In an article in the Washington Post, "Wellness Incentives Could Create Health-Care Loophole" there is a dire threat. Live by Our standards, or else. The health care "reform" package under consideration would allow employers to increase employee premiums by 50%. That's around $200 per month for a single person, $500 per month for a family. That is a HUGE penalty for being fat!!
Some fraction of those being penalized will drop their insurance, which may be in violation of the new law, resulting in a HUGE penalty for being fat.
Failing to be insured may also result in refusal of care, shortening the lives, productivity, comfort, and contribution to society by the despicable smokers, fatties, and poor lifestylers. "I shouldn't have to pay for porkers' health care!" people will scream. Some already do. "If you smoke, you deserve to die!" some cry. "I don't want gang members/gays/punks/alternative lifestylers/goths (or whatever group with some hypothetical health issue) taking up MY healthcare resources!"
People can come up with good reasons to hate the overweight, the smokers, and the other with health issues. Drug addicts, alcoholics, substance abusers will be given a bandaid and shown to the door at emergency rooms. There will be no compassion. It was a choice YOU made to be unhealthy! Only the wealthy will be able to get care. Poverty, likewise, is a lifestyle choice.
And then there's the issue of religious influence on health care. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, wisely or not, that the Biblical injunction against taking blood doesn't mean only drinking it, but accepting transfusions as well. This can be argued to mean they are at greater risk, require specialized (i.e., more expensive) treatment, and are more likely to die anyway, so why waste public health care resources on them? "Let 'em pray for health!" There are those who believe God can literally heal them when He chooses to. They are already under attack in the courts. I don't know who's right. Maybe they should be imprisoned for letting children die. Maybe they should be free. Maybe the state should take away their children for their protection. Maybe there should be some marriage license "do you believe in using doctors and hospitals" test to allow marriage. There's no easy answer here, other than perhaps the Reader's opinion. Are You a "Jail 'em!" or "Free 'em!" type?
This scares the crap out of me. I'm obese. And I, contrary to the supercilious opinion of 200 million non-obese people, can't stop being obese tomorrow! If I made a sincere effort with reasonable support (nutritional guidance, physical trainers, medical advice) I might be able to get off the obese list in a year. More likely two. But as the Washington Post article points out, there won't be any support. Health care will be reserved for the healthy. And as soon as an argument can be made that any particular health condition can be blamed on lifestyle, you'll be targeted too. Or perhaps just a family member, loved one, or friend.
What will you do when your mother tells you she's been denied medicare because she's "too active, and at risk for injury"? Say your goodbyes? Council her to stay home and be silent? Go through nursing home brochures for your entirely healthy mother, effectively ending her life because of a lifestyle choice? How about when you receive a "believed to be currently using tobacco products" letter, with an invitation to pee in a cup? Don't believe in "false positives"? "These tests are reliable, smoker! Get ready for a big cut in your pay!" Thinking you can sue? Yeah, see how that works for ya.
I know I'm obese. I know I need to change that, and I will, in my own time and my own way, with the best expert advice I can find, and without forcing my wife and children to make sacrifices, too. If this healthcare "reform" travesty passes, the right to make those decisions will be taken away from me, or I and my family will be penalized into submission.
It is extremely troubling when the government can dictate personal, private, and lawful behavior, and that day is coming when a bunch of misguided ivory tower politicians who won't be subjected to their own stupidity take over that ubiquitous industry, health care, and run roughshod over our rights. Think you won't be affected? If so, I Humbly think you're a fool.
My prediction is, people will be suiciding to spare their families. We'll read horror stories about the grandpa who was kicked out of the hospital after being caught smoking, and died soon after. We'll read about women who decided to abort rather than quit smoking cold turkey. The health, finances, families, and very lives of American citizens will be held hostage to the benevolent despots of the healthcare industry. And some politicians will hand them the power of life and death.
