Egyptian President Mubarak has just finished hosting a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and King Abdullah II of Jordan. This conference was designed to show support for Abbas and his "moderate" Fatah movement in their life and death struggle with Hamas.
The United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations have banded together as the Quartet with the purpose of achieving a Mideast peace. The Quartet supports and will provide economic and millitary aid to Fatah, while pressuring Israel to restart negotiations with Abbas on "the road map to peace" designed to establish an independent Palestinian state.
The Quartet trusts and expects Israel to trust an entity which is better known for corruption than for good governance, its officials having lined their own pockets by siphoning off millions of dollars in international aid. And the irony of it all is that the United States will join the rest of the Quartet in pressuring Israel to make concessions to the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets while celebrating the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
There is only one problem. The road map to peace leads down a highway which ends with the disappearance of Israel. Most followers of Islam, including the Palestinians and the Saudis, are committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. The Saudis have proposed an Arab Peace Initiative which requires Israel to retreat to it's pre-1967 borders, to give up East Jerusalem, and to accept the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
The Saudi "peace" plan is strongly backed by Abbas. It would leave Israel with defenseless borders. It would inundate Israel with a "fifth column" of millions of Arab refugees, thus destroying the Jewishness of the State. It was proposed by a people who applauded and supported Hitler's "final solution," the extermination of the Jews. It was proposed by a people who now claim the Holocaust was a hoax. Abbas has threatened war if Israel does not accept the Saudi plan. If Israel is to survive, THE ARAB PEACE INITIATIVE IS A NON-STARTER!
The United Nations and Russia, both of which have a long history of siding with the Arabs against Israel, are backing the Saudi Plan. The Saudis, who teach their school children that Jews are apes and Christians are swine, engage in the vilest forms of anti-Semitism. However, their hatred is not limited to Jews - the Saudis hate all infidels and advocate Jihad against non-blievers.
When adddressing the West, Abbas expresses a willingness to co-exist with Israel, but he sings a different tune to the Arab world. Time after time he has promised to fight "the occupation," a term used to describe the Jewish occupation of Palestinian lands - and for the Arabs that means THE WHOLE STATE OF ISRAEL, not just Gaza and the West Bank.
How then can Israel make peace with an enemy sworn to destroy it? For starters, in Israel's case, it must have a strong resolute Prime Minister, one who can stand up to the international community when it pressures the Jewish State to make self-destructive concessions to the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert is certainly not that man. He will wilt under international pressure. The only Israeli leader with the fortitude and strength to stand up to the international community is Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, head of the Likud party. So, before the Israelis can even begin to think about peace, they will have to elect Netanyahu as their Prime Minister.
In order to survive an enemy that aims to annihilate it, Israel must have borders that it can defend. That requires it to be more than only nine miles wide, which it now is at its narrowest point. This means that Israel cannot give up all of the West Bank. It must retain that part of the West Bank which contains major Jewish settlements. These settlements must be maintained and remain within the final boundaries of Israel, rather than abandoned as demanded by the Arabs.
The Jewish State must retain access to the Jordan River, its water being Israel's life-blood. It must keep most of the Golan Heights so that it can defend itself better from a possible attack by the Syrians. And, most certainly, Israel cannot give up East Jerusalem which would, under control of the Palestinians, be a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish State.
Israel must strengthen its armed forces. The war with Hezbollah, which was so badly mismanaged by an incompetent Ehud Olmert, revealed that Israel was incapable of defeating a guerilla militia. The weaknesses shown by the army must be corrected by developing new tactics to deal with unconventional guerilla warfare and to stop deadly rocket attacks against Israeli military and civilian targets. And above all, Israel must continue to develop its nuclear weapons, always leaving the nuclear option on the table.
Israel can only survive if it is armed to the teeth with secure and defensible borders. That is not acceptable to the left-wing Peace Now movement, Israel's peaceniks, which believes the lie that the Palestinians only want a state of their own, co-existing peacefully alongside the Jewish State. Peace Now is willing to pay almost any price to achieve an end to the current hostilities. And of course, an Israel which retains any part of the West Bank and retains all of Jerusalem is not acceptable to the Arabs either.
In the end, however, the Palestinians may yet accept these conditions if that is the only way to achieve their own statehood. Bibi Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader who will make the kind peace with the Arabs which will not lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish State. Israel will continue to be attacked by Arab militants waging a war of attrition, even if it gives up all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A peace of sorts is better than the international community's alternative - a peace which leaves Israel defenseless and leaves it to be swallowed up by its sworn enemies.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
ABBAS AND HIS "MODERATE" PALESTINIANS
Now that Hamas had taken complete control of the Gaza strip, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has dissolved the Hamas-Fatah unity government and formed an emergency government of ministers from the Fatah movement which controls the West Bank. The United States and the European Union view Abbas and the Fatah led Palestinian Authority as "moderates" and were quick to promise their support for and aid to the emergency government and the Fatah militia.
The Bush Administration and the Europeans believe that, because the extremist Hamas movement has now been isolated, this is the best opportunity to pursue a new peace initiative between the Israelis and the Palestinians. President Bush cajoled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an incompetent idiot, to support Abbas and the Fatah movement, and to restart negotiations with the goal of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side with a secure Jewish state.
Just how "moderate" are Abbas and his cronies? For starters, all Muslims question the legitimacy of Israel and the overwhelming majority want to see the Jewish State wiped off the map. The Palestinians, including Abbas and his Fatah supporters, are the most committed to the destruction of Israel. They have hoodwinked the government of United States, the Europeans, and even the left-wing in Israel, into believing that the Palestinians only want a state of their own alongside the Jewish state, co-existing peacefully and happily ever after. To see the true face of the Palestinian Authority, one need only look at recent statements made and/or accepted by the so-called "moderates."
On April 20, 2007, Ahmed Bahr, the acting speaker of the Palestinian Authority's legislative council, made this statement: "ALLAH WILLING, AMERICA AND ISRAEL WILL BE ANNIHILATED ... COUNT THEM AND KILLTHEM TO THE LAST ONE AND DON'T LEAVE EVEN ONE."
On January 11, 2007, Mahmoud Abbas, speaking as President of the Palestinian Authority while addressing a rally of 250,000 in Ramallah, made this statement: "OUR RIFLES, ALL OUR RIFLES ARE AIMED AT THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION ... IT IS FORBIDDEN TO USE THESE GUNS AGAINST PALESTINIANS." The rally celebrated the founding of the terrorist Fatah party which Abbas co-founded with the late Yasser Arafat. It is important to note that when the Palestinians refer to the "OCCUPATION" they mean the occupation of all of Palestine, AND THAT INCLUDES THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
In fact, the position of Abbas and his cronies is not much different than that of Hamas. Mahmoud A-Zahar, the Foreign Minister in the former Hamas-Fatah unity government, put forth the position that the struggle must continue for the complete obliteration of Israel. On March 25, 2007, the Palestinian Authority's Al-Ayyam newspaper quoted this statement by A-Zahar: "OUR POSITION IS THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE, ALL OF PALESTINE. THIS IS THE FINAL AND STRATEGIC SOLUTION FOR US." Although a member of Hamas, A-Zahar's statement has not been repudiated by Abbas or any other member of Fatah. "The Final Solution" - Wasn't that Hitler's term for the extermination of the Jews?
The United States, the European Union and the United Nations jumped on the bandwagon of the recent Arab Peace Initiative put forth by the Saudis at an Arab summit in Riyadh. The Americans and Europeans refer to the Saudis as "moderates," but nothing could be further from the truth. Presently, textbooks in the government schools of "moderate" Saudi Arabia refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Islam, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread Islam by waging Jihad against Christians and Jews. So much for moderation. Why then would the Saudis want to co-exist with a nation of apes allied with American swine?
At the closing ceremonies of the Arab summit, Abbas flat out warned of war if Israel rejected the Saudi "peace" initiative which calls for (1) the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of the territories captured in 1967, (2) the surrender by Israel of East Jerusalem to become the capitol of Palestine, and (3) the right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees. In effect, the Saudi plan would require Israel to retreat to its 1949 boundary and displace over 250,000 Jews from their homes, businesses and farms. An additional 200,000 Jews would be forced to leave their homes and businesses in East Jerusalem.
The United Nations, which has been historically unfriendly to the State of Israel, endorsed the Saudi plan when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Arab leaders: "The Arab Peace Initiative is one of the pillars for the peace process ... This initiative sends a signal that the Arabs are serious about achieving peace." What a joke! This plan would leave Israel's borders indefensible and East Jerusalem would become a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. And with this plan, Israel would be inundated with Palestianian refugees. The Saudi "peace" initiative is nothing more than a prescription designed to achieve the eventual destruction of Israel.
I have published several blogs on the fate of Israel and on the Muslim world's committment to the annihilation of Israel. I have always thought that Olmert was not the man to lead the Jewish state. (Refer to my blog ISRAEL'S FUTURE SURVIVAL AFTER SHARON, January 7, 2006.) Olmert proved to be an incompetent idiot in the way he conducted the war against Hezbollah. As a result he is very unpopular now and his days are numbered. Israel still needs Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party, as prime minister. Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader with the resolve to resist the pressure from the international community for concessions which will lead to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state from the world map.
Why do the United States and the European Union keep pressuring Israel to make concessions? Think of a three letter word - oil. They, especially the Europeans, are so dependent on the Middle East's oil that they will do anything to curry favor with the Arabs. Why do they keep labeling the Saudis, Abbas, and Fatah as "moderates?" It is easier to gain public approval when you are currying good relations with Arabs who are not "radical." It is easier to pressure Israel into making self-destructive concesskons to Palestinians who are not "radical."
The Arabs are committed to the destruction of Israel and are willing, if necessaary, to let several generations pass if that's what it takes before that goal is accomplished. Theocracism and secularism aside, what then is the difference between those who openly call for the destruction of Israel and the "moderates" of the Palestinian Authority? This is the only difference - Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly proclaiming their determination to annihilate Israel, while Abbas and his "moderate" Palestinians promise peaceful co-existence, but with a hidden agenda designed to achieve exactly the same goal - the disappearance of the Jewish state.
The Bush Administration and the Europeans believe that, because the extremist Hamas movement has now been isolated, this is the best opportunity to pursue a new peace initiative between the Israelis and the Palestinians. President Bush cajoled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an incompetent idiot, to support Abbas and the Fatah movement, and to restart negotiations with the goal of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side with a secure Jewish state.
Just how "moderate" are Abbas and his cronies? For starters, all Muslims question the legitimacy of Israel and the overwhelming majority want to see the Jewish State wiped off the map. The Palestinians, including Abbas and his Fatah supporters, are the most committed to the destruction of Israel. They have hoodwinked the government of United States, the Europeans, and even the left-wing in Israel, into believing that the Palestinians only want a state of their own alongside the Jewish state, co-existing peacefully and happily ever after. To see the true face of the Palestinian Authority, one need only look at recent statements made and/or accepted by the so-called "moderates."
On April 20, 2007, Ahmed Bahr, the acting speaker of the Palestinian Authority's legislative council, made this statement: "ALLAH WILLING, AMERICA AND ISRAEL WILL BE ANNIHILATED ... COUNT THEM AND KILLTHEM TO THE LAST ONE AND DON'T LEAVE EVEN ONE."
