Puerto Rico as the 51st state?

Current opinion: none

Over the years, Puerto Rico has been talked about as our next State.

Puerto Rico has been 'part of the U.S.' since it was ceded by Spain in the Spanish-American War in 1898.  Since that time, Puerto Ricans have fought in every American war since that time.  Puerto Rico pays Federal Payroll Taxes (but not Income Taxes), Social Security Taxes and other taxes, are under U.S. military protection, and, as of 1941, are natural born citizens of the United States.  They also have non-voting representation in Congress.

Puerto Rico has almost 4 million people with a literacy rate of over 94% (the United States is 99%).  President George H.W. Bush, in his first State of the Union address, said he believed that Puerto Rico should become a state, as long as it's citizens voted to do so.

What would becoming a state mean to Puerto Rico and the United States?

First, Puerto Rico would have allocated funds given to them as other states do now.  The standard of living in Puerto Rico is lower, and with additional funds, this could increase.  But they would also begin to pay Federal Income Taxes which could offset this.  They would also have voting Representation in Congress (six seats in the House of Representatives).

New Opinion: Puerto Rico should remain a protectorate of the United States since there is no big advantage to either Puerto Rico or the United States to change the status quo

Government has no part in who counselors can and cannot counsel.

I agree with this opinion piece that the government does not have a say in what a person can and can't study because the student won't apply the degree the way the schools wants them to.

Julea Ward was studying for her Masters in Counseling.   When the school found out she refused to counsel homosexuals, because of her religous beliefs, they expelled her.

As the article states, it would be impossible to expect all counselors to counsel everyone in all situations.  Sometimes their biases are so strong that they would be unable to give proper counseling for the patient.

An Attack on Religion and Counseling (NewsBlaze)

Mary Bale: Evil Incarnate for trashing cat? Not even.

By now you have probably heard about Mary Bale, the woman who dumped a cat into a dumpster.  Clearly she's got some issues.  Maybe a cat bit her when she was a child?  Maybe she thinks all small furry things are disgusting?  Maybe she was having a bad day?

Regardless, while she should be chastised and perhaps even be involved in some kind of police action for her cruelty to an animal, she is not 'a monster' or 'evil incarnate' as the following articles suggests.  Nor should someone 'give her grief for the rest of her life.'

Mary Bale The Lady Who Threw Cat In Garbage: Most Hated Woman In World!

Life is Hell for Evil Lady Who Threw Cat Into Garbage Container

And for the record, I am a cat lover.

Lastly, she does NOT deserve police protection.

UPDATE:  Bank clerk 'who dumped cat in wheelie bin' charged with animal cruelty (DailyMail)
UPDATE: Cat bin woman Mary Bale fined £250 (Guardian)

Are 'light cigarettes' better for you? Addicts rationalize 'yes'

The Feds have a new law that disallows tobacco companies from claiming one type of cigarette is 'better' for you than others; or more realistically, 'less bad' for you than others.

A colorful death by tobacco (LA Times)

I am of the opinion that if cigarettes are legal, they should be treated as any other legal product, with the exception that they should not be allowed to be purchased and used by those who are under-age.

However, if a company is claiming that one product is 'better for you' than another, they need to show this. But just because a regular cigarette is bad for you and a light cigarette is 'almost' as bad for you, isn't reason enough to prevent them from marketing them that way.

Companies who manufacture 'organic products' market their products as 'better for you'. And this isn't always the case.

I don't encourage laws that limit what people decide to do, but these organic labels make people who don't investigate to eat more. Organic Labels May Trick Dieters Into Eating More (Live Science). The problem with this article is the 'trick dieters'. People can investigate organic and read labels and make their own decisions. Taking 'organic' at it's word is the consumer's own fault.

People who decide to smoke can decide which cigarette to smoke. If tobacco companies have 'less tar' in one cigarette, they can market it as 'better' for the consumer. It's up to the consumer to make up their own mind. The only reason for the Feds to step in is if the claim is not valid. I don't see any evidence of that in this case.

You want Statins with those Fries?

A proposal in Britain will have free 'statins' available at fast-food restaurants.  Statins help reduce cardiovascular risk and, according to some, are safe, even at high doses.  If I read the article correctly, the statins will be available just like packets of ketchup and salt.  Patrons won't have to ask the clerk for them.

I agree with Dr Rubenfire, in the following article, that patrons will assume they can completely eliminate the risk of unhealthy eating by simply taking the statins.  And they may even 'super-size' their meals.

A Burger, Shake, and Some Statins (MedPageToday)

Information on Statins (MedicineNet)

Is Luck on your side?

Coincidences happen all of the time.  We walk out of a movie to find a friend who had recommended that same movie to us.  We see an advertisement for vacationing in Florida just as we're discussing where to go for vacation.  Mark Twain was born on the day of the appearance of Halley's Comet in 1835, and died on the day of its next appearance in 1910.

People forget the times when something does NOT happen.  Your family is discussing where to go for vacation and no don't see any ads for places to go.  So if you and your family discuss vacations 10 times and one time a coincidence occurs, you will remember the one time and forget the other nine.

With so many things going on in the world, it would be strange if coincidences did NOT happen.  But we only remember the coincidences and not all of the other times when things did not coincide.

Here is a good article on good things happening to good people, bad things happening to bad people, and all of the more numerous times that people forget.  Thoughts on Luck, Skill, and Coincidences (NewsBlaze)

Do you have 'privacy' for personal messages when using company phone or computer?

Imagine three scenarios:

1) You use your cell phone at work. 
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

2) You are using your company cell phone at work.  
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

3) You are using your company cell phone at home. 
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

If you were never told of the company policy about cell phones, should you get in trouble for any of these?  Using your own phone at work, to make or receive a short text is not an issue.  And as long as you didn't use the company cell phone excessively, there probably wouldn't be an issue.  You send and receive a couple of text messages a day, no one cares.

Now, what if you were told the company policy.  And the policy states you cannot use the company cell phone for personal business.  Again, as long as you don't abuse the privilege, probably no one will care.

Now, you've been told the company policy stating you can use the cell phone for personal calls and text on your own time, but you need to pay for it.  Then there is no issue if you text during your off hours.  If you use it for personal calls and texts during business, you could, and should, get in trouble.

Lastly, you've been told you can use the company cell phone for personal calls and text during your off hours, but during your off hours, you send sexually explicit texts to your spouse.  Now what?  You are using it as instructed, you are paying to use it, should the company care what type of messages you are sending?

If you are using a company phone, don't expect to have everything you text as private.  It is there phone.  Even if you are paying for the texting you do during your off hours, it is their phone and the expectation should be that they will be monitoring communications.

Here is a news item before the ruling:  Justices hear case of Ontario police officer who sent risque messages (LA Times)

And here is a news item on the ruling:  Supreme Court allows reasonable searches of private texts on work-issued devices (Jurist.org)