They're lining up the votes in D.C. right now.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
"Rights" and Wrongs
This is a strange one. In Maine, a woman was being arrested under an active warrant. She believed, without seeing the warrant, that it was bogus. She went in her house to, the officer on the scene believed, lock the house. She had apparently grabbed her "stun gun" electric dischage device, rated at 975kV. When the officer moved to assist her, she turned and allegedly fired on him, jolting the officer, but not disabling him. The officer took the noncompliant woman into custody.
This woman, 65-year-old New Sharon, Maine, resident, Carol Murphy, has had a history of bad relations with all levels of law enforcement, all levels of courts through State courts, even chastising a judge in court. All warrants, according to Murphy, were flawed as a result of an earlier "void" order. I Humbly assume this was in Murphy's head when she went to get her stun gun.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when the "knowledge" is regarding Law, the danger level can be off the charts. There is a legal precedent for resisting arrest when the attempted arrest is unlawful or materially flawed. With this in mind, a citizen facing an arrest warrant grabbed a weapon and (Allegedly) used it on a law enforcement officer while he was executing a warrant.
The thing is, that precedent applies firstly to "false arrest", being held without warrant or cause. In this case, there was a warrant. Murphy was told about it, and without asking to see it, (Allegedly) grabbed a weapon. Clearly she cannot argue there was no warrant, since she didn't ask to see it and was refused. The precedent also applies to warrants not sworn to with just cause, as is required of arrest warrants. And again, having not seen the warrant, she had no basis for establishing the validity of the warrant, other than the wording of the officer, and her own experience with the court which issued the warrant.
About that "void ab initio" order. It is apparently maintained by Murphy that the order obviates all previous fines, fees, penalties, and court orders resulting from the charges for which the order was handed. Therefore, I Humbly theorize, an arrest warrant for "unpaid fines" might sound flawed. However, the legal council voice in my left ear says, the officer was not actively pursuing Murphy when she (Allegedly) attacked him, and perhaps the just cause statement was demonstrably false, but in that case ALL arrest warrants made against innocent people are flawed, and arrest may be resisted with up to deadly force.
A just cause statement is an opinion sworn to that a law has been broken, and that someone is believed to have done so. Only when this opinion is known to be false by the person making the statement on the warrant, is the warrant flawed. All that would be necessary under this Humble legal theory is that the subject believe him or herself to be innocent. Not just mostly innocent, but really truly innocent. Thing is, innocent people can be wrongly convicted, sent to prison, and even executed. If we say, if you know in your heart you are guilty, you can't fight arrest, you make a presumption of guilt, AND are de facto admitting guilt by failing to resist arrest! Instead of fighting charges in court, they will be fought EVERYWHERE.
The precedent was intended to maintain the right of self defense even to those who are being wrongly arrested by corrupt law enforcement personnel, who may be acting under the unconstitutional authority of a oath breaking judge. By stretching the facts, Murphy will probably make just this argument. The officer on the scene might not have known any of this until the handcuffed, peppersprayed Carol Murphy was under lock and key.
The thing that really perturbs me is that people with less understanding of the law than I Humbly possess (which is pretty miniscule) are saying "Way to go! Too bad you didn't kill the nazi stormtrooper!" and "He deserved it, because in 2004, they killed one of her horses!"
What I Humbly fear, is that Murphy may be exonerated for retrieving a deadly weapon and using it to (Allegedly) assault a law enforcement officer executing a warrant. Instead of the "flawed warrant" test, she will create the "reasonable belief in lack of faith" standard. And that will allow hundreds of thousands of assaults upon police officers in the line of duty.
The fault is not with this woman, who might or might not be playing with a full deck, but with whoever issued that warrant, which may or may not be total garbage. If it is, the first shot has been fired on the dismantlement of law and order in this country. What cop will happily face attacks by criminals without the backup of the law? It takes a special kind of hero to go to those doors in the first place, knowing they might face a weapon. After an incident, though, they have a right to see their attackers prosecuted. The attacker can say, "I know I'm innocent, so the warrant was in bad faith, giving me the right to grab a gun and use it."
Not only cops will die. And Maine, you will be to blame.
