Not Right Wing, Not Left Wing…Mentally Ill


To Congresswoman Giffords and the 17 others who were shot yesterday, I offer my prayers for you and your families. This was a horrible tragedy and one that will not be forgotten soon. The man alleged to have shot Rep. Giffords and so many others, Jared Lee Loughner, has already been identified by many as a right wing extremist. I hate to disappoint those that are more concerned about political scoring points than human beings who have been shot; it appears that Mr. Loughner was mentally ill, not politically impressed by Sarah Palin’s or Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas’ target lists of Gifford.

Let’s consider what little we know about the alleged shooter, less than 24 hours after the tragedy. He posted several YouTube videos that are clearly rambling and disturbed. Some refer to the Constitution and gold/silver currency, lack of grammar, mind control, how the police are unconstitutional, while another refers to BCE and ADE, along with strings of numbers. A short read of these videos, most of which are text in nature, sounds like a paranoid person verging on, if not already in, the throes of schizophrenia.

A New York Times’ morning article, however, was quick to point out what they thought were his political leanings. They make reference to his commentary about the Constitution and gold/silver currencies. The Times also list some of his favorite books, listing “Animal Farm” and “Brave New World”, among others. They conspicuously leave out “Mein Kampf” and the “Communist Manifesto”.

Also left out was a commentary about the You Tube video posted on his collection and listed as his favorite. In it, a lone figure that Mr. Loughner identifies as himself (“do you see the rare bird perched on my shoulder?”) is apparently dressed as the Grim Reaper. The heavy metal music in the background has a repeated refrain “when the bodies hit the floor”. After a minute or so of doing nothing but apparently gazing at the American flag planted in the ground, the figure lights the flag on fire. No mention is made of this video in the New York Times article. This pattern is repeated in many blog postings about the incident.

So, from the little information gleaned thus far about the alleged shooter, we could make a very bad case that he leaned right: obsessed with the Constitution, gold/silver and currency, felt abortion was wrong, etc. Or leaned left: favorite books are “Mein Kampf and “Communist Manifesto, doesn’t believe in religion, burned the flag, etc. This could only be done by leaving out information that disagreed with the writer’s intended slant.

We can, however, make a good case for someone who is mentally ill by looking in totality at his writings, his behavior and what little we know of his history thus far (suspended from college for a “disturbing video” and recommended by the college that he seek counseling, refusal of the Army to take him as a recruit). And sadly, the mentally ill sometimes get violent, especially if untreated.

The lesson to be learned from this? Before hysterically shrieking political commentary, one could pause for a moment to think of the victims. Then, assess what information is actually available before making said commentary. Perhaps most revolutionary, put accurate and complete information in, not merely what agrees with the bias you want to convey to the reader.


Our Veterans Get It


I worked as a volunteer on the McCain Presidential campaign in the last four days before the election.  We all gathered in a cramped, thrown together campaign office in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which looked nothing like the gleaming command centers usually portrayed on TV. Nope, this office consisted of folding tables fronted by folding chairs, bad coffee and doughnuts. Twelve hour days were the norm for the full time volunteers, with other volunteers coming in after the dinner hour.

We were nearing that dinner hour when one of the volunteers that I had worked with came up to me, quite agitated. It turns out that a very large American flag that had flown over a garrison had been donated to the campaign office. Trouble was, whoever delivered it had unceremoniously dumped it on the floor. Quite rightly, Ron the volunteer was highly offended but had no idea what to do with this very large flag. Knowing I was a police officer, he came to me for help (yes, we are supposed to know how to take care of everything). We ran back to the front of the office, curious eyes now following the minor hubbub taking place.

“What do we do?” he asked.

“Well, first things first. We get it off the floor, then we fold it properly.”

“How do we fold something this big?” he asked.

“Go get those teenage boys in the back,” I said. “We’re gonna need a few hands for this one.” And while I gently gathered the flag from the floor, he ran to get assistance. The security guard, who had not said two words during his entire shift, came over to volunteer the information that he used to take down and fold the flag every night while in the Army.

“Good,” I said. “You’re in charge in showing us how to fold this flag properly.”

He stood a bit taller, said “Yes, ma’am” and helped me start straighten the flag out. It was enormous, and when fully stretched, took up most of the office. Ron came back with about eight confused teenage boys, who could not understand what the fuss was about.

It was just a flag, after all. They didn’t get it.

We positioned the boys along the flag, intent on our task. The boys chattered, as boys do, while we began. They didn’t get it, after all.

