Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious News
So, I got a call this morning around 10AM informing me I have been accepted to law school! Yippee!!! No more waiting. Now I can move forward. Although the next month will be extremely stressful with fixing up my current house, getting it rented out, finding a place to live at school, moving, my dad and brother leaving for China, selling my car and just getting situated at school. Argh! But, I know it will all be worth the effort. I really do not want to be at work right now. I want to go home and get started. Maybe I'll just make a list of things to do, while here and hopefully get myself organized.
I'm just sooooooooooooo excited! Also, I probably will be MIA again for awhile until I get everything situated but I will try and check back in while at work here and there. Woooohooo! I'm going to law school.
US Applying Fascism in Policies
Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them.
-Jean-Paul Sartre
Source: //existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/07/human-rights- watch-bush-administration .html
In a 53-page report, "No Blood, No Foul: Soldiers' Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq," US soldiers reveal that contrary to previous statements by the Bush administration, detainees were routinely beaten, put in stressful positions, deprived of sleep and exposed to hot and cold extremes. Human Rights Watch bases its report on interviews, memoranda and sworn statements.
Surprise, surprise, the Administration has been caught in another lie. We're supposed to trust a government that continually lies and gets caught. For me it also begs me to question my own party and why they are not screaming at the top of their lungs to impeach Bush.
The report, consists of first-hand accounts by U.S. military personnel and provide details of detainee abuses that are at odds with previous statements by the Bush administration. The official program of torture took place at "...an off-limits facility at Baghdad airport and at other detention centers throughout Iraq." Soldier accounts allege that abusive techniques "...were authorized by the military chain of command". This directly contradicts various Pentagon statements and cover stories. It directly refutes the "few bad apples" defense.
Soldiers were told that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and that interrogators could use abusive techniques to get detainees to talk. These accounts rebut U.S. government claims that torture and abuse in Iraq was unauthorized and exceptional - on the contrary, it was condoned and commonly used."
-John Sifton, the author of the report and the senior researcher on terrorism and counterterrorism at Human Rights Watch.
From the Report:
Many of the crimes detailed in this report are violations of international humanitarian law, U.S. military law, and U.S. federal criminal law. The U.S. government's failure to properly investigate these violations is an affront to the victims of the abuses, and a violation of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which obligate states to prosecute serious violations of the conventions' provisions ("grave breaches").
The accounts in this report are further evidence that detainee abuse was an established and apparently authorized part of detention and interrogation processes in Iraq for much of 2003-2005. The cases also show that U.S. military personnel have faced systemic obstacles to reporting or exposing abuses, that the U.S. military in numerous cases has not taken adequate measures to stop reported abuses. The report also shows that the U.S. military has often failed to properly investigate and prosecute perpetrators, including officers who allowed abuses to occur on their watch.
In other words, prohibitions against torture and ill-treatment of prisoners are absolute despite Bush's various efforts to re-define torture and to make legal, after the fact, the crimes that he's already committed.
Many do not realize if we do not hold ourselves to the Geneva Convention, international law or even our own law, what stops our "enemies" from treating our soldiers in the same manner. In no circumstance will I ever condone the torturing of people. And we're supposed to have been better than Saddam Hussein? This is just another example of the BUSH Admin's hypocrisy an attempt to move us toward fascism.
Going Into Hiding
It seems every couple of months or so, I feel the need to stick my head in the sand and go into hiding. This past week has especially made me feel this way. I have so much going on in my personal life, that I just don't have the energy right now to emotional or intellectually process the "News" or what's happening in politics. It's so draining and hard to keep on top of or seeing the number of deaths rising in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq. Do Americans not feel compassion for these people? Are we so desensitized that the death of many people miles away has no impact on our emotional lives? Sometimes I wish for more desensitization so I do not feel it so much. But then again, I’d rather have to hide and take a breather rather than not feel at all. On top of that, it’s hard to see the policy decisions being made in our own country. More and more we are being pushed back to the Dark Ages and our constitutionally protected rights are being attacked. I just keep hoping this fall will bring change to the current path this country is taking. I need some hope for the future cause right now, I just don’t want to deal.
US Advancing Towards Theocracy
Source: www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006- 07-19-pledge_x.htm
WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."
"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Ok first, the obvious...our history is about a bunch of Protestants coming to the new country to avoid religious prosecution and in search of religious freedom...hmmm, they are basically say screw religious freedom. If you're an atheist, no matter, you have to say "Under God" even if it violates your own beliefs. It's our beliefs we are worried about not yours.
Secondly, the first six presidents were deists we would call Secular Humanist or Atheist today.
Deism is defined by the view that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. Deism has also come to be identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.
Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justic and specifically rejects reituals and ceremonies as a means to affirm their life stance.
Atheism is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities, and most commonly of God). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not.
