According to CBS Early News this morning (4:00 am Eastern time), Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (whom, as you may recall, during his latest term, changed his residency to IOWA, accepted sweetheart loans from Countrywide, among other things), is expected to announce today that he WILL NOT RUN FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2010! For some further information as it develops, check here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-naw-senators-retire6-2010jan06,0,6882638.story
Apparently, he is badly trailing his numerous Republican opponenets, and I can only speculate that the Democratic Party had a hand in calling for his "retirement", something for which I have been calling for years.
I will believe it when I see it, but this certainly buouys my spirits.
Now, if only political parties would focus on choosing candidates that are worthy of the electorate, as opposed as to those whom the parties believe can keep their own party in power, I will be ecstatic.
Let's get some qualified people in the race and give us a choice - a real choice- as to someone who will represent the people and not any political party!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Monday, December 7, 2009
Hypocrisy at its finest
Well, leave it to Yahoo news to print headlines screaming doom and gloom again: "The last best chance: UN climate conference opens"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_sc/climate
According to this AP story, "The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the last best chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming."
Okey-dokey, let's take a look at this thing: "diplomats", and, undoubtedly, their assorted entourages from 192 nations, as well as "organizers" and their flunkies, traveled to Copenhagen for this two week boondoggle. What was their carbon footprint in making this so-called environmental pilgrimage? Really, was it necessary for so many people to use up so much of the world's resources to travel to Copenhagen, and spend taxpayer money for travel, room and board when there are modern technological advances such as teleconferencing, web conferencing, etc.?
I'll believe these so-called experts about the environment being in such dire shape when they themselves practice what they preach (that means you, Al Gore. What was up with traveling to accept the Nobel prize when it would have been much more environmentally friendly for you to have had them ship it to you and you could have had your little presentation via webcam?). Start actually saving the environment by working on minimizing your own carbon footprint. First step would be to stop spewing all this hot air; second would be to minimize your boondoggle travel to such conferences that could easily be attended without burning jet fuel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_sc/climate
According to this AP story, "The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the last best chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming."
Okey-dokey, let's take a look at this thing: "diplomats", and, undoubtedly, their assorted entourages from 192 nations, as well as "organizers" and their flunkies, traveled to Copenhagen for this two week boondoggle. What was their carbon footprint in making this so-called environmental pilgrimage? Really, was it necessary for so many people to use up so much of the world's resources to travel to Copenhagen, and spend taxpayer money for travel, room and board when there are modern technological advances such as teleconferencing, web conferencing, etc.?
I'll believe these so-called experts about the environment being in such dire shape when they themselves practice what they preach (that means you, Al Gore. What was up with traveling to accept the Nobel prize when it would have been much more environmentally friendly for you to have had them ship it to you and you could have had your little presentation via webcam?). Start actually saving the environment by working on minimizing your own carbon footprint. First step would be to stop spewing all this hot air; second would be to minimize your boondoggle travel to such conferences that could easily be attended without burning jet fuel.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Another fine mess!
it never ceases to amaze me. We have some people serving in our government who just don't give the impression that they actually paid attention in class during law school. Case in point today: The President of the United States, and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, both have opined today that there will be convictions and executions in the 9/11 cases. Way to go and prejudice the jury pool! Headlines are all over the internet are screaming things such as "Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sept11_trial
And "Obama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executed" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/
Here's a part of the interview: "In an interview with NBC News, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it 'offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.'
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. 'I'm not going to be in that courtroom,' he said. 'That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.' " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/ Too late, now, but it looks like you already prejudged and announced it, thereby tainting the jury pool.
Now, personally, I believe that these defendants, committed an act of war on the United States, and should be tried in military tribunals. But, the President and his AG, in their infinite legal wisdom, decided they should be tried in our criminal courts, where, in the United States, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the Government. Even if they both missed that specific day of law school class on the presumption of innocence, how could they watch TV and not learn that simple precept? Okay, I'll admit, I may have an edge over these two as I actually did attend that class at law school (and, indeed graduated from law school), so maybe I am a bit too hard on them. Just joshing, there, no, I am not being too hard. Once again, we have what appears to be a rush to judgment (anyone remember how the President defended his buddy, the Harvard Law professor, before he knew all the facts? See my prior blog about this - Friday, July 24, 2009.). Now we have him convicting and executing the so-called mastermind, but months go by and he is unable to make a decision about Afghanistan and the general's request for troops.
Frankly, if I were a defense attorney for these defendants, I'd be doing a happy dance today. The jury pool from the whole country has now been tainted (come on, you cannot use your position as President of the United States to discuss convictions in trials that haven't even started and expect not to have your followers march in step with you on this issue too. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE!). Additionally, if these defendants are convicted, and if they are placed on death row, the President and his AG have just wrapped up a lovely holiday present for their attorneys with multiple grounds for appeals.
Kudos, guys. Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sept11_trial
And "Obama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executed" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/
Here's a part of the interview: "In an interview with NBC News, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it 'offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.'
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. 'I'm not going to be in that courtroom,' he said. 'That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.' " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/ Too late, now, but it looks like you already prejudged and announced it, thereby tainting the jury pool.
Now, personally, I believe that these defendants, committed an act of war on the United States, and should be tried in military tribunals. But, the President and his AG, in their infinite legal wisdom, decided they should be tried in our criminal courts, where, in the United States, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the Government. Even if they both missed that specific day of law school class on the presumption of innocence, how could they watch TV and not learn that simple precept? Okay, I'll admit, I may have an edge over these two as I actually did attend that class at law school (and, indeed graduated from law school), so maybe I am a bit too hard on them. Just joshing, there, no, I am not being too hard. Once again, we have what appears to be a rush to judgment (anyone remember how the President defended his buddy, the Harvard Law professor, before he knew all the facts? See my prior blog about this - Friday, July 24, 2009.). Now we have him convicting and executing the so-called mastermind, but months go by and he is unable to make a decision about Afghanistan and the general's request for troops.
Frankly, if I were a defense attorney for these defendants, I'd be doing a happy dance today. The jury pool from the whole country has now been tainted (come on, you cannot use your position as President of the United States to discuss convictions in trials that haven't even started and expect not to have your followers march in step with you on this issue too. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE!). Additionally, if these defendants are convicted, and if they are placed on death row, the President and his AG have just wrapped up a lovely holiday present for their attorneys with multiple grounds for appeals.
Kudos, guys. Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
An open letter to Senator Lieberman
I've supported Senator Lieberman for many years, although I do not always agree with what he says or does. However, I am convinced that, unlike other elected representatives who, once elected, only serve their party masters, Senator Lieberman thinks for himself and votes his conscience. That's why I have to thank him here, and I already sent to email below to him, for his stance on that 2000+ page monstrosity. Stay strong Senator, and don't back down. We have a doctor-patient privilege, and the government has no right to either break it, or to tell my doctor how to treat me (which is what the government is doing by fining doctors, under these bills, for treatment plans that exceed what the government deems appropriate).
Senator Lieberman:
Please continue to stand up against this ridiculous excuse of a bill for so-called health care reform (actually, all the incarnations of the different bills have been pretty ridiculous). As an attorney, I am appalled at the mess Congress has made drafting this legislation. The American people do not have the funds to pay over a trillion dollars to insure 15 million people. It's an appalling plan. It would be far more cost effective to give those 15 million uninsured American citizens the money to buy their own health insurance. After all, the various bills floating around the Capitol do absolutely nothing to reduce the cost of health care. Cutting the amount of money people can contribute to their health flexible spending accounts results in a tax on the middle class - sadly, too many of your colleagues think that the American people are too stupid to realize that.