The other volunteers, busy with the phones, began to look around at the fuss. They saw what we were doing and nodded their heads in approval. The Army man began the painstakingly slow process of folding the flag precisely, with me and Ron assisting. With each fold of the flag, the careful stretching and tucking of each corner and smoothing of the material, the boys’ chatter started to slow.

The boys became more interested in what we were doing. They began to take part in the deliberate folding, jumping in spontaneously to make sure the material was perfectly smooth and no wrinkles were present for the next turn. Their chatter eventually ceased and they became focused slowly on the flag, to the exclusion of everything else in the room.

By the time the last fold was done, the last corner perfectly tucked in and the flag placed in its rightful spot of honor in the room, the boys were completely silent.

They finally got it.

To all our veterans, past and present, thank you for all you do for our country, for all your sacrifices in protecting us and keeping us safe.

We know you have always gotten it.


Townsend Challenges Schumer’s Record


See the link below for a Fox 5 News interview of Jay Townsend, challenger to incumbent Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. In it, he challenges Schumer on his record of fiscal irresponsibility and tendency to tax New Yorkers out of jobs and a future. There will be a televised debate between the two on Sunday, October 24th at 7pm at Marist College in Poughkeepsie. It will be televised by YNN and NY1 out of Manhattan.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/politics/jay-townsend-candidate-for-us-senate-20101018

Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline. Check out her website and contact her at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com


Political Arrogance


Chuck Schumer is the bad stereotype of today’s politician: smug in his superiority over the “little people” and anyone who dares to defy or question him, he had hoped to avoid even running a campaign this election cycle, counting on the fact that his relatively unknown opponent would be unable to match him in money and resources. Thanks to the new media and Jay Townsend’s persistence and skill, Schumer has finally been forced into his one and only debate on October 23rd at Marist College in Poughkeepsie.

Townsend On Schumer’s ‘Arrogance’

Schumer has called a past political opponent a “coward” for refusing to debate him multiple times; how would he characterize his own refusals now, one wonders?

Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline. Check out her website and contact her at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com.


“Content Neutral”…the Obliteration of Free Speech


Recently, a group of students visiting Washington, D.C. went to the Lincoln Memorial. In a moment of patriotism, they began to sing the national anthem, something most people would surely not object to, even if the students were not professional singers. They were shouted down by a uniformed security guard, who told them they had to stop singing. They thankfully resumed their singing and completed the national anthem. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/09/students-lincoln-memorial-told-stop-singing-national-anthem)

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

Schlosser explained that performances , regardless of content, are banned to “maintain a contemplative and reverent area for the Lincoln Memorial, for the other guests and visitors.”

Schlosser, who commended the students on their musical ability, said the students were not cited and to his knowledge no report was filed.

“We need to make certain that all other visitors that don’t want to be a part of that or just choose to be tourists are able to do so in the same light that probably President Lincoln wanted – which is completely content neutral,” he said.

“Content neutral”?  Have we literally stepped into an Orwellian state of Newspeak? No speech is content neutral, otherwise it is not truly speech. Speech is meant to convey something; namely…content.  The thought behind this particular phrase is more ludicrous than the phrase itself, if that were possible, a product of the PC Police.

Political correctness has spread its tentacles into every part of our lives; people are afraid to speak to one another for fear of offending someone, bosses are afraid to discipline employees for fear of being called an “ist” of some sort, with a corresponding lawsuit, communications between different groups of people is so scrubbed of any possibly offensive comments for fear of being labeled an “ist” that it becomes meaningless, parents are afraid to discipline their children in a non-politically correct way for fear of being reported to Child Protective Services, teachers are afraid to communicate views for fear ot complaints against them and loss of their jobs….are we seeing a pattern here?

Fear is now what drives our communications and interactions, or lack of them, with others. We have truly lost our freedom of speech, whether we like to think so or not. It is because we are afraid of the PC Police coming after us, our money, our jobs, our kids….because we do not speak Newspeak-content neutral speech that offends no one and means nothing. We are afraid to be Americans anymore, because apparently, to the PC Police (or Thought Police), that “disturbs” other people. Since when did the singing of the National Anthem become a “demonstration”? Apparently, when the PC Police decide it is one.

What is most chilling to me is this gradual creep against our freedom of speech. It is now reaching critical mass; soon, it will stifle any voice of dissent against the PC Police, who only support freedom of speech when it agrees with their views. From cries of “isms” to threats against jobs and future employment, the PC Police have turned us into tiptoeing creatures, always fearful of saying the wrong things. These kids were brave enough to continue their “demonstration”. How many adults would do the same? We now voluntarily self censor out of fear; how long before we have no choice in the matter? If it is up to the PC Police, the time is now.

