Proposes Litmus Test
And we thought free speech and the Bill of Rights was enough!
My question is for you Mr. Dumb Ass (the much-celebrated Gustavo Arellano, "Ask A Mexican" column, see Page 9.) not for a Mexican because there's no chance you're Mexican. Because you can call someone "Gabacho" or "Cabron" does not make you Mexican, it makes you ignorant and a product of the "Gabacho "as you so eloquently put it.
I don't know ONE Mexican who looks like your ignorant caricature, with the hat and crooked rotten teeth. Is this the message you send out to the community? I am offended and appalled at how you portray Mexicans and deeply concerned. You must be a second generation Mexican in the USA trying to find your niche among the Caucasians, and therefore agreed to someone's idea to offend the Beautiful Mexican Race through "ask a Mexican".
Gustavo or as you probably go by, "Gus." When you put a despicable caricature of what could be perceived as an ignorant "Mexican" next to the question "ask a Mexican", it invites hatred and racism. Why don't you replace that Horrible caricature with one of a Mexican in a suit?
Think a little higher about yourself if in fact you're, Mexican. No one finds this crap funny except for other races. It's nothing more than an opportunity for slander by others. It invites stupid questions such as "why do spics and micks get along so well."
Why don't you promote the true image and language of Mexicans, instead of degrading it. I am a proud Mexican who tries to do the right thing. Not a Fake Mexican who puts out cheep trashy sections in The Urban Tulsa that contain no educational value. You don't represent the Mexican community, especially speaking the way you do. No one uses "Gabacho, or Cabron" except for uneducated people, such as yourself.
Try to stay positive about Mexicans, and please remove that horrible caricature which could bring legal action to you and your organization.
JAS(The True Mexican)
Piling It On
If I am to agree with Einstein that fools keep doing the same things and expecting different results, then I am bound to deduce that the group that runs our government qualifies for permanent residence in the mental asylum.
When accused by Senator Clinton in a recent hearing that he was guilty of painting a rosy picture of the conditions in the Iraqi war, former secretary of defense Rumsfeld retorted that anyone would have a "dickens of a time" finding evidence of that. Indeed he had promised that we would be out of there in less than six months.
I contend, however, that while we spend time beating up ourselves with arguments on whether or not the war is proceeding smoothly, we ought to be debating the efficacy of such an incursion. Any half-witted individual should have examined the history of the area and the difficulties that previous occupying forces had experienced before scampering away and concluded that this was not an excursion to be considered.
First and foremost, the attack on Iraq was illegal and the reasoning that we are better off without Saddam Hussein is a non-starter. It is true, also, that we as a nation would be better off without George Bush but wait we must for 2008, God give us grace.
The principle of preemptive strike must be silenced and never more revisited even though occasional bleating of future attacks on Syria and Iran can be heard coming from the damnable halls of this White House.
Once and for all this cowboy principle of diplomacy must be attacked and buried at the same time we declare irrelevant, the mentally challenged regime in Washington D.C.
History is an excellent instructor, especially on the subject of politics and the behavior of peoples within borders. We need to halt the debate on whether or not the Iraqi debacle is improving because it cannot and will not and shift the topic to why our nation should never do this again.
Colin T. Bent
Help Where Help Needed
As an advocate for the medically underserved, I have sought solutions for access to medication and medical services for more than twenty years for Oklahomans in need.
During the past year, Medicare D has been a 'hot topic' for advocates as well as Medicare recipients, inspiring hope that our senior citizens and others receiving Medicare would not have to choose between needed medication and other necessities.
Also, I have to say, Medicare D inspired a bit of fear and confusion. I must admit I was not convinced of the benefit to the general population, but thought it might be one more item in our arsenal of resources for the uninsured.
After receiving training and licensing, I assisted with enrollment of more than 400 Oklahomans from November 15, 2005 through May 15, 2006. Many enrollments were accomplished as part of the Medicare Bus stops, others were held in numerous locations throughout Oklahoma. Many advocates were met with persons hopeful that we could wade through the Medicare maze. I am glad to say, we did just that! The web site made it very simple for advocates using the internet daily.
One example of a success story is an "80 something years-young" gentleman that had been paying over $700 per month for necessary prescriptions when his retirement program stopped offering prescription insurance benefits. Mr. B and I spent about 30 minutes online with a list of his medications.
He was able to choose a plan that fit his needs. In June, Mr. B. hit the dreaded 'donut hole' and was faced with paying several thousand dollars out of pocket before he was eligible for additional benefits with his Medicare D plan. I was able to assist with completion of pharmaceutical manufacturers' assistance forms that allowed him to receive his most expensive medications at no charge. He was quite happy with this arrangement and says he will keep his Medicare D plan in the coming year.
While I will not say this has been the case for everyone, this is typical of the results experienced by most of those I have assisted. Of course, as with any new government program, especially one that offered enrollment to millions of Americans during a six-month period, there are modifications that need to be made with Medicare D. We must make our legislators aware of the good, as well as the not so good we have experienced as advocates.
Our challenge now is to be ready and willing to assist in the coming months with enrollment or re-enrollment in an appropriate Medicare D plan that will benefit and continue to enhance the quality of the lives of these citizens. I know I am taking my class to permit me to continue offering this service to our clients. On a selfish note, it is wonderful to have so many folks call me an angel and hug my neck! You should try it!
Open Letter to Oklahomans
President Bush recently signed into law the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. This law creates an easy-to-use website that will allow citizens to track the recipients of all federal funds --- "to Google their tax dollars," as President Bush memorably put it at the bill-signing ceremony.
Every year the federal government dishes out nearly one trillion of your dollars in contacts, grants, and earmarks ---- often with very little transparency ---- to various businesses, associations, and state and local governments.
This new website will allow citizens "to go online, type in the name of any company, association, or state or locality and find out exactly what grants and contracts they've been awarded," President Bush said. "It will allow citizens to call up the name and location of entities receiving federal funds, and will provide them with the purpose of the funding, the amount of money provided, the agency providing the funding and other relevant information."
"Sunshine and accountability are wonderful things in the hands of voters," The Oklahoman editorialized September 28, applauding the bill's passage. Indeed, as Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), observed, "It was a bill that just made so much intuitive sense that no one could understand how Congress could not pass it." And thanks to an army of bloggers, editorial writers, and concerned citizens, Congress did pass it.
Now it's time to take the idea to the state capitol. Oklahoma taxpayers should be empowered to Google their state tax dollars.
Many taxpayers are frustrated that the state budget is now $7.1 billion, an all-time high. They may be aware that their tax dollars have paid for things like rooster shows and ghost employees and $100 car washes, but these things are just the tip of the iceberg.
The legislature should pass a law requiring the Office of State Finance to set up a searchable website modeled after the federal version. Taxpayers deserve to know the name of every recipient of state dollars, as well as the amount received in each of the last 10 years and an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including the state agency dispensing the money and a description of the purpose of the funding.
As conservatives, we favor low taxes, limited government, and spending limitations. Many of the people and organizations who fight for bigger government do so because, you guessed it, they receive taxpayer dollars. Those who take the king's shilling do the king's bidding. Taxpayers deserve to know who they are.
What The Oklahoman said about the federal funding website will also be true of a state funding website: It will be "invaluable to everyday Americans wanting to know more about how their tax dollars are being used."
Tom Coburn, M.D. and Brandon Dutcher
Share this article: