The next morning when he asked for breakfast, he was told he couldn’t have any food, because he was scheduled for surgery. To remove a cancerous mass in his chest. And the name on his bracelet was for a 33-year-old woman.

Understandably confused and concerned, Wheeler started working on leaving the hospital. It went downhill from there. Way downhill.

Wheeler claims he was assaulted, cursed at, and kept from leaving the hospital by the hospital’s contracted security staff. He was eventually able to leave the hospital for another one, where he was diagnosed with four broken ribs. a
sprained shoulder, a ruptured spleen, and a concussion. The lawsuit Wheeler has filed against security officers William Reese, Donovan Scott, Dwayne Williams and an unnamed lieutenant. as well as Broadway Services (the security contractor) and Dimensions Health Corporation (Prince George’s Hospital operator) alleges Assault and Battery ($4.5 million); False Imprisonment ($4.5 million); Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ($3.5 million); Loss of Consortium ($200,000) and Respondeat Superior ($3.5 million).

Seems like it would have been better to check his ID bracelet once or twice more in the ER, no?

The alleged comments and actions from the security staff during the three-hour incident are troubling as well. Security staff who act like this don’t even deserve the derisive term “rent-a-cop.” There are thousands of people across the country who work diligently and carefully in the security profession, and treat most people they meet with respect. There’s no reason to man-handle a patient on a medical floor of a hospital.

And once you’ve realized you’ve screwed up, don’t try to hide what you’ve done. Accept that your people screwed up, figure out how to mitigate the damage, learn from the incident, and move on. The Lieutenant probably caused as much legal damage as his subordinates. Someone in that position needs to be aware of legal responsibilities, not try and remove possible evidence of wrong-doing.

This will be an expensive lesson to Dimensions Health Corporation and Broadway Services. Other organizations should follow the case closely, and try to learn the lessons more frugally.

That training for HAWK units and supporting personnel was strenuous work, but usually not all that different from garrison duty. It didn’t seem all that difficult. We had our weapons, uniforms and gear. I carried an M-16 and was also responsible for an M-60 and M-2 machine gun. We drove everywhere we needed to go. We had hot food brought to us; a field kitchen always went along. We had water trailers, medics, tents for 30, and cots. We got mail, too.

The men who fought at Gettysburg had none of that. They had tents for one, or maybe two, with blankets to wrap up in. No sleeping pads or bags. One canteen, and no guarantee when it would get filled again. If they took a mini-ball to the arm, they’d likely lose that arm, if they didn’t die of infection, gangrene, or dysentery.

For three days, a town of 2,400 tried to support an extra 160,000 men. If the soldiers wanted a hot meal, they might have to steal it. One unit marched 60 consecutive hours and went straight into combat—much as Patton’s 3d Army did at the Battle of the Bulge.

I was defending a foreign country. Some of the men who fought at Gettysburg were literally defending their very homes.

Some of those men fought for or against slavery. Others fought for state’s rights, or to preserve the union. Most probably fought because their brother or father or best friend was fighting. Few would seriously question the slavery fight. The state’s rights question though is far from settled. Witness the current situation in Arizona, where the Federal government is telling a state that even though the Federal government won’t secure the Federal border, the state isn’t allowed to do it either.

Look too at the way medical marijuana is being handled. Allowing it at the state level is in direct conflict with federal drug laws. But are any states being sued for allowing medical marijuana?

It seems to me that a state law that conflicts with federal law (California’s medical marijuana statutes) should be dealt with much more severely than one that mirrors an poorly-enforced federal law. But making lots of noise about one makes for better sound bites. Better to go after those mean Arizona legislators who want to profile people than to try and take away drugs from sick people.

I fear the state’s rights question is far from settled. I don’t think we’re where the country was in 1860 yet, but I think it’s coming. Then again, I don’t know that this country could find leaders such as were around then.