On January 11, 2007, Mahmoud Abbas, speaking as President of the Palestinian Authority while addressing a rally of 250,000 in Ramallah, made this statement: "OUR RIFLES, ALL OUR RIFLES ARE AIMED AT THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION ... IT IS FORBIDDEN TO USE THESE GUNS AGAINST PALESTINIANS." The rally celebrated the founding of the terrorist Fatah party which Abbas co-founded with the late Yasser Arafat. It is important to note that when the Palestinians refer to the "OCCUPATION" they mean the occupation of all of Palestine, AND THAT INCLUDES THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
In fact, the position of Abbas and his cronies is not much different than that of Hamas. Mahmoud A-Zahar, the Foreign Minister in the former Hamas-Fatah unity government, put forth the position that the struggle must continue for the complete obliteration of Israel. On March 25, 2007, the Palestinian Authority's Al-Ayyam newspaper quoted this statement by A-Zahar: "OUR POSITION IS THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE, ALL OF PALESTINE. THIS IS THE FINAL AND STRATEGIC SOLUTION FOR US." Although a member of Hamas, A-Zahar's statement has not been repudiated by Abbas or any other member of Fatah. "The Final Solution" - Wasn't that Hitler's term for the extermination of the Jews?
The United States, the European Union and the United Nations jumped on the bandwagon of the recent Arab Peace Initiative put forth by the Saudis at an Arab summit in Riyadh. The Americans and Europeans refer to the Saudis as "moderates," but nothing could be further from the truth. Presently, textbooks in the government schools of "moderate" Saudi Arabia refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Islam, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread Islam by waging Jihad against Christians and Jews. So much for moderation. Why then would the Saudis want to co-exist with a nation of apes allied with American swine?
At the closing ceremonies of the Arab summit, Abbas flat out warned of war if Israel rejected the Saudi "peace" initiative which calls for (1) the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of the territories captured in 1967, (2) the surrender by Israel of East Jerusalem to become the capitol of Palestine, and (3) the right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees. In effect, the Saudi plan would require Israel to retreat to its 1949 boundary and displace over 250,000 Jews from their homes, businesses and farms. An additional 200,000 Jews would be forced to leave their homes and businesses in East Jerusalem.
The United Nations, which has been historically unfriendly to the State of Israel, endorsed the Saudi plan when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Arab leaders: "The Arab Peace Initiative is one of the pillars for the peace process ... This initiative sends a signal that the Arabs are serious about achieving peace." What a joke! This plan would leave Israel's borders indefensible and East Jerusalem would become a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. And with this plan, Israel would be inundated with Palestianian refugees. The Saudi "peace" initiative is nothing more than a prescription designed to achieve the eventual destruction of Israel.
I have published several blogs on the fate of Israel and on the Muslim world's committment to the annihilation of Israel. I have always thought that Olmert was not the man to lead the Jewish state. (Refer to my blog ISRAEL'S FUTURE SURVIVAL AFTER SHARON, January 7, 2006.) Olmert proved to be an incompetent idiot in the way he conducted the war against Hezbollah. As a result he is very unpopular now and his days are numbered. Israel still needs Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party, as prime minister. Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader with the resolve to resist the pressure from the international community for concessions which will lead to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state from the world map.
Why do the United States and the European Union keep pressuring Israel to make concessions? Think of a three letter word - oil. They, especially the Europeans, are so dependent on the Middle East's oil that they will do anything to curry favor with the Arabs. Why do they keep labeling the Saudis, Abbas, and Fatah as "moderates?" It is easier to gain public approval when you are currying good relations with Arabs who are not "radical." It is easier to pressure Israel into making self-destructive concesskons to Palestinians who are not "radical."
The Arabs are committed to the destruction of Israel and are willing, if necessaary, to let several generations pass if that's what it takes before that goal is accomplished. Theocracism and secularism aside, what then is the difference between those who openly call for the destruction of Israel and the "moderates" of the Palestinian Authority? This is the only difference - Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are openly proclaiming their determination to annihilate Israel, while Abbas and his "moderate" Palestinians promise peaceful co-existence, but with a hidden agenda designed to achieve exactly the same goal - the disappearance of the Jewish state.
Monday, June 18, 2007
SCALES OF JUSTICE IN THE DUKE RAPE CASE
The Duke rape case turned into a nightmare for the entire Duke lacrosse team and especially for the three team members identified and indicted as the perpetrators. Duke University was accused of being a hotbed of white privilege, racism and sexism. Professors rushed to judgement and encouraged inflammatory demonstrations against the accused which were then fueled by some out-of-state loudmouths.
Now that the accused - Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty - have been declared innocent, has justice been served? Not entirely. Let's take a look at the degree of justice exacted on those - the accuser, the prosecutor, the professors, the reverends and the Duke administration - who had a major impact on the lives of the accused, using a scale of zero to ten.
THE ACCUSER. Crystal Gail Mangum, a 28 year old black single mother of three children, accused three white Duke lacrosse players of gang raping and brutalizing her at an off-campus team party where she performed as a stripper to help pay her way through North Carolina Central University, a predominantly black school. Eventually DNA tests revealed the presence of semen from several men, none of whom were members of the lacrosse team.
The accuser has been totally discredited and the three indicted team members have been declared innocent by the Attorney General of North Carolina who had taken over the case from the local prosecutor. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 3. At most, her reputation has been sullied. Although she should be, Mangum will not be prosecuted for perjury or for making false accusations. Not long after she made her accusations, she was video taped pole dancing in a strip joint.
THE ROGUE PROSECUTOR. Last Saturday, Mike Nifong had his law license revoked for "Dishonest and Deceitful" conduct in a trial by a panel of the State Bar. The panel disbarred Nifong for lying to the court, for withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, for misleading the news media, and for making prejudicial public statements against the acccused.
Has justice finally been served with the disbarment of Nifong? Not yet. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 7. He probably will not face criminal charges. Lawsuits are expected to be filed against Nifong by the accused whose lives were ruined and by their families who were forced to spend untold sums of money for the defense of their falsely accused sons.
THE GROUP OF 88. The rape was alleged to have occurred on March 13, 2006. On April 6, well before anyone had been charged in this case, 88 faculty and staff took out a full page ad in the Duke Chronicle, a campus student newspaper. The rush to judgement ad was initiated by professors in Duke's African and African-American Studies department. They were joined by faculty and staff, mostly professors, from 13 departments in the humanities discipline. They became known as the Group of 88.