Yes, we cannot "rewrite history", so why don't you actually learn about it before offering up this incredibly faulty argument.
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
So, the President is expanding his "Presidential Powers" and eliminating the checks and balances set up by our forefathers, and now the House has got into their heads to do the same thing, effectively attempting to reduce the Judiciary's powers. It's all about POWER POWER POWER. Give me a break.
"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Finally, someone gets the threat of instituting this kind of legislation.
The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Ok, read the comment above in regards to this nation's heritage and traditions...just like a true Republican and Christain (yes, I know not all, but I'm generalizing here to classify this type of Christain, which there are more out there than most want to admit), always using only those parts of history/bible in which fits their needs rather than looking at it as a whole. Yuck.
FYI... here is what TJ has to say about Christainity:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular Superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
I really love that statement. Maybe our forefathers were really smarter than the rest of us.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.
OMG, a smart Republicn, who gets the threat to the Judiciary's branches power.
The bill is H.R. 2389
Middle East Crisis
EVACUEES
Apparently there is a Federal Law which allows the government to charge evacuees fees for transportation home. This time the Bush Administration actually got it right. Evacuees will not have to sign a promisory note. These fees will be absorbed by the US government. The cruise ship taking the evacuees to Cypress will be escorted by US warships. Finally, this Adminstration takes an action that I can neither criticize or argue about. What a refreshing feeling.
THE NEOCONS ARE BACK
Apparently the NeoCons are back in full blood thirsty force. With claims of this being WWIII, I've heard many Reps express pleasure and joy at the idea of more war in the Middle East. Many have been touting the idea of going to war with Syria and Iran. Let me remind you that our resources are too thin. But, what am I thinking, they would just institute the draft - they have no concern for the men and women they send oversees to die.
What is so frustrating is the criticism received by Dem ocrats, especially those who express concern and are not willing to just jump into another war or do not advocate violence. They are being decribed as "sniveling lackeys" and "spineless". Ok, you blood thirsty Reps, if your conscious and supposed morals allows you to tout violence and death you go right ahead in your delusions. I've never understood why caution before committing onself to war is deemed so negatively. Especially when this has yet to effect us directly. Plus, if Iran and Syria are such a threat now, you're telling me they weren't one 5 years ago? Yet, our government chose to invade Iraq, hmmm.
The most disturbing part for me, is these "people" are supposed to by pro-life. Yet, they support violence, destruction and death in the name of whatever wacko ideal they want to claim at the time. And we wonder why our society has turned so violent? Until you people can actually come up with a constructive solution to a very difficult situation that doesn't involve bombing, invading and killing civilians, I don't want to hear it.
Word Wars - Fighting Back
After reading this information I do not understand how applying either of these terms could ever have the negative connotation in which the Right-wing controlled media has given to them. I would describe my personal political views as a combination of Progressive and Liberal ideologies.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Traditionally, what was meant by "liberty" was the freedom of each individual to do as they pleased, provided they did not infringe on the liberty of others. This is often called classical liberalism. Another form of liberalism, often called social liberalism, holds that freedom requires what is sometimes called a "level playing field", that for people to be free they must be free from the unequal power of those born to wealth and high social status. Attempts to level the playing field include anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, affirmative action, and progressive taxation. A third form of liberalism, now almost universal in liberal democracies, holds that the government should provide for the general welfare. This sometimes includes a dole for the poor, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by taxes. Classical liberals often strongly object to this kind of liberalism, asserting that the freedom of private property takes precedence over the personal freedom that depends on health, education, and a place to live; they claim that private charity does the job as well, or even better.
Classical liberals seek a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on coercive power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government. Modern liberals advocate a government in which the rights of minorities are protected. In modern society, classical and social liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity.
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.
The impact of liberalism on the modern world is profound. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade were all radical notions some 250 years ago. Liberal democracy, in its typical form of multiparty political pluralism, has spread to much of the world. Today all are accepted as the goals of policy in most nations, even if there is a wide gap between statements and reality. They are not only the goals of liberals, but also of social democrats, conservatives, and Christian Democrats. There is, of course, opposition.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#De finitions
Progressivism is a political philosophy whose adherents promote public policies that foster social change. As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism mostly refers to the politics of social progressivism and economic progressivism. Progressivism may also mean preferring moderate change.
Progressives dominated moderate American politics from the 1890s to the 1920s. Today the term refers to movements on the left ranging from liberal to social democrat. Recently, many on the left have been replacing the term Liberal with Progressive, as some contend that the former now has a decidedly negative association in the media.
Early in the 20th century, progressives worked to reform the political process in the US. In several states, they succeeded in reducing the power of political bosses by instituting presidential primaries and non-partisan elections. They exposed corruption, and established public control of the existing monopolies over public resources, such as water and gas works. They were the driving force behind the reform and regulation of child labor, the institution of public education, and the right of women to vote. Their efforts contributed to the writing and ratification of the 17th Amendment (the direct election of senators) in 1913, and the 19th Amendment (right of women to vote in federal elections) in 1920. They sought to improve transportation for the public. They also pressured state legislatures to raise the property tax in order to spend more money on schools, parks and other public facilities. They usually worked at the state level to make changes.
Now Let's Take a Look at this:
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conserv atism
American conservatism is a political mindset within the United States that incorporates many different ideologies under the blanket heading of conservative. Included are fiscal conservatives, free market or economic liberals, social conservatives, and religious conservatives , as well as supporters of a strong American military, opponents of internationalism, and proponents of state's rights.
Modern American conservatism coalesced in the latter half of the 20th century, responding over time to the political and social change associated with events such as the Great Depression, the Cold War, the American Civil Rights Movement, and the counterculture of the 1960s. Its prominence has been aided, in part, by the emergence of vocal and influential economists, politicians, writers, and media personalities. In 2000 and 2004, about 80% of self-described conservatives voted Republican.
Defining "American conservatism" requires a definition of conservatism in general, and the term is applied to a number of ideas and ideologies, some more closely related to core conservative beliefs than others.
1. Classical or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.
2. Ideological conservatism or right-wing conservatism -- In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right-wing conservatism is, as its name implies, ideological. It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic liberalism. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology of people in some English-speaking countries: separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions.
3. Neoconservatism, in its United States usage, has come to refer to the views of a subclass of conservatives who support a more assertive foreign policy coupled with one or more other facets of social conservatism, in contrast to the typically isolationist views of early- and mid-20th Century conservatives. Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected liberals, and thus Irving Kristol, usually credited as its intellectual progenitor, defined a "neoconservative&quo t; as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's The Public Interest periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and (Irving's son) William Kristol, it has become more famous for its association with the foreign policy of the George W. Bush Administration.
Doesn't sound all the bad either? Just a different view and approach to dealing with issues/problems. Well, excpet for maybe the NeoCons.
Federal Dollars Spent To Trick Pregnant Teens
I was listening to Bill Press this morning and Christy Harvey has a new website miccheckradio.org/ . Here she lists a story about a investigative study done by Rep. Henry Waxman (D., CA) into “pregnancy resource centers,” right-wing, pro-life organizations. Waxman found these centers hide their ideological agenda and “often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion". Here is more information on it:
Here’s the kicker: These centers have received over $30 million in federal funding under the Bush administration. Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.
I do not mind having informational centers that provide factual information to teens or even spiritual information/counseling regarding this issue. However, to lie to a 17 year old about this information is irresponsible and reprehensible. I went on to Planned Parenthood's website, and they provide many studies which contradict this information. They also suggest the person got to many sources to help make this decision saying:
Most women look to their husbands, partners, families, health care providers, clergy, or someone else they trust for support as they make their decision. Specially trained counselors at women's health clinics can talk to you in private. You may bring someone with you. You will discuss your options — adoption, parenting, and abortion. Your counselor will try to make sure that no one is pressuring you to have an abortion.
Furthermore, I went onto one of these "Pregnancy Resource Centers" websites and they provide NO studies which support their claims. As far as I can see this is morally wrong and our tax dollars are supporting these centers. I would like to know since when is it spiritual or morally correct to mislead and lie to women in order to achieve there own goals. Ugh, people like this disgust me.
Letter to the Dean of Admissions
Dean *****:
Thank you for meeting with me last Tuesday. I really enjoyed discussing the various topics with you. After speaking with you, I feel I am now better able to articulate what I am passionate about. For awhile now, I have been struggling with the negative impacts of our political process; an ever increasing disillusionment with the political process and the public policies that our political figures have been instituting. For awhile now, I have been struggling with the negative impacts of our political process. This includes an ever increasing disillusionment by society with the process, our politicians and the policies they have been instituting. I feel the leaders in our country today are more concerned with maintaining their jobs and political power rather than acting in the best interests of their constituents or the country. For too long our representatives have been bogged down or forced to focus on being reelected rather than the important issues at hand.
It amazes me that we are the wealthiest nation in the world, yet our education and health care continue to decline as is the size of our middle class. I see a steady reversion back to the Robber Baron days when the majority of the wealth and power of the country was highly concentrated at the expense of the rest of the nation. We need a new breed of political leaders to revitalize the citizen’s of this country’s interest. These leaders need to have a firm understanding of the history of this country as well as the ability to empathize and remain connected to the people of this great nation. I believe we have a duty to remember, maintain and revitalize the legacy of freedom and optimism that our forefathers bequeathed to us.
