• Register
  • Login
  • Forgot Password?
  • My Profile
  • Choose An Icon
  • Upload An Icon
  • Messenger
  • Member Search
  • Who's Online
    Members: 1601

    ONLINE:
    Members: 0
    Anonymous: 1
    Today: 12
    Newest Member:
    Joseph Mahabir
  • You are here: Blogs Directory / Personal / Mel's Odd Stuff Welcome Guest
    Mel's Odd Stuff
          Just a bunch of odds and ends. Life is strange sometimes, so this will probably be strange, too...

    Tue, Jul 28th - 3:02PM

    ObamaGate Unfolds



    Well, I still have not been able to get to hear the tapes, but I found an article that was illuminating for me.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_caller

    Two interesting things to note:

    In her 911 call, Lucia Whalen, who works at the Harvard alumni magazine, repeatedly tells the operator she is not sure what is happening.

    Speaking calmly, she tells the operator that she was stopped by an elderly woman who told her she noticed two men trying to get into a house. Whalen initially says she saw two men pushing on the door, but later says one of the men entered the home and she didn't get a good look at him. She says she noticed two suitcases.

    "I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key. But I did notice they used their shoulder to try to barge in and they got in. I don't know if they had a key or not, 'cause I couldn't see from my angle," Whalen says.

    She does not mention the race of the men until pressed by a dispatcher to describe them.

    "Um, well, there were two larger men," Whalen says. "One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried, thinking, 'Someone's been breaking in someone's house. They've been barging in.'"

    Now immediately some people with a predisposition to think this way will start calling the dispatcher biased for asking for that information.  I am sorry, but that is just not so.  The dispatcher will ask questions like "were they tall or short?", or "were they wearing a hat or glasses?"  It is the same as asking the color of the car that just hit you in a hit and run.  It has nothing to do with racial profiling.  It has everything to do with narrowing down the description to something that can be easily verified.

    Now I only served in Security Forces (read military police) as an augumentee for about 6 months.  However, this later part bears examination as well:

    The officer who arrested Gates, Sgt. James Crowley, said in his police report that he talked to Whalen soon after he arrived at Gates' home. "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch," Crowley wrote in his report.

    Whalen's attorney, Wendy Murphy, said her client never mentioned the men's race to Crowley and is upset by news reports she believes have unfairly depicted her as a racist.

    Now to way that the Sgts description is shortened, that may be true.  However, I will paint you a plausible and probable scenario:

    ...

    Crowley:  "Are you sure it was two men?"
    Whalen:  "I think so..."

    Crowley:  "Were they wearing jackets or gloves that you could tell?"
    Whalen:  "I think they were wearing light jackets.  I don't know about gloves..."

    Crowley:  "Were they white?"
    Whalen:  "I don't know."

    Crowley:  "The dispacter says you thought one of them could be Hispanic.  Are you sure about that?"
    Whalen:  "I don't know."

    Crowley:  "Could they have been Asian or Black?"
    Whalen:  "I don't know.  Asian -- I don't think so.  Maybe one was black, but I am not sure."

    Crowley:  "Did it look like they were using tools on the door?"
    Whalen:  "Not really.  Maybe.  I don't know."

    Crowley:  "Calm down.  You are helping quite a lot.  Really.  You are doing fine.  Now did you notice anything that seemed out of the ordinary to you?"
    Whalen:  "I don't know.  Let me think..."

    ...

    And so the conversation could go.  Crowley would be making quick notes.  He might have written "Hispanic?? Black?" meaning that he interpreted what she said to mean more likely Black than Hispanic, but unsure.  That his report might reflect black may be influenced by the facts in the case.  This is not unusual, even for something like "Hammer?? Pipe?" and then you find out that the victim was hit with a pipe.  What do you think the report will say?

    If you really want to be picky, suitcases became backpacks.  I am sure that some creative mind out there can spin that into sinister "profiling" evidence.   I find tht funny that none of them were bright enough to pick up on that.