The ad referred to the alleged rape as a "social disaster" and declared that, according to student testimonials, Duke University was rife with racism and sexism. The ad was instrumental in inflaming hatred against white Duke athletes and against the three accused lacrosse players. Individually, some of the professors condemned the lacrosse team and demanded they confess to what occurred at the off-campus team party. Other professors encouraged demonstrations against the accused. Some apparently gave bad grades to students because they were on the lacrosse team.
Once the accused players had been declared innocent, there was a demand that the Group of 88 take out another ad apologizing for their rush to judgement and for their role in inflaming racial animosities. All 88 refused to apologize, stating instead that their ad merely called attention to the racism and sexism which existed and continues to exist on campus. All insist their views are protected by the doctrine of Academic Freedom. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0. Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Doug Marlette pictured the Group of 88 as being part of a "lynch mob."
In my opinion, any faculty or staff member from the Group of 88 who refuses to apologize should be fired. Their ad and their individual condemnations of the accused have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Academic Freedom, a doctrine which protects college faculty from being disciplined for expressing unpopular views IN THE CLASSROOM.
THE LOUDMOUTH REVERENDS. Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, who have been called terrorists by a black journalist from the Kansas City Star, were quick to jump on the bandwagon against the privileged white lacrosse players. They helped lead the demonstrations which inflamed racial hatred and offered their support to the alleged rape victim.
Have they apoligized for their rush to judgement and for their inflammatory rhetoric? Of course not. That's par for the course for those two rabble-rousers. Not a peep out of either once since the three accused players have been declared innocent. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0.
THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION. The Duke administration, like everyone else, was quick to rush to judgement. It suspended Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty, cancelled the lacrosse season, disbanded the team, and forced the resigantion of the lacrosse coach. Unlike others, the administration has shown some contrition in this case. It reinstated the team for the next season. It invited the three falsely accused players to return to the school well before they were officially declared innocent. And, to head off a lawsuit, it has just reached a settlement with the accused and their families. Also, it settled with a student who received a bad grade for being on the lacrosse team. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 5.
With Nifong, justice has only been partially served by the revocation of his license to practice law. There will be no finality of justice with Nifong until the pending civil suits against him have been resolved. There will be no prosecution of Mangum because the authorities fear being condemned for picking on a poor black single mother of three who may be mentally unstable. There will be no justice with the Group of 88 - none of them will be fired or otherwise disciplined. There will be no finality of justice for the falsely accused - despite their innocence, Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty will forever be associated with "The Duke Rape Case," a stigma they will carry to their graves.
Now that the accused - Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty - have been declared innocent, has justice been served? Not entirely. Let's take a look at the degree of justice exacted on those - the accuser, the prosecutor, the professors, the reverends and the Duke administration - who had a major impact on the lives of the accused, using a scale of zero to ten.
THE ACCUSER. Crystal Gail Mangum, a 28 year old black single mother of three children, accused three white Duke lacrosse players of gang raping and brutalizing her at an off-campus team party where she performed as a stripper to help pay her way through North Carolina Central University, a predominantly black school. Eventually DNA tests revealed the presence of semen from several men, none of whom were members of the lacrosse team.
The accuser has been totally discredited and the three indicted team members have been declared innocent by the Attorney General of North Carolina who had taken over the case from the local prosecutor. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 3. At most, her reputation has been sullied. Although she should be, Mangum will not be prosecuted for perjury or for making false accusations. Not long after she made her accusations, she was video taped pole dancing in a strip joint.
THE ROGUE PROSECUTOR. Last Saturday, Mike Nifong had his law license revoked for "Dishonest and Deceitful" conduct in a trial by a panel of the State Bar. The panel disbarred Nifong for lying to the court, for withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, for misleading the news media, and for making prejudicial public statements against the acccused.
Has justice finally been served with the disbarment of Nifong? Not yet. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 7. He probably will not face criminal charges. Lawsuits are expected to be filed against Nifong by the accused whose lives were ruined and by their families who were forced to spend untold sums of money for the defense of their falsely accused sons.
THE GROUP OF 88. The rape was alleged to have occurred on March 13, 2006. On April 6, well before anyone had been charged in this case, 88 faculty and staff took out a full page ad in the Duke Chronicle, a campus student newspaper. The rush to judgement ad was initiated by professors in Duke's African and African-American Studies department. They were joined by faculty and staff, mostly professors, from 13 departments in the humanities discipline. They became known as the Group of 88.
The ad referred to the alleged rape as a "social disaster" and declared that, according to student testimonials, Duke University was rife with racism and sexism. The ad was instrumental in inflaming hatred against white Duke athletes and against the three accused lacrosse players. Individually, some of the professors condemned the lacrosse team and demanded they confess to what occurred at the off-campus team party. Other professors encouraged demonstrations against the accused. Some apparently gave bad grades to students because they were on the lacrosse team.
Once the accused players had been declared innocent, there was a demand that the Group of 88 take out another ad apologizing for their rush to judgement and for their role in inflaming racial animosities. All 88 refused to apologize, stating instead that their ad merely called attention to the racism and sexism which existed and continues to exist on campus. All insist their views are protected by the doctrine of Academic Freedom. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0. Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Doug Marlette pictured the Group of 88 as being part of a "lynch mob."
In my opinion, any faculty or staff member from the Group of 88 who refuses to apologize should be fired. Their ad and their individual condemnations of the accused have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Academic Freedom, a doctrine which protects college faculty from being disciplined for expressing unpopular views IN THE CLASSROOM.
THE LOUDMOUTH REVERENDS. Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, who have been called terrorists by a black journalist from the Kansas City Star, were quick to jump on the bandwagon against the privileged white lacrosse players. They helped lead the demonstrations which inflamed racial hatred and offered their support to the alleged rape victim.
Have they apoligized for their rush to judgement and for their inflammatory rhetoric? Of course not. That's par for the course for those two rabble-rousers. Not a peep out of either once since the three accused players have been declared innocent. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 0.
THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION. The Duke administration, like everyone else, was quick to rush to judgement. It suspended Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty, cancelled the lacrosse season, disbanded the team, and forced the resigantion of the lacrosse coach. Unlike others, the administration has shown some contrition in this case. It reinstated the team for the next season. It invited the three falsely accused players to return to the school well before they were officially declared innocent. And, to head off a lawsuit, it has just reached a settlement with the accused and their families. Also, it settled with a student who received a bad grade for being on the lacrosse team. SCALE OF JUSTICE: 5.
With Nifong, justice has only been partially served by the revocation of his license to practice law. There will be no finality of justice with Nifong until the pending civil suits against him have been resolved. There will be no prosecution of Mangum because the authorities fear being condemned for picking on a poor black single mother of three who may be mentally unstable. There will be no justice with the Group of 88 - none of them will be fired or otherwise disciplined. There will be no finality of justice for the falsely accused - despite their innocence, Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty will forever be associated with "The Duke Rape Case," a stigma they will carry to their graves.
Friday, June 15, 2007
BOTTOM FEEDER OF ALL BOTTOM FEEDERS
Just when you thought lawyers couldn't sink any lower, along comes Roy Pearson, the bottom feeder of all bottom feeders. This creep, an Administrative Judge for the District of Columbia, is pursuing a personal lawsuit against a hard working Korean immigrant family which has turned their American dream into a horrible nightmare. Instead of going into the details of this case, I am going to look at the two parties in this lawsuit.
THE DEFENDANTS. Jim Nam Chung and Soo Chung, together with their son Ki Chung, own and operate three mom-and-pop "Custom Dry Cleaners" shops in the D.C. area. In 1992, they arrived in the United States as legal immigrants from Korea. Although practically penniless, by working 18 hours a day, they achieved the American dream of owning their own business.
Their business slogans, "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" are at the heart of the litigation which dates back to 2005. The lawsuit was initiated by Judge Pearson because the Chungs lost the pants of the suit he intended to wear on his first day in office. The Chungs found the pants several days later, but Pearson denied they were his and refused to accept them. He demanded $1,000 for replacement of the suit which the Chungs refused to pay. That's why Pearson filed his lawsuit.
Desiring to settle, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,000, and eventually $12,000, but he turned down each offer. So far, after two years of pre-trial motions, depositions, and other procedures, the Chungs are already out thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the trial has only just begun. There is no telling how much more this lawsuit is going to cost them. The Chungs are so disillusioned with this country and its judical system, that they are contemplating returning to Korea once this mess is over and done with.
THE PLAINTIFF. Roy Pearson, an African-American, is a graduate of the Northwestern University law school. Prior to his appointment as an Administrative Judge, he had been a practicing legal aid lawyer in the D.C. area. When he received his appointment to the bench, Pearson was broke and had just been divorced.
Pearson claims that when the Chungs failed to deliver on their business slogans by failing to satisfy him and by failing to have his pants ready the same day, they were committing consumer fraud. On behalf of all Custom Dry Cleaners customers, he filed a motion to have his case declared a class action lawsuit. That motion was rejected by the court. Pearson initially sued the Chungs for $65 million. He announced he was acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices.
By claiming fraud, Pearson calculated that according to D.C. consumer protection laws, he was entitled to $1,500 per violation per day for 12 separate violations over 1,200 days times three people for a total of $64.8 million. Because he no longer wanted to patronize the Chungs' shop in his neighborhood, it was worth another $15,000 for the cost to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to take his suits to another dry cleaner. Before the start of the trial, Pearson reduced his claim to $54 million.
So there you have the two parties to what would seem to be a frivolous law suit. On one side you have three hard working legal immigrants, penniless upon their arrival in this country, working 18 hours a day to achieve the American dream, who are being persecuted by our legal system. On the other side you have a bottom feeding leech, penniless before his appointment as a judge, trying to get rich off a mom-and-pop business in a trivial dispute over a pair of pants. What a glaring example of the depth to which our legal system has sunk.
By the way, Pearson is representing himself. Reminds me of that old saying - a lawyer who represesnts himself has a fool for a client.
THE DEFENDANTS. Jim Nam Chung and Soo Chung, together with their son Ki Chung, own and operate three mom-and-pop "Custom Dry Cleaners" shops in the D.C. area. In 1992, they arrived in the United States as legal immigrants from Korea. Although practically penniless, by working 18 hours a day, they achieved the American dream of owning their own business.
Their business slogans, "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" are at the heart of the litigation which dates back to 2005. The lawsuit was initiated by Judge Pearson because the Chungs lost the pants of the suit he intended to wear on his first day in office. The Chungs found the pants several days later, but Pearson denied they were his and refused to accept them. He demanded $1,000 for replacement of the suit which the Chungs refused to pay. That's why Pearson filed his lawsuit.
Desiring to settle, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,000, and eventually $12,000, but he turned down each offer. So far, after two years of pre-trial motions, depositions, and other procedures, the Chungs are already out thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the trial has only just begun. There is no telling how much more this lawsuit is going to cost them. The Chungs are so disillusioned with this country and its judical system, that they are contemplating returning to Korea once this mess is over and done with.
THE PLAINTIFF. Roy Pearson, an African-American, is a graduate of the Northwestern University law school. Prior to his appointment as an Administrative Judge, he had been a practicing legal aid lawyer in the D.C. area. When he received his appointment to the bench, Pearson was broke and had just been divorced.
Pearson claims that when the Chungs failed to deliver on their business slogans by failing to satisfy him and by failing to have his pants ready the same day, they were committing consumer fraud. On behalf of all Custom Dry Cleaners customers, he filed a motion to have his case declared a class action lawsuit. That motion was rejected by the court. Pearson initially sued the Chungs for $65 million. He announced he was acting in the interest of all city residents against poor business practices.
By claiming fraud, Pearson calculated that according to D.C. consumer protection laws, he was entitled to $1,500 per violation per day for 12 separate violations over 1,200 days times three people for a total of $64.8 million. Because he no longer wanted to patronize the Chungs' shop in his neighborhood, it was worth another $15,000 for the cost to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to take his suits to another dry cleaner. Before the start of the trial, Pearson reduced his claim to $54 million.
