Deaf Man Worried that Obamacare Would Shut Out Disabled/Deaf People?

A deaf man named Noah Logue of St. Louis asked the Democratic operatives if he’s going to be punished under “Obamacare” (the so-called America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) ? Thanks to Gateway Pundit for this blog, a YouTube video of Noah Logue questioning the operatives is included (but no captioning).

Noah’s mother provided a speech to the GP blogger and included it in the blog. Read it all there. Clearly, the man is worried that “Obamacare” would allow the government to determine what kind of special need/equipment/care a disabled person should get instead of a doctor. He pointed out the obviously disturbing choice of words uttered by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel) about giving no medical care for “non-participating citizens”, as attributed by GP blogger:

Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96).

Whoa. The above is from GP blog: Top Obama Health Advisor Support Ethansia: Wanted Health Care for Non-Disabled Participating Citizens.

In other words, if you’re deaf/Deaf, you’re a non-participating (disabled) citizen and shouldn’t be entitled or provided with any medical care by the government. Seriously, WTF?

Or the language of the AAHCA of 2009 (HR 3200) isn’t exactly clear when it comes to providing medical care and special needs for the deaf and the disabled?

Seriously, we don’t need a socialized health care run by the government in the country nor a greedy industry of HMOs and insurers dictating over doctors and patients. We need to find a real middle ground with a sound health care system to satisfy the American people, including the deaf and the disabled, without breaking the banks or indebting/burdening the people for life. That require courage, common sense, and a real change of perception about ourselves as human beings not totally invulnerable or immune to anything.

40 Years Ago, one giant leap for mankind…

Exactly 40 years ago today and July 21st, two Americans, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong became the first humans to land and walk on the Moon on the Apollo 11 lunar mission, with Mike Collins orbiting above in the Columbia module, observing and reporting. At 10:56 PM EST, it was Armstrong who stepped off the Eagle landing module and landed on another world, uttering this now immortal line:

“That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind”

And the rest is history.

Here’s the image where the Apollo 11′s landing site is located on the Moon.

And we will be back on the Moon soon.

Click on the image to expand to full size

Are you thick-skinned or thin-skinned?

UPDATE ~ 7/18/09: Check out the disturbing NY Post article about a shadowy Obama government body to curb free speech and blogging online. More proof of power-obsessed thin-skinned people looking to control and criminalize free speech under false pretenses of making a better world. Read for my take on it below this blog.

Reading from NAD’s blog about “Strategic Information Sharing or Malicious Gossip” got me thinking about this adage:

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”

Whoever said that must have been a truly thick-skinned person. Or must have been incredibly hardened by all sort of words being thrown at him (or her). Or a very brave child standing up to a big bully.

In actuality, it’s an old English adage, coming from this original statement: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me”. I don’t know who actually said this, perhaps it’s a much older saying going back centuries. More than often, one would say this, in a bold manner, in order to stand up and show undaunted courage to an intimidating bully or an enemy ready to do violence. Or undaunted by strong criticism.

By saying that established you are a thick-skinned person not going to be back down by mere insults or intimidating words hurled at you. But if you believe that words do hurt you in some ways, emotionally or whatever, then you are really thin-skinned. A weak person, maybe in need of a bubble.

In the manner of being thin-skinned, you allow mere words to hurt you, like you’re allowing harm come to you without bothering to deflect it or defend yourself. Then you whine, cry and complain about that. You needed a wahbulance? Has our society been reduced to the level of infantile-minded mentality and we all in a need of being coddled all the times? Grown adults behaving like children so easily offended by words or expression of speech?

People say some harsh words to others all the times in the real world under difficult or frustrating circumstances (or, in some cases, as defensive mechanism). That’s life. Kids in the playgrounds or school recesses can be cruel to each other with petty insults or name-calling and still live anyway, aside from bruised feelings that, in time, would be healed. That’s life. Bigotry, no matter how unpleasant it is, is not a crime and certainly not a mean to an end. In truth, bigotry is an expression of one’s feelings toward people or beliefs he/she do not completely agree with. That’s life. No matter what, we should not resort to cocooning ourselves just because of some harsh or hurtful words, petty insults, or certain critical language that would make us uncomfortable or repugnant in our lives. It is in our human nature that we must learn and deal with any adversity in our lives, no matter how uncomfortable or difficult it is. Especially words that are uncomfortable or difficult to us. If you let words bothered you and kept you down, how are you going to grow up in life?

However, in the workplaces, there are exceptions. Because companies have rules and regulations for employees (and employers themselves) to follow, harassing people in the workplace repeatedly is a no-no. Since people are being paid to do their jobs and for their skills, not paid to be insulted and harassed by fellow employees (or employers) on a regular or irregular basis.

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has a nice article about when speech becomes a crime. The real danger of criminalizing free speech is rooted from the fact some thin-skinned people are in the position of power (or political activism, with money) to undermine two of the most important founding principles of the country: the right to speak freely and the right to dissent without hindrance or limitation in any shape or form. Or law. These thin-skinned people do not wanted to be challenged or obstructed by anyone standing in their way of obtaining absolute powers. You’ll find plenty of them from the political left (it’s true, unfortunately).

I have already learned not to let harsh words, petty insults or critical language bother me. In fact, I welcome criticism! If you say my blog suck or my writing suck, say it or not at all. I don’t care and that’s not going to stop me from writing and blogging what I think and feel anyway. Bloggers like Mike McConnell and Ridor have dealt with all sort of insults and petty words thrown at them in the past and they are still thick-skinned. Even both of them lashed out at each other in their blogs and still come out unscathed.

If you’re going to let whatever harsh or hurtful words bother or break you, then my question is this: how are you going to grow up in life not ever knowing that’s only the half of the battle?

Perhaps you should construct a language-proof bubble-sphere.

================================================================================

Continued from UPDATE above:

I think worrying too much about false rumors spread through the Internet is nonsense, as information-sharing and personal knowledge (as in someone who know you well) via social networking would quickly dispel false rumors. I do not blog or post false/fake rumor about someone or something, since I have a 24-48 hours vetting period policy to determine the credibility of information. However, this shadowy government body seem more than likely to favor celebrities and powerful people who support and give generously to Obama and the Democratic Party, as like Cass Sunstein, the Harvard law professor that Obama have appointed to head the body, the author of the book, “Nudge” and a long-time pal of Obama.

The worst part of it? Sunstein believed:

…whether you’re a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service – you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you’re immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Reasonable people,” he says, “might object that this is not the right rule,” though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be “a considerable burden.”

The man’s a certified nut. Bloggers are NOT responsible for what the commenters SAY on the blogs’ commenting sections. Bloggers cannot control what the commenters say or should say. Sure, there are some irresponsible commenters out there, but even irresponsible commenters have every right to be either right or wrong from their comments. Other commenters or bloggers would refute or criticize them in the follow-up. The federal government has no business in controlling, restricting or criminalizing bloggers, service providers and online media providers for false information or bad commenters. Sunstein seem to think the First Amendment must be subjective to the whims of the federal government for Change’s sake and for a “better world” (for only a minority of elite thin-skinned people).

From Iraq: Thank you, America

I’m very impressed by this translated editorial article out of Baghdad by an Iraqi journalist, courtesy of the Weekly Standard, Stephen Schwartz and John McCormack. What’s  more, the Iraqi journalist has confirmed and reinforced my thinking that the Islamic-Arab world is very much apathetic, hypocritical, ludicrous, and thickheaded toward the Iraqis and what the Americans have done for Iraq since the invasion of Iraq and downfallen of Saddam Hussein.

Excerpt:

Thank You America – And Damn You, You Bastards
By Jabr Al Jabouri
Al-Bayyna Al-Jadida [Baghdad]
July 1, 2009

America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam]. Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project. They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter. America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television. Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.

America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.

America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists. This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.

America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.

Please do read the rest of the editorial here.

The Iraqis have already know who their real friend is and who their real enemy is. And that enemy is no longer America.

Angry White Men Demonstrated For Beer!

Heh.

This image was taken sometime in the 1920s (“the Roaring 20s”), during the period of the Prohibition brought about by the Volstead Act, an ill-conceived law banning the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages (beers, wines, spirits, etc.) for consumption nationally. The Prohibiton ended in 1933 when the act was repealed. Reasons? Loss of tax revenues for the government, crimes skyrocketed, increased gangster warfare over control of black market and bootlegging operations, and a general lack of common sense about consuming alcohol when most people actually drink it in moderation.

Gallaudet Forcing Students to Volunteer?

He’s back and he is at it again! At least he must be doing something right to recognize the obvious flaw (and irony) of forcing young people to volunteer.

Personally, I say that forcing people to volunteer is asinine, whether it is to benefit academic institutions, companies or the government seeking attention to their “street cred” reputation in the eyes of the civilized society. The point of volunteering to help someone or to support something, like a good cause, is all about YOU making the effort to help out or support something ON YOUR OWN TERMS, not on someone else’s terms. No one should force you to volunteer to do anything, no matter how benign or necessary the purpose may seem to you. You may be unwittingly (or naively) doing things that goes against your principles or beliefs, assuming the options to support such causes are limited or selectively favored by those from the top or by the government.

On those who committed minor crimes, I support the idea that lesser (or low-risk) offenders should be required to do some number of hours of community services and attend treatment facilities to avoid jailtime and, generally, save the taxpayers’ costs of holding, housing and feeding them in prisons.

Seriously, I would suggest Galladuet University to review and re-do its community services program policy, either reduce the hours or eliminate the requirement option and give the student body the opportunity to volunteer on their own terms, not on the university’s terms strictly for graduation requirement.

Recently, I learned that most employers no longer recognize or have need for “activities” (or extracurricular activities) on job-seekers’ resumes for the consideration of employment. I do not know if that’s a new trend in this depressing job market out there. Employers, generally, are more interesting in your objectives, work experiences and skills from your resumes, anything else, including volunteer and/or extracurricular activities, are not that important enough. Perhaps, some companies do in some cases, but they are only looking for those who are willing to work hard and put in long hours, volunteer activities outside work would waste companies’ needs, time and money invested upon employees. It all depends on a company’s philosophy about employees’ volunteer activities.

Volunteer to support a good cause or help someone on your own terms, not on anyone else’s terms.

Happy 4th of July to Y’all!

The United States of America is 233 years old. May it goes on for another 233 years.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

And read the rest of the Declaration of Independence.