I just had to go back to my September post from this year regarding HP/ Hewlitt-Packard. I can only hope that Gingy, the wonderful woman in Executive Customer Relations Office, or whatever they called it, because it certainly isn't customer service or proper customer relations to 1) not read and comprehend a one page letter sent to the CEO of the company before calling the writer and 2) hanging up on the customer that Gingy herself called when the customer had to read Gingy the letter a THIRD time because she just couldn't wrap her little head around the three problems set forth in the letter, acknowledges her role in HP's status.
So Gingy, I hope you take some pride in knowing that you were part of the reason your former boss received this "honor" and why HP's stock is so low: "general negligence towards customers" is certainly a label I would apply to your treatment of me.
For the full story, check out the link. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/worst-ceos-2011-netflix-reed-hastings-tops-tuck-161015122.html
And, as for Tuck, a shout out to my Alma mater: Go Big Green!
Finally, as for my computer, my Sony Vaio is doing just wonderfully, thanks for asking HP's Gingy! I know I'm laughing, but she may not be. ;-)
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Hypocritical double standard
Scott Brown, the Senator from Massachusetts who annoyed the Democratic Party by winning the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat has been taking some heat for a two word response he made to a comment by one of his Democratic challengers, Ms. Warren. See the story here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-brown-elizabeth-warren-spar-over-nude-photo-200932590.html
My take on it:Warren Warren
My take on it:
Let's turn the tables and say that it was Warren who had posed nude in the '80s and Brown made the comment that he didn't take his clothes off in his response to a reporter's question. Women would have been all over Brown for his comments like monkeys on a cupcake, and not in a good way. And yet they would have been cheering Warren
As a woman attorney I am ashamed of Warren and any so-called women's groups up in arms over this. You want equality ladies, then accept it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Warren Warren
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Why Conrad Murray's Defense Should Fail
For those of you who do not know, Conrad Murray was the doctor in charge of Michael Jackson's care in the weeks before and the day he died. For ease of this story we will now refer to them as CM (Conrad Murray) and MJ (Michael Jackson). CM is going to trial now on a charge of involuntary manslaughter in MJ's death. A definition of California law can be found here: http://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html (I can't vouch as to its authenticity, but it's a place to start if you would like to know more).
In any case, his legal team has decided to go with the defense of "MJ did it", per attorney Ed Chernoff's opening statement. Here are at least some of the reasons why this defense should fail:
1) CM was not board certified in any specialty at the time of MJ's death. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/prosecutor-michael-jacksons-doctor-conrad-murray-repeatedly-acted-with-gross-negligence/ That means that he wasn't board certified to administer anesthesia.
2) CM administered propofol, an anesthetic that is only used in hospital settings with lifesaving equipment available and monitors, to MJ in his home, without lifesaving equipment, without additional medical staff to monitor him, without equipment to monitor MJ's vitals.
3) CM procured large amounts of propofol for MJ within one month of MJ's death. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-bought-huge-stash-of-drugs-for-singer-detective_n_807122.html
4) After administering propofol to MJ, CM left the room, telling police that he was gone for a two minute bathroom break, whereas other testimony and cell phone records indicate that he was on his cell phone outside MJ's room, leaving MJ alone for more than that 2 minute bathroom break. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/michael-jackson-sade-anding-phone-conrad-murray-pop/story?id=12827232&page=1 http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/14/conrad-murray-michael-jackson-manslaughter-reaction-propofol-bridgette-morgan-michelle-bella-sade-armstrongattorney-strip-clubs-women-money-girlfriend/
5) CM claimed to have hooked up MJ to an IV in his leg - and now is claiming that MJ self-administered propofol to himself. Well, if that were the case, and CM was only out of the room for 2 minutes as he claimed, how is that possible? If the propofol were properly secured and out of reach of the patient as it should have been, MJ couldn't have done so. If he were only gone two minutes, and MJ were asleep at the time CM left the room for his potty break, there was not enough time for someone with an IV in his leg to get up, walk around, find the drugs, unsecure them, find a syringe, inject himself and get back into bed. Of course, if CM left the drugs next to the patient within reach, well, doesn't common sense indicate that such behavior would be negligent? In any case, the two minute story, and the self-administration story just don't make sense. If CM truly felt that MJ was getting addicted to a non-addictive medication, why would he leave it out and unsecure, and available to his patient? Why did he leave his patient unattended for any amount of time? Why was there not at least a nurse anesthetist in the room monitoring MJ when CM had to leave the room? This just does not add up.
6) Why was CM on the cell phone with a girlfriend instead of waiting 82 minutes to call 911? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1918722,00.html http://news.ph.msn.com/entertainment/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5324227
7) Why did CM not call 911 or have someone else call 911, while he performed CPR on MJ? Why was CPR not performed correctly? CM performed CPR with MJ on the bed, and not on a hard surface, thereby severely reducing the effectiveness of chest compressions.
8) Why would CM not talk to police at the time? Why did he disappear and wait for days?
Sorry, CM, this all just doesn't add up. And, if you had properly administered the medications, MJ would have been in a hospital setting, would have been monitored, the monitors would have sounded alarms if MJ went into distress, there would have been life-saving equipment available, the drugs would have been secured and locked up away from the patient, and MJ would likely not have died that day, but for the actions and inactions of CM.
Even if I believe the claim that MJ took an extra dose, it still falls on CM for (1) failing to properly monitor MJ (e.g. leaving the room, no one else there to monitor, no monitoring equipment, etc.), (2) failing to properly secure medications, (3) failing to notice the exact time MJ went into distress, (4) failing to timely call 911, (5) failing to properly perform CPR, (6) failing to inform the paramedics when they arrived, that CM had administered propofol to MJ. . . . the list goes on.
Remember folks, this is all my opinion.
In any case, his legal team has decided to go with the defense of "MJ did it", per attorney Ed Chernoff's opening statement. Here are at least some of the reasons why this defense should fail:
1) CM was not board certified in any specialty at the time of MJ's death. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/prosecutor-michael-jacksons-doctor-conrad-murray-repeatedly-acted-with-gross-negligence/ That means that he wasn't board certified to administer anesthesia.
2) CM administered propofol, an anesthetic that is only used in hospital settings with lifesaving equipment available and monitors, to MJ in his home, without lifesaving equipment, without additional medical staff to monitor him, without equipment to monitor MJ's vitals.
