Can anyone add content to Ahmadinejad's Blog? I try to find out.

I can not express criticism of your rule without first acknowledging my criticism of rule in the USA. I have plenty and so do millions, millions of others.. I freely read these dally in prominent, freely run newspapers, blog posts and openly discussed in public forums and in the presence of the state and federal authority.

How free do those subjects you rule over at the behest of your Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate feel in discussing matters of national interest, leadership, the path of the country, policy and military? Is there a free press, in-fact are there hundreds of free press organizations which are capable of printing even the most scandalous and scathing reports about how people feel about you? Are they allowed to express in cartoon characterizations how they feel about you or your policies? Can they freely wish you were in jail or dead or kicked out of office-impeached? Do you even believe that this kind of decent exists in Iran or are you still hiding behind the perception that what one does not see does not exist? Do you still hold to the belief that there are no homosexuals in Iran?

Do you wish to see a world in which ALL citizens and countries ruled by Islamic Governance? Is there any room in your head, heart or soul for diversity? Is there room for blacks, asians, hispanics, and a myriad of other genetically distinct tribes and varieties of human to inhabit this vast planet of ours? Is the world you envision limited to Islam?

You speak ardently of an Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate. Did not this Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate create out of it's wisdom all these differences amongst people? Is it not then easy to interpret that the plan is to get along with all these different types of people? Could you actually believe it possible this Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate wishes you to cleanse the world of anyone different from you? If not, how do you explain it? How do you explain this diversity from one god?

You must for the sake of peace at the likely expense of your pride and that of your countries, allow IAEA in to verify openly and without any restriction your nuclear intent. I feel for you, the devastating hypocrisy being displayed by the USA and other countries who possess not only nuclear energy but nuclear weapons as well. And to top it all off, it was the USA who first used WMD against another country. Imagine that, that we would have the audacity and temerity to insist upon your compliance!

Well, for one who has been steeped in American media, I have no other perspective save for that of my own wits in deciphering truth from propaganda. With all due respect, your history of proclaiming your desire for the destruction of Israel leaves one with the impression that should you possess these, it would not be without desire to use them. Of course this makes no sense especially within the context of your Almighty God, the All-Knowing, the Most Lovingly Compassionate. But given the climate of rising radical islamic hatred of the west and to whom the west supports, namely, Israel, it is not without reason you are distrusted by more than the USA. All government should be open, transparent. This is especially applicable to this country of mine, the USA. There has been too much cover-up in this administration and it will be gone soon enough. Our president has the dubious honor of having one of the lowest approval ratings in American presidential history. I disagree with plenty he and our near impotent congress and senate have allowed him to get away with.

All I ask as a free citizen of the USA is that you openly declare your belief in the right of Israel to coexist in peace with the islamic community. That you no longer harbor malevolence for the sovereignty of this nation and that you will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons or other WMD with the intent to use them on Israel or another nation preemptively. This countries policy of preemption is intolerable for the majority of free living citizens in the US. Many are even supporting a presidential candidate with more severe isolationist ideologies.

I supported your right to speak freely in this country when you did so at Columbia University. My opinion was even published in the free press. I was also somewhat offended at the reception the Dean of Columbia gave you, but not entirely so. It was imprudent to use that venue to cast aspersions when he should have been openly declaring the greatness of our constitution which allows for the sharing of ideas through free speech no matter who is sharing them. But what can you expect of a politician who succumbs to the pressure to rebuke!

Freedom is a peoples right and an individuals right to exercise in a responsible manner. I hope to hear words of peace emanate
from your mouth, words of hope for a free world, free of war and talk of war. Free of inter-religious hate and free of self-righteous gallimaufry. You must be an example to the world, a beacon unto all nations, that you are about peace and brotherhood, life and liberty, compassion and concern for the downtrodden. Not just about maintaining power. It is the will of the people who are most important in governance. Be a wellspring of hope that all nations will live side by side, each within its own set of beliefs, whether it be religious or not and let us hear of your disdain for the actions of radicals who seek to destroy with no plan for creation.

You proclaim fidelity to your Allah. That Allah is a Most Lovingly Compassionate God. And as you found guidance and truth in Nahjul Balagha, I would expect you exemplify these precepts through actions that reflect on the great words of this text and rule with them in mind just as Allah expects you to keep Allah in the forefront of your thoughts.

Go in peace, Mr. President, lead in peace.

Too early for the zeitgeist of post war liberation, Mr. Brooks!

David Brooks wrote an opinion on why he believes there is less talk about the war in Iraq. I sought to correct him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/opinion/11brooks.html

Mr. Brooks:

I am a bit surprised by the irresponsibility and casual disregard in which you speak of a post war mentality. I haven't heard any end to hostilities, haven't seen all our troops come home yet and haven't heard from any government official what we are going to do with the billions per month we are now not spending on the military sans the rebuilding costs. That is the obvious. For all the general publics ADD, which I might add the press exacerbates with commentary such as yours, the war is still a major issue all debate monitors are questioning about and the candidates are speaking about. Just because the public asks less and less about it might just be a reflection on just how much the press is reporting about it. Or is it the press that is jumping the gun here, fed up with the whole war issue like we are talking or bickering over the price of a used car? Many of us take our lead from you-the press-because that is the purpose of a free press, to keep the public informed of all important and non-important events in a society. If you stop talking we stop listening.

