Thursday, November 24, 2005
New York has one of the highest state income tax rates in the Union. I wouldn't mind so much where it not for the fact that an inordinate percentage of my tax money, instead of being used to provide needed services, goes, instead, to fill the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, lobbyists and 'campaign funds' of elected state representatives.
While a majority of states allow Medicare and Medicaid to supply only generic drugs, when available and equivalent to prescription drugs, New York wastes billions of dollars at the behest of special interest groups. Though I may be willing to share some of my hard-earned money with the less fortunate, I am certainly not willing to do so with large multinationals, fat lobbyist and state senators and representatives I do not chose to support.
Legislators are unlikely to legislate against themselves but I believe there should be a popular movement to require laws that will hold them accountable for their misdeeds; if they waste taxpayers' money deliberately in order to favor or get quid pro quos from special interest groups, they should be made to give back these fund or, if they cannot, to serve prison time.
I realize that this is wishful thinking but hey, one can at least wish
While a majority of states allow Medicare and Medicaid to supply only generic drugs, when available and equivalent to prescription drugs, New York wastes billions of dollars at the behest of special interest groups. Though I may be willing to share some of my hard-earned money with the less fortunate, I am certainly not willing to do so with large multinationals, fat lobbyist and state senators and representatives I do not chose to support.
Legislators are unlikely to legislate against themselves but I believe there should be a popular movement to require laws that will hold them accountable for their misdeeds; if they waste taxpayers' money deliberately in order to favor or get quid pro quos from special interest groups, they should be made to give back these fund or, if they cannot, to serve prison time.
I realize that this is wishful thinking but hey, one can at least wish
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Amber Ridinger, age 13, recently had her Bat Mitzvah in Miami. Her parents claim that Ja Rule, a platinum-selling rapper, and Ashanti are family friends that entertained the guests for free. Props to them for having such cool friends who were willing to oblige.
I cannot help but wonder, however, why Amber was Bat Mitzvahed at 13 when, for girls, the usual age is 12. Was it the first Saturday the "family friends" were available or did it take that long to fit the $27,000 Dolce & Gabbana dress she was wearing and ready the expensive-looking (was it real or paste) diamond tiara, necklece and bracelet cum ring?
What will she do for het sweet sixteen? And what for her wedding?
I must confess that I find such ostentation disgusting, an insult to the hundreds of thousands that are homeless and jobless in the wake of Katrina, not to speak of the tens of millions of other unfortunates throughout the world.
This is not, of course, Amber's fault. She just had the misfortune of being born to tasteless parents who seem to live for show. Someday, however, she will have to leave behind the make-belive world that shields her now and face the grim reality of eveyday life: I hope she will have the character to overcome her terrible upbringing and avoid living a life that will be empty, except for misery.
Her parents represent the worst element in our society, worse even than the criminals that suffers from mental desease or are so emarginated that they no longer care. Should we breed a sufficient critical mass of their likes we are certain to accelerate our demise.
A Bat Mitzvah is meant to be a religious celebration marking a young girl's passage into womanhood. In preparation, she is given a basic religious education and, after demonstrating that she has acquired it, she should celebrate the occasion with her friends, opening presents, playing games and eating.
There is no room for ostentatious displays, sexy dresses, grown-up jewllery and entertainment the cost of which could easily suffice to serve many thousands of Thanksgiving meals to the poor.
Shame on you, Ridingers: you give Jewishness a bad name!
I cannot help but wonder, however, why Amber was Bat Mitzvahed at 13 when, for girls, the usual age is 12. Was it the first Saturday the "family friends" were available or did it take that long to fit the $27,000 Dolce & Gabbana dress she was wearing and ready the expensive-looking (was it real or paste) diamond tiara, necklece and bracelet cum ring?
What will she do for het sweet sixteen? And what for her wedding?
I must confess that I find such ostentation disgusting, an insult to the hundreds of thousands that are homeless and jobless in the wake of Katrina, not to speak of the tens of millions of other unfortunates throughout the world.
This is not, of course, Amber's fault. She just had the misfortune of being born to tasteless parents who seem to live for show. Someday, however, she will have to leave behind the make-belive world that shields her now and face the grim reality of eveyday life: I hope she will have the character to overcome her terrible upbringing and avoid living a life that will be empty, except for misery.
Her parents represent the worst element in our society, worse even than the criminals that suffers from mental desease or are so emarginated that they no longer care. Should we breed a sufficient critical mass of their likes we are certain to accelerate our demise.
A Bat Mitzvah is meant to be a religious celebration marking a young girl's passage into womanhood. In preparation, she is given a basic religious education and, after demonstrating that she has acquired it, she should celebrate the occasion with her friends, opening presents, playing games and eating.
There is no room for ostentatious displays, sexy dresses, grown-up jewllery and entertainment the cost of which could easily suffice to serve many thousands of Thanksgiving meals to the poor.
Shame on you, Ridingers: you give Jewishness a bad name!
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The first info about Judge Samuel Alito Jr. casts doubts about his position on abortion. Will he side with those on the Court who would restrict seriously a woman's right to choose or, indeed, overturn Roe vs. Wade? If past confirmation hearings are indicative, it is unlikely that we will find out until after he will have been confirmed and after he will have cast an actual vote.
The question Democrats must ask themselves is: "Is this a battle worth fighting, against a nominee who is brilliant, experienced and, certainly, has all the necessary credentials?"
Their only chance to keep Judge Alito off the Court is with a filibuster but, should they choose this route, the Republicans have enough votes to do away with the right to filibuster and confirm the President's nominee with a simple majority vote. Is it worth it? If they believe thay can do better, I think it is since having a right that cannot be used is tantamount to not having it.
In past years I have been annoyed, often, by senators spending days, or weeks, reading the telephone directory and other such exhalting material. Nonetheless, the right to filibuster was aimed at protecting a minority from legislation or confimations they considered unacceptable. I have come to the conclusion that it is a necessary evil in the checks and balances puzzle and that its preservation should not be threatened every time one party decides to use it. Abolition of the right to filibuster should require a two thirds majority vote in the Senate and both parties would do well to put this on their agenda. Not doing so may come back to bite either.
Now back to Supreme Court nominations.
There are two ways to play the game. Either there is an agreement that, regardless of the political affiliation of the President, nominees will always be highly qualified and middle-of-the-road (my preference) or an understanding that each President who can fill a vacancy will do so with a nominee who shares his political convictions.
The Democrats have tried, whenever they could, to load the Court with big "L" liberals; why shouldn't the Republicans try to do the same with ultra conservatives? Both sides can play the same game; thus, when one cries foul, I am not impressed, though, in this instance, I would certainly worry about the loss of a woman's right to choose. Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, I suspect that the Democrats would get a substantial majority in the following elections, thus being able to legislate the right to abortion. This arm wrestling between the Legislative and the Judiciary branches is far from ideal but may be a reality we will have to live with, in view of our society's polarization.
Ever since federation, each branch of government has tried, at different times, to usurp some powers from the others. The truth is that we have a great Constitution and that the Executive should limit itself to execute, the Legislative to legislate and the Judiciary to interpret and defend the Constitution. It's a bad thing when any of them tries to expand its mandate.
As I see it, all these fights are secondary: our main effort should be to find a full proof way to keep God out of politics. Somehow, we will find a way to agree on most issues but it's impossible to compromise with someone who has the delusion that God speaks to him/her and that he/she is doing God's work. Our forefathers came here to enjoy religious freedom and that is the most important value we must preserve.
One last thought. With Judge Alito, the Supreme Court is leaning again towards becoming a white, good ole boys club; choosing him underscores Dubya's obvious bad faith (please excuse the pun): right wing or moderate, he should have nominated one of the many qualified women or Hispanic candidates.
The question Democrats must ask themselves is: "Is this a battle worth fighting, against a nominee who is brilliant, experienced and, certainly, has all the necessary credentials?"
Their only chance to keep Judge Alito off the Court is with a filibuster but, should they choose this route, the Republicans have enough votes to do away with the right to filibuster and confirm the President's nominee with a simple majority vote. Is it worth it? If they believe thay can do better, I think it is since having a right that cannot be used is tantamount to not having it.
In past years I have been annoyed, often, by senators spending days, or weeks, reading the telephone directory and other such exhalting material. Nonetheless, the right to filibuster was aimed at protecting a minority from legislation or confimations they considered unacceptable. I have come to the conclusion that it is a necessary evil in the checks and balances puzzle and that its preservation should not be threatened every time one party decides to use it. Abolition of the right to filibuster should require a two thirds majority vote in the Senate and both parties would do well to put this on their agenda. Not doing so may come back to bite either.