3) CM procured large amounts of propofol for MJ within one month of MJ's death. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-bought-huge-stash-of-drugs-for-singer-detective_n_807122.html
4) After administering propofol to MJ, CM left the room, telling police that he was gone for a two minute bathroom break, whereas other testimony and cell phone records indicate that he was on his cell phone outside MJ's room, leaving MJ alone for more than that 2 minute bathroom break. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/michael-jackson-sade-anding-phone-conrad-murray-pop/story?id=12827232&page=1 http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/14/conrad-murray-michael-jackson-manslaughter-reaction-propofol-bridgette-morgan-michelle-bella-sade-armstrongattorney-strip-clubs-women-money-girlfriend/
5) CM claimed to have hooked up MJ to an IV in his leg - and now is claiming that MJ self-administered propofol to himself. Well, if that were the case, and CM was only out of the room for 2 minutes as he claimed, how is that possible? If the propofol were properly secured and out of reach of the patient as it should have been, MJ couldn't have done so. If he were only gone two minutes, and MJ were asleep at the time CM left the room for his potty break, there was not enough time for someone with an IV in his leg to get up, walk around, find the drugs, unsecure them, find a syringe, inject himself and get back into bed. Of course, if CM left the drugs next to the patient within reach, well, doesn't common sense indicate that such behavior would be negligent? In any case, the two minute story, and the self-administration story just don't make sense. If CM truly felt that MJ was getting addicted to a non-addictive medication, why would he leave it out and unsecure, and available to his patient? Why did he leave his patient unattended for any amount of time? Why was there not at least a nurse anesthetist in the room monitoring MJ when CM had to leave the room? This just does not add up.
6) Why was CM on the cell phone with a girlfriend instead of waiting 82 minutes to call 911? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1918722,00.html http://news.ph.msn.com/entertainment/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5324227
7) Why did CM not call 911 or have someone else call 911, while he performed CPR on MJ? Why was CPR not performed correctly? CM performed CPR with MJ on the bed, and not on a hard surface, thereby severely reducing the effectiveness of chest compressions.
8) Why would CM not talk to police at the time? Why did he disappear and wait for days?
Sorry, CM, this all just doesn't add up. And, if you had properly administered the medications, MJ would have been in a hospital setting, would have been monitored, the monitors would have sounded alarms if MJ went into distress, there would have been life-saving equipment available, the drugs would have been secured and locked up away from the patient, and MJ would likely not have died that day, but for the actions and inactions of CM.
Even if I believe the claim that MJ took an extra dose, it still falls on CM for (1) failing to properly monitor MJ (e.g. leaving the room, no one else there to monitor, no monitoring equipment, etc.), (2) failing to properly secure medications, (3) failing to notice the exact time MJ went into distress, (4) failing to timely call 911, (5) failing to properly perform CPR, (6) failing to inform the paramedics when they arrived, that CM had administered propofol to MJ. . . . the list goes on.
Remember folks, this is all my opinion.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Bad customer service alert
I can't help but have the song with the lyrics "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" going through my head right now. It appears that Hewlett-Packard CEO Leo Apotheker may soon be ousted. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_18944313?source=rss And may I personally say, in my opinion, good riddance!
Several weeks ago I faxed Leo a one (that's 1) page letter outlining my trouble with three (3) HP laptops, two of which I own and one of which I considered buying but for the fact that HP shipped them without ensuring that the switchable graphics cards (it had 2) actually worked and were switchable. HP subsequently, after months of complaining, came up with a work-around to be implemented by the consumer - a BIOS update and the installation of a new driver (why HP couldn't do an automatic update is beyond me, but its choice). So, customers spent $1,000 plus on a laptop and then were turned into unpaid HP techs who had to put that model laptop into workable condition - the condition it should have been in when it was delivered! I would not buy this third laptop unless and until it was shipped in working condition.
In any case, 4 business days later I get a call from (we'll call her "G") G in the HP "Executive Customer Relations Office". Apparently, the thought of discussing THREE HP products was beyond her ken. She clearly hadn't read my letter, she had no understanding of the three products in question, had not reviewed the products prior to G calling me, and complained to me that I wanted to discuss too many products. Now seriously, how much information could I have put in a business letter of a single page and 12 point font about three products?
G's main concern was not to understand the problem (I asked Apotheker to explain to me, a long-time HP customer, why I should remain a long-time customer after having 1 HP laptop go through a class action lawsuit due to defects, have a second HP laptop die after 1 year of moderate use, and the third, which I was considering buying, but had not yet purchased, was released without HP ensuring it worked properly), but was to ship me off to a Case Manager about the third laptop (which she mistakenly thought I owned and could not be dissuaded from this mistaken belief) as quickly as possible.
After going through the issues and status of the three computers with G three times, G still was unable to keep them straight (she was insisting I owned the third which I considered buying and chose not to until the problems were resolved). I therefore offered to read G the letter directly. As I was reading her the letter, she was interrupting me with "I am not going to argue with you." Who knew reading a letter to try to help G keep the three computers straight was arguing? After making her statement, G hung up on me. HP has been known for having bad customer service, and this epitomizes it. Remember, G stated to me that she worked in the HP "Executive Customer Relations Office". If this is Executive Customer Relations representative and her behavior is this unprofessional, that speaks volumes as to why there is a long, well-documented history of HP's poor customer service all over the Internet.
I drafted another fax to Leo and sent it to him immediately after that phone call 8 days ago. I informed him that if he wished to keep me as a personal and business customer, I expected a phone call from someone other than G who knew the products and could have a rational discussion. To date, no response. I hope the entire executive team, including those who work for the so-called Executive Customer Relations office join Leo on his way out the door.
The only downside to this, is, that if the Board of Directors kick Leo out, he walks with almost 36 million dollars.
No CEO should be rewarded for failure. I know how to pay off the federal debt quickly: tax all so-called golden parachutes at 90% and put that money directly to paying off the national debt.
I can only hope that karma visits G as well in this whole management shake-up.
Several weeks ago I faxed Leo a one (that's 1) page letter outlining my trouble with three (3) HP laptops, two of which I own and one of which I considered buying but for the fact that HP shipped them without ensuring that the switchable graphics cards (it had 2) actually worked and were switchable. HP subsequently, after months of complaining, came up with a work-around to be implemented by the consumer - a BIOS update and the installation of a new driver (why HP couldn't do an automatic update is beyond me, but its choice). So, customers spent $1,000 plus on a laptop and then were turned into unpaid HP techs who had to put that model laptop into workable condition - the condition it should have been in when it was delivered! I would not buy this third laptop unless and until it was shipped in working condition.
