Tuesday, 09 July 2013

BEFORE YOU SIGN THAT ORGAN DONOR AGREEMENT......

Ken Berwitz

Did you hear about the woman who was declared dead?  The one whose organs were about to be harvested (at great profit to the hospital).....until she woke up on the operating table?

No?  Well, now you will.  Because it actually happened.

I assume I have gotten your attention.  So let me continue with these excerpts from Sidney Lupkin's article at abcnews.com:

It was exactly midnight when Caroline Burns eerily opened her eyes and looked at the operating lights above her, shocking doctors who believed she was dead and were about to remove her organs and donate them to patients on the transplant waiting list.

The Syracuse Post-Standard unearthed a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that chronicled the series of errors that led to the near-organ removal on a living patient at St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, N.Y., in 2009.

"The patient did not suffer a cardiopulmonary arrest (as documented) and did not have irreversible brain damage," the HHS report concluded. "The patient did not meet criteria for withdrawal of care."

According to the report, doctors had inaccurately diagnosed Burns with irreversible brain damage and ignored nurses who'd noticed signs that Burns was improving: She curled her toes when touched, flared her nostrils and moved her mouth and tongue. She was also breathing on her own even though she was on a respirator.

St. Joseph's CEO Kathryn Ruscitto released a statement as a result of the Post-Standard story, saying that the hospital is not discussing the case at the family's request.

"Things are never as simple as one newspaper article might make them seem," she said.

Tell me:  If this happened once - and the woman in question was lucky enough to wake up before being disassembled for profit - how many other times do you suppose it has happened when a still-living, still-viable human being did not wake up in time?

If you use the link and read this entire article (as I very much hope you do), please make sure to also read the comments, because, though sometimes sill and sometimes sarcastic, some are as interesting as the article itself.  Notice how many of them specifically warn about agreeing to be an organ donor, and the reasons why.

Very unsettling, and very much worth thinking about.


POOR BARACK OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

A quick reminder of how the situation in Egypt - i.e. dozens dead every day and a very real possibility of all-out civil war between fundamentalists and secularists - came to pass: 

-President Barack Obama, going against his own stated policy when the country was Iran, worked hard to remove Hosni Mubarak as President of Egypt. 

-Since the Muslim brotherhood was far and away the best organized anti-Mubarak faction, it was no surprise that a member of that terrorist group, mohamed morsi, bwas elected President.

-morsi was a disaster as President, in no small part because he decided he was not elected a President, but rather a Dictator who could rule by decree -- and his decrees, not surprisingly given his membership in a fundamentalist terror organization, were moving Egypt rapidly towards shari'a law.  This is precisely what Hosni Mubarak, whatever his faults, fought tooth and nail all the years he was in power.

Now that morsi has been removed by the military, it is unclear who or what will be running Egypt. But one thing is very clear:  this sequence of events was significantly helped along, if not specifically caused, by Barack Obama and the people around him.

With this in mind, here is the last paragraph of the New York Times' editorial this morning, titled "Bloodshed In Egypt"

It is hard not to feel some sympathy for President Obama. He was obliged to work with Mr. Morsi, a democratically elected leader, but, in the process, he alienated many Egyptian moderates and secularists. He also worked behind the scenes, albeit unsuccessfully, to find a compromise before the crisis erupted in the streets. Now that it has, he has little choice but to redouble his efforts - and do a better job of explaining to Egyptians what the United States is doing for and with their country and why.

Got that?  Poor Barack Obama.  He couldn't help it, he had to work with morsi.  And because he had no choice, he alienated everyone else.  And now he has to continue his benevolent, salutary work in finding a compromise.  Gee, that's unfair, since everything he did was so wonderful.

But wait a minute:  Isn't this the same Barack Obama whose nosing into Egypt's affairs caused morsi to be there in the first place?  The same Barack Obama who could have spoken up when morsi started acting as if he were appointed King instead of elected President, but did not?  Why not?

