It has been a while since I have had a news roundup. Sorry. I have fallen down on the job. First, on a personal note, a couple of years ago, I thought that I could get out of medicine. So, I thought that I should/could buy a building. I would broadcast from the building and rent out some space to help cover costs. I put pen to paper and found a great building. I looked for financing and started negotiating. We got to a price that was somewhat less than outrageous and then the fun began. To make a long story short, I couldn’t get financing and wanted to back out of the contract. The owner of the building said no, I couldn’t get out of the contract. I couldn’t back out. He wanted me to buy the building by hook or by crook. Soon thereafter the lawsuits started flying. I was being sued for over a million dollars. I had to retain my own lawyer. (Did you know good lawyers are expensive??? I mean really expensive.) So, the owner of the building sold the building for more than I had offered. I thought that the lawsuit would be dropped. Nope. He still wanted his money. Now, however, he only wanted $100,000. He was wronged. 18 months later. Thousands of dollars later. The lawsuit was dropped at last. This ends one of the craziest chapters in my life. The one thing that I have learned is that a good lawyer is worth the money. 🙂
Syria. Well, damn. So, here’s what we have been told. Syria had used chemical weapons against its people before. Syria attacked its people with chemical weapons. We know from where the missiles were launched and we know where the missiles landed. We know that Syria shelled the area in order to destroy evidence. At least this is what we were told by John Kerry today. I hate to say it, but we were told that we knew that Iraq had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. We were told that Iraq was a threat to the US. These statements were lies. Is the Obama administration lying to the American people? If we know all of this, why don’t the British know the same things? Why didn’t Prime Minister David Cameron present this information to Parliament? (I admit that I don’t know what he presented. All I know is that he didn’t convince Parliament that any type of military action was necessary.) Continue reading News Roundup – Syria, Jobs→
How can you oppose giving medical care to volunteers who sucked up all of that dust and crap at Ground Zero? Government has no higher purpose than to take care of those who laid it on the line for our country and fellow citizens.
A bill that should have been one of the year’s most obvious no-brainers passed today, about three months later than it should have.
The Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. The legislation was fully paid for, financed by closing a tax loophole for American companies that try to hide their headquarters at P.O. box in the Caymans.
The GOP trashed the bill, calling the health care money a “slush fund.” In July, it needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and it came up short — nearly every Democrat voted for it, and nearly every Republican voted against it.
Today, the House tried again, and this time it passed.
The final vote was 268 to 160. Among the majority, 251 Democrats voted for it, while only three voted against it. On the other side of the aisle, 17 House Republicans voted for the bill, while 157 opposed it.
The bill calls for providing $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would have paid 10 percent of those health costs. The bill seeks to set aside $4.2 billion to reopen the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for any job and economic losses.
In addition, the bill contains a provision that would have allowed money from the Victim Compensation Fund to be paid out to anyone who receives payment under the pending settlement stemming from lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers filed against the city.
Yesterday, the University of Washington held a debate about the constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform bill. The Seattle Times reports that none of the panelists at the debate argued that the bill was unconstitutional because the organizers of the event couldn’t find any law professors who held that view:
The University of Washington billed it as a debate among distinguished law faculty over whether the new federal health-care law is constitutional.
But while the four panelists at a packed event Tuesday may have differed on some of the finer points, they all agreed on the big question: They said the new law passes constitutional muster and that various lawsuits arguing the opposite — including the one joined last week by state Attorney General Rob McKenna — have little merit or chance of success.Even John McKay, the former Republican U.S. attorney for Western Washington (who was forced out in 2006 under contentious circumstances) said that while he sympathized with some of the political issues in play, he thought the lawsuits lacked merit. In fact, he questioned the timing and thrust of the cases: “One way to say it is, that this has to be seen as a political exercise,” he said.
Moderator Hugh Spitzer noted the lack of a vigorous dissenting voice. “I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional,” he said. “But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand.”