Now back to Supreme Court nominations.
There are two ways to play the game. Either there is an agreement that, regardless of the political affiliation of the President, nominees will always be highly qualified and middle-of-the-road (my preference) or an understanding that each President who can fill a vacancy will do so with a nominee who shares his political convictions.
The Democrats have tried, whenever they could, to load the Court with big "L" liberals; why shouldn't the Republicans try to do the same with ultra conservatives? Both sides can play the same game; thus, when one cries foul, I am not impressed, though, in this instance, I would certainly worry about the loss of a woman's right to choose. Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, I suspect that the Democrats would get a substantial majority in the following elections, thus being able to legislate the right to abortion. This arm wrestling between the Legislative and the Judiciary branches is far from ideal but may be a reality we will have to live with, in view of our society's polarization.
Ever since federation, each branch of government has tried, at different times, to usurp some powers from the others. The truth is that we have a great Constitution and that the Executive should limit itself to execute, the Legislative to legislate and the Judiciary to interpret and defend the Constitution. It's a bad thing when any of them tries to expand its mandate.
As I see it, all these fights are secondary: our main effort should be to find a full proof way to keep God out of politics. Somehow, we will find a way to agree on most issues but it's impossible to compromise with someone who has the delusion that God speaks to him/her and that he/she is doing God's work. Our forefathers came here to enjoy religious freedom and that is the most important value we must preserve.
One last thought. With Judge Alito, the Supreme Court is leaning again towards becoming a white, good ole boys club; choosing him underscores Dubya's obvious bad faith (please excuse the pun): right wing or moderate, he should have nominated one of the many qualified women or Hispanic candidates.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Now the NBA wants its players to dress in suits and keep any and all bling under cover. Some say this is racist: I just think it's just stupid.
Who are they kidding? Big sport, professional basketball included, is no longer plain competition: it's entertainment provided by athletes. Bling, odd clothing, being in everyone's face, sleeping on the road with groupies is all part of the show. We should stop kidding ourselves into believing that today's gladiators are more decent than those of yesteryear. Of those among them who are awarded a college degree, few actually get any education and the badder they are the better they become known: just as in professional wrestling. For true sport with lots of heart and little steroids there is only high school games, as most big school college athletes are mercenaries who do not belong in an institute of higher learning.
Who are they kidding? Big sport, professional basketball included, is no longer plain competition: it's entertainment provided by athletes. Bling, odd clothing, being in everyone's face, sleeping on the road with groupies is all part of the show. We should stop kidding ourselves into believing that today's gladiators are more decent than those of yesteryear. Of those among them who are awarded a college degree, few actually get any education and the badder they are the better they become known: just as in professional wrestling. For true sport with lots of heart and little steroids there is only high school games, as most big school college athletes are mercenaries who do not belong in an institute of higher learning.
I have been off the net for some three months. First my father's 100th birthday and then our daughter, Selina's, wedding and preparation for our younger daughter, Brett's, wedding have kept me busy. I might have waited until after wedding No. 2 but two thing have come up that have really irked me. Here is the first.
Democrats are aquiver about the law Congress just passed, protecting gun manufacturers from being sued by victims, or relatives of victims, of gun fire. I wish they were more honest.
There is little or nothing positive I can say about the Bush administration and I have a visceral dislike for the NRA; but this may be the only good law President Dubyia will sign in eight years. Unless I am mistsken, it is legal to produce and market gun in this country and we have yet to figure out how to manufacture a gun that will be more likely than others to cause its owner to shoot at someone. Opposition to this law is a patent case of lawyers wanting the opportunity to use the misfortune of others in order to sue the deepest pockets and earn big money. If the Democrats want to stop being a shadow of a party they better start having intelligent views and the courage to put them forth. Namely, what we must push for is a ban of all assault weapons and the registration of all weapons, including hunting guns. To puchase a weapon, one should be cleared first by the local police and by the FBI, should be responsible for his/her weapon and denounce immediately to the police any theft or loss thereof, returning to a licenced dealer, the police or another licenced weapon owner any weapon he or she wishes to dispose of.
What's urgent is to regulate weapon ownership and posession, not to find some poor innocent suckers to pay up after a crime that has already been committed, mostly to benefit the bank accounts of lawyers. Too bad that the Republicans won't close the circle by passing a strong weapon control law.
