Yes, I was at the health care vigil tonight in Thousand Oaks. Yes, I saw what happened, though it was from across a very large street. I can’t tell you who said what to who, but I will tell you what the mood was, what I saw, who instigated things, and what I photographed.
What I won’t do: I won’t publish the pictures I took of the confrontation. I didn’t capture anything other than the people in various states of verbal confrontation, and I have turned those over to the police. Because they are investigating, I won’t compromise it by publishing those pictures unless and until they give me permission. I will, however, publish my other photos which will include some taken before this incident occurred.
There were around 150 supporters of health care reform present on the northeast corner of Lynn Road and Hillcrest in Thousand Oaks. I was one of them. To get to that corner, we had to park in the Oaks Mall parking lot, walk to the light, cross a small thruway and then cross Hillcrest, which is a very large street.[photo here looking across to those opposed, posted in real time before the incident].
In order to get from the parking lot to the vigil, we were required to walk through the group of people opposed to health care reform. As you can see in the photo, they were originally staged right before the crosswalk to the thruway, so there was no way to avoid walking through their group.
The mood on our side of the street was passionate, happy, and dedicated. There were no violent words spoken. For the most part, we were supported loudly by passers-by, who honked their horns and waved their support. When someone passed by who disagreed, we actually had conversations with them while they waited for the light.
To be clear here: There were no threats, no dark moods, and there was no mob. I repeat, there was no mob. We were peaceful people holding candles and signs.
One petite woman was also handing out single payer flyers. She was passionate about it, but not rude, not mean, always smiled, and simply offered the flyer. At some point, she crossed back over (she may have run out of her flyer supply. I don’t know for sure. But she was not in any way confrontational.)
All of a sudden, I saw a very tall man in an orange shirt (yes, he is in the photo I linked you to) confront her, verbally at first. Her back was to the thruway, and he was shooing her, approaching her, speaking to her in a very aggressive fashion (observation from body language only) and waving his arms in a shooing motion. With each step she took back, he took one forward, shooing her more. From where I was, it appeared as though he were telling her to get on her own side of the street, and backing it up with a very clear physical threat. Even from where I stood, it chilled me. I pointed it out to others and called out for anyone with a video camera to aim it over there. (I had a small Nikon cam with me that does video, but it would have been useless in that light.)
Ultimately, she did cross the street and come back over to our side.
Several minutes later, there was another altercation. My best recollection is that this man saw what happened to the woman and reacted to it. I cannot say with certainty where he was when he saw it — he may have arrived and was navigating his way through that group, or he may have crossed the street to defend her. He was confronted by the same man. I could tell from where I was that the man was belligerent, angry, and confrontational.
The man in the orange shirt hit the pro-reform guy (I’m going to call him PR Guy just to keep the players straight). Hard. (tweeted in real time) He punched him in the face, knocked him to the ground and into that thruway. As you can see from the photo, cars drive straight through that without stopping. The pro-reform guy could have been run over. He got up, tried to get back up on the curb, but Orange Shirt guy was in his face. Finger in his face, PR Guy standing, steps up to the curb, and there’s a scuffle. Orange shirt seemed to have PR Guy in a hold, but again, I was across the street, so won’t state that as absolute fact. Next thing I see is PR Guy’s hat being tossed into the street, both yelling at one another, then Orange shirt walks away, PR Guy picks up hat and crosses to our side.
When he gets to our side, he tells a story in one sentence: “He punched me hard, straight in the face, so I bit his finger off.”
Honestly, I thought he was exaggerating. I guess he wasn’t.
I’ve given this report to the police along with my photos. I am not heralding anyone as a hero here. I certainly do not celebrate the idea of anyone biting anyone else, no matter what the reason. However, there is no question that Orange Shirt guy was aching to fight, was willing to pick a fight, and certainly didn’t care who he fought with. He chose people who were shorter than he, and he used his voice, his body, his body language and his height to intimidate them.
Don’t be fooled by reports ginning up sympathy for that 65-year old guy or worse yet, reports characterizing him as a senior citizen. He was aggressive and ready to mix it up.