    So, I still find most of the spin Pro Gates and Anti Crowley.  I think most police officers will see this same problem and the "True" profiling, (that of our severely biased media) is going to bug them to the core.  Most of them will remain professionally unmoved by this.  Some of them will react negatively.  I cannot see how any of them would react positively to this crappy treatment of a police officer just trying to "Do what is right and get home every night."  They put their life on the line.  They get treated badly by a lot of individuals.  They tell themselves this is just those few bad people and not society as a whole.  When they read crap like what ObamaGate is bringing to light, how convinced do you think most of them are about that last arguement?  For some officers, that might be the only thing keeping them on the right path and not just doing what they please.  It should sober you just a little bit to understand just how your opinion could serve to make this a worse place than it is now.  Say nothing.  Do nothing.  Evil wins!  And you are to blame!

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (1)

    Mon, Jul 27th - 3:53PM

    Uncle Toms and Aunt Janes



    Well, as you can tell from the previous post, I did take in the President's Speech and a bit of the commentary afterward.  Have I ever stuck my foot in my mouth?  Um, Yeah.  Big Time, even!

    So why didn't I say "I am not aware of all of the facts, but I think the President acted 'stupidly'"?   It really is something I could have said.  But, there were too many unknowns.

    Sadly, even if you read the news or watch it on the TV, the spin is so heavy, you really have a hard time getting to the truth.  I certainly have not been able to get a clear focus, but the rough outline is at least becoming clear to me.  What I really want is for the Police Radio and 911 tapes to be made available.  I'd also like to see the actual reports that were filled out by the Police.

    I am aware of Sgt Crowley's unique qualifications and how stellar he is in the matter of Race Relations with Police.  If you don't know all about the who he was know before this smear campaign on his integrity by Prof Gates, you really need to look into it.  He is not the Racist in a Can that Professor Gates claims he is and that the White House hopes you will believe.  He is far better than any Black American could reasonably hope to encounter for an officer, whether the officer is of Color or not.  That Sgt Crowley  is being smeared this way goes a long way to damaging the attitude that many other officers might have in the consideration of special kid glove treatment for people of color in the future.  Not that it should be happening that way, but it does, sometimes simply to avoid any possibility of being accused of racism and exposing the police department to lawsuits.  It should be about human decency and equity.  For Gates, it seems to be about all he can get for "His People" and frankly, I am sick to death of the Aunt Janes pandering to Racial Bigotry like that!

    Professor Gates is certainly trying to do some good.  His background is different from mine.  He sees things from a perspective I can only get glimmers of.  His outlook certainly has a lot to contribute, and his input matters.  But the same can be said of me to him, and I don't feel like my voice matters to him.  Why should his voice matter to me, then?  This is the problem with his "blame" orientation.  He wants to blame "white society".  I think I am more in my rights to blame Buffalo Soldiers for the Deprivation of Native Americans (of which I claim my heritage, even though it has been ripped from me -- legally speaking) than he can say about me, personally.  So I know about discrimination in a way he is too dull to understand, it seems.  I don't live the life of privilege he knows.  If only his side of every argument is expressed, he has won dictatorial powers, and the dynamic Socratic search for truth has failed.  IF he truly were an "intellectual giant" like the media is making him out to be, that loss should trouble him greatly!  It does not seem to bother him at all, at least not publically.

    Now the truth might be that Professor Gates is threatening Lawsuit only to keep those tapes under wraps.  If there is going to be a Lawsuit, those pieces will be very critical.  If he drops the case after things cool down, especially if there is some sort of agreement that keeps them from seeing the light of day, I will strongly suggest it is because they are very incriminating of his true (not alleged) misbehavior, and dare I say it, the Racist Attitude GATES expressed.  I get the impression that Gates Himself is the only one recorded making racially charged statements, even after he alleged that the Police were being Racist by calling them such outright!  Talk about hypocrisy!  I don't think he was aware that a mike might be open or he might have been just a wee bit more restrained.  Now the fact of the matter is this:  If you or I or any other common Joe had made the comments and accusations at the volume that Gates was making them, we would have CORRECTLY been arrested for disorderly conduct and unlike Gates, we would have answered to a Judge for that offense, albeit a rather small one in this day and age.  However, I don't have friends who pull strings to get me out of sticky spots like that.  Gates does!

