NEISD School Board Members:
The circus sideshow that has surrounded the President’s planned talk with students and the decision by the NEISD Superintendent to censor him is disgraceful. When Dr. Middleton made his unilateral decision to banish President Obama from the classroom, did he stop and consider the Civics lesson he would be teaching. As a consequence of his capitulation to the racist rabble, children will accept as doctrine that an uninformed intimidating marginal minority armed with fear and bigotry trump the ballot box.
Without citing existing policy or precedent, Dr. Middleton yielded the Districts standards to single-minded ideologues bent on denouncing and destroying the lawfully elected President of the United States. What reasons did the alarmed citizenry present as dire need to protect everyone’s children from such an evil person? Let me guess, they claimed the President would use the address as a political vehicle to indoctrinate the young minds to his socialist agenda.
My wife and I are homeowners and taxpayers in the North East Independent School District and, although we have no children, we have never objected to paying school taxes. We have voted to approve every District Bond Issue. We agree with Thomas Jefferson when he asserts that an educated populace is an essential prerequisite for a successful democratic society. Every citizen receives benefit from sharing the cost of educating of all the children of the community; in other words, a Socialist School System.
Dr. Middleton should have recognized that those objecting to the President and his policies consider the public school system to be an evil socialist institution. They consider taxes of any sort to be intolerable; they vote no in every bond election. The name of their shepherd organization should have been a clue: Taxed Enough Already. With his decision, Mr. Middleton has established a new reprehensible district policy. He has aligned the School District with the TEA Party activists and the School Board will soon experience budget shortfalls resulting from their anti-tax dogma.
Have you ascertained if Dr. Middleton’s has an alternate program to finance future improvements, renovations and expansion? The ironic consequence of his decision is that now we have common ground to share with TEA Party troglodytes. For as long as Dr. Middleton is Superintendent, my wife and I will vote against every bond issue. We will work vigorously to defeat any referendum for funding the District’s new policy of endorsing censorship, hatred, bigotry, ignorance and racism.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Who Follows in the Light of Christ?
Many Born-again Evangelical Christians have an acute ability to articulate a first-rate game. Their dogma displayed ubiquitously on their sleeve. Incessantly, they impose their ideology upon those around them. Persistently they proselytize their canon, “I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior”. For these modern day crusaders, the first rule of Christianity is “Always talk about Christianity”.
There are those claiming to be Compassionate Conservative Christians who rarely, if ever, practice the teachings their Savior preached. They believe following Jesus is merely bearing witness, repeating prayers and converting the heathen. Christianity means more than spouting platitudes. Christianity means more than simply shouting, “Jesus is Great” from the rooftops.
Why are the actions of many Conservative Christians contradictory to the words of Scripture? Are the ethical lessons of Jesus lost duet to literalism? Do they deliberately discount those parts of Scripture that diverge from their insular worldview?
Reborn Christians cite John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” as the singular necessity for salvation. Yet they pay no heed to the remainder of the lesson, which occurs only six verses later: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do.” The meaning of the entire passage is that one demonstrates to God their acceptance of Jesus as Savior by doing deeds similar to those of Jesus.
In Mark 12:30, Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” Unfortunately, those with sound bite attention spans gloss over the remainder of this message: “…and to love your neighbor as yourself is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:33) Jesus cannot be more explicit. Actions toward others will determine access to salvation, not external displays of piety.
Members of the Religious Right should (re)read Mark 25:34-46 and give special attention to verse 40: “... whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me”. The lesson to be gained from this passage is that we all are children of God so we all are brothers and sisters of Christ and, as such, we must treat each other as such if we expect to receive redemption. Many philosophers, both religious and secular, have said the same thing, many times and in many different ways.
How hypocritical that the self-proclaimed Moral Majority labels those who endeavor to improve the condition of the least of our brethren as Godless Liberals while they worship at the purse of the moneychangers who have turned the health care industry into a den of thieves. For the Family Values crowd, the Golden Rule has become the rule of gold. They are oblivious to the precept that God will know who has followed in the Light of Christ, not by the quantity of their prayers, but by the quality of their acts.
There are those claiming to be Compassionate Conservative Christians who rarely, if ever, practice the teachings their Savior preached. They believe following Jesus is merely bearing witness, repeating prayers and converting the heathen. Christianity means more than spouting platitudes. Christianity means more than simply shouting, “Jesus is Great” from the rooftops.
Why are the actions of many Conservative Christians contradictory to the words of Scripture? Are the ethical lessons of Jesus lost duet to literalism? Do they deliberately discount those parts of Scripture that diverge from their insular worldview?
Reborn Christians cite John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” as the singular necessity for salvation. Yet they pay no heed to the remainder of the lesson, which occurs only six verses later: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do.” The meaning of the entire passage is that one demonstrates to God their acceptance of Jesus as Savior by doing deeds similar to those of Jesus.
