Archive | November, 2012

America’s new morality

30 Nov



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.

2012 Election: did anybody really win

8 Nov

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.