American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
During the course of the debate over the Obama administration’s health care initiative, from any perspective, that is, Republicans vs Democrats, Liberal vs Conservative, legislators vs the health care industry, pretty much everyone has used extreme hyperbole, innuendo and downright misinformation in their efforts to sway public opinion.
As the health care bill was being negotiated by members of Congress behind closed doors, accusations regarding the content of the proposed legislation captured the daily headlines, but perhaps no aspect of the debate has been more egregiously misrepresented than the role of the medical profession.
For the record, my bonfides to weigh in with an opinion about this include almost seven years as the CEO of a small hospital in the community where I live.
Doctors, in particular, have been characterized as greedy, grasping and uncaring, ready to enrich themselves at the expense of patients and the government in any way possible. The obvious purpose was to sway public opinion in support of Obama’s health care proposal.
Quoting Obama in a speech he gave during his campaign for the presidency, Tom Blumer noted in his blog (August 13, 2009): “So we are going to be taking steps, as part of reform, to deal with expanding primary care physicians and our nursing corps. On the doctors’ front, one of the things we can do is to reimburse doctors who are providing preventive care and not just the surgeon who provides care after somebody is sick…All I’m saying is let’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing…Right now…if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.”
Blumer also reported the response of one surgeon, who said: “…in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service…Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do…”
Such statements are not just unfair, they also graphically illustrate the glaring ignorance of most politicians about health care and, in this instance, specifically Obama. The idea that doctors are overpaid for the services they provide to the patients of such programs as Medicare and Medicaid (MediCal in California) is ludicrous.
In California, services to MediCal (Medicaid) patients are so grossly underpaid that most doctors no longer accept them. The last time I checked, other than the local Indian Clinic, not one doctor in the community where I live would accept them as regular patients.
Two specific examples of MediCal’s gross underpayment for services that occurred when I was running the local hospital illustrate the point: One was a general surgeon who was called in by our hospital’s emergency room (ER) for a consultation one night and billed just $50 for his service. After an extremely long delay, he received a check for only 10 cents. Thinking there had to be some mistake, he contacted MediCal and was informed that 10 cents was all his service was worth, meaning it was all they could pay. In another similar incident, a neurologist was paid just 17 cents by MediCal for an ER consultation.
In March 17, 2010 article, the Seattle Times reported that: “…Walgreens drugstores, “which operates 121 stores in the state, “won’t take any new Medicaid patients” because they are reimbursed at “less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications.” Walgreens is the third drug store chain in the state to stop filling prescriptions for new Medicaid customers.
During the run up to the passing of Obama’s health care plan, Dick Morris noted that physicians’ fees will be slashed by 21 percent, which will add impetus to the trend of doctors who are planning to retire early because they are no longer willing to passively accept what the government decides to pay them.
Since the government determines, in its sole discretion, how much doctors and hospitals are paid for services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, the inescapable result is that health care providers invariably end up being underpaid.
Dear Abby had a favorite expression that she often used: MYOB, which means Mind Your Own Business. She would give this advice to people who wrote letters that were critical of the conduct of others, particularly their relatives, friends and neighbors. Abby was invariably quite specific: MYOB (butt out).
There is a long list of self-righteous, self-serving of politicians and government officials who have been presuming to tell Arizona that their legislature’s response to being overrun with illegal aliens (immigrants) is wrong - by passing legislation (their Senate bill No. 1070) which essentially mirrors the federal laws against illegally entering the United States.
A partial list of communities that have already condemned and/or are boycotting Arizona includes the following cities:
California: Coachella, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara and West Hollywood.
Colorado: Boulder
Connecticut: Hartford
Massachusetts: Boston
Minnesota: St. Paul
New York: N.Y. City
Ohio: Columbus
Texas: Austin, Brownsville, and El Paso.
Washington: Seattle
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
In addition, California’s state Senate is considering a resolution that would urge a boycott of Arizona and an end to California public entities investing in or doing business in the “Grand Canyon State.”
The city of Baltimore has joined San Francisco, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a lawsuit by “activists” who are asking a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s Senate Bill 1070 unconstitutional, while the federal government is reportedly preparing to enter the fray with a similar lawsuit by the Department of Justice.
Furthermore, some communities have either declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” or are considering such action. In Santa Barbara, CA, a group is reportedly planning to engage in civil disobedience in an effort to force the city council to stop doing business with all Arizona based companies and to declare Santa Barbara to be a “sanctuary city.”
