O+ Kidney Donor Needed
If you know some one interested in donating an O+ kidney please contact moderator as soon as possible.
Filed under: Welcome by Chico |
Comments (0)
Kidney Transplant Scandal. Favoritism or Worse ?????
There seems to be a scandal brewing at UPenn transplant services. Is it favortitism or something worse? I know someone seeking a kidney transplant there. Are they saving the spots on the list and for who and for what in return is the question? Nurse coordinator Donna Whitehead apparently likes to play god with peoples lives. She can decide on whim who gets placed on the list for a transplant. She was showing her authority but how can a nurse decide who gets a transplant. She seemed like she was offended and then used her position to threaten a patient and his future. If you ask me decisions on things like a life saving kidney transplant should no be subjected to emotional whims but on pure science. People should contact UPenn and let them know this is not acceptable. This could be bigger than the NJ scandal where they were selling body parts for transplant. She made it seem like there was something wrong with the patient wanting to know his status and position on the transplant list. Every time he jumps through their hoops she placed new ones in the way. She is playing with peoples lives. If you have ever known any one on dialysis you know it is not an easy road. The sooner the transplant takes place the better for the patient but the hospital and especially this nurse are never in a hurry. This is not the end. More to follow……
Filed under: Welcome by Chico |
Comments (0)
What does she mean by San Francisco?
While watching Senator Clinton she referred to comments made by Senator Obama several times referring to the speech as a closed door San Francisco fundraiser.
We all know that when the right wing wants to attack they often use the code words San Francisco liberals. Which we in the LGBT community know is also code for referring to what the wingers call the radical gay agenda. I was appalled and offended watching Senator Clinton at the compassion forum last night on CNN. She kept referring to the comments by Senator Obama’s speech in her typical nuanced fashion. It was disturbing to see her use right wing talking points by referring to the San Francisco group he was speaking to. It is just as homophobic coming from her as it is from a wingnut, and actually more disturbing because she claims to be on our side and we expect this from the fundies.
She claims he is an elitist. That is funny coming from a person who earned over 100 million dollars over that last 7 years and has spent the last 7 years as a Senator and the 8 years before that in White House. Talk about elite.
In an earlier post I said that she would be my second choice but the more I hear from her the less I feel this is true. She will say anything and will tailor her message to suit her needs. Since she was speaking to a large group of religious leaders she used a nuanced version of the San Francisco liberals reference that is so popular among the right wing punditry. Although she did not expressly use the word liberal it was clear to me listening to her. Talk like that would be right at home on Fox Noise. Maybe she is auditioning to be on the O’Reilly show. Apparently nothing is off limits and she is willing to parrot the right wing if it will help her win at all costs approach.
No longer my second choice. She is not an option. She wants to win and will do what ever it takes. She will never have my vote. If she manages to steal the nomination from Obama she will not get my vote, I will either write in the name of Senator Obama or I will not vote at all.
Filed under: Current Events by Chico |
Comments (0)
Obama or Clinton?
In the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary on April 22, 2008 we are supporting and urging others to support Barack Obama. The democrats had many fine candidates this year and the either of the final two would be a vast improvement over the current president.
We feel that Obama offers the most hope and has the strongest commitment to the change that we need in this country. Although neither of the remaining democrats is strong enough on the issues that face the LGBT community, Obama is the choice that resonates the strongest with us.
It took us awhile to decide that Obama would be our choice. Although Clinton talks a good game on our issues I am not sure she can be trusted to follow through. She has shown a disturbing tendency to put political expediency and a desire to win at all costs ahead of the greater good. She likes to take credit for the things that happened during President Clinton’s time as president. Well I remember that in the beginning he talked a good game on LGBT issues but President Clinton brought us Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and signed the Defense of Marriage Act. He was willing to abandon our issues in the name of political expediency and how can we be sure that Senator Clinton will not do the same?
I also find it interesting to look at the endorsements from the two leading Pennsylvania Democrats. Governor Rendell is for Clinton and Senator Casey for Obama. Rendell has put his considerable political machine behind Clinton which I find to be amusing since the areas of the state where he is least popular are the areas that Clinton will most likely do the best in while Obama is more likely to do better in the urban strong holds of Rendell.
As the primary season continues she has shown a win at all costs mentality as if she does not care that she is damaging Senator Obama and giving the opposition more tools to attack him. Both are less than perfect but we have seen the Clinton game before and we need a fresh face and outlook. Another thing that Obama seems to have is an ability to have a greater effect on down ticket races. Wouldn’t it be nice to give a Democratic President a stronger majority in the congress to help accomplish a progressive agenda?
Barack Obama would be an asset to our country. His is an inspiring story and I would like to have a candidate that I am actually voting for. I am tired of voting for a candidate because I am voting against the other candidate. We need a leader that can inspire us to want him more than we do not want the other guy. We know we do not want the other guy as he represents four more years of the current failed ideas.
In the end, on policy, Clinton and Obama are not that different. The difference is that Obama represents the future and Clinton is a return to the past. Although I would like to say that I will support whomever the Democratic candidate is if the nomination goes to Clinton in some shady looking backroom deal I would have to think long and hard about voting for her. I do think that she has every right to stay in the fight till the last vote is cast but I have to wonder if her name were not Clinton would the party leaders not have pushed her out of the race already? I am not saying that I would ever vote for McCain but I might not vote for Clinton.
The choice is clear to me. Vote for Barack Obama on April 22, 2008. Lets move towards the future and not look back to the past.
Was it Comcast?
Some time ago I wrote about problems I was having with accessing my web site and my email, which is hosted on Netfirms and not affiliated with Comcast. They tried to convince me it was an internal problem. There was no way they were responsible for the issue. Then I read the following and I knew I was right, they were blocking my access.
Late last year, the Associated Press caught Comcast secretly blocking users ability to use peer-to-peer software to share information with one another. Comcast was using Web filtering technologies similar to those used in China to censor the Internet. AP called the violation “the most drastic example yet of data discrimination.”
Free Press and other Internet rights groups filed a petition with the FCC calling for urgent action to stop Comcast’s Internet blocking. Tens of thousands of activists sent letters to the agency in support of our petition. Public pressure is now forcing the FCC to act.
Comcast blocking of online content is the canary in the coal mine for corporate efforts to gate-keep the Internet. The FCC must send a stern message to stop other phone and cable companies that want to follow Comcast’s lead and control our Internet experience.
Comcast claims it doesn’t block access to any Web sites or online applications. It claims its just trying to “manage the network” to provide a “good Internet experience” for its customers. Sounds innocuous enough. But the devil, as always, is in the details.
Detail #1: Comcast’s technology doesn’t target individual users — it targets an entire technological protocol. Comcast isn’t just cracking down on “bandwidth hogs.” Regardless of an individual user’s actual bandwidth consumption, she may be blocked simply for choosing to upload through a targeted application (Bit Torrent, etc.). I would like to hear anyone argue this is a fair adoption of “network management” techniques. Such methods directly contradict the core principles of the open Internet.
Detail #2: Comcast’s technology falsely impersonates its customers. Even if Comcast has the right to manage its networks, does it have the right to impersonate its customers to achieve network control? Clearly Comcast engaged in such a deceitful practice to avoid customers noticing and complaining. Such behavior may very well fall within the type of unfair or deceptive trade practices regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Lawsuits are likely to follow.
What’s Comcast Doing?
Such secretive and misleading practices — at least when they’re exposed — are likely to be bad for business. So why did Comcast interfere in such an unsavory manner? The first answer is simple: They thought they could get away with it. After all Comcast’s filtering technology is highly complex and not always noticeable to end-users.
And what can you do if you find out that Comcast has blocked you? Switch to AT&T or Verizon and suffer with slow DSL speeds and their own draconian terms of service.
But I think there is a second, more insidious but logical explanation: Comcast is paving the way to stifle competition in video delivery services. The world’s largest cable television company, Comcast has a natural incentive to keep customers watching movies and television shows through their system, not the Internet.
Thanks to our friends at http://www.savetheinternet.com We need groups like this to help us to keep an eye on the efforts of large corporations to block our access to information. Keep up the good work.