My friend Bob Zenk, shares his thoughts...
"A Lie: Millions of Americans do not have health care.The Truth: Millions of Americans do not have health insurance. Insurance and care are not the same thing."
Read more...
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Oh NO-BO!
I was surprised--no, not really--by a news story that I received the other day from a co-worker. It said that a local chinese food restaurant that we frequented and affectionately named NOBO (NOrth BOwl), was closed by the local health department. The Kansas City Health Department found 19 violations--12 were considered critical. The short list of its crimes against humane dining were:
- roaches on the walls of the building
- egg rolls and meat without freshness dates in the cooler
- mold growing on food
- food not stored properly and did not “protect the integrity of the contents”
- sewage backing up into its sinks
Who knows how long this had been going on, but probably long enough that it was an issue when I ate there several months ago. I don't like to think about it too much. Nor do I like to think about the time I received my plate of food before this story broke and made the comment to myself that it smelled ammonia-y, i.e. (decaying something). My stomach hurts to think about it. Perhaps it should be called North Bowel.
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=2e109c90-3e5b-4f4f-8fb7-915ad782cbc6
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Jury of My Peers--no way! Well, maybe so...
A few weeks back I was summoned for jury duty for the US District Court, District of Kansas. I have done this once before about 3 years ago. I am surprised that I was called again so soon for it, but am pleased nonetheless. Yes, I said I was pleased. My experience serving then was a great experience. It was fascinating to see the variety of people who were summoned. Truly folks from all walks of life: gender, race, economic status, education. Which brings up the whole thing about being tried by a jury of our peers.
Peers in the constitutional sense means that you will be tried by another citizen. Period. It is not likely they will be the people you typically call your peers. If you were to ask me who my peers are, I would have to describe them as 30-40 somethings, predominantly white, Bachelor or Master-holding professionals. That is not the peer group you will see when you are called to jury duty. So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, if I were a defendant, part of me would want to stack the deck in my favor by having more of the same type of person. That's not a good thing for justice. So, instead, we have this cross-section of American citizens that will decide the fate of another fellow citizen.
A lot of people I think are put off by this variance, fearing that predjudice, education, or intellect are somehow going to put them at risk during a trial. Well, that might be the case if the jury was just left to their own devices and had to come up with a verdict without any guidance. But that's not what happens. The judges give instructions and these instructions are specific to the case about what you can and cannot consider. About what is admissable or not. About what questions you need to answer to come to a verdict. These very precise instructions help prevent (but not entirely) the possibility of those predjudices from influencing individual decisions. But, even if those predjudices do carry over into an individual's decision, you cannot have a verdict without full agreement from all 12 jurors and here is where being judged by a jury of constitutional peers is so important. If you can't have the jury stacked in your favor, you certainly don't want it stacked against you. The alternative then, is that we bring together a group of people with varying ideas and feelings and we ask them to put that aside and come to a unanimous decision about the facts in a case and arrive at a verdict. Each individual will be a checks and balances for the others and ultimately, the best decision will come forth. That, my fellow Americans, is a beautiful thing.
Peers in the constitutional sense means that you will be tried by another citizen. Period. It is not likely they will be the people you typically call your peers. If you were to ask me who my peers are, I would have to describe them as 30-40 somethings, predominantly white, Bachelor or Master-holding professionals. That is not the peer group you will see when you are called to jury duty. So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, if I were a defendant, part of me would want to stack the deck in my favor by having more of the same type of person. That's not a good thing for justice. So, instead, we have this cross-section of American citizens that will decide the fate of another fellow citizen.
A lot of people I think are put off by this variance, fearing that predjudice, education, or intellect are somehow going to put them at risk during a trial. Well, that might be the case if the jury was just left to their own devices and had to come up with a verdict without any guidance. But that's not what happens. The judges give instructions and these instructions are specific to the case about what you can and cannot consider. About what is admissable or not. About what questions you need to answer to come to a verdict. These very precise instructions help prevent (but not entirely) the possibility of those predjudices from influencing individual decisions. But, even if those predjudices do carry over into an individual's decision, you cannot have a verdict without full agreement from all 12 jurors and here is where being judged by a jury of constitutional peers is so important. If you can't have the jury stacked in your favor, you certainly don't want it stacked against you. The alternative then, is that we bring together a group of people with varying ideas and feelings and we ask them to put that aside and come to a unanimous decision about the facts in a case and arrive at a verdict. Each individual will be a checks and balances for the others and ultimately, the best decision will come forth. That, my fellow Americans, is a beautiful thing.
Friday, August 01, 2008
A.J. Jacobs: My year of living biblically
This is a really fascinating watch. Journalist A.J. Jacobs talks about his year of living biblically. He identified the over 700 rules and laws found in the Bible and worked to keep them. He shares some funny anectdotes about the challenges. While he does not convert to any particular religion as a result, he shares a few lessons that he learned including that behavior modifies thoughts (fake it 'till you make it), that there is something to rites and rituals, that we should revere the sacred, and that giving thanks and being grateful make you happy.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman via Google Maps
I was reading an article on some LDS Church history regarding Adam-ondi-Ahman. I found the quote from Joseph Smith that specifically defines the location according to the county plat map.
"In the afternoon I went up the river about half a mile to Wight’s Ferry, . . . for the purpose of selecting and laying claim to a city plat near said ferry in Daviess County, township 60, range 27 and 28, and sections 25, 36, 31, and 30"
So, I did a bit of research and found an old Daviess County map that was online that showed the sections and then mapped it out myself in Google Maps. This allows you to see it using a modern street map and the satellite images.
Enjoy!
"In the afternoon I went up the river about half a mile to Wight’s Ferry, . . . for the purpose of selecting and laying claim to a city plat near said ferry in Daviess County, township 60, range 27 and 28, and sections 25, 36, 31, and 30"
So, I did a bit of research and found an old Daviess County map that was online that showed the sections and then mapped it out myself in Google Maps. This allows you to see it using a modern street map and the satellite images.
Enjoy!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Reclaiming Conservatism
So, I am reading this book, Reclaiming Conservatism, by Mickey Edwards. I am barely a third through it and I have found that I have a lot to learn about the roots of the conservative movement in the US. I also have been angered further by the current trend of our so-called conservative presidential administration of which Edwards writes. This is specifically around the signing statements that President Bush has been wont to use to exclude the president from being held accountable by the laws that have been signed by our own Congress. Above the law and all that. I am not only disappointed that our president has been operating in this highly anti-Constitutional way, but am also concerned about the president's precedent (that's fun!) for future presidents, particularly, if a liberal president were to be elected.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