Sanctuary cities have adopted policies that protect illegal immigrants, generally by not allowing municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws and prohibiting local police or municipal employees from inquiring about anyone’s immigration status. In 1979, Los Angeles was the first city to adopt such a policy, and 31 municipalities are currently considered Sanctuary Cities.
Through all the turmoil, Arizonans have remained steadfast, with some 70% of the state’s residents supporting their new law.
But, the argument isn’t one-sided. Legislators in as many as 18 states are reportedly discussing adopting an immigration law similar to Arizona’s. Bills have already been introduced in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan, although none of them will be acted on this year. Their reasoning was expressed by Idaho state Senator Monty Pearce, who said: “if the feds won’t do it, we’re going to have to do it.”
As is so often the case, this is more about politics than right and wrong. Politicians, who are always trolling for votes, are making pronouncements that they believe makes them look good in the eyes of voters, especially in California, which is reported to have the largest number of illegal immigrants in the country. To me, their political posturing just looks like more of the self-righteous, hypocritical moralizing we have come to expect from so many elected officials.
Perhaps the most graphic illustration of this is statement by a member of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, Peggy West, who takes pride in being the first Latino/Hispanic American elected to the Milwaukee County Board, and who thinks Arizona is not on the border with Mexico. West stated that she would have to look twice at the Arizona law if it was like Texas, “which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico…”
I don’t presume to know whether Arizona’s law is unconstitutional or not, although my sense is that it is not. However, what is of much greater concern to me is the widespread involvement by so many city councils, boards of supervisors and other legislative bodies, including California’s state Assembly, many of whose members are using their positions to further politicize a situation that is clearly outside their jurisdiction. What on earth does Arizona’s new immigration law have to do with managing the affairs of other communities that are not directly affected?
For my money, all those politicians who are not directly involved in Arizona’s situation should, as Dear Abby used to say, MYOB, and stop wasting taxpayers’ time and money on an issue that is clearly outside their jurisdiction.
We are at war, and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not end it, not now, not in six months or a year, not in two years and, chances are, not for a generation or longer. As a matter of fact, bringing our troops home from those fronts will very likely create a vacuum that al Qaida, the Taliban and their fellow travelers will be able to fill with others who want to destroy America, and provide them with a base of operations and training sites.
After almost 10 years, most Americans seem to have lost sight of the reality that we are still under attack and will continue to be the target of an enemy that is driven by a religious fervor that, for Muslims, is based on a belief that dying in the service of their cause, which is to kill Infidels and offers them a greater reward than the benefits of living.
Americans are an impatient lot and are generally unwilling to wait for long periods of time to reach their goals. In this instance, it’s winning a war. We are now being reminded that the war in Afghanistan has already been of longer duration that WWII. The implication of this observation seems to be that if we leave it will end. The same applies to Iraq and the Middle East, where Iran is stirring up trouble for Iraq, Israel, the U.S. and our allies, with the avowed goal of destroying Israel and driving the Jews into the sea.
There seems to be the general belief that, if we leave, we can just return home where we will be safe. Unfortunately, the oceans no longer provide a buffer that protects America from its enemies.
So, the question arises, just who are we fighting and why? Looking at the situation from a broad perspective, there seems to be little doubt that we are at war, and that the enemy is willing to employ a strategy of killing, maiming and torturing not only civilians in general but fellow Muslims to win.
Furthermore, the war appears to be based on religious dogma and a core belief that an essential part of its mission is to either convert all other religious believers and non-believers to Islam and to either kill or subjugate those who will not submit.
Without question, we are at war, and it has been referred to as the “War on Terror” since 9/11. We’ve heard a variety of explanations that try to define it by referring to a particular enemy or enemies, such as al Qaida, The Taliban, Iran, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Jihadists, as well as various lesser radical groups and individuals.
However, because the “War on Terror” is not being waged on the basis of national interests and/or boundaries, it has been difficult to characterize.
When the World Trade Towers were attacked on 9/11, it seemed very clear to most Americans that we had become engaged in a major war, albeit one that might end quickly, particularly after the Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell so quickly following the U.S. attack.
The notion of a short war was reinforced by the attack on Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which was accomplished in a few days. These two quick victories made it appear that the war would end in short order and that Americans would be able to return to their daily lives as if nothing had happened.