Look, Does the NYTimes have an issue (or you personally perhaps) with the betterment of the situation that has been reported as of late on the ground in Iraq? Because if that is the etiology of your supposition, then I have quite a bone to pick with you all. If the Republicans who supported the deployment of further troop numbers are tasting the fruits of their policy at the consternation of the Dems and that bothers you or the times, I have much to worry about with regard to the integrity-a word much inclined to use these pending primary days-of the press and maybe less from perspective leaders of the free world.

Hey, I am no red stater, not by a long shot. But I won't disparage a policy I might have disagreed with if I find that it might be working. If indeed the build-up is serving its purpose, then REPORT IT. It isn't the papers place to only report what it wants to or in a manner that might slant public opinion.

I hope you give this at least a few minutes of thoughtful reflection. No need to respond unless it means something to you. I rather think it might make a good LTTE.

Some people make me feel like I should read some more.

This R&R is my response, as uneducated as it might be regarding an opinion from Stanley Fish of the NYTimes titled:
Integrity or Craft: The Leadership Question, Here is the website address -

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/integrity-or-craft-the-leadership-question/?em&ex=1197522000&en=1d1e3ac51fc5e5bc&ei=5087%0A

Man do I feel ignorant! I am so happy to have stumbled upon this article and discussion.
Let me get this straight, please…I am against abortion but do not want to forge laws preventing it for various reasons that are sound and principled; what does that make me? Do I have integrity because I maintain my position against it to any one but do nothing legislatively to prevent it? If that is the case, integrity is the lest of a persons qualifications to serve in office. No? Those who genuinely demonstrate integrity wham it matters are those who would throw their bodies on a grenade to save their buddies or fellow civilians. What good will integrity beget them? A metal at their funeral.

A person who says they will do this or that because they believe that this is the way to lead a people and does that, that is whom I want to lead. Better yet, one who inspires people to take responsibilities for their very lives is who I want. A pretty speech isn’t good enough though. I want an orchestra conductor, so we all play in tune and in synch.
Let us effect the changes necessary. For this populace to rely on elected leaders is lazy, unengaged and imprudent. WE ALL KNOW we have been unable to trust our leaders as of late, we all complain about it. Let the people take back the government in a peaceful fashion. Raised voices in unison will grab the ear of those we elected to be in power. We are the ones in power and we have forgotten that.

Until the day comes that we as a people are more concerned with what is going on in all of our lives and not just our life will we ever see the light of day in assuring progress in this United States of America. United we stand, divided we bow down. Postures of supplication must end. We are a people not sheep. It is time we heard our own voices.
As much as we want a G-d to call down from on high to guide us, we also want a strong person to bring us into tune with one another so we can sing the praises of our humanity.

A baptist minister for president?

A baptist minister for president? Why that's as funny as an actor for president. Oops.

I will admit in public that I have no ambition to see a theologian serve as president. While there is no exacting comparison to religious islamic leaders in say, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, to those that would serve in the United States, the prospect of one scares the wits out of me. Notice I did not say hell out of me. Yes, I am an atheist. But before you go, "Well, there you have it!", let me say that it has nothing to do with a belief in G_d or not. It has to do with the way people of faith tend to look at those either without it or of a different faith. At the very least, all atheists are alike but one cannot say that about all religious, G_d loving or G_d fearing people. (G_d=respect for your beliefs). People of G_d seem to possess self-righteousness because they follow a religious tenet and dogma that makes them that way by default. I don't think they can help it. At least I have never meet any devout believers who don't look at me with some sort of pity or disdain or a combination of both. Even my own brother whom I would never have thought would embrace the concept of G_d does so as to affirm the very reason for his/our existence, that without it, there can be no meaning. So be it.

But with the rhetoric of religion and the belief in G_D comes the inevitable,
"I get my wisdom and guidance from G_D". And that is the scary part. How many people have been convicted of violent crimes and declared that G_d made them do it? Don't we find these people really sick? And given the fact that history is replete with scriptural stories of G_d talking to man, man talking and praying to G_d, isn't it a bit disingenuous to be condemning people who believe G_d is talking to them? Isn't that the fervent hope and manifestation of faith of all G_d loving beings for G_d to select them for speaking directly to? If they get their wisdom and guidance from G_d, just how did they get it? I would like to ask anyone running for president if G_D has spoken to them directly. How would you feel about that if their answer was unequivocally yes? What if it was no?

Be it as it may that most laws in western society are derived in principle from biblical and religious doctrine, our government can not be administered from a position of theology. I don't mind if leaders believe in G_d; actually, I really do, but I am tolerant enough for now to accept this as the norm in this society; I just don't want to feel that the basis for their important decisions stem from conversations with G_d or church leaders or reference to the holy scripture. I/we have already been the recipient of a great dose of this from G. W. Bush.

