Peter O'Brien's blog

I was perusing my usual sites today and ran across this from Neal Boortz:

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2011/01/and-finally.html

Making this the last item ... because that's where I put it in importance.  For now.  It's just that something rather curious has become even curiouser.  I'm talking about the Barack Obama birth certificate stuff. 

No ... I'm not a birther ... but there are some things that have happened lately that you really just cannot ignore. 

In December some character named Neil Abercrombie is sworn in as Governor of Hawaii.  Now I'm sure that Hawaii, like most other states, has a few problems that need to be addressed.  But Governor Abercrombie seemed to think that the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate was near the top ... not because he had any doubts about whether or not Obama was actually born in Hawaii ... but because he wanted to take that birth certificate and essentially shove it down the throats of those pesky birthers out there. 

Birthers?  OK .. here's the deal.  These are people who say that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States and is thus serving as President illegally.  They say he was either born in Kenya or Indonesia.  They say that the certificate of live birth that has been shown as proof of Obama's citizenship is actually proof of nothing more than the fact that someone brought the infant Obama to a hospital in Hawaii claiming that he had been born at home, and the hospital issued a certificate essentially saying "yup ... it's a baby all right, and here it is in our hospital in Hawaii!"  The claim is that the certificate of live birth only proves that Obama was born, not where he was born.

OK ... so here we have Governor Abercromcie.  He's on the spot because he volunteered to "..do what I can do" to publicly verify that records show Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen of the United States.  He wanted to put this thing to rest so that it wouldn't be an issue in 2012.

So ... how's that going for the governor?  The Honolulu Star Advertiser asked Abercrombie "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate.  How is that coming?"  The only answer the media gets from Abercrombie is that an investigation has "unearthed papers" proving Obama is a citizen.  Those papers haven't been produced. He says "it's written in the archives, written down."  But nothing produced.

The London Daily Mail has now weighed in, saying that "It became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate."  The Daily Mail says that Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate may not, in fact, exist. 

Why bring this up?  If you listen to me you know that my position is that we should forget this birther stuff and just concentrate on defeating this dangerous man in 2012 and continuing to undo the damage he has done in his ongoing efforts to "radically transform" our Republic.  But the Hawaii governor stepped up to say he was going to put the controversy to rest.  It's time to perform.  If he doesn't .... Then the controversy grows.

Saturday morning the wife and I went to Miss Batavia for a late breakfast.  This was our second time at the restaurant.  It has become our favorite spot for a sit down breakfast.

We walked in and its was empty but for a few tables.  We came in after the the morning rush and had our choice of seats.  The waitress came right over and handed us menus and took our drink order.  The drinks were at our table in under 2 minutes (which was great because I was still very thirsty from hockey earlier that morning).

Chelsea ordered a ham and cheese omelette with home fries and white toast, and an apple juice.  I had french toast and two eggs, over hard, with an orange juice. The food was terrific.  But the surprising thing was how fast it came out.  It couldn't have taken more than 7 minutes.  I know what we ordered doesn't take long to cook but it was still surprisingly fast.  The french toast was cooked to perfectly.  It was not the best I've had but it was very good.  The eggs (though admittedly hard to screw up) we also cooked perfect.  Chelsea's omelette looked very good and I know that her home fries were.  Her toast came out toasted.  I know that sounds dumb but I have had lots of experience eating slightly browned.  Miss Batavia's toast was fully toasted but not burned, just the way it should be.

The service we received was among the best we have ever had.  Sometimes when I got into a restaurant and am as thirsty as I was on Saturday, I have a drained glass on the table longer then a glass with amount of fluid in it.  That did not occur.  My glass was empty for maybe a minute before it was filled again.

The check came soon after we were finished (as the lunch customers came in).  it came to $16 and change.  I was surprised at how low the price was.  Both our plates were covered in food.  It certainly seemed well worth the price for what we got.

Last night the wife and I chose Larry's  as our destination to celebrate our one month-iversery.   We arrived at about 5:30.  We were greeted right away and led to table.  Service was terrific all night.