This woman, 65-year-old New Sharon, Maine, resident, Carol Murphy, has had a history of bad relations with all levels of law enforcement, all levels of courts through State courts, even chastising a judge in court. All warrants, according to Murphy, were flawed as a result of an earlier "void" order. I Humbly assume this was in Murphy's head when she went to get her stun gun.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when the "knowledge" is regarding Law, the danger level can be off the charts. There is a legal precedent for resisting arrest when the attempted arrest is unlawful or materially flawed. With this in mind, a citizen facing an arrest warrant grabbed a weapon and (Allegedly) used it on a law enforcement officer while he was executing a warrant.
The thing is, that precedent applies firstly to "false arrest", being held without warrant or cause. In this case, there was a warrant. Murphy was told about it, and without asking to see it, (Allegedly) grabbed a weapon. Clearly she cannot argue there was no warrant, since she didn't ask to see it and was refused. The precedent also applies to warrants not sworn to with just cause, as is required of arrest warrants. And again, having not seen the warrant, she had no basis for establishing the validity of the warrant, other than the wording of the officer, and her own experience with the court which issued the warrant.
About that "void ab initio" order. It is apparently maintained by Murphy that the order obviates all previous fines, fees, penalties, and court orders resulting from the charges for which the order was handed. Therefore, I Humbly theorize, an arrest warrant for "unpaid fines" might sound flawed. However, the legal council voice in my left ear says, the officer was not actively pursuing Murphy when she (Allegedly) attacked him, and perhaps the just cause statement was demonstrably false, but in that case ALL arrest warrants made against innocent people are flawed, and arrest may be resisted with up to deadly force.
A just cause statement is an opinion sworn to that a law has been broken, and that someone is believed to have done so. Only when this opinion is known to be false by the person making the statement on the warrant, is the warrant flawed. All that would be necessary under this Humble legal theory is that the subject believe him or herself to be innocent. Not just mostly innocent, but really truly innocent. Thing is, innocent people can be wrongly convicted, sent to prison, and even executed. If we say, if you know in your heart you are guilty, you can't fight arrest, you make a presumption of guilt, AND are de facto admitting guilt by failing to resist arrest! Instead of fighting charges in court, they will be fought EVERYWHERE.
The precedent was intended to maintain the right of self defense even to those who are being wrongly arrested by corrupt law enforcement personnel, who may be acting under the unconstitutional authority of a oath breaking judge. By stretching the facts, Murphy will probably make just this argument. The officer on the scene might not have known any of this until the handcuffed, peppersprayed Carol Murphy was under lock and key.
The thing that really perturbs me is that people with less understanding of the law than I Humbly possess (which is pretty miniscule) are saying "Way to go! Too bad you didn't kill the nazi stormtrooper!" and "He deserved it, because in 2004, they killed one of her horses!"
What I Humbly fear, is that Murphy may be exonerated for retrieving a deadly weapon and using it to (Allegedly) assault a law enforcement officer executing a warrant. Instead of the "flawed warrant" test, she will create the "reasonable belief in lack of faith" standard. And that will allow hundreds of thousands of assaults upon police officers in the line of duty.
The fault is not with this woman, who might or might not be playing with a full deck, but with whoever issued that warrant, which may or may not be total garbage. If it is, the first shot has been fired on the dismantlement of law and order in this country. What cop will happily face attacks by criminals without the backup of the law? It takes a special kind of hero to go to those doors in the first place, knowing they might face a weapon. After an incident, though, they have a right to see their attackers prosecuted. The attacker can say, "I know I'm innocent, so the warrant was in bad faith, giving me the right to grab a gun and use it."
Not only cops will die. And Maine, you will be to blame.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A Little Thing Called The Constitution, or How I Stopped Worrying About Forced Innoculation
According to a news story in New York, anyone in New York working in the health care industry is required by the State Department of Health to be immunized against both seasonal influenza and H1N1 (Mexican Swine) flu. The real news story is that there are thousands of health care professionals who are opposed to this mandate.
