A story that was buried in other non-news caught my eye, because although relatively unimportant, it says a lot. There's this king guy, Abdullah, from Saudi Arabia who took over a whole wing at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in Manhattan. He's 86 years old and is recovering from back surgery on the "VIP" floor.
According to a family member of another patient, "The king has taken the entire luxury treatment wing and booked out all the rooms, even though they are empty and he doesn't need them, to protect his privacy. Patients are grumbling that they have been moved out to other areas of the hospital, and that despite there being a number of unused VIP treatment rooms, they can't be moved into them because they are all reserved for the king of Saudi Arabia."
So, my question for today is, despite that I clearly understand that money can buy practically anything, I would think this hospital ought to know better. Because, this isn't some private arrangement a zillionaire made to have celebrities show up at his tent, or wherever this camel-jockey lives in the desert, or tying up a runway for a half hour so his private jet can land, this is about other folks who can afford the best in medical care...but he's precluded them from the privacy their own status merits. Therefore I think the hospital should have told this king they'd give him the care and attention his ailment merits, and a private room if he wishes, but if he really wants to be alone that much, he can stay home in his sand-box.
Aside from that, the beat goes on in DC. Today, the president met with top congressional leaders to discuss the soon to expire tax cuts and what to do about them. Now, this is a discussion that's been going on for quite some time, and has yet to be resolved. My guess is they really will find some kind of workable agreement. So my note today isn't about the cuts themselves, it regards the rhetoric in the discussion.
There seems to be basic agreement already, that cuts be kept in place for those earning under $250,000 a year, but for how long a term has yet to be finalized. The bigger stumbling block though, is whether or not cuts should be granted to those who earn more. And what struck me today was, that no matter the subject, politicians can't make a comment without throwing in some kind of cheap shot or biased jab.
I write that because there appeared to be at least a tacit agreement to continue the discussion, and that a task force be set up representative of both major parties to seek a mutually satisfactory solution. Yet, when the president made some comments later, he said that the Republicans were taking a "political" stand by not agreeing to eliminating the cuts for top earners. So, my question is, in a case like this how can anyone who has a different opinion not be accused of taking a political stand?
In fact, that's what politics is all about. Some people believe "A" and others "B," still others might believe C,D,E and on down the line. That's what opinions are all about in the first place. And in that context, there's nothing wrong with politics at all, people disagree all the time on all kinds of subjects. But, I think it's really funny when someone who's nothing more than a politician himself, and who's beliefs are whatever his puppeteer's told him they are, calls someone else a politician as if it's a dirty word.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment