News Commentary Today

Some researchers spent $2.4 million trying to test the power of prayer. In the largest scientific test of its kind, they concluded that heart surgery patients showed no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery.

In the name of God, how can anyone allow $2.4 million, that could go to charitable causes or other important projects for the greater good, be wasted on such ridiculousness. Of what value did they envision for there research before they flushed $2.4 million down the toilet, more money than most people see in a lifetime.

Firstly, how does prayer work? Do we assume that prayers are being addressed to God or do we assume that our mental thoughts can heal physical bodies? Let's assume the former so I don't have to waste your time and my time discussing the latter. So if prayer is being addressed to God, then wouldn't the effectiveness of your prayer depend upon your religion? For example, let us say, for argument's sake, that the one true God is the God of the Jews, wouldn't the prayers of a devout Muslim or Christian be less effective.

Secondly, do we assume that God perforce must always act as we pray for him to act? Does prayer have that power? Even if we assume that prayer theoretically has such a power, to change God's will, would that not depend upon the merits of the individual and/or the intensity and fervor of the prayer. The study asked total strangers to pray on the patient's behalf. How much feeling and meaning did the stranger put into his prayer for the patient? Did the study also take into account the moral and ethical values of each stranger praying on behalf of the patient? A prayer is not physical. A prayer is not accomplished by merely saying words or think thoughts. Prayer by definition is spiritual, metaphysical and deeply emotional. It is not 500 milligrams of ibuprofen.

Thirdly, even if the person who claims to be praying is actually thinking the thoughts he or she claims, or feels in his or her heart what he or she is saying, how can you scientifically test the effectiveness of a prayer? How can you create a controlled environment? Perhaps, there are hundreds of people who hate the patient and when they heard of the patient's heart condition, they curse him and wish he dies. Perhaps the family members are praying for the patient's death so they can collect the inheritance.

Finally, who is to say whether a prayer was effective or ineffective? Even if the patient died, perhaps the prayer was very effective. Perhaps the patient experienced less suffering or perhaps it provided the patient with atonement for sins. Perhaps the value of prayer is for the one who prays, that he or she should elevate themselves spiritually and connect to God. The condition of the patient and perhaps the death of the patient provides the opportunity for a person to pray and connect to God when they otherwise wouldn't.

God's decree of justice, his understanding of good and evil, his knowledge of what is best for individuals, families, communities and the entire world is zillions of times more perceptive than mine or any human beings comprehension. Perhaps a person is decreed to die, and no matter how much I want the person to live, God perceives the death of the individual as the most just or the best for all parties involved, perhaps even for the one who prays and for the patient. Perhaps the patient's mission on this Earth is over and he should not be held back from the heaven that awaits him or her even for another moment. This would be true for any situation and any prayer not just a prayer for a sick person.

I could go on and on, but I don't think there is a need to. I think you get the point! There is a place for science within Religion, but there is no place for religion in Science!

Amnesty International has just come out with a report faulting Taser, Inc. for more deaths related to their stun guns. According to the report printed on their website, they are concerned about "the growing number of fatalities involving police tasers is growing each year. Since 2001, more than 70 people are reported to have died in the USA and Canada after being struck by M26 or X26 tasers, with the numbers rising each year." Amnesty urged police departments to suspend the use of tasers pending more studies on safety.

This report is absolute gobbledygook. Aren't there enough other human rights issues around the world to keep Amnesty International busy? Don't they have any where else to focus the millions of dollars they solicit from the citizens of this country?

Of course taser related deaths are growing! That's because there are more tasers on the streets every year saving lives. Both the lives of criminals and the lives of police officer. In 2001 only 1,000 of the nation's 18,000 police agencies used tasers. Today more than 7,000 departments are using tasers according to a government study. The United States Congress' Government Accountability Office said that police had used tasers in more than 70,000 incidents in 2005 alone.

The real question Amnesty should be asking itself is how many fewer criminals and police officers are being killed each year due to bullet wounds. Taser estimates that more than 9,000 lives have been saved due to their devices.

The vast majority of the deaths reported, if not all of them, where a taser was utilized, had other factors that may have attributed to death such as health problems, drug use, etc. Are police supposed to kindly ask a criminal if they are on drugs or have health problems before trying to protect our cities? Would it have been less lethal to use bullets on the drug induced suspect?

Amnesty International did make one valid argument. The cited a number of cases where police officer seemed to use the taser when it seemed unnecessary. Police brutality is nothing new. If there are incidents of police abusing suspects with the taser stun guns, then these cases must be properly reported and investigated.

Misuse of the stun guns has nothing to do with the product or their manufacturer. The fault lies with those who are using the product, just like any other consumer product one might purchase. Do we fault General Electric, if I guy decides to toast some bread while he is taking a bath and the GE toaster accidentally falls into the tub?

If Amnesty is truly an organization devoted to human rights they should be praising Taser Inc. for their life saving products and focus their energies towards the police agencies around the countries to better train their officers and investigate on all police brutality.

Although this news is not unique, as numerous people have already been arrested for fraud regarding Hurricane Katrina and countless of people are currently under investigation, this was the most recent story I found in today's New York Times.

The police arrested a woman from Queens, NY yesterday, saying she had falsely claimed to be a victim of Hurricane Katrina and had taken thousands of dollars in aid from state and federal agencies. The 37 year old woman was charged by prosecutors with several counts of welfare fraud and grand larceny, the latest additions to a long rap sheet of fraud, arrests and legal disputes spanning from Mississippi to New York. Her most recent offense was trying to cash an expired check for $483.26, altered to read $3,483.26, at a check-cashing business.

Over the last two weeks, prosecutors have discovered that the women never lived in Biloxi, Mississippi as she claimed and had registered for public assistance at a Brooklyn address last July; none of the four children she claimed as dependents actually live with her. On the day Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, they said, someone used her New York State welfare benefits card in Brooklyn, NY

In an hour long conversation with a reporter from the New York Times, the woman insisted that her story was true. She said that she had documents from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) verifying her address in Biloxi, MS and that her children and husband but would be back at the hotel later that evening.

After searching her hotel room she said she could not find the documents. Her husband and children never arrived. She could not provide the names or phone numbers of even one friend, family or former co-worker in Biloxi who could verify that she lived there.

Yes, shame on this woman for taking advantage of a situation in which thousands upon thousands of people who have suffered in the Katrina disaster. But do you think this woman is an exception to the rule? Unfortunately, we live in a world where you really can't trust anyone you don't know. All this woman's case does is reinforce that you can't trust anyone who asks me for money until you check it out yourself.

Sometimes we want to help so much and we want to do the right thing, but just giving money to an individual or to an organization without checking into the matter first is simply negligence. It is a way to ease our guilt without taking the time and energy to really help. Instead of just giving people money, that they may lose, gamble away or misuse to by drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, give people directly the necessities that they claim they need.

I can't tell you how many times a beggar approaches me and tells me that they are hungry. When I offer to take them somewhere to buy them things you should see how many don't take me up on their offer. I remember a man who told me he needed to raise hundreds of dollars to pay for his mother's gravestone ("She should rest in peace..."). When I offered to take the man myself to purchase the whole thing he claimed he couldn't allow me to do that. When I accused him of being a liar and a fraud, he got upset and walked off in a huff.

Yes, the situations of some people must be pretty desperate if they have to sink to these unethical methods to raise money. What bothers me is that with all of the intelligence, it takes to be a fraud, why can't these people live an honest life. The answer is most probably because they are lazy. They think that fraud is the better method that will make more money faster and will less effort. It is a responsibility of the remainder of us, the hard working Americans, no matter where we may be on the economic scale, not to allow the shysters of this world to take advantage of us.

It all began with the X Prize Foundation, a non-profit prize institute based in Los Angeles, California. Their self proclaimed mission is to create radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity. So a few years ago they offered the X Prize, a $10,000,000 reward for the first privately funded, non-government group that could successfully build a reusable spaceship that could carry two passengers to a height of 100 kilometers in altitude above the Earth, return safely to Earth, and repeats the achievement with the same vehicle within two weeks. The goal was to motivate private-sector development of rocket ships and start a push toward an industry of space tourism. Over two dozen contestants from around the world vied for the X Prize. In October, 2004, SpaceShipOne, designed by Burt Rutan and financed by the likes of Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen won the coveted prize.

Now the race is on between a dozen or so companies to build rocket planes in order to launch ordinary rich people out of this world. Up until now only the super-duper rich could fly into space. Dennis Tito, Mark Shuttleworth and Gregory Olson each put about $20 million on their Platinum credit cards to ride along on a Russian rocket ship to the international space station. Poor Lance Bass, of pop group 'N Sync, did all of his astronaut training, but came up a little short on the entrance fee.

Companies like Rocketplane Kistler, Virgin Galactic, Planet Space and Space Adventures are hoping that in two or three years they will able to send their first customers into orbit. US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta pledges that the government would move quickly to grant space travel licenses to worthy companies. According to Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin, tickets should start at around $250,000 a piece, for a two hour trip into suborbital space, 60 miles above the surface of the Earth, where passengers will experience a few minutes of weightlessness.

It is so wonderful to see the astounding achievements of the human race. It is fantastic that in the 21^st century, thousands and thousands of people, with a quarter of a million dollars burning a hole in their pocket, can amuse themselves with a ride on a 60-mile diameter Ferris Wheel. Unfortunately, in 2006 there will be over 1 billion people in the world who won't share in all the excitement. That's because they don't have access to safe drinking water and a third of them don't have access to a basic toilet.

Everyday over 4,500 children die from diarrhea, due to unsafe drinking water and unsanitary conditions. These children don't need bottles of Imodium-AD, they need large amounts of capital to invest in water and sanitation projects in their neighborhoods. Think New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but on a global scale. According to the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), approximately 400 million children are at risk of water born diseases, which kill a child somewhere on the planet every 15 seconds.

So what does space tourism have to do with drinking water? The common denominator is large amounts of money to see these ventures flourish. There is plenty of profit to be made in providing safe water and sanitary services. The World Health Organization commissioned the Swiss Tropical Institute to carry out a economic evaluation study and found that every dollar invested in water and sanitation infrastructure would provide an economic return of between $3 and $34 dollars on the investment, depending on the region. The only question is the order of our priorities.

If Richard Branson is an entrepreneur, shouldn't a 30-multiple return on his investment raise his interests or does Virgin Galactic have more pizzazz then Virgin Water Works? If the X Prize Foundation truly is committed to create radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity they should focus on the hundreds of millions in need of clean water instead of the hundreds who want a extraterrestrial thrill. Space tourism no matter how interesting it sounds does not benefit humanity. It only benefits a few businessmen and a miniscule segment of the population who obviously have no idea what to do with all the extra money they have amassed in this world of income disparity.

Before we shoot off to the stars, those who have the means should first focus on the cosmic changes we can bring to the humans on the planet Earth.

In West Townshend, Vermont, a 73 year old women is being tried for murdering her 78 year old frail husband after 40 years of marriage. Police say that she tried to kill him first with sleeping pills, but ended up attacking him with a heavy stick or baseball bat, as heavy blows to the head were the cause of death.

Several witnesses testified in court that she admitted the murder to them. One witness testified that after the accused admitted to murdering her husband because she was tired of being in a loveless marriage for 40 years and tired of caring for her frail husband, she asked the accused, "Why didn't you leave?" The accused answered simply, "My life is over. I'll go to prison…I've been in prison for years anyway."

How sad is this. It reminds me of the joke where at a 25th wedding anniversary party a man finds his friend, the guest of honor, in the bathroom of the banquet hall crying. He comes over and asks the man why he's crying. The husband replies, "If I would have killed her, I would have been out of prison by now."

A joke is a joke, but I guess there are people who might really feel that way. Can you imagine a woman so unhappy with her husband that she would continue to live in a marriage for so long without filing for divorce? If she really wanted to kill her husband, to collect the inheritance, why would she kill him with a baseball bat? How hard would it be to kill him in his sleep in a painless manner and say that he died in his sleep. If she had a secret love affair with another man (as the prosecution is trying to build a case for motive) so then get a divorce and run off with your lover.

From the way the case appears she really had strong negative feelings against this man. I think a large part of the problem, in this case particularly, and why the divorce rate in general in America is so high is because people get married for the wrong reasons

Sometimes people use marriage to solve there drive for sexual intercourse. Birth control was invented so people could fulfill there sexual desires without the "burden" of responsibility of a family. Naturally, sex is only meant as a means of reproduction just like all other animals on the planet. The fact that it is enjoyable was done on purpose so that people should come to reproduce for their survival, but people are looking to exploit sexual intercourse to only take the enjoyment and not utilize it for what it is for. To bear offspring and raise a family.

Thus people find themselves getting into relationships not to start a family, but because they accidentally became pregnant, or they want a steady sex partner or they think it is the socially accepted thing to do. Either way, later down the road of marriage when sex does not become important anymore, nor does physical appearance or beauty, the marriage is in for rough ride. If you are not choosing a life partner for the long haul to share your life with and build a life with then the marriage will not last.

Raising a family and living as husband and wife takes a lot of work. No matter who you choose and no matter how compatible the two are, it always takes work to build a meaningful relationship with anyone. However, the more suitable of a partner you choose, for all of the long term reasons, the better your chances of a successful marriage and lifelong relationship.

If you are in a loveless marriage then you might have to get out, but there is no point in looking for another marriage until you understand the point of marriage.