Your colleagues need to be reminded that they neither work for Nancy Pelosi, the President, themselves, nor the Democratic Party. All the elected representatives work for the American people.
There has been enough reckless spending on the part of Congress. The federal government has failed at all businesses it has tried to run: USPS, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrack, Social Security, etc. There is no way the government can be trusted with the health care of the American people.
Health care reform should start with allowing people to buy insurance across state lines in order to reduce costs; it should require insurance companies not to deny coverage for "pre-existing conditions"; it should encourage people to have health care spending accounts. All of which could be handled in a bill of 20 pages, not 2000 plus.
Again, thank you for standing up against these atrocious plans. Please continue to do so.
Senator Lieberman:
Please continue to stand up against this ridiculous excuse of a bill for so-called health care reform (actually, all the incarnations of the different bills have been pretty ridiculous). As an attorney, I am appalled at the mess Congress has made drafting this legislation. The American people do not have the funds to pay over a trillion dollars to insure 15 million people. It's an appalling plan. It would be far more cost effective to give those 15 million uninsured American citizens the money to buy their own health insurance. After all, the various bills floating around the Capitol do absolutely nothing to reduce the cost of health care. Cutting the amount of money people can contribute to their health flexible spending accounts results in a tax on the middle class - sadly, too many of your colleagues think that the American people are too stupid to realize that.
Your colleagues need to be reminded that they neither work for Nancy Pelosi, the President, themselves, nor the Democratic Party. All the elected representatives work for the American people.
There has been enough reckless spending on the part of Congress. The federal government has failed at all businesses it has tried to run: USPS, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrack, Social Security, etc. There is no way the government can be trusted with the health care of the American people.
Health care reform should start with allowing people to buy insurance across state lines in order to reduce costs; it should require insurance companies not to deny coverage for "pre-existing conditions"; it should encourage people to have health care spending accounts. All of which could be handled in a bill of 20 pages, not 2000 plus.
Again, thank you for standing up against these atrocious plans. Please continue to do so.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Yes We Can - Take Back Our Country !
Tomorrow, November 3, 2009, is election day. Now, yes, it is an "off-year" election for most of us, but if that's the case for you, I urge you to vote anyway. Spend today reading up about your local candidates. Choose the candidate you will vote for not based upon party affiliation, but upon their qualities: intelligence, character, fitness for the job. Please, never again vote a party line. This country is presently being run by people who think they work for the political party, and not the people who elected them, and that is why the country is in its present condition.
As for those voting in larger elections, I urge you too to vote, and to make your choices carefully. It would be truly wonderful if the independent candidate for governor could win in New Jersey. Can you imagine how great it would be to have someone running the state who was beholden to no political party? And, Virginia has the ability to send a message to Washington DC and put the breaks on its spending the country into unprecedented deficits - elect the Republican candidate for governor, please!
Go vote tomorrow. Exercise your freedom to vote and protect your freedom to vote. And, please, let's all work to get the incumbents who can't seem to listen to their constituents out of office.
Enjoy your freedom!
As for those voting in larger elections, I urge you too to vote, and to make your choices carefully. It would be truly wonderful if the independent candidate for governor could win in New Jersey. Can you imagine how great it would be to have someone running the state who was beholden to no political party? And, Virginia has the ability to send a message to Washington DC and put the breaks on its spending the country into unprecedented deficits - elect the Republican candidate for governor, please!
Go vote tomorrow. Exercise your freedom to vote and protect your freedom to vote. And, please, let's all work to get the incumbents who can't seem to listen to their constituents out of office.
Enjoy your freedom!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Utterly despicable and uncalled-for behavior.
Our elected officials never cease to amaze me with their totally deplorable behavior. Latest case in point: Representative Alan Grayson of Florida (8th District, including Orlando). Last night, on the floor of Congress, he opined that the Republican health care plan was as follows: "1. Don't get sick"; 2. and if you do get sick (sic) 3. Die Quickly." You can see the utterly distasteful display here: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5353632.shtml
I thought that, as Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States requires that all those elected to the House of Representatives be at least 25 years of age, we would be electing mature adults to the House of Representatives. However, Representative Grayson's display certainly proves that presumption wrong.
This utterly childish and reprehensible behavior does nothing to advance a civil discourse on the health care issue. In fact, it sets it back - way back. Show me where one single Republican said such a thing. This rant is, in my opinion, all the product of a very fertile and childish imagination.
While Representative Grayson remains in office, I for one will not be spending my hard-earned dollars vacationing in Florida (and for me not to visit Walt Disney World is quite difficult). As this Representative, in my eyes, is not worthy of the office, I will be boycotting Florida as a vacation destination for my family until he resigns or is voted out.
People, we really need to elect officials who are worthy of the office and who deserve to represent us. Not people who only try to advance partisanship with vitriol and misrepresentation (at best).
I thought that, as Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States requires that all those elected to the House of Representatives be at least 25 years of age, we would be electing mature adults to the House of Representatives. However, Representative Grayson's display certainly proves that presumption wrong.
This utterly childish and reprehensible behavior does nothing to advance a civil discourse on the health care issue. In fact, it sets it back - way back. Show me where one single Republican said such a thing. This rant is, in my opinion, all the product of a very fertile and childish imagination.
While Representative Grayson remains in office, I for one will not be spending my hard-earned dollars vacationing in Florida (and for me not to visit Walt Disney World is quite difficult). As this Representative, in my eyes, is not worthy of the office, I will be boycotting Florida as a vacation destination for my family until he resigns or is voted out.
People, we really need to elect officials who are worthy of the office and who deserve to represent us. Not people who only try to advance partisanship with vitriol and misrepresentation (at best).
Sunday, September 27, 2009
We the People take precedence over political parties.
Within the past few weeks there have been unbelievable examples showing that politicians just don't understand their jobs as our elected officials. We the people, the tax payers, the voters, elect them; not their political party. Once the elections are over, however, the politicians continue to worship at the feet of their political parties and the leaders of those parties.
Case in point - the State of Massachusetts. By now, everyone must have heard about Ted Kennedy's letter to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, requesting that Massachusetts law, which required a special election of his successor within 5 months of the vacancy in the office, be damned, and that the Governor appoint an interim Senator, for which there was then no provision in Massachusetts law. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/08/kennedy_headlin.html
http://news.aol.com/article/paul-g-kirk-jr-to-be-ted-kennedys-senate/639791 You may recall, that the law requiring a special election was enacted by the Massachusetts legislature in 2004, when the Democratic Party there had high hopes that Senator John Kerry would be elected President. In order to thwart Republican then-Governor Mitt Romney from appointing *gasp* a Republican should Kerry have been elected President, the Democratic legislature passed the law requiring the special election. Now, within the past few weeks, not only has the Democratic legislature told the people of Massachusetts that the Democratic Party and Ted Kennedy's wishes are more important than they are by changing the law and allowing the Governor (a Democrat) to appoint an interim Senator (a Democrat), because the legislation did not take effect immediately, the Governor himself signed an emergency letter so he could make the appointment immediately. How does anyone in their right mind not see this any anything but self-serving for the Democratic Party and detrimental to the people?