But the IR died about two years ago. Cable connection went next, about 8-10 months ago. I could still Hotsync using wi-fi, but that seems to have died today. Tried a Soft Reset, and a System Reset, and no joy. I think it’s time to replace it. A repair attempt would cost

The question is, replace it with what? A refurbed T|X from PalmDr is $213 plus shipping. A refurbed 32G Touch is $259 with free shipping, and a 1-year warranty. Heck, an 8G is only $149. That’s very tempting. I can’t afford a data plan without a job, or I’d go ahead and get the iPhone.

But there are rumors of a new Touch coming out in the next couple of months. That would trigger a price drop on the old ones. Hmm. What to do?

But when the next sitting President was the subject of an email/Facebook joke made in poor taste that basically asked God to kill him, the liberals went ballistic.

Now there are multiple Facebook groups calling for the death by drowning of multiple people, including a former Presidential candidate. Let’s listen to the outrage from the Left:

OK, maybe that was a bad example. Let’s look at another instance. The last President was hung in effigy at protests, and people held signs up that called for his murder, and the death of members of that administration. I’m sure someone said something about how inappropriate that was, right?

But question the current President’s actions or motivations, and you’re called racist at best.

Is it any wonder things don’t change in this country? We’re more interested in bashing our enemies than we are actually fixing anything.

This year, everyone is focused on President Obama, and where he’s spending his Memorial Day. He’s spending it in Chicago, with his family. While he will miss the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, he attended one at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Illinois. Vice President Biden will be in attendance at Arlington.

“How could the President forget our veterans?” “It’s shameful that he’s missing that ceremony!” “It’s disrespectful!” “He’s the first president to skip it!”

I did not vote for President Obama. I’m not, at the moment, a big fan of anything he’s done. I disagree with several of his policies. I think there are huge problems with some of the things he’s doing or planning. I’m also a Army Cold War veteran. Given that, is the President’s choice of locations for a Memorial Day observance really all that important? And if it is, shouldn’t everyone get their facts straight before they criticize him?

For example, he is not the first president to miss an Arlington Memorial Day Ceremony. He’s not even the second, or third. Since Reagan, only one president has made all of his Arlington Memorial Day Ceremonies. That would be President…Clinton.

According to Snopes and Media Matters, President Reagan missed four of the eight he could have attended, although in fairness, one was only six weeks after he was shot. President George H. W. Bush-himself a veteran-missed all four ceremonies during his term. President George W. Bush missed the 2002 ceremony.

President Obama is attending a Memorial Day ceremony. The administration will be represented at Arlington. Honestly, I think no matter what he did today would be attacked by one side or the other. That’s not right, now that I read it. I think it would be more correct to say that no matter what President Obama, someone would find a way to criticize him, or a political opponent. And quite honestly, with all the other issues facing our country today, can’t we find something more important to deal with?

Today’s focus is supposed to be on the veterans. Let’s keep it there.

I get very cautious when I’m reading something where “Fascism” pops up. I can’t help it; my skepticism meter pegs out. But the topic had my interest. I occasionally follow the raw milk issue. My wife and I discussed the idea briefly several years ago, and decided against it, primarily because we didn’t think we could afford it. At the time, I don’t think there were any cow-shares near us.

At any rate, I understand the basic idea, which is that there’s a decently-sized group of people who believe that raw milk is better for a person than pasteurized or processed milk is. They just don’t like that there only choice these days is what they consider adulterated milk. They want the real thing. On the other side of the issue are government agencies doing what they do best: regulating. Most people on this side of the issue claim that pasteurized milk is safer for people, since the pasteurization process is designed to reduce the number of viable pathogens that cause diseases like diphtheria, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever, among others. The typical method, known as High Temperature Short Time, also kills off almost all yeasts, molds, and bacteria that cause spoilage.

Here’s the Wiki article on the controversy.

I perused the linked article, which discusses a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund against the US Food & Drug Administration. The FDA has banned the interstate sale of raw milk; the FTCLDF wants to get that ban lifted. The Tenth Amendment Center (motto: “Concordia res parvae crescent” or “Work Together To Accomplish More”) discusses the lawsuit in this post using appropriately alarmist phrases: “No Natural Right;” “health freedom;” “secret agenda;” and “Big Dairy.” But TAC also links to the FDA dismissal motion, and that’s the most interesting part.

I am not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. I can basically understand what’s written in the brief though, and can research what I don’t understand. That said, what I read on starting on page 25 of the brief is truly unsettling.

I’ve always understood the Constitution to tell the government what it’s allowed to do. That’s why there’s all that stuff about the President, Senators and Representatives, and so on. It doesn’t tell citizens what they’re allowed to do; it’s a manual for how the government is to be put together and run. That’s why there’s not a list of what we citizens are allowed to do. In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments cover that part pretty clearly:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That means that even though a right might not be listed in the Constitution, that right still exists.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That seems to be pretty clear. The federal government can only do what the Constitution says it can do. Everything else falls under the purview of the States or the citizens.

We won’t discuss right now how badly the 10th amendment has been shredded.

So back to the motion. As I said, there are several statements made towards the end that truly concern me. For example, “There is No Absolute Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food.” They follow that with “There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health,” which is particularly interesting in light of the Healthcare Reform Bill that was recently shoved down our collective throats.

But what destroyed my irony meter was the claim by the United States that there is no “absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.” How do they reach that conclusion?

Biblically.

No, really.

But there is no “deeply rooted” historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721. To the contrary, society’s long history of food regulation stretches back to the dietary laws of biblical times. See Peter Barton Hutt & Peter Barton Hutt II, A History of Gov’t Regulation of Adulteration & Misbranding of Food, 39 Food, Drug & Cosmetic Law J. 2, 3 (1984) (citing Leviticus 11, 17 and 19, and Deuteronomy 14). (Emphasis added)

Yes, United States Attorney Stephanie M. Rose, via Trial Attorney Roger Gural just invoked the dietary restrictions God gave Moses as justification for governmental regulation of milk. Oh, the Ten Commandments, too.

Leviticus 11
Leviticus 17
Leviticus 19
Deuteronomy 14

Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I’m certain. Richard Dawkins may well blow a gasket. They have to fight this, don’t they? To let this obvious religious assault on our government pass would be hypocritical, wouldn’t it?

halm: @bobmueller ah, so either I am not a Christian, or you haven’t mastered arithmetic.

@halm is my brother, and his comment indicates that I probably need to better explain myself.

My parents raised me and my brother as Lutherans. Our family has a long Lutheran tradition, dating back to the late 1800s when our great-grandmother was a charter member of St. Martin’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Austin Texas. The tradition actually goes farther back; our German ancestors were Evangelical Lutherans in the Old Country.

Throughout my youth, I attended St. Luke’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Marietta, Ohio. But for me, that attendance was compelled by my parents, not voluntary because I wanted to go and worship God and learn how to live anything like a holy life. I was active in the Youth Group there, but it was hardly for anything approaching a holy reason, believe me. There were some very cute girls in our youth group.

I believe that living a Christian life has less to do with what building you worship in or the label of your denomination than it does with what’s in your heart. Walking a Christian walk or leading a Christian life is a conscious decision. It means that you accept that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that He died on the Cross for your sins—past, present and future, and that you confess those sins to Him. It’s a decision I made some 15 years ago during an Easter drama at West Broad Church of the Nazarene, and a decision I later affirmed through baptism at that same church. To me, that Easter weekend represents the beginning of my Christian life.

I can’t begin to know what’s in the hearts of other people. I believe that singing songs and repeating prayers in a pretty building don’t necessarily make you a Christian any more than piling a bunch of parts in a garage makes the pile a car. Being a Christian is an active decision, not an accident of genealogy. I’m not saying that the Church of the Nazarene is the only way to heaven. But a denominational label doesn’t make you Christian if your heart’s not in it.

I think the “whys” about the closing aren’t that important. The congregation and board tried for years with much prayer and thought to grow that church, but it didn’t grow, and I don’t know that it’s our fault. I don’t know that it’s God’s “fault,” either. God has plans for everything, and often we don’t know exactly what those plans are.

As I think about the last service in just a few days, I’m conflicted about attending, as is my wife. She feels, based on talking to a close friend, that it’s better that we not go. The District Superintendent asked the pastor if he wanted the District to come down and do anything for the last service, and Pastor said no. According to our friend, the overwhelming feeling is one of “let’s get this over with.”

I suppose if you look at the closing of a church as a failure, then maybe staying away is the right idea. I’m not sure that it’s a failure though. Certainly it’s a loss. Almost any time a church closes its doors, it’s a loss to the community. In this case though, the void created is being filled almost immediately by a spiritually similar congregation.

But I don’t think we should look at it as a failure, any more than we look at the death of a person as a failure. At a funeral we mourn the loss, but we also remember the good that person accomplished during their lifetime, and beyond. We honor a person at their funeral, and I think that’s important to do here as well.

I know of several people who were saved at New Life. My wife renewed her pastoral call there, and the pastor at New Life mentored her carefully. We made dear friends with several people there, and I found someone as well to mentor me in my Christian walk. Seeds were planted there, and that is very important. Some of those seeds fell on the path and were eaten by birds, as Mark 4 mentions. But much more fell on fertile ground and will produce a great crop, and that should be a source of great joy. We may never know in this lifetime how many lives were touched by that “little Nazarene church out by West Jeff,” but we should rest in the knowledge that many were touched and loved.

I think I will end up going to the last service, just as I would attend the funeral of a longtime friend. I’d go to a funeral to honor my friend and their family. I hope by attending the last service, I honor those who have been a part of New Life Church of the Nazarene.

1.15 Gay – means having a predominant sexual interest in a member or members of the same sex and includes both gay men and lesbians.
1.18 Heterosexual – means having a predominant sexual interest in a member or members of the opposite sex.
It further states
7.05 Heterosexual players – A maximum of two Heterosexual players are permitted on a GSWS roster.

There, my friends, lies the rub. In the 2008 GSWS, San Francisco-based D2 had their team membership challenged several times during the championship game, which they ultimately lost. Following the game, the 18 members of the team were each asked several intimate questions about their sexual preferences and identities, in front of some two dozen other people. D2 was ultimately stripped of their second-place win when NAGAAA decided that three members who identified as bisexual were straight, not gay.

The three members filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging that NAGAAA “violated Washington’s laws governing discrimination in public accommodations, and state consumer protections by implementing and enforcing a “two heterosexuals per team” cap during the 2008 Gay Softball World Series in Seattle, and also violated the plaintiff softball players’ rights by subjecting them to a series of invasive questions about their sexual orientation and private lives in front of more than 25 people, most of them strangers.”

NAGAA has said that…yes, they’re “a private organization and as such, they are allowed to limit their membership in any way they choose.” Doesn’t that sound familiar? I’m assuming that the GSWS games were played on public sports fields, paid for with public funds. That would be…public facilities, right? So does NAGAAA think it’s okay for one private organization to limit their membership in any way they choose, even when using public facilities, but that it’s wrong for another private organization to do the same thing?

What’s more interesting is that the organization’s own web page includes the acronym “GLBT” which usually stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender. Maybe NAGAAA has a different definition. Yet the lawsuit claims that the three members who were voted straight were told “This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.” That’s not very tolerant or inclusive, is it?

NAGAA seems to want to apply a series of double standards. The one time they had a chance to make a direct statement about inclusiveness to the public and their membership, they fluffed what should have been an easy fly ball. They claim to be inclusive of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered, but their practice is just the opposite. There is no reason to exclude bisexual or transgendered individuals from an activity when the group claims to be inclusive. What would NAGAAA do if confronted with someone claiming to be pansexual, or polysexual? What would they do with an intersexed person? Who’s to say what the “opposite gender” is for a intersexed person?

I find it miles beyond ironic that a gay group is using the same language to justify their actions as one of their opponents does. If gays are going to berate BSA for excluding them, they need to be just as vehement in voicing their disapproval of NAGAAA’s actions. Admirably, one such group has come forward. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is taking up the lawsuit on behalf of the three members of D2. Yes, a gay advocacy group is suing a gay group for discrimination. I’m trying hard not to laugh about the situation, because what the players went through was atrocious. But the ironies of the case make it difficult to keep a straight face. I wish NCLR and the three players success in their lawsuit. What happened to Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ was wrong.

I wonder about that today because of a decision my wife and I made today. One of our dogs, a German Shepherd mix who has been more than normally protective and aggressive since we got him, is getting more so these last few years. He’s bitten his dogmate at least three times, and 7 or our 8 children at least once. He’s bitten several neighbor children as well. He’s gone after my wife when she comes to hug or kiss me. It’s random; many times he waits until the person is moving away from him.

But after a bite yesterday of another neighbor child, we realized we can’t trust him any longer, and he can’t stay with us. When you come to a realization like that, you have two options: surrender, or euthanasia. Surrendering a nine-year-old dog with a bite history is not a realistic option. I knew the first time I suggested it that his chances of adoption were nil at best. So tomorrow afternoon, I will drive him to our vet, and I will come home alone.

I feel no small amount of guilt over this. I’m supposed to be the alpha of our pack. I’m supposed to be the one to train him, and let him know when he’s getting out of line, and I can’t help but feel that I’ve failed in that task. My logic is that if I had done a better job of training him and controlling him when he was younger, we wouldn’t have this issue now. If it were a sudden-onset issue, I could chalk it up as a cranky old dog. He’s a shepherd, and he’s nine. He’s entering the “Hey you kids, get off my lawn” stage of his life, or he should be. But it’s gone on since we found him as a stray pup. There were better and worse times, but it’s gone on for a long time.

Maybe he just thinks he’s being protective. The baby, who’s four, has never been bitten. She can flop on him, lay on him, squeeze the stuffing out of him, and he won’t blink. He’s never come near me, either, or challenged me in any way. But everyone else in the family has been snapped at, nipped, or bitten. So I suppose in some way he might think he’s just protecting me. But if that’s the case, I don’t understand why that protection doesn’t extend to other members of the family. I haven’t made any special effort to bond him to me.

As I anthropomorphize him a bit more, and let my guilt shape that picture, I have to wonder what he’s going to think tomorrow afternoon. He’s not afraid of the vet, but not a big fan, either, so the trip won’t be a big deal. He’s had injections before too, so that shouldn’t throw him. If everything is done right, he’ll just go to sleep. I’ve read “The Rainbow Bridge” many times; this is not the first pet I’ve lost, nor is it the first time I’ve asked the vet to help. But it is the first time I’ve had to do this for a behavior issue. The only other time the vet has helped, it was a sixteen-year-old blind poodle with bad knees. She was not living a good life, but was just too stubborn to give up. I can’t even pretend to be noble about tomorrow though. It’s purely a protection issue. I have to protect my kids, and guests, so the dog is expendable.

Does he know that? If I meet him again by the Rainbow Bridge, will he greet me with wagging tail and excitement, focusing on the good times he had with our family? Or will he snarl at me as he remembers what I did? Will I face an accusative face, asking me, “What did I do? I was just trying to take care of you.”

Intellectually, I know, or at least strongly believe that he’s not going to realize anything is different about tomorrow. I’m sure he’ll pick up that the kids are distressed. He might notice that they’re spending more time with him than they usually do. But he won’t understand why. He might notice their faces taste more salty, but he won’t comprehend what it means.

I hope.

More importantly, I hope my children who understand what’s happening tomorrow eventually understand why it had to be done. Tonight as we told them of our decision, many tears were shed, especially by my oldest daughter. She adores animals, and wants to work with horses when she’s older. She’s been teaching the dogs to jump the last few months, and Chester was taking to it pretty well for a nine-year-old dog. But now I’m taking that away from her. And she knows what’s going to happen, as do some of the older children. We didn’t go into detail with the younger ones; we just told them that I was taking him to the vet, and he wasn’t coming home with me. But the older ones know. It was only five years ago that we lost our cat Niban, so they know. I just hope and pray that they understand why we’re doing this, and that one day they’ll forgive me for the pain I’ve caused.