A Sane Plea during an Insane Time

On Saturday, the House of Representatives voted to put the first nail in the coffin of our nation. They ridiculed us, hid from us and finally ignored us as they slithered behind closed doors and passed a death sentence on personal liberty. Never before has the government behaved so shamelessly by openly showing their disdain for the American public. I am saddened and discouraged but I refuse to give up so easily. Pelosi and her hired henchmen believe they have struck a fatal blow to our movement. They think our determination will falter with this setback, that our resolve will crumble. They are wrong. Now, more than ever, it is time to make our opinions known, yet it is important to keep our passions in check and let logic rule the day. Idle threats will be seen as evidence of the Right Wing fringe as opposed to concerned citizens weighing in on an important piece of legislation. Below is a letter I sent to my senator. A similar note will go to Senator Gillibrand, although I believe she has gone too far into the land of butterflies and fairies to ever understand rational thinking, let alone respond to it. Still, it is a first attempt to impose a little sanity on an issue that defies the bonds of reason.

Dear Senator Schumer:

As a constituent and active voter, I implore you to vote against the current healthcare legislation that is under debate. The residents of New York can scarcely afford any more taxes for frivolous social programs. This type of irresponsible spending has landed us in a bankrupt state and now threatens to bankrupt our nation. Please do not insult the intelligence of your constituency by pretending that this atrocity will not cost the taxpayers any money. If it were possible to locate and repair all money leaks in Medicare and Medicaid, the excess should be used to pay some of our debts, not to create another bloated, parasitic program.

In addition, the clause in the current House bill, that mandates insurance coverage, is nothing short of extortion. Never before has the government dictated the purchase of private goods or services, to the American people. This is not the same as car insurance, as some would have us believe. First, car insurance mandates are regulated at the state level. Second, if one does not wish to purchase car insurance, they can move to a state that does not demand it or simply stop driving. The only option a person has to opt out of this healthcare mandate is to stop living. This is a very dangerous precedent to set, and I dare say illegal, under the United States Constitution.

I understand that you must look to the good of the nation, however you are first charged with protecting the interests of those of us within your state. After all, the residents of New York will determine whether you will continue to represent us in the Senate. Congressman Bishop decided to ignore the pleas of his constituency, a decision I believe he will come to regret next November. I pray you are a man of stronger character and conscience, who will put the interests of New Yorkers ahead of petty politics and partisan pressure. Any healthcare bill that adds more cost to working Americans and mandates how we can spend our shrinking incomes cannot be allowed to pass. It will cripple an already withering New York and compromise the future stability of our nation.

Sincerely,

E. M. Perry

The Consequences of Failure

One of the greatest fears every mental health professional faces is the thought that someone you work with will take his or her own life or the life of another. I faced that fear today. At a staff meeting, I discovered that a man I had worked with for over two years, had woken up yesterday morning, and in an argument over cigarettes, stabbed his mother and brother to death.

I look back at the time I spent with Courtney and chastise myself for failing him. I feel as if I had leaned over a chasm to keep him from falling but instead of pulling him to safety, I lost my grip. No doubt, I overstate my importance in the events of his life, still I wonder if there was something more I could have done.

I was there at the beginning of Courtney's descent. I saw a young man who fought not only against a raging illness but also against the social influences of his upbringing. A product of a small, black, low-income community, Courtney grew up around drugs and violence. Still he was always courteous and quiet. I knew he was a player, recognizing the lies he used to get over. But the lies were more like those used by children who are trying to keep from being punished.

Courtney wanted to be a chef, someday. We tried endlessly to find him a school where he could learn culinary arts. Yet every avenue we tried within the system was a roadblock. As much as I tried to assure this young man that he was intelligent and could make something of his life, the other influences around him contradicted my words. When he turned back to drugs and the streets, I found myself wallowing in places I thought I'd never go. Driving into housing projects in drug infested neighborhoods; I would find him and bring him home, trying beyond all hope to help him see the man that I saw in him.