Watch the Obama administration. Watch the lies and the doublespeak; telling you things that are outright falsehoods, even when they know you are aware it is a falsehood. Sure, that five day, half a million dollar trip to Spain at the expense of the taxpayers was an “official visit” by the First Lady.  Sure, the economy is better and the stimulus bills created numerous jobs. Yes, the government needs more control over industry, the financial world, your health care decisions, your privacy, the Internet…sure it does. Read “1984″ by George Orwell…one would think he had met the Obama administration already when writing it.

Then start fighting against the PC Police…while you still can.

Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline. Check out her website and contact her at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com


Why Eliminating the Death Tax Matters to You


Most of us, myself included, think the death tax is a burden only for wealthy people who get left exorbitant amounts of money. The following article from the Heritage Foundation explains how it affects everyone, as wealthy people invest less (which means less businesses and jobs) and inherited businesses are often sold or closed, because the people inheriting it don’t have the outright money to pay the death tax…it is all tied up in the business.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/the-economic-case-against-the-death-tax

Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline.
Check out her website and contact her at:
www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com.

Category: , , , ,

Dear Hypocrites of the NAACP


Dear Hypocrites of the NAACP:

Once upon a time, you were a respected organization whose members risked everything, including their lives, to promote equality and the advancement of blacks. What happened to that organization? When did you not only lose your way, but your soul? For years, I and others who were not black contributed to the NAACP, but today, it will be a cold day in Al Gore’s globally warmed world before I give you another penny. I only give to worthy organizations that actually work for good, not pontificate nonsense.

Political correctness has dominated relations between the races for the past few decades. It is my firm belief that it has done much more damage than good. People from different races and cultures are afraid to speak to one another for fear of saying something offensive. Groups like yours hid behind the guise of political correctness and used it as a sledgehammer; instead of knocking down walls between people, you pummeled the people themselves. People lost their careers, their livelihoods, and the respect of others as the label “racist” was used more frequently and ever more inaccurately, for saying and doing things that were not racist, but “deemed” so by groups like yours in ever-narrowing ways. Yet, you continued on, not worrying that real racism was not being addressed and using political correctness to get your way. You grew drunk with the power it gave you. As with most drunks, you got what you wanted in the short term….and ruined yourself with others in the long term.

In years past, to be accused of being a racist was a real insult; it made you seem less of a human being. Now, the word is tossed out so often and with such inaccuracy that people merely laugh. You jumped on the political correctness bandwagon and sprayed an entire organization with a false label of racism, not realizing you brought your once-fine organization down to its knees. You have become a laughingstock. Now, once revered leaders like Congressman Lewis have smeared themselves with their lies, all to advance an agenda.

I hate to tell you this…nah, no I don’t…but your agenda is dead. The final insult of releasing a statement against Tea Party members (and yes, we know you backpedaled on the original “racist” designation for the Party), while ignoring voter intimidation at its worst, has shown you to be the cads you have become. Your founding members fought and sometimes died not to be intimidated at the polls.

You should be ashamed.

A Former Supporter

Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline. Check out her website and contact her at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com


Government wants you to have a computer ID?


Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline. Check out her website and contact her at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com.

Our government would like you to have “computer ID” with which to conduct online transactions, including banking, your medical records and what you buy.This article, written ostensibly under the guise of how explaining such a system would work, fails to address the most important issue: the government would have a de facto national ID through your computer. And notice the last paragraph: the program is voluntary, but Congress may “have” to legislate this. One more freedom about to be taken away: Big Brother, anyone?

Uncle Sam Wants You to Have an Online ID

By Jay Bavisi co-founder of the EC-Council

Published July 02, 2010

| FOXBusiness

As our daily interactions and transactions have become increasingly “wired,” we have yet to see any truly comprehensive attempts at securing online identities. Our complex system of usernames and
passwords is astoundingly outdated and increasingly prone to security breaches and theft. Yet, so far it has been mostly up to the individual to protect himself against various forms of identity fraud—with larger corporations taking relatively little responsibility.

But this could change in a big way. Right now the federal government is proposing a new system being referred to as the “Identity Ecosystem”—which was highlighted in the recently-released draft paper, “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace” [NSTIC].

The Identity Ecosystem would allow Americans to choose to obtain a single authenticated ID for online transactions. Like a passport, this single ID could travel with them online and be used to access everything from e-mail, to online health records and banking information. Furthermore, the Identity Ecosystem would only reveal the least amount of information necessary for each transaction.