Mike Huckabee frightens me for these reasons. He pardons on advice of minions of the church. What ever qualities he may possess outside of this-wait, there are no qualities outside of this. He is defined by his religion. He is inescapably bound at the hip; it is the most fundamental part of his being that he is a man of G_d and faith and church. The closer we move to a theocracy, the more trouble we will get ourselves into. The sooner we wake up to the fact that critical and logical thinking will help us dig out of the quagmires we are in, the sooner we can all share a world of peace and joy.

Iran is not a nuclear threat, really?

This R&R is a comment I made regarding an editorial written by NY Times columnist, Helene Cooper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/us/politics/08web-cooper.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Cooper,%20Helene

No matter what has been happening in Iran as far as their nuclear ambitions, they are a clear and present danger and must be kept under watchful eye by this government and others as well. In fact all radical islamic regimes are suspect when it comes to this country’s national security as was evidenced by 9/11 here, the tube terrorism in England and the attacks in Spain, Indonesia, ad infinitum. With the possible exception of the United States, and I say this with a sense of cheeky humor, radicalized arab nations pose the single greatest threat to all peace-loving sovereign nations. But because of OIL, we are overly careful in asserting our higher principles of equality for all, preferring to instead offer up our more noble and higher principles of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for political and economic expediency. If we pull ahead in the world in the development of alternative energy sources, we will be the ones all nations will turn to for their energy needs. We will be the new middle east.

Nothing that happens on the democratic or republican side will act as a watershed moment in this political season. Most people have already made up their minds along party lines. I can not imagine any one candidate from either party offering enough substance that is a departure from the usual rhetoric to sway that much opinion. We are a stubborn people propelled into action through a crisis management mentality rather than proactive considerations. I hope all of you do your homework like I am doing; for the first time I feel engaged and compelled to learn about ALL the candidates in both parties.

Brain scans not fingerprints for behavior

This is a response to an article printed in "Slate" online magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2179392/fr/flyout

In the real world of medicine, signs and symptoms that might relate to brain function or rather dysfunction (based on science) are routinely investigated via CT scans , MRI scans PET scans or other. If the scans reveal a physiological basis for the patients presenting symptoms (behavior) then the diagnosis is made. Usually stroke, in the form of hemorrhage or clot. Sometimes chronic vascular changes can be identified as a culprit in changing behavior patterns. Perhaps a tumor or other vascular maliday. The point here is to make clear that the scans are done to confirm or rule out illness, not to discover it without having a history of behavioral changes. In other words, it is highly unlikely that any single person can have a blind scan that will reveal whether they are fit for the duty of U.S. President due to physiological changes especially if not comparable to a previous scan of the same type or known behavioral manifestations. Chemical imbalances in the brain that result in depression, schizophrenia, manic or bipolar tendencies or antisocial personality traits have yet to be proven conclusively and repeatedly demonstrable on scans.

I am not against this investigative research, so long as it is done under the auspices of true science. Brain scans are not fingerprints to identifying etiologies of behavior, not by a long-shot, at least yet given the current technology. But I also have no problem allowing the press to publish preliminary data by any sort of research affiliate as I do not wish to impose censorship on a free press. So long as the information is not damaging to the public welfare and not done for the exclusive purpose of profit, I want to be informed of opinion on all aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This gentleman, Dr. Amen, having graduated from Oral Roberts University, in my opinion, immediately negates any scientific research he may have been doing especially since he claims he is doing this at the behest of god. Perhaps he needs a scan to see if his brain has been rewired into a cross. Enough said.

To emphasize this point, we scan when there are behavioral changes. Hence, one merely needs to look at the behavior of candidates inclusive of their voting record to determine if they are fit for duty. Scanning is the lazy mans way of doing due diligence when one wishes to cast an informed vote for this high position. Lets get real. This country doesn't need anymore reason to sit on a couch and flip channels by having our candidates culled from a series of, at best, weakly speculative cerebral scans.

Regarding Mitt Romney's speech

It can be found at: http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/sns-ap-romney-text,0,2110328.story

Because I am an atheist, I hold a skeptical impression of those running for elected office, stemming from the fear I have about religious tenants and politics not mixing. Even though the law of the land is based upon religious ideologies, I get this sickening worry that people who believe in god will also believe they will hear god talking to them like so many individuals convicted of violent crimes because they confess that god told them to do it. We have pretty much determined that these folks have a chemical imbalance that perpetuates these thoughts and are unable to fight them off unless on medications which effectively, if with serious side effects, eliminate them. I mean all these people with faith in god, a written and oral history of god talking to people, people talking to god through prayer and anyone who suggests that god has spoken to them is deemed a lunatic. It make no sense to me. How is it that god cannot speak to us in the open, only in our hearts? There is no logic (thats faith) and I believe peoples brains are better suited for critical thinking then for faith based thinking which I believe is lazy and ignorant. (it is just an opinion, not an attack)

With this in mind, when a candidate for president of the USA declares that his faith, "...is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We're a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency ", I get plenty fearful. George W. Bush felt compelled to attack Iraq in some sense out of a religious morality, that god himself has required of him to do such a thing as evidenced by what he states himself: I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged how I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And religion is a part of me." In other words, his imperatives are a calling from god to act, as I see it. I do not see that they would be any different for Mitt Romney. Many of you will dismiss that as poor interpretation or reading out of context. Fine. I accept that. But he said what god wants is what his foreign policy is derived from. That is scary s*#t. I wait for your comments and attacks.