A question for the New York Times:  is this editorial's half-baked whine about what an unfair situation Barack Obama now faces, your excuse for neither reporting, nor putting up photographs of, the countless signs throughout Tahrir Square attacking him by name?

Another question for the Times:  is it ever - EVER - about anyone or anything but Barack Obama?  Certainly not in the eyes of your editorial board, if the garbage they are shovelling today is any indication.

Let me end with a question for readers:  Do you remember when the New York Times was a real newspaper, and not a self-impressed propaganda sheet?  That memory gets more and more distant, doesn't it?

 

Zele ..... .... @ free` ..... ...... Walter Durante Moscow Bureau Chief of The New York Times (1922–36) won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of laudatory stories on the Soviet Union. He was a highly respected journalist until his denial of widespread famine in the USSR, the Ukraine mass starvation (4 million deaths in 1932–33) in particular. .... ..... .... (07/10/13)

free` Let me end with a question for readers: Do you remember when the New York Times was a real newspaper, and not a self-impressed propaganda sheet? -------- How can we? Since it is the internet that has exposed all of the MSM fraud, no one can say when or if they have always been this way. (07/09/13)


ETERNAL LIFE

Ken Berwitz

From our pal Toy Insurance Bob:

A guy is walking along the beach when he comes across a lamp partially buried in the sand. He picks up the lamp and gives it a rub. A genie appears and tells him he has been granted one wish.
 
The guy thinks for a moment and says, "I want to live forever."
 
"Sorry," said the genie, "I'm not allowed to grant eternal life."
 
"OK, then, I want to die after the Democrats balance the budget and eliminate the national debt.

"You crafty little bastard..."

 


WHY IS ELOISE DILLIGARD A DEFENSE WITNESS?

Ken Berwitz

On MSNBC, the hopelessly outmatched Martin Bashir and the surprisingly obtuse Lisa Bloom are wondering to each other why Eloise Dilligard, a neighbor of George Zimmerman's has been called as a defense witness, since - other than clearly being sympathetic to Mr. Zimmerman and believing it is his voice screaming for help on the tape - she has little to offer.

Let me help them out. 

The reason, guys, is that Ms.Dilligard is a Black woman, every bit as Black as Trayvon Martin.

Most cable news analysts join me in believing that, evidence-wise the defense has nothing at all to prove anymore; this case is a slam dunk.  And if our assessment is accurate, the only way for Zimmerman to be convicted is if jurors become convinced he is a racist who shot Trayvon Martin because Martin was Black. 

Therefore, by the defense showing that Eloise Dilligard was George Zimmerman's good friend before the shooting, when Zimmerman was just living his normal, everyday life with no reason to prove his tolerance credentials to anyone, it may act as powerful evidence to jurors that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was not racial in nature.

Sometimes the most logical answer is not clever or obscure at all, it is a straight line; the high hard one down the middle of the plate. 

To Mr. Bashir and Ms. Bloom:  I hope this has been helpful...


THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: MIDDAY JULY 9

Ken Berwitz

I have been in my car for much of the morning, but listened to the trial on radio.

The current witness, Vincent Di Maio, is tremendous.  A world-class pathologist who has credentials that are beyond impeccable.  He is explaining, in layman's terms, George Zimmerman's injuries and how they are compatible with Zimmerman's version of the physical encounter with Trayvon Martin.

The prosecution has yet to cross-examine.  But if they can take this guy down, they are the greatest team in legal history.


POOR BARACK OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

A quick reminder of how the situation in Egypt - i.e. dozens dead every day and a very real possibility of all-out civil war between fundamentalists and secularists - came to pass: 

-President Barack Obama, going against his own stated policy when the country was Iran, worked hard to remove Hosni Mubarak as President of Egypt. 

-Since the Muslim brotherhood was far and away the best organized anti-Mubarak faction, it was no surprise that a member of that terrorist group, mohamed morsi, bwas elected President.

-morsi was a disaster as President, in no small part because he decided he was not elected a President, but rather a Dictator who could rule by decree -- and his decrees, not surprisingly given his membership in a fundamentalist terror organization, were moving Egypt rapidly towards shari'a law.  This is precisely what Hosni Mubarak, whatever his faults, fought tooth and nail all the years he was in power.

Now that morsi has been removed by the military, it is unclear who or what will be running Egypt. But one thing is very clear:  this sequence of events was significantly helped along, if not specifically caused, by Barack Obama and the people around him.

With this in mind, here is the last paragraph of the New York Times' editorial this morning, titled "Bloodshed In Egypt"

It is hard not to feel some sympathy for President Obama. He was obliged to work with Mr. Morsi, a democratically elected leader, but, in the process, he alienated many Egyptian moderates and secularists. He also worked behind the scenes, albeit unsuccessfully, to find a compromise before the crisis erupted in the streets. Now that it has, he has little choice but to redouble his efforts - and do a better job of explaining to Egyptians what the United States is doing for and with their country and why.

Got that?  Poor Barack Obama.  He couldn't help it, he had to work with morsi.  And because he had no choice, he alienated everyone else.  And now he has to continue his benevolent, salutary work in finding a compromise.  Gee, that's unfair, since everything he did was so wonderful.

But wait a minute:  Isn't this the same Barack Obama whose nosing into Egypt's affairs caused morsi to be there in the first place?  The same Barack Obama who could have spoken up when morsi started acting as if he were appointed King instead of elected President, but did not?  Why not?

A question for the New York Times:  is this editorial's half-baked whine about what an unfair situation Barack Obama now faces, your excuse for neither reporting, nor putting up photographs of, the countless signs throughout Tahrir Square attacking him by name?

Another question for the Times:  is it ever - EVER - about anyone or anything but Barack Obama?  Certainly not in the eyes of your editorial board, if the garbage they are shovelling today is any indication.

Let me end with a question for readers:  Do you remember when the New York Times was a real newspaper, and not a self-impressed propaganda sheet?  That memory gets more and more distant, doesn't it?

 

free` Let me end with a question for readers: Do you remember when the New York Times was a real newspaper, and not a self-impressed propaganda sheet? -------- How can we? Since it is the internet that has exposed all of the MSM fraud, no one can say when or if they have always been this way. (07/09/13)

Zele ..... .... @ free` ..... ...... Walter Durante Moscow Bureau Chief of The New York Times (1922–36) won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of laudatory stories on the Soviet Union. He was a highly respected journalist until his denial of widespread famine in the USSR, the Ukraine mass starvation (4 million deaths in 1932–33) in particular. .... ..... .... (07/10/13)


CHICAGO STRICT GUN CONTROL UPDATE: THE BLOODY JULY 4TH WEEKEND

Ken Berwitz

No city has more stringent gun control laws than Chicago. 

So how come, according to africanamerican.org, 12 people were killed and 62 injured by gunfire over the (four day) July 4th weekend?

Those data are more than just statistics.  They are people;  74 of them, at least 12 who will never see another sunrise.

Does anyone in Chicago care?  If so, is anything being done about it?  I don't think so.  Let me explain why I feel this way.

Read the entire article, and you know what you will not find?  Any rundown on how many of the guns used in this carnage were legally owned, and how many belonged to NRA members.

I'm betting that the answer to both questions is zero.

But Rahm Emanuel and his likeminded pals are still demanding even more/stricter gun control laws, as if this has a thing to do with what is happening in Chicago. 

It doesn't.  

Simply stated, the Rahm Emanuels of the world are not serious about preventing gun violence.  What they are serious about is putting on a fraudulent dog-and-pony show to pretend they are acting decisively, which they are not.

When do the people  - not just in Chicago but in other cities as well (New York certainly comes to mind) - wake up and realize how completely they are being had?  How many dead and injured will it take?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!