Knowledge is Power

What with the recent debates on healthcare reform, health-related legislation is a hot topic in the United States. However, the facet of health legislation most on people’s minds has to do with how much of healthcare should be public, whom can avail of these services, and where the funding will come from. Debates concerning state regulation of medicines, supplements, etc., have been pushed to the side.

This is rather a shame, given the important bill currently being pushed through the American Congress and Senate, which would, in effect, suppress the sale of supplements, particularly those being produced and marketed by small companies. Let us take a look at how this bill works.

This bill, spearheaded by John McCain, is known as the Dietary Supplements Safety Act. It aims to give the FDA more authority in order to purportedly keep unsafe or adulterated supplements away from consumers.

Of course, this bill must not be discussed purely in isolation, but also in the context of existing legislation on the same subject. The Dietary Supplements Safety Act is directly related to the existing Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Rather than building upon the legislation we already have, McCain’s Bill proposes to wipe out large chunks of it.

Under the present legislation, supplements are protected if they are either from food products that people already eat, or were sold as dietary supplements before 1994. In effect, certain types of supplements are shielded from arbitrary interference and banning by the FDA. However, if the new bill is passed, the FDA will have far more power. It will be allowed to more or less turn the market for supplements static, if it likes. A list of “allowed” supplements can be compiled, and everything not on the list will be banned.

Firstly, such practices are bad for the research and development of new supplements. More red tape, and the prospect of easy, arbitrary banning can discourage scientists and/or those who fund their research. Yes, companies looking to formulate new, better supplements will suffer. However, consumers will suffer, too, as they will be less likely to be able to take advantage of improved versions of existing products, or altogether new supplements.

Secondly, it must be understood that the prospect of granting the FDA even more power than it has now is problematic. Many people trust government agencies like the FDA on the assumption that the agency is disinterested, or can be trusted to give unbiased information. This is not so. Pharmaceutical companies constitute a powerful lobby within the United States, and are able to thereby exert a great deal of influence upon the FDA. Therefore, if the DFA or national legislature puts forward a certain policy that just happens to benefit large pharmaceutical corporations, one must question the motivation behind the policy.

There is something you can do to address this problem. Let legislators know that you are not happy with the prospect of this upcoming legislation. Write congressmen to ask them to stop the bill. If you want to make a statement, try starting a petition to block McCain’s bill, and get like-minded people to sign it.

Join Our discussion on the The Dietary Supplements Safety Act! Also find out more on HGH laws and anti doping issues in the Olympics and other sports.

From the historic 1965 election of Carl Stokes as mayor of Cleveland to the momentous joy felt throughout Black America after President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, the history of Black politics has been filled with highs that still cause many in the community to be filled with jubilation years later.

However, during President Obama’s historic rise to the highest office in the land, critics of Black politics have argued that Black America seemed content with just electing a person of color, regardless of his qualifications or what was best for the community.

True, many rejoiced at the fact that they could now honestly tell younger generations of Blacks that they truly could aspire to achieve anything in life, regardless of whom they were or where they came from.

The joy seen throughout Black America in 2008 was similar to that experienced in Cleveland in the mid-1960s. It was simply a reflection of a people who had experienced so much pain in life, finally experiencing what true joy felt like.

Nevertheless, Black America is still a microcosm of America as a whole, just with a darker skin tone. And what all Americans want is what is best for themselves, their family and their community.

Although many have doubted whether Black politics could ever be truly colorblind, the recent election of Mitch Landrieu in predominately Black New Orleans is a blow to all of those critics that said the majority of Black America voted for President Obama simply because of the color of his skin.

The city of New Orleans has suffered like no other city in recent American history. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina seems like yesterday, when residents of this mighty city helplessly cried out for salvation as the rest of the country watched in agony, not knowing how to be of assistance.

Children and grandparents died. Homes were destroyed and lives were permanently uprooted as a result of the catastrophic storm.

While some have returned to the Crescent City, the recovery has been slow if not nonexistent and many of the residents of this city in which Black politics has been a mainstay for decades, had simply grown tired of politics as usual and elected the first White mayor since 1978.

Mayor-elect Landrieu stated the city decided to “strike a blow for unity, strike a blow for a city that decided to be unified rather than divided, a city that understands where there is equal opportunity, there is equal responsibility.”

In a state where the Landrieu family is the equivalent of the Kennedy’s in Massachusetts, the mayor-elect’s father Mitch became a historic figure in the area as he spearheaded the city’s integration efforts and was the last White mayor of the city.

The reputation the senior Landrieu had in the Black community undoubtedly assisted his son in his attempt to gain the Black vote. However, it shows more importantly that Black politics is simply politicians and policies that affect the Black community. And at the end of the day, the Black community simply wants the politician that is going to look out for the interest of the community, not necessarily the one that looks the most like them.

And that disproves the myth that the Black community is unable to view life through a colorblind point-of-view.

Todd A. Smith is publisher for ; Regal Black Mens Magazine The publication focuses on ; African American Community News Politics Sports Health The magazine features a ; Local Online Classifieds & Job Classified Black Business Directory Visit to read about ; Black politics

Politics is about getting re-elected and nothing else besides. It is a common error to assume that the politician’s role is to create jobs, encourage economic activity, enhance the welfare and well-being of his subjects, preserve the territorial integrity of his country, and fulfill a host of other functions. In truth, the politician has a single and exclusive role: to get re-elected. His primary responsibility is to his party and its members. He owes them patronage: jobs, sinecures, guaranteed income or cash flow, access to the public purse, and the intoxicating wielding of power. His relationship is with his real constituency - the party’s rank and file - and he is accountable to them the same way a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) answers to the corporation’s major shareholders. To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required to implement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare of the populace and promote it.

At other times, they have to refrain from action to preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy. But, how does a leader become a leader? In this article, we are not interested in the historical process but in the answer to the twin questions: what qualifies one to be a leader and why do people elect someone specific to be a leader. The immediately evident response would be that the leader addresses or is judged by his voters to be capable of addressing their needs. These could be economic needs, psychological needs, or moral needs. In all these cases, if left unfulfilled, these unrequited needs are judged to be capable of jeopardizing “acceptable (modes of) existence”. Except in rare cases (famine, war, plague), survival is rarely at risk. On the contrary, people are mostly willing to sacrifice their genetic and biological survival on the altar of said “acceptable existence”. To be acceptable, life must be honorable. To be honorable, certain conditions (commonly known as “rights”) must be fulfilled and upheld. No life is deemed honorable in the absence of food and shelter (property rights), personal autonomy (safeguarded by codified freedoms), personal safety, respect (human rights), and a modicum of influence upon one’s future (civil rights). In the absence of even one of these elements, people tend to gradually become convinced that their lives are not worth living. They become mutinous and try to restore the “honorable equilibrium”. They seek food and shelter by inventing new technologies and by implementing them in a bid to control nature and other, human, factors. They rebel against any massive breach of their freedoms. People seek safety: they legislate and create law enforcement agencies and form armies.Many politics reporters state that although the improvements are not enough to rapidly change the overall state of the nation’s economy, many are going to reap the benefits of this growth pattern. Many in politics even say that we are not going to feel the effects of the growth of the nation in the coming years in its entirety, but we are certainly on our way there.

buy rap beats! Provider Dating forum