And the presumption to manipulate state politics appears to have continued with certain people contacting the Governor of Massachusetts with their endorsements of long-time friend of the late Senator, not to mention executor of his will, Paul Kirk. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/23/ted-kennedys-friend-paul-kirk-now-favorite-for-senate-seat/ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/kennedy-successor-its-kirk.html How many regular tax paying citizens of the State of Massachusetts would have been able to personally contact the Governor and express their "choice" for the interim appointee? As you know, Mr. Kirk was indeed appointed, and was sworn in late last week by Vice President Biden.
I am so glad that I no longer live in Massachusetts. Had I remained a resident, you can believe I would be even more appalled at, and embarrassed by, the antics of the elected officials than I am now.
Now, you have the White House (via White House political director Patrick Gaspard according to numerous reports) meddling in New York State affairs by presuming to pressure New York Governor David Patterson not to run for election in 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/paterson-white-house-adviser-h.html?wprss=thefix http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/white-house-tells-gov-paterson-he-shouldnt-run-for-reelection.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/nyregion/21paterson.html Patterson was Lt. Governor under former Governor Eliot Spitzer who resigned from office in 2008, and was sworn in as Governor after the resignation took effect. Once again, Democratic Party interests appear to be overriding the right of we the people to choose our elected officials. Good for Governor Patterson for vowing to stay in the race. If you truly put the people of the state of New York first, then do not kow-tow to the pressure from the political party. Joe Lieberman didn't and we independents re-elected him to the Senate.
It's time elected officials remember that "we, the people" employ them - their political parties do not. Our elected officials have forgotten that they serve at our will, and not the will of their political parties. It's time to put the people over the interests, and demands of the political parties. And it's time to demand that our elected officials show us the respect we deserve.
Case in point - the State of Massachusetts. By now, everyone must have heard about Ted Kennedy's letter to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, requesting that Massachusetts law, which required a special election of his successor within 5 months of the vacancy in the office, be damned, and that the Governor appoint an interim Senator, for which there was then no provision in Massachusetts law. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/08/kennedy_headlin.html
http://news.aol.com/article/paul-g-kirk-jr-to-be-ted-kennedys-senate/639791 You may recall, that the law requiring a special election was enacted by the Massachusetts legislature in 2004, when the Democratic Party there had high hopes that Senator John Kerry would be elected President. In order to thwart Republican then-Governor Mitt Romney from appointing *gasp* a Republican should Kerry have been elected President, the Democratic legislature passed the law requiring the special election. Now, within the past few weeks, not only has the Democratic legislature told the people of Massachusetts that the Democratic Party and Ted Kennedy's wishes are more important than they are by changing the law and allowing the Governor (a Democrat) to appoint an interim Senator (a Democrat), because the legislation did not take effect immediately, the Governor himself signed an emergency letter so he could make the appointment immediately. How does anyone in their right mind not see this any anything but self-serving for the Democratic Party and detrimental to the people?
And the presumption to manipulate state politics appears to have continued with certain people contacting the Governor of Massachusetts with their endorsements of long-time friend of the late Senator, not to mention executor of his will, Paul Kirk. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/23/ted-kennedys-friend-paul-kirk-now-favorite-for-senate-seat/ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/kennedy-successor-its-kirk.html How many regular tax paying citizens of the State of Massachusetts would have been able to personally contact the Governor and express their "choice" for the interim appointee? As you know, Mr. Kirk was indeed appointed, and was sworn in late last week by Vice President Biden.
I am so glad that I no longer live in Massachusetts. Had I remained a resident, you can believe I would be even more appalled at, and embarrassed by, the antics of the elected officials than I am now.
Now, you have the White House (via White House political director Patrick Gaspard according to numerous reports) meddling in New York State affairs by presuming to pressure New York Governor David Patterson not to run for election in 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/paterson-white-house-adviser-h.html?wprss=thefix http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/white-house-tells-gov-paterson-he-shouldnt-run-for-reelection.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/nyregion/21paterson.html Patterson was Lt. Governor under former Governor Eliot Spitzer who resigned from office in 2008, and was sworn in as Governor after the resignation took effect. Once again, Democratic Party interests appear to be overriding the right of we the people to choose our elected officials. Good for Governor Patterson for vowing to stay in the race. If you truly put the people of the state of New York first, then do not kow-tow to the pressure from the political party. Joe Lieberman didn't and we independents re-elected him to the Senate.
It's time elected officials remember that "we, the people" employ them - their political parties do not. Our elected officials have forgotten that they serve at our will, and not the will of their political parties. It's time to put the people over the interests, and demands of the political parties. And it's time to demand that our elected officials show us the respect we deserve.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
A Cautionary Tale of Government Health Plans
Pancreatic cancer is an awful, terrible and painful disease. In my family, we lost two women, about 14 years apart. Both my grandmother and my second cousin died within five to six weeks of diagnosis. My grandmother was on Medicare; my second cousin was likely on public assistance, as she had not been able to work in years. My second cousin was sent home, without any support, with instructions to try drink Boost or Ensure, to die. The so-called medical professionals had tried to do that with my grandmother, too, but, because of their failure to treat her to keep her from forming blood clots, she suffered a stroke while they were moving her, and she couldn’t leave the hospital. The important lesson here: without treatment, pancreatic cancer kills in an extremely short period of time (generally five to six weeks).
Now, let’s juxtapose the above cases with two other high profile cases: Patrick Swayze and Carnegie Mellon University Professor Randy Pausch (who co-wrote “The Last Lecture”). I do not begrudge these men the treatment they received – in fact, I think it’s the type of treatment all people suffering from and fighting pancreatic cancer should receive. These men apparently had private insurance and were not on any form of public assistance or Medicare. And they did indeed receive treatment. As a result of the treatment they received, Patrick lived approximately 20 months after diagnosis; and Randy lived approximately 23 months past diagnosis. These men were given the chance to come to grips with their diagnoses, accept them, get their affairs in order, and most importantly spend time with their families. There was also a public benefit to the treatment they received. With each victim of pancreatic cancer who fights, we as a society are benefited by learning what treatments work, and which don’t, which ultimately will lead us to a cure for this devastating disease. So, I have respect for these men, and thanks for them for fighting and for helping science improve its knowledge of this disease, what makes it tick, and how to fight it.
Finally, let’s compare the above cases to that of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who was diagnosed, thanks to our tax dollars paying for her ultimate health care coverage, with pancreatic cancer early this year. Ginsburg, 75, was undergoing a CAT scan” during a routine annual check-up at the National Institutes of Health” when the small tumor was spotted. How many taxpayers get CAT scans during our routine check-ups, whether we are insured or on Medicare or Medicaid? I have never heard of such a thing. If I go to my primary care physician and request, during my routine annual checkup, to have a CAT scan performed, I can just imagine the hysterical laughter that would greet me in response. Yet, Ginsburg, older than my grandmother was at the time of her diagnosis, was not sent home to die, like my grandmother, for all intents and purposes was. Instead, she is getting treatment, state of the art treatment, no doubt, starting with surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York this past February. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/05/understanding-justice-ginsburgs-pancreatic-cancer/ All at taxpayer expense, thanks to the extremely generous health care package our elected officials have awarded themselves, the President and his family and the Justices of the Supreme Court, and others.