Well, cheer up, doctors, nurses, therapists, techs, and everyone else! I'm here to Humbly give you some ammunition for your fight. What the State of New York has forgotten is that you have constitutional rights. Specifically, the fourth and fourteenth amendments protect you against government intrusion of this sort.
The fourth amendment limits the government's ability to search and seize persons and property without due process of law. Subjecting citizens to a vaccination is equivalent to placing those citizens' lives at risk. There is no possible way to give a flu vaccine without risk. In fact, given the risk, and the government's perception of the necessity of immunizations, they decided it was necessary to immunize the manufacturers of the flu vaccines against lawsuits. There is a near absolute in law called strict liability in tort which says that any product used properly by consumers which causes harm to those consumers will be cause to hold the maker of that product liable for damages. But not flu vaccines. So, when the inevitable few have harmful side effects, they will not be able to hold the makers liable. And states don't allow their citizens to sue them in their own courts. A New Yorker who takes that vaccine, voluntarily or not, and is harmed, is therefore deprived of life and freedom by the state, without due process. No warrant was issued, no judge shown just cause. No study showing rates of harmful side effects were presented to those who made the decisions. In fact, those studies have been buried by the CDC!! Mention to your lawyer this little tidbit. This will be evidence usable in court. Being in a federal court, the State of New York is gonna have to explain why they didn't bother doing their research, and the CDC is going to have to cough up the original study, not the fudged up one they posted on their web site.
Also, consider the fourteenth amendment. It's the one that says individuals will not be discriminated against because of the group to which they belong. Health care workers, I'm pretty sure you have the same rights as prostitutes. This is a tougher issue to push in court, though. It's scary! The big bad low-mortality H1N1 virus has people scared, and their fear can only be alleviated by having YOU get a shot. Understand that this is exactly the same as putting Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during World War II?
This post is NOT legal advice. I am not a lawyer. If you have legal issues, find a lawyer. Ask him when the fourth and fourteenth amendments were repealed. And consider moving out of New York. Your fears as an individual, justified as they are, are of no concern to the entity of the State of New York. Nor will your losses be of concern if you have some bad side effect from the shots. May I Humbly recommend Texas?
Well, cheer up, doctors, nurses, therapists, techs, and everyone else! I'm here to Humbly give you some ammunition for your fight. What the State of New York has forgotten is that you have constitutional rights. Specifically, the fourth and fourteenth amendments protect you against government intrusion of this sort.
The fourth amendment limits the government's ability to search and seize persons and property without due process of law. Subjecting citizens to a vaccination is equivalent to placing those citizens' lives at risk. There is no possible way to give a flu vaccine without risk. In fact, given the risk, and the government's perception of the necessity of immunizations, they decided it was necessary to immunize the manufacturers of the flu vaccines against lawsuits. There is a near absolute in law called strict liability in tort which says that any product used properly by consumers which causes harm to those consumers will be cause to hold the maker of that product liable for damages. But not flu vaccines. So, when the inevitable few have harmful side effects, they will not be able to hold the makers liable. And states don't allow their citizens to sue them in their own courts. A New Yorker who takes that vaccine, voluntarily or not, and is harmed, is therefore deprived of life and freedom by the state, without due process. No warrant was issued, no judge shown just cause. No study showing rates of harmful side effects were presented to those who made the decisions. In fact, those studies have been buried by the CDC!! Mention to your lawyer this little tidbit. This will be evidence usable in court. Being in a federal court, the State of New York is gonna have to explain why they didn't bother doing their research, and the CDC is going to have to cough up the original study, not the fudged up one they posted on their web site.
Also, consider the fourteenth amendment. It's the one that says individuals will not be discriminated against because of the group to which they belong. Health care workers, I'm pretty sure you have the same rights as prostitutes. This is a tougher issue to push in court, though. It's scary! The big bad low-mortality H1N1 virus has people scared, and their fear can only be alleviated by having YOU get a shot. Understand that this is exactly the same as putting Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during World War II?