    So if the Cops had just driven by, noting that it was "that black dudes" house and not stopped to investigate, do you think that would have been right?  No.  THAT would be Racist!

    So if upon discovering people inside the house after the complaint was made, could they notice that it was a black man in a black man's house and not ask for identification and consider that good enough?  No.  THAT would be Racist!

    So if after finally gaining the confirmation that the person in the house was indeed the owner, should they allow a Yelling Tirade (that was witnessed by neighbors, even from OUTSIDE the house and ACROSS the street) full of racial accusations and slurs and even brought the police officer's "Ma Ma" into it in far less than endearing terms, and just walk away, even if they can't call it in over the radio because the belligerent attitude (which has been there from the start) is keeping the person eventually accused of "disorderly conduct" of shutting up even for one second?  Should they just walk away because he was a bitter black man?  No.  If special consideration were given based upon his race, guess what:  THAT would be Racist!

    Most of the media tries to spin this as if Sgt Crowley did something wrong.  He is not suspended without pay, pending investigation.  The Police Union is demanding an apology from the White House and the State Governor without that happening.  The case, frankly, is SO open and shut, that it has already been investigated enough for them to know that such actions would be inappropriate and open them up to a MASSIVE lawsuit from the Union.  Frankly, any reporter who is going to call Gates an Angel and says Sgt Crowley was completely in the wrong needs to start screaming VERY loudly for him to be suspended, which he should be, IF their accusations actually had any merit whatsoever!  Otherwise, they should accept the fact that Obama blundered in this one.  His friend may not be as bad as Rev Wright, but he is certainly not an angel!

    Now I understand.  If Obama had balked answering this question, he would being called "Uncle Tom" by many black americans.  Of course, if he had been wise enough to hold his own peace, like he did when addressing the Killing of a Black Groom at a party by the NYPD, then he should have been able to put those attack dogs in their place a whole lot easier than putting the Genie back in the bottle on what he said instead.

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (0)

    Thu, Jul 23rd - 12:13AM

    Trust



    I'll be honest.  Trust does not come easy for me.  I really want Obama to do well.  Because if he does right and does well, we all benefit.  However, when he admits that MEDICARE and MEDICADE are full of waste and tries to use that as a basis arguement for vastly expanding the Federal Government's involvement in Health Care, I am sceptical.  I begin to even question the sincerity and his explanation's veracity.  I have seen the smoke and mirrors trick before.

    He states that other countries with Public Health care have populations as Healthy as We Are, but will not name them.  Problem is, part of the solution is to allow people with serious health problems to simply die.  In Canada, you pray that no-one in your family gets cancer over the age of 50.  People die of treatable disease for lack of care on a frighteningly consistent basis.  That is the de facto demonstrated way that Public Medicine controls costs -- just don't treat them, and at best put them on a waiting list waiting for money that probably will never bcome available.  The examples are there, and they are not pretty.  Don't expect anyone supporting Public Health systems to even mention this in passing.  And yes, that does make the population left still alive statistically more healthy.  I have relatives in Canada.  A lot of them.  In many cases, America is their only hope for life saving care.  People cross the border for Health Care.  Fact!

    Blue Pill, Red Pill.  Hot button issue.  If he meant generic replacements for medications that work, I would agree.  I suspect what he is saying is that if Aspirin works for your headache, and Tylenol does not, you might be given Tylenol anyway with no recourse because the Government in it's wisdom has determined that they both do the same thing and Tylenol is Cheaper.  Try using Tylenol for a Heart Patient as a blood thinning risk reducer.  It won't work!  But the Government will do nonsense like this!  Even if he does not mean this, the system will try to control costs, and some bright person (not!) will always be willing to step forward and make these kind of cost saving suggestions.  My daughter takes medicine every day, and probably will for the rest of her life.  She went through several types before one was found that worked.  Under the Obama Plan, I am afraid they will all be considered "equally effective" and she will suffer as a consequence.  Other people will find that they have to take medications that might have serious side effects, maybe like severe liver damage.  I do not trust that we will really be left with any free choice in our own health care.

