Haynes.tv

I hope that your 7/7/7 is going well and I just wanted to leave you with a special list related to the number seven:

Nancy Pelosi has decided that she must take it upon herself to solve the problems in Iraq. How is she going to do this? You might think it is something brave and courageous but you would be wrong. She has decided to backstab the White House and create discussion with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

A statement put out by her spokesman, Brendan Daly says that she is going “As recommended by the Iraq study group…” the statement then goes on to say that she “intends to discuss a wide range of security issues…” Is it just me or does the fact that Nancy Pelosi is going to Syria since relations deteriorated seem like a security issue. Not only does this create a security issue but it undermines everything the administration is trying to do in the Middle East.

What type of message does this send to our allies? That the U.S. is going to negotiate with known supports of Hezbollah and Hamas. That is not it either; they are also aiding the Sunni insurgency in Western Iraq. This must be very perplexing to the U.S.’s allies in the Middle East, one day we make claims against Syria and the next we are going to talk to them about security?

It is impossible to negotiate with Syria. They do not want the same thing the U.S. wants in Iraq. Maybe Nancy Pelosi should have read all of the Iraq study group report. If she did she would have come across the passages that say “Syria is also playing a counterproductive role.” And the goal for Iraq is to “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” Maybe she does recognize the difficult issues involved but I highly doubt that she will be able to resolve them.

My suggestion to Speaker Pelosi is drop the act. She has not done what she has been elected for. Since the elections she has not kept any of her promises and now she is trying to save the world. Maybe if she remembered how Senators Kerry and Dodd already tried to challenge Syria to play a more constructive role in the region she would know that she is actually playing a deconstructive role. She needs to try to start a discussion between her party and the Republican Party before she can create discussion with Syria.

The town of North Kingstown has entirely too much drama for a suburb of Providence. This applies especially to our school department. By the amount of accusations and unfavorable news reports about the NKSD, you would think that our daily lives are scripted by television writers. However, the biggest character that dominates North Kingstown cooler talk is the Kingpin, Dr. James Halley. He is a public official that answers only to himself, and his public allies answer only to him. He thinks he lives in a special bubble outside of public opinion. In the minds of the parents and students he has been running the North Kingstown School Department like this for the past 12 years.

The drama involving Dr. Halley has recently come to a head over the report concerning $245,000 of misappropriated funds. ABC 6 reporter Jim Hummel has been following (harassing) the story for the past several months. Needless to say, Halley is not a fan. Their confrontation finally became physical at a March 28 school committee meeting in which Hummel followed Halley around the auditorium, smashing him with difficult (for Halley) questions about the report. An obviously distressed Halley puffed out nonsense responses saying that the media has no right to cover the meeting, despite that fact that every meeting is broadcast in North Kingstown on Cox Channel 17. And after the meeting Halley went to the North Kingstown P.D. to file assault and harassment charges.

I believe this whole disastrous meeting demonstrates Halley’s inability to perform his job effectively (as well as ethically) because he cannot handle the pressure, he has made actions detrimental to his image and reputation, as well as that of the town’s school department, and he is being chased like an injured antelope from a lion on the savanna of truth. We let him make his own decisions, but now its time for us to tell him its over. The recent paid suspension should give him time to think about the function of a public official. What the word public means. He should ask himself whether he has any honor and dignity left, or will he continue to rely on political alliances and the threat of lawyers to save his wounded rear end (which we know he will). This claim of assault on Jim Hummel demonstrates no matter how hard he falls, his senses are completely disconnected from the real world.

As a side note, I am a North Kingstown resident and from now on I will follow all the important issues facing north Kingtown in future articles. I read the North East Independent and the South County section of the Providence Journal and I will share my opinions about artices as well as add my own insight. I attend many town meeting and am very involved in the town.

Vs

Ann Coulter (Conservative commentator) remarks that “…you have to go into rehab if you use the word fagot” has apparently sparked some controversy. It seems most of the focus has been on the fact that she was using this word to characterize John Edwards, which was clearly wrong. Even though Coulter in her defense has claimed that she was just joking, that was also what John Kerry claimed when he botched his joke about getting stuck in Iraq. That controversy was of course more over the nature of the joke, but the point really is if these politicians and political activists would not make these negative jokes about people they would not have these problems, and would be much more respected by the American people. In addition, there is clearly a underlying message Coulter has presented with her inappropriate joke, about the fact that our society has come to the point where we have categorize any use of such a word as extremely hateful, because it characterizes homosexuals in a negative way. Although, our society, as a whole, does not particularly care if conservatives are characterize negatively with words slanderous towards religion, and Christians.

Of course, John Edwards then sees fit to put a clip of Coulter’s joke up on his web site with captions “Shame on Ann Coulter” “Fight back against the politics of bigotry”, in order to disgrace Coulter or something. I am not quite sure which act is worst, using such a childish word to characterize someone or drawing attention to this childish act, instead of just ignoring this as the shameful and pointless seam it is. No, John Edwards had to hit right back, apparently following the mentality that when attacked you must always hit back even harder, even though someone calling another a such a word is not usually damaging. It is childless, as mentioned above, and it is just name-calling not exposing. If it was an attempt to expose then it of course should be addressed to dispel any potential rumors. However, what rumors or negative image are going to come from name-calling unless you are the one doing the name-calling? Not many, if you ask me the very act of addressed this, especially in the nature that he did, was also shameful and was just done in order to seam. It was just a needless response brought upon by defense mechanism. So who wins in this; Coulter probably, because she is not actually running for office she is not endanger of losing votes, although again she was clearly wrong, this does not hurt her much. John Edwards has, through the very act of addressing this, added fuel to the fire. I.e. when a child starts acting up for attention you do not go not give the child that attention they want, as John Edwards has apparently done, you ignore them until, until they find out no one is paying attention to them any more.

I have no problem with governmental intervention in the health of its citizens. A government should try its best to give its citizens the tools to live long, productive, and healthy lives. Programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are vital to the overall health of our citizens. However, intervention must be kept below a certain level. There is a line that separates private actions and governmental guidance. It is an established fact that the modern world faces an unprecedented obesity problem, and it is a long tradition that new strains of viruses constantly threaten the global population. I appreciate a government’s proactive thoughts and actions to help its citizens alleviate their health needs. However, the a nation’s government does not have the right to go into some one’s home to enforce their “suggestions.” A government cannot force a family to follow the food pyramid. A government cannot force a person to wash their hands. Even if it is in the best interest of the person, the government does not have complete control of its citizen’s life. However, a situation similar to this is happening in Great Britain.

British authorities may take custody of 8-year-old Connor McCreaddie, who weighs 218 lbs. Although the child is under good care, Social Services may take him from his parents because of their neglect to take him to government sanctioned doctors, nutritionists, and social workers to help him with his obesity. Both the parents and the child recognize the problem and are trying to find a lifestyle that can work. The mother does not force feed her son. His weight results largely from his own actions. I do not understand how the government feels it can intervene in this child’s life because the right things are not being done in their mind. The child has his own unique problems and his family has the right to solve this problem in their own privacy. If the parents are not breaking any laws, how can he be taken on extreme liberal ideals?

What concerns me most about this whole predicament would be the precedent set by such action. I wonder if we are entering into a world where the government knows best, and we are forced to follow all suggestions that cover every aspect of our private life. And, if such a situation were to exist at what point would the government have complete control of our mind and what we believe to be correct. Citizens need to realize that there is a limit to government interaction and they must step up in the family’s defense.