In Mark 12:30, Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” Unfortunately, those with sound bite attention spans gloss over the remainder of this message: “…and to love your neighbor as yourself is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:33) Jesus cannot be more explicit. Actions toward others will determine access to salvation, not external displays of piety.
Members of the Religious Right should (re)read Mark 25:34-46 and give special attention to verse 40: “... whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me”. The lesson to be gained from this passage is that we all are children of God so we all are brothers and sisters of Christ and, as such, we must treat each other as such if we expect to receive redemption. Many philosophers, both religious and secular, have said the same thing, many times and in many different ways.
How hypocritical that the self-proclaimed Moral Majority labels those who endeavor to improve the condition of the least of our brethren as Godless Liberals while they worship at the purse of the moneychangers who have turned the health care industry into a den of thieves. For the Family Values crowd, the Golden Rule has become the rule of gold. They are oblivious to the precept that God will know who has followed in the Light of Christ, not by the quantity of their prayers, but by the quality of their acts.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
State Senator a Media Mogul?
On Friday August 14, the San Antonio Express News published the following article about the esteemed State Senator from District 25 (North San Antonio, South Austin and four adjoining counties):
Sen. Wentworth is linked to Web pyramid scheme (Follow the link and read the entire article, post comments and pass it on)
Two items of note:
What was it that surprised Jeff? Was he surprised BurnLounge was a scam or that he got caught? One would think that a competent attorney and proficient legislator could discern the difference between a legitimate investment and a fraudulent scheme.
This raises three questions:
Did this lobbyist also make a substantial donation to Jeff's war chest?
What other lobbyists bought "memberships" from Jeff?
What else does Jeff do for Lobbyists without reading the fine print?
Sen. Wentworth is linked to Web pyramid scheme (Follow the link and read the entire article, post comments and pass it on)
Two items of note:
“BurnLounge is operating a pyramid scheme. Such schemes have an intolerable capacity to mislead,” the FTC said in its lawsuit.
“That's news to me,” Wentworth said Thursday.
What was it that surprised Jeff? Was he surprised BurnLounge was a scam or that he got caught? One would think that a competent attorney and proficient legislator could discern the difference between a legitimate investment and a fraudulent scheme.
According to the interview, Wentworth said he was brought into BurnLounge by a lobbyist for the Texas Automobile Dealers Association.
This raises three questions:
Did this lobbyist also make a substantial donation to Jeff's war chest?
What other lobbyists bought "memberships" from Jeff?
What else does Jeff do for Lobbyists without reading the fine print?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Cash for Clunkers: Who Benefits?
The CARS program is horrendous and destroying the fabric our Country.
It is so repugnant to real Americans that noted capitalist Red McCombs has stipulated none of his car dealerships will accept trade-ins under the program. Clear Channel Communications and News-Corp owned media outlets have refused advertising from auto dealers promoting Cash for Clunkers deals. Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot have announced they will not serve any Car Salesmen who may have made a commission from this program.
Yes, the ONLY people benefiting from the program are the Socialist Autoworkers’ Unions.
It is so repugnant to real Americans that noted capitalist Red McCombs has stipulated none of his car dealerships will accept trade-ins under the program. Clear Channel Communications and News-Corp owned media outlets have refused advertising from auto dealers promoting Cash for Clunkers deals. Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot have announced they will not serve any Car Salesmen who may have made a commission from this program.
Yes, the ONLY people benefiting from the program are the Socialist Autoworkers’ Unions.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Ron Paul You are Wrong....
The Honorable Ron Paul M.D.
203 Cannon House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Web Post of July 20, 2009
“Health Care is a Good Not a Right”
Dear Representative Paul:
I beg to differ with your assessment. You appear to have mixed your analogy. Right is to Privilege as Goods is to Services. That is a basic SAT analogy.
Health care would be a SERVICE. One provided by trained individuals, each with their own reasons for entering the field. Health care is NOT a commodity. Beef and potatoes are commodities. Beef and potatoes are commodities produced and brought to market by individuals wuth some degree of college education; although a higher education is not specifically required.
For arguments sake, I will address Health Care as a commodity and as a commodity; the way to reduce consumer costs would be to increase supply. If beef costs are too high then flood the market with cattle. Consumer prices drop. It is simple supply-side Economics. You do remember Supply Side Reaganomics from the 1980’s.
If Health Care costs are too high, then increasing the number of Practitioners will reduce the costs. However, the AMA limits enrolment into medical schools. Why? They do it to keep the supply of Practitioners to a premium. This is where I see you as a hypocrite. You call for free-market solutions yet your professional organization institutes monopolistic controls that artificially inflate fees.
In Paragraph 3, you state:
"…if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman. "
Under the current system we are all indentured servants. Employees are to their employers for fear that they might lose their health care and Providers to the Insurance companies in order to receive a continuing stream of clients. I cannot quote the exact statistic, but it is my understanding that the top 10 Insurers have secured the sole right to represent over 80% of all employees receiving health care. In order to have the right to provide services to these clients, doctors need to sign contracts with the Insurers and the insurers dictate what pay the provider. In effect, the Insurance Companies have become the middleman all the while taking between 20% and 50% for CEO Salaries and stockholder dividends.
