In my dreams. However, for any of our nearly sixty million fellow Americans receiving some form of Social Security, be they elderly, widowed, orphaned or disabled fellow citizens, they'd better watch out for what many fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party have up their sleeves. Not quite Derringers, but close, economically speaking.
In short, they, particularly newly elected Sen. Patrick Twoomey, R-PA, want the nation to pay off its debts to China before it pays what the nation owes Social Security recepients. As a pensioner receiving SSDI, I take this very personally, and will do so much more the next time I walk into my local Wal-Mart or other big-box store ... or even a nice arts/crafts/gifts shop the next time my wife and I visit the Maine coast. Lots of "DownEast" souveniers, T-shirts, you name 'em ... they're made in guess where, China. Heck, since confession's good for the soul, I'm even wearing threads made over there.
Let's face it, there's no way to escape China's overwhelming presence in our daily lives. Or for that matter, any sweatshop our financial bigwigs have sold our manufacturing souls to in order to turn over a fast buck. I realize there's a place and time for outsourcing. Sometimes it can't be avoided. As a small businessman/crafter, I might have to investigate the option. But there's a hell of a huge difference between your average small one-man, basement shop woodcrafter and Wal-Mart, Target and the rest.
While it's understandable that these pols are wary of the Big Bad Wolf, (er dragon) outside the door, but we're not exactly living in anything less than a brick house, relatively speaking. Well, at least so far.
So why panic to pay off Beijing at the risk of putting so many of our seniors, disabled people and orphans into permanent economic peril of defaulting on their mortgages, rents, other personal debts or finding themselves living permanently in foster homes because would-be adoptive parents can't taken them on after they've had to bring their own parents back into their households.
Hey, after all, New Gingrich wants to see us return to the good ol' days when kids were indeed warehoused in orphanages. Utah's new Tea Party Senator Mike Lee wants a return to the days when child labor laws are really a thing of the past and kids will be standing in factories like their grandparents and great grandparents used to. They'll have to to help families all "pitch in together."
Or, perhaps the wealthy (and you've GOT to be wealthy just to run for the Senate or House as a Republican...moreso than a Democrat) pachyderms want us to imitate the Chinese family system where at least one family member if not more, is off at the local factory or big box store, slaving for crap non-union wages (OF COURSE!)
Or, better still ... they can (politically) just go straight to hell. Today's so-called "conservatives" ... especially the "fiscally-oriented" sub-species is by far more interested in making sure the books are balanced first, foremost and to be damned sure well, last most, regardless of who is hurt and how badly.
They want their books balanced with the thought in mind that if the government's books are balanced to the last penny, that'll be less taken out of their wallets; notwithstanding the harsher costs to the less fortunate in the very same society they're able to squeeze every damn penny out of to line their wallets.
I forgot to mention something, many of today's "fiscal conservatives" in the GOP, and some of their conservative "Blue Dog" Democratic lapdogs, love to look back at Ronald Reagan as their hero. But I wonder, "what would Reagan do" when given the chance to honor the government's committment to its citizens or placate the old boyos of Beijing's Tianament Square. In 1982, legislation, which Reagan signed into law, had to be passed to keep Social Security solvent for decades to come:
"The changes in this legislation will allow Social Security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come. . . . Our elderly need no longer fear that the checks they depend on will be stopped or reduced. These amendments protect them. Americans of middle age need no longer worry whether their career-long investment will pay off. These amendments guarantee it. And younger people can feel confident that Social Security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement." - April 20, 1982"
That sure doesn't sound like today's more craven and hollow Reaganites who are ready to toss our Social Security under a Chinese tank if need be.
Forget not Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon, Liberalism's "most favored" bad boy (almost for all time until George W. Bush came along, notwithstanding his pledge to protect SSA in his 2001 inaugural address -- "We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent." ) Most honest liberals when they look back at Nixon's domestic record will admit he was by far more progressive and protective of the less fortunate than today's bunch of rogue elephants suffering from political dementia and moral anemia. And though Nixon "opened the door to China" ... he never would've sold his nation out so cheaply as today's GOP. In September, 1969 Nixon said:
"This Nation must not break faith with those Americans who have a right to expect that Social Security payments will protect them and their families. . . . In the 34 years since the Social Security program was first established, it has become a central part of life for a growing number of Americans. . . . Almost all Americans have a stake in the soundness of the Social Security system."
"W's" father, President George H.W. Bush made damn sure SSA wouldn't take a beating, even though in sticking to his committment to preserving it made it impossible for him to keep his campaign promise of 1988, "No new taxes."
"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990"
Today's GOP newcomers and "balance the books at all costs" so-called "fiscally conservative" breed occupying (far too many seats) in both the House and Senate need to re-examine their plans, but not through the advice of any pollster they're paying far too much money to tell them what they want to hear. I'll save them a lot of money and hopefully a lot of people a lot of money and heartbreak if these greenshaded pols will stop and heed first the words of this influential man in the history of Social Security:
"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions . . . With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. President Franklin Roosevelt, as quoted by historial Arthur Schlesinger, Jr." *
If this idea develops any legs, this will be the day that the fiscal conservatives began laying the seeds for a combined 9/11 and Pearl Harbor for our elderly and weakest to suffer through and quite possibly never recover from. If I were the Chinese, and watching the moral spinelessness of these kinds of political "leaders," I'd be biding my time till 2012, lining up lobbyists and taking full advantage of the Citizens United decision of the bought n' paid for "conservative wing" of our Supreme Court.
Don't worry, I'm not giving away any secrets: Besides, the Chinese already have their handpicked 5th Columnists, such as the Koch Brothers and their Rightist puppets, all working hard on their behalf, using all the tricks I've mentioned above, not to mention perhaps a lot more plays that'll knock us for a loop.
On the other hand, it's time for the rest of us to say, "Dammit, enough!" and start showing some constructively directed anger, courage and political muscle of our own. If we wind up on the streets, living with our adult children, placed back in institutions due to disabilities and our children wind up in orphanages, at least we can say we went down fighting.
* Color emphasis, mine. (Italics already supplied.)
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Beck's ballistic tirade against Chris "Balloonhead" Matthews ought to be Fox New Channel's golden excuse to rip up its most unfair and unhinged bigmouth's contract once and for all.
There's no point in my giving any point-by-point "take" on this beaut of a meltdown. Beck supplies it all. But since he brought up the "Ivy League sneer" to trash MSNBC's Chris Matthews for criticising Michelle Bachmann, Minnesota's Welfare Queen, ($250K in FARM SUBSIDIES for her late father-in-law's farm), over her comments about the Founding Fathers and slavery, allow me to step in with a personal story/angle just to demonstrate how balloonheaded Beck's diatribe was for a man "earning" $30M a year. Actually, this was Zepplin-sized, even by Beck's "standards."
First; Matthews graduated from the College of the Holy Cross... a Catholic college in Worcester, MA. He later studied economics at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill.) Should I give Beck a half-credit since UNC is regarded as one of the Public Ivies, which also include University of Virginia, and UMass/Amherst? Hmmm, I'll bet he'd really get off a good snicker n' sneer at UMass/Amherst, a real progressive school chock full of wooly-headed liberal progressives.
Give it a rest, Beck. And for once, earn your outrageous compensation, salary or right wing agit-prop obscene profiteering from your grossly irresponsible and horrendously huge ego and mouth by doing one thing, and one thing only: JUST SHUT UP and listen or at least read up on what you're trying to say or pretend you have something to yak about.
I have more "Ivy League" credits than Chris Matthews. Heck, I even have more than one of my brothers who's a tenured college professor. What's more unique about my "Ivy League" education is that I received it on the college's dime when I worked for Mount Holyoke College (MHC) and I was trying to earn some necessary credits to become ready for a teaching internship which I would've completed had it not been for the reluctance of my then-boss to allow her employees to conduct outside unpaid internships. This was in 1990 when my wife and I had a fourth child on the way and with no certain teaching job prospects surely lined up, I was unable to fulfill a dream I had started in 1970. Without any health care ... well, I don't have to explain that in greater detail, unless Beck's actually reading this. In this case, I'll have to pull a tutorial.
By the way, one of the courses I took was in American Economic History and my thesis was about Charles Beard's views that the American Constitution was created as an economic document. Hmmm, Glenn, no supra religiosity declaring America a "Christian nation" or any of that other fluff n' puff nonsense you and your Glenn Beck University love to dish out.
Okay, I didn't graduate from MHC, and MHC was not an "Ivy League" school in the strict sense primarily because it belonged to the "Seven Sisters," the women's equal to the once all-male Ivy League. MHC was founded by Mary Lyon as the first (and few remaining all womens' colleges.) Uh oh, now I'm really going to be in Beckand my former conservative colleagues' doghouse for taking free credits from a progressive women's college in the liberal northeastern part of the nation, and not just any liberal northeastern part; but Massachusetts. "Free"? Like hell: I earned them by working for the Library.
Since there was not even the beginnings of a national health care system like what we have now with the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, I would've had to be the biggest balloonhead along with that other liberal progressive Ivy Leaguer from the Northeast, Chris Matthews to quit my job and take a chance at landing a teaching job. Remember, this new law is the baby Beck & Co. want to smother in its crib.
Hmmm, do I have a lot to learn! Or do I? Maybe I do. After all, I've got to learn why I'm collecting roughly around $12K on SSDI (which I know Beck would love to scalp right out of the ballooning Fed'l deficit, etc.) while this ranter and raver is pulling down $30+Million a year for doing his best to imitate Herr Doktor Joseph Goebbels who mastered the BIG LIE by telling whatever lie he wanted to have the Germans believe by repeating it over and over and over till the people got around to figuring, "Hey, if Dr. Goebbels keeps having to repeat this stuff, maybe it is true and we'd better get with it."
Such is how it's going with the repeated attacks on Social Security. Remember the big"Ponzi scheme" that's ready to burst like a big balloon?
Well, it looks like I'll have to muster up all my Ivy League education to put Mr. Beck's collection of lies for no other reason than to protect the little I have qualified for, and am damn grateful to receive, just to keep the roof over the head of my family before Glenn and all his plutocratic pals who recently got away with plundering the nation's till in the great GOP Tax Extortion Bill of 2010 will get their greedy paws on Social Security. Don't think for a second that they won't because they've been pushing for this moment for the past seven decades and they won't stop now, notwithstanding all their sweet talk about not tossing Nana under the bus. Not my generation of Nanas and not theirs', but the next, and next and next. Future Nana's of the world, you're on your own. They'll give you a voucher in January and kindly advise you not to leave more year at the end of what that voucher says it has.
What's my disability? Bipolar and ADHD, ("in spades" as one doc put it) which I take meds for, when I could afford to prior to losing my health insurance when my wife's job was outsourced last year. It took me months to get back "on line" but at least I'm there and life goes on. I'm one of the lucky ones.
The health-care-killing Beck has the same disabilities, refuses to take meds, and it shows through his hate-filled diatribes and he makes all those millions advocating all his anti-progressive rants against some of the most basic mom/pop n' apple pie parts of the progressive's record of civic accomplishments. Now it'd be easy to say, "You tell me who's crazier ... the guy playing it straight and not out to destroy the lives of so many people struggling to get by and keep their homes, or the man whose mind just POPPED due to his own overwhelming egotism on steroids?
Maybe I'm crazier for going public. Maybe I'm crazier for even comparing myself to that ... personality ... (and I'm being as charitable as I can, here.) But if I have to be this "crazy" to expose the insanity of such a despicable creation of big media getting paid so much to show such little intellect, never mind compassion, when one takes into consideration of what nine tenths of his income can do for many towns trying to balance their budgets, keep from having lay off workers, or privatizing them out to the lowest bidding private contractors, avoid cutting library hours and just repairing seasonal-caused road damage ... then I'll proudly wear the label "crazy."
If Fox, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Bachmann, the GOP, Palin and Romney represent what's left of conservatism, then I'm glad to be rid of it and out from it, save for pointing out where it's heading off its own cliff like Thelma and Louise. And if it's all that's left of a once proud political philosophy carefully crafted and explained by the likes of Russell Kirk, Peter Viereck, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., M. Stanton Evans and George Nash ... then the once proud ideology of past has indeed been tossed under the bus with all the Nanas, orphans, the disabled on SSA/SSDI, "balloonheads" and anybody else with a working mind who's had enough.
BTW, there's a happy ending coming: All those Nanas, "balloonheads" the rest of those "progressives" Beck and his crowd love to hate, all managed to keep rolling to the other side of the bus. And say, didn't I see today's "conservative" versions of Thelma and Louise, Michelle and Sara at the front of the bus as it flew off the cliff? Only in my crazy dreams.
Sigh.
First; Matthews graduated from the College of the Holy Cross... a Catholic college in Worcester, MA. He later studied economics at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill.) Should I give Beck a half-credit since UNC is regarded as one of the Public Ivies, which also include University of Virginia, and UMass/Amherst? Hmmm, I'll bet he'd really get off a good snicker n' sneer at UMass/Amherst, a real progressive school chock full of wooly-headed liberal progressives.
Give it a rest, Beck. And for once, earn your outrageous compensation, salary or right wing agit-prop obscene profiteering from your grossly irresponsible and horrendously huge ego and mouth by doing one thing, and one thing only: JUST SHUT UP and listen or at least read up on what you're trying to say or pretend you have something to yak about.
I have more "Ivy League" credits than Chris Matthews. Heck, I even have more than one of my brothers who's a tenured college professor. What's more unique about my "Ivy League" education is that I received it on the college's dime when I worked for Mount Holyoke College (MHC) and I was trying to earn some necessary credits to become ready for a teaching internship which I would've completed had it not been for the reluctance of my then-boss to allow her employees to conduct outside unpaid internships. This was in 1990 when my wife and I had a fourth child on the way and with no certain teaching job prospects surely lined up, I was unable to fulfill a dream I had started in 1970. Without any health care ... well, I don't have to explain that in greater detail, unless Beck's actually reading this. In this case, I'll have to pull a tutorial.
By the way, one of the courses I took was in American Economic History and my thesis was about Charles Beard's views that the American Constitution was created as an economic document. Hmmm, Glenn, no supra religiosity declaring America a "Christian nation" or any of that other fluff n' puff nonsense you and your Glenn Beck University love to dish out.
Okay, I didn't graduate from MHC, and MHC was not an "Ivy League" school in the strict sense primarily because it belonged to the "Seven Sisters," the women's equal to the once all-male Ivy League. MHC was founded by Mary Lyon as the first (and few remaining all womens' colleges.) Uh oh, now I'm really going to be in Beckand my former conservative colleagues' doghouse for taking free credits from a progressive women's college in the liberal northeastern part of the nation, and not just any liberal northeastern part; but Massachusetts. "Free"? Like hell: I earned them by working for the Library.
Since there was not even the beginnings of a national health care system like what we have now with the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, I would've had to be the biggest balloonhead along with that other liberal progressive Ivy Leaguer from the Northeast, Chris Matthews to quit my job and take a chance at landing a teaching job. Remember, this new law is the baby Beck & Co. want to smother in its crib.
Hmmm, do I have a lot to learn! Or do I? Maybe I do. After all, I've got to learn why I'm collecting roughly around $12K on SSDI (which I know Beck would love to scalp right out of the ballooning Fed'l deficit, etc.) while this ranter and raver is pulling down $30+Million a year for doing his best to imitate Herr Doktor Joseph Goebbels who mastered the BIG LIE by telling whatever lie he wanted to have the Germans believe by repeating it over and over and over till the people got around to figuring, "Hey, if Dr. Goebbels keeps having to repeat this stuff, maybe it is true and we'd better get with it."
Such is how it's going with the repeated attacks on Social Security. Remember the big"Ponzi scheme" that's ready to burst like a big balloon?
Well, it looks like I'll have to muster up all my Ivy League education to put Mr. Beck's collection of lies for no other reason than to protect the little I have qualified for, and am damn grateful to receive, just to keep the roof over the head of my family before Glenn and all his plutocratic pals who recently got away with plundering the nation's till in the great GOP Tax Extortion Bill of 2010 will get their greedy paws on Social Security. Don't think for a second that they won't because they've been pushing for this moment for the past seven decades and they won't stop now, notwithstanding all their sweet talk about not tossing Nana under the bus. Not my generation of Nanas and not theirs', but the next, and next and next. Future Nana's of the world, you're on your own. They'll give you a voucher in January and kindly advise you not to leave more year at the end of what that voucher says it has.
What's my disability? Bipolar and ADHD, ("in spades" as one doc put it) which I take meds for, when I could afford to prior to losing my health insurance when my wife's job was outsourced last year. It took me months to get back "on line" but at least I'm there and life goes on. I'm one of the lucky ones.
The health-care-killing Beck has the same disabilities, refuses to take meds, and it shows through his hate-filled diatribes and he makes all those millions advocating all his anti-progressive rants against some of the most basic mom/pop n' apple pie parts of the progressive's record of civic accomplishments. Now it'd be easy to say, "You tell me who's crazier ... the guy playing it straight and not out to destroy the lives of so many people struggling to get by and keep their homes, or the man whose mind just POPPED due to his own overwhelming egotism on steroids?
Maybe I'm crazier for going public. Maybe I'm crazier for even comparing myself to that ... personality ... (and I'm being as charitable as I can, here.) But if I have to be this "crazy" to expose the insanity of such a despicable creation of big media getting paid so much to show such little intellect, never mind compassion, when one takes into consideration of what nine tenths of his income can do for many towns trying to balance their budgets, keep from having lay off workers, or privatizing them out to the lowest bidding private contractors, avoid cutting library hours and just repairing seasonal-caused road damage ... then I'll proudly wear the label "crazy."
If Fox, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Bachmann, the GOP, Palin and Romney represent what's left of conservatism, then I'm glad to be rid of it and out from it, save for pointing out where it's heading off its own cliff like Thelma and Louise. And if it's all that's left of a once proud political philosophy carefully crafted and explained by the likes of Russell Kirk, Peter Viereck, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., M. Stanton Evans and George Nash ... then the once proud ideology of past has indeed been tossed under the bus with all the Nanas, orphans, the disabled on SSA/SSDI, "balloonheads" and anybody else with a working mind who's had enough.
BTW, there's a happy ending coming: All those Nanas, "balloonheads" the rest of those "progressives" Beck and his crowd love to hate, all managed to keep rolling to the other side of the bus. And say, didn't I see today's "conservative" versions of Thelma and Louise, Michelle and Sara at the front of the bus as it flew off the cliff? Only in my crazy dreams.
Sigh.
Friday, January 14, 2011
"Guns are marvelous tools," saith National Catholic Register's Jimmy Akins.
Mr. Akins, would you care to say that to the victims of last Saturday's massacre? Granted, Cong. Gabrielle Giffords owns guns, but in the wake of her attempted assassination, do you or any sane person care to believe she'd go so far as to use the word "marvelous"?
Akins, whose opinion on gun ownership, which he explained last summer in a column for National Catholic Register, has a unique take as to who should be able to own guns. Safe to say, his is far more elastic than mine:
"Guns are marvelous tools. That’s why we fight wars with them. On a smaller scale, we also defend ourselves with them, we hunt with them, obtain food with them, control dangerous predators like bears and mountain lions with them, control animal populations like deer that would otherwise suffer unless culled, signal the start of sporting events with them, and use them in marksmanship competitions."
Dear reader, you can betcha that Mrs. Palin couldn't have put it any better.
Just a few hours ago in Massachusetts' Hampden Superior Court, former Pelham, MA, police chief Edward Fleury acquitted of committing involuntary manslaughter in the accidental shooting death of an 8 year old boy, Christopher Bizilj of Connecticut, which occured at a shooting range in nearby Westfield, MA.
What was eight year-old Christopher shooting pumpkins with? A mini-Uzi. Some "marvelous" tool.
You read that correctly: An Uzi, mini or otherwise, one does have to wonder what such a "marvelous" tool was doing in the hands of somebody that young. I'll leave the facts of the story in my link with one of my local television stations, WWLP, Channel 22. To be fair to Fleury, there were many mitigating circumstances working in his behalf, beginning with Christopher's father, a physician no less, who allowed his son to use this gun.
When I was a probation/parole officer in central Florida three decades ago, a class of new officers was taken to a nearby bastille of a state prison for a class to familiarize ourselves with firearms should we found one in a probationer/parolee's home. (No way on earth should any peace officer, and that's what I as an unarmed officer of the court, should ever pick up a gun in a felon's home. Yes, it doesn't belong there to begin with, but if they have one gun, it's not worth betting a bullet lodged in your head to find out if he has more. You walk, drive and call ... but way out of sight. Nobody in law enforcement is paid to play "Dirty Harry.")
During the range-firing session, each of us got to use a .38 revolver and a shotgun. I've never forgotten the "kick" from the .38, much less that from the shotgun, which gave me a "reminder" on my shoulder to mull on its power over the weekend. Almost 30 years later, when I heard of this horrible accident, I the sensation I had just from the revolver's and shotgun's kickbacks came instantly to mind. The more I learned about the circumstances of this boy's death, the more sickened and saddened I became just thinking "who on earth would let an eight-year old handle an Uzi, no matter how "mini" it was?"
I wonder what Jimmy Akins would be thinking about these "marvelous tools" if he was there when the kickback of the Uzi forced control out of Christopher's hands thus leading the accidental additional discharge of the bullet through his head from under his chin?
Getting back to Akins' views about felons and people with mental being allowed to be licensed to own and/or use firearms ... this too stretches one's capacity for comprehension as well.
"Of course," Akins wants to reassure us, "we are not talking about all people without exception."
Reassured yet? Citing recent Supreme Court decisions (prior to and during last year) ". . . lawmakers can reasonably bar felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. (Personally, I would change “felons” to “violent criminals,” due to the absurd extent to which federal law has started classifying things as felonies; I’d also shore up “mentally ill” to make sure that only those who pose a danger to themselves or others are intended, due to the tendencies to classify everything under the sun as a mental illness, but those are other issues.) The question is: Should ordinary, law-abiding, mentally stable individuals be allowed to own guns?" (Emphasis mine.)
How much "shoring up" has the State of Arizona provided in its lawbooks regarding who and who cannot own, much less discharge, any firearms in that state?
And shouldn't the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have shored up its laws to make sure eight year old boys can't fire, never mind pick up, any gun ... much less a semi-automatic?
I'm not a felon, but I have a history of mental illness with bipolar depression, ADHD "in spades," as one doc put it and a few other aggravating conditions ... which despite what a lot of experts might tell us, some of these "issues" don't fade in time. This is especially so concerning bipolar disorder. There's no way in hell should a person with my conditions, no matter how well "under control" I have it, should ever own a firearm. The only time I'd grant an exception to a person with mental illnesses to discharge a weapon would be to save another life under very, rare and dire circumstances.
These "marvelous tools" in the hands of children, people with mental or criminal histories make for more miseries and heartbreaks to come, Mr. Akins.
They're not "marvelous" then ... they're potentially mortal as recent history and untold numbers of personal tragedies of family squabbles and out of control parties ending in bloodshed. And by the way, the city where Fleury was tried, Springfield, MA -- also hometown of Smith & Wesson, watched 2011 come in with a bang no thanks to the use of one these "marvelous tools" on New Year's Eve.
Akins, whose opinion on gun ownership, which he explained last summer in a column for National Catholic Register, has a unique take as to who should be able to own guns. Safe to say, his is far more elastic than mine:
"Guns are marvelous tools. That’s why we fight wars with them. On a smaller scale, we also defend ourselves with them, we hunt with them, obtain food with them, control dangerous predators like bears and mountain lions with them, control animal populations like deer that would otherwise suffer unless culled, signal the start of sporting events with them, and use them in marksmanship competitions."
Dear reader, you can betcha that Mrs. Palin couldn't have put it any better.
Just a few hours ago in Massachusetts' Hampden Superior Court, former Pelham, MA, police chief Edward Fleury acquitted of committing involuntary manslaughter in the accidental shooting death of an 8 year old boy, Christopher Bizilj of Connecticut, which occured at a shooting range in nearby Westfield, MA.
What was eight year-old Christopher shooting pumpkins with? A mini-Uzi. Some "marvelous" tool.
You read that correctly: An Uzi, mini or otherwise, one does have to wonder what such a "marvelous" tool was doing in the hands of somebody that young. I'll leave the facts of the story in my link with one of my local television stations, WWLP, Channel 22. To be fair to Fleury, there were many mitigating circumstances working in his behalf, beginning with Christopher's father, a physician no less, who allowed his son to use this gun.
When I was a probation/parole officer in central Florida three decades ago, a class of new officers was taken to a nearby bastille of a state prison for a class to familiarize ourselves with firearms should we found one in a probationer/parolee's home. (No way on earth should any peace officer, and that's what I as an unarmed officer of the court, should ever pick up a gun in a felon's home. Yes, it doesn't belong there to begin with, but if they have one gun, it's not worth betting a bullet lodged in your head to find out if he has more. You walk, drive and call ... but way out of sight. Nobody in law enforcement is paid to play "Dirty Harry.")
During the range-firing session, each of us got to use a .38 revolver and a shotgun. I've never forgotten the "kick" from the .38, much less that from the shotgun, which gave me a "reminder" on my shoulder to mull on its power over the weekend. Almost 30 years later, when I heard of this horrible accident, I the sensation I had just from the revolver's and shotgun's kickbacks came instantly to mind. The more I learned about the circumstances of this boy's death, the more sickened and saddened I became just thinking "who on earth would let an eight-year old handle an Uzi, no matter how "mini" it was?"
I wonder what Jimmy Akins would be thinking about these "marvelous tools" if he was there when the kickback of the Uzi forced control out of Christopher's hands thus leading the accidental additional discharge of the bullet through his head from under his chin?
Getting back to Akins' views about felons and people with mental being allowed to be licensed to own and/or use firearms ... this too stretches one's capacity for comprehension as well.
"Of course," Akins wants to reassure us, "we are not talking about all people without exception."
Reassured yet? Citing recent Supreme Court decisions (prior to and during last year) ". . . lawmakers can reasonably bar felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. (Personally, I would change “felons” to “violent criminals,” due to the absurd extent to which federal law has started classifying things as felonies; I’d also shore up “mentally ill” to make sure that only those who pose a danger to themselves or others are intended, due to the tendencies to classify everything under the sun as a mental illness, but those are other issues.) The question is: Should ordinary, law-abiding, mentally stable individuals be allowed to own guns?" (Emphasis mine.)
How much "shoring up" has the State of Arizona provided in its lawbooks regarding who and who cannot own, much less discharge, any firearms in that state?
And shouldn't the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have shored up its laws to make sure eight year old boys can't fire, never mind pick up, any gun ... much less a semi-automatic?
I'm not a felon, but I have a history of mental illness with bipolar depression, ADHD "in spades," as one doc put it and a few other aggravating conditions ... which despite what a lot of experts might tell us, some of these "issues" don't fade in time. This is especially so concerning bipolar disorder. There's no way in hell should a person with my conditions, no matter how well "under control" I have it, should ever own a firearm. The only time I'd grant an exception to a person with mental illnesses to discharge a weapon would be to save another life under very, rare and dire circumstances.
These "marvelous tools" in the hands of children, people with mental or criminal histories make for more miseries and heartbreaks to come, Mr. Akins.
They're not "marvelous" then ... they're potentially mortal as recent history and untold numbers of personal tragedies of family squabbles and out of control parties ending in bloodshed. And by the way, the city where Fleury was tried, Springfield, MA -- also hometown of Smith & Wesson, watched 2011 come in with a bang no thanks to the use of one these "marvelous tools" on New Year's Eve.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Responsible exceptionalism: What's that all about?
I think I've run my course as a "conservative" writer. So why don't I just change the title of my blog to "Responsible Exceptionalism"? I believe in American Exceptionalism, but not for the same reasons the Lady Swashbuckler does. She takes it to its most illogical extreme and in her unique way of handling things, she sure as hell finds a way to blow a Prudhomme Bay-bound tanker through it in no time flat.
We Americans are exceptionally good at being mavericks, aren't we. And what vision we have to be able to see Vladimir Putin's Siberian back yard from our back yards, too. You betcha.
Lest I forget, there's the Professor of Beck University and his merry co-horts of historical revisionism. Now, please don't take exception with my triumphalism, but I like to believe I'm a fairly devout Catholic Christian. Yet somehow I've never been able to buy into the notion that our Founding Fathers were all so dedicated to promoting Christianity while framing the Declaration and Constitution. They were hoping to God everything would work out because American exceptionalism or constructing a Godly nation on a hill was less on their minds than more down-to-earth-existential thoughts. Meaning? Meaning how they could get out of Philadelphia as soon as their horses and buggies could haul 'em before the Brits arrived, or post-revolutionary remnants of Shays Rebellion who wanted to be sure they were finally going to get a fair shake.
Last but not least, there's the BIG GUY down in West Palm Beach, Florida; land of no state income taxes, lousy public schools and a horrendously complicated property tax schema concocted to bring in some revenue to local towns without raising the spectre of more Bolshevist taxes. It's kind of hard to take seriously the conservative American flag-waving, Old Glory toga-like body wrapping of this Caesar who seeks the outright failure of our elected President, the real Caesar, Barack H. Obama, and dares to foist himself off as some great patriot.
Such conservatism and its misuse of the term American exceptionalism is a mite too much to absorb without half a case of Tums. It certainly doesn't portend too well to make a case for itself as being anywhere close to resembling a form of "responsible conservatism." So, since my brand of really responsible conservatism is too out of the mainstream of the outstream, I might as well face facts and surrender to the ugly reality of the day.
Therefore, I've "re-branded" this blog as "Responsible Exceptionalism."
We Americans are exceptionally good at being mavericks, aren't we. And what vision we have to be able to see Vladimir Putin's Siberian back yard from our back yards, too. You betcha.
Lest I forget, there's the Professor of Beck University and his merry co-horts of historical revisionism. Now, please don't take exception with my triumphalism, but I like to believe I'm a fairly devout Catholic Christian. Yet somehow I've never been able to buy into the notion that our Founding Fathers were all so dedicated to promoting Christianity while framing the Declaration and Constitution. They were hoping to God everything would work out because American exceptionalism or constructing a Godly nation on a hill was less on their minds than more down-to-earth-existential thoughts. Meaning? Meaning how they could get out of Philadelphia as soon as their horses and buggies could haul 'em before the Brits arrived, or post-revolutionary remnants of Shays Rebellion who wanted to be sure they were finally going to get a fair shake.
Last but not least, there's the BIG GUY down in West Palm Beach, Florida; land of no state income taxes, lousy public schools and a horrendously complicated property tax schema concocted to bring in some revenue to local towns without raising the spectre of more Bolshevist taxes. It's kind of hard to take seriously the conservative American flag-waving, Old Glory toga-like body wrapping of this Caesar who seeks the outright failure of our elected President, the real Caesar, Barack H. Obama, and dares to foist himself off as some great patriot.
Such conservatism and its misuse of the term American exceptionalism is a mite too much to absorb without half a case of Tums. It certainly doesn't portend too well to make a case for itself as being anywhere close to resembling a form of "responsible conservatism." So, since my brand of really responsible conservatism is too out of the mainstream of the outstream, I might as well face facts and surrender to the ugly reality of the day.
Therefore, I've "re-branded" this blog as "Responsible Exceptionalism."
What the hell has become of the "conservative" movement? It's been hijacked by ideological buccaneers, esp. a Lady Swashbuckler.
This past year, with all the turmoil, caused by the heated election campaigns, which, in turn, were fueled in large part by the passage of The National Health Care Reform Act, (Obamacare) -- I've been wondering . . . what the hell am I doing in that crowd?
Today's "conservative" movement isn't at all what the movement used to be. Admittedly, everything changes to a certain extent. Now the old and once increasingly respectable movement has been captured by out of control roguish ideologues...okay, politicians and pundits who best resemble outright buccaneers and these pirates have simply jammed their rudders to the starboard, and damned be the consequences of their actions.
Complain about their roguish manners and bloodthirsty rhetoric, the leading lady swashbuckler herself will trot out the old "blood libel" for good measure. (As if she knew or was properly advised what the term meant in the first place.) At first I thought she was a freshingly amusing character, but the Lady Swashbuckler from the nether regions of the far north, has gone farther than most pols calling themselves conservative to destroy all the hard work the late Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. put into making conservatism a respectable way of approaching life and governance.
Notice which came first. People who lack the self-control ... which is what conservatism is all about if nothing else--save for turning it into mental straitjacket of sorts--have no business running the governmental affairs of a small backwoods town, much less a very strategic and extremely large state, or for that matter, the nation. The privilege to govern comes only after you've earned the public's trust to assume the office and carry out your duties to the end of your terms; not when it best suits you to pull up anchor and sail to other port o' calls to plunder.
What the hell did I see in that person? What scares me more is what the hell don't people see in her? And they continue putting their blinders on because, as I mentioned above, she's "freshingly amusing." Many politicians, conservatives, liberals and moderates alike have earned that distinction. But few have exhibited such lack of self-control and managed to get away with it as much as the Lady Swashbuckler has. Ah, but will I head back if she's finally shown for what she is: truly a fraud? Not a chance--because the rest of the "conservative movement" as it stands today are nearly as radically irresponsible as Lady Swashbuckler.
When the lady sneezes about "death panels," they not only click their heels and rush to get her a tissue and make-up kit (get her lots o' rouge, guys) ... they also flush their heads of all facts concerning what's really been going about these so-called "death panels" and for how long and who's been the biggest developer/practitioners of them: the private sector and fiscally conservative politicians.
"Oh noooo, we don't want to hear that," they squeal like Mr. Bill.
Well, Sluggo Barrett will this sad story in brief ... they way they like it. Any piece of legislation longer than a page is a bit troubling for some of our new stalwart conservative "leaders."
For years and years, people with unusual diseases requiring new and admittedly expensive experimental meds and treatments have been told "No dice, too expensive!" The same insurance companies didn't think their premiums were too expensive, ah, but we know that's another story. Right? Hey, it's not grand theft, the insured could've read the policies especially the fine print where insurance lawyers are paid hefty salaries to bury such arcane restrictions about "pre-existing conditions," which can practicably be reinvented to suit their whims. Oh, do you need new glasses after reading this? Well, even if you became a success in any profession, save the law, or medicine, thus requring a lot of midnight oil burning sessions, your friendly health insurers might blame you for causing whatever it is requirng special glasses just to find your way out the door without a cane and/or insuree's best friend ... which of course, they won't pay for those either. AND WHY?
Keeping their Wall Street investors happy. I only used a relatively less life threatening eye condition. What if this involved a kidney transplant or continued dialysis treatment?
If you're a resident of Arizona, you might as well invest first in funeral insurance. After all, the state legislature's got to be "fiscally accountable to save all those citizens' hard earned tax dollars." Right? Isn't that the conservative way today ? Why bother with spending money to treat crazies; the average citizen knows best what to do with his money. (His money? Once you pay your taxes it's like paying your tithes, a lawyer told me once; "Remember," he added, "posession's 9/10ths of the law.") We can't keep playing "give back" when it comes to taxes anymore than we can with money we give to God. We have to trust that the money will be well spent.
Jan Brewer has taken a lot of heat for her having to discontinue funds for dialysis treatments, and two people died as a result. But nobody, nobody can point an accusing finger at her for having tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to restore millions of dollars for mental health coverage. Hmmm, didn't something bad, really bad, occur in AZ due to the actions of a sick deranged young man?
Maybe I'm blood libeling the Arizona legislature. I'm so unfair; after all, they were only protecting the taxpayers' dollars. What about the taxpayers themselves? Or does their money count for more?
Well! And what will the already existing governmental and private-sector death panels have shown in the name of "transparency, and accountability at the end of the day," each day to ensure that compassionate conservatism, i.e. making sure the taxpayers every dollar, quarter, dime n' penny ... and of course, the stockholders' (usually management which makes itself the majority stockholders) shares, dividends, and most importantly bonuses, are well taken care of.
So much for respecting terms like "moral absolutes." If in the name of "protecting taxpayers' 'hard earned dollars'" and "maintaining competitive profitability" -- non-judicial death sentences can be handed down and companies can get away with manslaughter via grand theft ... why do today's "fiscal conservatives" even bother to disgrace the word "morality" by speaking of it? How could I forget, that code of the buccaneers, "honor among thieves?" Guess even putting this in cyber-print will get me in trouble with the "Blood Libel Police."