I torment myself tonight. Never before in my years in the field have I ever come home and cried. Not that I haven't been touched by those I work with, because I have, very deeply, but because a professional distance is the only way I can protect my own sanity. This event has broken through those defenses and dangled my own failure before my face. I should have done something more. Now three lives are gone, two dead and one lost forever, and all I can feel is impotent.

It is very likely that Courtney's life is over. At age 30, he will either spend most, if not all of it, in prison, or else he will be hospitalized. While many think that being hospitalized is too easy a punishment for one who has taken two lives, I wonder if that's true. In a hospital, he will be stabilized and wake up the reality of what he's done. Imagine having a dream where you killed your family only to wake up and find that it's true.

I will find the lesson in this somewhere, because that is my way, but not today. Today I will mourn the man that I knew and the life that was lost, because I didn't know how to save him.

    

Progressive Subjectivism: An argument for the existence of Satan.

If the Devil's greatest feat was convincing the world he didn't exist, he better think of something more impressive or risk being relegated to the second string. Progressive subjectivists are quickly surpassing Satan's touted achievement by trying to convince the world that God does not exist. Every day in the papers, we see moral and ethical relativists trying to wipe God off the map in an effort to alter the entire worldview. Subjectivists, those who believe that all reality is relative to the person perceiving it, reject the idea of one true objective reality. A progressive subjectivist or PS is one who uses this twisted view of reality as a way to push his political and ideological agenda, towards a manmade Utopia.

Why is it so important to marginalize God? Because God represents the objective order of the universe. For a progressive subjectivist, ethical and moral judgments are based on how they see the world, as opposed to how the world actually is. They shun God because God imposes one size fits all rules that the PS sees as irrelevant to his world. Not all non-believers are subjective thinkers but many have fallen into the pit the progressive subjectivists have created. Even those who claim not to believe in God innately understand that it is wrong to kill and it is wrong to steal. By diminishing God, the PS shifts mankind away from God's concrete laws into his reality, where everything is cloaked in shades of gray. For instance, killing is wrong when it comes to executing a criminal but justifiable when a woman's life is inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy. Theft occurs when a business owner forgoes bonuses for his staff so he can take his family to Aruba for a week however it is not theft when the government raises taxes on that same business owner to finance entitlement programs for welfare recipients. Children should honor their parents when they are screaming in a crowded grocery store but should shirk that parental influence at the entrance to the local public school. These fuzzy lines between right and wrong are just what the PS needs to spread his agenda.

God represents the ultimate standards of conduct, towards which man is meant to strive. They are beyond man and thus cannot be changed by man, only God. When progressive subjectivists marginalize God, they negate those concrete standards and thus neutralize any consequences for depravity. In fact, there is no such thing as depravity, for the acceptability of a behavior is determined by the individual, culture or the society. So, is a man is justified in mutilating his wife's face and genitalia for glancing at another man, just because his society deems it acceptable? Does it really matter in what country he lives? According to the PS, we cannot judge another person's culture using the standards of our own. However, to those who believe in God, there is an objective right and wrong that stands for ALL people, not just white, middle class Americans of Anglican descent. In the PS's world, rules can be changed according to a person's race, color, gender, sexual orientation and culture; to the believer, the rules are written on stone tablets and apply to everyone.

So what is wrong with being subjective? Shouldn't we be more understanding of people's differences? After all what's good for one, may not be good for another. Perhaps, but without any clear right/wrong ethics or morals, who decides the rules? The government? The wealthy? Dog owners? Redheads? Who gives them the authority? How can we ever be sure that what is good for the rule makers is good for us? The answer is we can't. The PS knows this and sets himself up in the position of authority. He shows you sciences and facts to placate your need for objective ideas however his facts are as flimsy as the ideology upon which they are based. Facts and studies are funhouse mirrors created to warp reality and to show you the world how he wants you to see it, so he can then control how you live in it.

The world was created in a perfect, intelligent order. Because of this, we can plot planetary movements, navigate the seas using the stars and predict weather patterns. The PS tries to break your habit of looking at the world objectively by skewing data to fit his ideas. He has no use for real facts because they are confined by objective thinking and do not apply to the world he sees. For instance, the PS says: Global warming is melting the polar ice caps and if we don't stop driving SUVs, all life on the planet will die. When one points out that earth's temperature has actually decreased over the last decade, the PS answers: It's climate change. The fact that the temperature is cooling is actually a sign of global warming. He'll show you study after study proving he's right. His arguments are so passionate and mind numbing that eventually you'll relent, thinking that he is the expert and you were never good at science anyway. All the while your objective brain is screaming, "Are you kidding me" and a few other expletives that I won't write here. The PS is not lying to you, not really. He is remaining true to his subjective world, where everything is relative—including the truth.

But what does this have to do with the Devil? It is difficult to imagine God designing an adversary who poses as no challenge to His intellect and ability. As man grows more sophisticated, so must the Devil and progressive subjective thinking is his modern day weapon against the virtues of man. Man has moved beyond the point where simple lies would tempt him to turn away from God. Man needs pretty lies that feel like truths. After all, who can see the malevolence of tolerance for one's fellow man or a world where everyone strives towards his or her happiness, guided by the standards they, themselves impose? Yet progressive subjectivism plunges us into a world of moral and ethical relativism where degeneracy is seen as virtue and true virtue is ridiculed; a world where righteousness is defined by what's popular and not by what's right; where man sits on the throne of God and God is relegated to a dusty corner of the collective attic. If there's a better argument for the existence of Satan, I don't think I want to hear it.

        
 

    

I Am…

I am an imperialist because I believe in spreading freedom in places that don't have it.

I am an ethnocentrist because I believe that a person who enters a country illegally should be sent back to his nation of origin until he learns to obey the laws of the land.

I am a fascist because I believe that the Bill of Rights was never made to be flexible or to change with the times.

I am intolerant because I believe that those who find the nation's flag offensive should find a new nation.

I am a warmonger because I believe that peace is achieved when you have a bigger gun than your neighbor.

I am a racist because I judge a man according to the content of his character and the validity of his ideas rather than the color of his skin.

I am a Nazi because I will fight against any race, culture or religion that wants to annihilate mine.

I am a radical because I believe that elected representatives should serve the ideals of their constituents, not ridicule them.

I am greedy because I believe any person capable of working for his own daily bread, should keep his hands out of my breadbox, unless I offer first.

I am heartless because I believe that those who see themselves as victims are destined to remain powerless.

I am narrow-minded because I believe that accomplishment builds self-esteem and not the other way around.

I am a moralist because I believe there is no collective end that can justify the loss of one man's liberty.

I am an elitist because I believe immigrants should embrace and enhance a nation's culture and heritage, not erase it.

I am an anarchist because I believe that when a government decides what is for my own good, it has ceased to govern and has begun to rule.

I am Patriot because that is what God made me.

Politics is Local

Last night, the Conservative Society of Action held a "Town Hall" meeting, featuring candidates who are running for local offices. There was a surprisingly good turnout considering none of the candidates is running for any office higher than Suffolk County Legislature. Still, as Stephen Flanagan, founder of the CSA, points out, all politics is local. Here are the highlights.

The candidates covered a variety of topics from lowering taxes and repealing Suffolk County gun laws to how to bring in more commerce to Brookhaven Town and Suffolk County in general. The hot topic for the night was the illegal immigrant problem in places such as Farmingville and Patchogue.

The candidates in attendance were as follows:

Tom Cilmi: Cilmi is the Republican candidate for Suffolk County Legislator, 10^th Legislative District, which covers East Islip, Islip, Islip Terrace, Great River, parts of Bayshore, Bohemia and a good chunk of Ronkonkoma. Cilmi is a small business owner in Islip who is a former President of the Islip Chamber of Commerce and the East Islip Soccer Club. He is a member of the Islip Anti-Bias Task Force and St. Mary's CYO Ministry. In addition, he is a standing member of Action Long Island, an advocacy network out of Huntington. Cilmi was first to address the crowd. He was well spoken in his monologue, discussing several fiscal issues that face the county and nation at large. In the question and answer period, he was bombarded with questions about the illegal immigration problem in Suffolk County, but had no decisive plan. In fairness, this is a difficult problem to address but the impression was that he did not fully understand the concerns that were being addressed. Then again, Farmingville and Patchogue are out of his district, and he may never have cause to address this. The highlight came when he was, as a member of the Anti-bias Task Force, unable to define a hate crime. Cilmi states he is for repealing the Suffolk County gun laws and fiscal responsibility in the Legislature. Overall, Tom Cilmi seems like a nice guy, however he shows no clear plan for the direction of Suffolk County.

