Should Women Be Allowed To Serve In Combat? Absolutely!

     The United States military says women can indeed fight.  Combat positions - including those in elite commando units - will soon be available to females.

     There are 1.4 million men and women who are on active duty in the U.S. armed forces.  According to The Pentagon, women have been barred from more than 200,000 positions.  But...the Defense Department says many of those job opportunities will become available to females - including a large number of infantry positions - which are predominately in the Army, but with some in the Marines.  The Air Force and the Navy have fewer combat posts that have been off-limits to women. 

     Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta reportedly made the decision to permit females on the front-lines - in conjunction with the commander-in-chief, President Barack Obama - "upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff."  Panetta's announcement to lift the ban on women in combat is obviously an enormously controversial issue, but The Pentagon wants all branches of the armed forces to present their plans for integrating women on to the battle zones by May 15th, 2013 - and to request exemptions - if any.  The Defense Department says that physical standards will not change, but will remain the same for both men and women.

     Despite the fact that females in America's military have been previously unable to participate in combat operations, women do make up about 15 percent of our armed forces.  Furthermore, 17 percent of all officers in the U.S. military are of the female gender.

     Women, for years, have wanted - in fact, rightfully demanded - for equality in the workplace and with all that life offers.  Women are equal to men - so America - and Americans - should recognize that females deserve the same opportunities as males - in everything they do - even when it concerns fighting for our country.  Discrimination of any kind should be forbidden - on the front-lines of a war - or anywhere else.

     Oh I can hear what some of you are saying - and yes it's true - some women will have a difficult time with the physical qualifications necessary for combat involvement.  I understand that.  But you must admit - many men are unable to compete in the rigorous regimen required for a soldier, marine, sailor or airmen.  Therefore, I'm bothered by people who clamor that by allowing women in to combat will "lower the standards" and "would be harmful to the military."  Those are clearly bogus remarks and are as bigoted as saying blacks, gays or any other individuals should not fight from the fox holes.

     Many women are just as tough - if not tougher - than many men.  As such, many women can do the same job as their male counterpart.  Just as there are female firefighters who are successful and vital parts of their lifesaving team - women can be, should be and will be instrumental members of the combat troops of our military.

     I've known many women in my life who'd I'd want to be with when walking down a dark alley and many men who'd make me feel apprehensive. 

     In comparison to most other adult men, I'm somewhat of a tiny guy at 5 feet 7 inches tall and 140 pounds.  Granted, at nearly 58 years of age - (my birthday, thank you very much, is this Friday, February 1st) - I wouldn't - at this point in my life - be on the front-lines of a war.  But if a female soldier, marine, airman or sailor can prove she can equal her masculine comrades..."you go girl."  I tip my hat to the first woman - and first women - who complete the training needed to do the same tasks and take on the same assignments that the boys do.  And for those of you naysayers - I think you're going to be very surprised - if not shocked - how productive and how triumphant the women of our armed forces will be.

     The decision to permit women in combat is somewhat similar to another controversial policy change in the U.S military; and that's the repeal of the ban on openly gay service members.  Giving the green light to homosexuals to serve openly in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines and Navy has been accepted - and for the most part - in a relatively smooth fashion.

     Allowing women to battle in combat is a bold, but appropriate order and I applaud President Obama and Defense Secretary Panetta for such a ruling.  Fighting for our country is not about male or female - and it should never have been about gender.  It's about the individual person. 

     If a woman wants to volunteer to serve her nation on the front-lines of war - she should have that right.  Thank God - that for the United States of America - she does.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.


Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

Does It Really Matter If Beyonce Lip-Syncs?

     Do we really care if Beyonce lip-synced our National Anthem at the second inauguration festivities for President Barack Obama?  I don't care...and quite frankly...I don't believe you should either. 

     Don't we have enough BIGGER problems throughout this country and around this planet than worrying whether Beyonce sang The Star Spangled Banner live or if she "mouthed" the words?

     I have watched Beyonce's Capitol Hill performance from January 21st, 2013 numerous times and it appears to me that this superstar recording artist was clearly singing live.  But...and I do say but...if Beyonce did lip-sync America's national song...it wouldn't be the first time an entertainer did so. 

