Healthcare Reform #1

I know the subject of healthcare is boring to many people but it is an issue which I think many of us realize must be addressed and acted upon. We need to listen carefully to the plans the presidential candidates are promoting and how each plan will impact us as individuals, as families, as states and as a country.

Now there are right and wrong ways to reform our healthcare system and I have written about the many ways it can be reformed without resorting to “socialized medicine” which is NOT an option as far as I am concerned.

The best way to discuss the subject is to explore why and how we got to this untenable position with our healthcare system. This will also help me get it straight in my own head so please humor me.

Employers started offering health care benefits to their employees during WWII. During the war wages were frozen at a certain level and the only way one employer could persuade an employee to work for him instead of another employer was by giving paid health benefits.

Previous to that people paid their medical bills in cash to the doctor or in chickens depending where you lived. Some insurance was available as early as 1910. Blue Cross began to offer hospital insurance in the 1930s. Truman proposed a national health program and was called a communist.

Medicare and Medicaid were introduced by Johnson in the 1960s and covered the health of the very poor and the over 65 elderly. There were over 700 health insurance companies in the country at that time. Nixon once proposed a national health insurance program and was shot down.

Hillary tried to push a socialized medicine plan during the Clinton years and was really shot down. She has since realized that this country does not want and will not stand for a socialized medicine plan.

The dilemma we are facing now is that healthcare expenses / costs have sky rocketed and many employers are dropping medical coverage or requiring the employees to pay more and more of the monthly premium (in my company a family plan is now over $1,000/month).

Individual states have mandated what medical insurance policies must cover making those policies very expensive and unaffordable to many who then opt to remain uninsured. The uninsured use the services of hospital emergency rooms which are very expensive and since the uninsured usually cannot pay, the insured get charged a surcharge when they seek medical services.

The uninsured are usually identified as young males with jobs. They do not want to spend their beer money on insurance when they are convinced they will not get sick or injured – hence the large ER bills.

Also, look at the tax implications. Employers get a tax break for offering health insurance. Individuals that are covered by an employer’s health plans also get a tax break because the health insurance amount is not counted as part of the individual’s compensation so it is a tax free benefit.

Individuals who have to buy their own health insurance do not get a tax break; they can deduct their medical expenses up to a percentage of their salary though.

Individuals that are covered by their employer see it as a free gift to misuse as often as they want – after all they don’t have to pay for it – right?

These are some thoughts about our current non-system. Next we will see what can be done to actually create a workable system.

Please God make it rain!

Recently the governor of Georgia, a fellow named Sonny Perdue (is that a Southern name or what) gathered a bunch of politicos at the state Capitol in Atlanta to pray for rain for his drought-stricken state.

Quote: “It is time to appeal to HIM who can and will make a difference”. A choir sang a hymn in the background.

The next day, rain fell but of course weathermen were predicting rain for that day a week ago.

I could not let this event take place without making some comments!!!

Praying for rain is as old as the earliest civilizations; it just makes sense. Pagans had their rain gods, our American Indians did a rain dance around the fire to bring on rain, hell I think every civilization through the ages had a rain god and a ritual to inspire the gods to make rain.

The only protestors at the “pray-in” were members of the Atlanta Freethought Society which objected to holding a “religious service” on government property; remember separation of church and state.

Anyway, my initial reaction was to remind those who prayed that they are no different than the pagans of old in their prayers to a superior power to help them overcome their dilemma; they may pray to different gods but since no one has ever proven the existence of any god, they are praying to the same invented delusion that they all hoped and hope actually exists.

On a more philosophical level we have the issue of an all powerful and all good god that allows bad things like tsunamis to kill thousands, hurricanes, tornados, floods, disease and drought to occur even when he can stop them? How can he be all good?

On another level, what if he has sent the drought to punish those who live in Atlanta? Should they repent like the Jews did for thousands of years until they figured out that their god just didn’t give a shit about them and probably did not exist so if you don’t take care of yourself, no one else, including god, will.

Stick to spiritual matters bishops!

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Bishops: Catholic voters must follow church”, Nov. 15.


Catholic bishops have told their flock to vote as they say or risk their own eternal salvation. It is comforting to know that surveys indicate most Catholics pay no mind to the bishops when in the voting booth; an indication that the bishops really need to stick to spiritual matters and leave earthly matters like politics to those of us directly affected by them.

Catholics should heed the church when voting!

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Catholics urged: Heed church at the polls”, Nov. 15.


Catholic bishops have issued a directive that Catholics voting in 2008 must heed church teachings when making their voting decisions. They obviously feel that they know what is good and proper for our well being as well as for the well being of the whole country. May I respectfully suggest that these bishops concentrate on getting their own house in order before they start issuing instructions as to how we should think and behave!

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS UNDER FIRE?

Our Supreme Court is about to tackle another Constitutional question, one that has been argued about for a very long time. The issue is the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms. The Court has not had a case involving this issue for over 70 years.

The case is a Washington, D.C. ban on owning handguns; the ban has been in place for 31 years and is now being challenged as unconstitutional since the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms or not – that is the issue!

The wording of the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (1787).

Here we have a problem with two words that are used in the sentence: militia and the right of the people; is it individual or collective.

To get closer to what the authors in 1787 had in mind we must look at the debate that produced the 2nd Amendment.

The debate was between the Federalists (for the Constitution) and the anti-Federalists (against the Constitution). One side believed in a strong federal government, the other side feared a strong central government based on the history they knew.

The history included the Revolutionary War and Britain’s attempt to control the colonists. The French Revolution was stirring with “the People” against the “Monarchy”; the principle being the right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

In their minds, if the government wanted to impose its will on the people with the force of a standing army, the armed people of the state could gather as a “militia” to oppose the government and its standing army. Please imagine muskets against muskets and not tanks against hunting rifles.

Historically, a militia was a military organization composed of armed civilians and used, usually, in times of emergency / attack.

Congress played with the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the fact that they insisted on the words “well regulated” meant they did not want an armed mob running around or for that matter, armed individuals; they wanted a formal military organization composed of civilian citizens able to bear arms.

You can visualize the scenario when a call to arms horn sounds and men either reaching under their beds for their muskets or running to the local armory to get their muskets and assembling in the town square for further orders.

The intent of the Amendment seems to be clearly the collective right to bear arms for specifically the defense of the state and not for individual use.

In 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act which did away with the old militia and established a National Guard for each state. The National Guard obtained its weapons from the national government and did not own them individually.




In my mind the 2nd Amendment as written is basically an amendment without any application to our time since state militias have been replaced by the National Guard.

Our current Supreme Court has some Bush appointees who are very conservative but usually conservatives stick to a very tight interpretation of the Constitution meaning that they stick close to what the authors of the Constitution really meant. If they stick to their pattern they will have to find that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual rights to bear arms but refer only to states and their rights to have militias.

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee that individuals have the Constitutional right to bear arms.

The NRA (National Rifle Association) is very rich and therefore very powerful. They are also made up of conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats who believe it is their sacred right to bear arms and fight ANY actions intended to somehow abridge that right.

What it boils down to is the fact that our Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals to own and use guns BUT it also does not prohibit the owning and use of guns. Our tradition is that IF the Constitution does not specifically prohibit something then the states take on the responsibility of either allowing or prohibiting and also of regulating that something.

Washington, D.C. is not a state but rather a city/state so I don’t know the laws governing that particular entity buy regular states like Michigan, I suppose, could either legislate gun control or put it up for a vote but I know that the supporters of a “Constitutional Right” to bear arms will not want to put their right at risk by putting it up for a vote of the people.

This should be quite interesting and I will follow this case quite closely. More as it develops…

LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

Our Supreme Court has, for now, stopped all executions by lethal injection due to a belief by some, that lethal injection represents cruel and unusual punishment, something our Constitution (8th Amendment)(1791) prohibits.

The wording of the 8th Amendment leaves a lot open to interpretation as well as to relativism; what was cruel in 1791 may be different from what we think is cruel in 2007.

A quick note before we go on; I used to be unequivocally for capital punishment until I found out that our prosecutors are not to be trusted and that they will and have sent people to their deaths on questionable evidence just to say they have won / closed a case. DNA evidence has proven many innocent and I would only vote for death if the evidence supported guilt 100%.

But what interests me is the finding of specifically “lethal injection” as cruel and unusual. The cases that are cited in this argument have to do with trouble finding a suitable vein for injection, possible localized burning sensation at site of injection and the possibility that the condemned actually “feels” pain.

