I've had the privilege to receive good, (no---in my opinion, excellent) medical attention in my waning years.
Last Friday, I spent the entire day at the hospital, where from 9-5, I was hooked up to a blood-pressure machine and given superb monitoring care. I understand that this practice of close medical attention is to continue. It started a year ago; and every 3 months or so, I'm closely monitored; and any minor things needed are done on my body's behalf. I tell you, it's great method of care! And, a good means, too, to remind myself to behave when no doctor is around--no added salt, no sugar, and a life-long (what's left of it) of a low-fat diet.
I also believe that I've helped the medical team assigned to me for the session to evaluate my bodily condition. It's just wrong, in my opinion, to leave it up to a doctor, who sees us old people once in a while, to know what's really going on inside our skins.
Also, I advocate the principle that if me, as a senior patient, can get along with some minor discomfort or some limited us of a limb or bodily functioning organ, then don't get it fixed or altered! I was talking to someone on Sunday at church who has Parkinson's disease. Well, if he could live and function pretty well without invading the body for correction, then I believe he should leave well enough--which is not a state of perfection--alone. Don't do anything to change an obvious deteriorate bodily state and level of functioning. Getting older means just living in a deteriorated bodily overall state.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The Real Reason why Trump, No!
It's embedded in the Baltimore Justice fiasco. The blacks' interests are being overlooked in an obvious attempt to keep law and order White style.
I just recently returned from trips to Washington DC and the East. I stayed in the shelters in DC, where I could discern smoldering embers. It wouldn't take much for a large-scale conflagration to come about there. The Baptist Consortium of DC clergy are doing their best to keep things in check; but it wouldn't take much to get things hot. Their line of defense won't be bought, if things get out of hand.
I saw the same thing when I visited Raleigh, NC a few years ago. The Raleigh Police were giving the blacks the line: "You know you must live by the rules!" They weren't buying it much. What would it gain them?
Now, to Trump, who should be the candidate of the Republican Party this Fall. He says he loves the blacks (I think I heard him say just something to that effect). Well, the Republican Party should have about 20% of their voters from the blacks; and he might be able to reach that level of black voters among the Republican ranks by Fall(ha!).
The point being that what has kept the lid on black insurgency in the US in recent years has been the line of black advocacy of the federal Justice Department. You take that off the table, and all hell breaks loose in the major US cities, I in my opinion. A Republican administration under a jerk like Trump is a guarantee of black outrage.
Now you say, look at how the former Mayor of New York controlled that city, populated by a significant number of black residents. But, he had a large population of Puerto Rico residents to counter the number of blacks in the town. What's the population breakdown in the state of Alabama?
No, Trump as President represents a return to white supremacy; and I can't imagine the country's people will be unified under a Jim Crow rule of law.
I just recently returned from trips to Washington DC and the East. I stayed in the shelters in DC, where I could discern smoldering embers. It wouldn't take much for a large-scale conflagration to come about there. The Baptist Consortium of DC clergy are doing their best to keep things in check; but it wouldn't take much to get things hot. Their line of defense won't be bought, if things get out of hand.
I saw the same thing when I visited Raleigh, NC a few years ago. The Raleigh Police were giving the blacks the line: "You know you must live by the rules!" They weren't buying it much. What would it gain them?
Now, to Trump, who should be the candidate of the Republican Party this Fall. He says he loves the blacks (I think I heard him say just something to that effect). Well, the Republican Party should have about 20% of their voters from the blacks; and he might be able to reach that level of black voters among the Republican ranks by Fall(ha!).
The point being that what has kept the lid on black insurgency in the US in recent years has been the line of black advocacy of the federal Justice Department. You take that off the table, and all hell breaks loose in the major US cities, I in my opinion. A Republican administration under a jerk like Trump is a guarantee of black outrage.
Now you say, look at how the former Mayor of New York controlled that city, populated by a significant number of black residents. But, he had a large population of Puerto Rico residents to counter the number of blacks in the town. What's the population breakdown in the state of Alabama?
No, Trump as President represents a return to white supremacy; and I can't imagine the country's people will be unified under a Jim Crow rule of law.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Why Ms. Clinton should be President of the US
Today, on a talk show, Mr. Axelrod, formerly with the Obama group, made the important point that Mr. Trump, running for President on the Republican ticket, has given no indication that he has the attitudinal wherewithal to live up to the duties of the office. In this regard, he shares the lack of temperament with a Texas millionaire, also from the business world, who had declared his candidacy for that high position in the 1990s. Be it noted, that this individual sort of folded in the final stages of his attempt.
Excuses by Republican analysts for Trump's lack and his "loaded canon" demeanor during the campaign so far amount to an admission of Trump's current failure with an addendum that once Trump becomes President he will act presidential and forsake his childish ways. After all, these pundits point out, if you knew and talked with Trump face-to-face, you'd know what a kitty-cat he really is! He's not that bad!, we are assured. And, more significantly, he'll solve the employment problem in the US by whatever means he deems right and necessary, so they tell us.
But there's more involved in his attitudinal posture than simply a "fools go in where angels fear to tread" affront. But you can't see it if you concentrate on what Trump says and does. Consider his opponent, Hilary Clinton in contrast to his antics. What does she bring to her candidacy? Just like a race horse has a biological breeding, so does a Presidential candidate have a demeanor and stature that comes from associations and current commitments wrought over years of training and experience. And in this respect she comes from notable experiences wrought over the decades of her public dedication to government service.
For one thing, her husband is Bill Clinton, who as President of the US established a decade of prosperity in the country, despite his personal idiosyncrasies (which he shares with countless other politicians!). For another, as Secretary of State, she interacted with international leaders and established herself as one among them. But most important of all, she has come into her own under President Obama's tutelage, so to become an advocate for universal health care for US citizens and, critically, a dynamic force for human equality among all peoples. In other words, she has joined the movement towards globalization, a movement dating back to the Renaissance but is sweeping the world scene today in trade and commerce.