So, what happened on the way to the easy victories on two fronts? For one thing, the enemy organized. They also prepared for a very long conflict, generations, if necessary.
As time passed, it eventually became clear to many Americans that we were involved in a major war, one that would last for many years, perhaps a generation or longer, and that, like it or not, we are being forced to deal with the enemy’s key strategy, which is terrorism.
Reality set it. The war turned out to be tougher than most Americans anticipated, and we are now required to deal with that actuality. We must come to grips with the fact that it is going to last much longer than most of us thought or would like, and giving it some amorphous name won’t change the nature of the battle. It is, in fact, a “War on Terror.”
Changing the label doesn’t change the facts. So, let’s face reality, call it what it is, the “War on Terror,” and learn to live with it.
The evidence is in and is irrefutable. The BP oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault of America’s anti-drilling crowd, including president Obama, who has seized on what he perceives as just another opportunity to push his “Cap and Trade” proposal. With Obama, it’s always about politics and the “change” he promised to bring to America, most of which the American public has rejected.
After essentially ignoring the oil spill for 57 days, Obama finally took to the air waves on June 15. Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office he attempted to assure us that he had the situation under control and that he is in charge. In his effort to convince the public that he was actively dealing with the problem, Obama made his now infamous comment on the NBC Today Show, saying: “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”
What a classy guy our president is. I don’t know about anyone else, but I was personally offended by his remark. Not because I don’t fault British Petroleum for this disaster, but because I just don’t think any of our political leaders should make public statements about major issues using street language. I believe it demeans both the office and the individual. The president of the United States is not and should not try to be just one of the guys.
But, talking tough or pushing BP into creating a $20 billion slush fund, presumably to cover the cost of cleaning up the oil mess, does not solve the long-term problem of risk in deepwater drilling. To solve that, Obama simply declared a moratorium on all such drilling, at least for now, as if that will accomplish anything except to make us more dependent on other countries, where many people hate us.
It will also drive up the cost of oil, gasoline and many other oil based products. Some sources are predicting that the price of gasoline may double, to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon. The impact of an increase of this magnitude will affect everything from food to power, manufacturing and transportation, all of which will force most people to reorder their budgets for such basics as heating and air conditioning, their personal use of power, driving to and from work, trucking, just about anything and everything Americans use and do. This in turn will make the U.S. less competitive in world markets and induce many businesses to relocate operations overseas, which will cost jobs in the U.S.
Almost every nation throughout the world will continue drilling for oil, such as (in no particular order): 17 nations in Africa; Australia; New Zealand; 15 nations in Europe (including the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Russia); the Middle East (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen); 31 of the 50 U.S. states; Canada and Mexico; 15 South American countries, including Brazil (which the U.S. recently helped finance).
You can be sure none of these countries will stop offshore or deepwater oil drilling because the U.S. has shut down any or all of its own drilling activity. Furthermore, none of them regulate oil drilling nearly as strictly as the U.S. So, what we will get for this trade-off will be far more pollution in other parts of the world, much of which will drift to other areas, to say nothing of the loss of some $6 billion in annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from oil drilling royalties that are paid by the oil companies.
Obama can talk as tough as he wants, threaten or cajole BP and the other oil companies, but his statements are more about PR than accomplishing anything, other than using the situation as another opportunity to push for something he wants, which in this case is to have Congress pass his Cap and Trade bill. Once again, Obama followed the admonition of his chief-of-staff, Rham Emanuel, that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”
Never mind that Americans overwhelmingly oppose this legislation, Obama pressed on, suggesting that passage of Cap and Trade would take us to “a new future that will benefit us all.”
Obama wants Americans to end their “addiction” to oil, but offers to replace it with such other sources as wind and solar power, along with other embryonic technologies, none of which are anywhere close to being developed to the point where they are not only practical but economically feasible, including automobiles that will run on electricity.
It’s no wonder Obama’s approval ratings have been dropping like a stone.
For Obama, the blowout is about more than oil, it’s about his ability to lead.
The recent oil drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has once again brought cries from modern Luddites to stop all drilling for oil everywhere in the United States. And, President Obama quickly responded by closing down all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, to prevent other potential disasters in the future.
Never mind that almost every nation throughout the world will continue to drill, including (in no particular order): 17 nations in Africa; Australia; New Zealand; 15 nations in Europe (including the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Russia); the Middle East (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen); 31 of the 50 U.S. states; Canada and Mexico; 15 South American countries, including Brazil (which the U.S. recently helped finance).
You can be sure none of these countries will stop offshore drilling for oil because the U.S. has shut down any or all of its own oil drilling activity in any particular area.
However, by adopting another “feel good” policy in a critical activity, the U.S. will only make itself more dependent on other oil producing nations, most of which don’t regulate their own drilling nearly as strictly as we do and many of which hate us. Thus, we will reduce or stop drilling and increase the amount of oil we must buy from other nations, thereby making us increasingly dependent on oil sources that we cannot regulate, to say nothing of the effect that have on the prices of gasoline and other oil based products.
Such kneejerk policies only serve to make our enemies stronger. While we hand them the rope with which to hang us, they must be laughing at our stupidity. We make them richer and put them in a position to dictate our foreign and domestic policies, setting the prices we pay for oil and the many products that are made from it, while we pat ourselves on the back for saving the earth.
According to the California Energy Commission, “One barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The total volume of products made from crude oil based origins is 48.43 gallons on average – 6.43 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil…due to the additional other petroleum products…that are added to the refining process to create the final products:”
Finished Motor Gasoline, 51.4% = 24.89 gallons
Distillate Fuel Oil, 15.3% = 7.41 gallons
Jet Fuel, 12.3% = 5.96 gallons
Still Gas, 5.4% = 2.62 gallons
Marketable Coke, 5.0% = 2.42 gallons
Residual Fuel Oil, 3.3% = 1.60 gallons
Liquefied Refiner Gas, 2.8% = 1.36 gallons
Asphalt and Road Oil, 1.7% = 0.82 gallons
Other Refined Products, 1.5% = 0.73 gallons
Lubricants, 0.9% = 0.43 gallons
“Additionally, California gasoline contains approximately 5.7% by volume of ethanol…that brings the total processing gain to 7.59 gallons…”
From another perspective, the price of gas is comprised of the following costs: Crude oil, 72.7%; 11.5%; Refining, 10%; Distribution, 5.8% and Taxes, 11.5%. (“Paying Through The Hose, Santa Barbara News Press, page B4, May 27, 2008).
Over half of each barrel is used to make such products as (in no particular order): solvents, ink, floor wax, ballpoint pens, football cleats, upholstery, sweaters, boats, insecticides, bicycle tires, sports car bodies, nail polish, fishing lures, dresses, tires, golf bags, perfumes, cassettes, dishwasher parts, tool boxes, shoe polish, motorcycle helmets, caulking, petroleum jelly, transparent tape, CD players, faucet washers, antiseptics, clotheslines, curtains, food preservatives, basketballs, soap, vitamin capsules, antihistamines, purses, shoes, dashboards, cortisone, deodorant, footballs, putty, dyes, panty hose, refrigerant, percolators, life jackets, rubbing alcohol, linings, skis, TV cabinets, shag rugs, electrician’s tape, tool racks, car battery cases, epoxy, paint, mops, slacks, insect repellent, oil filters, umbrellas, yarn, fertilizers, hair coloring, roofing, toilet seats, fishing rods, lipstick, denture adhesive, linoleum, ice cube trays, synthetic rubber, speakers, plastic wood, electric blankets, glycerin, tennis rackets, rubber cement, fishing boots, dice, nylon rope, candles, trash bags, house paint, water paints, hand lotion, roller skates, surf boards, shampoo, wheels, paint rollers, shower curtains, guitar strings, luggage, aspirin, safety glasses, antifreeze, football helmets, awnings, eyeglasses, clothes, toothbrushes, ice chests, footballs, combs, CDs & DVDs, paint brushes, detergents, vaporizers, balloons, sun glasses, tents, heart valves, crayons, parachutes, telephones, enamel, pillows, dishes, cameras, anesthetics, artificial turf, artificial limbs, bandages, dentures, model cards, folding doors, hair curlers, cold cream, movie film, soft contact lenses, drinking cups, fan belts, car enamel, shaving cream, ammonia, refrigerators, golf balls, toothpaste. And, this is just a short list.