The procedure for lethal injection is to start a intravenous (IV) “drip” of saline (salt water). Next inject a barbiturate like Sodium Thiopental that would make the condemned unconscious, followed by a muscle paralyzer like Tubocurarine (curare) and finally Potassium Chloride to stop the heart.

In theory, the person should only feel the insertion of the IV needle. In my hospital days I did a lot of “sticking” and know that it CAN hurt. Many prisoners are also drug addicts and their veins are pretty bad so for them it can be an ordeal.

My question here is why are we trying to spare the condemned from any pain when he or she has caused so much pain to others?

Is there a method that would not cause any pain? The arguments against lethal injection usually state that the prisoner “appeared to be in some type of discomfort”.

How about asking Jack Kevorkian? He seemed to have a pretty painless method. How about asking the Dutch that have legal euthanasia for their method.

Why are we so stupid?

The question of Capital Punishment itself is quite another matter and subject for a future blog.

GIULIANI AND ROBERTSON - WHAT A PAIR?

I was a little surprised to read that Pat Robertson, the right wind ultra Christian that thinks he speaks for God, endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President.

Remember that ole’ Rudy is pro-choice and pro gay rights which are anathema to fervent Christians in the U.S. So what gives?

To show you how extraordinary it is for Robertson to endorse Rudy you just have to remember that Robertson said the attack of 9/11 was God’s way of punishing America for allowing abortions and gay marriages – wow!

So has ole’ Pat flipped out? He is 77 and has been making ridiculous statements for some time now; most absurd are when he tells the country that he talks to God so maybe his endorsement is not that important if most consider him a loony.

But the loony may actually have a plan. The Christian Right is absolutely split as to which Republican candidate to endorse. Some were threatening to put up a third party candidate which would guarantee a Republican defeat.

Robertson maybe trying to at least give the Republican Party a better chance of winning the Presidency since Giuliani has support from both parties while the rest of the bunch do not.

Robertson calls Giuliani an “acceptable” candidate, not the best candidate so maybe the message to his fellow Christian radicals is that at least with Giuliani you have a chance and he at least promised to appoint conservative judges.

I like Giuliani mainly because he is a realist and a relativist with no overriding ideology and also, he will not kiss the Religious Right’s ass – what a man!

FIRST AMENDMENT - what do it mean?

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Should Berkley restore crèche to City Hall?”


Richard Thompson argues that the First Amendment to our Constitution does not demand a wall of separation between church and state and cites legal rulings to make his point. I find it ironic and disquieting that current legal professionals would try to confuse the public about what the writers of our Constitution actually meant when they wrote the words to the First Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution, in a reply to a query by some Baptist Ministers explained to them clearly that the First Amendment was in effect, “building a wall of separation between church and state”.

Are Mr. Thompson and his like minded cronies saying that the authors of the First Amendment don’t know what the words they wrote mean but he and his pals do?

More on Homosexuality...

Let me just add this to my last blog on male homosexuality – it is not normal. The evolutionary process would have naturally doomed homosexuality due to the inability to procreate. Millions of species that once existed have vanished due to their inability to survive, only the species that were able to adapt survived.

Mother Nature constantly makes mistakes. I get a kick out of people that push their “intelligent design” theories against evolution. If they knew how many times their god fucked up in creating, they would not call him intelligent at all.

Homosexuals are able to survive without being able to procreate because they are produced by heterosexual couples as”accidents” of nature, at least as we understand it currently. With more study we may be able to add more information as to how this actually occurs in the human genome system.

As to male “homosexuality” through the ages; it is a fascinating study, one which I am still exploring. A few months ago, I wrote a blog about a history lecture I heard where this subject was addressed.

The professor stated quite plainly that our modern understanding of homosexuality was not the same as it was understood in history. Our understanding, at least mine, is that homosexuals are born with a genetic makeup that predisposes them to be attracted sexually to their own gender. This is hard-wired into their genes so even if they want to deny it and live heterosexually, the predisposition is still there and probably manifests itself in many other ways: style of dress, mannerisms, etc. – they are a mixture of male and female – a separate human entity.

Anyway, back to history. Yes, homosexuals existed then as always but society was very different then.

The predominating view was that females were inferior because they were seen as undeveloped or unformed males, i.e. no penis, no body hair, high voices, no muscles, weaker, etc. They saw creation as a straight line from left (dirt, rocks, animals…) till they came to females and then males who were the closest to god(s). They did not see females as a separate gender.

I know this is a hard concept to grasp but actually, I feel the concept still exists if you look at various religions where women are treated differently (Judaism, Islam…) and societies where men are prized much more than women (China, India…) to the point where girls are aborted on purpose just because a boy is what is wanted.

This is seriously messing with Mother Nature to the point where women are so scarce in these cultures that existing females are kidnapped because there are not enough of them for every male to marry – dumb shits.

Back to history; let’s take the ancient Greeks for example. Their social model accepted homosexual behavior but in a strict way. They could have sex with boys (unformed adult males) (pederasty) but not with other adult males – that was taboo – interesting?

These same adult males could have sex with adult male slaves but that was due to the “domination principle” which basically meant that the strong and powerful dominated the weak; the penetrators and the penetrated.
It was a custom on the battlefield that the victors did the vanquished; the ultimate conquest and insult.

Homosexual acts occurred as you can see but social condemnation was always against an adult male that allowed himself to be penetrated never against the penetrators.

Did homosexuals exist then – of course? Did they know they were homosexuals; I think they knew they liked men but married women as was the custom and had children. Did they meet other gays for sex – probably but I don’t know much about that – still learning.

I have not read anywhere about evidence that ancients thought of homosexuals as a distinct group of men; they were probably just married men that liked other men and were either in the closet or practicing but without condemnation.

I think the condemnation and the view we have today is a product of good ole’ Christianity and I will have something to say about that later…

HALLOWEEN IS HERE!

Hey sometimes you have to just settle down and enjoy the good life which in this case is me with my grandson Ben celebrating Halloween with a bunch of really old people at the senior center; they had fun and so did we.

My father-in-law is 89 and still has the spirit of the season.

THE POPE OPENS HIS PIE HOLE AGAIN!

Pope Benedict XVI spoke to a convention of Catholic Pharmacists and told them they have a right not to dispense morning-after pills and medicines they think will be used for euthanasia.

You already know my views on the Pope and what he can do with his so called “teachings” or “Holy Pronouncements”, I think he can put them where the sun don’t shine – ever! But I am being juvenile.

First, pharmacies and pharmacists are here to FILL prescriptions ordered by doctors – period. I know they go to school for five (5) years and all that but it is a waste of their education and they know it and they are frustrated by it. They went to school all those years, have all this knowledge and all they do is “dispense” pills; no one ever asks them about anything.

The pharmacy computer is supposed to alert the pharmacist or pharmacy tech to any “interaction” between the medicines they are dispensing so the question arises – who needs a pharmacist? Many hospitals now have robotic pharmacists all are computer - controlled and the medicines bar-coded.

So my point is that the pharmacist does a robot’s job in dispensing medication and is not permitted to make moral judgments as to what medication a physician has ordered for his patient – it’s none of his god-damn business. If the pharmacist cannot carry out his simple duty he needs to be fired – end of story.

Now that I have gotten that out of my system let me tell you calmly what others do about this situation. Some respect a conscientious objection some may have in dispensing certain “prescribed” medications. At time like these some pharmacies have the “step aside” provision allowing the pharmacist to step aside and allow someone else to fill the objectionable medication. In all circumstances, the prescription has to be filled so if the pharmacist that objects is the only one in the pharmacy at that time he MUST fill the prescription – fair enough?

As to old Benedict, does he have a right to call for such, in some cases, illegal action? Well, I don’t think so and I wish people would tell him just to shut up. In fact, I wish the Italian government would arrest his ass for “inciting people to break the law” cause in Italy it is against the law NOT to fill a prescribed prescription medication.

MORE RESEARCH ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY!

I know people hate when I address the issue of gays but I must since it is an issue I feel strongly about.

As a heterosexual male, I have always maintained that there is no way in hell; a heterosexual guy would EVER be induced to turn gay; even for a second. I use myself and friends as evidence but I obviously cannot speak for all hetero males.

So I have always maintained that to be a male homosexual is NOT A CHOICE AND CANNOT EVER BE.

In view of my strong belief, I concluded that male homosexuals are BORN and not MADE. And if indeed they are born that way they then become part of the human race as a variant, i.e. a biologically made, different human being.

I have read about on-going research into the matter and became aware of a recent federally funded project that has 1,000 gay brothers as subjects to see what genetic material could be designated as contributing to the gay trait.

They are trying to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait like hair or eye color. Some say that there is probably not one “gay gene” but a number of them maybe in a special unique arrangement.

I have also become aware of a study in at the University of Utah where scientists have engineered worms to be gay, i.e. hard wired their brains to be homosexual. Their results will be published in the current issue of CURRENT BIOLOGY.

This is another step into proving that people are born with a homosexual orientation.

Now, once proven, will that change the way religious people think about homosexuality – I don’t think the hard core will ever change – hell – some still thing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is a theory and not fact.

I think with scientific proof in our corner we can take on the religious (mostly Christians) and show them where their sacred texts don’t really address homosexuality as we know it today because they did not have the concept of homosexuality then but more on that later…

CHRISTMAS FOR ALL NOT JUST CHRISTIANS!

Here is a seasonal issue that seems to come up every year; the Nativity Scene on public property (City Hall).

We have a small community around Detroit named Berkley. It is kind of middle class and old but a tight knit community or so we thought.

A few years back someone challenged the constitutionality of having a nativity scene on public property and the city council voted to gift the nativity scene to a church organization which agreed to display it at a local Methodist church a small distance from the city hall location. They avoided a legal battle and they preserved the displaying of the Nativity scene in their town – case closed – well done!

Well not quite! A group of rabid Christians would not stand for that. They wanted to change their town charter to allow the display of the Nativity scene on city property and they placed that issue on the ballot for the November 6 local elections.

Our local papers have been filled with angry pro or con letters. A guy I work with lives in the community and is opposed to the charter change and has provided some interesting discussion on the subject. He said that residents of Berkley have divided over the issue and started displaying lawn banners attacking each other – nice!

This local issue is just a microcosm of a larger national issue over the same matter; are we a Christian nation or not.

I have talked about this issue at length in previous blogs but as far as our Constitution is concerned there should be no question; the first amendment prohibits our government from endorsing ANY religion and placing specifically and exclusively a Christian Nativity scene on government property is for all intents and purposes, endorsing one religion over all the others – ILLEGAL!

Our courts should rule on this with one voice and not quibble about it. Once these Christians see that there could be wiggle room, they will challenge the law and this cannot be allowed.

We can on the other hand discuss this matter on a social level all we want to as long as government property is FREE of religious symbols.

I am happy to see a strong contingent of social liberals in Berkley and I thing the matter will be defeated and a strong message sent; you can celebrate religious aspects of Christmas any way you want just not on government property – kapish?

I will close by reminding people that the season of Christmas was originally and still is a PAGAN holiday where the end of one year and the beginning of a new year is celebrated. The arrogant Christians could not stand the fun being had and injected the celebration of the birth of their god into the already in place joyous season.

The Christians have no idea when Jesus was born or for that matter, where he was born; Bethlehem was an attempt by the Gospel writers to put Jesus into a prophecy that the next Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Historians tell us that it was probably (99.9% sure) Nazareth.

So celebrate the season anyway you want just don’t make it all about YOUR way of celebrating and don’t try to make it the OFFICIAL, NATIONAL AMERICAN way of celebrating the season!!!

THE TURKEY - KURD - IRAQ ISSUE!

Just a quick update on the Iraq issue. If you remember, I and others, have advocated splitting Iraq up into three (3) sectors along religious and ethnic lines but keeping a federal agency to distribute oil revenues on a per capita basis.

Bush has rejected that idea from the beginning insisting on keeping his silly and unreasonable dream of a united Iraq alive. Now we hear that Al-Malaki and other Shiites and Sunnis also objected to this division mainly because they feared missing out on the oil revenues EVEN when I said that would be a non-issue if WE controlled the distribution of the oil revenues.

I can though understand their skepticism and lack of trust in even a U.S. controlled agency distributing the funds since we are just as rife with corruption as anybody else is. The latest revelations of billions of dollars lost or squandered by U.S. agencies on food, equipment and anything else you want to name – so how can you trust even the Americans?

The Kurds have already separated themselves from Iraq proper and so far have built themselves a thriving and modern community that is relatively safe. My idea was that the Sunnis and Shiites could have done the same but the Kurds could be heading for trouble.

Yes, the Iraqi Kurds have built themselves a very nice small country and in my opinion, they will NEVER agree to become part of Iraq again. As far as they are concerned, they are KURDISTAN and not Iraq.

The problem is that the Kurds are a huge group of people spread over Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran (see the map). These people have been around for thousands of years. Saladin, the guy who conquered the Crusades was a Kurd.

These people never had a country of their own. After WWI, the allies wanted to draw a country just like they drew Iraq but Turkey, Syria and Iran would have none of that. Too bad, we would not be in the mess we are today.

Anyway, the Kurds in Turkey have an armed conflict going against the Turks in an attempt to form their own nation out of Turkish lands. The Turks are really against that and would rather just kill the Kurdish rebels. The rebels basically strike Turkey and run and hide in Kurdish Iraq. The Turks are threatening to invade.

If the Turks invade Northern Iraq we would have a problem since our soldiers are there and also the Iraqi Kurds are there and they probably would defend themselves – mess?

What Bush needs to do is have the Iraqi Kurds expel their rebel brethren out of Iraq and this will remove any reason for the Turks to attack OR the Iraqi Kurds and Americans could guard the borders and not allow the rebels to operate out of Kurdish Iraq. These seem simple steps that can be taken.

Speaking of Turkey we have to address the ARMENIAN question now before Congress.

In 1915 or thereabouts, the Armenians were driven out of Turkey and many were massacred. The Armenians called this genocide and history bears out that something like that did occur. I am not going to get into any historic specifics but today, before our Congress is a “resolution” condemning the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Turks.
This is just a resolution and many countries have passed a similar resolution. The only problem is that the Turks find such resolutions very insulting and it stirs their nationalism a lot which leads to the questions, why pass such a resolution at this time in history.

His is a non-binding resolution of dubious worth but politically advantageous to Congressman with a lot of Armenians in their voting area.

The Turks have asked that the question of the Armenian genocide be put before an international body to investigate historical data and come up with a historically correct judgment as to what really happened and who is to blame. I think this is a valid request by the Turks.

I think the resolution should be shelved as doing more harm than good to U.S. Turkish relations. The Turkish prime minister will visit Washington this week and I think we need to show him some love if we are to get some cooperation from them - it only makes sense and I hope Bush does not blow this.

We also do a lot of business with Turkey, at least I do, and I would hate for that to disappear.

POLITICS AS USUAL IN MICHIGAN!

To” Detroit free Press
Re: “Key Democrat warns Granholm on college grants”, Oct.27.

Representative George Cushingberry (D- Detroit) does not object to cutting funds to our public schools but he is adamant at retaining tuition grants to 40,000 private college students to the tune of 57 million dollars. We have a budget crisis on our hands in this state and my tax dollars need to support essential public services and not be handed out as gifts to private schools.

The fact that Cushingberry even asked (and he is probably not the only one) that tuition grants to "Private School" students be maintained probably is an indication that these politicians are getting some or a lot of support from these private schools, after all, it is free government (tax payer) money.

The support from these private schools (religious schools?) is probably quite valuable to Cushingberry et. al. for him to openly push for this money which is so obviously INAPPROPRIATE in the budget crunch the state of Michigan is in. He must think we all are as stupid as Detroiters who support corruption in Detroit are.

HEY- NOW WE HAVE THE RELIGIOUS LEFT!

You have obviously heard me rage against the “Religious Right” but now the Wall Street Journal reported on “The Rise of the Religious Left” by Steven Malanga.

Well this piqued my interest especially when the author stated “Liberals are just as adept as conservatives at invoking God to promote their pet causes”. What actually would these pet causes be?

Well the author feels these religious leftists are basically socialists or communists favoring unionism and against nonunion businesses like Wal- Mart.

Recently I got a glimpse at these leftists in action as the Detroit Archdiocese (Catholics) started targeting legislators that refused to give in to the SCHIP propaganda. You remember my previous blogs against this health welfare scheme that pretended it was for poor children but actually was a ruse to bring in socialized medicine.

Jesus has been called a socialist, even the first communist since he was against the rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be allowed into heaven) get it?

In his days, people got rich on the backs of the poor and poverty was “abject” poverty then. That is why Christianity took root so fast, poor people thought that when they died they became rich and the rich were thrown into hell.

Letters in response to the article were also interesting saying that the religious left is anti-war whereas the religious right justifies war (against the infidels). The left fought to end segregation and slavery the right tried to religiously justify it, etc….

Well we could go on and on about all this but to me both sides are using religion to justify their way of thinking but I think the left is a lot closer to the “what would Jesus do” approach. Have you heard the new breed of tele-evangelists preaching “Jesus wants you to be rich” but I digress.

INJUSTICE IS WRONG PERIOD!

I just had to say a word about a murder trial going on in our area. The case was the rape and murder of a student at Eastern Michigan University which happened some time ago.

The university totally blew it by hiding it and letting the suspect go. When the story finally came out, there was a big hubbub and heads rolled.

Anyway, they finally brought the dude to trial and presented the evidence. The victim was a pretty, young blond girl and the rapist murdered a young black guy who was not even a current student. The crime occurred in the girl’s dorm room.

The evidence had videos of him entering the dorm and leaving the dorm with some of the girl’s Christmas presents. The girl was found half nude with a pillow over her head. The guy’s (Orange Taylor III) semen was found on her clothes.

The defense maintained that yes, Orange Taylor was in her room but found her dead and masturbated on her clothes, stole her Christmas presents and left. The defense did admit that he was high on marijuana.

One juror, a black woman, caused a mistrial because she could not convict him since she had reasonable doubt. She felt the girl died of a heart attack.

And this is why I get so upset when black writers howl about injustices committed against blacks like in the Jena 6 case but dismiss injustice against whites (O.J., Duke) and the present case.

How can the parents of this innocent girl, going to college with a bright future but murdered by some drugged up asshole find justice when they see that justice is denied by a racist juror.

Yes, the tables have turned from the old days where whites were the racist jurors BUT TODAY I maintain that we cannot tolerate injustice PERIOD but it is obvious racism still exists and is practiced on both sids of the fence.

PLAYING THE O.J. SIMPSON CARD

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Doubts nag jurors in EMU case”, Oct. 24.

In reading the details of the evidence in “Doubts nag jurors in EMU case”, Oct. 24, one could conclude that the holdout juror was pulling an O.J. Simpson. Hopefully, the next jury seated will just look at the evidence at hand.

A RACIAL INJUSTICE?

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Hung jury in EMU murder trial”, Oct. 24.


In reading the details in “Hung jury in EMU murder trial”, Oct. 24, one could conclude that the holdout juror was just pulling an O.J. Simpson. Let’s hope the next jury will decide the fate of Orange Taylor III basing their decision on the evidence at hand.

LEGALIZE DRUGS ALREADY!

Recently there have been some drug house killings which is usually quite normal in Detroit but this time kids were involved (a number of times) and this has set off some concern.

I have quit ranting about legalizing drugs but a few columnists brought it up again even though it does absolutely no good because it falls on deaf ears but here it goes anyway…

You could stop a lot of the crime related to drug sale and use if you took the profit out of it and the only way to do that is to legalize it.

Let me explain.

Allow pharmaceutical companies to make and sell a variety of drugs. Allow certain pharmacies sell measured doses of these drugs (small amounts). The buyer would have to register as a drug user but it would be totally legal.

The drugs would be affordable and clean – no poison mixed in. The drugs would be taxed and controlled just like liquor is.

The tax money collected would be used to open free clinics for addicts that are looking to come clean.

Since drugs would be affordable and available, the need for drug dealers and drug houses would disappear.

The billions now spent on drug enforcement would be reduced but you would still need agents to make sure all laws are obeyed (like the ATF does currently)(Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms).

The rationale is based on the FACT that we will NEVER win the war on drugs and people that want drugs will ALWAYS get them one way or another so it is really, really STUPID to try and prevent them from getting drugs.

I have argued the same for legalizing prostitution but I guess the people in our society feel that legalizing drugs or prostitution is somehow against their fundamental idea of what is right and what is wrong or at least what should be right or wrong.

Well I think we need to change our way of thinking. Basically a demand is always satisfied whether legal or not and that is FACT. Prostitution satisfies a basic demand that has been around since the beginning of time; why do we try to pretend it does not exist, is it because of the Bible?

Sounds too complicated to analyze and I will not see drugs or prostitution legalized in my lifetime anyway so it is hopeless…