Suscribe to Weekly RiverCitiesReader.com Updates
* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

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?

 
A Government Guided by Peace and Tolerance PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Kathleen McCarthy   
Wednesday, 21 November 2012 05:36

The media cartels, currently the public-relations arm of politicians (and their bureaucracies) and the corporate elite, lend their full cooperation in censoring ideas that inform political debate in America. Why? Because an informed populace is an anathema to the two-party system so critical to the current political power base. This self-perpetuating system enriches the global elite through strategic and privileged partnerships that confiscate and consolidate the world’s wealth and resources.

There can be no question that America is now in an era of authoritarianism, and we, as a people, are on the brink of facing extreme tyranny in our lifetimes. (And your locally elected officials and officers stand idly by forsaking their oaths of office, under the pretense of violating your rights in the name of security and arrogantly determining that they are providing you a quality of life you deserve. But I digress ... .)

From the militant police state to the invasion of your privacy to the violation of your personal liberties, we have published articles for nearly 20 years documenting our circumstances that resemble what many have referred to as a slowly boiling frog: It does not know it’s being cooked until it’s too late.

Last week, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) delivered his farewell speech on the House floor, putting a bookend on his 23-year career as arguably the most fervent, principled, and consistent defender of the Bill of Rights. Below are the text (from his House Web page) and video of Dr. Paul’s speech, well worth noting for reminding us that the original intent of America’s founding documents was to govern the government, not govern the people.

 
A Good Definition of “Unsustainable”: Beneficiaries Negotiating Benefits Without the Benefactors PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Kathleen McCarthy   
Thursday, 08 November 2012 05:01

Pensions are among the most important investments American workers and employers make. We work for years so that when the time comes, we can retire with enough income to live comfortably, enjoy the much-deserved leisure time, and engage in activities of our own choosing.

This week’s cover story examines Iowa’s and Illinois’ pensions, which, when coupled with health-care benefits, are in grave danger of insolvency, threatening to potentially bankrupt Illinois. This is due to the unsustainable “defined-benefit” pension plan that promises each employee a percentage of his or her annual income, regardless of the amount of contributions made by the employee, or on the employee’s behalf by the employer (the state’s taxpayers), over his/her years of service.

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

Page 6 of 65