     The late, great Grammy Award winner, Whitney Houston lip-synced a magnificent, iconic rendition of The Star Spangled Banner at the 1991 Super Bowl.  In 2009 - at the Super Bowl that year -

Oscar winner, Jennifer Hudson, lip-synced The National Anthem.  And...it's happened dozens - if not hundreds more times - by other performers.

     We know that Beyonce can sing.  This is a celebrated headliner - not someone who was appearing in front of the public for the first time.  Beyonce Knowles is the third most honored woman in Grammy history with a total of 16 awards.  And with 44 total nominations, only Dolly Parton has been Grammy nominated more times.  Dolly has 45.

     All that being said though...it's not that easy to sing any song - let alone the Francis Scott Key lyrics and John Stafford Smith music for The Star Spangled Banner - when it's performed outdoors - in the bitter cold - in front of about a million people in person - and more than 20-million Americans on television.  Furthermore, band instruments can go out of tune when being played in less than comfortable temperatures. 

     But again...what's the big deal?  Whether Beyonce sang live or to a pre-recorded track is much ado about nothing.  She gave President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Americans all across the United States a beautiful and moving version of our National Anthem.  Whether Beyonce lip-synced it or not is really not that important.

     So why then are so many people going crazy and making such a huge fuss over Beyonce's inauguration presentation?  And why is the question of this week - "Will Beyonce lip-sync the songs she performs at the Super Bowl Halftime Show on Sunday, February 3rd?"  Come on, everybody.  Get a grip on it.  We've got enough troubles to grapple with in this country.  We have other more pressing issues to be concerned with - and whether Beyonce sings live or whether she lip-syncs - isn't one of them.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.


Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

A NOTE TO THE NRA: DISRESPECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT YOU SINK LOWER THAN EVER WHEN YOU USE HIS KIDS AS A REASON TO ATTACK HIM.

     The National Rifle Association (NRA) recently launched an ad that has appeared on the Internet and on television news programs throughout the United States of America, which accuses President Barack Obama of being an "elitist hypocrite."  The 35-second spot disgustingly blames the President for putting the children of America's moms and dads in jeopardy and at risk of being victims by deranged madmen who could possibly assault schools in shooting rampages, such as the one that tragically killed 20 first graders, along with 6 adult educators, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, 2012.  The NRA criticizes Mr. Obama for accepting armed Secret Service agents to protect the President's two daughters - 14 and a half year old Malia and 11 and a half year old Sasha - at their private school in Washington, D.C.; and despicably asks, "Are the President's kids more important than yours?"  The ad goes on to question, "Why is he skeptical about putting armed security in (your children's) schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools?"  The NRA ad claims that "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.  Protection for (his) kids and gun-free zones for ours."

     The NRA and its executive vice president and chief executive officer, Wayne LaPierre, have sunk to an all-time low.  Everytime I think he and his organization have made it to the bottom of the barrel, LaPierre and the NRA go ahead and do something so stupid that they drop to an even deeper depth.

     Why is there so much hatred by the NRA towards President Obama?  Is that hatred politically based?  Is it racially based?  It is a known fact that the children (and spouses) of U.S. presidents are considered to be potential targets for criminal activity and, therefore, the First Family have long received Secret Service protection. 

     Did LaPierre pounce on President George W. Bush when Mr. Bush's fraternal twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, were guarded by the Secret Service?  No, he did not. 

     Federal agents protected President Bill Clinton's daughter, Chelsea... President Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy... President Richard Nixon's daughters, Tricia and Julie...and the list goes on and on.

     The NRA clearly has a right to a voice on the issue of gun control.  But the tone of that voice is shameful and scandalous.  The NRA's voice is one that is not speaking the opinions of the majority of Americans.  Must the NRA act in such an arrogant fashion after an elementary school was massacred in such an indescribable and horrific slaughter?  The NRA's ad is radical extremism that is beyond insane.  Their ad is not just over the line...it's WAY over the line.  It is the creation of people with sick minds and with no human decency towards President Obama, his children and those who believe in what the President is doing to make Americans - young and old - safer.

     To disrespect the President of the United States is disgraceful - in and of itself - but to use the President's children in an abominable way - for the promotion of the NRA's own agenda - is downright detestable and deplorable.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.


Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

"Giving The Finger" To A Cop Is Legal. But Is It Okay?

     Is it legally okay to "give the finger" to a police officer?  Well, a United States Appeals Court says...it is.

     In a decision that may make law enforcement officers cringe with disgust, a U.S Appeals Court judge has recently ruled that a federal judge made an enormous error by dismissing a civil rights lawsuit - filed against police in Montgomery County, New York - by a Saint Johnsville, New York man, who claims he was wrongfully arrested after "flipping the bird" to a cop in May 2006.

     The Second Circuit U.S. Court Of Appeals says "the ancient gesture of insult" was not enough for police to stop the vehicle, in which a 62-year old man was a passenger, in a car being driven by his then fiance - (now his wife) - as the couple drove passed a radar speed trap.

     With lights flashing and siren sounding, a Saint Johnsville officer pursued and stopped the vehicle.  A confrontation ensued with the man being booked for disorderly conduct.  A Montgomery Sheriff's deputy assisted the Johnsville policeman at the scene.  Both cops were named as defendants in a lawsuit.  But the two officers insisted the man used foul language and became unruly.  The judge, however, said the stop "was not lawful."

     In March 2009, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled an individual cannot be cited for flashing a middle finger at a police officer.  A U.S. District Court judge said a police sergeant in Pittsburgh violated the constitutional rights of a man when the officer issued him a citation in 2006 for "flipping him off."

     And in August 2011, an Edison, New Jersey man - as he left a bar in the West Village of Manhattan - "gave the finger" to four New York City policemen.  One of the officers approached the man and asked for an explanation.  "Because I don't like cops," the man reportedly said.  He was subsequently handcuffed, arrested and held in jail for two hours before being released and given a summons for disorderly conduct.  But in July 2012, the man filed a lawsuit against the New York City Police Department.  That suit is still pending.

     The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that "giving someone the finger" - even a police officer - is a form of freedom of speech and is protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

     So I ask the question again - is it legally okay to "give the finger" to a police officer?  Yeah, it's not against the law.  But is it okay?  Of course it's not.  It's not okay to gesture a profanity, as it's not acceptable behavior to verbalize a profanity - whether it be towards a policeman or anybody else.

     A law enforcement officer cannot arrest a person in this country for "sticking the finger" to him - any more than he can arrest an individual for calling him a nasty name. 

     Profanity of any kind is vulgar and disrespectful.  But...a person has a perfect right - under the law - to spew such venomous words.

     There are policemen - as there are other people - who can be jerks at times.  But - for the most part - police officers are helpful, beneficial and invaluable to citizens in every city and town across America.  And when you need one - it's good that a cop is nearby.

     The Edison, New Jersey man - walking in New York City - had no beef with the four men in blue with the NYPD badges.  The cops were minding their own business - just doing their jobs - and apparently did nothing to spark the man's crude criticism.  There was no reason for the man to use his middle finger as he did.  The man says he did so solely because he "expressed his dislike and distrust for police officers."

     Can you "flip the finger" to a cop - and even cuss him out?  Yeah, you can.  The founding fathers gave us that right with the Constitution of our land.

     But just as some cops can be jerks - so can regular everyday people.  All of the individuals I have referenced in this essay had no genuinely good reason to perform such an obscene and disturbing gesture.  Quite frankly, they were just being stupid.  But a demonstration of stupidity - at least in the case of profanity - is not illegal.  And although it may be rude, insulting, impolite and simply out of line - thank God - that at least in the United States of America - we have that right.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

There's No Way On God's Green Earth That I Would Send My Kids To A School With Armed Teachers Or Janitors. Would You?

     One of the most controversial subjects being discussed by Americans today is the issue of arming our school teachers.  It's already legal, in some states, for a teacher to be "packing a rod" - and the numbers could start growing very soon.

     In Utah, for instance, not only does the law allow a teacher to carry a concealed handgun in his or her classroom, but parents don't have to be notified.  Let me repeat that.  A teacher can have a pistol or revolver - hidden under his or her clothes - and the mothers and fathers of the students for which he or she is teaching - do not have to be told - that their kids are being taught by a teacher - who has a firearm available to use - should the need arise.  Such a teacher doesn't have to tell other teachers or even the administrators of the school that a gun is present.  In fact...ANYONE...with a concealed carry permit - can bring a loaded gun in to a school - and according to Utah state law - parents do not have the right to know that their children are sitting in a classroom everyday where their teacher - or any visitor - could be carrying a loaded gun.  THIS...IS... TOTALLY...INSANE!!!

     Were the legislators of Utah - including the governor - on drugs the day they passed such a law?  Did they not realize the risk they are putting our children in by allowing guns to be in schools?

     On December 21st, 2012 - exactly one week after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut - the National Rifle Association's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, held a news conference whereby he proposed a plan to arm teachers in America's schools.  A new poll by Public Policy Polling shows that the NRA's favorability rating has declined significantly since LaPierre's statement.  The poll also found that voters - Democrats and Republicans alike - including gun owners - oppose LaPierre's suggestion to allow teachers to carry guns.  Furthermore, the poll indicates that most Americans are against putting armed police officers in every school.

     In Spring City, Utah, officials are recommending that the head of every household own a gun and be trained to know how to use it.  The Spring City town council is also proposing that all school teachers in their community be given the appropriate instruction for gun use as well.  According to the most recent census data, there are 956 people who live in Spring City, Utah.  A majority of the more than 300 households in that municipality already own guns.

     Across the country - in Montpelier, Ohio - a board of education in that community has voted unanimously to allow its four school janitors to carry loaded handguns - once the custodians have completed a two-day training course; scheduled for March.  Officials believe that by arming the janitors is the best way to protect the kindergarten through 12th grade students who attend the school.  Montpelier is a small village of approximately 4,000 people, located in the northwest part of "The Buckeye State;" about 65 miles west of Toledo.

     Local lawmakers in cities and states throughout America are following the lead of such towns as Spring City, Utah and Montpelier, Ohio and are at least discussing the possibility of implementing similar plans. 

     Would you send your kid to school with armed teachers and/or janitors?

     I'd homeschool my child before I'd let him or her go to a school where teachers and/or custodians were walking around with guns on their belts.

     The United States Constitution provides Americans with a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  Fine.  I support a person's right to own a pistol for protection in his or her own home.  I also support the rights of sportsmen - with the proper permits - and during seasons that are designated to go hunting for deer and other animals that people are legally allowed to hunt - to be able to own the appropriate weapons for such activities.   I - and I don't believe anybody else - is challenging the 2nd amendment.  But there needs to be a sensible and logical discussion with the NRA about guns.  Wayne LaPierre and NRA supporters are just not being rational.

     There is no reason for teachers or janitors to carry concealed loaded handguns in schools; and there is no reason for any American citizen to own an assault weapon of any kind.  Assault weapons are made for one reason and one reason only - to kill people.  They are used by members of the military and by trained personnel in law enforcement.  There is no need for anyone in this country - or anyone on the planet - to own an assault weapon for home or personal protection.

     An individual can buy thousands of rounds of ammunition on the Internet with no background check.  There are currently no laws that prevent a person from making such a purchase.

     On January 9th, 2013, former President Bill Clinton - during a speech at the Consumer Electronics Show - said those who opposed gun control measures such as banning the sale of high-capacity magazines were crazy. The President said, "I grew up in the hunting culture...but this is nuts.  Why does anybody need a 30-round clip for a gun?  Why does anybody need one of those things that carries 100 bullets?  Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005.  Half - in all of the history of the country."  It was 1994 when Mr. Clinton signed that assault weapons ban.

     Meanwhile, President Barack Obama has been clear that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and The White House has said that avoiding this issue just because it's been politically difficult in the past is not an option.  After the tragic massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, when is the NRA going to agree?

     On January 10th, Vice President Joe Biden said, “There is nothing that has gone to the heart of the matter more than the image people have of little 6-year old kids riddled...not shot...but riddled, riddled, with bullet holes in their classroom." 

     You and I can't board an airplane in this country without taking off our shoes and belts; and in many instances being examined by a controversial full-body scanner, which creates an image of a person's naked body through their clothing.  There is certainly the privacy implications of the government taking naked pictures of our citizens.  And if that's not invasive enough - we can then be frisked.  But in Utah - and who knows at this point what other states may end up doing the same - anybody can walk in to a school with a concealed handgun.  But giving guns to teachers and janitors is not the answer.  How can the NRA or anybody give such a responsibility to our teachers?  Arming our educators and other school employees is an awful... terrible...horrible...bad, bad, bad idea!  Teachers do not have the training for a high pressure situation that includes the snap judgment of dealing with a deranged madman with a highpowered gun.  Let our teachers do what they do best - and that is teach.  If a teacher had to carry a gun to school everyday - I can guarantee you that he or she is going to be thinking about that gun - and when he or she has to use it.  Teachers are not cops.  Let our teachers focus on teaching.  The more guns that are in school...the more dangerous it's going to be.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

Do Not Stop The PSA Test For Prostate Cancer Screening. Instead, Recommend It For Even Younger Men Too.

     One in six American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point in their lifetime.  That being said, one of the most controversial topics in health care today is whether men should get routine prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests to screen for prostate cancer.

     The United States Preventive Services Task Force has issued recommendations against the PSA screenings for males of any age.  The government advisory task force panel explained its opposition stating that, although results of a PSA test may be the reason a doctor performs a biopsy and ultimately discovers that a patient has prostate cancer, many of the malignancies would never have done the man - who has been diagnosed - any harm.  The panel also concluded that prostate biopsies can lead to infections and that treatment for prostate cancer - such as the radical prostatectomy surgical procedure - can leave a man with post-operative complications such as erectile dysfunction and/or incontinence; and that treatment for prostate cancer can, in some cases, lead to death.  But despite the task force panel's advice, lives are, in fact, saved as a result of the PSA test.  To me, it doesn't make much sense to not recommend a test that could save people's lives.  In fact, some doctors believe the PSA test can indeed save lives.  The question that I have is - why will certain doctors on one hand say the PSA test is beneficial, but on the other hand the same physicians will say it's a waste of time and money?  It's difficult to comprehend why any professional medical expert would suggest that the PSA test is a lifesaving method of cancer screening, while also indicating that there are no benefits for the test.  The contradiction is mindboggling and quite puzzling.

     Major League Baseball's Joe Torre and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani are among tens of thousands of men in the United States who believe a PSA test saved their lives. 

     And Dan Zenka, who is senior vice president of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, says his organization supports widespread PSA testing.  Zenka, a prostate cancer survivor himself, says of the PSA test, "I can tell you it saved my life."

     Although some doctors agree that the PSA test is not necessary, other physicians believe that testing, beginning at age 50, is essential.  Personally speaking, I disagree with both schools of thought. 

     As a prostate cancer survivor of nearly 18 years, I was 38 when my doctor first suspected that I had the disease.  I was 40 when I was formally diagnosed and underwent treatment.  Therefore, if I had waited until age 50 before I was given a PSA test, there is not only a distinct possibility, but a distinct likelihood - according to many doctors I've consulted with - that I'd be dead today.

     I will turn 58 on February 1st.  It irritates me to no end that health insurance companies refuse to pay for certain tests and procedures - such as the PSA test for men and mammograms for women - if the patient doesn't fall in to a certain age group.

     For an American male, the lifetime risk of developing prostate cancer is 16 percent, but the risk of dying of prostate cancer is only 2.9 percent.  Such statistics by the American Cancer Society suggests that prostate cancer often grows so slowly that most men will die of other causes before prostate cancer becomes advanced and fatal.  Still, prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths in men in the United States.

     As the old saying goes, "I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV" - but I believe every man should be given his first PSA test at no older than age 35.  And if there's family history in a young relative, then blood should be drawn for screening by age 30.

     I understand that my opinions about the PSA test are purely personal, as I have no medical background.  But, as one who has experienced prostate cancer first hand - and as I noted above - was suspected of having the disease at age 38 - why not at least learn if a man has an overly high PSA level when he is younger than age 50?