My interest and passion lies in public policy and service; more specifically how our government and its leaders attempt to address the foremost issues facing us through our system of laws and regulations. I hope to one day to become a leader in my local community if not more. However, I believe in order to achieve this goal, I first must become a student of our system of laws, its history and how the legal system functions in support of our country’s goals and objectives for our people now and into the future. I believe to understand what the law is capable of accomplishing it is best to understand what the law has already accomplished.
The basis of my passion for public policy stems from the everyday average Americans these policies effects. As I have became more aware of the difficulties facing the average American, I can say that not a month has gone by where I have not heard some new story in which another unnecessary injustice or suffering has occurred because of the policies or negligence of our leaders. What is most shocking is the impotency the majority of people feel in changing their situation or these policies. I have felt fully the impotency caused by events in life beyond our control and can empathize with their increasing disillusionment and resentment towards our leaders and government. My dream is to help empower one person at a time and to work to empower one group of people at a time through the practice of the law in order to help better their lives and remind them what united voices can achieve in this great nation.
I know that attending the University at ***** Law School will enable me to attain my full capability, achieve my dreams and realize my passion for a better world. Again, thank you for taking the time to speak to me. I look forward to attending **** Law School and to having many discussions with you, other faculty members, and students in the coming years.
Sincerely,
ME
Mutants in A Slime Pit
I listened to CNN Contributor, Jack Cafferty on Stephanie Miller (check it out on her website www.stephaniemiller.com ) I'm totally paraphrasing here, but it was a very enjoyable and funny interview. Check it out:
Stephanie: It has been confirmed that it is our American soldiers that were found likely tortured and killed in Iraq.
Jack: There is nothing to say. It's horrible. It's time to get the hell out of there. I mean, what's the point? I mean I don't know if this thing is going anywhere and these two kids, there bodies were found this morning are 2500+ now. And what's the end game? The end game is something along the lines that I'm going to leave this for the next president to worry about... pack up and come home...enough already.
Stephanie: What do you think when they keep using the terms like "Cut and Run", you know we can't have a timetable. I mean, I don't perform except under pressure. I don't know about you, most people need deadlines.
Jack: The tragedy of this thing is that it's all politics. The verbiage "Cut and Run" and "Non-binding Resolutions" about redeployments and phased withdrawals and yadda yadda yadda...this is political posturing ahead of the midterm elections on both sides. It's positioning for some sort of run at the White House in 2008. And these mutants that we elect to office in this country play career games on the backs of these kids and these families who are getting wiped out or crippled in a war that has so far produced very little that I can see in the way of benefits...at the end of the day we've got kids being killed and there is no upside...Halliburton and all of the defense guys are getting rich.
Stephanie: You brought up my dad Jack...I feel he would be appalled at what's happened to their party. What I don't remember from the debate back then is people calling each other bad Americans. It's what they are doing to Jack Murtha right now.
Jack: The system, I think Stephanie, is broken from the top down. The name calling and stuff is a byproduct of the entrenched power both political parties are now enjoying in this country. The country is now owned and run by the lobbyist, the people on K Street. There are no term limits. We've got career politicians who sit in these powerful positions and sell their offices and services to the highest bidder. And the thing has degenerated in to a big slime pit where the overlooked party is the American taxpayer and voter. Granted, I guess we deserve what we get.
Stephanie: I have never referred to anyone in Congress as mutants in a slime pit, but it is a visual, I'll give you that.
-------
Stephanie: How about NSA spying, we talk about the politicians, what's up with Americans that they think that's ok.
Jack: Once again the power structure in Washington has succeed in creating a situation where we can't tell whether the law is being broken or not. There is no judicial reviews. There's no hearings...the Administration moved to have the two court cases in the country that are attempting to look at the legality of this thrown out because they don't want anybody to determine that these guys are braking the law. That they didn't go to the FISA court, that they've got the phone companies supplying my records and your records without my knowledge to some super secret government spy agency. Where are we living here?
Jack: I do hope they look at eventually getting some term limits, getting some public financing of these campaigns, getting the K Street lobbyist the hell out of the equation and turning the country back over to its citizens.
911 upDATE
Thanks to tfruge1's research, he was able to find the story on the woman arrested for wanting a date with a police officer. Here's the story on FOX:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203522,0 0.html
Just a note, when my co-worker told me about this story it was her impression the woman was from around here (Rochester, NY). Just an example how information is miscommunicated through "telephone".
