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?