I’ll tell you more about the other hour and 15 minutes of peace, wonderful people, and stories in another post. This one is for the benefit of those who might want to hear a different side of what is sure to hit the air as a one-sided story of liberals gone wild. There were no liberals gone wild, nor were there hordes of conservatives behaving badly. There were 9 or 10 people on one corner, 150-200 on the other, and two men who, regardless of their politics, behaved quite badly.
Update: LA Times has it a bit wrong. So does KTLA.
{ 17 trackbacks }
{ 297 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Tax cuts allow lower wages?
Health access scares the “lower rungs?”
The working class can't spend their money as they fit?
Where are you getting that from?
I've been working and haven't seen anyone from the hospital interviewed. Based on the current HIPAA laws, I'm amazed that anyone from the hospital was able to even admit he was a patient at one time.
We agree on that part about putting a finger in someone's mouth.
On another note, are you ready to lock comments on this post yet? It looks like more then a couple whack jobs found you.
haha, i do kno economics. whats funy is that a lot of republicans and rich people claim to kno economics but they are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place. spend trillions of dollars on the (holy oil) war. lets not regulate busineses, let them do what they want and take advantage of consumers. ive dealt with various businesses (as a business owner) and businesses take advantage as much as they can. just bc you have money doesnt mean you kno economics. haha
since you know economics, tell me how you justify this. is it justified that we can use OUR taxmoney for the Iraq war that will eventually cost us a few TRILLION DOLLARS but its not ok to spend our taxmoney on healthcare. the question comes down to: who is benefiting from the health corporations getting rich? is it you? if not, then why are you supporting them and not the american people?
ALL industrialized countries have universal healthcare. The reason America doesnt have it is because the corporations scare people into not getting a healthcare system that will make their profits go down and will also bring them competition. You do know about competition right? And in case you didnt know, most industrialized countries that have healthcare are capitalist. and even china which is communist, is the fastest growing economy and has universal healthcare too. so theres not excuse why america doesnt have universal healthcare.
I think you should study more on sociology(and economy), and i wouldnt recommend fox news for that. lol. getting rich doesnt always take “a little work” unless you have mommy and daddy to help you or you have a network of other rich/successful people to help you out. if it were so easy to get rich, wouldnt more people be rich. haha.
i duno, who has a better understanding of economy and the world? me or you?
What “not a boxing match” said about the comparison of this event to Mike Tyson's stunt.
While the end results of the battle may be apples and oranges you are conveniently over looking the fact that Rice swung first.
From a legal stand point, the cause and effects of an assault are also apples and oranges. What matters is who made the first physical move. You see, unlike some stunningly ignorant school districts the law allows you to defend yourself.
The man Rice struck could have killed Rice and it still would have been ruled self defense as long as he stopped the minute Rice stopped fighting.
From a moral stand point, Rice made the decision to punch another man and lost a finger for it. That is a called a life lesson.
Or, it could be a simple study on the history of government run programs.
Agreed! It is unreasonable to assume that you can reason with some of these people.
Nice camera. I'm a cannon shooter myself.
medicare, medicaid are social programs. i dont understand why some people have problems with public programs. isnt social security a social program, isnt even PUBLIC schools and PUBLIC parks funded by the governement? with the greedy conservative mentality maybe all of those things should come with a price. lets make everyone pay for school, parks, medicare, hey lets even make everyone pay for tap water. survival of the fittest. if you dont have money, then die! that works doesnt it?
NO! it doesnt.
none of us live independently of each other. anyone who makes money is because thye had to get the good or service from one person in order to sell it to another person. we are all interdependent. the sooner we realize that the better this world will be.
You know, the mood in this country is heating up to the point at which it begins to resemble the period before the US Civil War in places like Kansas. At that time, in many places, if you were an abolitionist and spoke out, your life was in danger, and many people were killed for their views. During and just after the war, human life became even cheaper. Hate is contagious, and many of the most vehement haters these days also have guns.
It's hard to say this, but it's looking as if blood will once again run freely on the soil of America before we once again have some semblance of peace and reason in this country.
Nonsense. That is just common sense. He who swings first bears the burden of what ever comes from it. Mr. Rice, formerly known as Ol'-Nine-Digits went on national TV and freely admitted he not only swung first, but he swung twice.