In any case, 4 business days later I get a call from (we'll call her "G") G in the HP "Executive Customer Relations Office". Apparently, the thought of discussing THREE HP products was beyond her ken. She clearly hadn't read my letter, she had no understanding of the three products in question, had not reviewed the products prior to G calling me, and complained to me that I wanted to discuss too many products. Now seriously, how much information could I have put in a business letter of a single page and 12 point font about three products?
G's main concern was not to understand the problem (I asked Apotheker to explain to me, a long-time HP customer, why I should remain a long-time customer after having 1 HP laptop go through a class action lawsuit due to defects, have a second HP laptop die after 1 year of moderate use, and the third, which I was considering buying, but had not yet purchased, was released without HP ensuring it worked properly), but was to ship me off to a Case Manager about the third laptop (which she mistakenly thought I owned and could not be dissuaded from this mistaken belief) as quickly as possible.
After going through the issues and status of the three computers with G three times, G still was unable to keep them straight (she was insisting I owned the third which I considered buying and chose not to until the problems were resolved). I therefore offered to read G the letter directly. As I was reading her the letter, she was interrupting me with "I am not going to argue with you." Who knew reading a letter to try to help G keep the three computers straight was arguing? After making her statement, G hung up on me. HP has been known for having bad customer service, and this epitomizes it. Remember, G stated to me that she worked in the HP "Executive Customer Relations Office". If this is Executive Customer Relations representative and her behavior is this unprofessional, that speaks volumes as to why there is a long, well-documented history of HP's poor customer service all over the Internet.
I drafted another fax to Leo and sent it to him immediately after that phone call 8 days ago. I informed him that if he wished to keep me as a personal and business customer, I expected a phone call from someone other than G who knew the products and could have a rational discussion. To date, no response. I hope the entire executive team, including those who work for the so-called Executive Customer Relations office join Leo on his way out the door.
The only downside to this, is, that if the Board of Directors kick Leo out, he walks with almost 36 million dollars.
No CEO should be rewarded for failure. I know how to pay off the federal debt quickly: tax all so-called golden parachutes at 90% and put that money directly to paying off the national debt.
I can only hope that karma visits G as well in this whole management shake-up.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Some Independent t-shirts
You may want to check out this site for some t-shirts geared towards independent-minded folks.
Will be back with more political meanderings soon!
Will be back with more political meanderings soon!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
And on another personal note
Welcome to the world little HRG. May you too have a long and happy life filled with joy. Hugs to your proud parents too! :-)
See, the Cranky Yankee isn't always so cranky! :-)
See, the Cranky Yankee isn't always so cranky! :-)
Friday, September 2, 2011
On a personal note
Welcome to the world, CMR. May you have a long, happy life filled with joy. Hugs to your proud parents!
Federal Government Folly
Okay, just what was President Obama trying to do this week?
First, last month, he tells us he has this super-top-secret jobs plan that he will only reveal after Labor Day. Why? Why wait? Why not reveal it before he went off to Maaaatha's Vineyaaaad for his $50,000 a week rental vacation home? Why not give everyone time to review and digest it? Was it because the super top-secret plan didn't exist yet?
Now we get to this week. Congress is on vacation, and I would assume Speaker Boehner was as well. The White House sends the Speaker's office a letter proposing a speech before a joint session of Congress on September 7, the same date and time a Republican Presidential debate had been previously scheduled, and within less than an hour or two of when Congress was supposed to be back in town (apparently, they are all supposed to back in DC by 6 pm on September 7 in order to begin work on September 8). To top it off, when Speaker Boehner did not respond to the White House within under two hours, the White House ASSumed he consented and publicized the speech. Who in their right mind does that, especially when it broke with long-established protocol?
Now what is the White House attempting to do? Is it attempting to make the Republicans look like the party of no, as the Democratic mantra goes? If so, they failed in my book. To make the excuse that they didn't want to conflict with the NFL opening game as justification for conflicting with a previously scheduled Republican debate just proves this administration either 1) has no clue what it is doing; 2) fails to prioritize correctly - I don't care how many men may disagree with me, but no, football does not take precedence over listening to the present POTUS speak or a debate of potential future POTUSes (sp?); or 3) it was playing politics, trying to spoil the debate or put the Republican candidates on the defensive, making them respond immediately to his super top-secret jobs plan.
In any case, the White House came out with egg on its face and looking utterly incompetent to me. Chicago politics don't work in the rest of the country, Mr. President. Haven't you learned that by now?
My greatest wish is for Hillary Clinton to primary President Obama. that way, if the Republicans nominate someone for whom I could not vote, I'd pick Hillary in a heartbeat over the Neville Chamberlain reincarnation currently holding the office.
In the meantime, Mr. President, how about sending FEMA around with refrigerated trucks to deliver ice and food instead of setting up a single location in Connecticut for towns and cities to have to come to pick up? After all, most towns and cities do not have refrigerated trucks on their property list - you want those bags of ice to be bags of water by the time it gets to the people? Ridiculous!
First, last month, he tells us he has this super-top-secret jobs plan that he will only reveal after Labor Day. Why? Why wait? Why not reveal it before he went off to Maaaatha's Vineyaaaad for his $50,000 a week rental vacation home? Why not give everyone time to review and digest it? Was it because the super top-secret plan didn't exist yet?
Now we get to this week. Congress is on vacation, and I would assume Speaker Boehner was as well. The White House sends the Speaker's office a letter proposing a speech before a joint session of Congress on September 7, the same date and time a Republican Presidential debate had been previously scheduled, and within less than an hour or two of when Congress was supposed to be back in town (apparently, they are all supposed to back in DC by 6 pm on September 7 in order to begin work on September 8). To top it off, when Speaker Boehner did not respond to the White House within under two hours, the White House ASSumed he consented and publicized the speech. Who in their right mind does that, especially when it broke with long-established protocol?
Now what is the White House attempting to do? Is it attempting to make the Republicans look like the party of no, as the Democratic mantra goes? If so, they failed in my book. To make the excuse that they didn't want to conflict with the NFL opening game as justification for conflicting with a previously scheduled Republican debate just proves this administration either 1) has no clue what it is doing; 2) fails to prioritize correctly - I don't care how many men may disagree with me, but no, football does not take precedence over listening to the present POTUS speak or a debate of potential future POTUSes (sp?); or 3) it was playing politics, trying to spoil the debate or put the Republican candidates on the defensive, making them respond immediately to his super top-secret jobs plan.