This post is NOT legal advice. I am not a lawyer. If you have legal issues, find a lawyer. Ask him when the fourth and fourteenth amendments were repealed. And consider moving out of New York. Your fears as an individual, justified as they are, are of no concern to the entity of the State of New York. Nor will your losses be of concern if you have some bad side effect from the shots. May I Humbly recommend Texas?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Notes From My Father's Eulogy
Okay, you're afraid of a depressing, ponderous, mournful post here, and I Humbly do not blame you. Rest assured, Humble Reader, that I will try to keep this from being a dirge.
My father served in the Navy for 22 years, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer after relinquishing his Warrant--his officer status--to gain a greater set of retirement benefits for his family, not for his own prestige.
A navy career is almost always a great sacrifice. Either your family stays home waiting months for your return, or sometimes they don't wait, and you lose your family. Some sailors just don't start a family, putting it off until the leave the service. In all of these, the serviceman (or woman) makes a huge sacrifice. It's not unique to the Navy, but it's probably the worst service for family.
The sacrifice is often just as great a load upon the family of the serviceman as it is on himself. The proper place for a husband and father is at home, not floating in a boat halfway around the world. It is so hard, you can barely imagine it if you have not lived through it. On top of the deprivation of half of the parental support, there are frequent relocations. Imagine what happens to kids whose efforts to make new friends is completely wasted, demolished, because their father was assigned to a new duty base. Imagine what happens to these children after the 3rd or 4th time, how they just give up on having friends. Imagine the loneliness. If you do, you have a small idea of the sacrifices made by a serviceman and his family.
My father made those sacrifices. My family made those sacrifices. Why? For the furtherance of my father's career? To gain prestige, status, rank, pay, authority, or personal sense of accomplishment? NO! My father paid this price to keep his family, his homeland, his nation free and safe. Dad was the best at what he did--it doesn't matter what his specialty was, he was a professional, and one of the best in the world at his occupation--and he chose not to leave his assigned tasks to a lesser person.
As I said in front of a room full of friends and family, part of the reason they were there to honor him, part of the reason they were safe and free and alive, was because my father and millions of servicemen like him, made sacrifices.
I asked those at the service who had served to please stand, and help me honor my father. They stood. And then something happened that I was not expecting.
Everyone there who was sitting, applauded.
To the servicemen out there who have made sacrifices in honorable service to this nation, AND to the families who have made sacrifices, as well, I Humbly salute you, just as I and those standing in the church saluted my father.
Sacrifice, service, and honor. For all these, all you get is a flag on your casket.
And the sincere gratitude of more people than you would ever believe.
My father served in the Navy for 22 years, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer after relinquishing his Warrant--his officer status--to gain a greater set of retirement benefits for his family, not for his own prestige.
A navy career is almost always a great sacrifice. Either your family stays home waiting months for your return, or sometimes they don't wait, and you lose your family. Some sailors just don't start a family, putting it off until the leave the service. In all of these, the serviceman (or woman) makes a huge sacrifice. It's not unique to the Navy, but it's probably the worst service for family.
The sacrifice is often just as great a load upon the family of the serviceman as it is on himself. The proper place for a husband and father is at home, not floating in a boat halfway around the world. It is so hard, you can barely imagine it if you have not lived through it. On top of the deprivation of half of the parental support, there are frequent relocations. Imagine what happens to kids whose efforts to make new friends is completely wasted, demolished, because their father was assigned to a new duty base. Imagine what happens to these children after the 3rd or 4th time, how they just give up on having friends. Imagine the loneliness. If you do, you have a small idea of the sacrifices made by a serviceman and his family.
My father made those sacrifices. My family made those sacrifices. Why? For the furtherance of my father's career? To gain prestige, status, rank, pay, authority, or personal sense of accomplishment? NO! My father paid this price to keep his family, his homeland, his nation free and safe. Dad was the best at what he did--it doesn't matter what his specialty was, he was a professional, and one of the best in the world at his occupation--and he chose not to leave his assigned tasks to a lesser person.