Click here to check out
The New York City Photography/Photo Safari Meetup Group!

Click here to check out
The New York Mac Meetup Group!

...the right to life..doesn't this extend to the right to live if healthcare can effect this?

This R&R is in response to an AMNY.com article that appears on its website and in its daily paper edition:

http://www.amny.com/news/local/ny-bc-ny--attacks-health1203dec03,0,6117990.story

This is thee perfect example of healthcare for profit, not for the sake of helping people. Why the heck should people have to fight for their right to adequate and cost-effective healthcare, and it is a right so long as people have a Declaration of Independence right to life, liberty...etc! This is a sham and and a shame and people, especially our elected pols, need to fight back and demand healthcare for all. If France, England and Canada can do it and their economies are stable, why can't we? This 9/11 money was allocated for disbursement, not to be litigated over ad infinitum. What kind of legacy is established when we can't or won't help those in need? Where are the family values in it? I guess I am not apart of your family, is that it? It is no wonder God is written on our money. Its as if to say, God can be equated with money, therefore, God is money, money is our god. Perhaps it would be better to take the words, In God We Trust, off the dollar and put instead: In Profit We Trust. Healthcare for profit is a failure. The HMO managed care model is a failure.(Unless gaged on its profitability). How can a sane society which espouses family values and the best healthcare system on the planet allow people to die because they can not afford to live? Are we all insane? Where is the humanity in charging for basic rights? I have no problem paying a fraction more to cover everyone. Lets get real and prove we care about the citizens of the USA and wash ourselves of the healthcare lobbyists who line the pockets of our senators and congressional leaders.

This R&R is in response to Metro's News article regarding inclusion criteria for the list of those murdered on 9/11

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Toxic_dust_death_outrage/10939.html

I profoundly understand the emotional reaction of family, friends and general citizens regarding the medical examiner's decision not to classify Officer Godbee's death as a homicide. (He was not present during the attacks). This then begs the question: were his traffic directing duties city sanctioned? Was he on payroll for this duty or did he volunteer for this service? Walking into an unknown risk to perform city ordered work as an officer should be well covered under workman’s comp and he should be given comendation for duty above and beyond the call of duty. This does not constitute murder. If he volunteered to stand in that toxic environment, for me, this does not constitute murder either as the ME puts it, and I agree with that delineation. It is because the circumstances of the effects of that cloud were unknown, many feel he is a deservedly appropriate candidate for inclusion on the list of those killed that day and days and years after. It’s a tough call and in light of the fact that trusted pols declared the area safe to return to, I’d say that if he gets included on this list, the family should then sue these pols for murder for prematurely and irresponsibly considering the city’s economic recovery over the health and life of it very citizens who create that economy!

Grin and bear it? Radical Islam fails again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200711/ap_on_re_af/sudan_british_teacher
The appalling depth of hyperactive religious fanaticism will never fail to amaze me. Here, children of Islam named a cute toy the name of their religious hero and the radical element punishes the teacher for this which teaches the children what? There is no fun in Islamic training. There is no tolerance within Islam, a fundamental tenant of nearly all religions. I am afraid I must conclude or at least theorize that these radical Islamists have no clue to what living is all about; they latch onto the only thing they know which is Koran-and they got that way wrong-and duty to religion. If they only were enlightened enough to realize there is no god, religion is a mistake promulgated out of ignorance and lack of knowledge about the physical world and continued into perpetuity out of silly human habit, then how stupid would they feel knowing they lived a lie then punishedfalsely and killed for a mistaken belief? I believe I would kill myself to satisfy my guilt and stupidity.
You all can believe what you want. I see no reason to get so damn uptight about any sort of challenge to what others think esp. with regard to the opium that is religion. We ALL want a utopian world; sorry but religion will NEVER be the yellow brick road to that paradise. Which makes me think that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz may be a dramatic critique of religion and belief in god. I shall research this more and report back. Think about it. Here, Dorothy and her clan were looking for the man with all the answers and what do they find? The man behind the curtain pulling levers and creating a false representation. In the end, wishing for something will get you where you want to go. Then again there may be a flaw in that analysis. Then again , it was all a dream...Hummm...

Giuliani gives new meaning to safe sex!

What really irks me more than the fact that Rudy Giuliani may have misappropriated funds for his extra security while engaging in personal matters, is that he has the arrogance and temerity to suggest that his security is so much more important than yours or mine! Who do these people think they are? Perhaps a president is deserving of full time security but the Mayor of a city? Please. If he felt his security was in jeopardy, then let him spend his money to protect himself, especially within the context of his personal life. We are ALL expendable and no life is worth more than another on principle. This demonstrates the egotistical nature of this man. He leaves me with such a feeling of loathing I could never be convinced he is the person for the job of President of the US.

When elected officials serve the entire good of the people who elect them, don’t engage in kowtowing and graft for personal gain, then they can be deserving of extra protection if their continued presence in office serves the greater good and legitimate threats have been discerned.

Regarding statistics on immigration and its effect on local economys

This is in response to an article in Metro news which can be found on Pg 4 of the 11/27/07 paper: http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/NewYork/20071127/1/4/

Not that I have taken a stand on this yet but if you are to present statistics to support your position, lets at the very least present both sides. Mr. Miller, who by virtue of the way he has parsed his article, is ostensibly pro-immigration and has presented one-sided statistics to prove his point. Where are the expense factors in this report? He makes it seem that this is a net gain when tax payer supported expenses like indigent healthcare, unpaid income taxes, incarceration/public attorney expenses plus a plethora of other unrealized costs to the economy have not been addressed. OK, so they bring $229 billion in; what is the downside? That is the net gain, if in fact there is a gain. If it turns out after a real study is conducted, then we can say, there is a net upside to immigration and reform should be discussed. It is also possible that a real cost/benefit study has been done but Mr. Miller, like so many who use statistics out of context to support their position/agenda simply did not want to present those numbers. And since the Metro decided to present this clearly one-sided argument, I have little hope for a balanced view from Mr. Miller or this paper.

Cruel and inhumane as defined by who?

The death chamber at the Southern Ohio Corrections Facility in Lucasville, Ohio, is seen through glass from the witness room. The state changed its procedures for lethal injection after it took 19 punctures and more than an hour to kill a man with collapsed veins. (By Kiichiro Sato -- Associated Press)
This is in response to the Washington Posts article titled: Lethal Injection to Get Supreme Test. Doubts of Humaneness Bring Case to High Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201254.html
I understand the challenge of the use of lethal injection to be on grounds of cruel and inhumane treatment. But being an RN for 26 years, nothing described in this article offers any proof that these events differ entirely from the everyday occurrences in hospitals all over the country. In every hospital, patients are made to endure the occasional ineptitude of Doctors, Nurses and Phlebotomists in performance of everyday routine venipuncture for IV access or blood draw. Most hospitals have a policy of three sticks maximum until one is expected to desist. Patients will always continue to suffer infiltration of IV fluids causing pain and suffering and in the case of caustic chemotherapeutics, significant pain and permanent physical deformity. The difference between a hospitalized, law-abiding citizen and a death-row inmate is that in the end, the patient will have to live with and remember the trauma-usualy minor and self-limiting-whereas the condemned prisoner will die and thus have no permanent memory of the botched if however successful procedure. How does one define as cruel and inhumane a procedure, endured daily by thousands of legitimate patients, when applied to a fraction of the worst of societies offenders? I find this an argument without logic or merit. If in this example, standards of cruel and inhumane can not be applied to the general citizenry, how can they then be applied to a tiny subset of society? From a purely emotional perspective, I am sure very few care that the last moments of life of a person, convicted of a capitol crime, should be painless. It would seem an eye for an eye vengeance still holds a tight reign on our sensibilities; if the cost of executing a criminal is a few moments of pain, whether mild or excruciating, it is well worth the deleterious effect it may have on our humanity.

It is utopian for us to envision a world where people can actually live up to the standards of those few who attempt to protect, to the greatest degree, the rights of the legally condemned. However and possibly unfortunate as it may seem, people are still guided by deep emotional instincts which assisted in our survival before the enlightenment of logic and awareness of others as important. I laud the efforts of the ACLU, even in this attempt at limiting the suffering of all human beings, especially the despicable amongst us. We, as a democratic majority ruled society, are not quite ready for this, but someday, with the continued persistence of these groups, we soon may be. In the mean time, logic mandates that lethal injection poses no cause to believe that it is cruel and inhumane.

Can not blame Kheil's parents for bad NYPD policy

I am appalled by Tiffany Jones’ AMNY 11/19/07 Letters comment: Police, parents share blame. http://www.amny.com/media/acrobat/2007-11/33858833.pdf Page 26 Placing culpability on Kheil’s mother is tantamount to blaming a woman for the cloths she wore if she were to be sexually assaulted. I work at a hospital and frequently enough, an ER physician will sign out a case for admission to our attending with inaccurate information. What if our attending were to simply accept that diagnosis and continue to treat the patient without making an assessment himself? The police were required to assess and continue to reassess the situation on and after arrival. Prior information is and should be suspect. Kheil’s mother did act appropriately when she called mental health services to assist her son. They came and left. Great! Should we blame her as well for their early departure before assisting the boy? Police shot and killed this boy; his mother, as well, was unarmed. AMNY’s continued publishing of inflammatory and bigoted comments from ignorant people i.e.: Michael Burke’s Letters 11/15/07 The use of guns, leaves much to be desired of this papers editorial department. It should be obvious that the NYPD first responders are trigger happy as a result of horribly inappropriate policies and procedures for such occurrences. A new action plan must be instituted by senior authorities at the NYPD if we are to ever feel safe and trusting of police in this city ever again. I feel like throwing up my hands, but that too, might get me shot.