When and if the federal government rushes through a health care plan for Americans, rest assured it will never resemble the health care plan that Justice Ginsburg has. It won’t even resemble the health care Patrick Swayze and Randy Pausch had. You can bet on it that it will resemble what my grandmother and second cousin had, and you should pray that you never suffer from pancreatic cancer, because under any health care plan the government promulgates, you *will* be sent home to die. Our federal government, when it comes to health care, has acted like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, saving the milk and cream for themselves, and giving us, the taxpayers, who do the work for the country, only poor and dwindling rations. Unless and until the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court Justices, as well as any other officials covered by that plan, give up the “ultimate” health care plan, as I call it, and join their fellow Americans in the proposed health can plan, you can be sure that any plan they propose for taxpayers will be monumentally subpar to their own.
Now, let’s juxtapose the above cases with two other high profile cases: Patrick Swayze and Carnegie Mellon University Professor Randy Pausch (who co-wrote “The Last Lecture”). I do not begrudge these men the treatment they received – in fact, I think it’s the type of treatment all people suffering from and fighting pancreatic cancer should receive. These men apparently had private insurance and were not on any form of public assistance or Medicare. And they did indeed receive treatment. As a result of the treatment they received, Patrick lived approximately 20 months after diagnosis; and Randy lived approximately 23 months past diagnosis. These men were given the chance to come to grips with their diagnoses, accept them, get their affairs in order, and most importantly spend time with their families. There was also a public benefit to the treatment they received. With each victim of pancreatic cancer who fights, we as a society are benefited by learning what treatments work, and which don’t, which ultimately will lead us to a cure for this devastating disease. So, I have respect for these men, and thanks for them for fighting and for helping science improve its knowledge of this disease, what makes it tick, and how to fight it.
Finally, let’s compare the above cases to that of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who was diagnosed, thanks to our tax dollars paying for her ultimate health care coverage, with pancreatic cancer early this year. Ginsburg, 75, was undergoing a CAT scan” during a routine annual check-up at the National Institutes of Health” when the small tumor was spotted. How many taxpayers get CAT scans during our routine check-ups, whether we are insured or on Medicare or Medicaid? I have never heard of such a thing. If I go to my primary care physician and request, during my routine annual checkup, to have a CAT scan performed, I can just imagine the hysterical laughter that would greet me in response. Yet, Ginsburg, older than my grandmother was at the time of her diagnosis, was not sent home to die, like my grandmother, for all intents and purposes was. Instead, she is getting treatment, state of the art treatment, no doubt, starting with surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York this past February. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/05/understanding-justice-ginsburgs-pancreatic-cancer/ All at taxpayer expense, thanks to the extremely generous health care package our elected officials have awarded themselves, the President and his family and the Justices of the Supreme Court, and others.
When and if the federal government rushes through a health care plan for Americans, rest assured it will never resemble the health care plan that Justice Ginsburg has. It won’t even resemble the health care Patrick Swayze and Randy Pausch had. You can bet on it that it will resemble what my grandmother and second cousin had, and you should pray that you never suffer from pancreatic cancer, because under any health care plan the government promulgates, you *will* be sent home to die. Our federal government, when it comes to health care, has acted like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, saving the milk and cream for themselves, and giving us, the taxpayers, who do the work for the country, only poor and dwindling rations. Unless and until the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court Justices, as well as any other officials covered by that plan, give up the “ultimate” health care plan, as I call it, and join their fellow Americans in the proposed health can plan, you can be sure that any plan they propose for taxpayers will be monumentally subpar to their own.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Still weeks behind
So, Fifth District Representative Chris Murphy finally changed his web page. Today, Sunday, September 13, he indicates that his meetings with his constituents are as follows:
"Congress on Your Corner
Chris' Public Events on Health Care Reform
Over the last few years, I have held dozens of supermarket office hour sessions, known as "Congress on Your Corner" events, and town halls across Connecticut's Fifth District. At every stop, we had the opportunity to talk about what was going on in your community, and what you wanted Congress to work on to improve our lives here in Connecticut.
I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me for breakfast Tuesday September 1 through Friday September 4, from 8-9am, to talk about health care reform. I'll bring the coffee, you bring the conversation.
Tuesday and Friday - Library Park, Waterbury
Wednesday and Thursday - CityCenter Danbury Green, Danbury
And I will be hosting a town hall meeting in Washington, CT, on Wednesday, September 2 from 5:30-7pm. The meeting will take place at Shepaug Valley High School, 159 South Street, Washington."
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
Once again, it's great to see that these appearances are listed well in advance and are timely (NOT!). These appearances were very poorly publicized (never saw anything about them in my local paper), and as you can see from today's entry and the postings below, it is worthless to check Representative Murphy's website for timely updates as he doesn't update this particular web page often (ex: today is September 13, the last meeting listed above took place almost 2 weeks ago).
Once again, at the next election, I urge all voters to vote incumbents out, no matter what party they are in of you are in. It is time to make sure Congress hears the voice of the people.
"Congress on Your Corner
Chris' Public Events on Health Care Reform
Over the last few years, I have held dozens of supermarket office hour sessions, known as "Congress on Your Corner" events, and town halls across Connecticut's Fifth District. At every stop, we had the opportunity to talk about what was going on in your community, and what you wanted Congress to work on to improve our lives here in Connecticut.
I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me for breakfast Tuesday September 1 through Friday September 4, from 8-9am, to talk about health care reform. I'll bring the coffee, you bring the conversation.
Tuesday and Friday - Library Park, Waterbury
Wednesday and Thursday - CityCenter Danbury Green, Danbury
And I will be hosting a town hall meeting in Washington, CT, on Wednesday, September 2 from 5:30-7pm. The meeting will take place at Shepaug Valley High School, 159 South Street, Washington."
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
Once again, it's great to see that these appearances are listed well in advance and are timely (NOT!). These appearances were very poorly publicized (never saw anything about them in my local paper), and as you can see from today's entry and the postings below, it is worthless to check Representative Murphy's website for timely updates as he doesn't update this particular web page often (ex: today is September 13, the last meeting listed above took place almost 2 weeks ago).
Once again, at the next election, I urge all voters to vote incumbents out, no matter what party they are in of you are in. It is time to make sure Congress hears the voice of the people.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Benefits of Government Run Health Care
The Veterans Affairs Department erroneously told approximately 1200 military personnel that they had ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, a condition that general proves fatal within 5 years. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_re_us/us_disease_error_veterans Our war veterans, who have been through hell and back on teh battlefield, were put through hell again by this erroneous information. No one should have to suffer like this, but it is the fate we all will face if we are forced to deal with the incompetent bureaucracy our government will undoubtedly set up if it starts managing health care.
And, by the way, all the cost savings the government claims it can squeeze out of Medicare: 1) the cost savings will be achieved by cutting out fraud and waste our government has allowed to fester for years; and 2) the savings will be consumed by the legions of baby boomers set to start entering Medicare in 2010. Yet, the government fails to mention these two truths.
Don't let the spendthrifts in Congress rush through another thoughtless bill that will only waste your hard-earned tax-dollars.
And, by the way, all the cost savings the government claims it can squeeze out of Medicare: 1) the cost savings will be achieved by cutting out fraud and waste our government has allowed to fester for years; and 2) the savings will be consumed by the legions of baby boomers set to start entering Medicare in 2010. Yet, the government fails to mention these two truths.
Don't let the spendthrifts in Congress rush through another thoughtless bill that will only waste your hard-earned tax-dollars.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Congressman Chris Murphy Update - There's no update
Here it is, August 24, 2009 and Connecticut's Representative for the Fifth District still shows his next meeting with his Connecticut constituents to be: August 5, 2009.