     If a man who is 35 - or younger - is given a PSA test - and an elevated PSA level is detected - his life could be saved.  If he wasn't given that PSA test until age 50 - and he actually had cancer for many, many years - by the time a malignancy is discovered, the cancer may have spread to other areas of his body; and once that cancer has metastasized, the patient's life expectancy is bound to be shortened and treatment will likely be an effort in futility.  It, therefore, seems obvious to me that the chief reason for a reduction in advanced cases of prostate cancer is the PSA test.

     As for the PSA levels, doctors will generally say that anything below 4.0 is nothing to worry about.  Sure...if a man is 70 or 80...that is perhaps true.  But if a man is younger - especially one who is 40 or even younger than that - a level below 4.0 may be a great need for concern.  After all, there's numerous documentation that shows men with PSA levels of 20.0 who do not have prostate cancer, while others with 2.0 levels that do have the disease.  For that reason, I fully understand that the PSA test is not always an accurate method of detecting prostate cancer.

     However, there is no reason to stop the PSA test and no reason not to give the PSA test to men of any age - including younger men.  Oh I know what some of you are saying - "Who's going to pay for it?"  When it comes to saving people's lives - should we really be putting a price tag on it?  If the man was your father...your son...your brother...your uncle...even your elderly grandfather...would you want him to die when his life could have been saved by a PSA test and medical treatment? 

     More than 28,000 men die of prostate cancer each year in the United States.  That's about one man in 36 who will die from the disease.  Used correctly, the PSA test is invaluable.  If screening is abandoned, then there will certainly be men who will miss their chance for cure and that number of 28,000 will more than likely go up and up and up.

     Today, treatments for prostate cancer are not as invasive, in some cases, so that men do not always have to suffer through lengthy hospital stays and post-operative complications.  I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the PSA test saves lives; and that not only older men can benefit from the test, but younger men - perhaps as young as those in their thirties - will as well.

     Not giving a man a simple blood test should not be the reason why he is not screened for a deadly disease such as prostate cancer.  A little bit of blood TAKEN today...could GIVE someone their life tomorrow - and for many tomorrows to come.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.










  

It's Not Worth Dying To Take A Picture. Justin Bieber Wants Paparazzi Laws After A Photographer Is Killed.

     Unfortunately, it often takes death in order for people to realize that something is bad.  And sometimes...it takes a pop superstar - or at least someone famous - or with connections or clout - to get something done that is good.

     Justin Bieber is the most Googled person on Earth.  The 18-year old recording artist and entertainer, who began his career just five years ago as an Internet sensation, after his music videos went viral, is calling for legislation that would create paparazzi laws. 

     A freelance photographer died on January 1st, 2013, when he tried to take a picture of a person he thought was Bieber; a photo that reportedly would have been worth only between one-hundred and five-hundred dollars.

     Chris Guerra was killed on New Year's Day when he attempted to shoot pictures of Bieber's white Ferrari in Los Angeles.  Bieber was not even in the car.  It was driven by a friend who was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer for speeding on Interstate 405.  The vehicle exited on to Sepulveda Boulevard and Guerra had followed it.

     Authorities in southern California say the 29-year old Guerra had been standing on a narrow divider on Sepulveda.  A CHP officer reportedly told Guerra numerous times that it was not safe for him to be there and advised him to return to his vehicle.  After the policeman gave Bieber's friend a traffic ticket, Guerra ran across the busy boulevard and he was struck by a Toyota Highlander SUV.  Guerra was taken to UCLA Medical Center where he was pronounced dead.  The driver of the SUV was a 69-year old woman who had two small grandchildren in the back seat.  Officials do not believe her to be at fault for the accident and reportedly she will not be cited. 

     In a statement on January 2nd, Bieber said, "While I was not present nor directly involved with this tragic accident, my thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim."  Bieber's manager, Scooter Braun stated that "Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders and the photographers themselves."

     There is no question that the obsession with the paparazzi to stalk celebrities and to take that one picture - that million dollar photograph - is out of control.  Enough is enough.  A photographer has now died.  Will it take, God forbid, a superstar performer to be killed before a law is written and passed that would prevent the paparazzi from harassing celebrities?  The paparazzi have gone too far with their irresponsible behavior.

