I think you goofed with your diatribe against
I have a good friend who lives in Las Vegas and has gone out to the Bundy ranch to
support him in his struggle against what Bundy feels is a brutal and overreaching
Bureau of Land Management. The mediaare portraying the people who showed up at the
Bundy ranch to support and defend him as stereotypical right-wing nuts, so that they
won't have to deal honestly with the reasons that the folks are there, and what they
are truly like. My friend is conservative, no doubt, but he's also a strong union
supporter. In fact, I met him on a union organizing drive. It goes to show that you
have to be careful of painting people in a one-dimensional manner according to your
prejudice. As I said, I'm not sure about the root of the legal issues, but it is
certain that the BLM handled it badly, killing some of Bundy's cattle (who were not
guilty of anything! The BLM agents ought to be criminally prosecuted for that animal
cruelty, no matter how the rest of the issues are
resolved).
The BLM is getting itself in more trouble because of its bullying attitude on the
Texas/Oklahoma border. The border there is a river, and rivers often move over time.
The BLM made it's own definition of what happens when a river moves, one that is
different from those of the states involved, a definition that is convenient to its
own attitude that they can seize anyone's land at any time. The BLM is telling land
owners that even though they have had legal title to the land and have paid taxes on
it for over 100 years, since the river moved, BLM is taking their land for the
federal government. Unfortunately for the BLM, Texas and Oklahoma are not taking the
attitude of numb-nuts Harry Reid, who is calling those opposing the BLM terrorists.
Those latter states are taking the bull by the horns and going after the BLM. I
don't know how it will turn out. But if the BLM is so arrogant and bullying on the
Texas/Oklahoma border, might it not be acting similarly
to Cliven Bundy?
Sincerely, Bruce Clark
Since this article is divided into at least 2 topics, I divide my comments into 2
letters. I understand and generally agree with your criticism of Republican
attitudes toward "free riders." Union members have experienced this for decades.
Certain members of a bargaining unit in a facility claim that they don't want to be
members of the union and object to paying dues (or an administrative fee in lieu of
dues). However, the union is legally obligated to represent *all* members of the
bargaining unit, and those objectors are perfectly willing to take advantage of the
wages and benefits that the union negotiates, and take advantage of the union's
grievance procedure when they get in a jam with the employer. However, not all "free
rider" situations are the same, and therefore the treatment of them must vary
accordingly.
I contend that [the rule requiring ER's to treat everybody] is not just a "free rider" situation. I think it goes back to
that short phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution that reads "promote the
general Welfare." Wikipedia says “This is an itemized social contract of democratic
philosophy. It details how the more perfect union was to be carried out between the
national government and the people. The people are to be provided (a) justice, (b)
civil peace, (c) common defense, (d) those things of a general welfare that they
could not provide themselves, and (e) freedom. A government of "liberty and union,
now and forever", unfolds when “We†begin and establish this Constitution.â€
I contend that the laws prohibiting turning away patients without financial means is
not a matter of promoting "free riders," but of promoting the general welfare and of
saving the lives of those subservient, officious, greedy assholes who would condemn
people to death if they didn't have insurance or other means to pay their hospital
bills.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Clark
Dear Jonathan,