Misblog - Latest comments

Ross Wolf [Visitor] in response to: FBI Illegally Uses National Security Letters

Ross Wolf [Visitor] — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:30:22 +0000

Recently Obama Signed a One Year Extension To The Patriot Act.

It does not take much knowledge of history to understand how a corrupt U.S. Government could use National Security Letters under the Patriot Act—As A Political or Economic Weapon.
Currently in the name of fighting terrorism, U.S. Government can use National Security Letters to search a Citizen’s private information and records without having to provide specific facts—the person’s information sought pertains to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Government can impose National Security Letters without probable cause on your employer, your business client(s) credit card providers, even your relationships. After you receive a National Security Letter, under current law you can’t tell anyone. National Security Letters if used by a tyrannical U.S. Government, could be very threatening to Americans when you consider methods used by other governments. For example in Nazi Germany, the Gestapo routinely targeted and damaged business people and companies that refused to support the Nazi Government by—interrogating their customers—about them. Not surprisingly targeted business people and companies found it difficult to make a living after their frightened customers and clients distanced themselves after Gestapo interrogation. Some German corporations with ties to the Reich government used the Gestapo to scare off their business rivals’ associates and customers—to take their business. A corrupt U.S. Government could as easily use National Security Letters in the same manner and to intimidate Americans exercising First Amendment Rights.

Congress needs to pass legislation that prevents Government using National Security Letters to investigate Americans without first demonstrating a clear standard of probable cause.

misblog [Member] in response to: Israel Suffering Shoah Shock Syndrome

misblog [Member] — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:02:49 +0000

Hi Julie,

Doesn't the fact that "the God of Israel" holds title to the land make it easy to obtain a settlement on the remaining boundary issues?

Israel and Palestine can simply file a joint imminent domain action against "the God of Israel", take title via a default judgment when "the God of Israel" does not appear in court, and then draw the boundaries for the state of Israel and Palestine in accordance the applicable United Nation's resolutions.

Julie Ong [Visitor] in response to: Israel Suffering Shoah Shock Syndrome

Julie Ong [Visitor] — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:30:35 +0000

I do not believe its about the land. It is obvious that the wicked minds of those who seek Israel's annihilation want a two-state solution so that the the proximity would render it easier to wipe THEM out. They openly said they were going to do that... the simple minded. But the owner of the land is not the people of Israel but the God of Israel. Even Israel's President and PM need to be reminded this.

Anna [Visitor] in response to: On Integration Of Our Mentally Ill

Anna [Visitor] — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:38:35 +0000

New York State MUST Appeal

In regard to Judge Nicholas Garaufis’s decision (Sept. 8, 2009) in a case brought by Cliff Zucker of Disability Advocates against the State of New York, there are many disturbing aspects. This lawsuit was about whether or not NYS violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by referring former psychiatric patients for housing in adult homes. The plaintiffs argue that these adult homes are in affect segregating their residents from a normal life within the community by virtue of the homes being too large, too regulated, and not providing the proper services. The defendant in this case is the State of New York and was defended by the NY Attorney General’s office. The judge wrote a 210 page decision outlining the reasons (all based on newspaper articles from 9 years ago, and misinformation presented by the plaintiff) why he ruled that the State is in violation of the ADA. The plaintiffs demanded, and the judge agreed, that these residents should be moved to Supported Housing units (which don’t exist) because it will not cost the State more than the cost of Adult Homes (???).
Let us for a moment look at the numbers. This ruling was focused on almost 30 facilities all in the NYC area housing approximately 4,300 ‘mental health’ residents according to the suit. The residents of these Adult Homes receive monthly SSI checks (level 3) to cover the rent and for their own spending money. The monthly rent amount that the facility gets is $1190 ($39 per day), which covers room and board, daily housekeeping services, recreational activities, case management services, medication management, three meals (and snacks), laundry, security, and coordination of all outside services such as medical appointments and transportation. It is important to note that these homes do not bill Medicaid and are not health or medical facilities and therefore do not have any other source of funding.
“Supported Housing” is basically an apartment with a kitchen and the necessary services are brought in from the outside at extra cost. These units cost approx. $100 per day per bed ($3,000 per month). Not even accounting for NYC’s current housing crunch, it would cost the State a conservative $200,000 per bed to construct these units. That means the State would be looking at approximately $860,000,000 just to create 4,300 new beds, and this number doesn’t even include the interest payments or operating costs! The existing adult home system at $39 per day from SSI (half of which comes from the feds) times the 4,300 residents in question is a State cost of only $31 million. So, any idiot (advocates and judges not included) can figure out that 31 million is cheaper than 1 billion plus.
The taxpayers and citizens of New York State should not only be demanding that the State appeal this ridiculous ruling, but we also deserve an answer to some other questions such as:
• What is the real agenda of the ‘advocates’ (Plaintiffs)? Do they have hidden interests in the creation of Supported Housing? Do they also represent housing groups looking for a windfall from the State?
• Are the Plaintiffs really representing all (or even a majority) of the residents of these homes? How many residents do the advocates speak for? Are the satisfied residents getting the same opportunity to be heard?
• Why weren’t the facilities named as defendants with the State? Were the plaintiffs concerned that they would put up a real defense and not lose? Why weren’t these facilities at least called to testify at the trial as to the mental and physical conditions of their residents?
• Why does it seem that the entire case was based on old information as to the condition of the homes, the condition of its residents, and old newspaper articles? Why are the real facts as to costs not represented? Why wasn’t a recent study showing that very few of these residents are actually able to live on their own given more credence?
• Why was this entire case only about the facilities in NYC? If the agenda was really to enforce a perceived violation of ADA laws, why not include all the facilities in the entire State?
• Was the Judge’s apparent conflict of interest (his wife is Elizabeth Seidman, a director/board member of a supported housing group) waived by the State? If so, WHY? Does that explain why this judge takes this case so ‘personally’?
Let’s not be fooled into thinking that the New York Times articles in 2001 describing bad conditions at a few facilities (which have since closed) are the norm in the Adult Home industry. The vast majority of facilities do an outstanding job (even with the limited resources) at caring for a population that would otherwise be homeless, in hospitals, or in jail. The fact is that residents of adult homes are not segregated, to the contrary, they live in the community, many go to work or outside day programs, and get the many services they need within the home. Not a single adult home resident was forced to live there or sign a contract. They chose to live in a place that they can call home and receive the many services they desperately need. Many comments have been posted online from ordinary citizens objecting to these residents living next door to them, with some even saying that they should be moved next door to the judge. Newspaper articles have been written claiming that the homes will be shut down because of this verdict. The sad fact is that many adult home residents are reading all this and wondering who these advocates are and who appointed them as representatives.
Stand up Governor Paterson and appeal this crazy verdict. New York State is facing a 10 billion dollar deficit and doesn’t need to be extorted into making a payoff to those with their own questionable agendas.