Americans consume petroleum products at a daily rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and over 250 cubic feet of natural gas per capita. But, as noted above, petroleum is not just used for fuel.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that the total U.S. petroleum consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum products averaged 20.7 million barrels per day in 2007 - about 24% of total world production. (“Short-Term Energy Outlook,” May 6, 2008).
So, while our political leaders shut down as much offshore drilling as they can, they seem to be OK with drilling in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Indonesia, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia and the former Soviet Union, China, etc. Why aren’t they as concerned about polluting the environment in the rest of the world? Or are residents of the good ol’ U.S. of A the only people in this world who should be protected from eeeevil capitalists and big business? Besides, aren’t we being told that pollution spreads through the atmosphere? So, are we in America also at risk from the effects of oil drilling in other parts of the world where there are only minimal, sometimes no environmental controls?
In 1973 we imported 34.8% of our oil, today it’s over 60%.
Perhaps those who oppose all drilling for oil everywhere will tell us which products they would like to do without.
Opponents of unfettered oil and coal usage extol the merits of alternative sources of energy and conservation – and they are right, to a point. Free market thinkers, who seem to believe the search for oil and independence from world energy politics must go forward with no holds barred or we run the risk of becoming a third-world country – may also have a point. But, above all, the American public should stop allowing themselves to be blindly led down either path – both of which have the potential of ending in a national disaster. What America needs at this point is more reality-based cooperation and long-term planning and less sloganeering and finger pointing.
As for President Obama’s claim that easy to access oil is becoming increasingly scarce, Heritage’s David Kreutzer notes that “billions of barrels of ‘easily accessible’ oil have been turned into ‘impossible to access’ oil by federal regulations and moratoria that block any access.” That includes oil off the coast of California and 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR.
Of course if we drill off the coast of California there will be oil leakage. But, Santa Barbara has experienced natural oil seepage washing up on its beaches since long before there were any oil wells.
Shutting down all drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico is not the answer to avoiding risk, just as not building any new nuclear power plants or stopping all coal mining will avoid all risk. It’s impossible to avoid all risk. There is no such thing as no risk, notwithstanding kneejerk reactions to the contrary.
We hear a lot these days about diversity: The need for ethnic diversity, the importance of tolerance, the benefits of policies that promote diversity, how much we have gained from the contributions of the varied ethnic groups in our population.
I rarely looked beyond the constant media drone about diversity, which, after a time, began to dull my senses: Diversity is good, diversity is important, diversity is valuable, diversity is fair, diversity is right, diversity is the law, diversity, diversity, diversity. We are almost totally immersed in it, constantly bombarded by the message.
Eventually I became so turned off by the barrage of preaching about “diversity” that I started tuning it out. It began to bother me. Not the fact of diversity itself, but all the talk about it. Americans seem to talk everything to death.
Paying so much attention to diversity raises another issue, that focusing on diversity requires us to consciously note the differences between various groups: blacks vs whites vs Hispanics, Jews vs Christians or Muslims, etc.
People tend to associate with others like themselves. As a member of a minority that has historically suffered severe discrimination, I believe there is a natural tendency for those with similar backgrounds to want to live and socialize together. They are more comfortable with each other, sharing common experiences and enjoying “inside” humor, they instinctively understand one another and have similar reactions to many situations. So, it is only natural that they tend to gravitate to their own groups. It’s interesting that, in spite of all the emphasis on diversity, we continue to see instances of both discrimination and ethnic groups that deliberately separate themselves from others.
So, what happened on the way to the color-blind society?
Diversity has arrived and is here to stay, but there are those who are unable or unwilling to recognize it, for whatever reason. And, although more has been achieved than many of us may realize, there is still much to accomplish. However we may not be hearing this message, and the media would have us believe that little or no progress has been made.
We are also subjected to a continuous harangue about profiling. How unfair it is to profile, how only those who are prejudiced profile. Profiling is not only bad we are told but, in some instances, it is either against the law or should be.
Unfortunately, the two messages, that is, diversity is good and profiling is bad, are not always compatible. Everyone is not the same, and there is no escaping that fact. Differences may be subtle or obvious, but they exist and most of us are keenly aware of them. If they are based on skin color or various ethnic characteristics, they cannot be avoided, but profiling by individuals based on other characteristics may not be conscious. They exist and everyone does it.
Sometimes the differences may be based on something as simple, yet obvious, as how a person may dress. This was graphically illustrated in a recent article by Maureen Dowd - about a woman who sued Citigroup, “claiming that she was fired…from the Citibank branch at the Chrysler Center for looking too sexy…Plaintiff was advised that as a result of the shape of her figure, ‘such clothes were purportedly ‘too distracting’ for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear.’”
“You are discriminating to (against) me, because of my body type,” said Debrahlee Lorenzana, a 33-year-old single mother, who noted, “This is genetic. What am I supposed to do?”
“Lorenzana’s lawsuit says that her bosses told her that her female colleagues could wear what they liked because their ‘general unattractiveness rendered moot their sartorial choices.’ Her well-tailored clothes, on the other hand, emphasized what her lawyer calls her ‘hourglass figure.’”
Isn’t this profiling? Whatever happened to just ignoring the differences between people?
How about you? How many of your close friends and business associates are members of another distinctly different group, black or white, or have other religious views, that is, are Christian or Jewish or Muslin, or are perhaps a member of a different ethnic group? Not many, I’ll bet.
The reason is really quite straightforward. Everyone profiles, whether consciously or subconsciously. The old bromide, “Birds of a feather flock together,” is not just some random observation. It’s based on reality.
Like it or not, everyone profiles, and no amount of laws or government regulations can prevent it, ever. It’s called human nature.
People misspeak all the time, then try to retract or modify their statements because their comments cause a public furor that puts them in an unfavorable light. And, sometimes, as in the case of politicians, it can kill their chances of being elected, or reelected.
So, just how effective is it to try to retract or modify some foot-in-the mouth misstatement?
The latest example of a well known person offending a particular individual or group is journalist Helen Thomas who, when she was asked by Rabbi David Nesenoff of RabbiLive.com if she had “any comments on Israel,” the Hearst Newspapers columnist said (on camera), “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” adding that the Palestinians “are occupied and it’s their land” and that Israelis should “go home” to Poland, Germany, America “and everywhere else.”
Elan Steinberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress, said: “Shame on Helen Thomas. She is certainly old enough to remember the Holocaust and the Second World War. She owes an apology to all victims of the Nazis…”
Ms. Thomas subsequently apologized on her personal Web site, posting: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”
However, her original remarks not only revealed her biased mindset but also exposed an abysmal ignorance of history in general and of the Jews in particular.
For Helen Thomas to think that the Jews in the Middle East originally came from Poland, Germany and America is beyond belief, especially for someone who, given her age (89), was obviously around during WWII and the Holocaust. Does she think Hitler was right and that the Jews should have been exterminated at Auschwitz? Or that the Poles should have succeeded in keeping them in the Ghettos and turning them all over to Hitler? Or that the Arabs should have wiped them out when they attacked Israel on the first day the new nation was formed? It appears that she does.
It’s important to keep in mind the fact that there are only about five million Jews in Israel and around 250 million Arabs in 22 states, all clamoring for the destruction of Israel. Yet, in spite of such overwhelming odds, Israel has managed to survive since it became the Jewish state in 1948.
Thomas obviously believes the territory that is now called Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, without any understanding of the fact that Israel was the home of the Jews and was called Palestine for two thousand years. Before the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no “Palestinians.”
Helen Thomas’ prejudice is clearly based on blind adherence to the propaganda of Hamas, which is openly and implacably dedicated to the destruction of Israel and “driving the Jews into the sea.”
So, Helen Thomas’ attempt to extricate her foot from her mouth is not acceptable. She meant what she said, and no amount of backtracking can obliterate her words or cover her bigotry.
That’s OK with me. As a matter of fact, I probably prefer it. At least I know where she stands, no ifs, ands or buts, and I can deal with that.
It has been said that if the Jews laid down their arms tomorrow, Israel would cease to exist, whereas, if the Arabs were to give up their arms, there would be peace.
One final point: As Dennis Miller commented, “Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves?…Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea?…Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents?…Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children?…No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.”
Think about it.
Helen Thomas’ apology is not accepted, at least not by me. Not now, not ever.
I’ve decided to put myself out on a limb and make some predictions about what’s likely to happen after President Obama leaves office.
First, I think he will be a one-term president.
Second, after he leaves office he will not be able to keep his mouth shut about the policies and actions of his successor, whoever it is, Democrat or Republican. He does not have the class to leave the stage to the next man (or woman). And if the next president is a Republican, Obama will simply not be able to contain himself.