Woman Arressted for Calling 911
Ok, so I missed the news last night and really had nothing in particular to write about. However, as I was getting coffee at work this morning, a co-worker related this story to me. Apparently, the police went to a 45 y/o woman’s house for a noise disturbance. After leaving, she called 911 to discover the name of the police officers who had come to her house. After having difficulty obtaining the information, she finally broke down and declared she was a 45 year old single woman who needed a date. She was trying to get the officer's information to ask him out. If this is not funny enough for you, the police returned to the woman’s house and arrested her. So, we’re arresting desperate single women trying to find dates now. Ha! I checked the local newspapers here and was unable to verify whether this story was fact or fiction without any luck. I then went to the web and found related stories in which people were arrested for abusing the emergency system…
Woman arrested after calling 911 for pizza
Source: www.buzzlife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58228 & nbsp; &n bsp;
May 26, 2005
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- An 86-year-old woman has been sent to jail after police said she called 911 dispatchers 20 times in a little more than a half-hour to complain about a pizza parlor. Dorothy Densmore remained in jail Tuesday charged with misusing the 911 system, a jail spokeswoman said. She told dispatchers Sunday that a local pizza shop refused to deliver a pie to her south Charlotte apartment, said Officer Mandy Giannini, a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police spokeswoman. She also complained that someone at the shop called her a "crazy old coot," Giannini said. Densmore wanted them arrested. Instead, police came to arrest her, and she resisted, Giannini said. It's unusual for someone to face charges for nonemergency calls, Giannini said. But on Sunday, Densmore kept calling 911, even after she was told to stop, Giannini said. When an officer arrived at her apartment, the 5-foot-tall, 98-pound woman attacked him, Giannini said. Densmore scratched him, kicked and bit his hand, she said. Densmore is also charged with resisting a public officer and two counts of misusing the 911 system, jail records show. It was the second time she'd been charged with misusing the emergency system, court records show. In March 2004, police said she called 911 about 10 times after she was asked to stop, a police report says. She then threatened to hit the officer with a chair when he came to arrest her, the report states.
Woman Dials 911 Over Cold Onion Rings
Source: www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=117654
November 19, 2005 12:00 p.m. EST
Denise Royal - All Headline News Staff Writer
Thibodaux, Louisiana (AHN) - A Louisiana woman now faces charges after calling 911 to complain that her onion rings were cold. She summoned police to the Malt-N-Burger Wednesday night where officers arrested her. 30-year-old Sharita Williams was irate over the temperature of her food, the Thibodauz Daily Comet reported. Williams told police the food was cold when she received it and the attendant refused to replace it with a new order, the report says. At that point, Williams dialed 911. She was arrested and issued a summons for misuse of the 911 system. She was released and given a December court date. In many states, it’s a crime to call 911 for a non-emergency. Law enforcement officials say these types of calls not only waste time and money, but can also be dangerous. In many areas, a conviction for a first offense can result in fines of $50 to $300 and 90 days in jail.
These are just more examples in which Americans take their food waaaaay toooo seriously.
Government Takes Over Personal Medical Decisions
Starchild Abraham Cherrix, a 16 y/o teen in Virginia was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. After the first round of treatment, he had to be carried by his father because he couldn't walk. When he learned in February that the cancer was back and he would need to go through antoher round of the drugs, as well as radiation he refused stating:
"I think it would kill me the second time."
He decided instead to turn to a sugar-free organic diet, herbs and visits to a clinic in Mexico to treat his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. Abraham and his family was taken to juvenile court in Accomack County for a closed hearing to determine whether the 16-year-old can make his own medical decisions _ and whether he can keep living with his parents and four siblings on Chincoteague, an island off Virginia's Eastern Shore. A social worker had asked a judge to require Abraham to continue conventional treatment, and in May the judge issued a temporary order finding Jay and Rose Cherrix neglectful for supporting their son's choice to pursue alternatives. Judge Jesse E. Demps also ordered the parents to share custody of Abraham with the Accomack County Department of Social Services; they face losing custody completely.
"It's hard enough to deal with a child having this disease, and then to have to deal with this (court case) as if we were criminals ...," Cherrix said, his voice trailing.
In a similar case, the parents of 13-year-old Hodgkin's disease patient Katie Wernecke won the right in November to make all her medical decisions after a court fight with child welfare officials in Corpus Christi, Texas. While doctors had recommended chemotherapy and radiation, her father favored intravenous vitamin C. Rose Cherrix said she supports her son's decision to follow this approach because he is mature and thoughtful.
"He had been through the chemo and he knew what it did to him," she said. "He knew more than any of us what his body was going through."
Jay Cherrix initially was skeptical but said he changed his mind when he took Abraham to the Bio-Medical Center in Tijuana in March to begin treatment and found the staff professional and warm. The X-rays showed the chest tumor had grown mildly, Abraham said, adding that he wasn't surprised because natural treatment takes some time to work its way into the body. He said, though, that he has a lot of energy and feels great. Jay Cherrix said he is not worried about Abraham using the method and will keep fighting for his son's right to continue it, even though he estimated medical and legal costs have helped put the family $100,000 in debt.
To read the complete article go to: www.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news /article/0,1641,CCCT_876_ 4832567,00.html
All I have to say is this: It's another Terry Schiavo case where the government gets involved in a complete family matter. I thought Republicans are for less government, yet more and more government is intruding into our personal lives. You have a teenager who has researched his options and instead of poisoning his body more he chooses to try an alternative form of healing. Sometimes I wonder if this is a result of the pharmaceutical companies brainwashing society into thinking there is a pill for every ill or a pill that can solve all your problems; having difficulty with socializing, take a pill, your child is to active/hyper, take a pill. It’s disgusting and offensive. So now, the family not only has to deal with medical costs but also legal costs. They not only have to struggle with dealing with an ailing family member but defend their right to decide medical treatment. When will this stop? Do we now need “Right to Die” laws and “Right to Choose Your Type of Medical Treatment” laws in order to protect families from outside interference? It’s just another case of someone else thinking they know what’s best for another. My argument is, it’s not your life or your decision stay out!!!
If you would like to donate to their legal fund or to the Family for medical expenses please visit his website: www.abrahamsjourney.com
Tucker and Sensationalism
So last night I tried watching Tucker Carlson again on MSNBC. Boy, how I hate "Journalists" who do not report a story so much as report it in a way to invoke sensationalism. So I relistened to the piece on Keven Barrett at the University of Wisconsin. He called the statement made by the school as "cowardly" because they called his views on 9/11 unconventional.
"There is no question that Mr. Barrett holds personal opinions that many people find unconventional," Farrel (the Provost) says.
Of course Tucker left out the rest of the quote: "These view are expected to take a small, but significant, role in the class. To the extent that his views are discussed, Mr. Barrett has assured me that the students will be free - and encouraged - to challenge his viewpoint".
Further in the piece he called Barrett a "creep". So this is a fine example of journalism at work. He also basically said it was ok for the protection of Academic Freedom when the view leaned towards the right. But, heaven forbid afford the same rights to others. Furthermore, he was more critical of the University by allowing and protecting Academic Freedom rather than firing this guy. Does he not realize this is a slippery slope and it is best not to go down that road? I would rather have Professor presenting radical ideas to students than just providing students with one way to believe. I guess I have more faith in the Amercian People and students to be able to differentiate for themselves fact from fiction.
Farrell also said "Our students are not blank slates. They are capable of exercising judgment, critical analysis and speaking their minds."
But apparently, like most right wing wackos the threat of challenging our students to think for themselves is more of a threat than reporting the truth or the entire story. Thumbs up to Tucker for once again showcasing the right wing's fear of having the masses question or actually debate, discuss, or think about issues.
A New Theory
Yesterday I met with the Dean of Admissions for Law School. Currently I am on the waiting list (applied late) and I wanted to increase my chances of being accepted off the waitlist. We discussed many different topics, from Education to Healthcare to Poverty. In this coversation I was able to verbalize what I already knew but never put into words. It's a simple fact. It is in our best interest to help those around us.
Let me give some examples to back up my simple theory. Let's take a look at Education. I heard new numbers that across the country there is a 30% drop out rate which increases as you look at minorities (something close to 50% for African Americans). Now if we as a society helped to decrease these numbers what could the possible outcomes be? Well, we would have a more educated society. These people would have a better chance of getting a job which could provide enough money to subsist, thus possibly lessening the strain on our social welfare system. Five bucks says even the crime rate would decrease, thus reducing strain on our police and correctional system. And this could possibly be just a few of the ripples effected.
Now on to another example. Healthcare. One of the many arguments people have against a national Healthcare system is that they would be paying for someone else to have Healthcare. Ok, first heaven forbid you help someone who hasn't had as much opportunity or good fortune as you. And second, you already are paying for it. One of the causes of those poor schmucks not paying for the medical bills is the rising costs in healthcare for the rest of us. Really does an AC band from the hosital cost $100? No, but the hospitals needs some way to make up for the money they have lost. So, overall, if you wanted to keep the cost of your health insurance down you would be supportive of a national healthcare network. Oh, and let's not take into consideration it would give you something to fall back on if, let's say, you needed the temporary help because of some financial crisis.
It amazes me how people only focus on how things directly effect them, when more things indirectly effect them. It also amazes me how people rarely vote or act in their own best interests. Of course, this is just a theory of mine which if I did the research I could come up with data to back up, if I had the time, or the inclination. Maybe someday...
Mixed Blessings Weekend
I have a tendency to actually leave some of my more personal thoughts and actions out of this blog. But, I want and need to bare my soul somewhere...
