DrMyers’s Blog

June 5, 2009

An Apple A Day Keeps The Doctor Away

apple
apple

 

Today, there is much more separating a doctor and his patient than a red delicious or granny smith apple. The high cost of health care can be the determining factor in your decision to seek out necessary help from the medical profession for yourself or a family member. Even with insurance coverage (forget including pre-existing conditions), the high cost of premiums, deductibles and co-pays along with prescriptions and any follow-up treatment or testing, have relegated health care to a “luxury item.” Many that have enjoyed employer provided coverage in the past are having it reduced or, in the case of job loss, completely extinguished..

 

Why an I concerned about this? Call it selfishness. I have no health care insurance and suffered a major stroke a few years ago. The residual effects of the stroke are minimal – to me, more annoying than debilitating since I’ve had to make time-consuming adjustments to the routines of daily life. I find climbing stairs difficult but suffer vertigo on escalators so elevators are the mode of choice. I lose my balance easily when the ground isn’t level and still have some difficulty finding the “right” word when I speak. My stroke affected the right side and, being right-handed, I have had to train my left hand to take up the slack. I was not eligible for government assistance because I was not deemed to be disabled. I was told to get a job in Walmarts.

 

I already have a full-time job. I’m the primary caregiver for my 90 year old home-bound father, who has suffered TIA’s and cancer, and my son, who has been diagnosed with bi-polar schizo effective disorder.  The monthly health care costs, even with insurance coverage, are astronomical and I’m worried about what will happen when the money runs out.

 

I tell you all of this not to get sympathy but to give you an understanding why the subject is so imporatnt to me.

 

I have spent many hours researching the subject of healthcare reform and have talked with numerous friends and healthcare professionals about what they perceive their needs to be. I have heard phrases like “choice”, “cost-cutting measures”, “deluge of administation and billing requirements” and “emergency room crowding”. One physician I spoke with talked about his current financial situation. After many, many years of persuing his dream at a costly medical school, he is then saddled with the cost of opening a practice (and all it entails), purchasing medical malpractice insurance at a very high premium and then the fun of hiring a staff to fight insurance companies for what ends up to be a reduced payment for his services. He said the days of “afternoons on the golf course” are long gone. He must work 12 -14 hours a day to keep his practice afloat.

 

So, here’s the dilemma as I see it. We need to come up with a healthcare plan that will reward the hard work and dedication of healthcare professionals while addressing the need for affordable healthcare for all. I haven’t forgotten insurance companies – I just no longer see a need for another middle-man. Cutting costs already…

 

 

~  Michelle

May 14, 2009

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words!: Truth Commission?

tortureIraq7.16831244_stdWhen trying a murder trial, evidence can make or break the decision which could determine one’s  freedom. It is for this cause, prosecuters try their very best to have as much evidence as possible when pushing a jury for conviction. This evidence is important because no one in the courtroom were present at the time of the incident, no one but the defendant; and his/her integrity is in question.  Proving his/her guilt or innocence would be much easier if there were some type of evidence that could paint a clearer picture of what happened during the incident. In many cases, a picture of the crime being commited “in the act” would easily acquit or convict, but having that picture is a rare find to a prosecutor…except for those prosecuting against the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Some (but not all) pictures were released before, giving insight to the treatment of prisoners at the detention facility, but this month the rest of the pictures were scheduled to be released…until The White House told the press that Obama would fight the release of dozens of photographs showing the abuse of terrorism suspects. What’s in the photo’s?

Barack Obama received some unexpected praise today from Republican Senator Graham regarding his decision. Harshly criticizing the President’s stimulus package during the beginning of the administration, and questioning the “Change” Obama touted during his campaign, the Senator praised Obama for choosing to act as Commander in Chief without letting politics sway his decision. In another surprising move, the Senator admitted defeat in challenging the Stimulus Package, and encouraged South Carolina Governor to accept the stimulus money.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU and advocating for the photos’ release, expressed outrage and said the decision “makes a mockery” of Obama’s campaign promise of transparency. “It’s absolutely essential that these photos be released so the public can examine for itself the torture and abuse that was conducted in its name, and so that high-level officials who authorized or permitted that abuse can be held accountable,” ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

A poll done by the Los Angeles Times Indicated:

Should President Obama release the photos showing alleged abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel?