"Congress on Your Corner
Over the last few years, I have held dozens of supermarket office hour sessions, known as "Congress on Your Corner" events, across Connecticut's Fifth District. At every stop, we had the opportunity to talk about what was going on in your community, and what you wanted Congress to work on to improve our lives here in Connecticut.
I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me at my next "Congress on Your Corner" stop.
Simsbury
Wednesday, August 5
3-4:30pm
Stop & Shop
498 Bushy Hill Road"
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
We know he can't be too busy meeting with his constituents, but, why can't his staff update his web page? Looks like yet another Congressperson too afraid to discuss health care and other issues (such as Congress foolishly throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars around like drunken sailors on leave) with his constituents.
Once again voters - we need to speak up and be heard. If Congressman Murphy won't meet with his constituents, or even listen to us, he does not deserve to represent us. Please vote out all incumbents in 2010.
"Congress on Your Corner
Over the last few years, I have held dozens of supermarket office hour sessions, known as "Congress on Your Corner" events, across Connecticut's Fifth District. At every stop, we had the opportunity to talk about what was going on in your community, and what you wanted Congress to work on to improve our lives here in Connecticut.
I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me at my next "Congress on Your Corner" stop.
Simsbury
Wednesday, August 5
3-4:30pm
Stop & Shop
498 Bushy Hill Road"
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
We know he can't be too busy meeting with his constituents, but, why can't his staff update his web page? Looks like yet another Congressperson too afraid to discuss health care and other issues (such as Congress foolishly throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars around like drunken sailors on leave) with his constituents.
Once again voters - we need to speak up and be heard. If Congressman Murphy won't meet with his constituents, or even listen to us, he does not deserve to represent us. Please vote out all incumbents in 2010.
"Make my day"
My goodness! I don't know whether to consider this hysterically funny or pathetic.
Apparently Alec Baldwin (yes, that Alec Baldwin, he who pledged to "move to Canada" in 2000 if George W. Bush were elected President. GWB was elected President, and yet, Alec remains in the United States. So much for Alec's "campaign promises" http://www.tressugar.com/1614884 ), has now threatened the good people of the State of Connecticut. Supposedly, he wants to move to our state only in order to challenge Joe Lieberman for his Senate seat. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_el_se/us_lieberman_baldwin
Sadly, I guess Alec didn't learn any lessons from the last unqualified folks who challenged Joe. It speaks volumes about the type of challenger Mr. Baldwin would be - he chose to announce his challenge, in, of all places, Playboy magazine. Good going Alec - that should get you the Senate seat. Because we all have such respect for men who objectify women and who treat their young daughters terribly by calling them and and leaving them threatening messages and calling them pigs. http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=11&num=12839
Come 2012, I won't be voting for any folks who are fools in my opinion. So, Alec, as far as I am concerned, don't bother. You'll only embarrass yourself further in my eyes. And I certainly, to use his own words, "have no use for" Mr. Baldwin.
Apparently Alec Baldwin (yes, that Alec Baldwin, he who pledged to "move to Canada" in 2000 if George W. Bush were elected President. GWB was elected President, and yet, Alec remains in the United States. So much for Alec's "campaign promises" http://www.tressugar.com/1614884 ), has now threatened the good people of the State of Connecticut. Supposedly, he wants to move to our state only in order to challenge Joe Lieberman for his Senate seat. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_el_se/us_lieberman_baldwin
Sadly, I guess Alec didn't learn any lessons from the last unqualified folks who challenged Joe. It speaks volumes about the type of challenger Mr. Baldwin would be - he chose to announce his challenge, in, of all places, Playboy magazine. Good going Alec - that should get you the Senate seat. Because we all have such respect for men who objectify women and who treat their young daughters terribly by calling them and and leaving them threatening messages and calling them pigs. http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=11&num=12839
Come 2012, I won't be voting for any folks who are fools in my opinion. So, Alec, as far as I am concerned, don't bother. You'll only embarrass yourself further in my eyes. And I certainly, to use his own words, "have no use for" Mr. Baldwin.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Connecticut's 5th District Rep still working hard - NOT!
Sigh. One would think that after almost two weeks have passed, someone in the office would be on the ball and would update things. But, nooooo! Not in Representative Murphy's case. As I wrote last week, Congressman Murphy's web page still indicates that his "next Congress on your Corner stop" is August 5, 2009 in Simsbury, CT. "I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me at my next "Congress on Your Corner" stop.
Simsbury
Wednesday, August 5
3-4:30pm
Stop & Shop
498 Bushy Hill Road"
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
Remember folks, today is August 18, 2009. This says to me that he really doesn't want to hear from his constituents. Which isn't surprising, given the speed at which Congress wants to pass gargantuan spending bills. Face it folks - they don't want to hear from us. They only want us to send our tax dollars in to the IRS and to vote for them when they come up for re-election.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, it's time to teach them all a lesson. When election time comes up, please, don't vote along party lines. If they are up for reelection, let's vote them all out. Really. There are only two things our elected representatives are interested in - themselves and doing what their party wants. We, the voters need to remind them that we elect them and they serve at our pleasure and to represent our best interests - not their own, and not their party.
If you don't believe me that our elected officials are out for themselves, then explain to me the midnight votes to increase their pay. If that doesn't bug you enough, then explain to me why these officials get the best health care coverage in the world, thanks to our tax dollars, while we poor serfs, I mean taxpayers, suffer.
Remember, if they are up for re-election - vote for their opponent. Party shouldn't be the most important thing for our elected representatives, and it shouldn't be for us either.
Simsbury
Wednesday, August 5
3-4:30pm
Stop & Shop
498 Bushy Hill Road"
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
Remember folks, today is August 18, 2009. This says to me that he really doesn't want to hear from his constituents. Which isn't surprising, given the speed at which Congress wants to pass gargantuan spending bills. Face it folks - they don't want to hear from us. They only want us to send our tax dollars in to the IRS and to vote for them when they come up for re-election.
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, it's time to teach them all a lesson. When election time comes up, please, don't vote along party lines. If they are up for reelection, let's vote them all out. Really. There are only two things our elected representatives are interested in - themselves and doing what their party wants. We, the voters need to remind them that we elect them and they serve at our pleasure and to represent our best interests - not their own, and not their party.
If you don't believe me that our elected officials are out for themselves, then explain to me the midnight votes to increase their pay. If that doesn't bug you enough, then explain to me why these officials get the best health care coverage in the world, thanks to our tax dollars, while we poor serfs, I mean taxpayers, suffer.
Remember, if they are up for re-election - vote for their opponent. Party shouldn't be the most important thing for our elected representatives, and it shouldn't be for us either.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Connecticut's 5th District Rep really wants to hear from us! Just look at his website schedule!
Well, here we are, well into Congress' August break (don't you wish you could get a month off from work with the best health care package in the world?), when we are told our representatives want to meet with us, their constituents. Well, I have been checking the website of Congressman Chris Murphy, the Representative from Connecticut's 5th District, and, as of today's date, August 14, 2009, his website still displays the following message:
"Congress on Your Corner
Over the last few years, I have held dozens of supermarket office hour sessions, known as "Congress on Your Corner" events, across Connecticut's Fifth District. At every stop, we had the opportunity to talk about what was going on in your community, and what you wanted Congress to work on to improve our lives here in Connecticut.
I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me at my next "Congress on Your Corner" stop.