We both ordered the everyday special; a fourteen ounce New York strip steak with choice of side, soup, and a salad for $17.99. She chose the twice baked potato and I selected the regular baked potato.  I chose chili and she chose the cheddar broccoli soup.  For our salads I got the grape seed vinegarette and Chelsea chose ranch.

The soups came first.  The three bean chili came in a ceramic crock and was covered in shredded cheddar.  It was very hearty and delicious.  My only complaint was that it was not very spicy.   Chelsea's cheddar broccoli was a bit of a let down.  It didn't have quite enough flavor for me and Chelsea said it was lacking something.

The salads soon arrived after that and were terrific.  They were very fresh with several different types of lettuce.  Larry's is the only place I know of to get a grape flavored vinegarette.  It was tremendous.  Chelsea's ranch was also good, though to me ranch is kinda plain.

Next the steaks came.  I also ordered mushrooms for mine.  They arrived hot and juicy.  They cooked exactly to the temperature we ordered.  The top of my steak was covered in quartered mushroom caps as well.  The steaks were as tasty as you would expect from Steakhouse.

We really enjoyed our experience at Larry's and we are looking forward to going again.

 To those is certainly does concern,

As a tax paying property owner in this city, I demand that my garbage be picked up on the day scheduled.  I expect that with my taxes comes the services that are supplied in return.  This past Thursday I took my garbage can to the curb as I usually do.  I had one can that was severely damaged from several run-ins with cars.  However, there were bags inside that could have been removed without the need to lift the can. Instead of my trash being taken away, as I and every other property owner should expect, the can was left on the curb full of garbage.  It was obvious that it had been opened since the lid that is normally held in place on top of the can by the handle was found in my front lawn.  So since my garbage was not taken, the can stayed there in front of my house waiting till next week.

Today I received a notice from the Code Enforcement Officer that I needed to remove it in 48 hours or face a fine.  Well one problem with that.  I can have it there on Wednesday after 6:00am without it being an infraction.  Good work there.  Second problem, I am not the one who left the garbage there.  The city government and its contractors did.  Not only is this completely stupid that I should be fined for your failure to take my trash away but I believe it is a form of entrapment to charge me for that failure.

Furthermore, this is a policy that is going to drive away people who were ready to make a family here and pay taxes.  Your ratios of people receiving government assistance to those paying taxes is not very high.  Perhaps you should reconsider some of your policies that drive away those that make a living versus those that steal it through government force.

Signed

Peter O'Brien

A voice from the past speaks as though he was still alive and well today.

Reagan, my first president, spoke about Socialized Medicine.  His speech, amazingly, is still extremely relevant almost 5 decades later.

http://nofanniemed.com/2009/08/13/ronald-reagan-on-socialized-medicine-1...

As if we’re not already overextended enough financially, the issue of National Health Care is now on the table once more vote. Here’s some perspective you might find interesting.

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Though I question his citizenship I only do so because of the money he has thrown at keeping the birth certificate debate out of courts.  But here is some information that is interesting in the debate.

From http://www.crossactionnews.com/articles/view/how-crazy-are-those-birthers

Natural Born Citizen

Article II-Section I-Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a "natural born citizen" hold the office of President. It's no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security.

Lets not play any games here, too many games have been played with this phrase already. It's a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out.

Not just any ole "citizen,"

Not Native "belonging to a particular place by birth"

Not Naturalized - "to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship" (as with an immigrant)

But NATURAL - "Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power."

The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a "natural born citizen" of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John's birth. In other words, by "divine power" and the "laws of growth," "produced by nature" of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.

However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama.

The Birth Certificate

Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama's actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement.

I won't get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story!

Officials in Hawaii have issued their "opinion" that Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their "opinion" is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama's birth, and they are therefore, unable to support such a claim.

Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated.

Some "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That's because Obama's Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama's birth in Kenya.

But where he was born isn't so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" of the United States and that makes him an "unconstitutional president" at best!

