Monday, May 31, 2010

Mr P

Mr & Mrs P are the elderly parents of a friend of mine. Mr P, who will be 89 in July, fell and broke his hip a few days after Easter. He had spent time in a nursing home rehabbing it. He was doing fine. He would telling me tales of his transfer from horse-drawn artillery to aviation during WW2 (The war ended before he could go overseas). He had a little dementia. (If having a new found devotion to Mrs P and wanting to hear hymns are symptoms of dementia, then I know a lot of guys who could use a little of that.)

Which explains my involvement. I sing hymns to Mr P. I pick the oldies but goodies out of my hymnal (I have my own hymnal - I'm a church music team geek!) and he sings along the best he can. He forgets a lot of things, even sometimes thinks I was with him in Saudi Arabia 40 years ago. But as soon as I start singing he remembers who I am.

He had been in a nursing home. Two weeks ago he got an infection and is now in the hospital. He is not doing so well. His dementia is getting worse. He no longer acknowledges me in the room. But he still tries to sing with me. Last week Mrs P told me what we were both thinking, that he may not make it.

Let me tell you why I sing to him. Because Mr P likes it, of course. But that's not the primary reason. These hymns I sing to Mr P are mini sermons that tell of the salvation given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is my hope that God will use this music to reach him where normal conversation can't.

Another complication for me is that I'm sweet on his daughter. A kindly Christian schoolteacher (unlike the angry right-wing nut I am). But that's a problem for another day.

What I wore to Church Yesterday

It was the Sunday before Memorial Day, so it seemed like the thing to do. The person taking this photo is new with the camera, which explains the shadows. The beard's growing back. I look too much like my big brother The Chief.

Unlike this guy, I can produce documents supporting all the ribbons I am wearing.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Going down the valley one by one

We keep losing good blogs.

Going through my sidebar and link list, trying to catch up on some folks, I found a few that have given up the gig.  WunderKraut is the latest, joining Dawn Eden, Rachl Lukis (who may return), Still Stacy, the Boy Named Sous (such a great blog name), and WordGirl.*

* it's odd that the blogger of the name has been replaced by quite a fun PBS kid's show of the same name.  I love having family friends with young kids, I get an excuse to enjoy this stuff with them.

It's oddly sad when a regular stop goes quiet.  It's rarely because the blogger in question has passed or is too ill to continue (though sadly, that does happen).  But there's a small grief there anyway.  A beloved voice fades out of the chorus - and out in the internet, that voice is usually all we meet of that real person.  It's just a little little window into a full life, but it shines such a light.

It's not a bad thing - it probably means that WK and family are busier and happier than ever, and he's devoting more time to more fulfilling pursuits than this.  I'm hopeful for him, and selfishly, a little sad for me.

Be well, my brother.  And the rest of you wonderful fake folks who live in the magic box - don't go 'way just yet.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Thirty years ago

What if 7:11 was closed?

Nystrom (Tonelli, Henning) 7:11

Favorite part of the pic is John Tonelli going crazy over on the right.


Saturday, May 22, 2010

Combatting gang influence in schools

The dreaded B16 gang.

Many members of this gang wear a beaded necklace called in their code a "rosary". Be warned, if this crew should gain a foothold in your public school there will be outbreaks of prayer and obedience to God and acts of charity and loving your neighbor. School administrators will soon lose control of the situation if they don't nip this rosary thing in the bud.

I'm going to rule out my first thought, which was that the principal doesn't know what a rosary is. I don't get it. If I am a teacher and I see a kid with a rosary, I'm thinking that's one kid who won't be giving me any problems.

This young guy's mom is calling the ACLU. I wouldn't be holding my brerath waiting for them.

Sorry the link doesn't let me cut and paste.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

From "the Sun still rises in the East" files

The Mets suck again.

Let it be known to future historians that the area around Shea Stadium and Citi Field was known as "Flushing" long before Mets fans longed to do just that to their crappy ball club.  The latest example:  Angel Pagan, the Mets' backup center fielder, last night hit an inside the park home run AND started a triple play in consecutive innings.

Yeah, they lost anyway.  To the Nationals.