To highlight the potential consumer benefits of such a system, the White House’s proposal uses the example of an individual filling a prescription online. Under the “smart ID card,” the pharmacy would only receive proof that the individual is over 18 and that the prescription is valid. No other information like birth date or the reason for the prescription.

Right now the only online ID management options available to consumers are tools like OpenID and Microsoft’s U-Prove. While these systems work across a variety of popular platforms
such as Google , Yahoo and Blogger, they are best used for cases of low-assurance clearance (i.e., personal e-mail and social networkingsites). So-called “high-assurance” sites, like banking and health services, aren’t set up to support wide-access systems; they present too much of a liability.

What’s important to note is that membership in the smart ID program would be voluntary—both for consumers and companies. Individuals who wanted to become members might apply for a smart identity card through their state government. Because the program is voluntary, the government is stressing the importance of consumer confidence, education and usability.

It’s easy to see why consumers would benefit from an easy-to-use, secure and universal system. What’s harder to understand is the overall impact on e-commerce.This program could eliminate the biggest obstacle to the e-commerce industry: fear of identity theft and fraud, which could literally lead to billions of dollars in new online spending. It could also jumpstart health e-commerce, a market that has yet to take off because of serious privacy and security risks.

But the costs associated with implementing such a system would likely be enormous. The NSTIC has anticipated some kickback and will be offering businesses incentives such as tax credits/breaks, insurance, grants and loans for early adoption. However, the question is: Are these incentives enough?

Although the NSTIC proposal is somewhat vague on this issue, the government will have to be prepared to work with the hardware industry in order to ensure that smart-card readers, scanners, etc. are integrated with standard systems.Obviously, consumers that adopt such a system with their existing hardware will need to somehow upgrade their systems. It will certainly require a lot of negotiations within the industry, as the government may run into disputes over patent ownership between companies with conflicting interests. In order to integrate the system into existing sites, companies will need to pour money and resources into writing code to integrate an ecosystem with existing Web assets. And it is tantamount to their task that Web developers avoid security blunders in the process.

Consider how long it has taken us to get this far – and it’s easy to see how challenging it will be to teach
common users how to successfully utilize an ecosystem that controls all of your online authentication with various “user-controlled” settings. Should this system be implemented, consumers must be prepared for a “new” experience and accept that convenience over security can no longer be their daily mantra. Implementing such a comprehensive system will be tough—and requires widespread and fairly immediate support. The government must be able to win over consumers and businesses at the same time—or the Identity Ecosystem is likely to become a chicken-egg problem—with consumers unwilling to join a program that businesses aren’t a part of, and vice versa.

Furthermore, many modern services are complex. Take for instance online health: this would require the
collaboration of doctors, hospitals, insurance providers, pharmacies and individuals.

The bottom line here is that the White House’s proposal depends on businesses voluntarily agreeing to turn the current e-commerce system upside down, incur massive new costs and collaborate with competitors – a dim possibility, to say the least.

Although the White House should be applauded for this idea, it is doubtful that such a voluntary approach is likely to win over the big companies who will end up footing the bill or passing it on to consumers.

The private industry has been trying to enact this type of online assurance model for some time now, and with little success. It is far more likely that the White House will have to work with Congress to legislate this type of a reform.

Jay Bavisi is president and co-founder of the International Council of E-Commerce Consultants (EC-Council), a global organization that researches, consults and provides training on issues of e-commerce and cybersecurity. Jay is a regularly featured speaker at e-commerce and cybersecurity conferences in the U.S., Asia, Europe and
the Middle East.

Tags: freedom, government, House, internet, intrusion, obama, White


Obama’s Mystery Recess Appointment


President Obama’s latest end run around Congress was to appoint Dr. Donald Berwick, a non-practicing pediatrician and head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, to the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by utilizing a recess appointment. Once again, someone who is not vetted by Congress slips through to a major post, in this case overseeing the 800 billion dollar budgets of Medicare and Medicaid. Not much is known about Dr. Berwick, although some reporters actually appear to be doing some investigative journalism and are questioning his numerous “positions” listed on his resume.
His full time job is listed as the head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Below are two paragraphs taken from the website (http://www.ihi.org/ihi/about), describing the Institute:

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) is an independent not-for-profit organization helping to lead the improvement of health care throughout the world. Founded in 1991 and based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, IHI works to accelerate improvement by building the will for change, cultivating promising concepts for improving patient care, and helping health care systems put those ideas into action.

IHI has a staff of about 110 people. We also have partnerships with hundreds of faculty members from around the world who share what they know and learn from each other under a philosophy of “all teach, all learn.” Our programs and activities are designed to enable committed individuals and organizations to innovate together, share knowledge, and collaborate on the difficult, rewarding work of improving health care.