At this point, let me tell you about myself.
I am a self-employed Civil Engineer. In 2002, I left a management position with a medium firm to become an entrepreneur; to start my own consulting firm. At that time, I was paying $900/month for Health Coverage ($30 Rx Co-pay and $250 deductible), for my wife and myself. That was a rate I could afford and net more than I did as an employee. However, even at those rates, I struggled to afford additional staff to expand my business. Therefore, after a short attempt to grow the business, I went back to a one-man operation. I had one Large Developer and two small developers as Clients in addition to “overflow” work from larger Engineering Firms. I had sufficient work to earn a comfortable living.
In the fall of 2007, as the recession started to slow development in San Antonio, the over flow work trickled to a halt. By February 2008, my largest client declared bankruptcy and the small developers found it difficult to obtain financing.
At the same time my Insurance premiums, which had been increasing, jumped from $1,200/month to $2,000/month ($5,000 deductible, no Rx). I was subject to the increase even though my total claims were three general Practitioner visits in the five years and one visit per year to an Ophthalmologist.
In 2008, after expenses, my net income was less than the cost of the Health Insurance. I am among the uninsured; one of then NON-Privileged. I work hard every day but, at this time, I do not earn enough to afford health care. You assert that Health care is “something you work for and earn”. How much harder do I have to work?
Continuing on, in Paragraph 4 you state:
"Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines."
If this statement is true, then answer me why have the citizens of Canada, France, Italy et al NOT had a revolution at the ballot box? Why does the Conservative Government in the Canadian Parliament not toss out their system and replace it with an American System. They have the majority.
I ask you in what country currently is there rationing? It is the United States. Health Care is limited to those who can afford to pay high premiums, work for large companies or the Federal Government, that can qualify for lower group rates. Since you do not think Health Care is a right then, by analogy, you must consider it a privilege; available only to the privileged few. How do you compute the wait time for someone who does not ever get to see a Doctor? Those people are in the longest line in the world; longer than any found in Canada or Europe.
Next you continue:
"As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients..."
The real bureaucracy that is burdening Medical Practitioners is the Business School Graduates employed by the Insurance Companies.
When I last visited my Ophthalmologist (paying out of pocket), we had a discussion regarding Insurance. He has a small practice and yet has to have a full time employee devoted to “dealing with the Insurance Companies”.
"As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills."
As opposed to Insurance companies taking up to 50% for dividends and pay their CEO Millions, if not in excess of $1 Billion as with United Health Care and Bill McGuire.
"The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available."
What legal recourse do I have today with insurance companies? Change carriers and be subject to a pre-existing condition exclusions? Recent history shows that this activist Supreme Court rules for big business on every case. If I show up at United Health Care, they can have me thrown in jail. I have no say about the CEO of United Health Care; I can vote for or against candidates for Congress and President.
"The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. "
Can you really say this with a straight face? Replace the word Government with “Health Insurance Companies” and describe have the current system. Can you deny that the insurance companies do not deny services and control what which procedures Doctors can and cannot perform?
"The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy."
Currently my right to life is in jeopardy. If I cannot get any health care because I cannot afford the Insurance Premiums then the quality of my life and my liberty are at stake. Of course, the only thing I have to fear is a serious illness that would cause me to lose my home.
"Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars."
Yes, I would like to see a truly free market for health care; one where practitioners could charge what the market will bear. I would like a free market where Practitioners must compete legitimately for my business and the supply of Practitioners is not artificially limited.
"My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that."
Can you tell me how tax credits and medical savings accounts work if one is not earning enough to pay the premiums in the first place, much less have excess capital to invest in the savings account? Your Bill HR 1495 is only adventitious to the upper middle class and the current Insurance Companies. In fact, it directs even more money and control to the Insurance Companies; Monopolistic Insurance companies that are exempted from anti-trust laws. It benefits those who are not having any trouble getting health care today. Your bill does nothing to help the under-employed or the small business trying to expand.
Single payer is not something Corporatists should fear. We have single payer fire protection and that works quite well; as does our Single Payer Police Protection. A Single Payer program takes the basic premises of Insurance and risk management to the perfect state: The larger the pool of insured, the lower the risk. What bigger pool can there be than Everyone. Everyone in; everyone pays.
I have given serious thought to Health Care reform. In my vision for Single Payer, private insurance companies are included. There is a profitable niche for them. The can continue to sell Supplemental Policies. In addition, I would propose that they process claims on a percentage of claims paid. That will be a good incentive to pay the claims quickly and accurately. There can be good profit in that. Health Care Providers have the choice of which company the want to process their claims.