So there you have the two parties to what would seem to be a frivolous law suit. On one side you have three hard working legal immigrants, penniless upon their arrival in this country, working 18 hours a day to achieve the American dream, who are being persecuted by our legal system. On the other side you have a bottom feeding leech, penniless before his appointment as a judge, trying to get rich off a mom-and-pop business in a trivial dispute over a pair of pants. What a glaring example of the depth to which our legal system has sunk.
By the way, Pearson is representing himself. Reminds me of that old saying - a lawyer who represesnts himself has a fool for a client.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
SHERIFF PEPE LEPEW
If it has a stripe like a skunk, if it lifts its tail like a skunk, and if it stinks like a skunk, it must be a skunk. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASO) is at it again. And it stinks like a skunk. The sudden early release of Paris Hilton by Los Angeles Sheriff Pepe LePew had a real stench to it.
After getting caught driving with a suspended license three times while on probation following a drunk driving arrest, Paris Hilton was finally sentenced to serve 45 days in jail by a judge who had lost patience with the partying Hilton Hotel heiress' thumbing of her nose at the law. Well before she ever turned herself in, LASO declared that, for good behavior, Paris would serve only 23 days at most.
Then, after only 72 hours of confinement, LASO released Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. At first, LASO announced they had released Paris in accordance with the direction of the court. During an unusual press conference, a spokesman for the courts denied that assertion, pointing out that Judge Michael Sauer had specifically ordered that Paris would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail, or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail. LASO then changed its story to say Paris had been released because of a medical condition.
A public outcry about justice for the wealthy and for celebrities as opposed to justice for common folks led the prosecutor to seek a new hearing before Judge Sauer. Instead of being driven to the courthouse in her family's luxury SUV, a weeping Paris was handcuffed and transported in a sheriff's squad car. The judge ordered her back to jail. With tears streaming down her face, she turned to her mother and cried out "mom" several times and screamed "this isn't right" as she was handcuffed again and led out of the courtroom.
An angry Sheriff Lee "Pepe LePew" Baca then held his own press conference. He explained that his jail was overcrowded and that he was under federal court orders to reduce the jail population. He claimed that "low level" offenders, like Paris, were routinely released once they had served ten percent of their sentence. He intimated she was jailed while already afflicted with a psychological disorder and her release was based, not on her low level designation, but on a deteriorating mental health condition.
If you believe that I'll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona. You can bet that among common folk inmates, not all low level offenders are routinely released upon serving only ten percent of their sentence. And, if LASO were to release all inmates with deteriorating mental health problems, Sheriff Pepe LePew's jail would be half empty and no longer under federal court supervision.
By the way, LASO took the unprecedented step of inviting Paris Hilton's personal psychiatrist to come to the jail and examine their inmate. That just isn't done without a court order. Sheriff Pepe LePew had to know that in having Paris examined by her own psychiatrist, he could count on a diagnosis which would justify her immediate release. Another example of celebrity justice.
Wait, that's not all. When her sister and an ex-boyfriend came to visit Paris after her reincarceration, LASO ushered them right into the jail, past the common folks standing for hours in long lines while waiting their turn to visit loved ones. That travesty was followed up on the next visiting day, when her parents were afforded the same favorable treatment. Pepe LePew's spokesman asserted it was routine for high-profile inmates to receive visitors during lunch, a time when the visiting room is normally cleared out and closed. What a crock! There is no good reason why Paris' visitors shouldn't have to wait in line like everyone else.
And, concerning Paris' medical condition, what is a 26 year old woman under treatment and medication for a psychological disorder doing drinking and carousing around all the time all night long? Paris was not calling out "mom, this isn't right" while on the nightly party circuit. David Letterman had it right when he referred to her medical condition as "rich bitchitis."
Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail last year after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence. And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during his drunk driving arrest last July. He and/or his commanders ordered the arresting deputy to sanitize the arrest by rewriting the initial report, deleting all references to Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst.
Had TMZ.com, a celebrity news website, not obtained and released a copy of the initial report, no one would have ever learned of Gibson's hateful tirade. Oh, did I forget to mention that Gibson is a personal friend of Pepe LePew Baca? Since taking office, this stinkpot of a Sheriff has been accused of using his authority to benefit friends and supporters, and he has accepted thousands of dollars worth of free meals, sports tickets and trips. Peter J. Pitchess, the former long-time (1958-82) respected Sheriff of Los Angeles County, must be turning over in his grave, what with that awful stench arising from his beloved LASO.
After getting caught driving with a suspended license three times while on probation following a drunk driving arrest, Paris Hilton was finally sentenced to serve 45 days in jail by a judge who had lost patience with the partying Hilton Hotel heiress' thumbing of her nose at the law. Well before she ever turned herself in, LASO declared that, for good behavior, Paris would serve only 23 days at most.
Then, after only 72 hours of confinement, LASO released Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. At first, LASO announced they had released Paris in accordance with the direction of the court. During an unusual press conference, a spokesman for the courts denied that assertion, pointing out that Judge Michael Sauer had specifically ordered that Paris would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail, or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail. LASO then changed its story to say Paris had been released because of a medical condition.
A public outcry about justice for the wealthy and for celebrities as opposed to justice for common folks led the prosecutor to seek a new hearing before Judge Sauer. Instead of being driven to the courthouse in her family's luxury SUV, a weeping Paris was handcuffed and transported in a sheriff's squad car. The judge ordered her back to jail. With tears streaming down her face, she turned to her mother and cried out "mom" several times and screamed "this isn't right" as she was handcuffed again and led out of the courtroom.
An angry Sheriff Lee "Pepe LePew" Baca then held his own press conference. He explained that his jail was overcrowded and that he was under federal court orders to reduce the jail population. He claimed that "low level" offenders, like Paris, were routinely released once they had served ten percent of their sentence. He intimated she was jailed while already afflicted with a psychological disorder and her release was based, not on her low level designation, but on a deteriorating mental health condition.