According to the Washington Times, Dr. Berwick “received a base salary of $509,600, a $88,200 bonus and $275,849 in deferred compensation through a contribution by the institute to a special supplemental executive retirement plan. IHI has approximately 130 employees, according to IRS filings.”

Now, taking aside the fact that President Obama did a complete run around Congress and placed a totally unvetted candidate in charge of an almost trillion dollar government program, one must ask the following questions:

Why is someone who is working for a non-profit agency that basically is doing research and teaching making almost $900,000 a year in salary and monetary benefits? Why is it that my former Chief of Police, who supervised an agency with more people than Dr. Berwick and with certainly more responsibility, including life and death decisions, got paid only around $90,000 per year, while Dr. Berwick was collecting about ten times more for much less work? Who is funding this “Institute” and paying this insane salary? What is this “Institute” really about? Reading through the website, it appears to be an Institute with a legitimate purpose, including ways to cut health care costs, but when one hears that obscene salary paid for very little responsibility, one begins to wonder about the program overall.

And now, he is in charge of an almost trillion dollar program. Why is he so highly qualified for this position and what was the purpose of placing him without vetting? What is it about Dr. Berwick and his background that President Obama did not want us to know?

Annmarie Spiciarich is a retired police sergeant. She has a MA in Forensic Psychology, with a certificate in Terrorism from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She currently works as a community mental health counselor at a suicide hotline. Check out her website and contact her at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com or her blog at http://NotWithoutRepresentation.blogspot.com.


Help Arizona Fight Obama’s Attempt to Subvert the Law!


Visit my website at: www.NotWithoutRepresentation.com

The Obama administration is putting the full court press on the Arizona state government, challenging in federal court the constitutionality of SB 1070. Not only is this ludicrous, considering the Arizona law is based upon federal statutes, but it also costs Arizona more money to fight the law, in a state that is already straining to pay its bills.

When the Arizona immigration bill controversy began, along with proposed boycotts of the state, I sent a letter to Governor Brewer’s office, asking if there were any way private citizens could donate to Arizona’s State Government in order to help mitigate the economic impact of the boycotts. Here is the letter I received and a way to help, along with a copy of my original letter.

Thank you for your contacting the Governor’s Office. Many people have been contacting our office seeking ways to show their support of Governor’s Brewer signing of SB 1070 (immigration bill). We have determined how we can legally accept private donations. Donations (of any amount) are being accepted and deposited into a special FUND specifically established in light of Arizona’s recent immigration bill, Senate Bill 1070. Monies from this fund will be used to pay for legal costs associated with defending SB 1070.

We are working to post this information on the web which would also afford the opportunity to make an online donation using a major credit card. For now, if you wish to make a donation, you may send a check payable to the “State of Arizona” to:

Governor Janice K. Brewer

Arizona Governor

1700 W Washington, 9th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Governor Brewer appreciates your support of her action to sign one of America’s toughest immigration laws to which she firmly believes represents what is best for the State of Arizona. Thank you again for your support.

Lupe Lerma

Director, Constituent Services

—–Original Message—–

From: notwithoutrepresentation1@gmail.com

[mailto:notwithoutrepresentation1@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 6:43 AM

To: AZGOV

Subject: *Immigration & Border

CONTACT THE GOVERNOR SUBMISSION

Below is the information submitted online from the Governor’s Contact

form

————————————————————————

———

Subject:Immigration & Border

Topic:Contributing to AZ’s budget

Reason for submission:

I need assistance

First Name : Annmarie

Last Name: Spiciarich

Email: notwithoutrepresentation1@gmail.com

County: Outside of Arizona

Message/ Comment:

First, I would like to extend my compliments on your courage in passing the immigration enforcement law. I have nothing but admiration for the way you have handled this entire process.

I have watched with great concern as various boycotts have been put in place, attempting to strangle Arizona’s economy and back you off the immigration law. My suggestion to fight back against the boycott is this:

set up a site through the Governor’s office where people from Arizona and throughout the United States can make donations to Arizona’s state budget to offset the loss of revenues from the various boycotts.

I have no idea if this is allowable by law, but if it is, I would be happy to do the publicity to drive donations to your state for free. I think a large chunk of Americans support you and would like to show that support in a meaningful way. Donations could be as little as $5.00 and go on up from there, so even those of limited means could show their support.

You can contact me at notwithoutrepresentation1@gmail.com.

Thanks for your time,

Annmarie Spiciarich