Simsbury
Wednesday, August 5
3-4:30pm"
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
Apparently he CAN do his job without us, as he has failed to meet with anyone so far during this August break other than those he may have seen and heard from during a 1.5 hour "meeting", if one can call it that (I tend to believe photo-op is a more apt description) in one of the more "exclusive" towns in the state a week and a half ago. And, a week and a half later, his website is not updated; there are no planned visits to any of the "working class" towns and neighborhoods in his district.
Maybe he's too busy reading all the various health care bills that the House and the Senate are working on to meet with his constituents. Yup, if I believe that I might also fall for whatever mess Congress tries to push through this fall supposedly for my own good. But, as some of the administration's unofficial spokespersons have said (yes, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, I am quoting you) "You've got 47% of the people in our NBC/Wall Street Journal opinion poll who have health insurance who don't like what the president is doing. The problem he's got -- 47% of the people who've got coverage don't want change. They don't like what they're hearing. Now, they may not know what's good for them, but the problem is that he always knew he was going to have to persuade people with insurance, that's the largest number, not the people without insurance, for expanded coverage. So they've got a real problem." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/07/31/they-may-not-know-whats-good-them
Andrea, my dear, and all the rest of the folks (seems to be mainly those of the "Democratic party" persuasion spouting such comments) who think that the American people are too stupid to "know what's good for them", let me assure you, that I and my fellow Americans are smart enough to know a great deal more than you in the press and those in Congress. First of all, and most importantly, we know better than to vote for a bill without reading it - and that means ALL of it. We also know that this Congress and Administration have been spending our hard earned tax-dollars in a drunken frenzy on foolish bank bailouts, "cash for clunkers" - really - giving someone $4,500 to buy a hummer is really good for our environment? http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/11/cash-for-clunkers-becomes-handouts-for-hummers/ http://www.bostonherald.com/business/automotive/view/20090814clunker_bucks_buy_guzzlers/srvc=business&position=recent_bullet What Congressperson thought that was a good idea? And now health care proposals that the elected officials in whom we have placed our trust can't even be bothered to read for themselves.
I have a simple health care proposal: give the American people the health care that the President and his family, Congressmen and women and their families, and the Supreme Court Justices and their families all have for life (even after retiring or being voted out of office). I can hear you saying "Too expensive" right now. Well, if that's the case, if it's too expensive for the American people as a whole, then it was too expensive, entirely inappropriate and totally self-serving for Congress to have legislated such coverage for these government officials.
So, a word to the wise: If Congress wants us to take its health care proposals seriously, its members had better be darn good and ready to give up their cushy health care coverage (paid for at our expense) for the far less cushy coverage they have in mind for us.
Chris - how about having some real discussions with your constituents sometime this August? You really need to get out and about and hear from everyone in your district - not just your supporters.
"Congress on Your Corner
Over the last few years, I have held dozens of supermarket office hour sessions, known as "Congress on Your Corner" events, across Connecticut's Fifth District. At every stop, we had the opportunity to talk about what was going on in your community, and what you wanted Congress to work on to improve our lives here in Connecticut.
I can't do my job without hearing from you, so I hope you can join me at my next "Congress on Your Corner" stop.
Simsbury
Wednesday, August 5
3-4:30pm"
http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=33
Apparently he CAN do his job without us, as he has failed to meet with anyone so far during this August break other than those he may have seen and heard from during a 1.5 hour "meeting", if one can call it that (I tend to believe photo-op is a more apt description) in one of the more "exclusive" towns in the state a week and a half ago. And, a week and a half later, his website is not updated; there are no planned visits to any of the "working class" towns and neighborhoods in his district.
Maybe he's too busy reading all the various health care bills that the House and the Senate are working on to meet with his constituents. Yup, if I believe that I might also fall for whatever mess Congress tries to push through this fall supposedly for my own good. But, as some of the administration's unofficial spokespersons have said (yes, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, I am quoting you) "You've got 47% of the people in our NBC/Wall Street Journal opinion poll who have health insurance who don't like what the president is doing. The problem he's got -- 47% of the people who've got coverage don't want change. They don't like what they're hearing. Now, they may not know what's good for them, but the problem is that he always knew he was going to have to persuade people with insurance, that's the largest number, not the people without insurance, for expanded coverage. So they've got a real problem." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/07/31/they-may-not-know-whats-good-them
Andrea, my dear, and all the rest of the folks (seems to be mainly those of the "Democratic party" persuasion spouting such comments) who think that the American people are too stupid to "know what's good for them", let me assure you, that I and my fellow Americans are smart enough to know a great deal more than you in the press and those in Congress. First of all, and most importantly, we know better than to vote for a bill without reading it - and that means ALL of it. We also know that this Congress and Administration have been spending our hard earned tax-dollars in a drunken frenzy on foolish bank bailouts, "cash for clunkers" - really - giving someone $4,500 to buy a hummer is really good for our environment? http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/11/cash-for-clunkers-becomes-handouts-for-hummers/ http://www.bostonherald.com/business/automotive/view/20090814clunker_bucks_buy_guzzlers/srvc=business&position=recent_bullet What Congressperson thought that was a good idea? And now health care proposals that the elected officials in whom we have placed our trust can't even be bothered to read for themselves.
I have a simple health care proposal: give the American people the health care that the President and his family, Congressmen and women and their families, and the Supreme Court Justices and their families all have for life (even after retiring or being voted out of office). I can hear you saying "Too expensive" right now. Well, if that's the case, if it's too expensive for the American people as a whole, then it was too expensive, entirely inappropriate and totally self-serving for Congress to have legislated such coverage for these government officials.
So, a word to the wise: If Congress wants us to take its health care proposals seriously, its members had better be darn good and ready to give up their cushy health care coverage (paid for at our expense) for the far less cushy coverage they have in mind for us.
Chris - how about having some real discussions with your constituents sometime this August? You really need to get out and about and hear from everyone in your district - not just your supporters.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
They are at it again!
You know those groups that think that if you don't think and say the things they agree with, they want, and try, to silence you? Well, a couple of them are at it again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_lou_dobbs
What is so ironic about this to me is that the Southern Poverty Law Center claims to be "internationally known for its tolerance education programs" http://www.splcenter.org/center/about.jsp , but it seems to lack tolerance for Lou Dobbs' reporting.
The Los Angeles Times characterized Media Matters as a "liberal media watchdog group." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnn4-2009aug04,0,6766403.story
Now, I personally agree with Voltaire, who said among other things "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" (Essay on Tolerance) and "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." (Voltaire letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770). Isn't it sad that an 18th Century philosopher appears to have had a better grasp of the principles upon which this country was founded than so-called, self-appointed watch-groups?
Now, I would never call for any sort of "gag-order" to be put on either the Southern Poverty Law Center or Media Matters, quite frankly because I believe in tolerance and the expression of diversity of opinion. Such organizations can say what they wish. I too, am free to express my opinion that such calls for the silencing of opinions with which they disagree simply show an inability to comprehend the very foundations upon which this country was established, and, quite frankly, decidedly un-American behavior. While the Constitution of the
In my opinion, any person or organization who calls for the silencing or other indivduals or groups lacks any sort of reason or logic to support its position and therefore relies upon bullying to get its way. These are certainly not groups I will personally support. Such groups are way too Orwellian for me, in their efforts to tell us how to think and which people and organizations they say should benefit from the rights afforded to all citizens ("All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Animal Farm Chapter 10; "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" Animal Farm Chapter 5)
I do, however, and will continue to, support Lou Dobbs, even when I disagree with him. In my opinion, he has done absolutely nothing wrong.