As for the charges on the biter, I don't think so. He may be charged, but he will get off. It is a slam dunk for any marginally competent lawyer. Even in the Left Coast Land of California, you are still allowed to to defend yourself from a physical attack.
Perhaps you should spend some quiet time ponder reality. Like the reality of what you would do if someone assaults you? Or perhaps someone assaults someone you love in your presence.
It is amazing how fast people will change their “moral code” when they are being beaten.
Jack,
The Mike Tyson reference is not applicable here. Mike was in a boxing ring participating in a sport that has rules against biting.
In the case at hand we had one person physically assaulting another. What ever happens to the person that threw the first punch is their fault. That is morally and legally defined as self defense.
Based on what you wrote above, it is safe to assume that you have not been around a great deal of street violence in the last couple decades. So I'll bring you up to speed.
Variations of the Marquis of Queensbury rules went out of style for street/bar room fighting in the 1920s when “gentlemen” would step outside to settle their differences.
Sometime in the late 1970s those unwritten rules began changing again when the losing combatant was no longer allowed to surrender, with or without honor. For reasons that are not clear the attitudes in US Society, especially among teens and young adults, changed from just winning the fight to beating the losing party into humiliation, sometimes even to death. Many blame the gang culture for this subtle change of combat etiquette but no real cause has been proven.
Since that time anyone finding their self under assault can only assume their life may be at stake. Anyone that fights with some unwritten code of conduct in mind handicaps themselves and puts their health and life at greater risk.
In a street/bar fight situation you take any advantage you can that will end the attack and neutralize the threat. That includes biting, hitting, scratching and attacks to the groin, eyes, nostrils and ears. Even going so far as using whatever is at hand for improvised weapons.
The object is to stop the attack with the kind of prejudice that gives the attacker serious reluctance to resume it. Anything less can get you hurt, maimed, crippled or killed.
And I don't get the last reference. I'm not related to anyone named Bobbett. What did I miss?
Well Charley the law is fortunately not written around your definition of common sense. Read about it under felony mayhem. For example even of one starts a fight it does not mean the other person is at liberty to do anything he wants. He could not pull out a gun and blow his head off for instance without imminent threat of death. Also a person is allow to swing first in any case if there is reason to belief he is threatened. Stop shooting from the hip or from you limbic system and read the law. This is not the New York legislature who writes the law as they go according to need. You seem to find it difficult to even agree that this guy of yours brought on the whole situation. I would bet you still even support Van Jones' latest racist remarks revealed just today. Do you? I am open minded enough to criticize my side much of the time and not some lemming letting groups like moveon.org tell me how to think. Rational like yours provides much entertainment for me. Everyone can use a good laugh reading such pathetic posts. Karoli is a reasonable and apparently intelligent person, though we could not agree more on the health care issue. She can grasp concepts and form arguments that make sense and follow basic logic. Your do not. Read her posts and compare them with yours and you will see how pathetic you appear to anyone with any intellectual abilities whatsoever.
“i duno, who has a better understanding of economy and the world? me or you?”
Clearly, based on your last post, I do.
a)read macro ec then look at reagan and bush history. it's all there, nothing new. Plus that corpo tax break thing reagan was on about took money from mom and pops
b)”poor access to….”
c)bush boom working class (boiler room loan//phone bank workers etc) live in a managed economy too… excess money has been rechanneled to new “Enrons”
Congratulations, you have just won the award for the most ad hominem attacks in the fewest number of words. Great ratio. You win the prize but not the argument my child.
You have no concept of the law or application thereof. You try to talk a good game but it is just crazy bar room legal mumbo jumbo. Stop embarrassing yourself because you are starting to sound like Billy Carter.
ricknelsoniluvit,
You've got a couple things wrong here. First of all you are assuming that I am pro-Obamacare. I am staunchly opposed to it. The government has proved itself inept at running every other federal or state social program. With that track record, the last thing I want is the federal government bankrupting the nation so they can screw up our medical system too. So Mr. Finger-biter is by no means my man.