In any case, the White House came out with egg on its face and looking utterly incompetent to me. Chicago politics don't work in the rest of the country, Mr. President. Haven't you learned that by now?
My greatest wish is for Hillary Clinton to primary President Obama. that way, if the Republicans nominate someone for whom I could not vote, I'd pick Hillary in a heartbeat over the Neville Chamberlain reincarnation currently holding the office.
In the meantime, Mr. President, how about sending FEMA around with refrigerated trucks to deliver ice and food instead of setting up a single location in Connecticut for towns and cities to have to come to pick up? After all, most towns and cities do not have refrigerated trucks on their property list - you want those bags of ice to be bags of water by the time it gets to the people? Ridiculous!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Government Folly (again)
Well, here I am, sitting here with emails from Governor Malloy's office, and my Mayor's office. Governor Malloy's employee emails me (in response to complaint about how I was treated on Tuesday when I called his office) and tells me today (Thursday) that there is "food, water and ice" being "distributed by FEMA and the CT National Guard" and that my town should have these supplies and to call my town. Supposedly, this distribution was going on since Monday. It must be the stealth distribution, because not one single radio station I listened to (in the dark) mentioned anything about this. Had they, I might have been able to get some ice and not have to throw out the contents of my fridge and freezer today (garbage day), after 4 days without power.
I sent the Governor's employee's email on to the Mayor for informational purposes. He tells me, that what the Governor's office fails to state is that the "distribution" is going on only in Rentchler Field in East Hartford, well over 50 miles away. Towns and cities have to request supplies and then, I suppose, get permission to obtain them from East Hartford. But, in what? Why aren't FEMA and National Guard trucks traveling to the cities and towns, or at least setting up distribution centers in the counties, to distribute these items? FEMA and the National Guard have the trucks, and, supposedly, the delivery know-how (logistics - they should call on UPS for help if they can't figure it out). And why was there no notice on radio stations? I listened to many over the past few days and never heard a peep about this mysterious "food, water and ice".
It just reminds me of the photos and videos after Katrina of FEMA letting trucks full of ice melt and drain because FEMA failed to deliver the items to the people who needed them when they needed them (and WHERE they needed them).
Taxpayer dollars at waste again.
I sent the Governor's employee's email on to the Mayor for informational purposes. He tells me, that what the Governor's office fails to state is that the "distribution" is going on only in Rentchler Field in East Hartford, well over 50 miles away. Towns and cities have to request supplies and then, I suppose, get permission to obtain them from East Hartford. But, in what? Why aren't FEMA and National Guard trucks traveling to the cities and towns, or at least setting up distribution centers in the counties, to distribute these items? FEMA and the National Guard have the trucks, and, supposedly, the delivery know-how (logistics - they should call on UPS for help if they can't figure it out). And why was there no notice on radio stations? I listened to many over the past few days and never heard a peep about this mysterious "food, water and ice".
It just reminds me of the photos and videos after Katrina of FEMA letting trucks full of ice melt and drain because FEMA failed to deliver the items to the people who needed them when they needed them (and WHERE they needed them).
Taxpayer dollars at waste again.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Why it is necessary to read bills before voting on them and signing them
Idiots. Our elected officials have proven themselves just that. Here they are touting Obamacare as health care for everyone and how it will save us all money. Well, when you don't read 2000+ page bills that are filled with who knows what, this is what you get: According to the AP, early retirees who make up to $64,000 a year can get Medicaid under Obamacare! Yup, I kid you not. You just can't make up this stupidity.
"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_health_overhaul_glitch
Thanks for once again foolishly spending our money, Congress and the President. Perhaps, to paraphrase Professor Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you all should spend more time "reading bills, rather than passing them" willy nilly and without a single coherent thought amongst you.
You all get a big, giant "F". I can't wait to see what other idiocies are in this law.
"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_health_overhaul_glitch
Thanks for once again foolishly spending our money, Congress and the President. Perhaps, to paraphrase Professor Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you all should spend more time "reading bills, rather than passing them" willy nilly and without a single coherent thought amongst you.
You all get a big, giant "F". I can't wait to see what other idiocies are in this law.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Time for a re-post
In light of President Obama's campaign speech (yes you read that right - it was a campaign speech in my eyes) regarding "immigration reform" (known to those of us who refuse to have the wool pulled over our eyes as "amnesty"), and Jessica Colotl's re-emergence onto the national news scene - http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/colotl-allowed-to-remain-934097.html with news that the federal government granted her yet ANOTHER year deferment on her deportation so she could finish her courses and graduate from college (um, why did she need a year feds, when she graduated this past week?). I love the news story too - she is quoted as saying she should be considered an American as she believes in American values. HA! Really? Because most Americans are law-abiding citizens, while this one, when she turned 18 and was an adult, willfully and with fore-thought, chose not to seek a student visa, chose not to renew her Mexican passport, chose to drive a car without a license, which, if the cars she drove were insured, probably would have invalidated any insurance coverage for those cars while she was driving them. And then she committed a traffic violation. All illegal acts. And then, how did she register for college without a SSN? What did she put on her application for residency and citizenship? After all, in earlier reports, supposedly she was paying in-state tuition until the traffic violation revealed her illegal status. She doesn't even comprehend American values never mind believe in them.
The irony is, she says she wants to be an attorney. Really? Someone who has violated so many laws wants to be an officer of the court? As an attorney, I would be offended if she were sworn into practice in any state of the United States. In any case - from last year:
Our government is at it again. Instead of enforcing our laws, it continues to enable bad behavior and the flouting of the laws of the United States. Cases in point:
1) Eric Balderas, 19, a Mexican national, here in the United States illegally, and a student on a full scholarship from Harvard, no longer faces deportation, as ICE has granted him "granted deferred action" on his deportation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/19/AR2010061902972.html
Why should this student be granted special dispensation to continue to violate the laws of the United States? I remember, when I was enrolled in public schools, my parents had to present my original birth certificate, showing that I was born in this country. When I applied to Dartmouth College Early Decision (I wisely chose not to apply to or to attend Harvard University), I was again required to provide proof of U. S. citizenship, and a valid Social Security Number on my applications, especially for financial aid. So, how does an illegal immigrant gain access to a full scholarship at Harvard without a valid Social Security Number, and proof of citizenship or being in the country legally? And why is he not facing deportation?