Proof of Constitutional Standing

Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less "natural born" status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I'm wrong, send me the proof you have!

We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a "diplomat," while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport.

But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East.

We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard.

Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery!

Some on here have claimed that the private insurance agencies are demonic.  They deny care to those who need it.  But did you know that according to the American Medical Association (AMA), Medicare is worse than Aetna, Anthem/BCBS, CIGNA, Coventry, Health Net, Humana, and United Healthcare (UHC)

In a report claiming that "Billions of dollars in administrative waste would be eliminated each year if third party-payers sent a timely, accurate and specific response to each physician claim", the AMA (who supports Obamacare) showed us that government is the biggest denier of care. 

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

This will only get worse as more people are forced into a system they don't want. 

The Baucus bill which passed the Senate Finance Committee last week is going to tax "Cadillac" health care plans by 40%.  But the definition of a "Cadillac" plan can be redefined on a whim.  You will come to find out that most of you who have plans, have "Cadillac" plans.  And of course most unions have these plans as well.

But then there is the other side of the coin.

"My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.

Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329800457445910102233823...

That $1000 tax turns out to be cheaper to pay than to get the better coverage that they don't need.

There is also a provision similair to this in the Baucus bill.

What America needs now is to be thrifty and stop spending money that we don't have.  We don't need more taxes that will take peoples income away.  Income that could be used to to buy things people want instead of what is mandated by a bureaucrat in Washington who will not be subject to the provisions of the bill.

Louise Slaughter will not be holding any town hall meetings on Obamacare.

Here's Why:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/03/dem_rep_im_not_doing_town_hall_meetings_im_not_going_to_give_those_people_a_forum.html

"I'm not doing town meetings; I'm not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill, with the John Birch Society, where we had to have police around, and people hysterically crying…" 

and town halls are "beneath the dignity of my office".

Here is a letter showing just how much Kennedy loved the USA

Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

Kennedy would rather undermine the President (who makes foreign policy) and work with the enemy, then support the President's plan.  Sounds to me like treason.

Here is another example of why I hate today's labor unions.  

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unions-target-Whole-Foods-CEO-apf-34525087...

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal.  In it, he outlined a free market solution to health care reform.

Well the union didn't appreciate that.  They are now calling for his resignation because "he is undermining President Barack Obama's health care reform". 

Now what does that have to do with his ability to run the company?  Absolutely nothing.  But the Union is for Obamacare.  So they are trying to squeeze the CEO out for his political views.  They claim that he as "deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base".  But do they provide any evidence of this claim?  Not the in article they don't.

Meanwhile, "Whole Foods pays all of the premiums for its employees who work 30 hours or more per week in a high-deductible health-insurance plan, and the company contributes to wellness accounts that employees can spend as they choose on their health needs."  Sounds to me like a great heathcare program provided by the private sector.

Oh and the cherry on top of this debate.. Whole Foods is not unionized.  This union involved is the United Food and Commercial Workers Union which is part of Change to Win.  These people do not work for Mackey.  They are just angry that he is against Obamacare.

They are angry that he allegedly "deeply offended" Whole Foods shoppers.  So to ensure that they understand Obamacare and in my opnion to offend those that shop at Whole Foods and support Mackey, they are going to hand out "information to Whole Foods shoppers about health care reform".  

It is just plain sad.

The blowhards in control of the state have decided to choose your life style for you again.

This time they are increasing fees on tobacco retailers to attempt to convince them to stop selling cigarettes and cigars.  The previous fee for all stores in NYS was $100.  Now after a huge increase and a sliding scale have been added it could be as much as $5000.

We have been reading here on thebatavian.com that people have been caught smuggling cigarettes out of the reservations.  This new fee is only likely to increase the cigarette black market.

I enjoy the occasional cigar.  I will more than likely buy them online now unless Angotti Beverage keeps their little cigar area open.

Background: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090814/BUSINESS/908140328/...

This is me

A big pansy after I read this story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,538724,00.html?mep

PORT TAMPA, Fla. —  Yolanda Segovia heard a knock on her door one morning, just before 8 a.m.

