Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton

Please tell me why you hate these men. I find that whenever there is a racial issue, I as a black woman, listen to others, not them. The Jena 6, I didn't go searchig for those two voices. I was trying earlier to hear Jesse Jackson speak on CNN at work but the volume was too low. So I asked myself, why haven't I heard them before. I am educated; so why haven't I seeked out there voices?

 

I cannot answer this question at this moment in time. But what I can say is, maybe I have heard them, and just don't remember it. Who is worth listening to with injustice? Who isn't? Tell me why. Don't tell me because you find them crooked or you just don't like them. They are human. No one is perfect. (Yet a bribe has nothing to do with this mission.) That is a scapegoat. Don't give me that. It isn't enough. Give me something substantial, something substantive.

 

Tell me why in detail that you don't like Jesse Jackson Jr. and/or Al Sharpton. What have these men said or done in detail that goes against their mission.

Steal from Poor - Give to Rich - Dear President Obama,

Dear President Obama,

George W. Bush decided that the original bailouts that had gone all year for him was just not enough. He needed to offer an 85 billion dollar one for AIG. Then offer a huge package of 700 billion. It was originally voted down due to voters contacting their legislators not to pass. Then the stocks plumeted the next day. Neither you nor McCain was against the bill. So the second time it went through. Yes, this was during Bush's term as well. This new, "700 billion dollar bill" in which it had been named actually was 1.5 trillion or so. Now the media is telling you that if you are a democrat that you are for the bill and if you are republica then you are against it. We are being told, that this is the only option in the entire universe. WOW! I had no idea. The only option?

Well, Mr. President Obama, this letter is written just to say this: "UP YOURS!" You are just as phony, convining, and belligerent as any other bozo that has sat in the white house. Why won't you serve the citizens of this country that youare supposed to protect? Why won't you uphold our constitution? How can a company be free to become a part of the new big 3 if you hold them down by stealing money from them and giving it to a top producer/competitior? What that means is this: Giving a top company money like Chrysler doesn't give another car company that didn't bring this upon themself to become a top producer/competitor and take their spot? They should be free to fail and another company should have been free to take his spot. You didn't inherit this mess. You asked for it. You didn't talk against the bailouts during your campaign against McCain. Yes, this started during the end of the Bush era. But now it is your reign. You have only acted just the same. Mr. Presiden Barack Hussein Obama. My sister wrote a poem when she was a child. It went....

"U.S.A. We are number one.

U.S.A. We get the job done

U.S.A. Take it to the bank.

U.S.A. We have the best bank.

(then I added to the poem)

U.S.A. Saddam Hussein

U.S.A. That's the name of their game. "

It was more of a chant after desert storm. We spoke out each letter of (you, essss, A) and it was awesome. Who are you but one individual who will fight to take more from us. Yes, I scrutinize and I am sure your people have placed me on some list just for utilizing something that I am suppose to have like freedom of speech. But I suppose if I use the freedom of speech then that must mean in some unwritten law that I must surrender my right to due process? Ron Paul supporters on a terror watch list just for being a Ron Paul supporter is insane? Yes, it has been reported that if you supported Ron Paul you are a potential threat to this country. I should say that everyone is a threat. If you are not rich, ever been laid off, ever voted for a candidate that didn't win, you somehow must be a threat to this country. They should make it universal; all across the board and not just this one time - for any Ron Paul supporter. If you have ever been denied credit, you should have to pay this loss to due process. If you have ever been injured by anyone, been a victim of a crime or victim of a routine police traffic stop and received a ticket. (You should all be on some list) If you have ever paid a bill even one day late, you should be on a terror threat list.

And President Obama, even those with abnormally much more power than the average man should be on the terror threat list. For they are the ones most likely to abuse such powers. They are the evil doers. Oh, I guess that would include you, but don't worry - I was also thinking of - I mean, actually (wink wink) thinking of the CEO's who abuse their power.

 

I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!

So far - not liking the new format......they of course must attempt to make money off of the google ads, etc - through our news settings....what if you wrote the news story?