Democrats are aquiver about the law Congress just passed, protecting gun manufacturers from being sued by victims, or relatives of victims, of gun fire. I wish they were more honest.
There is little or nothing positive I can say about the Bush administration and I have a visceral dislike for the NRA; but this may be the only good law President Dubyia will sign in eight years. Unless I am mistsken, it is legal to produce and market gun in this country and we have yet to figure out how to manufacture a gun that will be more likely than others to cause its owner to shoot at someone. Opposition to this law is a patent case of lawyers wanting the opportunity to use the misfortune of others in order to sue the deepest pockets and earn big money. If the Democrats want to stop being a shadow of a party they better start having intelligent views and the courage to put them forth. Namely, what we must push for is a ban of all assault weapons and the registration of all weapons, including hunting guns. To puchase a weapon, one should be cleared first by the local police and by the FBI, should be responsible for his/her weapon and denounce immediately to the police any theft or loss thereof, returning to a licenced dealer, the police or another licenced weapon owner any weapon he or she wishes to dispose of.
What's urgent is to regulate weapon ownership and posession, not to find some poor innocent suckers to pay up after a crime that has already been committed, mostly to benefit the bank accounts of lawyers. Too bad that the Republicans won't close the circle by passing a strong weapon control law.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
I don't understand this Robert Novak thing. Is he being protected by the administration for beeing right wing and taking a shot at someone the administration was displeased with?
If I understand correctly, outing a CIA operative may be a criminal act. If so, why has Novak not been prosecuted? Why is he not in jail? Anyhow, in view of the fact that he has not revealed his deal and has not come out in defense of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, it is my opinion that the journalistic profession should borrow the well-rehersed inflated rat from the unions and place it in front of his home. It was despicable (besides being illegal) to out a CIA operative and getting away with it while a collegue who didn't do the outing is in prison is even more so. Someone should see to it that his career be over - forever: no big loss.
However, I cannot sympathize with Judith Miller and I believe that, while the New YorkTimes's defence of her demonstrates admirable solidarity and was to be expected, she has made her own bed. I believe firmly in the First Amendment and in the journalists' necessity to protect their sources. Nonetheless, the name of a CIA operative is not "need to know" public information and I believe that, when approached by a 'leaker' with this kind of information, a responsible journalist should indicate lack of interest and point out to the lack of relevance of such information, making it clear that he or she is not prepared to be an accomplice in a crime and protect the source of this type of information.
I am sorry that Judith Miller is in jail and Robert Novak isn't. It is most unfair. But I wouldn't hesitate to out an s.o.b. who wants to use me to settle a political score: go to jail for him? Never!Let him go to jail, as he well deserves.
If I understand correctly, outing a CIA operative may be a criminal act. If so, why has Novak not been prosecuted? Why is he not in jail? Anyhow, in view of the fact that he has not revealed his deal and has not come out in defense of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, it is my opinion that the journalistic profession should borrow the well-rehersed inflated rat from the unions and place it in front of his home. It was despicable (besides being illegal) to out a CIA operative and getting away with it while a collegue who didn't do the outing is in prison is even more so. Someone should see to it that his career be over - forever: no big loss.
However, I cannot sympathize with Judith Miller and I believe that, while the New YorkTimes's defence of her demonstrates admirable solidarity and was to be expected, she has made her own bed. I believe firmly in the First Amendment and in the journalists' necessity to protect their sources. Nonetheless, the name of a CIA operative is not "need to know" public information and I believe that, when approached by a 'leaker' with this kind of information, a responsible journalist should indicate lack of interest and point out to the lack of relevance of such information, making it clear that he or she is not prepared to be an accomplice in a crime and protect the source of this type of information.
I am sorry that Judith Miller is in jail and Robert Novak isn't. It is most unfair. But I wouldn't hesitate to out an s.o.b. who wants to use me to settle a political score: go to jail for him? Never!Let him go to jail, as he well deserves.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
So, finally, the Rottweiler has married the Invertebrate. Prince of Wales? It portrays Wales as the home of sleaze . If I were Welsh I would request that Charles the Mollusk relinquish the title. Maybe the Prince of No Character?
If he loved the Rottweiler, why would he, marry young Diana, knowingly ruining her life? How could he love one woman and marry another? He just wanted it all: both a love forbidden (for an heir to the throne) and a shot at the throne itself. His behavior has been inexcusable and youth is no justification.
Having produced two potential heirs and having set off the long list of events that precipitated his wife's death, he feels, now, that he can eat the cake and have it too.
He and Camilla deserve each other and the time has come for him to make an honest woman out of her (good luck!)However, he should, at least, have the decency to renounce the throne. I couldn't care less if a king is divorced and/or married to a divorcee. But anyone who has behaved like Charles has should be shunned by decent people and has no business being king, or holding any other important public office. He should disappear and live in the shade, where he belongs.
If he loved the Rottweiler, why would he, marry young Diana, knowingly ruining her life? How could he love one woman and marry another? He just wanted it all: both a love forbidden (for an heir to the throne) and a shot at the throne itself. His behavior has been inexcusable and youth is no justification.
Having produced two potential heirs and having set off the long list of events that precipitated his wife's death, he feels, now, that he can eat the cake and have it too.
He and Camilla deserve each other and the time has come for him to make an honest woman out of her (good luck!)However, he should, at least, have the decency to renounce the throne. I couldn't care less if a king is divorced and/or married to a divorcee. But anyone who has behaved like Charles has should be shunned by decent people and has no business being king, or holding any other important public office. He should disappear and live in the shade, where he belongs.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
New York City is the melting pot of the world. About 150 different languages are spoken here.
Immigrants come in waves from the four corners of the world and the successful ones climb, slowly, up the ladder of affluence.
One of the entry level jobs, for anyone over 18 with a driving license, is taxi driver and the language of record changes every few years. Over the 20 plus years I have lived in Manhattan, large numbers of taxi drivers have spoken, successively, Hebrew, Rumanian, Spanish, Laotian, French Haitian and, now, any number of Indian, Pakistani, Afghan and African dialects.
Their English is invariably bad and one must tell them: "Sixty street - six zero." Sixtieth, however clearly enunciated, will bring one, in all likelihood, to sixteenth street. I am all in favor of giving new immigrants an opportunity and it is not easy, for an adult, to learn a new language quickly. Consequently, I have adapted to the situation and I make certain that my directions are clear enough for a deaf five-year-old to understand.
What I am not willing to adapt to are the drivers' telephone conversations. Nine out of ten are constantly talking on their cell. I have to repeat "sixty - six zero -" numerous times before they pay attention. I have to put up with a continuous foreign babble - often loud - for the duration of the ride. They are so taken by their conversations that they miss turns, don't hear any requests to slow down, or for change in destination, stay in the more trafficky lane so as better go on talking and often drive beyond the destination.
Where is the Taxi and Limousine Authority? Are they totally blind (and deaf) to what is going on?
Taxi drivers should be forbidden from conversing on the phone, with or without an ear piece, while the meter is running. In Manhattan's traffic conditions, with their poor English and with what I have to pay at peak hours, I should be entitled to be driven in silence, by someone who pays attention to the road and to where he is taking me.
Immigrants come in waves from the four corners of the world and the successful ones climb, slowly, up the ladder of affluence.
One of the entry level jobs, for anyone over 18 with a driving license, is taxi driver and the language of record changes every few years. Over the 20 plus years I have lived in Manhattan, large numbers of taxi drivers have spoken, successively, Hebrew, Rumanian, Spanish, Laotian, French Haitian and, now, any number of Indian, Pakistani, Afghan and African dialects.
Their English is invariably bad and one must tell them: "Sixty street - six zero." Sixtieth, however clearly enunciated, will bring one, in all likelihood, to sixteenth street. I am all in favor of giving new immigrants an opportunity and it is not easy, for an adult, to learn a new language quickly. Consequently, I have adapted to the situation and I make certain that my directions are clear enough for a deaf five-year-old to understand.
What I am not willing to adapt to are the drivers' telephone conversations. Nine out of ten are constantly talking on their cell. I have to repeat "sixty - six zero -" numerous times before they pay attention. I have to put up with a continuous foreign babble - often loud - for the duration of the ride. They are so taken by their conversations that they miss turns, don't hear any requests to slow down, or for change in destination, stay in the more trafficky lane so as better go on talking and often drive beyond the destination.
Where is the Taxi and Limousine Authority? Are they totally blind (and deaf) to what is going on?
Taxi drivers should be forbidden from conversing on the phone, with or without an ear piece, while the meter is running. In Manhattan's traffic conditions, with their poor English and with what I have to pay at peak hours, I should be entitled to be driven in silence, by someone who pays attention to the road and to where he is taking me.