If you can, you must give public transportation in NY a try, really.

With regard to DOROTHY FUSCO of Huguenot's letter to the editor (http://www.silive.com/letters/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1195385449278750.xml&coll=1) complaining about commuting woes: I have lived on SI since June 2006. Since day one, I have utilized public transportation. I go from the Westerleigh area into downtown Manhattan, then into Brooklyn M-F. I wait for the bus a maximum of 10 minutes, usually 3-5 minutes. On average, it takes 50-60 minutes, 75 minutes on a particulartly bad day. The return trip is always under 1 hour. I read, could compute, play games on my phone, maybe, though less than I would like to, talk to the person sitting-if they are not sleeping-next to me. Why anyone would take their car into the city is beyond comprehension. Infact, I own a car and never use it to commute into the city. I believe if 25% more people immediately began using public transportation, I am confident the MTA would flood hundreds more buses onto the streets and make everyones commute easier. There would be more money for the MTA requiring less reason to raise fares. Stress would be reduced. Life would be more pleasant. Imagine the reduction in road rage, crashes; insurance premiums would go down as a result. It is a win-win situation. I urge all those for whom it is appropriate to immediately begin planning your route to work via public transportation and give it a try. If the MTA could not handle it, then we know for sure their current management practices must be called into questions and the Mayors' support for the MTA would also be suspect. Lets put our elected officials to the fire. Take the bus.

The Taxis For All campaign

I am pleased and wish to laud the actions of, "Taxis For All", campaign (http://www.taxisforall.org/). It is obvious, especially for those whose needs are less than poorly served by the citys 13,000 taxis, that cab access for the disabled is both a moral imperative and a likely financial opportunity. The very fact that there is lousy access both in cabs and mtero trains is the very reason you see so few disabled utilizing cabs and subways. If it were common knowlege that one with disabilies requiring of a wheelchair could easily move about the city with no more delay than is usual for the non-disabled, then we would see a surge in ridership by the disabled. That means money. For those of you who sneer at the idea that it is money and only the prospect of making money which serves as the principle motivation for increasing this access, grow up. That is the way it is. Do not think yourselves above us because your motivation is from your heart to serve the folks that need this. It requires capitol. Just wanting something for the right reason doesn't make it happen. (The road to hell...?) It takes both money and political will, the later of which is often in short supply. Why? Because the percentage of disabled voters per capita is statistically insignificant. This is why the non-disabled need to advocate for the disabled. That takes moral will, often in short supply, as well. I for one stand, or shall I say, couch guilty.

However commendable the "Taxi's for All" campaign is, I do not think it necessary or fiscally prudent to require all 13,000 taxis serving the 5 boroughs to meet the needs of the disabled in wheelchairs. London does not serve the example for NY primarily because their tax base is way different than ours. You are comparing Apples (pardon the pun, wait for it...) and limes-limey? And I apologize because the plight of the disabled commute is no joke. Commuting even for the perambulatory is frequently less than accommodating in NY, but hardly anything valid to complain about considering our mobility status.

I believe that if the city would fund the research to determine the number and whereabouts of those disabled that would like to see greater access to taxis and set these accessible cabs in neighborhoods in sufficient quantities day and night to make wait times no longer than for the non-disabled, we could determine cost to need ratios and begin the process of best utilization practices.

Preconceptions can cost you your life.

My knee-jerk reaction to ANMY’s publication of Michael Burke’s, The use of guns-Letters section, 11/15/07, really burned my sensibilities. How could a free press publish such a sickening rationale for five cops shooting an unarmed black teen? To assume that because you are black and male is to assume you carry a gun is preposterous and dangerous talk. And to suggest this is the reason why the cops opened fire, because they held preconceptions about black males and guns is downright appalling. Is it possible the professional men and women who make up the NYPD operate under these misconceptions egregiously touted as truisms by unenlightened and ignorant folks such as Mr. Burke? If that be the case, then even G_d couldn’t help us so… One more thing. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. In this case, could it have cost a disturbed teen his life? Food for regurgitation!

Take blame for your own mess if you borrowed a sub-prime mortgage.

With regard to Christopher Hayes' analysis of congressional priorities in helping to correct, prevent and or possibly subsidize the unfortunate people dragged under by this wave of financial ruin, (http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/NewYork/20071115/2/16/) let me remind you who is at fault for this mess. The very people who borrowed foolishly are to blame for their own misery. People must be accountable for their actions and motivations in borrowing for a mortgage. Why are people always the victim in these situations? What ever happened to due diligence, doing ones homework; actually reading the contract you place pen and signature to? No one can accurately predict with certainty the movement of a given market and the combination of diminishing property value in conjunction with default rates on ridiculously structured mortgages. But the point is to not count on appreciation, but to secure your ability to maintain your residence should any market correction prevail. It is so easy to blame the crooked, evil greedy lenders for ones ignorance and total lack of foresight. Sure, they did not help the situation, offered little realistic advice on what if scenarios and laughed all the way to the bank. But it is your signature on that document. It is incumbent upon you to know what you may be getting into, not emulating their greed as you sign a mortgage on a house way over your means to pay for. Foreclosure victims, for the most part were just as covetous in believing they could, given the mortgages structure, afford more home than they would traditionally qualify for. Who has really demonstrated greater gluttony?