Providers can charge what the want for their services. Clients would pay the difference between the charges and the approved the government reimbursement. In addition, since you believe the Private Insurers have a better handle on reimbursement, initially reimbursement rates will be the average of current Federal Employee Insurance schedule and top five providers as indicated on their January 1, 2008 schedules.
Paying for the program and implementing cost reductions would require a comprehensive rework of our tax structure and modifying the current Medical School model. The system can realized savings over the total of all current expenditures. There is more detail than appropriate for this letter and I have attached an outline as a summary.
203 Cannon House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Web Post of July 20, 2009
“Health Care is a Good Not a Right”
Dear Representative Paul:
I beg to differ with your assessment. You appear to have mixed your analogy. Right is to Privilege as Goods is to Services. That is a basic SAT analogy.
Health care would be a SERVICE. One provided by trained individuals, each with their own reasons for entering the field. Health care is NOT a commodity. Beef and potatoes are commodities. Beef and potatoes are commodities produced and brought to market by individuals wuth some degree of college education; although a higher education is not specifically required.
For arguments sake, I will address Health Care as a commodity and as a commodity; the way to reduce consumer costs would be to increase supply. If beef costs are too high then flood the market with cattle. Consumer prices drop. It is simple supply-side Economics. You do remember Supply Side Reaganomics from the 1980’s.
If Health Care costs are too high, then increasing the number of Practitioners will reduce the costs. However, the AMA limits enrolment into medical schools. Why? They do it to keep the supply of Practitioners to a premium. This is where I see you as a hypocrite. You call for free-market solutions yet your professional organization institutes monopolistic controls that artificially inflate fees.
In Paragraph 3, you state:
"…if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman. "
Under the current system we are all indentured servants. Employees are to their employers for fear that they might lose their health care and Providers to the Insurance companies in order to receive a continuing stream of clients. I cannot quote the exact statistic, but it is my understanding that the top 10 Insurers have secured the sole right to represent over 80% of all employees receiving health care. In order to have the right to provide services to these clients, doctors need to sign contracts with the Insurers and the insurers dictate what pay the provider. In effect, the Insurance Companies have become the middleman all the while taking between 20% and 50% for CEO Salaries and stockholder dividends.
At this point, let me tell you about myself.
I am a self-employed Civil Engineer. In 2002, I left a management position with a medium firm to become an entrepreneur; to start my own consulting firm. At that time, I was paying $900/month for Health Coverage ($30 Rx Co-pay and $250 deductible), for my wife and myself. That was a rate I could afford and net more than I did as an employee. However, even at those rates, I struggled to afford additional staff to expand my business. Therefore, after a short attempt to grow the business, I went back to a one-man operation. I had one Large Developer and two small developers as Clients in addition to “overflow” work from larger Engineering Firms. I had sufficient work to earn a comfortable living.
In the fall of 2007, as the recession started to slow development in San Antonio, the over flow work trickled to a halt. By February 2008, my largest client declared bankruptcy and the small developers found it difficult to obtain financing.
At the same time my Insurance premiums, which had been increasing, jumped from $1,200/month to $2,000/month ($5,000 deductible, no Rx). I was subject to the increase even though my total claims were three general Practitioner visits in the five years and one visit per year to an Ophthalmologist.
In 2008, after expenses, my net income was less than the cost of the Health Insurance. I am among the uninsured; one of then NON-Privileged. I work hard every day but, at this time, I do not earn enough to afford health care. You assert that Health care is “something you work for and earn”. How much harder do I have to work?
Continuing on, in Paragraph 4 you state:
"Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines."
If this statement is true, then answer me why have the citizens of Canada, France, Italy et al NOT had a revolution at the ballot box? Why does the Conservative Government in the Canadian Parliament not toss out their system and replace it with an American System. They have the majority.
I ask you in what country currently is there rationing? It is the United States. Health Care is limited to those who can afford to pay high premiums, work for large companies or the Federal Government, that can qualify for lower group rates. Since you do not think Health Care is a right then, by analogy, you must consider it a privilege; available only to the privileged few. How do you compute the wait time for someone who does not ever get to see a Doctor? Those people are in the longest line in the world; longer than any found in Canada or Europe.
Next you continue:
"As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients..."
The real bureaucracy that is burdening Medical Practitioners is the Business School Graduates employed by the Insurance Companies.
When I last visited my Ophthalmologist (paying out of pocket), we had a discussion regarding Insurance. He has a small practice and yet has to have a full time employee devoted to “dealing with the Insurance Companies”.
"As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills."
As opposed to Insurance companies taking up to 50% for dividends and pay their CEO Millions, if not in excess of $1 Billion as with United Health Care and Bill McGuire.
"The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available."
What legal recourse do I have today with insurance companies? Change carriers and be subject to a pre-existing condition exclusions? Recent history shows that this activist Supreme Court rules for big business on every case. If I show up at United Health Care, they can have me thrown in jail. I have no say about the CEO of United Health Care; I can vote for or against candidates for Congress and President.