If you believe that I'll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona. You can bet that among common folk inmates, not all low level offenders are routinely released upon serving only ten percent of their sentence. And, if LASO were to release all inmates with deteriorating mental health problems, Sheriff Pepe LePew's jail would be half empty and no longer under federal court supervision.
By the way, LASO took the unprecedented step of inviting Paris Hilton's personal psychiatrist to come to the jail and examine their inmate. That just isn't done without a court order. Sheriff Pepe LePew had to know that in having Paris examined by her own psychiatrist, he could count on a diagnosis which would justify her immediate release. Another example of celebrity justice.
Wait, that's not all. When her sister and an ex-boyfriend came to visit Paris after her reincarceration, LASO ushered them right into the jail, past the common folks standing for hours in long lines while waiting their turn to visit loved ones. That travesty was followed up on the next visiting day, when her parents were afforded the same favorable treatment. Pepe LePew's spokesman asserted it was routine for high-profile inmates to receive visitors during lunch, a time when the visiting room is normally cleared out and closed. What a crock! There is no good reason why Paris' visitors shouldn't have to wait in line like everyone else.
And, concerning Paris' medical condition, what is a 26 year old woman under treatment and medication for a psychological disorder doing drinking and carousing around all the time all night long? Paris was not calling out "mom, this isn't right" while on the nightly party circuit. David Letterman had it right when he referred to her medical condition as "rich bitchitis."
Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail last year after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence. And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during his drunk driving arrest last July. He and/or his commanders ordered the arresting deputy to sanitize the arrest by rewriting the initial report, deleting all references to Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst.
Had TMZ.com, a celebrity news website, not obtained and released a copy of the initial report, no one would have ever learned of Gibson's hateful tirade. Oh, did I forget to mention that Gibson is a personal friend of Pepe LePew Baca? Since taking office, this stinkpot of a Sheriff has been accused of using his authority to benefit friends and supporters, and he has accepted thousands of dollars worth of free meals, sports tickets and trips. Peter J. Pitchess, the former long-time (1958-82) respected Sheriff of Los Angeles County, must be turning over in his grave, what with that awful stench arising from his beloved LASO.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
KOWTOWING TO MUSLIMS' HATRED OF JEWS
Just recently, the United Kingdom removed the Holocaust from its school curriculum because it offended the Muslims in Britain who claim Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate the Jews never occurred. Why in the world should Muslims be offended by the teaching of the Holocaust, an event that had absolutely nothing to do with the believers in their faith? Why? Because Muslims, by and large, hate Jews.
This hatred of Jews started long before the birth of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the Nazi era, most Arab leaders openly expressed their admiration and support for Adolf Hitler because of his regime's efforts to eradicate the Jews throughout all of Europe. Hatred by Muslims is not confined to the hatred of Jews. The Quran leads true believers in the Muslim faith to hate all infidels, and that includes followers of the Christian faith.
At this time, Saudi Arabian government school textbooks refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging Jihad (Holy War) against Christians and Jews. (For more details, refer to my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?, June 16, 2006.)
It's about time the Western World stopped all this gobbledygook about radical Muslims as opposed to moderate Muslims. Those that hate infidels are not radical Islamists. They are fundamentalist Muslims, the true belivers in the teachings of Muhammad. Islamists are no more radical than Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists of the Jewish faith. While Orthodox Jews disparage Reform Jews as "Christians without Christ," Islamists deem Muslims who have assimilated into Western society as infidels. The only real radicals among Muslims are those Islamists who become involved in suicide bombings.
Why teach about the Holocaust? When America and the rest of Europe became aware of the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews, those nations stood idly by. They did nothing when the Nazis forced Jews into ghettos, banned them from most jobs, and identified them with the mandatory wearing of yellow stars, all well before they herded them into concentration camps where six million Jews were exterminated. Hopefully, as a result of teaching the Holocaust, the world will never again stand idly by in the event any identifiable group is targeted for genocide.
Why did the British kowtow to this Muslim hatred of Jews? England and Western Europe are beset with a large Muslim immigrant population which has not assimilated into European society. Having brought along their religious hatreds, these immigrants have committed acts of terrorism and stroked the fires of resurgent anti-Semitism throughout the region. The European governments are extremely fearful they will continue to be targets of Muslim terrorism carried out by the true believers in the teachings of Muhammad.
The British are fooling themselves if they believe that, by caving in to the hatred of Jews, they will be safe from Muslim terrorism. Appeasement never works. They should have learned that from the Nazi era. When in 1938, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler to prevent a war between England and Germany, the Fuehrer saw this as a sign of weakness which only fed his appetite for world conquest.
The British should show some Churchillian backbone by standing up to Muslims and their hatreds, and by restoring the Holocaust to the school curriculum. Jews were not the only Nazi victims. Teaching the Holocaust can also serve as a memorial to the 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who, in addition to the six million Jews, died at the hands of Hitler's Germany.
This hatred of Jews started long before the birth of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the Nazi era, most Arab leaders openly expressed their admiration and support for Adolf Hitler because of his regime's efforts to eradicate the Jews throughout all of Europe. Hatred by Muslims is not confined to the hatred of Jews. The Quran leads true believers in the Muslim faith to hate all infidels, and that includes followers of the Christian faith.
At this time, Saudi Arabian government school textbooks refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging Jihad (Holy War) against Christians and Jews. (For more details, refer to my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?, June 16, 2006.)
It's about time the Western World stopped all this gobbledygook about radical Muslims as opposed to moderate Muslims. Those that hate infidels are not radical Islamists. They are fundamentalist Muslims, the true belivers in the teachings of Muhammad. Islamists are no more radical than Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists of the Jewish faith. While Orthodox Jews disparage Reform Jews as "Christians without Christ," Islamists deem Muslims who have assimilated into Western society as infidels. The only real radicals among Muslims are those Islamists who become involved in suicide bombings.
