Bill Clinton Hopes Democrats Don’t Use NY-26 Win “As an Excuse to Do Nothing” on DeficitI was impressed with Clinton for refusing to let the ReThugs drive him from office and at the time I thought he wasn't a bad President. But I've changed my mind. It's clear now that Clinton did a lot of damage. As with Obama, Clinton is just so entrenched in the corporate/political corruption destroying this country that it's difficult to imagine there's even one uncorrupted brain cell in his head.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
My respect for Bill Clinton continues his decline ...
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
State of the Nation ...
From: ThinkFast: May 13, 2011
No problem that is until it's a question of prohibiting someone on the list from buying guns. To a Republican, and apparently to some Democrats, that is just absurd. Prohibit a terrorist from obtaining firearms? That just won't do! It's their Constitutional Right, after all to have weapons. Like many people on this freedom-protecting list, they might not be terrorists anyway, as there's no control of who gets on the list nor any mechanism to get the innocent off the list. In general, the no-fly list appears to be a generalized US Government I-don't-like-you list. The Republicans, of course, highly approve of this means of government control and punishment. Just think of the fun they had putting Senator Kennedy on the list.
Am I giving Republicans too much credit when I assume that they don't think most of the people on the list are terrorists? And that's the reason they don't want the ability to purchase guns to be tied to such an embarrassing fiasco as the US No Fly list?
Until further proof of their perfidy I will assume that the inaccuracy of the list is the reason they don't wish to tie gun purchasing ability to the list and not that they actually want terrorists to have guns.
------------------------
About the state of our nation: What can I say that I haven't said before? Just notice that all the wrangling is about what membership on this list will effect. Nothing that I've seen addresses the use and abuse of this list. Nothing that I've seen attempts to put some control on how someone gets added to this list. Nothing that I've seen provides a mechanism to get off the list. The draconian nature of this list appears to concern no one in the political sphere nor the justice sphere.
What else can I say about the state of our nation that this example doesn't elucidate?
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) that would have closed the so-called “terror gap” — preventing firearm sales to suspected terrorists. GOP members want to protect the right of people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list to purchase firearms, arguing that preventing sales would “steal the Second Amendment rights of those placed on the list by mistake.”All Republicans as far as I can tell, and way too many Democrats, appear to have no real problem with the no-fly list.
No problem that is until it's a question of prohibiting someone on the list from buying guns. To a Republican, and apparently to some Democrats, that is just absurd. Prohibit a terrorist from obtaining firearms? That just won't do! It's their Constitutional Right, after all to have weapons. Like many people on this freedom-protecting list, they might not be terrorists anyway, as there's no control of who gets on the list nor any mechanism to get the innocent off the list. In general, the no-fly list appears to be a generalized US Government I-don't-like-you list. The Republicans, of course, highly approve of this means of government control and punishment. Just think of the fun they had putting Senator Kennedy on the list.
Am I giving Republicans too much credit when I assume that they don't think most of the people on the list are terrorists? And that's the reason they don't want the ability to purchase guns to be tied to such an embarrassing fiasco as the US No Fly list?
Until further proof of their perfidy I will assume that the inaccuracy of the list is the reason they don't wish to tie gun purchasing ability to the list and not that they actually want terrorists to have guns.
9/11 First Responders To Be Run Through FBI Terrorism Watch List Before Getting Health Care BenefitsDefinitely, let us keep the sick from benefits because the US Government has decided to target them. Who cares what beneficial service they may have provided in the past that earned them such a benefit. They are now on THE list. That's all that matters. No health care but they can still get a gun.
------------------------
About the state of our nation: What can I say that I haven't said before? Just notice that all the wrangling is about what membership on this list will effect. Nothing that I've seen addresses the use and abuse of this list. Nothing that I've seen attempts to put some control on how someone gets added to this list. Nothing that I've seen provides a mechanism to get off the list. The draconian nature of this list appears to concern no one in the political sphere nor the justice sphere.