Politics.com just has a bunch of usernames but only a handful of us use it!

discussion is open to talk up or talk down any part of what "politics team" has recently altered to the current site

After Watching Micheal Moore's Film, Sicko, (Part 2)

So, the initial thoughts after watching the film are located in my part 1 blog. (http://www.politics.com/blog/7114/after-watching-micheal-moores-film-sicko-part-1/) Now that a near month has gone by and people have brought the subject up to me, where am I with this issue? I will get back to that in a minute, but first here is what happened in the first blog.

To sum it up: In the 1st blog I brought up, how the current system is broken with insurance companies that deny payment for life threatening surgeries. They do this for profit. They create pre-existing conditions whether you have them or not just by looking at your past medical records. For example, because you said you had headaches, they will call a tumor pre-existing condition.  I also brought up the current forms of socialism that we have such as schools or libraries. I discussed Hillary who wanted to regulate the industry. We've regulated the power companies, the water companies, the phone companies, etc. Yet people in general don't want to treat this as a needed utility. We need energy, water, and communication services.  Are we not equal in our need for healthcare?

The response in the first blog: Mostly attacks Micheal Moore instead of going after the issue intact. People attempt to call him a propagandist as a negative term, like an insult. People do this when they call someone liberal or conservative in this culture as well.

In my daily life after watching the film: When I've discussed politics with people and then they bring up an opposition against Universal Healthcare without a why. So I ask and and ask and ask. And only one person had a good answer which was a financial motivation to do well in school. He said he knew someone that put up 145k on his dorm room which was the average first year starting salary for students out of his medical program. So my question to him was, do you really want a doctor who is motivated by money rather than motivated by helping the person that is sick? He brought up law school and lawyers as an example as well. I responded to him. People go to law school for different reasons. I have seen a few surveys ranging financial motivation between 9-14% which isn't a lot. If you were innocent of crime, you wouldn't want the lawyer defending you to have been part of that 9-14%. Yet his reasoning is the only one that is pro-privatized healthcare with at least some guts.

Sometimes, I'd bring up Micheal Moore's film "Sicko" and then someone would respond, "You know that film isn't true" And I'd tell them to please tell me which parts so that I could go back and re-watch it. Yet the scare tactics get people to not watch the film.

Where was I on this issue before I watched this film?  I didn't like the idea of loads of insurance company workers being  out of work. That was my sole reason for being against universal healthcare. They are legalized crime. They murder people for profit. End of story.

What happens when it is you? Half of the families in 2005 that filed bankruptcy had filed at the onset of a serious medical problem or accident. Many of you might say, so what that they didn't have insurance? 75% of those families who had filed bankruptcy had medical insurance at the time of the serious medical problem or accident. They played by the rules, had education, had a mortgage, and even had health insurance.

A doctor, Elizabeth, from India, here in America for quite some time called what insurance companies do as inhuman. She is the first person and only person that I have invited into that issue. Out of everything she said, my favorite quote, "You can't have too many ethics and still be a millionaire." It makes sense. 

These millionaire and billionaire CEO's are murdering people. Yet the middle class  proponents of privatized healthcare don't see that this this could be them filing bankruptcy or dying as a result of these crimes against humanity. You could lose everything. This isn't an argument for the uninsured. The film is about you, who have played by the rules the entire time. This film is about you, who have insurance. Don't criticize the film about being inacurate until you can pin point exact points of the film just because you don't want to watch it.

Micheal Moore brings this discussion to the fore front and does it well. A Harvard Professor said that there are two myths in healthcare in the USA today, one is, "I have health insurance, so that means I'm safe" (or really safe if I pay a lot) The other is that universal healthcare doesn't work. She says, "there is some really embarrassing data....." According to the film, the system is NOT being altered to fit the needs of the people; but, the people are being changed to fit the needs of the system. 

They say, people grow conservative. - well, maybe those are thoughts for  (part 3)

After watching Micheal Moore's film, Sicko (part 1)

My initial response after watching this film is that universal healthcare in America is necessary. I think that Hillary's idea was great to keep the health insurance companies at the table, but now they had their chance. This film made me angry, SICK! It really is common sick. A human life is priceless. What would you pay to save your life? What amount would you pay to save your life? It is infinite. They know this and yet you don't act on it.