Rick Cuhna: Cuhna is the Republican and Conservative candidate for Brookhaven Town Council, and by far the star of the evening. Cuhna was apparently under the weather but addressed the crowd with sincerity and enthusiasm. He began by openly announcing that he sends his children to Catholic school because it enforces the values he and his wife teach at home. He is a local builder and thus very familiar with the building and variance codes in Brookhaven Town. He was also asked about the illegal immigration issues. His possible solutions included the reinstitution of county vagrancy laws and enforcement of the laws limiting the amount of families permitted in one dwelling. He is also a fiscal conservative who is in favor of a town tax cap and he is a proponent of repealing the gun laws in Suffolk. Overall Cuhna was prepared, knowledgeable and above all, genuine.

Dean Murray: Murray is the Republican, Conservative and Independent candidate for Suffolk County Legislature, 7^th Legislative District, which includes, Coram, Gordon Heights, Medford, Holtsville and most of Patchogue. Murray is a Medford Tea Party member who recently threw his hat into the political arena. He is also a local businessman who publishes the free home and car shopper magazines, found in most local supermarkets. Murray had some good ideas regarding fiscal responsibility in government and increasing commerce in Suffolk County. He is a proponent of attracting green technology industry to Long Island, however the idea of wind turbines and solar panel companies did not sit well with some of the members. Still, his primary focus appears to be fiscal responsibility and building the economy of Suffolk County by attracting new business. He is also in favor of repealing Suffolk's gun laws. Overall, Murray appears inexperienced in politics but his enthusiasm and clear agenda may help him win over the 7^th district.

Martin W. Haley: Haley is the Republican and Conservative candidate for Brookhaven Town Supervisor. He is also in favor of a tax cap and appeared to have a clear understanding of how that would help the town. Haley spent much of his talking time discussing how the Democrats in office damaged Brookhaven through their leadership. While there were very few Mark Lesko supporters in the room, Haley's comments seemed partisan and petty. He has held several commissioner positions and currently holds the position of Commissioner of Building and Fire Prevention. Haley clearly has the experience in local government to take on the position of Town Supervisor, however his politics as usual attitude, left a bad taste in this constituent's mouth.

Politics is truly local and it is important to encourage everyone to go out and vote in the local elections. The more officials that represent our values and aspirations, the more likely things will change.

Rules for Radical: A practical primer for realistic radicals, by Saul D. Alinsky (A Review)

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity to defeat the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

These days you can't turn on conservative talk radio without hearing someone quoting Sal Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I recommend that those who prefer to form their own opinions read the book themselves. Hosts, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tout the book as the Radical Leftist Playbook, and they are not misrepresenting it. On the contrary, one can't help but see Alinsky's strategies in many of the recent events; however, what they use on their shows is only a taste of the strategies that are outlined.

First published in 1971, Alinsky, uses his own experience as a community organizer during the civil rights movement to outline a course to successfully promote radical changes within power structures. This book will open the eyes of anyone who has been paying attention for the last nine years. You will see the rationale that started the debate on advanced interrogation techniques, the demonization of Bush and President Obama's mad rush to push through all of his proposed legislation. Readers will understand what tactics the opposition will employ, and what we can do to neutralize them.

As a newcomer to activism, I noticed these strategies at work in our own organizations, from the use of certain words, to the use of several issues at once (ie. higher taxes, healthcare, cap and trade, government spending) to keep the members focused on the opposition. I recommend that anyone involved with the current tea-party movement read this book for his/herself to gain a broader understanding of the people we face and the philosophy to which they adhere.