"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
- William Penn
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Stupid is as stupid does."
There were quite a few great lines in the movie Forrest Gump, including the one above. Our President proved the one above earlier this week, when during a press conference, when asked about the arrest of a Harvard Professor, he said the following:
" Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? . . . They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is [presumably from only talking with the professor], at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." See transcript published at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html
Now, the President says that he's biased as a friend of the Professor. He also says, not once, but twice that he doesn't know the facts. And then he says one of the parties, the police (whom he notably did not call his friends) "acted stupidly". Yes, there was "stupid" [using the President's choice of words] behavior in connection with this incident, and it happened during the press conference with this response to a question about a local to Cambridge incident that the President had no business addressing.
Any person with a modicum of decent legal training would never say out loud, in a press conference no less, something along the lines of "I don't have all the facts, but I proclaim party A behaved stupidly." Especially when the person making the statement really should be an impartial party. After all, the President does not represent the professor. Instead, he should be doing his best to promote racial harmony in this country.
In fact, this President is in a unique position to work to bring the races together in this country, but he forewent the opportunity during the campaign, and he forewent the opportunity during the press conference this week. Instead, he just stirred up racial disharmony at the end of the press conference.
Notably, this sort of thing [aka foot in mouth disease] seems to show up most when the President is not reading off the teleprompter, but is answering questions off the cuff. Perhaps that's why, when a teleprompter blew over at the Air Force Academy graduation Vice President Biden quipped "what am I going to tell the President when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/27/biden_jokes_about_breaking_obamas_teleprompter_.html
While the President, first refused to apologize for his words, now he seems to be trying to back away from them (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar ), unfortunately damage has been done. An out and out public apology is required. And, a word to the wise - even if the President learns all the facts, please stay out of a local Cambridge matter.
" Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? . . . They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is [presumably from only talking with the professor], at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." See transcript published at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html
Now, the President says that he's biased as a friend of the Professor. He also says, not once, but twice that he doesn't know the facts. And then he says one of the parties, the police (whom he notably did not call his friends) "acted stupidly". Yes, there was "stupid" [using the President's choice of words] behavior in connection with this incident, and it happened during the press conference with this response to a question about a local to Cambridge incident that the President had no business addressing.
Any person with a modicum of decent legal training would never say out loud, in a press conference no less, something along the lines of "I don't have all the facts, but I proclaim party A behaved stupidly." Especially when the person making the statement really should be an impartial party. After all, the President does not represent the professor. Instead, he should be doing his best to promote racial harmony in this country.
In fact, this President is in a unique position to work to bring the races together in this country, but he forewent the opportunity during the campaign, and he forewent the opportunity during the press conference this week. Instead, he just stirred up racial disharmony at the end of the press conference.
Notably, this sort of thing [aka foot in mouth disease] seems to show up most when the President is not reading off the teleprompter, but is answering questions off the cuff. Perhaps that's why, when a teleprompter blew over at the Air Force Academy graduation Vice President Biden quipped "what am I going to tell the President when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/27/biden_jokes_about_breaking_obamas_teleprompter_.html
While the President, first refused to apologize for his words, now he seems to be trying to back away from them (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar ), unfortunately damage has been done. An out and out public apology is required. And, a word to the wise - even if the President learns all the facts, please stay out of a local Cambridge matter.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Memo to Bill O'Reilly: MYOB
Sad news this week: Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara, who gave birth to twin boys at the age of 66 has passed away. The boys are in the care of Maria's brother, their uncle, the last I heard, and they will be doing fine.
Unfortunately, men who seem to have a need to control women, and/or misogynists, have taken this story to use to push their own agendas. Last night, Bill O'Reilly went on a tirade, saying among other things that menopause is nature's way of telling women that they can no longer have children. He also said that to have children after menopause was "unnatural", and that there should be a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have children after she has entered menopause.
There are so many things wrong with Bill's rant, it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start with the law, shall we? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the government, if not Bill O'Reilly, acknowledges a right to privacy, and a right for a woman to have control over her own body. So, if a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby growing inside of her, why doesn't she have a right to decide to conceive a baby? One would think Bill would be all for this proposition.
Who will be in charge of enforcing Bill's law? Will there be menopause police? If so, Bill, I can tell you that if you or any of your menopause police come by my home to "certify" my uterus as menopausal, you and the boys will be leaving without two or three of your accoutrements that you hold most near and dear.
Just because a woman is young is no guarantee she will be around to raise her children. A 28 year old mom of four can get hit by a bus, be severely beaten or killed by her boyfriend or husband (just look into the headlines every year), die in a car accidents, or, as what happened to a woman I know, contract breast cancer. Just because a woman is young and is capable of giving birth does not mean that she will be around to raise her kids or that she will be a good mother either. Bill's law would also prevent those cases in close, loving families where the grandmother is able to carry her grandchild(ren) for the parents who can't.
Where was all this outrage, Bill, when Tony Randall was fathering children (he was 75 years old when he married a 25 year old) when he was 77 and 78? Tony died when his children were only about 5 and 6. Where was all this outrage, Bill, when James Doohan (Scotty of the Star Trek series) fathered a child at age 80, who, when her father died at 85, was only 4-5 years old? Where was Bill's outrage about elderly fathers leaving children fatherless? Why is it OK, in O'Reilly's book, for geriatric men to father children and die without raising them? Is it because they have much younger wives to raise the child? Women don't have the luxury of being able to marry much younger women; the woman in question, though, does have a family with whom she could and did entrust the care of her children.
Finally, Bill, if you think menopause is nature's way of telling women something, then why isn't Erectile Dysfunction nature's way of telling men to put "it" into mothballs and to retire "it"? Applying your own words to ED, isn't it unnatural for men to be taking Levit ra (purposeful misspellings - I don't want ads for these products to show up on this webpage) Vi agra and Cia lis? So, let's legislate that men going through ED cannot take any medicines to help them "stand and salute" because it's nature's way of telling them their time is done. And, think of how much money it would save the health care system - it's ironic that ED meds are covered for men, but birth control pills for women are, more often than not, not covered by insurance .
My condolences to the family of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara. Take excellent care of those little boys. And ignore the fools who wish to make Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara's decision into political hay. What she chose to do was her choice and it was a private decision.
Women should be very concerned about men who want to try to legislate about their reproductive rights, whether you agree with the age issue or not. It's a slippery slope.
Unfortunately, men who seem to have a need to control women, and/or misogynists, have taken this story to use to push their own agendas. Last night, Bill O'Reilly went on a tirade, saying among other things that menopause is nature's way of telling women that they can no longer have children. He also said that to have children after menopause was "unnatural", and that there should be a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have children after she has entered menopause.
There are so many things wrong with Bill's rant, it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start with the law, shall we? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the government, if not Bill O'Reilly, acknowledges a right to privacy, and a right for a woman to have control over her own body. So, if a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby growing inside of her, why doesn't she have a right to decide to conceive a baby? One would think Bill would be all for this proposition.
Who will be in charge of enforcing Bill's law? Will there be menopause police? If so, Bill, I can tell you that if you or any of your menopause police come by my home to "certify" my uterus as menopausal, you and the boys will be leaving without two or three of your accoutrements that you hold most near and dear.