There is no need to go into detail on the rest of your presumptions on where I stand on Moveon, Van Jones other then to say wrong again.
We are going to disagree that Mr. Finger-Biter brought it on himself. Yes, he made a bad decision to go across the street and confront the people there. I freely admit he may have had a chip on his shoulder. But he did not get physical until he was assaulted.
Rice swung first and then he swung again. Anything that happened to him after that was his fault. Finger-Biter defended himself from an ongoing attack as evidenced by the method the finger got in his mouth and verified through public statements made by Mr. Rice. At worse for Mr. Finger-Biter, that is offsetting penalties.
I am just as willing to criticize bad actors on my side as well. That is why Mr. Rice is getting very little sympathy from me.
Who is for and against health care or where my political beliefs lay have no bearing on the facts and the law.
Speaking of the law, you are right, this is not New York. However, you should brush up on your California code. Let me refresh your memory, assuming you ever knew this to begins with:
PENAL CODE SECTION 203-206.1 Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.
The key word in that paragraph is “unlawfully.” Even on the Left Coast self defense is not unlawful. Clearly this bite was in self defense. The connector “and” means both conditions must be present to meet the law so malice will not even make consideration.
Now then, perhaps you can show me something in California law that supports your other statements. I think the statutes are on the web. In particular I want to see:
- Where does it say you can take physical measures against someone that is too close to you?
- Where is it written that pointing a finger and yelling is considered assault?
- Short of drawing a gun (which brings in a whole different set of rules), knife or other instrument commonly defined as a lethal weapon, can you show me where the law limits allowable defensive during an assault?
- Extra credit: Show me where in the law it says you cannot use a weapon, other then a firearm, to defend yourself from an assault.
If you can provide the related California statutes and/or case law to support your position I will rush to concede your points. I would rather be corrected then wrong.
I'm glad I was able to entertain you. I'll be here all week and don't forget to tip your servers.
I have studied history. In fact I was alive and paying attention during those years. That is what led me to question your statements. And they are still questionable.
As I said above, show me case or statutory law the contradicts my interpretation of the law and I will be happy to concede your points. In the mean time, do you think you could share you legal background with us?
Are you in law enforcement?
Perhaps a lawyer?
Maybe even a paralegal?
Or just another bar room know-it-all?
Much better Charlie and I do respect that type of logical argument. I hate to read all these blogs that are 100 percent name calling and no facts to even respond to. It is impossible.
Here is the general or broad view of the law but it is variable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This applies in Pennsylvania and I will have to have some time that I do not have at the moment to pull California. The police spokesperson did say pretty much the same in one report that I read however. For the statute citation, I will try to look that up.
Self-defense, non-lethal force:
Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.
In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.
The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.
There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.
‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement “If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you” is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.
The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force.
Self-defense, lethal force:
The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.
The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.
When we get past the drama of the current healthcare crisis and debate, the first thing we notice is the sky-high price of health insurance, so we’re inclined to blame insurance companies. But they’re just the scapegoat. Health insurance is expensive because health CARE is expensive. Doctor visits, hospital procedures, malpractice insurance, and drugs are all expensive in America, adding up to huge bills submitted to insurance companies, which then have to pass on the expense to policy-holders. But before pointing fingers at doctors, lawyers, and drug-makers, we have to realize that these guys are FORCED to raise prices; corporations by law have to do whatever they can to maximize profits for their shareholders. The result: ever-growing health care costs. That’s just the nature of capitalism. But we can’t blame capitalism, which traces back to the idea of “survival of the fittest,” the idea that living systems (and social systems) compete in the terrestrial ecosystem, and only the most adaptable survive. So on Earth, life is very competitive and ruthless, and apparently it’s been like that for a long time. So… to get to the root of the problem we’d have to trace back to the most ancient of times for the answer…when and why did life on Earth become ruthlessly competitive… and why are we humans are the way WE are, with a noble side that wants to make sure that everyone's taken care of (like with a public health care option), and a savage side that fears that controlling forces like government will strip away our freedom to survive in a hostile environment. Until we can understand why we have that schizophrenic nature, the drama will continue. And THAT, in my view, is the real core issue in the healthcare debate… and it's what I'm devoting most of my life to figuring out…
Interesting. If this interpretation is correct, then you made my point for me. The simple fact the finger was bitten off while Mr. Finger-Biter was being punched in the face makes the test for self defense based on this interpretation of the law.
I had no idea that Pennsylvania standard for self defense is so backwards.
This line from the first paragraph is a nightmare all by itself: “The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him.”
I feel for law enforcement having to operate under that standard. It opens the door for what we called the “I hit him back before he hit me first” excuse. That takes away officer discretion and forces them into “arrest them all, let the judge sort them out” mode.
That kind of badly written gray area law is bad for all concerned. It puts the police officers in a bad spot. It is bad for the public because bullies will soon learn all they have to say is “He was a threat, so I knocked his teeth down his throat.” It is bad for the victims because innocent people are going to be booked into jail, charged and incur legal fees for doing nothing more then defending themselves.
Or worse yet, fearing a trip to jail and the stigma that goes with that, victim will agree not to press charges if the aggressor will not press the matter. The thug gets a free pass.
The only thing worse then a bad law is a badly written law.
Fortunately the law in the states I am familiar with, California included, is far clearer on the matter of self defense. It comes down to the first physical act of aggression.
The last paragraph before lethal force is too vague to say how this will play in Pennsylvania. However the example about using a firearm after a slap is consistent with my training. Under that standard, the bite will pass the legal test. To my knowledge there is no law on the books that forbids the use of teeth in a fight.
But this has nothing to do with California law. If anything it might have something to do with Pennsylvania law in a general sort of way. But this is a general interpretation of some compilation of laws across the country. Each state is going to be different. I would prefer to the read the statutes for myself rather then someone's take on those statutes.
nuanced args are not suitable for the class represented by those “to the right of attilla” ; so ' preaching to the choir. In fact “heresy” means freethinker, same as “liberal”/”communist” etc to the “conservatives” ( meaning liberals who want everyone to follow their parochialisms and whose imaginations are restricted to power and self)…
fundies are authoritarians. the fight is between them, the caths, prots, illuminari with a side of islam and jews and all who get drawn into the idea that systems are more real than life; utopes..
there's history, then there's history and then there's history not counting psychology, philosophy, ethics. Then there's “The Athenean Constitution” and Plutarch and the crisis of feudalism masked as capitalism
haha. great logic! nothing to support your statements. but i guess its typical of the close-minded.
dont forget that we are all interdependent. your money is a result of the actions and hard work of other people too. and one last thing, if you didnt get it the first time, the US is the ONLY industrialized nation without universal health care. as long as i pay taxes, i have a say of where it goes. so clearly, based on that fact, I have a better understanding of the world and economy. but whats the point of arguing with a robot.
apparently
The general people I know have benefited by using their own freedom to make money in a free capitalist market. Not sure why you don't see the same kind of agendas and lies that the government uses to keep people, (maybe such as yourself) in a lower class situation.
Not sure why you are convinced 'the general people' can't make it to a better financial situation by using the freedoms we have here in America to do create wealth and pay our own way.
Giving governments too much power and control over our businesses and decisions leads to dicatorships and bankruptcy. As Margaret Thatcher had said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually it runs out of money”. Without free enterprise to create jobs, goods and services that people buy causing money to flow in the market, the available money needed to fund government programs will decrees. Then there will be fewer dollars to pay for services (health insurance) that you want the government tax revenues to pay for. If you would support an open market, money will be generated and made available to pay for the health insurance that we all want. But to demand that the government tax us, pay for our doctors visits and medical needs, shut down the free markets is asking for bankruptcy in a short period of time. The 'rich people' that you are so upset with will not have as much money to pay in taxes. Then the tax revenue will reduce and you will be told by the government that you gave the power to to accept lesser and lesser coverage. And you will not have a revenue generating job to go to to pay for more coverage with more tax dollars. You will find yourself to be stuck. If you think that you will get a government job, remember that job will cause less tax revenue etc. You will find yourself in a financial downward spiral.
A good example of what you are asking Americans to do would be Russia. They too thought they (The Little Guy) would have a better life when they gave their government the power to control the flow of money. They found themselves in an oppressed, poor, environment. East Germans lived in an oppressive environment when their government had too much power.