Obama is the only president I can recall who directly attacked specific media outlets, such as Fox News, and there is little doubt that he will continue to do so from the seemingly unassailable perch of a “former president.”
Based on Obama’s performance to date, it appears that a great many fixes will be necessary to right America’s ship of state after he leaves office. The obvious premise of this commentary is that many of the actions taken by his administration are bad for America and the next president will see the need to change, correct or just plain reverse them when Obama is no longer in charge. Consider the following, among many others (in no particular order):
Foreign Policy: Israel, Iran, China and Russia. The United States will have been put into a position of strategic weakness by Obama’s policies that will probably linger for some time to come. We are already seeing adverse consequences in the conduct of North Korea, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Russia, among others. The recent incident in Israel of the attempt to break the blockade of arms intended for Hamas in Gaza is a glaring example. The primary reason for the increased strength of America’s enemies has been the weakness demonstrated by Obama and his administration. Without him in control, that will probably be changed. Unfortunately, Iran will have “the bomb” by then and it will be increasingly difficult to counter their aggressive meddling in the Middle East. And, if they attack Israel, all bets will be off.
Health Care: Recent polls indicate that over 60% of the public now favor repealing Obamacare. That can’t happen while he is still in office, even if the Republicans regain control of Congress in November, unless they win a veto proof majority. Unfortunately, however, chances are that won’t happen after he is out of office either, because the new bureaucratic structure created by the president’s health care bill will have been put in place and will probably be too difficult to completely reverse or eliminate.
The Courts: Obama has consistently appointed liberal judges to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Given the young ages of his appointees, we will probably be forced to live with his choices of liberals for an entire generation. But, perhaps of greater importance are his appointments to the federal judiciary in general, where dozens of lifetime appointments of liberal judges have also been made to lower courts.
The War on Terror: Whether Obama’s successor is a Republican or perhaps a more conservative Democrat, America’s response to terrorists will likely be more aggressive and the term “terrorist” will be probably be restored to common parlance to describe the nature of the struggle.
Homeland Security: After Obama and Janet Napolitano depart the scene, if the next president is a Republican, we are likely to see a stronger policy for protecting our borders. 60% of Americans in general and over 70% of Arizona residents support the state’s recent bill regarding illegal immigrants. However, passing comprehensive immigration reform is likely to continue to elude Congress and the next administration for some time to come.
Guantanamo Bay and Enemy Combatants: If Obama has not closed Guantanamo by the time he leaves office, it may not be closed at all. He has been unable to implement his decision to close the facility and, at this point, many if not all the remaining prisoners will be hard core terrorists that other countries will probably not be willing to accept. The new administration will likely proceed to try them in military tribunals, and those who are not acquitted or executed will be imprisoned for life in federal facilities.
Expansion of Government: Obama’s intrusion into the free market has been unprecedented. In spite of having taken control of the banking industry, General Motors, Chrysler, and AIG, along with much of the health care industry (by virtue of Obamacare), I believe much of the president’s quasi-nationalization of industry will be reversed.
Energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear): If the next administration is Republican, look for some loosening of restrictions on the development of all sources of energy, including oil, in spite of the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Politically Correct Policies: Political correctness will continue to hamstring our society for many years to come and will probably not be changed to any great degree by the next administration, Republican or Democrat.
Taxes: A Republican administration will cut taxes, although not as much as many people would like, and the tax cuts are likely to be targeted to stimulate economic growth, rather than straight across-the-board reductions in rates. If a Democrat succeeds Obama in office, a VAT tax will probably be adopted.
Deficit Spending: A Republican administration will not necessarily curtail the out-of-control spending that has been the hallmark of Obama’s program, but the chances for some reductions in spending will be better.
Inflation: Due to the cumulative excessive spending of prior administrations plus the out-of-control spending of the current administration, there will be a continued risk of high rates of inflation for a number of years, regardless of which party gains control of Congress and the White House.
Just for fun, you might try making some of your own predictions.
If you are interested in seeing what the consequences political correctness could ultimately have on life in America, just take a look at the Muslim world. Nonie Darwish provides an unsettling insight into the impact that strict adherence to religious dogma has society in her article, “Joys of Muslim Women:”
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9.
The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
“Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
“Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before emigrating to America in 1978, When she was eight years old, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .
“When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
“But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
“For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose Sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed.
“In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this…”
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
