First, I do not consider my questions or tone hostile or shabby or somehow, out of line in any of my posts. I realize that others may see what I have to say differently. You are entitled to interpret what I post however you wish to interpret me, just as I am entitled to express my opinions, whether or not I convince others.
Further, I have never seen Mike Capuano unable to take the rough and tumble of public debate. I doubt that my posts, which accurately reflect my opinions as to this particular issue are as offensive to Mike [albeit I could be wrong] as they are to some of you. One thing I do like about both Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley is that both of them deal with dissent and criticism in a mature manner. It is transparency, open discussion, and public debate that are the life blood of Democracy; not craven silence or unthinking automatic obedience to office holders.
Also, I am paid, as a part of my work as an appellate attorney, to dig deeply into areas of law in which I had not previously practiced, areas of fact that are new to me, and to read and ponder everything on each topic including those that are new to me, and evaluate experts. This kind of deep review has led to 17 reported decisions, the kind that go into law books. This same type of in depth study and willingness to tackle any idea, legislation, or area of law without undue deference to those in power has led to my filing 128 briefs and led to 80 other unreported decisions pursuant to Rule 1:28.
I am accustomed to being my own expert, and doing thorough investigations and field work, hiring others as needed. I therefore found the condescension and demand that I accept the word of experts even when my own analysis disagreed both unwarranted and anti-democratic in nature.
I have made law on my own through appellate case law several times. See, for example, Care and Protection of Vivian, Adoption of Iris, Delk v. Gonzalez, and most recently, Adoption of Linus. Were I cowed by being opposed by those of high status, title, and degree these cases and any future appeals would not have happened and been compromised.
And while the “what is the matter with AmberPaw” comments made recently may have been intended as kind, they come across as condescending and feel like a personal attack to ME. For good or ill, these recent comments, on the health care bill are NOT the only time I have posted with passion and fire. I hope I will continue to write with passion and speak the truth as I see it. I hope all of you will do so, as well.
So, disagree all you wish – but you can keep your pats on the head to yourself. I am well. I stand by what I write. No regrets in fact!!
My experience has been that when I delve into a subject deeply, and fully research it, I am as capable as anyone of in depth understanding, analysis, and opinion and do not defer merely because someone else is a “stakeholder” or holds advanced degrees. Being a member of an elite, with something to lose or an entrenched view has its own liabilities. I have found the so-called stakeholders as capable of being dead wrong as the taxi drivers, court officers, and any other citizen with an opinion.
Our founding fathers believed that democracy requires an educated citizenry. A citizenry that gives a blank check, and unthinking deference to a caste of experts, the banking elite, and elected officials would be dangerous.
I realize that some think “who is she to dare criticize or evaluate the actions of an 11 term congressman” or anyone else, and my answer is a proud one:
I am an American citizen. Any voter judges elected officials every election.
You and I have the right to question any legislator, any member of the government no matter how highly placed, and any legislation or act by anyone in the government as long as you or I do so lawfully.
Frankly, I wish more citizens educated themselves, paid attention and spoke up. Don’t you?
I agree, if you have questions or concerns you should ask.
p>Now I have a question for you.
p>Which page or chapter in the bill shows where it fails to cover “decent” gynecological care and pre-natal, post-natal care? I did take a browse through the bill today, but didn’t see any specific language on this.
p>I really want to know where the bill currently leans on this.
My plate is over flowing in terms of what I need to do for clients today and tomorrow…I expect work to over flow into the weekend somewhat. I will go back over, try to take better notes, and share what gave me that impression [besides, I need to do that to write letters and e-mails about that topic to Senator Kirk & Senator Kerry. Thanks for letting me know. You can also figure out one of my e-mail addresses easily at the profile page here at BMG.
Just the starting page number is all that’s needed. So as you read along just notate the page numbers and post them here.
I think a couple of comments were pointlessly and unfairly personal, and I respect your work both here and in your career. I mean that sincerely – I always look to your posts for passion, originality, and real world evidence.
p>But, this response is pretty weak in light of the strong claims you are already making about the bill. You got an “impression” that the bill was so bad it was worth blowing up health care reform — which, given this process, is what you are advocating. But you don’t have ready access to specifics about why it’s so bad.
p>I sympathize with your heavy workload and will consider your points with an open mind when they come.
I wish I could express myself with your passion and courage.
You just lurched into accusations about motives and process sometimes that sounded way too much like the nonsense from the summer. Like others here, I would be all too happy to hear and discuss what parts of the bill you specifically object to and how they could be better.
I’d also appreciate your analysis of the bill.
p>It’s been my experience that sometimes wish-fulfillment gets in the way of “objective” analysis by legislative staffers and consultants. (I still remember how Boston crippled its public health system based on reports where the text was contradicted by the numbers.)
p>For that reason, your take on the bill would be greatly appreciated.