Another perspective on police shootings of unarmed citizens

There is so much knee-jerk reaction to this most recent police shooting of yet another unarmed citizen. It is obvious that the protocols for handling this type of occurrence are inept and faulty on premise. It seems that the first priority is to kill rather than disarm or deescalate. That basic reality serves to further the notion that life other than self is valueless and self is, foremost, what matters even if your job is to serve and PROTECT. That includes protecting us from ourselves. Mental illness is a distinct characteristic of humans and the human condition. In a fit of rage, this young man goaded the police into doing exactly what it did, shoot to kill. What does that say about the police process and its leaders? It says loud and clear, we come first. Sure, the police commanded the kid to stop. But in his state of mind, a condition the NYPD should be expert at confronting, could not follow commands. Other less lethal measures should have been immediately at hand rather than the excuse that the special response units were getting set up when the events unfolded. Another process/protocol error. One might wish to consider, on another level, that this disturbed individual is a result of our very society. But that is another issue for discussion.

I believe the core mind-set of the NYPD needs to be one of avoiding weapons discharge till the very last possible moment to protect both the life of the officer AND the subject of concern. All this crap I have read about your not being a cop, you don't know what it is like to face this danger, is just that, crap. ALL of us become afraid for our lives at sometime during our existence. Fight or flight is high-school knowledge. Instincts for survival should be mediated if you are going to be in law enforcement. The cop mentality should be to understand this better than most people and act accordingly. Fear of death is and should not be the primary motivation for discharging a weapon. Of course, it is easy in hindsight to quarterback this recent scenario. But look at some of the details. Five cops discharged weapons from multiple points of convergence. All were shielded by automobiles. The subject was some 5-6 feet distant in evening but reasonable street lighting. Police accepted this setting as one of direct and imminent threat to themselves. Could all five have felt threatened so as to shot to kill when they were all at different position from the subject? It is unreasonable to believe that all five needed to discharge their weapons. Were they acting to preserve their own lives or the lives of their co-workers?

I am not anti-cop. I respect the position they place themselves in frequently. But it is still a career of choice and everyone of them knows full well the dangers of pursuing this line of work. And cops are not heros just because they became cops. If you go into police work believing this, you should never have been accepted in training. The police can consider themselves heros if they successfully avoided deadly force and resolved this peacefully. They did not. It seems the actions are a direct result of the police mind-set, a general societal acceptance of and condoning of violence and a lack of enlightened leadership in the NYPD which continues to perpetrate said concepts.

I further suggest that as a society steeped in violent imagery, an antiquated cowboy mentality and strike first preemptive thinking, our police forces merely reflect these societal attitudes. I guess a kindler, gentler America is a concept still too far removed from our nature.

Yet another fatal shooting by police in NY!

http://www.amny.com/news/local/ny-bc-ny--policeshooting1113nov13,0,6385986.story

Wow, Is there no such thing as middle ground anymore? There certainly is no higher ground for sure. It would seem to me that officers in this city as well as in many others fear more for their lives then they do the citizens they swear to serve and protect. I believe a thorough review of police hostage situations needs to be investigated because as in so many fatal encounters, it is likely the process followed that leads to death rather than actual officer ineptitude. Shoot if feel threatened. With so many officers present at the time of the shooting, no one in command had the foresight to train scopes on the boy to see what he was holding! Considering the ridiculous amount of time we spend reviewing a play during a football game, can we not pay half as much attention to actual lives of people in distress? What about non-lethal measures to subdue? Where is the money for that? And all anybody wants is a raise

Gore Full of Hot Air?

If Mr. Patrick Keane (Gore Full of Hot Air-Metro 11/13/07 Letters http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/NewYork/20071113/2/10/) were to have his way, we all should just ignore the consensus of major, credible scientists throughout the world. We should just continue to extort our environment for all it is worth until there is nothing left for it to give. Sure, let’s forget about CO2 emissions caps, unregulated industrial dumping into our waterways; why even bother to clean up oil spills? Hell, let’s all just urinate and defecate right where we eat! Do we all hate ourselves so much that we would destroy all the goodness we can stand for by ignoring the obvious? Does it have to be this generation that finds itself in immediate peril to act or are we way to selfish to consider our own future progeny?