2) Then we have the story of Jessica Colotl, a 21 year old Mexican resident who attends Kennesaw State University in Georgia, paying, of all things, in-state tuition rates, who was arrested in March for driving without a license. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 She apparently was also later arrested for providing a false address, given that the car registration she provided was not the address at which she lived. After she was released from jail, she held a press conference, saying "she never thought she would be 'caught up in this messed up system,' as she put it." http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 In other words, she NEVER THOUGHT SHE WOULD BE CAUGHT. This from a student who says she "dreams of becoming lawyer" http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/college-student-ignites-immigration-debate/#content some day - just what we need, an attorney who believes in doing whatever she wants so long as she doesn't "get caught". Good luck with that, given the federal and state laws violated. The state of Georgia, as do many states, has inquiries into the character and fitness of applicants to practice law there. See the following: "Section 6. Investigation of Applicants
(a) Prior to certifying an applicant as having the integrity and character requisite to be a member of the Bar of Georgia, the Board shall make such investigation as it deems necessary into his or her character, reputation and background. Each applicant shall provide written authority to the Board to conduct such investigation, and each applicant shall authorize all persons with information about him or her to furnish the Board with such information and documents as it may request. The authority granted by an applicant shall expire upon the applicant's admission to the practice of law in Georgia, denial of his or her application, or
upon the applicant's written withdrawal of his or her application.
(b) The Board shall contact the Chief Judge of the superior courts of each judicial circuit in Georgia where an applicant has resided, attended school, or been employed during the five years next preceding the filing of his or her application and request information or recommendations concerning the applicant as the
judge desires to furnish. Further, the Board may provide for the appointment of local committees on character and fitness to investigate the background of any applicant who has worked, resided or attended school in the judicial circuit. The reports of local committees shall include the facts found during their investigations but shall not include any recommendations.
(c) A fingerprint check may be made of all applicants.
http://www.gabaradmissions.org/pdf/admissionrules.pdf
In her case ICE granted her a one year deferment so she could complete her education before being deported. Again, why? It is clear she is in this country illegally.
Both these students have cost American students or foreign students here on legal student visas, places in these universities. Why is the federal government rewarding bad behavior?
In my opinion, neither of these students have the character we want in American citizens. So, their parents brought them here illegally when they were children. So what? Both of these students turned 18 and became legal adults and were then responsible for their own behavior. They both chose to ignore U.S. law and remain here illegally. Why did they not, upon their 18nth birthdays, march themselves into a Mexican consulate, explain their situation, have their passports updated and seek help from the Mexican consulate in obtaining student visas and international drivers' licenses? Did they think the Mexican government would not have bent over backwards to help them? Ha! What Social Security Numbers did they use when they applied to their respective universities? Did they indicate on their university applications that they were foreign students and did not have proper student visas?
According to Kennesaw State University's FAQS page, the University has a policy. http://kennesaw.askadmissions.net/kennesaw/aeresults.aspx?quser= "KSU has a student code of conduct regarding academic honesty, plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentations, confidentiality and related scholastic standards of behavior. Violation of these codes may result in disciplinary action taken by the Office of Judicial Programs. Violations related to campus safety issues regarding theft, vandalism, sexual harassment/assault, drugs, weapons and disruption of campus life may be heard by the campus judiciary board or referred to the KSU police." Did Jessica make misrepresentations on her applications both for admission and financial aid/in-state tuition, and if so, why, under the KSU honor code is she still enrolled at the school?
Not surprisingly, according to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has never had an honor code. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/5/3/bok-backs-honor-code-but-will/
It's time to deport these two (as well as the rest of their families who are in the country illegally) - send them back to the end of the line and have them come to the country legally to finish their studies. And, upon completion, when their student visas expire, they must return to their native country. Their parents may have made the initial poor decision of bringing them here illegally, but, as legal adults, these students chose to compound the issue and made their own decisions to remain here illegally, to not seek legal status, probably made misrepresentations on their applications for admissions and financial aid, and deserve neither the education they are receiving nor the privilege of remaining in this country.
For an excellent discussion of the ethics of such cases, I highly recommend this link: http://ethicsalarms.com/2010/05/17/12-questions-about-the-jessica-colotl-case/
The irony is, she says she wants to be an attorney. Really? Someone who has violated so many laws wants to be an officer of the court? As an attorney, I would be offended if she were sworn into practice in any state of the United States. In any case - from last year:
Enabling Bad Behavior
1) Eric Balderas, 19, a Mexican national, here in the United States illegally, and a student on a full scholarship from Harvard, no longer faces deportation, as ICE has granted him "granted deferred action" on his deportation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/19/AR2010061902972.html
Why should this student be granted special dispensation to continue to violate the laws of the United States? I remember, when I was enrolled in public schools, my parents had to present my original birth certificate, showing that I was born in this country. When I applied to Dartmouth College Early Decision (I wisely chose not to apply to or to attend Harvard University), I was again required to provide proof of U. S. citizenship, and a valid Social Security Number on my applications, especially for financial aid. So, how does an illegal immigrant gain access to a full scholarship at Harvard without a valid Social Security Number, and proof of citizenship or being in the country legally? And why is he not facing deportation?
2) Then we have the story of Jessica Colotl, a 21 year old Mexican resident who attends Kennesaw State University in Georgia, paying, of all things, in-state tuition rates, who was arrested in March for driving without a license. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 She apparently was also later arrested for providing a false address, given that the car registration she provided was not the address at which she lived. After she was released from jail, she held a press conference, saying "she never thought she would be 'caught up in this messed up system,' as she put it." http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 In other words, she NEVER THOUGHT SHE WOULD BE CAUGHT. This from a student who says she "dreams of becoming lawyer" http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/college-student-ignites-immigration-debate/#content some day - just what we need, an attorney who believes in doing whatever she wants so long as she doesn't "get caught". Good luck with that, given the federal and state laws violated. The state of Georgia, as do many states, has inquiries into the character and fitness of applicants to practice law there. See the following: "Section 6. Investigation of Applicants
(a) Prior to certifying an applicant as having the integrity and character requisite to be a member of the Bar of Georgia, the Board shall make such investigation as it deems necessary into his or her character, reputation and background. Each applicant shall provide written authority to the Board to conduct such investigation, and each applicant shall authorize all persons with information about him or her to furnish the Board with such information and documents as it may request. The authority granted by an applicant shall expire upon the applicant's admission to the practice of law in Georgia, denial of his or her application, or
upon the applicant's written withdrawal of his or her application.