    How can I know?  Well, the govenment has a long standing record in the form of the Veterans Administration Health care.  It has three main characteristics:  It is slow, literally painfully so.  It is often times ineffective and tied up by bureaucratic red tape that denies needed health care on a scale even worse than most Health Insurance Providers.  It is very expensive for the amount of treatment it actually does.  I know this from my research.  I am a Veteran, remember?  I look at this stuff from time to time.  I have a vested interest there.  I don't want to be stuck with the VA as my only choice, and legitmately fear that I may not have a choice in that matter.  Even worse, I might then be considered one of the "lucky ones" because what the rest of the country will get will be even worse.

    I have heard that another great Federal Institution, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has a worse record in how they manage Health Care.  I don't have interest in pursuing this, but if anyone has good input, I welcome it.  Please share.

    President Obama talks about controling costs, expanding coverage, and empowering choice.  They are not mutually exclusive, but the dynamic is that one tends to work against the others.  If it were a small and creative company that was trying to get this done, I might believe it.  However, this is Congress and the Federal Government.  Ask them to design a Race Horse, and you will get a Camel if you are lucky, and you won't be able to even get rid of the darn thing!  That is Big Government.  Tell me when they really got it right last time.  Do you Trust Them?

    Trust God.  Put your hope in a man, even a very good one (and I might be being too kind) and you are likely to be dissapointed.

    Thanks To The Great Physician,

    My Lord Jesus and No Other,

    Mel



    Comment (6)

    Fri, Jul 17th - 5:02PM

    I wonder...



    "Over the years," said the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, "Americans have accepted significant ideological differences in the kinds of men and women that various presidents have nominated to the Supreme Court.

    "But one thing Americans will never tolerate in a nominee is a belief that some groups are more deserving of a fair shake than others."

    "Nothing could be more offensive to the American sensibility than that," he said. "Judge Sotomayor is a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. But above all else, a judge must check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice evenhandedly, as the judicial oath requires."


    He said that, and specifically states that he will not vote to confirm Sotomayor on that basis.  I think he is correct to do so.  If a person sincerely, (and not in deliberate ignorance) thinks she will not exibit any bias in her rulings, I also think they are correct to vote for her confirmation.  However, I have a hard time believing that anyone with any sense at all would think that, given her past record.  But I do not have to sleep with their own brand of self deception.  They alone must answer for their own choices.  As for me, I will serve the Truth as I see and understand to the best of my abilities.

    I wonder about this sometimes.  He speaks true as to my opinion.  I knew here were plenty like Sotomayor out there, but didn't have the time to pursue them individually.  Maybe it is time for us to pursue these Judges before they get the chance to do really push an agenda like she soon will.

    That she has an agenda, there is not any doubt.  Her past (and continuing, some say) affiliations are specifically and widely outside the realm of "fair treatment for ALL" and her record, when analyzed statistically against other peer's records, is indiciative of that same self announced bias.  She said it herself, that:

    “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

    IF she can check that emotional and prideful baggage at the door, (and there will be some days that is going to be harder to do than on others) THEN she will have actually earned my respect.  Until then, should she be confirmed, the title "Your Honor" will only be an Honorific and title and not a title of true, personal Honor.

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (0)

    Mon, Jul 13th - 4:51PM

    Fidelity



    Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law".  Those asking hard questions in the confirmation process are buldozed by the likes of Cesar Perales of the LatinoJustice PRLDEF.  They call anyone who questions the integrity of Sotomayor as "racists" and "bigots" which are strong words coming from a special interest group designed to fight for people because they are of a "special" racial group, and the rest of you be damned!  NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous "...would like to see Sen. Sessions tone down his rhetoric."  Sen. Sessions is being attacked because he dared to bring up the "Landmark" (I would characterize it as her "Hallmark") decision of Sotomayor, where she joined two other judges in dismissing a discrimination suit by white New Haven, Conn., firefighters who claimed they were denied promotions because of their race.  It was just overturned because the decision was found to be RACIST by the Current Supreme Court Justices.  It is informative, because the ones who were discriminated against were not Hispanic, or Black.  So it is fair to ask if that had any influence in her decision.