"The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. "
Can you really say this with a straight face? Replace the word Government with “Health Insurance Companies” and describe have the current system. Can you deny that the insurance companies do not deny services and control what which procedures Doctors can and cannot perform?
"The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy."
Currently my right to life is in jeopardy. If I cannot get any health care because I cannot afford the Insurance Premiums then the quality of my life and my liberty are at stake. Of course, the only thing I have to fear is a serious illness that would cause me to lose my home.
"Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars."
Yes, I would like to see a truly free market for health care; one where practitioners could charge what the market will bear. I would like a free market where Practitioners must compete legitimately for my business and the supply of Practitioners is not artificially limited.
"My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that."
Can you tell me how tax credits and medical savings accounts work if one is not earning enough to pay the premiums in the first place, much less have excess capital to invest in the savings account? Your Bill HR 1495 is only adventitious to the upper middle class and the current Insurance Companies. In fact, it directs even more money and control to the Insurance Companies; Monopolistic Insurance companies that are exempted from anti-trust laws. It benefits those who are not having any trouble getting health care today. Your bill does nothing to help the under-employed or the small business trying to expand.
Single payer is not something Corporatists should fear. We have single payer fire protection and that works quite well; as does our Single Payer Police Protection. A Single Payer program takes the basic premises of Insurance and risk management to the perfect state: The larger the pool of insured, the lower the risk. What bigger pool can there be than Everyone. Everyone in; everyone pays.
I have given serious thought to Health Care reform. In my vision for Single Payer, private insurance companies are included. There is a profitable niche for them. The can continue to sell Supplemental Policies. In addition, I would propose that they process claims on a percentage of claims paid. That will be a good incentive to pay the claims quickly and accurately. There can be good profit in that. Health Care Providers have the choice of which company the want to process their claims.
Providers can charge what the want for their services. Clients would pay the difference between the charges and the approved the government reimbursement. In addition, since you believe the Private Insurers have a better handle on reimbursement, initially reimbursement rates will be the average of current Federal Employee Insurance schedule and top five providers as indicated on their January 1, 2008 schedules.
Paying for the program and implementing cost reductions would require a comprehensive rework of our tax structure and modifying the current Medical School model. The system can realized savings over the total of all current expenditures. There is more detail than appropriate for this letter and I have attached an outline as a summary.
Gates/Crowley Is NOT About Racism
With their coverage of the Gates/Crowley incident, the myopic corporate media is fighting the last war, not the next one. In this instance, America’s history of ethnic profiling and Police mistreatment of minorities is not the troubling issue. I do not believe that Sergeant Crowley is a racist or that his treatment of Professor Gates is a product of racism.
This unfortunate event is a symptom of a new affliction permeating Law Enforcement; the impetus for Crowley’s actions was Authoritarian Machismo.
Since 9/11, our law enforcement departments have become more and more authoritarian. In his training, Serpent Crowley learned to regard every perpetrator, regardless of race color creed or national origin, as a potential enemy of the State. Police officers see themselves as front line foot soldiers in the struggle to protect the Fatherland.
Professor Gates was upset and rightly so. Who wouldn’t be? He is in his own home and confronted as if he were a criminal; even after he proves his identity. Did he shout at Crowley? Yes. Did he accuse Crowley of racism? Probably, but unless he pulled a gun, knife or other weapon and physically threatened Sergeant Crowley, Professor Gates did not break the law.
Even after Crowley notifies dispatch that Gates is the resident, the incident continues. At that time, Crowley should have said: “There has been a misunderstanding and I’m sorry for inconvenience. If you would like to file a report with my supervisors, here is my badge number and contact information”. Crowley should have defused the situation by backing down and leaving. He did not. Why not?
Professor Gates may have said something that insulted Crowley’s manhood and challenged his position. No pumped up alpha male would tuck his tail between his legs and skulk off. Ever fiber of his being, every element of his training, every aspect of his psyche required that Sergeant Crowley confront the threat to his authority.
The bottom line, Sergeant Crowley did what he did because he had too much testosterone coursing through his system.
And because he could.
This unfortunate event is a symptom of a new affliction permeating Law Enforcement; the impetus for Crowley’s actions was Authoritarian Machismo.
Since 9/11, our law enforcement departments have become more and more authoritarian. In his training, Serpent Crowley learned to regard every perpetrator, regardless of race color creed or national origin, as a potential enemy of the State. Police officers see themselves as front line foot soldiers in the struggle to protect the Fatherland.
Professor Gates was upset and rightly so. Who wouldn’t be? He is in his own home and confronted as if he were a criminal; even after he proves his identity. Did he shout at Crowley? Yes. Did he accuse Crowley of racism? Probably, but unless he pulled a gun, knife or other weapon and physically threatened Sergeant Crowley, Professor Gates did not break the law.