It could be worse.  Just now I see on the ticker that the Reds have scored eight runs in the top of the second in Atlanta.  If those were the Mets they would probably blow the lead: they'd give back a couple in the home half, a run here and there in the middle innings, and then a six-run blow-up in the eighth by four relievers while Willie Randolph cackles madly, jabbing knitting needles into a giant voodoo doll of Mr. Met.

UPDATED - holy smokes!  Atlanta DID win.  Cincy pulled a Benitez on us.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Politicians and the Lord's Own Hockey

Charles Wang owns the New York Islanders.

He also owns a good bit of the land surrounding the Nassau Coliseum and would like to build things on it: office space, residential units, shopping, and a nice new building for the Islanders to play some hockey.  His idea was to build a suburban destination for people, since that part of Hempstead is a hunk of nothing next to the highway.

Nassau County's then-executive, Tom Suozzi, liked the idea.  The fans loved it.  Of course Wang was behind it, as a way to generate revenue not tied to his hockey team, which (let's face it) currently sucks like an Oreck.  Kate Murray, mayor of Hempstead, however, hemmed and hawed and stalled.  One thing after another with this whole project: they insisted on all sorts of detailed reports, then refused to read them on the grounds that they were too complicated and the residents deserved a simple plan; they demanded environmental impact statements and then dragged their feet on vetting them; they ignored the many construction jobs, the larger tax ratables of new residents (and Hempstead sorely needs them) and new businesses (ditto).

This has been dragging on for longer than this lead-in; but all of a sudden check out this guy, senior councilman Anthony Santino:
Too much is at stake for the town to take a wait and see approach. Supervisor Murray and I intend to be proactive in the creation of a reasonable zoning plan that ensures that the Lighthouse gets built so that it spurs reasonable growth and development, expands the tax base, provides for construction jobs and long-term employment opportunities, and creates a new home for the New York Islanders.

(stick-tap to Chris Botta at Isles Point Blank)
If so very much is at stake, why has Hempstead taken a wait-and-NEVER-see approach for lo these three or more years?  Proactive?  You had a plan on the table with all the legwork done.  You're the ones who wanted it scaled back and back until there was essentially nothing but a retrofitted Nassau Coliseum.  NOW all of a sudden you want the tax base and construction jobs and long-term residents?  OH, and by the way, at the end of the sentence, yeah, why not let the Islanders stay?  Y'know, so the guy who OWNS THE TEAM might actually build all this crap for us on his own dime - which was what he WANTED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I hate lying crapweasel politicians.  (Yes, probably a redundancy, but I am really irked right now.)  And Botta's got this clown pegged, right down to his red bulbous Pinocchio nose:
Essentially what Santino is doing is paving the way for Hempstead’s inevitable slashing of the project in June by two-thirds. The timing of Santino’s letter, after the recent double-dip of news of the Shinnecock Casino followed by the Islanders playing ball with the Mets, is not coincidental.
I really want my guys to stay put, but if they do go to Willets Point or something, Hempstead's only got Mayor Murray to blame.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Steal this dog!

I'm even cute when blurry!

But don't let the face fool you - all ur sox are belong to hur, ha ha ha ha.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Scene from a hockey movie

[Shot: EXTERIOR, DAY.  We see a sign that reads "Boston Bruins Team Headquarters, C Julien Commanding."  The "C Julien" is graffiti'd out with cuss words.]

[INTERIOR.  Rows of beds are filled with injured Boston Bruins players while nurses in white move to and fro. In one bed is MICHAEL RYDER, seemingly perfectly healthy, busily painting.  Enter BILL SIMMONS, the Sports Guy.]

SG: Man, what a disaster.  [sees Ryder and wanders over]  You don't look so bad.
MR: Yeah.
SG: What you working on?

[We see Ryder's painting.  Goalie Tuukka Rask is making saves on six pucks at once, with explosions in the background, while fending off Daniel Carcillo with his stick and cradling a baby in his catching glove.]

RYDER: It's just not coming together!
Off-camera voice: Hey, Mike, can I take a break?
RYDER: Oh... sure Tuukka.  Take five.
TUUKKA: Thanks.  [He hands the baby to a confused Daniel Carcillo and stumps off to get some Gatorade.]
RYDER: It's hell, Sports Guy.  We had the whole city.  We were doing great.  Now look at this place.

[The camera pans the room.  DAVID KREJCI has his whole arm in a cast, in traction.  BLAKE WHEELER moans and rolls over.  PATRICE BERGERON sits and rocks numbly.]

SG: [points to a bed with a moaning player] What about that guy?
RYDER: Mark Savard.  Severe concussion.  Poor guy thinks he's Kate Smith.
SAVARD: [tossing away sheets and standing] Godddddd bless A-mer-i-caaaaa!  Lannnd that I loooooove!  [He is surrounded by orderlies, who sedate him]  Staaaannnnd.... beside... herrrrrr......  andguierrrrzzzzzz....
RYDER: Hockey is hell.
SG: Listen... this is awkward.  But we had those plans for the rest of the playoffs.  Soon, when you get out of here, maybe we can go back to how things were.
RYDER: Playoffs?  PLAYOFFS?  We've lost three straight games!  [grabs a cup from the nightstand]
SG: Four.  Blew a 3-0 lead at home last night.  [RYDER spits out the drink]
RYDER [in voice-over] I think that was the point at which I developed my shooting problem.

[RYDER cues up a puck and shoots it at an empty net at the foot of the bed.  He misses by twenty feet and hits Ken Socrates in the head.]

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Breaking: Area Man Has Perfect Workday

Westchester, NY - Robert Smith was not expecting to have a good day at the office, and he was right.  Instead, it was perfect.

Smith, 24, became the 20th person to have a perfect day at work, retiring a disgruntled customer on the phone at 4:58 pm and successfully clocking out without a single complaint or error.

"He got into a zone and just wouldn't let up," said his division manager, Leslie Jones.  "Bobby's still young, but we've always believed in him."

Amalgamated Consolidated, Ltd., hired Smith fresh from USC in 2006, during the sixth round of interviews, to replace retiring veteran Steve Winkler.  "I didn't know much about the East Coast," said a jubilant Smith.  "I was expecting people to be jerks out here, but everyone's really been great."

One of his coworkers doused him with a shaving cream pie at that point.

Smith, who was born in Oakland, was involved in a minor controversy a few weeks ago when pro ballplayer Alex Rodriguez cut across his lawn while jogging one Saturday.  Smith was trying to mow it at the time.

"Yeah, I just moved, I haven't hired anyone yet, and here comes this dude just cutting through," said Smith, who owns a corner lot.  "I might have to plant some hedges or put up a fence."

"Who?" A-Rod said when told of Smith's perfect workday.

Smith dodged trouble early when his immediate supervisor, Oscar Ruiz, cancelled a budget meeting just minutes before it was scheduled.  Then Amalgamated scored bagels and coffee off of the Westchester Beverage Service's starting sales rep, Pat Miller, and Smith settled into a groove.  His perfect day was never seriously threatened after that.

Smith retired fourteen clients on emails, nine on phone calls, and only needed four face-to-face consultations.

Why I haven't watched Law & Order.. over 10 years.

Here's another reason. I started to figure out that when the perp pleads out early, that means it's time for Jack McCoy to prosecute Big Pharm, Big Gun, Big Tobacco, Dick Cheney. Leftist, but it's worse crime was predictability.

This is starting to become embarrassing

The "I never was a maverick" John McCain wants to build the fence. Three years ago he was calling people who made statements like this racists. But that was before he had to pretend to be a Republican for a contested primary.

Why would Senator McCain embarrass himself like this? For senators, 70 is the magic number. If your senator is 70 years old, the only way he is leaving is in a box. And if you have to change parties (80 yr-old Arlen Spector) or legislate from a nursing home (92-yr-old Robert "Sheets" Byrd) you will puke up whatever principles you had in order to save your spot in D.C.

Straight Talk Express. Puhleeeese!

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Dear A-Rod, All is forgiven

If this is what happens to guys after Alex Rodriguez cuts across the pitching mound, nobody is going to whine about the "unwritten rules of baseball" and "respect for the game" any more.

Dallas Braden definitely owns the mound now.