Why teach about the Holocaust? When America and the rest of Europe became aware of the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews, those nations stood idly by. They did nothing when the Nazis forced Jews into ghettos, banned them from most jobs, and identified them with the mandatory wearing of yellow stars, all well before they herded them into concentration camps where six million Jews were exterminated. Hopefully, as a result of teaching the Holocaust, the world will never again stand idly by in the event any identifiable group is targeted for genocide.
Why did the British kowtow to this Muslim hatred of Jews? England and Western Europe are beset with a large Muslim immigrant population which has not assimilated into European society. Having brought along their religious hatreds, these immigrants have committed acts of terrorism and stroked the fires of resurgent anti-Semitism throughout the region. The European governments are extremely fearful they will continue to be targets of Muslim terrorism carried out by the true believers in the teachings of Muhammad.
The British are fooling themselves if they believe that, by caving in to the hatred of Jews, they will be safe from Muslim terrorism. Appeasement never works. They should have learned that from the Nazi era. When in 1938, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler to prevent a war between England and Germany, the Fuehrer saw this as a sign of weakness which only fed his appetite for world conquest.
The British should show some Churchillian backbone by standing up to Muslims and their hatreds, and by restoring the Holocaust to the school curriculum. Jews were not the only Nazi victims. Teaching the Holocaust can also serve as a memorial to the 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who, in addition to the six million Jews, died at the hands of Hitler's Germany.
Monday, June 04, 2007
CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED
It is estimated that there are some 45 million people in this country who are without any kind of health insurance. The adults among this group, most of whom are employed, have fallen into the crack between those who earn too much to qualify for medicaid and those who do not earn enough to afford paying for health insurance. These unfortunate folks are the damned who receive little if any health care.
Of the millions who are uninsured, nine million are children. Usually, the only time they get to see a doctor is during a medical emergency. Then they are treated in hospital emergency rooms at great expense to the taxpayers and hospitals. These children get no preventive care and, like their parents, receive little if any treatment for non-life threatening ailments.
Many physicians and dentists refuse to accept medicaid patients because the government only pays a set fee for their services. As a result, children have died simply because they had no health insurance. One young boy had an infected tooth. His mother, who was eligible for medicaid, could not find any dentist willing to accept medicaid patients. The infection spread to the boy's brain. By the time he was hospitalized, it was too late. He died soon afterwards.
This is the richest country in the world with the best medical services available anywhere, but only to those who can afford them. It seems a crime that 45 million people in our land are deprived of affordable health care, especially since nine million of them are innocent children. Collectively, we spend several hundred billion dollars a year on nonessentials for our personal pleasure. There is no reason why we cannot and should not chip in to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I have been a long-time advocate of universal health care for our country so that every citizen can receive adequate medical attention. I took this position long before I ever heard of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, that capitalist-hating darling of the left wing, whose latest film ("Sicko") purports to expose the evils of our health care industry.
What kind of universal health care should we adopt? That is a hard question to answer. Some advocate that we adopt socialized medicine systems like those in Canada or Britain. But, both of those systems have many problems and are a real drain on government budgets, resulting in very high taxes. There are good socialized medicine programs in Germany, Sweden, and some other European countries, but their citizens pay a high price in taxes for health services.
Others advocate that we make affordable health insurance available to all citizens. That would require the government to subsidize those without the means to pay for that insurance. Would those government subsidies require an increase in taxes? Not necessarily. Some experts claim that the cost of subsidies would be more than offset by the savings from fewer indigent hospitalizations which would come with the normal health care provided to those who cannot afford it now.
Our society should be ashamed of itself for allowing 45 million people, nine million of them children, to be damned with inadequate or no health care. If the rest of the Western World can provide health care to all of its citizens, the country that developed the atomic bomb and went to the moon should be able to develop a universal health care plan, one that would be absent of the problems experienced by Canada and Britain. The time for us to act is now, not later.
Of the millions who are uninsured, nine million are children. Usually, the only time they get to see a doctor is during a medical emergency. Then they are treated in hospital emergency rooms at great expense to the taxpayers and hospitals. These children get no preventive care and, like their parents, receive little if any treatment for non-life threatening ailments.
Many physicians and dentists refuse to accept medicaid patients because the government only pays a set fee for their services. As a result, children have died simply because they had no health insurance. One young boy had an infected tooth. His mother, who was eligible for medicaid, could not find any dentist willing to accept medicaid patients. The infection spread to the boy's brain. By the time he was hospitalized, it was too late. He died soon afterwards.
This is the richest country in the world with the best medical services available anywhere, but only to those who can afford them. It seems a crime that 45 million people in our land are deprived of affordable health care, especially since nine million of them are innocent children. Collectively, we spend several hundred billion dollars a year on nonessentials for our personal pleasure. There is no reason why we cannot and should not chip in to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I have been a long-time advocate of universal health care for our country so that every citizen can receive adequate medical attention. I took this position long before I ever heard of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, that capitalist-hating darling of the left wing, whose latest film ("Sicko") purports to expose the evils of our health care industry.
What kind of universal health care should we adopt? That is a hard question to answer. Some advocate that we adopt socialized medicine systems like those in Canada or Britain. But, both of those systems have many problems and are a real drain on government budgets, resulting in very high taxes. There are good socialized medicine programs in Germany, Sweden, and some other European countries, but their citizens pay a high price in taxes for health services.
Others advocate that we make affordable health insurance available to all citizens. That would require the government to subsidize those without the means to pay for that insurance. Would those government subsidies require an increase in taxes? Not necessarily. Some experts claim that the cost of subsidies would be more than offset by the savings from fewer indigent hospitalizations which would come with the normal health care provided to those who cannot afford it now.
Our society should be ashamed of itself for allowing 45 million people, nine million of them children, to be damned with inadequate or no health care. If the rest of the Western World can provide health care to all of its citizens, the country that developed the atomic bomb and went to the moon should be able to develop a universal health care plan, one that would be absent of the problems experienced by Canada and Britain. The time for us to act is now, not later.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
AEROSPACERS GONE WILD 3
"You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at leasst 900 miles. And now, from the maker of America's best adult diapers, stay tuned for the next chapter of AEROSPACERS GONE WILD."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)