Suscribe to Weekly RiverCitiesReader.com Updates
* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

Latest Comments

  • GET A GRIP
    Get a grip, I bet the other little girl who...
  • ...
    Love the show - Daniel Mansfield
  • On target
    Everyone I have shared your editorial finds it really close...
  • Retired teacher
    Loved reading how such an outstanding citizen was able to...
  • Re: name correction
    Thank you for bringing the error to our attention, Lorianne,...
Speed Bump Ahead: Police and County Attorney Moved Too Fast to Prosecute Keith Meyer, While a Jury Trial Proved Common Sense Can Prevail PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Todd McGreevy   
Thursday, 07 March 2013 08:40

(Note: Links to PDF documents can be found within this article.)

This photo, entered into evidence by the Scott County assistant attorney in the jury trial of Keith Meyer, shows Meyer on his property at 1012 Marquette Street in Davenport.

Last week, justice was served in Scott County when a jury of 12 level-headed Iowans found Keith Meyer, Davenport’s former Ward 3 alderman, not guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor: “assault while displaying a weapon.” In November, Meyer was accused by his neighbor, John Fahs – with whom he has a well-documented history of trouble – and arrested by Davenport police. If convicted, Meyer could have been sentenced for up to two years in prison.

Meyer chose to represent himself in this matter, which necessarily consumed his time and energy for four months. It is no small matter to represent yourself in the administrative code system, because the rules are stacked against regular folks without attorneys. But Meyer is not your typical go-along-to-get-along citizen, and he is clearly smarter than your average bear. In addition, he is nearly totally deaf. Yet he prevailed, albeit largely because the prosecutor’s case was so weak.

The case against Meyer should never have been brought. There was no injured party. It was bogus from the jump. Back when courts made more sense, any charge that could potentially result in being jailed for more than 30 days required a grand-jury indictment. Today, however, under administrative procedural rules, county attorneys have effectively usurped the people’s authority by removing grand juries from the process.

 
Knowledge Is Power PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Kathleen McCarthy   
Wednesday, 20 February 2013 09:16

It is glaringly obvious that the tragedy surrounding the Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, shootings is being grossly objectified to achieve a political agenda of disarming Americans.

I am no lover of weapons. In fact, I abhor any violence, including the disgraceful warfare the United States is currently engaged in. I despise the weakness that characterizes our lack of civic will in the 21st Century to hold our governments accountable for perpetuating both warfare and welfare upon the people.

We are truly a pack of sheep when it comes to preserving our legacy as a republic governed by the rule of law. Let’s be crystal clear, folks: America was not founded as a democracy. America was founded as a republic. There is a huge difference that needs clarification – again.

 
No Society Can Live Free with So Little Civic Participation PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Kathleen McCarthy   
Thursday, 07 February 2013 06:00

Americans have serious problems to sort out sooner than later. The problem with our problems is that they are so ill-defined by the mainstream media (TV, radio, print) upon which too many of us depend for our news diets. So the first order of business is to accept that the mainstream media is no longer a reliable source for relevant, need-to-know information. In fact, much news is deliberately manipulated, crafted, and often contrived to elicit a specific response from consumers, one designed to benefit the agenda(s) of an increasingly apparent goal – globalization.

 
The Tables Are Turning on the Fluoridation Debate PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Todd McGreevy   
Wednesday, 09 January 2013 05:57

In the 1940s and ’50s, print and TV ads depicted, of all things, doctors and professional athletes enjoying the soothing benefits of smoking cigarettes. One TV spot stated, “In a repeated national survey, doctors of all branches of medicine, doctors in all parts of the country, were asked, ‘What cigarette do you smoke, doctor?’ More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” (RCReader.com/y/cigs).

Of course, since then we’ve all wised up and realized the absurdity of the message that cigarettes are a healthy habit. Under the premise of healthful living, in 1952 the City of Davenport contracted with the Iowa Water Company to add fluoride to the public water supply (RCReader.com/y/agreement). Sixty years later, it’s time to wise up and realize the absurdity of this practice ... or at a minimum, with the benefit of scientific research, have a public debate about medicating the populace through the public water supply.

In December 2010, the Reader published a cover story titled “Don’t Drink the Water? Author Paul Connett Wants People to Take a Fresh (or First) Look at Fluoridation” (RCReader.com/y/fluoride). This article explored Connett’s book The Case Against Fluoride and how he hoped it would get people to consider fluoridation “beyond the endorsements of professional societies and public-health officials.”

Managing Editor Jeff Ignatius wrote in this article: “While the provocative subtitle is How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water & the Bad Science & Powerful Politics That Keep It There, the book’s primary concern is science. ... The simplest way to state the ... premise is that until better scientific studies can be done on the effects of fluoridation, the risks of health problems far outweigh the proven benefits, which The Case Against Fluoride says are negligible.”

Quad Citians concerned about the health and well-being of all who must rely on the public water supply are fortunate that environmental toxicologist Connett will be speaking at two free public events, January 14 at the Bettendorf Public Library and January 15 at the Moline Public Library. Both events will begin at 6:30 p.m. and together will launch a public-awareness campaign being positioned by opponents of fluoridation as “Have the Debate.” Connett will give a presentation on the first evening, while the second evening will be a debate forum at which proponents of fluoridation will have the opportunity to publicly prove Connett wrong.

 
Who’s Watching the Food & Water Watchers? PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Todd McGreevy   
Thursday, 06 December 2012 05:11

We are what we eat is an age-old adage that has more implications than ever in the context of modern-day science and biotechnological experimentation with the genetic makeup of the food we eat. Whether it is the highly processed corn- and soy-based products that permeate nearly everything we consume or the animals we eat that are fed the same corn-based products, the long-term effects of consuming genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified organism (GMO) food are yet to be fully documented. (This does not include the cross-breeding of cows and goats with spiders, for instance.) Of course, mankind has been cross-breeding plants for millennia, so some ask: “What is the controversy about?”

The controversy emerges when mega-corporations (also known as big agra) such as Monsanto produce seeds that are injected with the DNA of other species to produce specific effects such as resistance to chemicals and herbicides. Beyond the self-perpetuating – some might say monopolistic – marketplace this creates (Monsanto sells the herbicide Roundup that the seeds it sells are resistant to), critics are concerned about the long-term effects to human health by tinkering with Mother Nature so much.There’s a Catch-22 at work here, too. The long-term studies that would allay consumer fears are not pursued by the purveyors of the GMO products, but those same purveyors fiercely defend their intellectual-property rights so that third parties cannot publish their own independent studies done with the GMO products. If the GMO products are so wonderful, then why not open the doors wide on independent research?

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 5 of 65