Her neighbor was on the porch, with a dog and a story.

Stacey Savige had found the little dog in front of an elementary school. He wasn't very big, looked like some sort of terrier. Burrs clung to his belly. His honey fur was caked in mud.

He didn't have a collar. Stacey had taken him to the vet and he didn't have a chip, either.

Now Stacey had to go to work. Could Yolanda keep him?

Yolanda is 47. She's a divorced mom with two boys. In recent years she has survived breast cancer and cervical cancer, lost her dark hair and eyelashes to chemo. A hairdresser, she hasn't worked since 2006.

"You can leave the dog here," Yolanda told Stacey. "But just for today."

Only finish it if you want to be teary eyed in a good way.

Teachers Unions have caused great pain in the public education system.  So much so that I believe the only way to fix it, is to abolish it.  They care more for the teachers than the studentss' education.

Here is a story from the Wall Street Journal that shows exactly what I am talking about

The conflicting interests of teachers unions and students is an underreported education story, so we thought we’d highlight two recent stories in Baltimore and New York City that illustrate the problem.

The Ujima Village Academy is one of the best public schools in Baltimore and all of Maryland. Students at the charter middle school are primarily low-income minorities; 98% are black and 84% qualify for free or reduced-price school meals. Yet Ujima Village students regularly outperform the top-flight suburban schools on state tests. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, Ujima Village students earned the highest eighth-grade math scores in Maryland. Started in 2002, the school has met or exceeded state academic standards every year—a rarity in a city that boasts one of the lowest-performing school districts in the country.

Ujima Village is part of the KIPP network of charter schools, which now extends to 19 states and Washington, D.C. KIPP excels at raising academic achievement among disadvantaged children who often arrive two or three grade-levels behind in reading and math. KIPP educators cite longer school days and a longer school year as crucial to their success. At KIPP schools, kids start as early as 7:30 a.m., stay as late as 5 p.m., and attend school every other Saturday and three weeks in the summer.

However, Maryland’s charter law requires teachers to be part of the union. And the Baltimore Teachers Union is demanding that the charter school pay its teachers 33% more than other city teachers, an amount that the school says it can’t afford. Ujima Village teachers are already paid 18% above the union salary scale, reflecting the extra hours they work. To meet the union demands, the school recently told the Baltimore Sun that it has staggered staff starting times, shortened the school day, canceled Saturday classes and laid off staffers who worked with struggling students. For teachers unions, this outcome is a victory; how it affects the quality of public education in Baltimore is beside the point.

Meanwhile, in New York City, some public schools have raised money from parents to hire teaching assistants. Last year, the United Federation of Teachers filed a grievance about the hiring, and city education officials recently ordered an end to the practice. “It’s hurting our union members,” said a UFT spokesman, even though it’s helping kids and saving taxpayers money. The aides typically earned from $12 to $15 an hour. Their unionized equivalents cost as much as $23 an hour, plus benefits.

“School administrators said that hiring union members not only would cost more, but would also probably bring in people with less experience,” reported the New York Times. Many of the teaching assistants hired directly by schools had graduate degrees in education and state teaching licenses, while the typical unionized aide lacks a four-year degree.

The actions of the teachers unions in both Baltimore and New York make sense from their perspective. Unions exist to advance the interests of their members. The problem is that unions present themselves as student advocates while pushing education policies that work for their members even if they leave kids worse off. Until school choice puts more money and power in the hands of parents, public education will continue to put teachers ahead of students.

A national voucher system would go along way towards taking power from the unions.  Obamacare says it will decrease cost while providing better service because of competition.  I don't believe that because the government doesn't have to earn a profit like a private company does.  But in the education system its been proved that private schools are much more efficient when it comes to teaching children.  They do more with less. 

Why can't competition work in education?

This weekend Rochester Erin's Isle is sponsoring two teams at the Great American Irish Festival Gaelic Football Tournament.

Last year Rochester faced teams from Quebec City, Montreal, Buffalo, Mason Dixon, and Baltimore.  This year we know Buffalo and Syracuse will be attending among others.