     True...when you're an actor, a singer or any famous performer, it's part of the job to be available, to fans and photographers alike, for pictures.  Everyone wants to touch you or just to be with you.  But U.S. celebrities are Americans.  They deserve the same freedom that the rest of us enjoy as citizens of this great country.  Their fame should not cost them their privacy.  They should be allowed to have secrets.  They should be allowed to have a private life away from the cameras and away from the spotlights.

     Is there really such an insatiable appetite by the American public to see a celebrity taking out the garbage at his or her home?  Do we really care that much? 

     Has the glamour and mystique of Hollywood been replaced?  It seems today that the paparazzi would rather get a picture of a star wearing shorts and a t-shirt as he or she is grocery shopping than taking a photograph of that celebrity all dressed up to go to a red carpet event.

     Dealing with the media - including the paparazzi - is part of being a celebrity.  It comes with the territory.  And to some degree, celebrities should expect a modicum of intrusion in their private lives, but only to a certain extent.  If the paparazzi were less interfering, less meddlesome, and less troublesome...the stars just may be more gracious, more generous and more understanding for the photographers' needs...and therefore, the celebrities would make themselves more available, which I believe most of them do anyway. 

     But respect a star's space... and hopefully nobody else will get hurt...and nobody else will die.  As the saying goes, "Curiosity killed the cat."  And in this case...it did.

     A law is indeed necessary to protect our stars and celebrities of all types.  And perhaps it'll take someone like Justin Bieber...to make it happen.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

 

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

What Kind Of A Politician - What Kind Of A Man - Votes Thumbs Down For A Hurricane Relief Bill? One Man's Name Is Congressman Paul Ryan.

     The first of two parts of the controversial Hurricane Sandy relief bill was passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, January 4th, 2013 providing 9.7 billion dollars in federal aid.  Congress will not vote on the second part of the package, which will be for another 51 billion dollars, until members return to the Capitol on January 15th. 

     The vote for part one was 354 to 67. 

     My question today is...who are the selfish, inhumane and inconsiderate individuals who voted against the measure?

     Well, I can give you one common thread.  They're all Republicans.  And one of them is Congressman Paul Ryan, who I'm sure you'll recall was Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012 and a person some had thought was a potential presidential candidate for the GOP in 2016.  Not anymore!  This man will be lucky if he's ever elected again to anything better than dog catcher.  And if our canine friends have anything to say about it, Ryan won't get that job either.

     Paul Ryan and his 66 cruel cronies are heartless and should be ashamed of themselves.  Do Ryan and the other 66 Republicans have no conscience whatsoever? 

     How do you vote against helping people who are in such dire need of assistance?

     Ryan will vote "yea" for tax breaks for the rich, but "nay" to help hurricane victims.  Is this guy for real?  And he calls himself a Christian?  I would bet that Jesus Christ himself would have voted in favor of helping those who are suffering from Sandy.

     Let me take you back to October 2012 - after superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc along the east coast - and walloped New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.  It was just prior to the presidential election when Paul Ryan's spokesperson, Brendan Buck, had the following statement on behalf of the Wisconsin congressman.

     "Paul Ryan believes providing aid to victims of natural disasters is a critical obligation and should be treated as a high priority.  A Romney-Ryan administration will always ensure that disaster funding is there for those in need.  Period."

     I suppose that Mr. Ryan has a very short memory.  Either that...or he was just doing as always...and playing politics with the American people.

     Let me give you something else to ponder; and this is quite important to my commentary today and how you can judge Paul Ryan if you're one who happens to still like him or have any respect for him as a public servant and as a human being.

     In June 2008, after months of heavy rain, numerous rivers overflowed their banks for several weeks at a time, and broke through levees at many different locations.  Flooding continued in to July and affected Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Paul Ryan's homestate of Wisconsin.  On June 14th, 2008, federal disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was authorized under a major disaster declaration, which was issued for the state of Wisconsin by President George W. Bush.

     On June 19th, 2008, the House of Representatives voted on The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (H.R. 2642).  Included in that 162 billion dollar measure was 2.7 billion dollars in disaster aid and relief funds for the June 2008 midwest floods and 10 billion dollars in additional funding.  The concurrence vote passed the House 416 to 12.  Therefore, the House voted to concur with the Senate amendment.