(b) The Board shall contact the Chief Judge of the superior courts of each judicial circuit in Georgia where an applicant has resided, attended school, or been employed during the five years next preceding the filing of his or her application and request information or recommendations concerning the applicant as the
judge desires to furnish. Further, the Board may provide for the appointment of local committees on character and fitness to investigate the background of any applicant who has worked, resided or attended school in the judicial circuit. The reports of local committees shall include the facts found during their investigations but shall not include any recommendations.
(c) A fingerprint check may be made of all applicants.
http://www.gabaradmissions.org/pdf/admissionrules.pdf
In her case ICE granted her a one year deferment so she could complete her education before being deported. Again, why? It is clear she is in this country illegally.
Both these students have cost American students or foreign students here on legal student visas, places in these universities. Why is the federal government rewarding bad behavior?
In my opinion, neither of these students have the character we want in American citizens. So, their parents brought them here illegally when they were children. So what? Both of these students turned 18 and became legal adults and were then responsible for their own behavior. They both chose to ignore U.S. law and remain here illegally. Why did they not, upon their 18nth birthdays, march themselves into a Mexican consulate, explain their situation, have their passports updated and seek help from the Mexican consulate in obtaining student visas and international drivers' licenses? Did they think the Mexican government would not have bent over backwards to help them? Ha! What Social Security Numbers did they use when they applied to their respective universities? Did they indicate on their university applications that they were foreign students and did not have proper student visas?
According to Kennesaw State University's FAQS page, the University has a policy. http://kennesaw.askadmissions.net/kennesaw/aeresults.aspx?quser= "KSU has a student code of conduct regarding academic honesty, plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentations, confidentiality and related scholastic standards of behavior. Violation of these codes may result in disciplinary action taken by the Office of Judicial Programs. Violations related to campus safety issues regarding theft, vandalism, sexual harassment/assault, drugs, weapons and disruption of campus life may be heard by the campus judiciary board or referred to the KSU police." Did Jessica make misrepresentations on her applications both for admission and financial aid/in-state tuition, and if so, why, under the KSU honor code is she still enrolled at the school?
Not surprisingly, according to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has never had an honor code. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/5/3/bok-backs-honor-code-but-will/
It's time to deport these two (as well as the rest of their families who are in the country illegally) - send them back to the end of the line and have them come to the country legally to finish their studies. And, upon completion, when their student visas expire, they must return to their native country. Their parents may have made the initial poor decision of bringing them here illegally, but, as legal adults, these students chose to compound the issue and made their own decisions to remain here illegally, to not seek legal status, probably made misrepresentations on their applications for admissions and financial aid, and deserve neither the education they are receiving nor the privilege of remaining in this country.
For an excellent discussion of the ethics of such cases, I highly recommend this link: http://ethicsalarms.com/2010/05/17/12-questions-about-the-jessica-colotl-case/
Monday, April 18, 2011
Entitlements
Entitlements have been defined as "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entitlements
Now, in the present political climate, entitlements have been defined solely as above. However, for the most part, we the taxpayers, have paid into the unemployment system, the Social Security system, the Medicare system. So, in my eyes, these are not really entitlements, they are debts to be paid. Much like I deposit money into the bank, the bank is holding the money for me and I get to with draw it according to our deposit contract. Well, our government made a contract with us when it took money from our paychecks for these programs - that money would be there for us when we needed it when we retired. Now the government wishes to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, again wishing to raise retirement age for those of us for whom it already raised the retirement age once, and to minimize the amounts paid out. I agree there are problems that need fixing. But taking away money from the taxpayers who entered into the contract, and played by the rules is not the way to go about it. For one thing, funds "stolen" by the government form the so-called "Social Security lockbox" to pay for other things need to be repaid immediately and the funds need to be invested responsibly to earn appropriate income to sustain Social Security.
But beyond these so-called entitlements, are entitlements that are never discussed and which must be cut first. The first priority of a government is to protect its people; however, our federal government is taking money from its citizens, making promises to citizens that it breaks, and then sends our tax dollars all over the world to foreign countries, paying those countries entitlements - entitlements that I have yet to hear anyone talk about cutting (if they are discussing it, they seem to be discussing quietly or the mainstream media is not reporting it). Take a look at the following link and scroll to the section captioned "Foreign Aid". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid.html There you will see things such as billions of dollars in "foreign grants, credits and military and foreign aid" granted over the past few decades. Billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars spent overseas (much to countries that are not our best of friends) and no indication that it is paid back. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf See also the top ten countries to which aid was provided in 2009 and for which aid was requested in 2010 here: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/top-ten-us-foreign-aid-recipients.html
As these are in millions of dollars, remember, that for Israel (for example only - I am not discussing the politics of aid to any specific country) in 2009, when it says $3,105, that means 3 billion, 105 million dollars.
Why are we not cutting foreign aid/"entitlement" programs first, before we speak of cutting contractual obligations to the American taxpayer? Please folks, ask your representatives and Senators this question. We need to take care of our taxpayers first; then if we can, help other nations. Charity should begin at home, and way too many Americans are suffering and will suffer while we spend trillions of dollars overseas (without much thanks, might I add).
Note, I am proud of the USA for assisting Japan in its present crises. That is what we are known for and we should continue to do. However, unconstitutional wars (Congress did not declare war on Libya as required by the Constitution, although the President has ordered our military to bomb a sovereign nation, thereby committing an act of war) that are unfunded will continue to raise our deficit and, if allowed, destroy our Constitution bit by bit.
Now, in the present political climate, entitlements have been defined solely as above. However, for the most part, we the taxpayers, have paid into the unemployment system, the Social Security system, the Medicare system. So, in my eyes, these are not really entitlements, they are debts to be paid. Much like I deposit money into the bank, the bank is holding the money for me and I get to with draw it according to our deposit contract. Well, our government made a contract with us when it took money from our paychecks for these programs - that money would be there for us when we needed it when we retired. Now the government wishes to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, again wishing to raise retirement age for those of us for whom it already raised the retirement age once, and to minimize the amounts paid out. I agree there are problems that need fixing. But taking away money from the taxpayers who entered into the contract, and played by the rules is not the way to go about it. For one thing, funds "stolen" by the government form the so-called "Social Security lockbox" to pay for other things need to be repaid immediately and the funds need to be invested responsibly to earn appropriate income to sustain Social Security.