36.1 %
Yes, release all the photos. We need to know the full extent of detainee abuse under the Bush administration.

6.5 %
Yes, but with caveats. The administration should be careful about which photos it releases.

57.4 %
No. Obama is correct: Releasing the photos would put our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in more danger.

2005 total responses

The President has defended his actions by stating that releasing the photo’s “would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals…In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger,” Obama told reporters. “Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.” With a future trip to Egypt planned later this month, Obama is clinging to National Security as his main reason for blocking the release of the photo’s; while also discouraging a truth commission from being formed, which is supported by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

One must wonder, what actions are depicted in these photo’s that would reignite anti-American feelings? It has been hinted that these pictures are not as vulgar as the pictures released before hand. If this is the case, why drag out this painful part of America’s past and get these photo’s out and into the hands of American people.

Witholding  these photo’s only further ignite conspiracy theorists, and clouds the transparency of this new administration with dirt from it’s predecessors. Would these pictures further sway public opinion towards influencing their representatives to prosecute members of the former Administration. A bigger question is; if the previous administration broke the law, why are we hesitant to prosecute? Could it mean that many more representatives(other than the republicans associated with the Bush Administration) were fully aware of the going on’s within the prison, and did not stand up for right?

It has been argued that the descisions made by the former administration, was made swiftly with only the concern of preventing the death of more American lives.  Did this protection warrant us to break our treaty signed with the United Nations; and if this treaty endangers America’s National Security…why do we honor it?

Perhaps that fine General could shed some light within our current plight:

 

General Douglas MacArthur

General Douglas MacArthur

 

 

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.

General Douglas MacArthur

May 12, 2009

He’s Just Doing His Thing!: Miss California Retains Her Crown

 

Carrie Prejean - Miss California USA

Carrie Prejean - Miss California USA

Contests typically draw controversy.  At the present moment, Al Franken and Norm Coleman are currently winding down a very closely run contest for the Minnesota Senate seat.  Some controversies can last for decades, while others can last for days.  There are even instances where the public will never be aware of the controversies surrounding some contests whose results are made public.  

 

The latest Controversy, was in part brought to an end today, but raises some very interesting questions, and could affect the progress related to the agenda of Human/Civil Rights Campaigns.  

Today in a Press Conference, Donald Trump (Owner of the Miss USA/Universe Contest) announced that regardless of the public comments made by Miss California and Miss USA Runner up, Carrie Prejean, that she would retain her crown.  This decision came not 24 hours after the administrators of the Miss California Contest “fired” Ms Prejean, due to “Violation of Contract”.

During the Miss USA Pageant, blogger Perez Hilton , who was described as “doing his thing” by Donald Trump, asked a question regarding her support of Gay Marriage.  She responded, predicated with her intent not to offend anyone,  that in “My America” marriage is defined between a man and a woman.  Today, she was encouraged to reiterate her belief, aligning herself with the current belief of the President and Secretary of State (who was also a Presidential Candidate).  Supported by Mr. Trump (who refused to answer questions regarding his own personal belief on the subject) , Ms Prejean proudly encouraged others to use her experience as inspiration when standing up for their beliefs, regardless of the negative backlash that might accompany it.

A very serious question must now be posed:  When does one’s opinion regarding the Definition of Marriage infringe on the obstruction of civil liberties?  And; will the denial of Same-Sex marriage be looked at in the same manner as we look at inter-racial marriage today (which is still looked upon negatively in certain parts of the country).

One must remember that it was a little over 40 years ago, that it was still illegal for interracial couples to be married.  Leon Brazile (who was a trial judge in the case) echoed the rhetoric of German Physician Johann Frierich Blumenbach who stated, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”  The pivotal vote taken by the DC City Council to recognized such marriages, sparked the legislation that was seen before the Supreme Court, which in turn descended that, “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

During the Press Conference, the President’s view of marriage was touted by both Mr. Trump and Ms Prejean.  Another important question must be posed:  Will President Obama support legislation to legalize Gay Marriage?  If he does not, does this make him as bigoted as those who did not support his candidacy because of his color?

Today, the celebrated “opinion” of Miss California, has placed the Human Rights Campaign in an awkward position.  They could use this decision to press the Gay Marriage Debate to the forefront to gain definite results, or they could regroup and reanalyze their stance on the subject, which could result in the whole subject to be dropped all together.  What do you think?

Perhaps a voice from the past could help shed light on this subject:

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

 

 

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. 

~Thomas Jefferson

Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk: Rush is a Big Boy, he can take it!

1963-streisand-jfk-90For 89 years, the White House Correspondents Association has been hosting a dinner at the Washington Hilton. Some of the biggest names our time have played this event, singing, dancing, and roasting the President of the United States. Jimmy Durante (and his nose) made the crowds laugh, while Bob Hope’s criticism was always taken in stride…he usually golfed with the President. Yakov Smirnoff had a unique play on words that tickled the funny bones of correspondents, while Al Franken was busy making as many friends with the core as possible (he would need their assistance in the future). None of these legendary performances were talked about in the media on Monday, it was the comments of Wanda Sykes and President Obama that took the show.

 

Wanda Sykes made comments during her big night, that some considered a step too far, about one of the most outspoken conservative radio talk show hosts in America, Rush Limbaugh.  A reference to a remark made by Limbaugh at the beginning of the President’s term, caused Sykes to weight in on what sounded like a personal opinion of Rush Limbaugh.  While in a statement Limbaugh stated that he hoped the President fails, Sykes gave her remedy in the hopes that the radio host’s kidney’s would fail.  This joke received mixed reactions, but no one from the correspondence dinner left the event in protest, or even disgust.  Sykes was congratulated for giving a “stellar” performance, and the night went on.  

When does a joke go too far??  One may ask, if the word “joke” is replaced in that question, perhaps we could get to the bottom of a lot of problems.  For instance:

When does policy go too far?

When does bigatry go too far?

When does war go too far?

When does torture go too far?

There are many questions, once again I reiterate, that must be answered long before we question the seriousness of “Jokes” told about a man who is accused weekly of offending at least 1,000 people.  For an example;

On the October 23, 2006 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh imitated on the “Ditto Cam” (the webcam for website subscribers to see him on the air) the physical symptoms of actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease. He said “(Fox) is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act … This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

 With the boldness to criticize the disabled, I think Rush Limbaugh does not need the press to “stand-up” for him…he’s a big boy!

While journalists today debated whether or not Wanda Sykes took her jokes to far; U.S.-born journalist Roxana Saberi was set free today after an Iranian appeal court cut her eight-year jail sentence for spying to a suspended two-year term. Saberi, a former Miss North Dakota, looked thin and tired at Sunday’s hearing. Last week, her father said she had ended a two-week hunger strike and was “very weak.” The judiciary denied she had refused food, and said she was in good health.  

Althought correspondents had the chance today to reflect on a “risque” joke they heard while enjoying some fantasic food and being surrounded by celebrities, Saberi was in prison, refusing food, and listening to the daunting noise of imprisonment…my how our priorities have fallen.

Priorities in the media vary, but regardless of how far the envelope is pushed, comedy will still be comedy.  Perhaps that great comedian could shed some light on how to view the status of this situation:

Lenny Bruce

Lenny Bruce

 

 

 

“Satire is tragedy plus time. You give it enough time, the public, the reviewers will allow you to satirize it. Which is rather ridiculous, when you think about it”       ~Lenny Bruce

 

May 8, 2009

“Let Me Make Myself Perfectly Clear”: I’ll never tell!

 

Nancy Pelosi - Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Nancy Pelosi - Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is a coveted position by many politicians. Landmarks around Washington and the United States have been built to honor these great politicians of old. Hailed for their abilities to turn ideas into law, to craft and implement policies, to keep their party’s in check and voting along the proper lines; this role is an important and influential role that can influence the laws that are passed, and the policies that are implemented. Third in line for the presidency if anything unfortunate happens, one must be careful of who fills this position, and parties select as carefully as possible when electing the Speaker to articulate their voices.