     Not only did Paul Ryan vote for funds to help his own state, but he led the parade to help get the money.  Yet now...when it comes to helping three northeastern blue states - New Jersey, New York and Connecticut - the midwestern hypocrite votes against giving aid to people who are hurting badly and who need help now.  What kind of a politician - what kind of a man - votes against a hurricane relief bill?

     One would think that Paul Ryan is someone who is suppose to worry and care about everybody in these 50 United States of America - especially if he plans to run for the highest office in the land in 2016.  But let's remember what his buddy, Mitt Romney said back in September of 2012 when he addressed donors during a private fundraiser, which just happened to be caught on tape. 

     “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what.  My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

     Well, perhaps they're two peas in a pod.  Former Massachusetts Governor Romney didn't want to worry about nearly half of the people in this country.  Congressman Ryan apparently doesn't want - and doesn't need - to worry about the people of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

     Thank God we have a President by the name of Barack Obama who worries about 100 percent of Americans all the time.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.

 









    

Saint Paul, Minnesota Says No To Candy Cigarettes And Bubblegum Cigars - And It's No Joke!

     I have never taken a puff of a cigarette.  As a young kid, as a teenager or as an adult, I just never had the desire.  But I LOVE candy.  Always did.  Still do.

     One of the sugary treats that would satisfy my sweet tooth when I was a small child was a candy cigarette.  Although some of my friends would appear to mimic their parents by holding it like a real tobacco cigarette, I just stuck it in my mouth, sucked on it a bit like a lollipop and then chewed it up.  I never envisioned those crunchy confections as a substitute for the real smokes.  And although some kids perhaps did, I'm sure there are many who didn't.  But that was 50 years ago when smoking cigarettes was made to look glamorous on television and in the movies.  Of course, it's not anymore.

     Another tasty tidbit that was sold in my local sweet shop was the bubblegum cigar.  They came in a variety of colors including blue, pink, yellow and green - just to name a few.  The bubblegum stogies were full of delightfully fruitful flavor and with them you could blow the biggest bubbles. But I certainly didn't walk around the neighborhood pretending I was smoking my grandfather's good Havana.

     In Saint Paul, Minnesota last month, an old fashioned soda fountain shop - straight out of It's A Wonderful Life (without the pharmacy) - was given a strict warning by city officials to stop selling the novelty candy cigarettes, bubblegum cigars and other tobacco-themed goodies or else risk a misdemeanor citation and a fine of $500.

     When I first read about this story, I thought to myself - "This is a joke, right?  This has got to be a joke."

     But according to authorities in Saint Paul, this is no joking matter, there's nothing funny going on, and nobody's laughing.  Saint Paul officials say the warning was the result of inspectors investigating a complaint about the old-time candy store selling products that resemble actual cigarettes and other tobacco wares.  A published report notes that selling these kinds of vendibles violates a city ordinance barring the sale of candy cigs. The ordinance was reportedly enacted to discourage youngsters from lighting up real smokes.

    The owner of the Minnesota shop says she was surprised by the city's warning.  Tobi Lynden, who opened her Saint Paul business - Lynden's Soda Fountain - in April 2012, says the candy cigarettes were best selling items and were mostly purchased by adults, not children.

     I'm 57 years old and - as I wrote at the outset of this essay - I enjoyed candy cigarettes and bubblegum cigars as a child, but I have never smoked.  Not ever.  Hmm.  How is that possible?

     I cannot believe that any child is going to begin a habit of smoking tobacco - of any kind - because of candy cigarettes and bubblegum cigars.  The addiction to cigarette smoking is the result of a continual dosage and ultimate dependence on nicotine.  It's not a psychological effect.  If that were the case then the following would be my recommendation to moms and dads, to "Uncle Sam" and to local and state governments all across America.

     Let's make candy that looks like the vegetables and fruits in the farmer's market.  We can produce everything from candy carrots and cauliflower, to bubblegum broccoli and brussels sprouts.  To use a phrase made famous by comedian Jon Lovitz when he was one of the stars of NBC's Saturday Night Live - "Yeah...that's the ticket!"

     That way by kids eating their veggie candies they'll be duped in to eating real vegetables; and maybe the obesity rate for our children will dramatically decrease.

     Now is there anyone out there that really believes that could be possible? Nah!  I don't think so.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.