We have socialized fire department. We have a socialized school system - A socialized library. The view that you might want to argue: Why should I pay for someone else? Well that is a rather individualistic view. Is it not. I would say that the individualistic view is selfish. You want a child to not receive a surgery because the health insurance company doesn't want to pay for it? This film isn't about the child without health insurance. It shows stories about those that do have health insurance. It is people's jobs to deny claims. Then if you are not somehow denied, after the health company is paid, they look for reasons to retroactively take their money from you. (by looking at your medical records  and creating a pre-existing condition) - that means if you had a headache ever so now and then that you reported to your doctor, prior to coverage, they could say that your brain surgery was a pre-existing condition and retro-actively cancel your health insurance.

The current system is broken. I have spoken with a person here on politics via email. Yes, there is something wrong with profiteering off of people. These employees that work for these health insurance companies get bonuses for denying claims that could save your life. Meaning, chemotherapy for cancer. The health insurance company could deny your claim if you have cancer and say that it isn't terminal yet. The film Sicko is filled with people who have health insurance.

Basically to quote the film, "If they weren't able to weed you out in the application process or deny you the care your doctor said you needed and somehow ended up paying for the operation, they send in Lee. [Lee's] job is to get the company's money back any way he can. All he has to do is find one slip up on the application or a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had."  - They go through your health history for the last five years and look for stuff that you may of concealed or jack the rates so high that you couldn't pay them. Lee says, "They're supposed to be fair and even handed, but with an insurance company, it's their freaking money. So it's not un-intentional. It's not a mistake. It's not an oversight. You're not slipping through the cracks. Somebody made that crack and swept you towards it. And the intent is to maximize profits." People this is

Folks this is unacceptable! What health insurance companies are doing...The idea not to cover pre-existing conditions are ridiculous. Do you breathe? Exist? Are you mortal? The film showed an airing on CSPAN on May 30th 1996. Dr. Linda Peeno, former medical reviwer at Humana,  testified before US Congress, "I am here today to make a public cnnfession. In the Spring of 1987, as a physician, I denied a man a necessary operation that would have saved his life, and thus caused his death. No person and no group has held me accountable for this, because, in fact, what I did was I saved the company a half a milion dollars for this. And furthermore, this particular act secured my reputation as a good medical director, and it insured my continued advancement in the healthcare field." 4 times as many healthcare lobbyist than congressman.

 

 

 

 

Merry Christmas - If that Offends You, Get a Life

So, recently I recalled a letter written on an attorney billboard on a previous Christmas season. It said, "Merry Christmas - If that Offends You, Get a Life." I didn't understand the profound effect it would have on me about 3 years later. Recently people are offended by public displayed Christmas trees. They aren't holiday trees. The University of Carolina banned all Christmas trees this season from its libraries on campus; why? People are offended! If I saw a minora on campus, would I be offended, would I care? When I see the Jewish star, do I care? No, I don't. I don't celebrate HOLIDAY...the only people that would celebrate holiday are same that celebrate giftmas, who could also be the same that don't have a God. "If I saw Happy Kwanza on someone's door; I'd say, great that person's celbrating Kwanza. Who's offended by a Christmas tree? What do we get rid of next? Do we take Santa out of the mall because people are offended by him? Do we stop showing rudolf the red-nose reindeer on tv? I thought in this country we were supposed to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. We're supposed to be tolerant of other people's religions. When are people going to be tolerant of our beliefs? When are people going to be tolerant of our religion? You people offended by Christmas, are you going to be working this December 25th? NO! You're going to wake-up late. You're going to have a big breakfast and hang around your pajamas all day, drinking on egg nog and sucking on candy canes. You're not going to be offended by Christmas then - So why are you offended by Christmas now? I'm sick of it" Bob Well, you know, I'm sick of it too. Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! It's America and others should be tolerant of my beliefs as I am supposed to be of theirs. Am I offended by atheists? Yeah. Do I go on a public protest at city hall? NO.Media sits on this idea of "reporting to you live. It is the 23rd and only 2 more days to shop until HOLIDAY." (Yeah, I shop for holiday)-[sarcasm] So, Merry Christmas - If that Offends You, Get a Life Happy Kwanza, Happy Hannukah, Happy Giftmas And Merry Christmas....If that Offends You, Get a Life