But beyond these so-called entitlements, are entitlements that are never discussed and which must be cut first. The first priority of a government is to protect its people; however, our federal government is taking money from its citizens, making promises to citizens that it breaks, and then sends our tax dollars all over the world to foreign countries, paying those countries entitlements - entitlements that I have yet to hear anyone talk about cutting (if they are discussing it, they seem to be discussing quietly or the mainstream media is not reporting it). Take a look at the following link and scroll to the section captioned "Foreign Aid". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid.html There you will see things such as billions of dollars in "foreign grants, credits and military and foreign aid" granted over the past few decades. Billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars spent overseas (much to countries that are not our best of friends) and no indication that it is paid back. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf See also the top ten countries to which aid was provided in 2009 and for which aid was requested in 2010 here: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/top-ten-us-foreign-aid-recipients.html
As these are in millions of dollars, remember, that for Israel (for example only - I am not discussing the politics of aid to any specific country) in 2009, when it says $3,105, that means 3 billion, 105 million dollars.
Why are we not cutting foreign aid/"entitlement" programs first, before we speak of cutting contractual obligations to the American taxpayer? Please folks, ask your representatives and Senators this question. We need to take care of our taxpayers first; then if we can, help other nations. Charity should begin at home, and way too many Americans are suffering and will suffer while we spend trillions of dollars overseas (without much thanks, might I add).
Note, I am proud of the USA for assisting Japan in its present crises. That is what we are known for and we should continue to do. However, unconstitutional wars (Congress did not declare war on Libya as required by the Constitution, although the President has ordered our military to bomb a sovereign nation, thereby committing an act of war) that are unfunded will continue to raise our deficit and, if allowed, destroy our Constitution bit by bit.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The People's President? I think not.
Just call me the Cranky Yankee (TM). I admit, I am rather cranky, but I certainly have a right to be.
Yesterday, the president of my college class, accessed personal college information in order to solicit campaign funds for the President of the United States. Now, not only was that a violation of my privacy rights, it also opened my eyes to this President, who not only is seeking to create a campaign war chest of 1 billion dollars (Hey Mr. Prez, how about spending that time and effort raising a billion dollars to pay down the deficit, or to at least pay for the third war in which you unconstitutionally involved this country when you chose to bomb Libya - yes, bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war and only Congress can declare war (the President after congress declares war may only "wage war" - one would think a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" would know that).
Okay, moving past the invasion of my privacy rights by a misguided Obama admirer (somehow, I think that if Dinesh D'Souza or Laura Ingraham, both alums of the same college, raided the college email banks to send out invitations to their candidate's soirees, all hell would break loose at the college, especially among the liberals) let's get to the invitation itself. The event is being held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC, and the minimum donation is $2,500. Hardly the small donations the President claims he raised for his campaign "war chest" for 2008. Of course, if you wish to "donate" $100,000, you buy yourself "Podium Acknowledgment, VIP reception, Photo Reception, Program Listing Dinner ". Won't you feel special? I particularly love the name of the fund: "Obama Victory Fund 2012". A little presumptuous in my book. I'm having difficulties posting a copy of the invite here, but maybe I'll be able to post one soon.
Yesterday, the president of my college class, accessed personal college information in order to solicit campaign funds for the President of the United States. Now, not only was that a violation of my privacy rights, it also opened my eyes to this President, who not only is seeking to create a campaign war chest of 1 billion dollars (Hey Mr. Prez, how about spending that time and effort raising a billion dollars to pay down the deficit, or to at least pay for the third war in which you unconstitutionally involved this country when you chose to bomb Libya - yes, bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war and only Congress can declare war (the President after congress declares war may only "wage war" - one would think a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" would know that).
Okay, moving past the invasion of my privacy rights by a misguided Obama admirer (somehow, I think that if Dinesh D'Souza or Laura Ingraham, both alums of the same college, raided the college email banks to send out invitations to their candidate's soirees, all hell would break loose at the college, especially among the liberals) let's get to the invitation itself. The event is being held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC, and the minimum donation is $2,500. Hardly the small donations the President claims he raised for his campaign "war chest" for 2008. Of course, if you wish to "donate" $100,000, you buy yourself "Podium Acknowledgment, VIP reception, Photo Reception, Program Listing Dinner ". Won't you feel special? I particularly love the name of the fund: "Obama Victory Fund 2012". A little presumptuous in my book. I'm having difficulties posting a copy of the invite here, but maybe I'll be able to post one soon.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The He Man Woman-Hater's Club
I wrote this before I learned that today is "International Women's Day" (for all the good that will do to stop atrocities like female circumcision in this world).
Anyway. . . On to what has become the train wreck from which the US just cannot avert its collective eyes. . . .
Let's start off with the newest members of the The He Man Woman-Hater's Club. The newest members would appear, at least to my mind, to be CBS and Warner Brothers. Charlie Sheen has had multiple women make multiple allegations against him regarding domestic violence and other claims. Did CBS/Warner Brothers fire him for those allegations? No - they continued to work his womanizing ways (and other bad habits) into the show, objectifying women and treating them poorly. In other words, bringing the dreams of many teen-aged boys to the small screen. However, when Charlie starts ranting and offending CBS/Warner Brothers and the producer during his visits with the press, now they fire him. Lesson to this story: objectify, mistreat and allegedly commit acts of domestic violence against women and not only will we renew your contract, but we'll give you a massive raise and pay you almost two million dollars an episode. Trash talk your bosses and we'll kick you out on your butt. As a woman, I'd love to sit on a jury for the wrongful termination case - I'd find for Charlie. As an attorney, I'd love to be filing Charlie's wrongful termination case, because I think he's got a great one. As an aside, why hasn't WB fired a certain someone else connected to this mess for the pointed rants/attacks he's been publishing on the air and online?
Anyway, on to another apparent member of The He Man Woman-Hater's Club: Mike Huckabee. He seems to have gone all-sheenlike on us and came out with his own sheenisms the past week, including an attack on Natalie Portman, for *gasp* being pregnant, not married, but engaged. Hey, Huckster, about 2000 years ago, wasn't there another woman who was engaged, not married but pregnant, and that turned out okay for the world, didn't it? Seriously, what would the Huckster have Natalie do? Abort the child because the pregnancy didn't come in the old "love, marriage and baby carriage" order? That hardly seems in keeping with conservative values that say life begins at conception. So, Huckster, just what is the problem? That Natalie just isn't getting married soon enough to suit you? Tough cookies.