So be it. Why call myself a conservative anymore since I'm viewed as a "Bolshevik" by some people close to me for having the temerity to call for "confiscatory" estate taxes ... although no mention was given to the confiscation from millions of middle class working people in the form of taxes to contribute to the future financial security of trust fund babies for years to come.
Sadly, what used to be the conservatism of Bill Buckley's hard work is all being flushed down the drains of Palm Beach, Palm Springs, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and Sweetland, Texas. Let's be thankful the Lord blessed him by preventing him from living long enough to see all his work so easily and shabbily cast aside. Buckley and his generation didn't have anything against wealth. Certainly not Buckley or Russell Kirk. Bare-knuckled and shameless greed, that was different. Honor, moral absolutes and a respect for what the Founding Fathers/Framers wanted, and not just the packaged stuff Lady Swashbuckler, e/a and her fellow pirates trying to fluff off nowadays, were paramount to him. So did proper demeanor and fair play. And boy is that old stuff to today's tacky bunch.
Today's "conservative" movement seems to just favor mean men and women with the loudest bullhorns and highest ratings.
Today's "conservative" movement isn't at all what the movement used to be. Admittedly, everything changes to a certain extent. Now the old and once increasingly respectable movement has been captured by out of control roguish ideologues...okay, politicians and pundits who best resemble outright buccaneers and these pirates have simply jammed their rudders to the starboard, and damned be the consequences of their actions.
Complain about their roguish manners and bloodthirsty rhetoric, the leading lady swashbuckler herself will trot out the old "blood libel" for good measure. (As if she knew or was properly advised what the term meant in the first place.) At first I thought she was a freshingly amusing character, but the Lady Swashbuckler from the nether regions of the far north, has gone farther than most pols calling themselves conservative to destroy all the hard work the late Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. put into making conservatism a respectable way of approaching life and governance.
Notice which came first. People who lack the self-control ... which is what conservatism is all about if nothing else--save for turning it into mental straitjacket of sorts--have no business running the governmental affairs of a small backwoods town, much less a very strategic and extremely large state, or for that matter, the nation. The privilege to govern comes only after you've earned the public's trust to assume the office and carry out your duties to the end of your terms; not when it best suits you to pull up anchor and sail to other port o' calls to plunder.
What the hell did I see in that person? What scares me more is what the hell don't people see in her? And they continue putting their blinders on because, as I mentioned above, she's "freshingly amusing." Many politicians, conservatives, liberals and moderates alike have earned that distinction. But few have exhibited such lack of self-control and managed to get away with it as much as the Lady Swashbuckler has. Ah, but will I head back if she's finally shown for what she is: truly a fraud? Not a chance--because the rest of the "conservative movement" as it stands today are nearly as radically irresponsible as Lady Swashbuckler.
When the lady sneezes about "death panels," they not only click their heels and rush to get her a tissue and make-up kit (get her lots o' rouge, guys) ... they also flush their heads of all facts concerning what's really been going about these so-called "death panels" and for how long and who's been the biggest developer/practitioners of them: the private sector and fiscally conservative politicians.
"Oh noooo, we don't want to hear that," they squeal like Mr. Bill.
Well, Sluggo Barrett will this sad story in brief ... they way they like it. Any piece of legislation longer than a page is a bit troubling for some of our new stalwart conservative "leaders."
For years and years, people with unusual diseases requiring new and admittedly expensive experimental meds and treatments have been told "No dice, too expensive!" The same insurance companies didn't think their premiums were too expensive, ah, but we know that's another story. Right? Hey, it's not grand theft, the insured could've read the policies especially the fine print where insurance lawyers are paid hefty salaries to bury such arcane restrictions about "pre-existing conditions," which can practicably be reinvented to suit their whims. Oh, do you need new glasses after reading this? Well, even if you became a success in any profession, save the law, or medicine, thus requring a lot of midnight oil burning sessions, your friendly health insurers might blame you for causing whatever it is requirng special glasses just to find your way out the door without a cane and/or insuree's best friend ... which of course, they won't pay for those either. AND WHY?
Keeping their Wall Street investors happy. I only used a relatively less life threatening eye condition. What if this involved a kidney transplant or continued dialysis treatment?
If you're a resident of Arizona, you might as well invest first in funeral insurance. After all, the state legislature's got to be "fiscally accountable to save all those citizens' hard earned tax dollars." Right? Isn't that the conservative way today ? Why bother with spending money to treat crazies; the average citizen knows best what to do with his money. (His money? Once you pay your taxes it's like paying your tithes, a lawyer told me once; "Remember," he added, "posession's 9/10ths of the law.") We can't keep playing "give back" when it comes to taxes anymore than we can with money we give to God. We have to trust that the money will be well spent.
Jan Brewer has taken a lot of heat for her having to discontinue funds for dialysis treatments, and two people died as a result. But nobody, nobody can point an accusing finger at her for having tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to restore millions of dollars for mental health coverage. Hmmm, didn't something bad, really bad, occur in AZ due to the actions of a sick deranged young man?
Maybe I'm blood libeling the Arizona legislature. I'm so unfair; after all, they were only protecting the taxpayers' dollars. What about the taxpayers themselves? Or does their money count for more?
Well! And what will the already existing governmental and private-sector death panels have shown in the name of "transparency, and accountability at the end of the day," each day to ensure that compassionate conservatism, i.e. making sure the taxpayers every dollar, quarter, dime n' penny ... and of course, the stockholders' (usually management which makes itself the majority stockholders) shares, dividends, and most importantly bonuses, are well taken care of.
So much for respecting terms like "moral absolutes." If in the name of "protecting taxpayers' 'hard earned dollars'" and "maintaining competitive profitability" -- non-judicial death sentences can be handed down and companies can get away with manslaughter via grand theft ... why do today's "fiscal conservatives" even bother to disgrace the word "morality" by speaking of it? How could I forget, that code of the buccaneers, "honor among thieves?" Guess even putting this in cyber-print will get me in trouble with the "Blood Libel Police."
So be it. Why call myself a conservative anymore since I'm viewed as a "Bolshevik" by some people close to me for having the temerity to call for "confiscatory" estate taxes ... although no mention was given to the confiscation from millions of middle class working people in the form of taxes to contribute to the future financial security of trust fund babies for years to come.