Cathy from Ohio [Visitor] in response to: Chief Justice Elliott Maynard Must Be Investigated Update-2

Cathy from Ohio [Visitor] — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:55:41 +0000

This is the same judge who praised Dr Robert Vawter and others in Wheeling because they stood up for the cause of reducing the number of torts in the state. These doctors protest their rising liability insurance costs. This does absolutely nothing for their patients. There is no cost savings to the patient when their liability premiums come down.
I drove an hour and a half from Ohio to see Dr Vawter for the first time, because I need to know what rheumatic disease I may have. When I got there, the doctor refused to see me, with NO explanation! This happened at Wheeling Hospital.
Not only am I disgusted with Dr Vawter, I'm disgusted with Wheeling Hospital, and now I'm not surprised to see it takes a corrupt judge to sing the praises of this jerk of a doctor! The article was in the Wheeling Intelligencer on November 28, 2007. These people make West Virginia look really bad. I feel badly for my relatives who have to live there. You folks deserve better health care and better government and you should really scream about it.

Jim Bryant [Visitor] in response to: Scorpion Down:USS Scorpion::Blind Man’s Bluff:USS Halibut

Jim Bryant [Visitor] — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:40 +0000

I reviewed Scorpion Down for Naval Proceedings. Much of the book is fabricated, technically wrong. Anyone that was in the SUBFORCE during the cold war knowns that the probably of a Soviet ECHO II being able to detect, let alone target and Scorpion is nearly impossible. Scorpion was faster, had a better sonar, better torpedos and was much much less noisy than an E II. I interviewed several of Offley's sources and they denied what Offley said.

admin [Member] in response to: Dutch Teen's Dream Temporarily Delayed

admin [Member] — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:22:11 +0000

Sheep and Goats,

I enjoyed reading your blog page especially the comment on the dairy farmer. We live in an increasingly complex world, but I think sometimes we forget it's the simple things that work. Sometimes we disassemble the engine (which the young Dekker may have to do?) before checking if there’s fuel in the tank.

The mother may not be disapproving as much as pleading conditional approval? The condition being her daughter remains safe from factors unrelated to sailing. There may be ways to satisfy the mother’s condition (likely shared by most or all) and the young sailor’s dream.

I noticed on Dekker's website that one of her sponsors is Wereldschool a worldwide provider of flexible education. Hopefully that means they will be providing Dekker's important formal education while she's on her voyage?

If it were our child protective services I'd be more concerned that Laura, being female is getting the psychotherapy while the boys were getting the praise. However, the Dutch do not share many of our gender issues or biases.

At least some Dutch officials will be working very hard to figure out how this young sailor will continue to develop while executing her dream and remain safe from factors unrelated to sailing. Some might argue that executing her dream is required for her development!

It should also be pointed out that the sailing dangers are very real too. What will be the young Dekker’s response if her tiny sailboat is knocked down once, twice, repeatedly or worse does a complete roll-over or somersaults? Even though she will be sailing the longest leg first (Atlantic crossing) there’s still the Indian Ocean and the 1,200 mile long Red Sea (full of tankers and huge head winds) before the relatively relaxing Mediterranean.

tom sheepandgoats [Visitor] in response to: Dutch Teen's Dream Temporarily Delayed

tom sheepandgoats [Visitor] — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:14:04 +0000

sigh....it turns out the mom does not approve, but was pressured (for a time) into keeping her reservations to herself. She's now spoken out.

My mom was also always telling me I couldn't do stuff I wanted to. And my schemes were less ambitious than Laura's.