She emanates the spirit of peace through the quality shown in her endeavors and displays to every citizen a governmental concern for each's own well-being. It would be an honor to call her my President.
Excuses by Republican analysts for Trump's lack and his "loaded canon" demeanor during the campaign so far amount to an admission of Trump's current failure with an addendum that once Trump becomes President he will act presidential and forsake his childish ways. After all, these pundits point out, if you knew and talked with Trump face-to-face, you'd know what a kitty-cat he really is! He's not that bad!, we are assured. And, more significantly, he'll solve the employment problem in the US by whatever means he deems right and necessary, so they tell us.
But there's more involved in his attitudinal posture than simply a "fools go in where angels fear to tread" affront. But you can't see it if you concentrate on what Trump says and does. Consider his opponent, Hilary Clinton in contrast to his antics. What does she bring to her candidacy? Just like a race horse has a biological breeding, so does a Presidential candidate have a demeanor and stature that comes from associations and current commitments wrought over years of training and experience. And in this respect she comes from notable experiences wrought over the decades of her public dedication to government service.
For one thing, her husband is Bill Clinton, who as President of the US established a decade of prosperity in the country, despite his personal idiosyncrasies (which he shares with countless other politicians!). For another, as Secretary of State, she interacted with international leaders and established herself as one among them. But most important of all, she has come into her own under President Obama's tutelage, so to become an advocate for universal health care for US citizens and, critically, a dynamic force for human equality among all peoples. In other words, she has joined the movement towards globalization, a movement dating back to the Renaissance but is sweeping the world scene today in trade and commerce.
She emanates the spirit of peace through the quality shown in her endeavors and displays to every citizen a governmental concern for each's own well-being. It would be an honor to call her my President.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Corrupt Ploys: Standard Business Practice
When you stop and think about it, J. Rockefeller established the railway network that cris-crosses the nation by putting his competition out of business! Nobody, virtually, finds fault for his doing that. And in 2008, as a result of the Wall Street Financial Crisis, nobody in the banking industry (just about) was sent to prison, despite collusion among the large banks, the rating agencies, lending agencies, and governmental departments!
I think there's an important lesson to be learned here. As long as the particular society can recover successfully from the deleterious effects reaped upon it, there's really no harm done. Nobody may be held accountable.
Look at Brazil today. Ms. Rousseff is supposedly to be impeached from the office of President of the country. Now, the proceeding might indeed take place. But why, when, for instance, there's massive corruption in its oil industry, with businessmen reaping hordes from kickbacks! She could not have done more harm than these others! Nonetheless, why she may indeed be impeached is because the country is experiencing the worst recession in decades. She may be looked upon a its spiritual cause simply because of her leadership position in government! Just as the royal family was adjudged the cause of the French Revolution during a starvation era!
So a country, a culture, will adjudge its leaders by the economic and social conditions the country is experiencing. Let's go back to Rockefeller. What he did in getting rid of his competition may have been unethical, even immoral; but the results of the society were outstanding: he brought about a national rail system.
I personally have an opinion as to why the cartel giant Guzman was captured for good. He represented the means drugs were shipped from South and Central America to the US, etc. When it became fashionable to use submarines and the seas as a more profitable means for shipment, he was no longer in a position of prominence in the underworld. Well, it's just a theory,
In any case, society seems to be the real judge of whether to impose its justice on its leaders on the basis of whether it has benefited from some corrupt ploy a "heinous person(s)" has (have) used.
I think there's an important lesson to be learned here. As long as the particular society can recover successfully from the deleterious effects reaped upon it, there's really no harm done. Nobody may be held accountable.
Look at Brazil today. Ms. Rousseff is supposedly to be impeached from the office of President of the country. Now, the proceeding might indeed take place. But why, when, for instance, there's massive corruption in its oil industry, with businessmen reaping hordes from kickbacks! She could not have done more harm than these others! Nonetheless, why she may indeed be impeached is because the country is experiencing the worst recession in decades. She may be looked upon a its spiritual cause simply because of her leadership position in government! Just as the royal family was adjudged the cause of the French Revolution during a starvation era!
So a country, a culture, will adjudge its leaders by the economic and social conditions the country is experiencing. Let's go back to Rockefeller. What he did in getting rid of his competition may have been unethical, even immoral; but the results of the society were outstanding: he brought about a national rail system.
I personally have an opinion as to why the cartel giant Guzman was captured for good. He represented the means drugs were shipped from South and Central America to the US, etc. When it became fashionable to use submarines and the seas as a more profitable means for shipment, he was no longer in a position of prominence in the underworld. Well, it's just a theory,
In any case, society seems to be the real judge of whether to impose its justice on its leaders on the basis of whether it has benefited from some corrupt ploy a "heinous person(s)" has (have) used.
Fracking in Oklahoma: 60 Minute Program
The oil and gas industry in Oklahoma wants to deny the effects of fracking leading to earthquakes at the lower levels of the earth's surface that has greatly increased in recent years. They say the increase occurred before fracking was instituted.
Nevertheless, I think it's clear as reported--that 1) the method of fracking to extract oil uses much more water than ordinary methods; and, as reported in a recent 60 Minute Show, 2) a state near Oklahoma (Kansas?) cut back on deploying fracking by closing several wells where it was used, and noted a decrease in its number of earthquakes.
Nevertheless, I think it's clear as reported--that 1) the method of fracking to extract oil uses much more water than ordinary methods; and, as reported in a recent 60 Minute Show, 2) a state near Oklahoma (Kansas?) cut back on deploying fracking by closing several wells where it was used, and noted a decrease in its number of earthquakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)