Weighing In On the Healthcare Debate: A woman’s perspective

Weighing in on the healthcare debate: A woman's perspective.

After the relentless torrent of speeches given by President Obama on the healthcare debate proved futile, the First Lady joined the throng, adding more water to an already sinking ship. The First Lady steered clear of the warmed over rhetoric with which her husband has been pummeling the nation. Instead, she resorted to a poor display of emotional terrorism, showing herself to be equally, if not more uniformed than her husband on the issue.

"Reform is so critical in this country -- not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now.  People are hurting in this country right now."
Michelle Obama said of the healthcare issue, to a room packed with female family and healthcare advocates.

Yet the First Lady failed to explain how a plan that won't take affect for another three plus years is going to help them now. The healthcare strategies that are in play at this moment, the House Bill, the Baucus Bill and other Senate Bills, are not due to go into effect until 2013. What are these suffering people supposed to do until then?

"Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they're the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care.  Women are the ones to do it.  Mothers are the ones that do it.  And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses.  (Laughter.)  And more than 10 percent of women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly relative.  It's often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother -- or a relative of some sort -- but it's often a parent.  So they're making critical health care decisions for those family members as well."

Are we to assume that after the President's plan is put in place, these women won't have to make these decisions anymore? Then who will make them?

Mrs. Obama then goes on to talk about the pricing disparity between men and women.

"Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender.  And this is still shocking to me.  These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby.  In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage.  And as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent -- 48 percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country."

These facts are somewhat accurate. Woman are paying more for healthcare at a young age because women access more costly healthcare services due to childbirth. A woman who has one Cesarean nearly always delivers all her children via C-Section. This is double the hospital stay and surgical costs over vaginal births.

While it has been found that men engage in more forms of risky behaviors, those behaviors are also more likely to kill them quickly. For instance, more men die from violence and accidents than women, thus negating the need for healthcare. The risky behavior that women are more likely to engage in adds to increased healthcare costs. There is a higher percentage of obese women then obese men. With obesity being linked to a variety of health issues such as diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and asthma, it is a small wonder than their healthcare would be more. Women are also more likely to be victims of violent crimes, which require medical attention. Should a woman be denied coverage because of this? Of course not! Still the $5.8 Billion spent annually on healthcare services to treat victims of domestic violence must be taken into account. Studies show, however, that women tend to remain in abusive relationships, enduring repeated injuries from them. Women are also more likely to access healthcare services then men. Men tend to "suck it up" rather than see a doctor for minor illness.

Men and women have different healthcare needs and thus pose different costs to health insurance companies. It is foolish to think a company should charge both genders the same amount. Should car insurance for assigned risk drivers be the same as those with good driving records? Insured women result in higher payout for the insurance companies, so they should pay more for insurance. Closing the gap between genders, despite the statistical data, only serves to have insured men subsidizing the healthcare of insured women. Since, as the First Lady points out, women get paid 78 cents on the dollar when compared to men in the same jobs, this may appear equitable, if you believe that two wrongs can equal a right.

The Obamas and I agree that no one should be denied the option of purchasing health insurance coverage, however those who have these pre-existing conditions should expect to pay more than a healthy person. Again, we look at the high-risk driver vs. the low-risk driver. Private businesses should not be required to subsidize high-risk people with money from the low-risk.

I do not agree that companies should be required to cover basic preventative care. Government mandates raise the cost of care. By mandating preventative care, the government has effectively outlawed catastrophic insurance, which is an affordable option for young people starting out and those with a low-risk lifestyle.

To reform healthcare, insurance needs to be disassociated from employment and purchased independently like car and life insurance. Private companies should offer a variety of packages depending upon different needs and individuals can shop for the best price. This allows people to purchase only what they need and they can stop worrying about what happens when they move from job to job. A government award can be granted for those at the poverty line to purchase private insurance. Since there will be no reforms implemented for nearly four years, there is no reason why these ideas can't be tested out in individual states. The only thing we have to lose is the public option and the short, sure road to government run healthcare.