As I said in front of a room full of friends and family, part of the reason they were there to honor him, part of the reason they were safe and free and alive, was because my father and millions of servicemen like him, made sacrifices.
I asked those at the service who had served to please stand, and help me honor my father. They stood. And then something happened that I was not expecting.
Everyone there who was sitting, applauded.
To the servicemen out there who have made sacrifices in honorable service to this nation, AND to the families who have made sacrifices, as well, I Humbly salute you, just as I and those standing in the church saluted my father.
Sacrifice, service, and honor. For all these, all you get is a flag on your casket.
And the sincere gratitude of more people than you would ever believe.
They Put Up!!
Again, forgive me for not having posted recently. (I Humbly assume there is someone out there who cares. Arrogant of me.) We suffered a loss in my family. The only hero I ever had in my life, my father, passed away on Wednesday, May 13, in his sleep. I do not say this to garner sympathy, but to explain where I have been. In this difficult time, I have been with my family, as I always will be during any trials that arise.
In my last post, Put Up or Shut Up, I told you about the decision to save money in our local school district by releasing the best teacher I've ever seen. I submitted a letter to the editor in the local newspaper.
While I was out of state, working out funeral arrangements with my family, I got a call from the principal of my son's school. He thanked me for having spoken up about the situation, reassured me that the termination was only due to low seniority, not any lack of competence or any cause for termination. The teacher was to be kept on as a substitute, and given high priority when hiring resumed. But there was some good news. The former kindergarten teacher had just been reassigned and put on contract for next year as a first grade teacher.
Now, I am not saying my Humble letter to the editor had any effect. I don't know if anyone who makes decisions was at all aware of it. Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that I opened my yap, and spouted my opinion; that the principal of the school stated that he considered it to be a well-written opinion; and that the day after it was printed, Miss Redacted was re-employed. In order to maintain my Humble standing, I have to believe it's all coincidence. But I got a very nice thank-you note from Miss Redacted.
It's hard to be Humble sometimes. Especially when you're being bombarded with praise.
My father would have been both amused and proud.
In my last post, Put Up or Shut Up, I told you about the decision to save money in our local school district by releasing the best teacher I've ever seen. I submitted a letter to the editor in the local newspaper.
While I was out of state, working out funeral arrangements with my family, I got a call from the principal of my son's school. He thanked me for having spoken up about the situation, reassured me that the termination was only due to low seniority, not any lack of competence or any cause for termination. The teacher was to be kept on as a substitute, and given high priority when hiring resumed. But there was some good news. The former kindergarten teacher had just been reassigned and put on contract for next year as a first grade teacher.
Now, I am not saying my Humble letter to the editor had any effect. I don't know if anyone who makes decisions was at all aware of it. Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that I opened my yap, and spouted my opinion; that the principal of the school stated that he considered it to be a well-written opinion; and that the day after it was printed, Miss Redacted was re-employed. In order to maintain my Humble standing, I have to believe it's all coincidence. But I got a very nice thank-you note from Miss Redacted.
It's hard to be Humble sometimes. Especially when you're being bombarded with praise.
My father would have been both amused and proud.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Put Up or Shut Up
Forgive me, readers, for I have sinned. It has been almost a month since my last blog post. My child has had some medical issues, and as he demands attention, I have less to spare for You, the Humble readership. Am I up to 2 yet?
Not too long ago, we had elections for municipal offices in the town where I reside. For months before that election, I had people drop by my home, and tell me how I should vote for them, because they were dedicated to the people they would represent, and to their platform. EVERY ONE MENTIONED EDUCATION as a top priority.
Think about that. Education is important. Who would dare say it wasn't that big a deal? Who would destroy their political aspirations by saying children were their parents' problem, not the taxpayers. Who would even contemplate saying educated people are everywhere, so if we don't produce any locally, some will move in from other places with well funded schools.