Universal Healthcare? Problem or Solution

18,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance. That is six 9/11’s each year. So what should be done about it since an estimated 45 million Americans lack health insurance? Should a crappy health insurance plan with low rates be offered? Many health insurance plans I come across have an 80/20 offer when it comes to health insurance. But 20% of any hospital bill is still a lot of money. It isn’t that people can’t afford to go to the doctor; I think that many of us can afford that if we scrap up the money. They say the number one cause of bankruptcy is lack of health insurance. There goes some bailout monies. Well, we have a pay or die healthcare system. That is just what it is and so to conclude that we should have universal healthcare is RIDICULOUS. Wait a minute, a lot of what I said, would help those points. Well, rich people from other countries come to America for healthcare because we have the “best” healthcare system in the world. Best, being relative to the highest customer satisfaction. [Okay we don’t have the most customers because of financial issues] Whatever! What do I mean by customer? "The word customer dehumanizes the poor" because you can't be a patient at a hospital without being a customer first.

So, there are several industries that depend on Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc for them to exist and live. The customer service representatives that work for these companies have to spend their money somewhere. Along with the analyst, managers, secretary’s, assistants, and so on, that work for these insurance companies have to spend there money on industries that the rest of us work in. We are dependent in part that they get to keep their jobs so we NEED the commercialism in the healthcare system. We need the discussion not to be universal healthcare for all, but an option to make it more affordable. We need the individuals working in the healthcare field to have a financial incentive as well. When dealing with a solution to this problem is difficult because it comes down to one thing and one thing only; it is called, greed. We could offer more medical clinics in cities and charge based on income, yet that is a band-aid to the issue and not a solution. More medical clinics would give less incentive for people to get their own health insurance, while others would use it for what it actually should be, a temporary solution.

 So we can force a temporary solution on to each issue, like unemployment or welfare, but it doesn’t work; people will take the hand-outs because it is less effort and more reward. Not as much reward as it would be if people strived for their own. Hmmm..now there is an idea. Let’s take that greed and use it against them. Everyone by law has car insurance in Texas. I have seen rates as low as $29.99 a month. That is pretty normal, only liability, but pretty normal to see a side bar street offer of insurance rates like that. So, if they required everyone to have some minimal form of insurance, ideally they would want to go to a higher rate later on. If they made the field of insurance less stringent for business to get into then that could help. Greed in this case would be a wonderful thing. People open up a small shop on the street corner wit a sign that reads: (Liability health Insurance for hospital only - no doctor visits included - buy 1 get 1 free for six months at 39.99. )Maybe offer an incentive to provide health insurance to yourself since the tax code is so messed up anyway. How’s a 5% write off?

But on the opposition to a profit based healthcare system,  if you prefer to pay or die healthcare system because you will always be lucky enough to afford insurance or if you prefer this system because everyone you care about and will care about in the future will always be lucky enough to afford insurance, then by all means, support the $600 bucks a month or more insurance costs. Former mayor of Cincinnati said on the health insurance issue, “How can you claim to love America, if you can’t bring yourself to love Americans?”

(This is simply a discovery process that I wrote 95%  before researching further on the issue of  the healthcare industry killing people for profit or the domineering force against saving people, that includes that 2 year old child that never did anything wrong because the healthcare industry wanted to call it a pre-existing condition. )

Safer with the Patriot Act? (Rambling complaint)

Someone stated, "of course after 9/11, we all wanted to give the government free reign to investigate and question anyone and anything." I am in no way a part of that 'everyone'. In many political blogs I have read or conversations I've had, statements like this have been said. I disagree. Of course, I wanted someone to get caught and go to jail but by no means 'anyone' or 'anything.' I didn't believe in the government then, especially not now. If I wanted anything for the government to do, it was to stop the murdering of people living in the United States because they were of Arab descent. I wanted kids to not to get beat up at school because of their skin tone. Wanting protection at the expense of freedom is no way of the American life at all. The rest of the global world, call the United States of America, 'the free world.' We are anything, but free. Benjamin Franklin says, "They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Both John McCain and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act. That individual also stated, "he may have actually believed a strong central government, with strong powers, was essential in such times to protect us from danger." I disagree. This is beyond outrageous. Never have a centralized government. Who is to declare when people are no longer in danger? Also, "essential in such times to protect us from danger." No, all times are essential. Freedoms are essential and we should have the same and fair opportunities to live a free life as others have before us. Warrant-less wiretapping is not okay. Mail tampering is not okay. The Patriot Act will not stop terrorism. They are not terrorist in their minds; to themselves they are freedom fighters. Look at our history that we have studied in this classroom. The Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, and The Declaration of Independence are documents that show that liberty does not die. These terrorists fight for liberty. No law can stop them in their tracks. So, can we expect for our freedoms to just return? Before answering this, what great legislation has occurred while the people just sat around to wait for politicians to pull a rabbit out of a hat? Women's right to vote? no. The voting rights act? (removed literacy tests and other barriers for blacks to vote) no George Bush said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." Can anyone say loaded question? Scare tactics? I didn't buy into this then; I am not buying into it now. Media addressing our concerns for us by telling us that we should be concerned about Paris Hilton going to jail instead of Senate Bill 1959. No, I am not a part of that 'everyone' and I don't understand how many parts of academia could be. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act of 2001, also known as, The Patriot Act (an acronym) was printed up in the middle of the night. Our representatives were told to pass it without reading it six weeks after September the eleventh. Hamilton would have demanded the reading of this document or most in full. The Patriot Act infringes the constitution and it infringes on our future. We either have a constitution or we don't and we should live by it, period. A classmate stated "We have, in my opinion, given up personal freedom in exchange for more security. My personal thoughts are that it is probably OK in the day and age we are living in, however we need to be ever vigilant that our civil rights are not trampled." I interpret these two statements as, I have given up my personal rights for more security, which is okay, but I need to make sure that our personal rights are not trampled. If one finds it okay, then there is no need to make sure our rights are not trampled on; it is inherit in the constitution. On the other half of the statement, if we do not want our rights trampled on, then it is not okay to lose any freedom for security. She didn’t respond to me on that one.

Marbury V. Madison ??? Supreme law of the Land (ranting)

That other thing is, who is to decide if a law contradicts or interferes with the Constitution's authority? Did the Constitution say Judicial Branch? In an article published at Cornell, they went so far to say that they didn't even explicitly state for there to be a separation of powers, but didn't say explicitly state that they should all be together either. Now, Marshall makes this huge statement on how the Supreme Court gets to decide on Constitutionality on issues. Boom! All of this power that he just granted a group of people with which would be just as corrupt as some elected officials. Lincoln and his executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation. Boom! All of this power. It is like, they sat in this corner pondering to themselves, how can I give myself more power? And someone yells, 'I know destroy the constitution and call it the USA PATRIOT ACT.' This Supreme Law of the Land, where was that phrase coined? It doesn't say Supreme United States Constitution or Supreme Declaration of Independence. And if no state may contradict or interfere with their authority then that is something rather scary. Word choices: pick yours~ Pro-life/Pro-choice and/or Anti-Abortion/Pro-Abortion Now, in South Dakota, doctors are forced "to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” — using exactly that language —" "this past June, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4...allow the statute to take immediate effect. The majority argued that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so." This occurred in June 2008. So, this Constitution is the highest law; who argues with that? I don't know. But who is to tell me that the Supreme Court is the one to rule on it? Do we have a law saying so? The statute was created out of thin air and should hold up like a steel brick floats in thin air. This strategy by the Founding Fathers was to create in their minds to attempt a balance among people. Spending two months without air conditioning arguing over a cause of hope that this document could somehow work. Yes, they left a lot out and thereby flawed, but in order to fix it, certain laws in place would need to be fixed along with certain practices that are in place such as the "Supreme Law of the Land" That is too much power! Executive orders are too much power! These powers were not granted to them in Constitution nor have the people or legislators passed laws to allow it. 1.Posts categorized "Fifth Circuit" 2008 October. 29 http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/fifth_circuit/index.html 2. Cornell Article http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag1_user.html