Braden pitched the 19th perfect game in major league history on Sunday, shutting down the majors' hottest team and leading the Oakland Athletics to a 4-0 victory over the Tampa Bay Rays.
"Pretty cool," Braden said. "I don't know what to think about it just yet. There's definitely a select group. I'd like to have a career more than today."
Of the 17 who have thrown perfect games since 1900, Braden is one of the least accomplished, though he's got a shot at a decent career.  Unless things go very wrong for him, however, he will stay ahead of Charlie Robertson, who shut down Ty Cobb's Tigers in April of 1922, in just his fifth major-league pitching appearance.  The Tigers thought that he was doctoring the ball; he finished his career with some awful overall numbers, so they may have had a point, but '22 was clearly the best year he had as a pitcher.

Another fun fact - Braden's Mother's Day perfecto bookends with Jim Bunning of the Phillies, who retired all 27 New York Mets on Father's Day, 1964.  Less-than-fun fact - in the second game Rick Wise only gave up three hits himself, and both Met runs were unearned thanks to four Phillie errors.

Friday, May 07, 2010

I don't know how long I have left.

I'm managing my diabetes well, so I may last another ten years. This would be about the age that my fellow diabetic Waylon Jennings passed. If Jesus really likes me I may hang for another twenty years. (Of course, if Jesus really,really likes me He may take me home while the Rays are in first place.)

I have maybe ten to twenty Cinco de Mayos left. On every single one of those I will be wearing an American flag.

On a related front, I quit watching local news last week. It's sweeps month and the Tampa FOX affilliate decided they would rather pander to Hispanic viewers than accurately report on the AZ law. If the FOX affilliate is doing this God knows what the other stations are doing.

update from 'fly - first off, please don't scare your co-blogger and your readers!

Second, you quit watching just in time to miss what the Media Research Center has noticed.  The total so far is currently 37-3 - that's not the score of the last Eagles/Cowboys playoff game, but the ratio of media stories against the law vs. in favor.  This is a law, incidentally, that has 70% support among the citizens of Arizona.  We're told ad infinitum that if the proportion of a small subset of things (football coaches, lawyers, athletes, nuclear physicists) does not equal the proportion of people at large, then it's RACIST! and SEXIST! and EVILIST!  Well, then, what does this say about the media and their objective reporting of what they see?  How can they find such a large majority against such a popular measure?

Third - or, ok, first again - remember the old gag we used to have: Jesus doesn't just love us, He likes us, and does neat things for us.

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Fifty-six years ago


It wasn't a record for very long, but the number will stand forever.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Car Wars: the Phantom Motive

Ace takes the (mind) trick with this one:
It's amazing to me how the media is so confident in the accuracy of their speculations about right-wing motives-- racism, hatred, anger, etc. -- and yet never seems to be able to turn this talent for psychological profiling towards Islamic terrorists.
Seriously, it's scary how they so perfectly report to me my motivations and intent for every single thing I say and every single thing I do and even every single thing I merely hope for.
Yup. Last night I was at the rink, hanging in the lobby with a few teammates between games. The TV, for reasons man was not meant to know, had a commentary by professional idiot Bill Maher, saying, in so many words, that the recent Arizona law about illegal immigrants was passed solely to disciminate against "brown people." Since I'd just lost the prior game on two embarassing goals in the final 90 seconds, my temper was not at its best, and I basically cussed out the television. The counter guy - a good guy and all, but a reflexive leftie - snapped back, "Of course it's about race!"

There was no time to talk about it then - I had to go back down and lose the next game on two embarassing goals. (This time at least I spread them out.) But of course - race. All about race. Why shouldn't the Left think it's about race when one of their favoritest groups EVAR is quite literally "The Race"? La Raza is all about the racial grievances and hating Whitey. To a leftie, the natural reaction is simply to hate right back; though of course the leftie would say that it was Whitey who was hating first.

Once I tried to trace this labyrinth of contradictions and dead-ends with a leftie friend. If hate is wrong, I asked, then why is hating back suddenly all right? "It's like fighting back against a bully," he answered. That sounded reasonable to me, so I then asked why in schools, when facing actual bullies, those who fight back are punished equally to their aggressors. "That's different!" he said, shocked and saddened. "Those kids are learning that violence is OK. It is never OK." Again, reasonable, I thought - misguided but at least it sounds plausible. "But then, why are violent groups like La Raza never called to account publicly? Why are ecology protesters noble when they start burning stuff down? Why isn't that not OK?" My friend got exasperated at that point, as well he might in trying to follow that sort of rabbit-hole illogic. He gave up and said that I just didn't understand nuance.

