* * *
First Presidential Debate Watching
Thursday evening on CNN is the long-awaited ‘debate’ between President Biden and the convicted felon who will be running against him in the November election. This debate will differ from prior ones since its rules, agreed to by both participants (the felon is already claiming that the rules he agreed to are ‘rigged’) differ in that mikes will be muted while the opponent speaks, there will be no live audience, and CNN (which is sponsoring it) will have commercials during the breaks.
 |
| And here's how to watch the debate |
Hillary Clinton, who has debated both President Biden and former
president Donald John Trump, currently a convicted felon, in the past, offers
advice on how to watch the debate. Check
her words out by copying and pasting the following on your browser line:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/opinion/hillary-clinton-trump-biden-debate.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20240626&instance_id=127200&nl=today%27s-headlines®i_id=78918068&segment_id=170557&te=1&user_id=02fa158150d34dc186b01b1b8ec7a224 or just CLICK HERE.
And if you’re too busy to read what she wrote, summarizing briefly, Ms. Clinton recommends listening for the manner in which the debaters ‘refer to people,’ in addressing problems. Such areas can include climate change, abortion, gun violence, support of Israel and/or Ukraine, foreign alliances, taxes, and government spending. More important than agreeing or disagreeing with them, do they appear sympathetic toward them? Or hostile toward them?
JL
* * *
ALL Women
Should Be Voting ‘Yes’ on Amendment Four in Florida
Amendment Four on the Florida ballot in November, if passed, would
Constitutionally protect the rights of women in regard to abortion in
Florida. Obviously, all women in the
Sunshine State who want that right protected should, and I hope will, be voting
for it. To pass, it must secure 60% of
the votes.
Passage would add the following language to Article 1 of the Florida
Constitution:
‘Limiting
government interference with abortion – Except as provided in Article X,
Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before
viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by
the patient’s healthcare provider.’
However, even women who would prefer that restrictions
on their right to an abortion remain on the books should be voting ‘yes’ on Amendment Four! Yes, even them! Why?
Whatever reason they have for personally opposing abortion, it is
conceivable that at some time in the future, a female relative might be in a
position to choose to have an abortion. Opponents of abortion
should not prevent others, possibly their sisters or daughters, from choosing
to have one legally. That would be
cruel, putting their personal views ahead of family relationships and their
relative’s health.
Voting ‘yes’ will in no way affect their personal ability to continue to
actively oppose abortion, but it would prevent them from having second thoughts
about their opposition to abortion should a dear relative have need to have an
abortion at some time in the future, with only illegal, and perhaps dangerous,
alternatives available, due in part to their efforts.
So, even those
who are strongly anti-abortion ought to be voting ‘yes’ on Amendment Four.
This is also applicable to men who oppose abortion.
(Right now, Florida’s backward government is struggling to try remove
Amendment Four from the November ballot, by challenging the details of the
submitted financial impact information submitted by supporters of the
Amendment. They are grasping at straws.)
Meanwhile, as the
nation enters the third year since the betrayal of American values by the
Supreme Court with the Dobbs decision, leaving decisions regarding abortion rights
to the States, abortion rights remain the crucial issue around which all else
seems to rotate in the November elections.
Before proceeding
any further, please take the minute or so it will take to read Professor Heather Cox Richardson’s
June 24 ‘Letters from an American’ at
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/ or
just CLICK HERE. It is a message you
must pass on to everyone you know.
JL
*
* *
Opponents of Netanyahu Have it Right !
A group of prominent Israelis, all of whom disagree with the policies of
Benjamin Netanyahu, object to the invitation the Republican House of Representatives extended to
him to speak before Congress. Read their reasons in their joint statement by visiting
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/opinion/congress-netanyahu-gaza-war.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20240626&instance_id=127211&nl=the-morning®i_id=78918068&segment_id=170563&te=1&user_id=02fa158150d34dc186b01b1b8ec7a224 or BY CLICKING HERE. I agree with them.
JL
*
* *
What do Cowboys Represent ? 
Too many Americans took the roles John Wayne
played in his films too seriously
And if you want more to get your political juices flowing before the debate, check out ‘Letters from an American’s’ posting dated June 25, found at https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/ where you’ll find out about the myth of American Cowboys and the Arizona pastor who preaches that abortion is murder and those who practice it deserve execution where ‘you forfeit your right to live. (What kind of idiots come to pray in his church, anyway?) Try CLICKING HERE.
JL
*
* *
(If you want a copy of this on a flyer to mount on a piece of sturdy
cardboard and display in you car’s rear window, as I do in mine, just ask me
for one!)
*
* *
Getting Pharma Off the Hook for Drug Side Effects
I laugh at the TV commercials for various pharmaceutical products that
include a detailed list of possibly dangerous side effects, flashed on the
screen for a fraction of the time it takes to read them, advising the viewer
to immediately talk to their physician or provider if these symptoms are
present. Occasionally, those named side effects include the mention that some
can bring about ‘death.’
I wonder if the ad’s copywriter, operating with their employer’s legal
department looking over their shoulder, has ever tried to contact their own
personal physician to ‘immediately talk to them’ in such situations. It is not easy. Physicians do not pick up telephones. They are not easy to reach. Sometimes, in the presence of such symptoms,
a patient expressing real urgency about them will be advised to visit an Emergency
Room. Most often, however, when they
call their doctor’s office, the usual response after a minute or so ‘on hold,’
is being transferred to someone to set up either a visit to the office, or if
they are lucky, to schedule a live telephone or internet appointment with the
physician to whom they would like to talk.
The one saving grace is that these drugs require a prescription and the
physician prescribing them ought to be aware of the drug’s possible serious
side effects and be able to prepare a patient to deal with them should they
occur.
An Example: One side effect I’ve
seen mentioned in the small print in a TV ad for the drug Farxiga (but not on the drug’s
website) is a change of skin color in the perineum area (the ad doesn’t define
that area, but it is the space between one’s anus and their genital organ,
either a scrotum or vagina, depending on one’s sex). Obviously, noting this side effect requires
taking along a mirror with a long handle into the bathroom or an extremely
cooperative mate. But listing this side
effect in the TV ad, even in small print, in the eyes of a pharmaceutical company’s lawyers, might
take them off the hook if a patient fails to examine that area and suffers side
effects of the drug.
Someday, a plaintiff’s attorney will run one of these commercials in the courtroom, to see if anyone present there, the judge included, can read more than a few words of its caveats in the brief time it is flashed on the screen in small print.
What are they teaching in law schools these days anyway?
JL
* * *
Housekeeping on Jackspotpourri
No comments:
Post a Comment