This tournament is great fun and good way to get a feel of the game up close and personal.  Players have plenty of down time and are more than happy to field questions.

The festival is held at Herkimer County Fairgrounds.  All games are played on Saturday and start at noon.

Here is my write up on last years event.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Your Rochester Erin's Isle competed in the annual 7v7 Great American Irish Festival Gaelic Football Tournament on Saturday.

In the two game round-robin, followed by a 4 team playoff, Erin's Isle got off to a great start.

In game one Rochester faced their greatest rival, Buffalo.  The game was pretty even up until the last 2 minutes of the 10 minute first half.  As two players were getting into a shoving match in front of yours truly about a late hit, Rochester was able to score the only goal of the game which with their single point earned from putting the ball over the crossbar was enough for them to start the day 1-0.

The second match was against Quebec City.  Though not nearly as rough as the Buffalo match, it was no less intense.  After 20 minutes of play the score was tied.  It was determined that penalty kicks would decide the victory.

Quebec won the toss to kick first.  They fired a hard shot into the upper left corner where the keeper had no chance.  Rochester’s first kick was almost an exact duplicate and was put into triplicate by Quebec’s second kicker even though I had chosen correctly on the placement.  Rochester’s second kicker fired it low but wide left.  With one kicker left for each team before sudden death penalty kicks, Rochester needed a stop.  Quebec made a mental mistake and instead of putting the game away with a chip over the crossbar to score one point (instead of the three for putting it in the net) their third shooter fired it just a touch to the left and it was easily deflected away for the first save of the penalty shots.  Now Rochester needed to score to continue on.  On a hard shot that went to the right and was put in just under the cross bar Rochester stayed alive.  Quebec continued the pk’s with another beautiful shot in the upper left corner.  Rochester once again was on the ropes and needed to score and once again came up big.  On the next shot by Quebec, it was fired almost directly at me, the keeper.  With another big save I came out of the net roaring knowing we could just chip it to win.  Our shooter mishit the ball though and it sailed straight but low of the cross bar where an out stretched arm from the Quebec keeper stopped it from entering the net.  The next round was almost an exact duplicate of the round before without me running out of the net all fired up after my stop.  We entered round seven of the pk’s.  Once again Quebec’s shooters tried to shove it down the middle with a hard shot right at me and though I had started to move away from it I recognized it soon enough to complete another save.  This time our shooter didn’t miss.  With a nice chip over the cross bar we went up 2-0 in the most exciting match of the day.

Thanks to a rain delay and a 2 game waiting period, Rochester had a 2 hour delay before their next game.  Just prior to it, Mason Dixon was playing Montreal. In an illegal but unavoidable hit from behind Montreal had a player go down.  He landed hard and separated his shoulder and was taken by ambulance to the local hospital.  Montreal then conceded the match putting them at a record of 0-2.  Buffalo was also at 0-2 at this point after their second round loss to 2-0 Baltimore.  Mason Dixon was 1-1 because of a first round loss to Baltimore and Quebec City beat Montreal in round one putting them at 1-1.

This led to the 4 game playoff: Rochester vs Mason Dixon and Baltimore vs Quebec City.

Mason Dixon had speed that Rochester could not compete with and scored a goal in the first half which we could not answer with one of our own.  It was obvious that the delay took its toll on the much older Rochester squad, but by the second half, everything but the score had evened out and in some ways were tipping to Rochester favor.  But Rochester suffered its first loss and its bid for the Championship.

In the consolation game against Baltimore (who lost to Quebec when they scored a tournament high 4 goals) Rochester had to suffer through another long delay and decided to play conservatively to avoid any injuries.  Baltimore scored two goals and a few points.

So out of the tournament of 6, Rochester went 2-2 and took 4^th place.  Which isn’t so bad when you considered we were the only team to beat the champions and had the same record as the team who took second.

This year hopes to be even more competative. 

Oh yeah and the festival is fun too.  http://www.gaif.us/