Our founding fathers understood this tendancy and devised a wonderful constituion for Americans. Can't figure out why your side doesn't appreciate the foundations they gave us and instead want to follow the paths of oppressed people.
If you look at social security and medicare, they are bankrupt. Our credit lines to other nations are becoming more and more limited. Buy locking us into the government as the only place to shop for health insurance, you open yourself up to the possiblility of even higher rates.
Our economy will spiral south.
I wish I could understand how your side thinks we can pay for government funded health insurance and not bankrupt our nation.
First, Id like to say that I appreciate your response. I have had trouble understanding the other side on this issue as well. Most people Ive spoken with just come off with bogus claims without facts to support them and oftentimes simply attack Obama without stating their logical views on this medicare issue. Your comment is more refreshing.
I definitely believe capitalism is necessary. Although China considers itself communist, it is capitalist as well. It is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Any country that is solely communist, socialist, or capitalist will not be able to support its people. What is necessary is a mixture of capitalism to support the people of the country. All industrialized countries, most of which are capitalist, except the US have universal healthcare. The US is also still one of the most wealthiest countries in the world. Its hard to believe we cant afford it while all the other industrialized countries can.
What has led to our deficit is the war in Iraq. Its odd so many Republicans supported that war and so many are against universal healthcare. Republicans supported this war to save American lives from terrorism but wish to leave Americans to die because they cant afford to pay medical costs. Not to forget that defense accounts for most of our government spending. Maybe more should be spent on saving American lives in a more concrete way.
My family is middle-upper class and I own my own business. We worked hard for our money but it wasnt easy. Coming from our educational background and being the right color didnt hurt either. Not everyone benefits from the “freedoms” of America. There is still much inequity in America in regards to Education, race/social class. I am making my American dream come true and I want everyone to be healthy enough to make that dream come true too. What wouldve happened if you got sick and you/your family couldnt afford healthcare. You wouldnt be here today, and I wouldnt be talking to you. Human life is valuable. Im happy to say that recently there was a bipartison agreement to insure that children would be provided with healthcare but there is still work to be done. These insurance companies have been taking advantage of their consumers with denying people based on vague “pre-existing conditions” and simply ignoring them or showing in fine print on the contract how they are denied. I dont agree that everything should be run by the government, but I believe that the government should make sure the companies arent taking advantage of their consumers and I still believe those who cant afford it should not be denied the right to live.
Back when Clinton was in office we had a surplus of half a trillion dollars with all of these social programs in effect. He was also trying to implement health care reform but Republicans denied it. Whats interesting is when he was asked how he balanced the budget, he said that when he went to grade school 1+1=2 and he figured that rule still applied. I dont believe its easy, but I dont believe its impossible when we have money to spend on so many other trivial things. This health care reform is long past due. We can balance the budget, its a matter of what we give priority. Theres no reason these companies can make money off of providing medical insurance and the U.S. cant. Thats a more healthy recycle of money then fattening the pockets of a few while the country goes bankrupt and sick.
I've been in enough to question Mr Rice's accounting of the incident. Two simple punches? Closed fisted? Seems PR guy's mouth would have had to have been open and he'd perhaps lose a tooth or two with such a blow.
Teeth cuts on knuckles, okay, I can buy that. IMHO, either the second shot was a slap or there was some wrestling going on.
Anon76, You haven't been in very many fights, have you?
OMG, are you really that stupid? Glenn Beck was only after Van Jones for one reason and Fox too because they were losing revenue. Be a lemming. Frankly what facts do you produce or beck for that matter? It is all conspiracy and art critic stuff and your no better than a bircher so go and get an education on things that you think you should protest instead of lifting it from insane people on FOx. I would go in to detail but your set on the ways of the crazy. Read the stuff on jones or on the rockfeller center or on helath care reform etc. The propaganda that spews from Newscorp is enough to make anyone want to throw up.
You are such a funny loser. Makes my day. Van Jones on words, signatures, and racist videos are what killed him. I would consider those facts. No you would not be capable of logical argument so I would not waste time to respond to such ignorance. Have a good day.
Buy the way, that would be 17 years post-graduate education so I will compare CV's with you any day of the week. I noticed in one of your latest posts you say “your no better” instead of “you're” no better. I can either assume that is simply a typo or that you simply do not know the difference. I wonder how you pronounce “ASK”. Is it “AXE”?
Your last question was completely out of line and consistent with the
hypothesis that much of the hate and opposition comes from racist roots.
What was racist about that dear? Are you making the assumption that a particular race cannot pronounce a simple word used frequently in the English language! That is absurd to make such an assumption. On what basis in that assumption made? I am concerned that you would imply that mis-speak is limited to a race rather that the lower intelligence that I did imply.
Also, don't even start that race baiting with me. You need to be talking to James Rucker and Van Jones about that. I have saved lives of more people of color in my career than you would ever dream and treated them just like my family. So do not dare go there.
Asked already and answered. I'm going to make the assumption you've been in many fights. Tell me, are you still in possession of all your digits?
Thanks for proving your Rasict undertones! I will even give you a benefit of a doubt and say your just prejudice to class and standing. That still allows me to see that you are with out merit in this debate because you are in fear. No Wonder you are delusional and paranoid…..Fear will drive the scared into a panic.
God bless you though because you will see that there is nothing to be scared of. The black man isnt going to indoctrinate your children and the libs arent going to set up fema camps next to your church. Get ahold of your self man. Quit being a scared little bitch. Quit listening to crying aholes who make up crap and start reading all the stuff good and bad.
Well all you did was name call indicative of your obvious ignorance of the details of the issues. Obama is failing because of substance, not race. And as far as the B word it was childish and I welcome you to come and have the courage to express such to my face. Anytime puss. Just let me know.
Yes, we would have preferred that they file for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy was adjudicated in the courts ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Bankruptcy would not necessarily have meant that they went out of business and ceased to exist. It might have just meant that they would be re-organized. The takeover by the federal government was unconstitutional and did not do us, the citizens, nor the companies any favors not to mention the senior citizen investors who lost their life savings and support they had been counting on for their retirement years. Many of these investors are over 80 years old and there is no way they can get back into the workplace at this point in their lives. The corporate bonds that they were invested in were supposed to be the most secure, stable investments with little risk for people in their circumstances. This type of bond had NEVER been a 'risky' or speculative gamble in over 80 years and that is why they were willing to accept a lower return on their money than with a higher risk instrument. It is unconscionable that this administration would make senior citizens destitute at the end of their lives in order to pay back political support from their union contributors ILLEGALLY.
December 22… looking for updates… arrests, indictments, pleadings… apologies… NOTHING. Did this really happen?
It did really happen and it made news for that day. Now it’s either stuck at the unresolved stage or whatever resolution there was didn’t make the local papers (neither outcome would be a surprise).
December 22… looking for updates… arrests, indictments, pleadings… apologies… NOTHING. Did this really happen?
Dear Sir,
Admiring and moving so much that your article has contributed to help the world,
I would like to invite you to share the viewpoint by articles on protecting human rights
and the environment for a sustainable future. May you choose or write one send to me
with Name & Country & Organization & Salutation, and I’ll upload it on the UN NGO AWC website.
My name is Martial Wu, a volunteer to the UN NGO Association of World
Citizens (AWC) and the Federation of World Peace and Love (FOWPAL) for
years. In this April we organized a series of activities to arouse people's
attention on human rights development from all aspects as well as on how
we can do to save our common home – the earth for our children and future
generations. Friends from all walks of life are invited to write down
their ideas and experiences for sharing.
The related information is now available at
http://www.worldcitizens.org.tw/awc2010/index_e...
for your easy reference and understanding about our initiative.
Words of wisdom are powerful to help the world. No limitation to topics
or the article length. We look forward to any valuable sharing to guide
people from various backgrounds to learn from one another. With
collective efforts, we believe we can make a change for a better future
Yours respectfully
Martial Wu 吳孟城( Chinese name, I live in Taiwan ^^)
Email： martialwu@yahoo.com.tw ； Martial.Wu@shltw.com
← Previous Comments