Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: December 2013


Martin E has supplied us with another observation from his friend Abel Oldsworth:

Mother Nature Trumps Filibuster

Abel Oldsworth, my reticent friend, predicts that a Congressman or two will try to stymie the upcoming government funding legislation by filibustering, despite the publics’ backlash over the earlier delay and government shutdown.  We should not fret because the requirements that filibusters be conducted in person, on the topic, and without a break eventually necessitate hall pass requests.  He cited a previous case.

There once were two Congressmen named Thrall and Drall

Who plied filibusters as good tactical cure alls.

For hours they each gave their bluster

With all the jabber they could muster,

But forced to yield when Mother Nature issued her roll calls.

Yeah for the USA   Merry Christmas

Martin Egelston

Battle Creek Enquirer

December 13, 2013

Please Donate

Please Donate


I have altered my answering machine message (those of you who (whom) have called me have heard it), It is my opinion that we should not  put our phone number or name on any message for voice mail. This information  is sometimes enough to give someone an edge. My message is as follows: Please listen carefully for our message has changed, if this is a survey, we pass,  if you are seeking a donation, we gave at the office. If you are someone we know you can call our cell phones, if we do not know you , recognize your phone number or leave a message will  not call you back and we will list your number with the State and Federal “do not call lists”. Thank you. This will reduce your random calls,  allowing  you to screen them and decide if you want to answer. You can design your own but do not add any personal information, if someone knows you they will understand and hopefully understand, if not- Oh well!!

Please Donate

Please Donate


 The accompanying article in the New York times is indicative of how uninformed many Americans are and sometimes ridiculous. My Daughter is currently going through chemo and at the end will have a lumpectomy and hopefully a scar no bigger than this. If anyone looking at this photo is disturbed by it, block out the photo and just read the article then look at the photo perhaps there would be more support for the cancer issue .

The front-page photo that touched off the brouhaha. Courtesy of The New York TimesWhen the New York Times ran a powerful front-page photo illustrating a breast-cancer gene story on Wednesday, it touched off a major controversy. One missing voice in the din, though, was that of the 28-year-old woman in the photo—whose face was not in the frame but whose upper torso, including a lumpectomy scar, small Star of David tattoo, and partial left areola were there for all to see. But on Monday she spoke out, albeit anonymously, to the New York Times.
More on Shine: Facebook Allows Mastectomy Photos: Tattooed Model in Controversial Picture Speaks Out
“When I first saw the photo I did not find it either provocative or inappropriate,” begins her personal statement, published by the newspaper on Monday. “I thought it was powerful and told my story—I am a proud, young Jewish woman who had breast cancer, and I have a scar that proves it. I am not ashamed or embarrassed by the scar.… I didn’t expect such controversy around the photo—but I’m glad the photo caused an impact.”
The accompanying article examines the high rate of breast cancer in Israel and the financial roadblocks some women face when considering gene testing and preventive surgeries. And the picture, according to Michele McNally, assistant managing editor in charge of photography at the Times, was perfectly illustrative. “It’s directly on point to the story,” she says in the New York Times Public Editor’s Journal last Wednesday, in a subsequent story about the photo controversy. “It conveys a lot of information. It brings the reality to light. It’s also very beautiful — the lighting, the composition, the tone.”
More on Yahoo: 23andMe Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California
Criticism was fierce, though, both in the newspaper’s comments and letters section and elsewhere online, on blogs and in social media. People noted a variety of reasons for being shocked and offended, from the tattoo, which reminded some readers of the Holocaust, to the fact that the disembodied image did not include the woman’s face or head. But the biggest problem seemed to be that of the nearly exposed nipple, which readers called “trashy,” “inappropriate” and “risqué.” The Drudge Report called the photo a “Peep Show” in a headline, while freaked-out tweets talked about “boobs” and warned, “Areola above the fold!” The shots continued: The Daily Caller criticized the paper for using “boob shots,” while Bustle noted that “the New York Times has managed to titillate and enrage the always-prim-and-proper Internet.”
On the other side, of course, have been those lambasting the critics. “There was discussion over this? Grow up,” reads one tweet. Another comment included, “Really? All this fuss over an areola? Hoping one day we’ll embrace human form instead of making it stupidly taboo?” and “As long as I live in America I will never get why nudity is so bad but violence is cool.”
Slate featured essays from both points of view, with Amanda Marcotte noting that it’s “grossly inappropriate to sexualize breast cancer” and Jessica Winter writing, in response, “If a woman sees her breasts as part of her personal and sexual identity, that doesn’t mean she’s somehow the self-objectifying victim of patriarchal social conditioning.”
The national nonprofit Breast Cancer Action, meanwhile, an education and advocacy organization based in San Francisco, finds the whole back-and-forth depressing. “Our immediate response is, once again, we have something distracting us from the real issues,” spokesperson Angela Wall tells Yahoo Shine. “It was an excellent article about genetic testing and counseling, which hit all the right points. But now that’s lost in this mire of, ‘Is it appropriate for a woman to show her breast when discussing breast cancer?’ I find it incredibly sad.”
But the organization, which runs a campaign called “Think Before You Pink” to challenge corporate profits and the “pinkwashing” of breast cancer, does not blame the photo choice. “It’s a provocative photograph, and breast cancer is a provocative issue,” Wall notes. “It’s a nice, pink, cozy, safe thing to celebrate people surviving. But this is what women go through — this is what it looks like.”
And now, the photographed woman’s full statement to the New York Times:

When I first saw the photo I did not find it either provocative or inappropriate. I thought it was powerful and told my story – I am a proud, young Jewish woman who had breast cancer, and I have a scar that proves it. I am not ashamed or embarrassed by the scar. Most of my breast was not exposed and the small part that was does not make the picture “cheap.” I think it’s very artistic.
I didn’t expect such controversy around the photo – but I’m glad the photo caused an impact since I believe that there should be more awareness about breast cancer, genetic testing, the conflict of “what to do” with a positive result, etc.
I agreed to publish the photo since I wanted to raise awareness, but I decided to leave my identity unknown because I didn’t want to become famous because I had cancer. The cancer I fought this past year is a part of me, but it’s not who I am. It’s not me. In addition, this photo was taken spontaneously and I didn’t consult my close family beforehand, so I preferred to stay unknown.
In response to some readers’ comment on the tattoo I have on my body, I come from a family of Holocaust survivors. When I was 17, I went with my high school on a trip to the concentration camps in Poland. It was a very emotional and difficult trip, and when I returned to Israel I was so proud that I am Jewish and Israeli that I wanted the whole world to know. I will never have to hide my religion or where I come from. That’s when I made the tattoo of the Star of David. It was 10 years before my diagnosis of breast cancer.

Please Donate

Please Donate


During the last several years the Congress has wrangled, harangued and debated the budget publicly and privately. This discourse which is laced with vitriolic , doomsday predictions along with a sequester which damaged the economy and brought pain to many. This attached note shows that the previous acrimony was more political than idealistic as many in Congress will face election next year. My concern is: will the Congress learn anything from this? will the voter learn anything from it? I hope there is a moment of clarity for both. Do we need to be reminded that our elected officials care less about our needs even while invoking what “the people want” when they never asked our opinion? The note below shows that this budget “crisis” could have been done a while ago if the Congress pulled their heads out of the dark and did their work!

Congressional Negotiators Reach Budget Deal

Democratic and Republican negotiators have struck a deal on the budget, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced Tuesday. Ryan said the deal would reduce the deficit by $23 billion – without raising taxes. If approved by lawmakers in the House and Senate, the deal would, among other things, fund the government past Jan. 15 and replace the sequester – the automatic spending cuts — with longer-term savings for two years.

This story is developing. Check for further updates on NPR.org.

Please Donate

Please Donate


While listening to a talk show today about the Affordable care Act, I heard the same political vitriol that accompanied the passage of the act.  To be clear: the combined legislative chambers failed to fully read the act before passage, then the Dupublicans spent valuable time and taxpayers money in trashing it by attacking it with derogatory and mis information. This is still going on in spite of the success even with the poor rollout and accompanying issues. The Dupublicans and Scamocrats who are up for re-election in 2014 are all taking a hands off approach while not doing what they should have done in the first place and that is READ the act then offer input to better it. There has been more time spent on trashing it than was spent in understanding what it covers and how it would affect the recipients of the service.  I for one am really tired of the Federal legislators invoking what the American people want when they do not know and possibly don’t care. Their focus is and has been how to stay in office long enough to reap the benefits afforded by being elected. No matter how poorly the rollout of the ACA was, it is the law and the folks who have successfully enrolled for health care are happy with it. The negatives I have heard are from people who have specific issues that would have caused them problems in any healthcare option. Some have stated that their premiums have increased and that is because the policy under ACA is a better policy than some of them previously had. Consider how many college students still have coverage under their parents plan, how many people have coverage now for preexisting conditions. On the face of it this act is an improvement for many and of course not so much for others while being neutral for the balance. We the people need to invoke  “no more” votes for any elected official who has squandered “our time and money” electioneering instead of legislating.

Please Donate