So, I left work early on Friday to drive to MD for a high school friend’s wedding. My dad and I were both invited to the dinner rehearsal that night at 7pm. I left work at 11:15A and had to get some shopping in. I had taken out the dress I normally wear to weddings the night before and discovered it was now 4 inches too big. So, I had to make and emergency shopping trip. I went to the mall next to my work and was able to find a nice outfit to wear to the dinner rehearsal but not to the wedding. Ah, what did I expect when I only allowed myself an half an hour to shop. After getting the outfit (which was priced at $130 and I got for $20) I rushed home to meet my dad. I literally got home, put on the outfit I was going to wear that night, grabbed the bag I packed the night before and jumped in the car. We had 360 miles to drive and we were pushing it. God, I hate that feeling of being rushed. As soon as we were both in the car, we looked at each other and let out a big breath of air. There was some debate on the trip down on which way to go to avoid and traffic, but suffice to say we got to the restaurant at 6:45pm and were the first ones there. In the end, we didn’t really need to rush. Damn…oh well. The dinner was nice and then my dad just dropped me off at the hotel where I was sharing a room with my brother for the night and I just crashed.
The only thing I needed to accomplish the next day was finding an outfit for the wedding. Before heading down to MD, I e-mailed all of my friends in the area to let them know I was coming to town. I told them I would not have a car and if they wanted to see me, they would need to come to my hotel. I finally got sick of driving down there and then having to drive all around the area to see all of my friends. This time I thought I drove 360 miles; my friends can drive the 30 miles or so to see me. Suffice to say I only saw one friend. I only was able to see her for couple of hours but we were able to pour over her wedding pictures from May. It was really great seeing her and I appreciate her friendship more and more.
Anyway, I was able to later pick up an outfit (once again on sale) and get ready without having to rush! Thank God. This was my first Jewish wedding. The ceremony was much more informal than what I have seen of Christian weddings. In addition, they explained the symbolism and translated the blessings into English. It was a nice change. Afterwards we had about an hour of hors d’oeuvres of crab balls, chicken kabobs, fried ravioli, cheese, crackers, veggies and an open bar. They even had a Martini bar. For dinner, they had a buffet style of filet mignon, crab legs, shrimp, lobster ravioli; shrimp Pad Tai, some other Chinese dishes, sautéed vegetables and other sundry of food. I could not believe it. It was all very exquisite. Don’t even get me started on the desserts. It was probably the best wedding dinner I’ve been to yet. Another difference, there was a lot more dancing and family participation than I had seen at other weddings. The level of celebration was higher than then ones I’ve been to in the past. On top of everything else, I was able to catch up with some high school friends. The whole night was very enjoyable.
I say my only downfall for the entire night was my desire to keep partying after the wedding had ended. So, in my drunken stupidness I called my ex boyfriend. I really wasn’t expecting him to answer his phone and I was just going to leave a “Hi, It’s me” voicemail. But, he picked up. Suffice to say, he ended up driving 45 minutes to “see” me. And he “saw” me four times. God, I really needed that. But at the same time, the next day I was angrier about the fact that he would go out of his way to “see” me, even though I hadn’t spoken to him in 6 months and moved out of the area without saying goodbye. In addition, he still wanted to “see” me again? I felt like I was using him and he let me. So now, I feel guilty for being a bitch, but at the same time, he let me. I have not heard from him yet, but I have a feeling he’s going to want to start talking to me again. And really, I don’t want anything else from him. He’s a great guy, but not for me. Tell me, why do some people allow others to use them? I guess I’m just as mad at myself for using him and behaving this way. I’m supposed have grown out of these immature/ selfish actions. On one side, I’m happy I was able to fulfill some urges with someone I new rather than some random person, but I hate that I am guilty of treating people with less than what I would like to be treated. Ok, I’m getting a little ahead of myself, because who knows what he’s really thinking and maybe he feels the same way I am; that it was a nice way to spend the night.
It just made me think about my progress. I always seem to take one step forward and two steps back. After being rapped, I jumped into about anyone’s bed to just fuck. It was a way to punish myself, tempt the fates to make things worse in my life and to keep everyone at an arms length. I’m still scarred to death of intimacy. And am still very self conscious of my body. The scary thing is I have yet to have sex with a guy for the first time while being sober after the rape and can count on my fingers the number of times I’ve had sex sober period after the rape. But anyway, recently I’ve been good about controlling those impulses and attempting to actually get to know someone. But, it’s just hard when a girls got needs and I have yet to meet someone in which I have been impressed by. So in way I feel as though I have not yet broken my promise to myself. It doesn’t count because I dated him before right? Ok, rationalizing but anything to make me feel better and shut up that stupid criticizing voice in my head. Guilt is such a useless emotion; I should jump back from this soon. The only positive thing which came out of this is I have lost 30 lbs in the last 6 months. He really noticed and really appreciated the work I put in bettering myself. It felt good to have someone reaffirm my hard work and be able to enjoy it physically as well.
So, I had a mixed weekend of good and bad things. Such is life.