 

In years past, we have had some Mice (Howell Cobb, who led the secessionist movement, and is considered to be one of the founders of the Confederacy) and Titans (Joseph Cannon, who was on the first cover of Time Magazine on his last day in office) who have banged that powerful gavel. A little unknown fact about this position is that one does not have to be serving in the House of Representatives to be elected to this position (which I at times believe would be a commodity). Also, it is not often seen, that one is elected to this position within his/her first session; but this has happened before in the past, and the gentleman who filled this position partly crafted the role as Speaker into what it is known to be today. Henry Clay laid the framework to this the role as Speaker of the House as we know it. Followed by Joseph Cannon and Sam Rayburn, the Capitol now boasts a speaker who is a first for this generation, and regardless of politics or party; The First Female Speaker of the House will open doors for many others to follow through.

Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is serving as the Speaker for the 111th Congress of the United States, and as of late, her integrity (along with many others) has been in question. On April 23, Ms. Pelosi told reporters “we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used.” Rather, she said, she recalled being told by the CIA that the techniques “could be used, but not that they would.” With the growing public’s distaste towards the government’s use of “Water boarding”, fingers have been pointed towards, who knew what, when, and why they not spoke up against it. When asked if they were informed, some members of congress (including Speaker Pelosi) stated that they knew about it, but did no know it was in

use.http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_JusticeMemo_090507.pdf

In a report released by the CIA, Congressional leaders were briefed in detail about techniques used in the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation program. This report displays the most thorough
information the CIA has on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. According to these documents, Speaker Pelosi (who was, at that time, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee) was one of the first to know about the techniques.

One question that should be asked now, is if this “Change” and “Transparency” heralded by these representatives towards President Obama, will spill over to the Capitol Building, and into the halls of congress. Regardless of party, the American People, in my mind, are tired of the finger pointing which only covers the truth behind the misdeeds performed by those sent to represent us. When and where will this be stopped.

 
 While, in this case, Republican members of congress have taken this opportunity to pounce on the Speaker, and stated last month that congress was informed early on about these techniques; these same Republicans were unable to go further on and state that these techniques were not procedures that adequately or respectively represent the United States of America…all except one (and it wasn’t Arlen Specter).

John McCain and Barack Obama DO agree on this statement….Torture (in any form) is Wrong! As he stated in Newsweek, “Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects–in part–the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. “Barack Obama has deemed Water boarding as an unacceptable form of interrogation (or in other words Torture). It is for the safety of our soldiers, currently engaged in battle on foreign soils, and it is to uphold our agreement with the UN, that we do not torture. Regardless of how we feel the “enemy” would deal with Americans as captives; The American Government gave its word to the United Nations and to its people that it would not engage in torture. To utilize these vile techniques, will further ruin the integrity of this country…in which faith is currently being restored day by day.

Still waiting for the Republican Party to find its voice, and waiting for the Democrats in Congress to show bi-partisanship; The American People need a CLEAR answer from both parties, and these answers should be congruent with the agreement we signed with the United Nations.

Nonetheless, we as a nation can make it through this period, and the words from a former Speaker of the House might just help us see the way:

 

Our country–whether bounded by the St. John’s and the Sabine, or however otherwise bounded or described, and be the measurements more or less;–still our country, to be cherished in all our hearts, and to be defended by all our hands. 

Robert Charles Winthrop

Robert Charles Winthrop

May 6, 2009

Capital Hill Acknowedges Gay Mariage: Will the Country?

 

One single voice rang out over the sound system, while the DC City Council prepared to vote in the Wilson Building on Tuesday.  Stating that he had always supported homosexuals, but did not support this bill, Marian Barry was the lone voice in opposition against recognizing Gay Marriage in DC.  Voiceterous crowds outside and inside the building, spoke in favor for and against this campaign, and as the members voted, the room stood still.  With four States supporting Gay Marriage (Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut) DC will be among many state legislatures discussing the passage of Gay Marriage.  San Francisco started handing out same sex marriage certificates in 2004 and since then, campaigns have been launched for gay marriage to be recognized in states across America.