Okay, fine. Some got elected. All of those elected claimed education was a top priority. Last week, my son's kindergarten teacher mentioned that she wasn't being renewed for next year. I Humbly admit to some bias, because this lady treated my son with all the care and compassion I could have ever dreamed of, sparing his feelings and dignity, while gently guiding him through his first school experience. I Humbly admit my bias when I say she has to be one of the best teachers in the entire state. But she got pink-slipped. Budget cuts were required because of the economic climate. Tax revenues are down everywhere, and our town is no exception. In fact, please bear with me as I paste in a copy of my letter to the editor:
Okay, bottom line, either EVERY cost cutting measure was tried without eliminating budget shortfalls, or SOME elected official lied about education being a top priority. TEACHERS are getting axed??? TEACHERS??? We're not talking eliminating frills here. We're talking about taking the most critical members of the educational team out, and playing shorthanded. I know I don't need to say that the opposition isn't a competing school.
It's ignorance.
Not too long ago, we had elections for municipal offices in the town where I reside. For months before that election, I had people drop by my home, and tell me how I should vote for them, because they were dedicated to the people they would represent, and to their platform. EVERY ONE MENTIONED EDUCATION as a top priority.
Think about that. Education is important. Who would dare say it wasn't that big a deal? Who would destroy their political aspirations by saying children were their parents' problem, not the taxpayers. Who would even contemplate saying educated people are everywhere, so if we don't produce any locally, some will move in from other places with well funded schools.
Okay, fine. Some got elected. All of those elected claimed education was a top priority. Last week, my son's kindergarten teacher mentioned that she wasn't being renewed for next year. I Humbly admit to some bias, because this lady treated my son with all the care and compassion I could have ever dreamed of, sparing his feelings and dignity, while gently guiding him through his first school experience. I Humbly admit my bias when I say she has to be one of the best teachers in the entire state. But she got pink-slipped. Budget cuts were required because of the economic climate. Tax revenues are down everywhere, and our town is no exception. In fact, please bear with me as I paste in a copy of my letter to the editor:
My son has been in kindergarten this year at the local elementary, and another will follow him in August. When we requested my son's teacher for his younger brother, we were informed that Miss Redacted won't be renewed in the coming year. I was floored. Ms. Redacted is a super example of the outstanding professionals teaching our children, and part of the reason why the local elementary is a highly rated school and credit to this community.
I know the weak economy has caused a drop in tax revenues, that belt tightening is required in every department of every level of government, and that schools are not excepted from the budget scalpel. But this strikes so close to home that it feels like an axe!
I'm confused. Someone out there made decisions involving the termination of teachers. Presumably, after all the lesser means of cutting costs were exhausted, the school staff budget was cut. Yet, during the last election, EVERY candidate told all of us that education was the highest priority! Obviously no elected official would have allowed one of the finest teachers in the state to be let go. So, who did? Who made the decision to axe Miss Redacted? Was any public discussion held, or was this a decision made behind closed doors?
To simply say that firing teachers is a cost cutting measure is very shortsighted. our town attracts families partly because of the superb reputation of the schools here. If this tragic decision is an indicator, the loss of this one teacher is just the beginning of the end of the superior rating of our town's schools. Whoever it was who pink-slipped Miss Redacted, please reconsider. The cost to this community is higher than the meager salary you are saving.
Okay, bottom line, either EVERY cost cutting measure was tried without eliminating budget shortfalls, or SOME elected official lied about education being a top priority. TEACHERS are getting axed??? TEACHERS??? We're not talking eliminating frills here. We're talking about taking the most critical members of the educational team out, and playing shorthanded. I know I don't need to say that the opposition isn't a competing school.
It's ignorance.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Hail, Barak Caesar!
All my posts are my own Humble Opinions. This is just a warning that this post is more Opinion than commentary.
President Obama enjoyed a historic rise to power. From "community organizing" to state level government, to a Senate seat, and then the White House. No one remembers the political enemies whose wreckage was strewn in his wake, however. No moral or legal considerations prevented Obama's teams from furthering his career. If Jim Ryan was going through a difficult divorce, and his ex-wife accused him of lewd conduct, it didn't matter if the court records were sealed, and a child might suffer, it came out! The point is, his historic rise to power came at a cost that many others paid.