Sadly, what used to be the conservatism of Bill Buckley's hard work is all being flushed down the drains of Palm Beach, Palm Springs, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and Sweetland, Texas. Let's be thankful the Lord blessed him by preventing him from living long enough to see all his work so easily and shabbily cast aside. Buckley and his generation didn't have anything against wealth. Certainly not Buckley or Russell Kirk. Bare-knuckled and shameless greed, that was different. Honor, moral absolutes and a respect for what the Founding Fathers/Framers wanted, and not just the packaged stuff Lady Swashbuckler, e/a and her fellow pirates trying to fluff off nowadays, were paramount to him. So did proper demeanor and fair play. And boy is that old stuff to today's tacky bunch.
Today's "conservative" movement seems to just favor mean men and women with the loudest bullhorns and highest ratings.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
As if the unhinged haven't already had more than the say they believe they deserve in the wake of the Tuscon Massacre, here comes Westboro Baptist Church
Yes, you read the headline correctly. The most hate-filled "christian church" in the United States, perhaps the entire planet, Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS, is going to picket the funerals of the people murdered by Jared Lee Loughner.
Additionally, sales of Glocks have jumped considerably in Arizona.
Looks like the inmates are running the asylum out there.
Additionally, sales of Glocks have jumped considerably in Arizona.
Looks like the inmates are running the asylum out there.
Now's the time for prayer, not quick-grabs for instant solutions to shooting massacres.
The script is by now all too familiar: A madman goes into a crowded area, perhaps looking to kill a popular politician, celebrity, etc., or simply "get even" with his boss and co-workers he perceived to have done him "wrong" or he's simply unhinged due to being overly stressed out for other reasons and decides to "act out" willy nilly against the world. The results aren't willy nilly. They're often fatal.
Does it make a difference at this point if the weapon is a firearm or a machete? How do people defend themselves against such weapons in the hands of a determined killer? Oh, gotta have more gun control. Time to start registering machetes! We could do all that quite simply. Well, quite simply vz. working on the causes of these horrible crimes against humanity.
At the risk of appearing terribly "out of touch," naive, or whatever to skeptics, cynics, atheists and agnostics... would it hurt in the least to try R E L I G I O N?
That's right: religion. A system of beliefs predicated on the simple basis that there is a Higher Being, a Creator, to whom we are all answerable to at a certain point in time; our physical end-time, so to speak, our physical death. Our souls don't die and this is crucial to remember. We have to learn that we won't get out of here alive and there will be a judgment for how we lived those lives and that concepts such as right/wrong make a difference. Sooner or later, we'll wind up in either Heaven or hell. As a Catholic, I believe in (and thank Him for) Purgatory. Nobody gets out of here spotlessly unless they're on their deathbeds, make a confession or say the "sinner's" prayer or some atonement in a state of grace. For the rest of us whose "number" or "moment" can come at any instant, such as it did for those gunned down by that sick man in Arizona, sudden death can render the fate of many individual souls quite harshly if not for purgatory for those who believe in Him, especially Christians who've neglected their faith in His Son and scoffed at the Holy Spirit. That's THE biggie in Christ's eyes.
God in His infinite mercy and love, created Purgatory. I realize it may not be easy to quickly pinpoint in the Bible, but I can point to my Catechism ... and I can defend it on some very homespun commonsense grounds.
Alas, the "systems" of man aren't so forgiving, nor are they adequate to forming us so that we don't have as many mentally unbalanced people walking around with guns, no less.
I believe it's a sign of society instability to promote a greater gun culture. It wasn't THE GUN that stopped the massacre: it was two brave people who stopped the assailant via physical means. And it sure as hell wasn't THE GUN that could've solved any grieviance the assailant had against Congresswoman Gifford.
Nor will it be a regimen of meds and counseling therapy that'll stop this kind of carnage from completely happening again. It will be a combination of all of the above ... but mostly prayer.
Oh boring prayer, how dull the suggestion that'll save a wreck like this nation.
Any better solutions on top of the legal and therapeutic?
Does it make a difference at this point if the weapon is a firearm or a machete? How do people defend themselves against such weapons in the hands of a determined killer? Oh, gotta have more gun control. Time to start registering machetes! We could do all that quite simply. Well, quite simply vz. working on the causes of these horrible crimes against humanity.
At the risk of appearing terribly "out of touch," naive, or whatever to skeptics, cynics, atheists and agnostics... would it hurt in the least to try R E L I G I O N?
That's right: religion. A system of beliefs predicated on the simple basis that there is a Higher Being, a Creator, to whom we are all answerable to at a certain point in time; our physical end-time, so to speak, our physical death. Our souls don't die and this is crucial to remember. We have to learn that we won't get out of here alive and there will be a judgment for how we lived those lives and that concepts such as right/wrong make a difference. Sooner or later, we'll wind up in either Heaven or hell. As a Catholic, I believe in (and thank Him for) Purgatory. Nobody gets out of here spotlessly unless they're on their deathbeds, make a confession or say the "sinner's" prayer or some atonement in a state of grace. For the rest of us whose "number" or "moment" can come at any instant, such as it did for those gunned down by that sick man in Arizona, sudden death can render the fate of many individual souls quite harshly if not for purgatory for those who believe in Him, especially Christians who've neglected their faith in His Son and scoffed at the Holy Spirit. That's THE biggie in Christ's eyes.
God in His infinite mercy and love, created Purgatory. I realize it may not be easy to quickly pinpoint in the Bible, but I can point to my Catechism ... and I can defend it on some very homespun commonsense grounds.
Alas, the "systems" of man aren't so forgiving, nor are they adequate to forming us so that we don't have as many mentally unbalanced people walking around with guns, no less.
I believe it's a sign of society instability to promote a greater gun culture. It wasn't THE GUN that stopped the massacre: it was two brave people who stopped the assailant via physical means. And it sure as hell wasn't THE GUN that could've solved any grieviance the assailant had against Congresswoman Gifford.
Nor will it be a regimen of meds and counseling therapy that'll stop this kind of carnage from completely happening again. It will be a combination of all of the above ... but mostly prayer.
Oh boring prayer, how dull the suggestion that'll save a wreck like this nation.
Any better solutions on top of the legal and therapeutic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)