One would ask, what is the controversy?  But, before we tackle that can of beans, we should familiarize ourselves with the current definition of Homosexuality. *As defined by US Legal Definitions:

“Gays and lesbians are homosexuals who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Typically, gay refers to a man whose sexual orientation is to men and lesbian refers to a woman whose sexual orientation is to women. Bisexuals are sexually attracted to members of both sexes.”  During the 20th century, homosexuality was a “taboo” subject, causing some of our most notable figures to stay “closeted” or to suffer ridicule and/or discrimination because of their sexuality;  Montgomery Clift, Jack Cassidy, Barbara Jordan, Thornton Wilder, Gene Robinson, Rock Hudson, etc.

The definition of marriage is not that simple.  Law dictionaries recognize eight different styles of marriage:

Common Law Marriage

Marriage Licenses

Covenant Marriage

Open Marriage

De Facto Marriage

Personal Relationships Common Law Marriage

Marriage Counseling

Sham Marriage

The type of marriage mostly associated with religious organization is Covenant Marriage which is defined as:

“A covenant marriage is a marriage entered into by one male and one female who understand and agree that the marriage between them is a lifelong relationship. Parties to a covenant marriage have received counseling emphasizing the nature and purposes of marriage and the responsibilities thereto. Only when there has been a complete and total breach of the marital covenant commitment may the non-breaching party seek a declaration that the marriage is no longer legally recognized.” (Although this was traditionally used by religious fundamentalist, most churches recognize the individual’s right to seek a divorce.  This divorce is typically recognized in most protestant churches).

To make things even more complicated (as far as religion is concerned); according to the CIA, the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:

§  Christian: (78.5%)

§  Protestant (51.3%)

§  Roman Catholic (23.9%)

§  Mormon (1.7%)

§  other Christian (1.6%)

§  unaffiliated (12.1%)

§  none (4%)

§  other or unspecified (2.5%)

§  Jewish (1.7%)

§  Buddhist (0.7%)

§  Muslim (0.6%

 Within each one of these religious sects, marriage customs are different, and hold different requirements for the parties involved.

Religious circles here in the US (predominately Muslim, Jewish & Christian) view gay marriage as a non-issue because their religious convictions prohibit same sex marriages to be recognized by the Church, Synagogue, or Masque; while non-religious citizens view this also as a “non-issue” stating that due to the separation of church and state, marriage is not legitimatized by a religious sect, to be recognized by the state.  Since the turn of the 21st century, tolerance to same sex marriage has increased, and if continued at the same rate, 10 states will recognize same sex marriage by 2020.  

Sexual Reorientation was a widely used practiced in the United States during the 20th century, and was designed to keep humans from practicing Homosexuality.  Although varied, treatments have included biological, behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, and religious modalities. In recent years, treatments intended to alter sexual orientation have involved religious and psychodynamic counseling.  In recent history, intolerant attitudes and views regarding same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality have been compared to the bigotry attitudes suffered by women in the 1910′s and African American’s in the 1960′s.  In the United States, 45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AZGAINSC, and WY).  

Christianity, which most American’s identify with, has varying views on homosexuality and its acceptance by the church.  Most churches do not accept the act of homosexuality, and views it as a sin.  With this view, the idea of marriage between homosexual is not an accepted practice within their religious sect.  Being that this arrangement is not recognized by the sight of GOD, they also believe that it should not be recognized by the state.  Practicing homosexuality, in the eyes of the church, is a moral and mental decision made by an individual. 

My opinion:  Until Religious Leaders step up to the plate, dialog with politicians, and define the line of separation, that properly checks both church and state, this argument will continue.  Homosexuals seek to have marriage recognized by the state, so they can be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples have (such as insurance, medical decision power, property, etc).  This judgment cannot and should not be clouded by the church’s non-congruent attitude towards marriage, divorce, and/or homosexuality.

Both those in favor have created videos:  Some more satirical, others more serious.  How long this debate will last, one may never know, but James Baldwin did have incredible insight that might just tell us the answer:

Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them. 

James Baldwin


November 19, 2008

House Negro: United We Stand!

Coming from the south, and also being an African-American, my vernacular is usually detected any, and everywhere I go.  East Texans have a “Bite” to their dialect that can not be duplicated anywhere else, but can be detected in any room or in any crowd.  Aint, Ya’ll, Fixin’ to’, sho’nuff, can be the preface to any question you’d like to ask in the American language, yes we southerners have our own way of speaking and talking.  Because of this, their are terms used in the south that have negatively branded the way we think of the people who reside below the Mason-Dixon line.  

Interracial couples are careful when traveling together through the southern states at night.  Due to the history of words stated by some of it’s inhabitants followed by action, some blacks are frightened to sojourn alone through this beautiful part of the country.  That’s right, here, in the 21st century, some have fear of the mindsets held by citizens in which they share a social contract.  Nigger & Coon are two words that can also preface many sentences you might here down south, that still brings my heart to a standstill.  See, I was first called a nigger when I was nine years old as I walked to school.  At 25, me hearing the chilling stories of my 95 year old grandfather, as tears come down his cheeks explaing about a friend of his who was beat to death just for being accused of looking at a white-woman.  My first girlfriend was white, and we broke up in the fifth grade, because her mother did not know I was black, and when she found out, my girlfriend was in a world of trouble.  When a good friend of my decided to date a black guy, notes of folly were passed around the class calling her a “Nigger Lover”, and today I live in Navarro County, a County that in its dark history had a black man Burned at the Stake while thousands of people watched.  America does not have a flawless past, and even in its present existence, there’s a tone of work that needs to be done.  

However, on November 5th, America woke up to a fact that could not be denied.  A black male, of African-decent, who in times past might have been discriminated against or even abused, had been elected to represent the voices of millions who live in this country.  A peaceful transfer of power, Barack Obama represented a tangible dream held by Dr. King, and a hopeful future to all the children born on Nov. 5th.  For the children born on that date, would have been born to never know America’s highest office to be held by one race only.  Yes We Can!, shouted so many people, of different races, of different ages, in different countries, America inspired the world once again, like it had so many times before.  

Today, Wednesday November 19th, a statement was made that sent a signal to all of America.  This statement did not concern the pirates both off of the coasts of Somalia and in the Halls of Congress, but this statement, drew from a southern vernacular, and attempted to formulate a picture of our President, using some paint from our past.  A senior member of Al-Queda stated that not only Our President, but other black elected officials were nothing but House Slaves (Negro’s).  

To those who thought that Al-Queda was dead and or in non existence, this is a perfect example of the lengths they would go to, in getting our attention and the attention of the world.  This statement, although disgracing and vile, can be rebutted only in one way.  For the American People, to stand united, and say Yes We Can!, by no longer tolerating Hate/Ignorance by our peers.  To all of those people who did not vote for Obama because he we was “Muslim” or as I like to call it “Negro”, and to all of those people who were afraid that he was “new and not experienced” or as I like to call it “Negro”, lets band together truly as one nation, and stand behind our President Elect.  

The only way that the statements from Al-Queda will not be true is if we all become house Negros!  Let me tell you what a house negro is.  This term was used to differentiate between the slaves who worked primarily in the fields and those who worked primarily in the house.  The slaves who worked in the “Big House”, worked closely with the slave owners, and either cared for/nursed the kids, cared for the owners in time of sickness, at times holding sexual relationships with the owners, and even being educated at the owners discretion.  The point is, this person was a slave or servant, and regardless of the opportunities given, often times the hatred for his/her owner was suppressed, and his/her duties were carried out.  

I believe if we here in America, stand together, and adopt the servants heart, these statements will not only carry no weight, but will definitely show that our past is behind us, and our future looks more grand than ever.  United We Stand, as servants to one another, pledging our duty to aiding in the well being of our neighbors, our selves, and our nation.  This is our creed, of being a country as good as its promise, and holding true to its word.

November 18, 2008

In The Hot Seat: Say It Aint So Joe…Lieberman

Two Doors Down Coffee House, is a small, quaint coffee house in Corsicana, Texas.  This small country community, only has about 30,000 people buzzing around on the streets, but this establishment has added life, hope, and a sense of home to all the artistic, unique, old & young…this place does not discriminate, but it loves & welcomes all.  Yesterday, as I checked my email, an older gentleman who I’ve known for a few months, walked in and was glad to see I had come back to town.  “If you had not of gone to Florida, my guy would’ve won”, he said as the patrons all broke into laughter.  Texans, will be Texans, and lets face it, Obama did not win Texas!  No one was upset, no one was offended, at the coffee house, my involvement within this election was appreciated by both sides.  At the coffee shop, we got a good laugh and took it all in stride.

Today on the Hill, there was no laughing matter.  “To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement Friday.  When Joe Lieberman dawned the steps of the capital this morning, he new he was going to the Hot Seat.

Before we examine the outcome, lets take a look at the track record of Sen. Leiberman.  Sen. Leiberman assumed office January 3, 1989.  It is very, very safe to say that Sen. Leiberman had pleased his constiuents back in Connecticut.  Lieberman made history by winning the largest landslide ever in a Connecticut Senate race, drawing 67 percent of the vote and beating his opponent by more than 350,000 votes.  A “Maverick” in his own right, he was one of the first Democrats on the Hill to address President Clinton’s involvement with Monica Lewinsky.   So respected, Lieberman accepted the offer coveted by many but attained by few, the VP Spot on the 2000 Democratic Ticket.  After the loss, he became chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, again a key spot of trust and responsibility within the Democratic Party.  In 2004 he scored 88 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign, but lost 5 out of 5 primaries, and ended his bid for the White house.

Something happened in 2006 that shocked everyone.  After loosing the primaries in his state, he ran as an Independent despite advice from Howard Dean, and Hillary’s support for the Party Primary Winner.  Joe worked his magic, and won his old seat, pledging to sit as a Democrat in the Senate.  And sat he did, he played along just fine with everyone.  The dust had just began to settle, more attention was being focused on another hard fought senate seat by a young up and comer, the Democratic Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.  Ten months and seven days after Barack Obama threw his hat in the ring for President, Joe Lieberman decided it was time to endorse.  And what was thought to be, another hard fought endorsement between several Democratic Contestors, the endorsement went to another man who had previously fought hard to win a bid for the White House as well…John McCain.

Shocked, bewildered, confused, and frankly astonished at his actions, time could not stop nor did he take it back.  The months began to fly by, and as Hillary debated Barack, John McCain sowed up the nomination for the Republican Party with his now “Good Friend”, Joe Lieberman by his side.  What was amazing, is the number of people who were just entering the political process for the first time, who would email me confused at why Democrats would be upset with Joe, “he just moved from being a Republican to being an Independent right?”.  “Say it Aint So Joe…Lieberman” would be the response from the person realizing that we had a rogue Democrat on our hands, and traveling on the Straight Talk Express, Joe was preaching the Gospel of Reform, and Country First.  If you think back hard enough, I think most Americans were more surprised that John McCain did not choose Joe Lieberman for VP pick, rather than why he chose Sarah Palin.  To be honest, the shock for both are equal.  Nonetheless, Joe made his bed and took a long nap in it.  

On November 4th, when the count was in, most constituents surely thought Joe was out, and that was it.  But Say It Aint So Joe…Lieberman, he worked that magic once again but it didn’t work.  For once, there was nothing he could do to justify the neglect of his faithfulness to his pledge and promise to the Democrats in the party.  Blazing away, his seat was awaiting for him this morning, and only the “God’s” could tell what could happen.  Friday, one Senator commented that keeping Joe in his seat was not the change we could believe in, and if this was “Business as Usual”, Joe would would probably be taking up plumbing for a trade, and leaving the politicking to more loyal servants.  

Something amazing happened today on the Hill, and I believe it speaks volumes over all the rhetoric you hear, and the assumptions we make about the filth in politics.  Since November 4th, this country has started practicing a principle that I thought was forgotten…the principle of ONE!  One Nation, Indivisible, not divided, no holding grudges, moving on, working together, looking forward not backward.  It’s becoming more of an atmosphere of “We” the people, not just the people working independently.  Yesterday rivals sat down and met, today Joe Lieberman retained a key spot within the party, and tomorrow the news will report that although not always pleased or happy with each other, United we continue to stand.

Frankly, as a Democrat my self, I am quite astonished that the hot seat didn’t incinerate the Senator:  Say It Aint So Joe…Lieberman.

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69,188 other followers