Apparently the Huckster failed to learn any lessons from VP Dan Quayle when he took on fictional character Murphy Brown for being an unwed mother in the 1990s - that didn't do Dan's political career much good. In fact, the Murphy Brown fiasco was as bad if not worse than Dan's "potatoe" fiasco. I ask the Huckster two questions: why aren't you berating the father of Natalie's child? After all, it does take two to tango and two to make a baby. Second, Huckster, where have you been for the past 8.5 years that Two and a Half Men has been on the air "glorifying" single fatherhood (a man who leaches off his brother living rent free in a Malibu beach house where hookers and other women are paraded past his then young, now teen son on a daily basis)? Apparently, what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander (the male of the species) in the Huckster's eyes. . . .
For what it's worth, happy International Women's Day for all the good the day will do. And, remember, folks, this is just my opinion.
Anyway. . . On to what has become the train wreck from which the US just cannot avert its collective eyes. . . .
Let's start off with the newest members of the The He Man Woman-Hater's Club. The newest members would appear, at least to my mind, to be CBS and Warner Brothers. Charlie Sheen has had multiple women make multiple allegations against him regarding domestic violence and other claims. Did CBS/Warner Brothers fire him for those allegations? No - they continued to work his womanizing ways (and other bad habits) into the show, objectifying women and treating them poorly. In other words, bringing the dreams of many teen-aged boys to the small screen. However, when Charlie starts ranting and offending CBS/Warner Brothers and the producer during his visits with the press, now they fire him. Lesson to this story: objectify, mistreat and allegedly commit acts of domestic violence against women and not only will we renew your contract, but we'll give you a massive raise and pay you almost two million dollars an episode. Trash talk your bosses and we'll kick you out on your butt. As a woman, I'd love to sit on a jury for the wrongful termination case - I'd find for Charlie. As an attorney, I'd love to be filing Charlie's wrongful termination case, because I think he's got a great one. As an aside, why hasn't WB fired a certain someone else connected to this mess for the pointed rants/attacks he's been publishing on the air and online?
Anyway, on to another apparent member of The He Man Woman-Hater's Club: Mike Huckabee. He seems to have gone all-sheenlike on us and came out with his own sheenisms the past week, including an attack on Natalie Portman, for *gasp* being pregnant, not married, but engaged. Hey, Huckster, about 2000 years ago, wasn't there another woman who was engaged, not married but pregnant, and that turned out okay for the world, didn't it? Seriously, what would the Huckster have Natalie do? Abort the child because the pregnancy didn't come in the old "love, marriage and baby carriage" order? That hardly seems in keeping with conservative values that say life begins at conception. So, Huckster, just what is the problem? That Natalie just isn't getting married soon enough to suit you? Tough cookies.
Apparently the Huckster failed to learn any lessons from VP Dan Quayle when he took on fictional character Murphy Brown for being an unwed mother in the 1990s - that didn't do Dan's political career much good. In fact, the Murphy Brown fiasco was as bad if not worse than Dan's "potatoe" fiasco. I ask the Huckster two questions: why aren't you berating the father of Natalie's child? After all, it does take two to tango and two to make a baby. Second, Huckster, where have you been for the past 8.5 years that Two and a Half Men has been on the air "glorifying" single fatherhood (a man who leaches off his brother living rent free in a Malibu beach house where hookers and other women are paraded past his then young, now teen son on a daily basis)? Apparently, what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander (the male of the species) in the Huckster's eyes. . . .
For what it's worth, happy International Women's Day for all the good the day will do. And, remember, folks, this is just my opinion.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Stop the Blame Game
A person is responsible for his or her own actions. Lately, however, in light of the shooting in Tuscon, there has been this need to place blame on someone other than the shooter. Enough already. The shooter is responsible for his own actions. Unfortunately, due to his mental state, we may not be able to hold him accountable for his actions, but he is the one who made the decisions to act as he did, lucid or not.
I am so deeply troubled by those who are trying to politicize the actions of a lone lunatic with at least perceived mental problems (Pima Community College told him he could not re-enroll until he had passed a mental health evaluation). I am not a Palin supporter (frankly, I don't understand what some people think is so great about her), but I find this attempt to make her responsible for the shootings ridiculous. How about another famous quote from 2008: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html The name of the person speaking that line? Now-President Obama. Should he be questioned in relationship to this shooting as well - after all, his rhetoric could have incited the shooter as well. Given that Congresswoman Giffords is a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and thus not in lock-step with the party line, she's not necessarily a favorite of left-wing extremists.
How about we wait and see as to what comes out in the trial before we jump to all this speculation which is only driving the country further apart? The people involved in the shooting, the sadly deceased, the injured, the tormented bystanders, and their families, need our support. How about we agree to support those in need and honor the heroes of the day instead of fighting over the political leanings (if they can be determined) of the shooter? How about we come together as Americans and not advocates of a political party? This is what Rep. Giffords was reaching for in her email before attending the "Congress on your Corner" event: ". . . I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. . . . [I] think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/giffords-email-need-to-tone-our-rhetoric-and-partisanship-down/
I know the last question may be easier for me to comply with, being unaffiliated, but let's give it a try, folks. Otherwise, you are only spreading the same vitriol about which some of you are complaining.
I am so deeply troubled by those who are trying to politicize the actions of a lone lunatic with at least perceived mental problems (Pima Community College told him he could not re-enroll until he had passed a mental health evaluation). I am not a Palin supporter (frankly, I don't understand what some people think is so great about her), but I find this attempt to make her responsible for the shootings ridiculous. How about another famous quote from 2008: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html The name of the person speaking that line? Now-President Obama. Should he be questioned in relationship to this shooting as well - after all, his rhetoric could have incited the shooter as well. Given that Congresswoman Giffords is a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and thus not in lock-step with the party line, she's not necessarily a favorite of left-wing extremists.
How about we wait and see as to what comes out in the trial before we jump to all this speculation which is only driving the country further apart? The people involved in the shooting, the sadly deceased, the injured, the tormented bystanders, and their families, need our support. How about we agree to support those in need and honor the heroes of the day instead of fighting over the political leanings (if they can be determined) of the shooter? How about we come together as Americans and not advocates of a political party? This is what Rep. Giffords was reaching for in her email before attending the "Congress on your Corner" event: ". . . I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. . . . [I] think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/giffords-email-need-to-tone-our-rhetoric-and-partisanship-down/
I know the last question may be easier for me to comply with, being unaffiliated, but let's give it a try, folks. Otherwise, you are only spreading the same vitriol about which some of you are complaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)