The Bush Pilot
Lamont V. Lieberman
So, I watched the Connecticut primary debate between Challenger Lamont and Incumbent Lieberman. Talk about lack of charisma in politicians today. I, of course, went in biased against Lieberman because of his previous cozy relationship with the current Administration, but putting that aside his 18 years of experience in public speaking should have shown through. It was once again a “he said she said” debate. As much as Lieberman touted his 18 years of experience, I don’t think he stopped to realize how much the American voters are unimpressed with Congress’s progress and current decision making. Once Lamont touted change, I was immediately sold. I don’t care if Lieberman has 18 years of experience. What I see in DC is corruption, cronyism, and constant campaigning rather than representation. I am more and more in support of throwing almost all incumbents out of office. Check out voidnow.org. Their mission statement is:
“Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy provides Americans who have lost confidence in our political system, an opportunity to restore responsible, ethical, and efficient government. The vote is the power our Constitution provides the people to direct their elected representatives and shape the results of government. A vote for incumbents is a vote supporting a candidate's participation in, and results of, that government. A vote against an incumbent and for a challenger is a vote for change in government and indicates a disapproval of the incumbent's participation in, or, results of, government. VOID's mission is to educate and organize Americans, who are dissatisfied with the results of their government or elected officials, around the power of their voter registration and vote to change political system and government for the better.”
The basic idea is to empower voters to make change and to hold our politicians responsible when they fail to make good on their “promises”. I’m not completely convinced this is the best way to change politics in America, but I’m definitely up for voting the Democratic Incumbent out in the Primaries. At the same time, I also feel all campaigning should be funded but public monies. This would even the playing field and actually enable those of us in the Middle Class or even the Poor a voice in Congress.
Putting that aside: Lieberman made some statement that by Lamont challenging him he is weakening the Democratic Party. So you’re telling me by limiting competition we can still expect our Politicians to tote the line, work in our best interest and work their butts off? Has he not looked at the Corporate Monopolizations’ which exist now and their ramifications? Tell me what product in our market today can compete with other international products. We’ve taken competition out of our corporate markets and now you want to take it out of politics. Isn’t competition and free market usually touted in the same instances? Or am I completely off bases here, which is always a possibility. And what about his intent to run as an Independent if he loses the Primary. Does this not weaken the Democratic Party? Anyway, the result of the debate left me more and more dissatisfied with Lieberman and I rather take a chance on an unknown than to have him in office again.
Once again I'm left disillusioned by the political atmosphere which exists in America today. For me, I would say Lamont won the debate. I don't think Lieberman's 18 years of experience did much good for him. And Lamont's slogan of change and challenging the current adminstration will be success in the end.
Sick, Sick, Sick - How I Spent My Independence Day
In college, every summer like clockwork I would end up with a severe sore throat and tonselitis (sp?). Of course, unlucky for me it was never strep, always some viral infection which they would had me a phamplet which had instructions on how to deal with a sore throat and then sent me on my way. A couple of times I would then end up in the ER because my throat would swell so much I would have difficulty breathing. Anyway, it's been 3 years since I had one of these infections. Now my much desired record has been broken. I once again have this damn infection.
It's not strep, I was tested by my doctor. But, this time he sent me home with Prednisone (sp?) - steroids for the swelling and some anti-biotics just incase its a different type of bacterial infection. Suffice to say I was down and out for 3 days. I was so happy when my DR gave me the steroids because it was becoming increasingly harder to breath and talk. I'm still not feeling all that well (and thank God i got sick over the weekend and when we had a holiday - and I only had to take one day of sick leave) but I'm back at work so I don't have to take off any more sick leave time my company stingingly gives out.
So, here I was at work sick trying my damnedest to concentrate. Luckily I did not have too much work to do, because the little I did have took me most of the day. I find it very funny how things take twice as long to do when feeling sick. It's as though my brain cannot process things as fast. Of course, I suffered quietly through nausea and chills because heaven forbid someone ask me why I won't go home. Which my response always is, I don't want to use my sick or Annual leave. So long as I can somewhat function, I rather suffer at work sick than use all my leave days. So, to avoid the question, "why don't you go home" I lie and say I'm feeling better and avoid people for most of the day. Hey whatever works right.
On top of the nice infection that decided to drop on by, I'm dealing with the 8th anniversary of my rape (good ol' July 4th). So, ontop of feeling physically wiped out, my emotions are pretty much running amuck. It takes awhile for the consciousness to kick in and realize why I'm feeling so depressed because of the whole "date" thing, but eventually it does. So I've been moping around the house, sleeping, or drowning myself in movies in hopes of making it through this time period. It's become somewhat of a ritual for me. Always around the date, I go into hiding from friends, family and always avoid fireworks, and just barry my head under the sand for about a week. It seems to work for now. Eventually, I'll get to the point where I'll have some good memories on the same date and hopefully overshadow the bad. I just wonder if my emotional "sickness" got reflected through the body, hence the nice throat infection. I always got to wonder...
Anyway, I'm tired again. Need to get more sleep.