Just because a woman is young is no guarantee she will be around to raise her children. A 28 year old mom of four can get hit by a bus, be severely beaten or killed by her boyfriend or husband (just look into the headlines every year), die in a car accidents, or, as what happened to a woman I know, contract breast cancer. Just because a woman is young and is capable of giving birth does not mean that she will be around to raise her kids or that she will be a good mother either. Bill's law would also prevent those cases in close, loving families where the grandmother is able to carry her grandchild(ren) for the parents who can't.
Where was all this outrage, Bill, when Tony Randall was fathering children (he was 75 years old when he married a 25 year old) when he was 77 and 78? Tony died when his children were only about 5 and 6. Where was all this outrage, Bill, when James Doohan (Scotty of the Star Trek series) fathered a child at age 80, who, when her father died at 85, was only 4-5 years old? Where was Bill's outrage about elderly fathers leaving children fatherless? Why is it OK, in O'Reilly's book, for geriatric men to father children and die without raising them? Is it because they have much younger wives to raise the child? Women don't have the luxury of being able to marry much younger women; the woman in question, though, does have a family with whom she could and did entrust the care of her children.
Finally, Bill, if you think menopause is nature's way of telling women something, then why isn't Erectile Dysfunction nature's way of telling men to put "it" into mothballs and to retire "it"? Applying your own words to ED, isn't it unnatural for men to be taking Levit ra (purposeful misspellings - I don't want ads for these products to show up on this webpage) Vi agra and Cia lis? So, let's legislate that men going through ED cannot take any medicines to help them "stand and salute" because it's nature's way of telling them their time is done. And, think of how much money it would save the health care system - it's ironic that ED meds are covered for men, but birth control pills for women are, more often than not, not covered by insurance .
My condolences to the family of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara. Take excellent care of those little boys. And ignore the fools who wish to make Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara's decision into political hay. What she chose to do was her choice and it was a private decision.
Women should be very concerned about men who want to try to legislate about their reproductive rights, whether you agree with the age issue or not. It's a slippery slope.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Personal Responsibility
Where has this country's sense of personal responsibility gone? A recent New York Daily New opinion headline recently spoke volumes about the missing sense of personal responsibility: "Immigration laws are breaking families apart, deporting too many parents with US-born children", a piece by Albor Ruiz.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_immigration_laws_are_breaking_families_apart
_deporting_too_many_parents_with_usb.html
In this "opinion piece" Mr. Ruiz weaves a bit of a fantasy - that evil U.S. immigration laws are the only reason his protagonist is being separated from his children. But U.S. immigration laws have nothing to do with why the father is being separated from his children (note, he has a child in Jamaica from whom he is separated while living in the United States). The reason this man is being deported has to do with a series of poor decisions he made, starting with the decision to come to the United States illegally, continuing with his decision to violate drug laws (for which he was convicted) and the decision to father four children in the U.S.without obtaining legal U.S. residency. It is these decisions that the deportee made of his own free will that is resulting in his deportation, not U.S. laws.
If we were to buy Mr. Ruiz's argument that the U.S. should not deport this man, or enforce our immigration laws because to do so would separate a father from his children, then why should we enforce other laws against parents as to do so would separate them from their U.S. children? For example, if a parent were convicted of bank robbery, extortion, theft or murder, under Mr. Ruiz's argument, if would be heartless and cruel to send those parents to prison, since to do so would separate them from their children. Such a result would not only be ridiculous, but unfair. For example, laws would then be applied more harshly against those who never had children than against those who did.
The deportee made his choices all by himself and now he must deal with the consequences. He needs to explain to his children about his wrong and foolish decisions - decisions he made to violate more than a few U.S. laws - the U.S. government and the legal citizens of the United States do not.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_immigration_laws_are_breaking_families_apart
_deporting_too_many_parents_with_usb.html
In this "opinion piece" Mr. Ruiz weaves a bit of a fantasy - that evil U.S. immigration laws are the only reason his protagonist is being separated from his children. But U.S. immigration laws have nothing to do with why the father is being separated from his children (note, he has a child in Jamaica from whom he is separated while living in the United States). The reason this man is being deported has to do with a series of poor decisions he made, starting with the decision to come to the United States illegally, continuing with his decision to violate drug laws (for which he was convicted) and the decision to father four children in the U.S.without obtaining legal U.S. residency. It is these decisions that the deportee made of his own free will that is resulting in his deportation, not U.S. laws.
If we were to buy Mr. Ruiz's argument that the U.S. should not deport this man, or enforce our immigration laws because to do so would separate a father from his children, then why should we enforce other laws against parents as to do so would separate them from their U.S. children? For example, if a parent were convicted of bank robbery, extortion, theft or murder, under Mr. Ruiz's argument, if would be heartless and cruel to send those parents to prison, since to do so would separate them from their children. Such a result would not only be ridiculous, but unfair. For example, laws would then be applied more harshly against those who never had children than against those who did.
The deportee made his choices all by himself and now he must deal with the consequences. He needs to explain to his children about his wrong and foolish decisions - decisions he made to violate more than a few U.S. laws - the U.S. government and the legal citizens of the United States do not.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Truth or a shell game?
Well, I couldn't believe my eyes and ears the other night when I saw a press conference given by NY Senator Charles Schumer during which he used the following words: "People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally." http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=314990 Wow! Someone is finally grasping the concept that the United States of America is a country of laws.
Personally, I always, as the granddaughter of legal emigrants to the United States, have been offended by the tendency of our elected officials and the media to refer to people here illegally as "undocumented workers" or "immigrants". Immigrants come to this country legally, learn our customs, follow our laws and wish to add value to our nation. Illegal aliens do none of the above, and, in fact, show the quality of their character by making their first act in our country one that is in violation of our laws.
After reading Senator Schumer's press release and comments (link above), I applaud what he had to say, for the most part. I do however, take umbrage at one of his seven principals: " All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation." I have no problem with the requirement that illegal aliens register; I do however, have a problem with any attempt to "reward" illegals by allowing them to "buy" their way to citizenship with taxes and fines or to jump ahead of those who are trying to come to the United States legally.
I urge everyone to read what the Senator said, but to take it with a grain of salt. The cynic in me questions whether the Senator is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear so that we will be less vigilant at Congress' next attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform". We need to remain vigilant and to watch Congress' every step on this matter, or we will have a repeat of 1986's mass amnesty (aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) , regardless of press releases that say what we would like to hear.
Personally, I always, as the granddaughter of legal emigrants to the United States, have been offended by the tendency of our elected officials and the media to refer to people here illegally as "undocumented workers" or "immigrants". Immigrants come to this country legally, learn our customs, follow our laws and wish to add value to our nation. Illegal aliens do none of the above, and, in fact, show the quality of their character by making their first act in our country one that is in violation of our laws.
After reading Senator Schumer's press release and comments (link above), I applaud what he had to say, for the most part. I do however, take umbrage at one of his seven principals: " All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation." I have no problem with the requirement that illegal aliens register; I do however, have a problem with any attempt to "reward" illegals by allowing them to "buy" their way to citizenship with taxes and fines or to jump ahead of those who are trying to come to the United States legally.
I urge everyone to read what the Senator said, but to take it with a grain of salt. The cynic in me questions whether the Senator is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear so that we will be less vigilant at Congress' next attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform". We need to remain vigilant and to watch Congress' every step on this matter, or we will have a repeat of 1986's mass amnesty (aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) , regardless of press releases that say what we would like to hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)