Long ago I decided to simply give up the rabbit-hole. It's helped my sanity a great deal, though as we've seen, not always my temper.  Like in most rabbit holes, I imagine that sooner or later the cards will all come tumbling down, and we can wake up in the sunlight.

(The opening review of this sad tale can be found at the Coalition.)

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Simple truths

Doc Zero is joining a little discussion about exactly how much time ought to be spent going over first principles when it comes to political discussions.

It's a good question because lately the debate has all been about the individual issues facing the country now: this or that bill or foriegn policy choice.  It's not unimportant, but I think that those debates are ultimately lost regardless of the outcome if we accept those as the thing to be discussing; it would mean that the assumptions leading up to those debates are already settled, and increasingly, settled against the liberty of the people.  Debating the size of some bailout assumes that the bailout is needed and valid; debating "health care reform" assumes that government has authority over health care in the first place.  We have to start earlier.

I always try to remind myself that the Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity and elegance. It was not a document written by intellectuals as an abstraction, just to prove a point or propose a theorem. The Founders wrote a library's worth of those sorts of documents - letters to and fro, arguing this or that point, and public essays, and outlines in their journals. Eventually they published the Federalist Papers and other documents to present those refined ideas to the general public. But when it came down to the actual construction of the government, they took all that theory and argument and burned it down to a plain and sparse document.

In some ways the Constitution is like the tip of an iceberg. The part above the water is the actual charter that governs our public affairs; the Federalist Papers and such are the part below that support it. It's good to know that part and it gives insight and understanding - but it is IN NO WAY REQUIRED to be a good citizen. The Constitution as written is enough. And here's the thing: it was always meant to be enough. These remarkable, towering giants who codified our freedoms did not write a Constitution as an exercise, or to prove their cleverness; they weren't writing for an audience of "scholars" and "Constitutional lawyers" and other experts. They wrote a plain document, meant to be easily understood, so that every citizen could know his rights and the limits of the authority the government could exercise over him. The simplest farmer or struggling merchant could know in five minutes what his government was and was not permitted to do, and where he stood in relation to it - and that standing was equal before the law with any other citizen, regardless of social standing, buying power, education, or rival creed.

Now, a certain amount of smaller laws naturally build upon this foundation.  Some of it is necessary; some of it is of debatable use.  But there are two things that are certain to be disastrous - first is to actually chop away at the foundation: to melt the iceberg bit by bit, right by right.  Second is to build so much upon it that it submerges entirely.  Either way, when it goes under all the construction goes with it, and we are all alike headed for the bottom.

That's why I don't trust "Constitutional scholars" when they tell me that the Congress has authority to do all sorts of enormous, intrusive (and costly) things based on the "commerce clause" or a "penumbra" or some case law precedent.  I rather trust what the document says, and it says very clearly that the Congress can do a certain number of limited things.  The writers didn't merely write a commerce clause, they spelled out the 18 specific things that Congress was permitted to do: Article I, Section 8. 

The first of these 18 things says, in part, " pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and that would seem to cover a lot more than just the rigid list.  This seeming is really a mirage.  Our Congress is dazzled by the lights coming off the iceberg, but what they think they see is not there.

First, they often neglect the common Defence and they certainly neglect paying the Debts; why then should they be trusted by what they say is our "general Welfare"?

Second, the general welfare of the country as a whole is NOT necessarily the individual welfare of the many citizens who live there.  There are 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, one President, and 9 Supreme Court Justices - 545 people.  Managing the affairs of the country as a whole - its foreign policy, its roads and mail and armed forces, its public debts, and its citizenship and immigration law - is enough of a job for them.  Managing the affairs of over 300 million individuals is preposterous.  There is no possible way it can be done, unless the numbers of such people are multiplied to an intolerable burden.

Third, the Constitution says that we the people establish it; it is not the government's statement to us of how they will operate, but ours to them.  It was not written just to promote the general Welfare, either:

establish Justice - equality of treatment and opportunity under the law
ensure domestic Tranquility - peace and safety on the streets; controlling crime and putting down mobs
provide for the common defence - treaties, alliances, fighting and discouraging enemies abroad
secure the Blessings of Liberty - the free exercise of the "inalienable rights" all citizens inherently posess

I've saved "general Welfare" until now because it is the point of dispute.  There are plenty of people who assume this means that the government is ultimately responsible for taking care of us in every respect, and that if when some are not as generally well-off as others, they have the right and obligation to correct it through force of law.  I think that's self-evidently false.  Any government that does that destroys the general Welfare, so it simply can't mean that.

Nor does the Constitution say that.  To quote the great saint Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons, "It will mean what the words say."  And the Constitution spends a lot of time spelling out exactly which things Congress and the rest of the Government are permitted to do.  It's plain that those things are what is meant by promoting the general welfare of the United States.  That's why that list of 18 items in Article I, Section 8 STARTS with "general welfare."  It's not meant as a catch-all for "whatever Congress damn well pleases, and shut up, that's why."  It's an idea that is then defined throughout the rest of the document: to promote the general welfare, Congress is permitted to do these certain and specific things; the President is permitted to do these things; the Courts will do this and this but NOT those, etc. etc.

The last of the list of 18 items is to make any necessary laws for executing the powers of the government as granted by the Constitution.  The highlighted phrase, again, reinforces this basic notion of a government restrained by law, subject to limits that it cannot ignore or alter at whim.

Then come the Amendments, and they are the clincher, especially numbers nine and ten:

9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. 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.

It's as clear as the words they wrote - the government's powers are strictly defined by the Constitution, but NOT the people's rights.  If it's not specified, then the government is not allowed to do it, and the people are - or the individual states they live in.

It's easy to see how that makes sense - a State is easier to change than a country.  If the people think that the government ought to step in to handle something, it's quicker to ask their home state to pass the law.  If it's a bad idea it's then easier to change the law back, and not be overridden by the interests of fifteen other states.  If it's a good idea then the other states are free to adopt it themselves.  And if all else fails, the people who don't like that law can move to another state.  In fact, people do it all the time.

Of course one could always leave America as a whole.  The lefties certainly threatened it enough over the past 25 years, depending on who was sitting in the Oval Office.  But nearly none of them did, and why should they?  They are citizens of a still-great nation.  It would be terrible to be forced from their own country.  It would be equally terrible if that country simply vanished out from underneath all of us.  That's unfortunately what threatens us now.  The government has long since stopped actually reading the Constitution and instead prefers to do whatever it pleases.  It so happens that a lot of it pleases a significant number of the people as well - but according to the Constitution, that doesn't matter.  Even a popular law can be unconstitutional and thus invalid.  Therein is a large part of our safety: it's easy to ride some popular opinion at the moment, but the law is a lasting thing and it can endure long after the people have wearied of its burden, because the few who profit from it defend it to the bitter end.

Thomas More:  He should go free, were he the devil himself, until he broke the law.
Roeper:  So you would give even the devil benefit of law?
More:  I would.
Roeper:  I would cut down every law in England to get the devil!
More:  Oh?  And when the devil turned round upon you, where would you hide once the law's gone flat?  I give the devil the benefit of law - for my own safety's sake.

Nobody thinks that things will suddenly turn upon them.  Cromwell didn't, and the very monster he loosed upon More came for him as well.  The Framers of the Constitution knew this.  These government intrustions will intrude upon everyone, including those so gladly endorsing them now.  That's why it's worth remembering the actual Constitution, and what it says, and sticking to it.

Hey, NYC!

Your mayor is an idiot.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared on Katie Couric’s show Monday night to discuss the attempted car bombing in Times Square. Between reassuring viewers at home that New York was safe and praising the city’s resilient spirit, Bloomberg wondered aloud if the culprit behind the Times Square car bomb was “a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health-care bill or something.”

Now there is a chance that the Pakistani-American arrested at the airport trying to head out of the country may have been upset about Obamacare, but I think not. And before any of you teabaggers get any ideas, Nurse Bloomberg is warning you about any reprisals against poor Muslims.