Even after Crowley notifies dispatch that Gates is the resident, the incident continues. At that time, Crowley should have said: “There has been a misunderstanding and I’m sorry for inconvenience. If you would like to file a report with my supervisors, here is my badge number and contact information”. Crowley should have defused the situation by backing down and leaving. He did not. Why not?
Professor Gates may have said something that insulted Crowley’s manhood and challenged his position. No pumped up alpha male would tuck his tail between his legs and skulk off. Ever fiber of his being, every element of his training, every aspect of his psyche required that Sergeant Crowley confront the threat to his authority.
The bottom line, Sergeant Crowley did what he did because he had too much testosterone coursing through his system.
And because he could.
Friday, July 24, 2009
An Open Challenge to Birthers Everywhere…
I was born in Pennsylvania in the mid 50’s and my family moved to San Antonio when I was 10.
During the mid and late 1980’s, after the S&L fiasco, I had to follow work around the country and lived in three different States over 8 Years.
In 1993, I moved back to Texas. When I received my Texas driver’s license, I noticed they had my date of birth wrong. There was a typo in the Day of the Month.
I contacted the Department of Public Safety and they told me that they had processed my information exactly as shown on the license I had surrendered. Apparently, one of the previous states had made an error that I never caught.
DPS required that I submit certified proof of my birth date.
So, I contacted the Pennsylvania Department Health/Vital Records.
Did they send me a copy of my original Birth Certificate? NO.
Pennsylvania sent me a certificate that stated, "A certificate of live birth is on file…” it contained all the pertinent information but it was not a copy of my original birth certificate.
The State of Texas accepted that document and corrected my drivers License.
I challenge every "birther" to contact their state of birth for a birth certificate and tell me what they get in return.
During the mid and late 1980’s, after the S&L fiasco, I had to follow work around the country and lived in three different States over 8 Years.
In 1993, I moved back to Texas. When I received my Texas driver’s license, I noticed they had my date of birth wrong. There was a typo in the Day of the Month.
I contacted the Department of Public Safety and they told me that they had processed my information exactly as shown on the license I had surrendered. Apparently, one of the previous states had made an error that I never caught.
DPS required that I submit certified proof of my birth date.
So, I contacted the Pennsylvania Department Health/Vital Records.
Did they send me a copy of my original Birth Certificate? NO.
Pennsylvania sent me a certificate that stated, "A certificate of live birth is on file…” it contained all the pertinent information but it was not a copy of my original birth certificate.
The State of Texas accepted that document and corrected my drivers License.
I challenge every "birther" to contact their state of birth for a birth certificate and tell me what they get in return.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
If It’s Good Enough For Dick It Should Be Good Enough For Mother Earth
When I am in a debate
with those on the right
who want to
Deny, Delay and Do Nothing
about Global Climate Change
When they spew
“There is no proof…”
“All scientists don’t agree..”
“I don’t believe mankind can have any impact on the Climate”
“Climate Change is a Natural Process”
or other misleading talking points
I give them this quote:
"Even if there's just a one percent chance
of the unimaginable coming due,
act as if it is a certainty.
It's not about analysis,
it’s about our response.
Justified or not,
fact-based or not,
our response is what matters."
For most, they react
That’s a stupid reason
How Idiotic to take unjustified actions
and waste our money
based on contrived evidence
without facts to support the necessity
I merely reply
If that reason was good enough for VP Cheney
to justify sinking billions of dollars
and the lives of thousands of American Troops
into the black hole of Iraq,
to preserve, protect and defend His homeland
Then it should be good enough
to justify actions that will
Preserve
Protect and
Defend
Our Home Planet.
with those on the right
who want to
Deny, Delay and Do Nothing
about Global Climate Change
When they spew
“There is no proof…”
“All scientists don’t agree..”
“I don’t believe mankind can have any impact on the Climate”
“Climate Change is a Natural Process”
or other misleading talking points
I give them this quote:
"Even if there's just a one percent chance
of the unimaginable coming due,
act as if it is a certainty.
It's not about analysis,
it’s about our response.
Justified or not,
fact-based or not,
our response is what matters."
For most, they react
That’s a stupid reason
How Idiotic to take unjustified actions
and waste our money
based on contrived evidence
without facts to support the necessity
I merely reply
If that reason was good enough for VP Cheney
to justify sinking billions of dollars
and the lives of thousands of American Troops
into the black hole of Iraq,
to preserve, protect and defend His homeland
Then it should be good enough
to justify actions that will
Preserve
Protect and
Defend
Our Home Planet.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Teach Our Children Well
With China, Japan, India and Europe leving the United States in their Science and Technology dust, Don McLeroy, chair of the Texas State Board of Education is on a crusade to drag our children into the 16th century.
Mr. McLeroy implied that
Scientists are “atheists.” Parents who want to teach their children about evolution are “monsters.” Pastors who support sound science are “morons.”
when he endorsed Robert Bowie Johnson’s book, Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re Descended from Reptiles
Quotes from the Johnson’s book include:
The obvious problem here is that it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution.What kind of monster parents teach their children that they’re descended from rodents and reptiles?