What else can I say about the state of our nation that this example doesn't elucidate?
Monday, May 9, 2011
The American Way?
Is it my imagination that the goal of US Politicians is to make our society as complicated and illogical as possible?
Now, of course, all those touchy NRA types want to prohibit a pediatrician from asking such a question.
I think the concern here should be that this pediatrician refused care BECAUSE the parent refused to answer the question. Perhaps some parents would be perfectly amenable to a discussion about gun safety around kids (or pool safety, or food safety or car safety or airplane safety or potential danger from terrorists or ...).
But this is one creepy pediatrician who won't care for a child because the parent wont state whether they own a gun.
IF a new law is needed, and I'm not suggesting that is the case, perhaps a law limiting the reasons that physicians can deny care would be more appropriate.
Physicians are NOT our moral guides. They are neither trained to be such and most of them are not equipped for such a role. From most of them the best we can expect is that their own prejudices don't interfere with how they do their job. They have training, skills and knowledge. And we can hope they have integrity and empathy and the ability to communicate effectively with us when we need their skills.
Florida Bill Would Bar Doctors From Asking Patients About GunsSo a pediatrician asks a parent about gun ownership and then refuses care because the parent refuses to answer such a question.
Now, of course, all those touchy NRA types want to prohibit a pediatrician from asking such a question.
I think the concern here should be that this pediatrician refused care BECAUSE the parent refused to answer the question. Perhaps some parents would be perfectly amenable to a discussion about gun safety around kids (or pool safety, or food safety or car safety or airplane safety or potential danger from terrorists or ...).
But this is one creepy pediatrician who won't care for a child because the parent wont state whether they own a gun.
IF a new law is needed, and I'm not suggesting that is the case, perhaps a law limiting the reasons that physicians can deny care would be more appropriate.
Physicians are NOT our moral guides. They are neither trained to be such and most of them are not equipped for such a role. From most of them the best we can expect is that their own prejudices don't interfere with how they do their job. They have training, skills and knowledge. And we can hope they have integrity and empathy and the ability to communicate effectively with us when we need their skills.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
I wish we were 'a nation of laws' ...
Isn't this backwards?
Why do politicians and the military, apparently always, lie first and then try to contain the fallout as the facts start to emerge?
I wish we were 'a nation of laws' and that we had captured bin Laden alive and had put him on trial (a real trial, not our current Kangaroo Courts for Islamic Peoples).
I certainly understand that a real effort to capture bin Laden alive might have failed and that they would kill him rather than allowing him to endager themselves but so far the information I've read seems to indicate that this was an execution squad.
I do think we, as a nation, have done somewhat better in the past. To have a self described 'Constitutional Law Professor' imitate an imitation Cowboy in lack of principle and outright criminality is devastating. Perhaps Obama isn't imitating Bush. Could he be competing with Bush to see who is the most despicable?
"There was no indication" that Osama bin Laden wanted to surrender to U.S. forces who killed him on Sunday night, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.No indication? What, do we now automatically shoot everyone in the head who doesn't indicate they wish capture over death? I don't personally know what bin Laden's preference might have been but unless he was armed and threatening his captors/killers I would think at that point it would not be his choice but the choice of those with the guns who were apparently in a position to capture him alive.
Why do politicians and the military, apparently always, lie first and then try to contain the fallout as the facts start to emerge?
I wish we were 'a nation of laws' and that we had captured bin Laden alive and had put him on trial (a real trial, not our current Kangaroo Courts for Islamic Peoples).
I certainly understand that a real effort to capture bin Laden alive might have failed and that they would kill him rather than allowing him to endager themselves but so far the information I've read seems to indicate that this was an execution squad.
I do think we, as a nation, have done somewhat better in the past. To have a self described 'Constitutional Law Professor' imitate an imitation Cowboy in lack of principle and outright criminality is devastating. Perhaps Obama isn't imitating Bush. Could he be competing with Bush to see who is the most despicable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)