Apocalypse Cow-A response to the Metro.us Voices column on 10/31/2007

I was once a vegan. In the same manner that Mr. Z browbeats us into accepting his way of life is exactly how I was to my family when I became vegan. I upset my children and wife with facts and criticism and the graphic brutality against animals. It did not work. I failed to convince my loved ones to adapt this lifestyle. Now comes Mickey and his hard sell tactics. I have learned my lesson; I hope Mr. Z can learn as well: Cramming veganism down our throats much like food is mercilessly crammed down the throats of geese to make pâté is an unreasonable abuse. In our hearts we know the vegan or minimally, the vegetarian lifestyle is more conducive to better health and a cleaner world. However, how it is approached can make all the difference. We are inherently selfish creatures, egocentric and habitual in character. Change is difficult. Forcing us to do anything is counterproductive. Slow, considerate education is key. It takes time. Obviously all the heart disease, cancer and stokes primarily the result of our food choices have not altered the majority of peoples food preferences. How does Mr. Mickey Z come to believe his method of education will help?

Merril Lynch's O'Neal ousted

Unbelievable! Only in this country can a CEO cause billions of dollars in losses for a company and its stock holders and walk away with millions in compensation for his efforts. How come if I mess up at work, I get fired and yet recieve no compensation for the mess I leave? I think stock holders better start demanding to look at the contracts offered recruited CEO's before they are signed. In this country everyone gets rewarded for nothing, everyone is a hero for simply doing their jobs. Pathetic.

Cops rage causes death of citizen

How does a 4 year veteran of the police force allow a minor right of way driving incident to escalate into the death of a civilian? I always thought that the police were here to serve and protect, not take out their personal grudges on innocent citizens! This officer should be incarcerated for second degree murder, or minimally, criminally negligent homicide. All he had to do was act like an adult and let the driver get his way on this one. Many of us tolerate this daily. Instead he did exactly what he should not have done and antagonized and spurred on the rage by confronting the driver like a child. Where were his skills as a sworn officer or his tactical ability to calm a situation? There is no excuse here. Let justice be done. Look at it like this, he was off duty at the time so treat him like a common citizen rather than as a cop and maybe that will allow justice to prevail. I have so little faith in the police of this city. I bet he fled the scene to avoid the field sobriety testing mandated after a police shooting, hum?

Field Sobriety Testing

I am at odds with PBA President Patrick Lynch’s opinion on field sobriety testing of officers involved in a shooting. He sites constitutional grounds of unreasonable search and seizure and in effect likens an officer's need for reasonable suspicion to test a motorist for intoxication to being tested after a shooting. The distinction I see is that an officer is sworn to uphold the law, and we as citizens are expected to obey it. If the law states that officers must succumb to these required tests, then as sworn officers, they must uphold it. Heroics aside, police shootings are not the norm of everyday police work. Hence, the pulling and firing of a gun for law enforcement purposes must be held to a higher scrutiny, as would be, a crash investigation is to a routine drive home from work. Many people drink and engage in their jobs; police officers are no different and may in fact have a higher penchant/propensity for drinking as a result of the work they do.
I support the departments plan to test officers immediately after a shooting.

Britney Spears, time to get it together

Let me preface this commentary by stating I am no fan of the music of Britney Spears. But for what ever reason, mostly hype promulgated by the media and exploited by her handlers, she became "Super" popular and along with it, a relentless barrage of paparazzi and "Page 6" sensationalism. This for an immature teen, in combination with weak and unguided or sensible parenting and selfish promoters, producers, and likely friends, was a recipe for something she was quite incapable of dealing with effectively. Sure, some can handle it well, few though. But to watch as this child turned adult was mercilessly inundated with the superficial glitz of super stardom, unyielding media attention and only god knows why, recording industry popularity slide into personal chaos while everybody just watched and drooled to report it is a sad testimony to both the people who for enormous profit put her out there and the media for gloriously documenting it.
This is a child of pop culture, a notoriously inept measure of talent and as fickle as a politician running for office. As a result, her demise was treated as fodder for the purpose of selling papers, sound bites and pixel bites. It’s like standing around while someone is choking and debating how to or who should help while the person expires.

I am personally insulted and grossed out by the cartoon depiction of Britney Sears by Sean Delona in the 1/3/07 NYPost: http://www.nypost.com/delonas/delonas.htm?year=2007&month=10&day=03. My goodness how we so superiorly berate and denigrate people for the amusement of others. It is precisely for this type of typical behavior by our media that we continue to stand by and accept as valid this sort of treatment of people. Does Britney Spears deserve to take responsibility for her behavior? Emphatically, of course, in part. But where were her parents, her friends, and her family who no doubted basked in the sun clamoring along side her while watching her fall? What happened to, “It takes a village?” What happened to compassion? My child is at a conservatory earning her BFA in theatre. I can only hope that she never becomes as “Popular” as Britney Spears has so as not to be slammed as ferociously by the media as she has been if she even so slightly screws up. But I also believe in my heart, as does my wife, that if she, “makes it”, she has the strength to overcome the mass media manipulation that poor Britney was incapable of dealing effectively with. Who are we, or should I say you, Sean Delona, to cast such a malicious light on her? God forbid someone should be waiting for you to trip up. I guess a spoonful of arrogance and hypocrisy help the “mediasin” go down!
I personally wish her well

Vox Verax: Faith purifies reason...

Vox Verax: Faith purifies reason...