What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity’s origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?
Mr. McLeroy, let me quote from another book. The following is from the preface to my CATHOLIC Bible.
Literary Genres or FormsIt is very important to know what literary form a writer uses to convey his message. Is it a history, a poem, a figure of speech, a parable? If you don not know, you may misunderstand the writer’s message. That is why we must pay attention to the literary genres (forms) of the Bible. The following a just a few of them.
. . .
The Allegory: A figurative story with a veiled meaning. Read Genesis . . . for centuries these chapters have been misunderstood as inspired lessons in science. The Bible does not teach science; it teaches religious values. It uses these folktales to teach a lesson. Again, the point of the allegory (not the details) is God’s message to you.
Well Mr. McLeroy, do you believe the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the direct successor of Peter, the Holy See, are morons?
Mr. McLeroy, since you present yourself as an expert on the Bible, I would presume you have read Matthew 16:18:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…
Are you a Roman Catholic?
If one preaches that Scripture must be read as literal then that same person must accept Papal Catholicism as the ONLY theology Jesus established on earth.
So, just who is the real apostate, moron?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Atlas Juiced
In her novel “Atlas Shrugged”, self-espoused fascist Ayn Rand deifies the Captains of Industry. She postulates that they, and they alone, have a divine right to control the wealth derived from the labor of the working class. Her justification is that should the Robber Barons stop doing what they do, then nothing would get done and everyone will suffer. To this end, she has her protagonists stage a strike and then draws her own conclusions as to the results. However compelling her prose may be, the novel is still a work of fiction without basis in reality, much less economics.
In effect, Taggart, Rearden, Galt and their ilk are more like petulant children who, when they can’t have everything their own way, they throw a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, many of today’s CEO’s have read Ayn’s nonsense and accept it as Gospel. In today’s financial meltdown of Wall Street, they want to have everything their way. They have threatened to crash the World Markets if we do hand over all our property value.
I am reminded of the scene from the movie “Blazing Saddles” when Sheriff Bart, played by Cleavon Little, holds a gun to his own head and proclaims; “Next man makes a move the Ni**er gets it”. These people are willing to commit economic suicide and destroy the rest of use if we don’t let them have more riches; if we don’t bow in awe to their greatness. Unfortunately, Bush, Paulson, Geithner and Obama respond in unison: “They’re not bluffing; they’re just crazy enough to do it”.
Comparing these greedy cretins to petulant children who take their toys and go home in a snit, is a gross miss characterization. Their actions are more akin to extortion if not worse. Our leaders have capitulated. Maybe they are complicit.
Let’s see, what would you call someone who will do anything to bring the United States Economy to its knees and are willing to destroy themselves in the process. Isn't that a Terrorist?
These Atlas’s on Steroids are nothing less than Economic Terrorists.
Invoke the Patriot Act.
They should not be sent to jail, they should be in Gitmo.
In effect, Taggart, Rearden, Galt and their ilk are more like petulant children who, when they can’t have everything their own way, they throw a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, many of today’s CEO’s have read Ayn’s nonsense and accept it as Gospel. In today’s financial meltdown of Wall Street, they want to have everything their way. They have threatened to crash the World Markets if we do hand over all our property value.
I am reminded of the scene from the movie “Blazing Saddles” when Sheriff Bart, played by Cleavon Little, holds a gun to his own head and proclaims; “Next man makes a move the Ni**er gets it”. These people are willing to commit economic suicide and destroy the rest of use if we don’t let them have more riches; if we don’t bow in awe to their greatness. Unfortunately, Bush, Paulson, Geithner and Obama respond in unison: “They’re not bluffing; they’re just crazy enough to do it”.
Comparing these greedy cretins to petulant children who take their toys and go home in a snit, is a gross miss characterization. Their actions are more akin to extortion if not worse. Our leaders have capitulated. Maybe they are complicit.
Let’s see, what would you call someone who will do anything to bring the United States Economy to its knees and are willing to destroy themselves in the process. Isn't that a Terrorist?
These Atlas’s on Steroids are nothing less than Economic Terrorists.
Invoke the Patriot Act.
They should not be sent to jail, they should be in Gitmo.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Stem Cell Hypocrisy
Most Republicans are not opposed to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (HESCR). The Bush Administration was not opposed to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
If Republicans were opposed Stem Cell Research on moral grounds then they would have passed a comprehensive research ban while they controlled congress. If Bush believed HESCR was immoral, he would have signed an executive order to stop ALL research. They didn’t; George didn’t.
When George Bush vetoed the “Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2007”, then White House press Secretary Tony Snow said: “There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal; it simply says that the federal government will not finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're going to support it handsomely.”
He was then asked: “Has the White House received much reaction to the stem cell veto? And do you see a day when the President would believe that embryonic stem cell research, which is private, becomes illegal?” His response: “The answer to the second is, no…”
He later continued, apparently describing Bush’s position, “He did not think it would be appropriate for the federal government to engage in something morally controversial, but he would not outlaw it, and in fact, would permit private investment, which is going on in some places.”
As he was wrapping up the briefing, he recommended that everyone should invest in biotech stocks.
Republicans don’t oppose HESCR; they oppose PUBLIC FUNDING of Zygotic Stem Cell Research.
Ask yourself “Why do they oppose Public Funding?”
Do they oppose Public Funding of HESCR because they have a MORAL objection to HESCR? Well, they can keep the Religious Right flock in the fold by their bombastic remarks and pandering is worth only a few votes every two years.
The true reason They oppose public funding of HESCR is to pander to Big Phama…Surprised?
Any and all cures and treatments resulting from government funded research would become PUBLIC DOMAIN; cures and treatments resulting from private research will be PROPRIETARY.
A public domain treatment to cure diabetes might cost a few of hundred dollars. A proprietary cure would be worth more money than the bank bail out, the stimulus package and all the Halliburton no-bid contracts combined. Everybody benefits from the former; only Big Phama benefits from the latter.
If the right truly believes that HESCR is immoral and the reason the Bush administration vetoed the S.5 “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 was ”so that Americans would not be compelled to support an immoral activity with their tax dollars”, then it would follow that these same moral Americans would object to supporting Stem Cell research with ANY of their money.
Those who buy everything from Allegra to Zyrtec, from Oxycontin to Viagra, provide economic support to HESCR. If Republicans and the religious right are so morally opposed to it, then why don’t they boycott the products produced by Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Abbot, Eli Lily etc. since a portion of that money goes to HESCR.
And what about stock ownership. Do Dobson, Robertson, Brownback, Kyl, McCain, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and their ilk own stock in firms that are engaged in HSER. Has the Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention used their voting shares to force these firms discontinue the immoral practice. Have they divested themselves of such stock?
To all those who rail against HSER and preach it to be immoral: Check your 401K and portfolio. If you have any of your money invested in these companies then you have a moral obligation to divest yourself of those holdings.
Oh, and stop popping that little blue pill.
If Republicans were opposed Stem Cell Research on moral grounds then they would have passed a comprehensive research ban while they controlled congress. If Bush believed HESCR was immoral, he would have signed an executive order to stop ALL research. They didn’t; George didn’t.
When George Bush vetoed the “Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2007”, then White House press Secretary Tony Snow said: “There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal; it simply says that the federal government will not finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're going to support it handsomely.”
He was then asked: “Has the White House received much reaction to the stem cell veto? And do you see a day when the President would believe that embryonic stem cell research, which is private, becomes illegal?” His response: “The answer to the second is, no…”
He later continued, apparently describing Bush’s position, “He did not think it would be appropriate for the federal government to engage in something morally controversial, but he would not outlaw it, and in fact, would permit private investment, which is going on in some places.”
As he was wrapping up the briefing, he recommended that everyone should invest in biotech stocks.
Republicans don’t oppose HESCR; they oppose PUBLIC FUNDING of Zygotic Stem Cell Research.
Ask yourself “Why do they oppose Public Funding?”
Do they oppose Public Funding of HESCR because they have a MORAL objection to HESCR? Well, they can keep the Religious Right flock in the fold by their bombastic remarks and pandering is worth only a few votes every two years.
The true reason They oppose public funding of HESCR is to pander to Big Phama…Surprised?
Any and all cures and treatments resulting from government funded research would become PUBLIC DOMAIN; cures and treatments resulting from private research will be PROPRIETARY.
A public domain treatment to cure diabetes might cost a few of hundred dollars. A proprietary cure would be worth more money than the bank bail out, the stimulus package and all the Halliburton no-bid contracts combined. Everybody benefits from the former; only Big Phama benefits from the latter.
If the right truly believes that HESCR is immoral and the reason the Bush administration vetoed the S.5 “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 was ”so that Americans would not be compelled to support an immoral activity with their tax dollars”, then it would follow that these same moral Americans would object to supporting Stem Cell research with ANY of their money.
Those who buy everything from Allegra to Zyrtec, from Oxycontin to Viagra, provide economic support to HESCR. If Republicans and the religious right are so morally opposed to it, then why don’t they boycott the products produced by Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Abbot, Eli Lily etc. since a portion of that money goes to HESCR.
And what about stock ownership. Do Dobson, Robertson, Brownback, Kyl, McCain, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and their ilk own stock in firms that are engaged in HSER. Has the Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention used their voting shares to force these firms discontinue the immoral practice. Have they divested themselves of such stock?
To all those who rail against HSER and preach it to be immoral: Check your 401K and portfolio. If you have any of your money invested in these companies then you have a moral obligation to divest yourself of those holdings.
Oh, and stop popping that little blue pill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)