    The Republican senator had questioned whether Sotomayor's work with PRLDEF might have influenced her decision.  He was immediately and unfairly attacked with the viciousness of a Bronx Pit Bull by every race oriented group out there.  The "who" of those making the attacks is telling.  They have a vested interest in Sotomayor, and getting to the Truth of the mattter is the farthest thing from their minds.  They are Racist and Full of hate.  I am tired of excusing their behavior because they come from a downtrodden past.  So do I!  I am about quarter blooded Native American Indian, and I can't claim my heritage, unlike someone who has the last name "Gonzales" or whatever.  I grew up where being able to lay claim to the stale and slightly moldy heel of bread was "my right" as the oldest and I was hungry enough to take it without hesitation or guilt.  She served on the board of directors of a Racial Special Interest Group and one of her "biggest" decisions seems to reflect that past in Racially Tainted Terms.

    Sotomayor's opening remarks have the very distinct feeling of bias.  She obviously is not aware of her bias, or her speech would not have her saying the things she did.  Of course the Democrats Applauded her.  She could have barked at the moon and they would have laughed and clapped for joy.  They already know the Truth, but her bias is part of their agenda, dear friends.  They don't care!

    ABC polls http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=7939604&page=1

    Rasmussen Reports is more Current and relevant http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/july_2009/numbers_run_sotomayor_s_way_so_far

    Me, I don't think I am going out on a limb to say that she will be confirmed and will then go on to prove her Fidelity is not to the Constitution, but will be to any Law that gives Racial Preference over Fair Treatment.  Look closer at her record, and you will see I am not being Prophetic in any way to say this.  Her history speaks for itself.  She is for Law and Order, yes.  She is for Gun Control even more.  She is for dignity for minorities, yes.  She is for special priveleged status even more -- to the point that her most recogonized case that she and her supporters were so proud of just recently was overturned for being "racially biased" which for those of you who don't know it, is PC talk for "RACIST" when the subject does not happen to be Anglo Male.  We will see.  We will See!

    Me, I look Anglo Male.  I am not.  That does me no good.  I get kicked both ways on this one.  So for me, this REALLY sucks raw eggs!  And, yes, that makes me angry.  Do you think me unjustified in that?

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (3)

    Wed, Jul 1st - 4:11PM

    Motivations and Prodding...



    It might be that Obama did not want to be a hypocrite any more than he had to be.  Read here:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m7d1-Did-Obamas-political-past-keep-him-from-speaking-out-on-Iran

    If he did not want to open up this avenue of attack, it may have been wise.  Iranian Power Mongers certainly can say that he is not really for having "every voice be heard" if they just look back a year or two.  This man was plenty willing to offer lip service when it became moot, but fight behind the scenes to disenfranshise those who opposed him.

    Do you think this still stings Hillary?  I do.  Read this:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/07/01/officials-clinton-pressed-obama-harder-line-iran/?test=latestnews

    I would say that the machine is not meshing together so very nicely.  I would not be surprised to see some parts come flying out as scapegoats if things get much worse.  That would be justice, I might add...

    In Truth,

    Mel



    Comment (1)

    Back to Blog Main Page


    About Me

    Name: Mel Miller
    ChristiansUnite ID: lylejr
    Member Since: 2005-09-28
    Location: Aurora, Colorado, United States
    Denomination: Christian
    About Me: I've been a christian for some time, but squandered my time and talents 'in a foreign land' I have been in the military (active and reserves) for 33 years. (now retired) I have two lovely daughters, and life seems to often be strange to me.

    July 2009
          1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29 30 31  
    prev   next


    More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



    Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
    Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the