write the answer.

I asked if she had at least read the book. She could not because they were not allowed to take the book home with them.

This girl, in the 9th grade, had heard about the Revolutionary War and Civil War. She had heard of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. She had no idea what the Constitution was or what it said. She had no idea our government is divided into three equal parts. I asked her what the Executive Branch, Congress, and the Judicial Branch of our government were. She had no idea what I was talking about. She heard of the Bill of Rights but what it was or what it said she could not answer.

I can understand not learning Peter Minuet purchased Manhattan Island for $24 worth of trinkets. I can understand not learning Roger Williams walked the boundaries of Rhode Island. To a certain degree I can understand not learning about "Common Sense' written by Thomas Paine or the writings of John Locke, because today both would be considered terrorists and arrested for what they wrote, even though our Declaration of Independence is based, in part, on those writings. She had heard about the Declaration of Independence but was not sure exactly what it was.

I spoke to a friend who lives in a different part of the state and mentioned this conversation to her. She asked her teen age boys about history and they too had very little idea about it. In their county history is not a required subject to take for High School graduation.

This is a quote from my friend when she asked one of them if he knew who Republicans and Democrats were ...he said "there was 37% more crimes committed by Democrats then Republicans. That Republicans were the rich and the Democrats were the poor. He said that Democrats voted for welfare so they did not have to work and that Republicans voted on things to make them richer. He said that Democrats were goofy people like that Michael Moore and Republicans were people like Ronald Reagan." This is what he was taught in school.

We learn history because history has a way of repeating itself. We learn the mistakes which were made so not to make them again. To ignore history is depriving our younger generations the wisdom of our forefathers.

I do not know who makes up the curriculum taught in our schools. I understand social interaction is important for later in life. I also understand not teaching our children to think for themselves, or to deprive them of past lessons learned, will turn out a generation of individuals who look to a P. Hilton or a L. Lohan as roll models. If this is the case, I feel very sorry for the generations which will follow.

By: Athena Louise
http://www.athenalouise.com

Editors Comment:, Although the above article could have meaning in any state, we are placing it under California Issues because it shows exactly what we have found in California education. I speak with numerous California young people and virtualy none of them know anything about California, American or world history. I have also spoken with California teachers and a large number of them state that they either do not have the time or resources to actually teach history or that there are more important matters to teach. There is an old saying "those that do not learn history are bound to repeat it's mistakes." That saying is being born out in California and America today.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.