Now he sits at the apex of the United States government. He can dictate a memo, sign a hardcopy, and millions of people will be affected. Executive orders are notoriously difficult to balance. It takes a majority of the Supreme Court, or a supermajority of the Senate. Neither is likely to happen unless Obama is caught being tyrannical. Look at the recent Statue of Liberty "photo op" fly-by. No paper trail leads to Obama. His team made the call and takes the blame, even if it was President Obama's own idea. That's power.
Recently, the president announced both the Chrysler bankruptcy, and then the Chrysler-Fiat merger. He sees no conflict in an elected executive announcing the actions of a corporation. It is his divine right. He is a god-king. He remembers those who anger him, and deals with them. He rewards those who sing his praise. Anyone who speaks ill of him pays a price.
The rights and freedoms we enjoy as American citizens are daily encroached upon by his Praetorian guard. Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton all do his bidding, and sound oddly alike. Biden is usually off-key, but when was he not?
Bear in mind that even the most despotic of the Roman Empire's caesars were very popular. They held circuses more frequently as life got harder for Romans, and tossed bread to the audiences when the economy soured, or the caesar emptied the treasury. Hence the phrase "Bread and circuses" as a means to mollify the masses.
Those masses worshipped the caesar as a god. The caesar demanded it as his due. Other gods were allowed, as long as the proper ceremony and sacrifices were made to Caesar. Christians defied Nero. Lions ate Christians.
Oh, perhaps Obama won't kill those who fail to worship him properly. But he has the power to destroy lives. It's been 100 days. The honeymoon is over. The price for defying Barak Caesar will come due soon, and his Praetorians will collect brutally.
This is all just my Humble Opinion. Maybe he will be a benevolent ruler. But right now, I'm kinda glad I'm a nobody.
President Obama enjoyed a historic rise to power. From "community organizing" to state level government, to a Senate seat, and then the White House. No one remembers the political enemies whose wreckage was strewn in his wake, however. No moral or legal considerations prevented Obama's teams from furthering his career. If Jim Ryan was going through a difficult divorce, and his ex-wife accused him of lewd conduct, it didn't matter if the court records were sealed, and a child might suffer, it came out! The point is, his historic rise to power came at a cost that many others paid.
Now he sits at the apex of the United States government. He can dictate a memo, sign a hardcopy, and millions of people will be affected. Executive orders are notoriously difficult to balance. It takes a majority of the Supreme Court, or a supermajority of the Senate. Neither is likely to happen unless Obama is caught being tyrannical. Look at the recent Statue of Liberty "photo op" fly-by. No paper trail leads to Obama. His team made the call and takes the blame, even if it was President Obama's own idea. That's power.
Recently, the president announced both the Chrysler bankruptcy, and then the Chrysler-Fiat merger. He sees no conflict in an elected executive announcing the actions of a corporation. It is his divine right. He is a god-king. He remembers those who anger him, and deals with them. He rewards those who sing his praise. Anyone who speaks ill of him pays a price.
The rights and freedoms we enjoy as American citizens are daily encroached upon by his Praetorian guard. Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton all do his bidding, and sound oddly alike. Biden is usually off-key, but when was he not?
Bear in mind that even the most despotic of the Roman Empire's caesars were very popular. They held circuses more frequently as life got harder for Romans, and tossed bread to the audiences when the economy soured, or the caesar emptied the treasury. Hence the phrase "Bread and circuses" as a means to mollify the masses.
Those masses worshipped the caesar as a god. The caesar demanded it as his due. Other gods were allowed, as long as the proper ceremony and sacrifices were made to Caesar. Christians defied Nero. Lions ate Christians.
Oh, perhaps Obama won't kill those who fail to worship him properly. But he has the power to destroy lives. It's been 100 days. The honeymoon is over. The price for defying Barak Caesar will come due soon, and his Praetorians will collect brutally.
This is all just my Humble Opinion. Maybe he will be a benevolent ruler. But right now, I'm kinda glad I'm a nobody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
