'04 Election-Law Violation To Cost Vitter $25,000
by Bill Walsh - Times-Picayune
WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has agreed to pay a $25,000 fine for violating federal election laws during his campaign for the Senate in 2004.
The Federal Election Commission found that Vitter's campaign failed to adequately disclose that it was bankrolling hundreds of phone calls to voters in the weeks leading up to Election Day. He won in the primary over two Democrats with 51 percent of the vote.
Vitter struck a deal in July known as a "conciliation agreement" with the FEC acknowledging that his campaign violated a provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign law that said all political ads must carry a disclaimer explaining who paid for them. As part of the agreement, Vitter agreed to pay an administrative fine.
The agreement, which has not been publicly disclosed by the commission, came to light Monday after Vitter's recently filed campaign finance reports listed payment of the fine and $11,397 in legal expenses to the Washington, D.C., law firm Foley and Lardner. An FEC spokeswoman subsequently provided a copy of the conciliation agreement.
A Vitter spokesman said the senator signed the agreement to avoid expensive, protracted litigation against the FEC.
Snark: Since David "failed to adequately disclose that," back in '04, no one knew his campaign paid for the calls? C'mon, get real.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Vote early... and often... again. ;->
Early Voting To Begin Saturday
Early voting for the Nov. 17 runoff elections will begin Saturday, Nov. 3.
Early voting for the general election will be on Saturday, Nov. 3, and Monday through Saturday, Nov. 5-10, skipping Sunday, Nov. 4.
Early voting will be conducted in the parish registrar of voter's office from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the designated days.
Nov. 13 will be the last day to request a mail-in ballot to vote absentee.
Early voting for the Nov. 17 runoff elections will begin Saturday, Nov. 3.
Early voting for the general election will be on Saturday, Nov. 3, and Monday through Saturday, Nov. 5-10, skipping Sunday, Nov. 4.
Early voting will be conducted in the parish registrar of voter's office from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the designated days.
Nov. 13 will be the last day to request a mail-in ballot to vote absentee.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Another nail for Mary.
From The Dead Pelican:
Landrieu votes "no" on Southwick and Vitter votes "yes"
The Senate voted today to confirm Mississippi Judge Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ending months of bitter debate on the issue.
The vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Southwick nomination was agreed to by a vote of 62 to 35, with Senator Landrieu voting NO. The vote to confirm Judge Southwick to the 5th circuit was agreed to by a vote of 59 to 38, with Senator Landrieu voting NO.
Senator Vitter voted YES to both cloture and the nomination of Southwick.
The October 24 edition of the TIMES PICAYUNE described the vote on Southwick as a "tough vote" for Landrieu.
"She pleases no one with this vote," said Jennifer Duffy, who monitors Senate campaigns for the Cook Political Report. "If she votes for him, the (Democratic) leadership won't be happy. Vote against him and it could be a campaign issue."
In a statement issue[d] after the vote, Senator Vitter said that “I believe that every judicial nominee deserves a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote, and I am pleased that enough senators decided it was time to overcome this filibuster of Judge Southwick. Unfortunately, Sen. Landrieu was not among that group, continuing her trend of not allowing nominees that have direct connections to Louisiana to even receive an up-or-down vote – much like she is doing to David Dugas who is nominated to fill another critical court vacancy in the Middle District Court of Louisiana.
“Judge Southwick has received high marks from the American Bar Association and was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for his current judicial position. His nomination was being opposed for purely partisan reasons, and this seat on the 5th Circuit – which has jurisdiction in Louisiana – has been deemed an emergency need to fill. Thankfully, we can now fill this critical need with a thoughtful, strict constitutional jurist,” said Vitter.
Note: David Dugas is a personal friend, a good man and deserving of far better than he's getting from Mary.
Landrieu votes "no" on Southwick and Vitter votes "yes"
The Senate voted today to confirm Mississippi Judge Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ending months of bitter debate on the issue.
The vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Southwick nomination was agreed to by a vote of 62 to 35, with Senator Landrieu voting NO. The vote to confirm Judge Southwick to the 5th circuit was agreed to by a vote of 59 to 38, with Senator Landrieu voting NO.
Senator Vitter voted YES to both cloture and the nomination of Southwick.
The October 24 edition of the TIMES PICAYUNE described the vote on Southwick as a "tough vote" for Landrieu.
"She pleases no one with this vote," said Jennifer Duffy, who monitors Senate campaigns for the Cook Political Report. "If she votes for him, the (Democratic) leadership won't be happy. Vote against him and it could be a campaign issue."
In a statement issue[d] after the vote, Senator Vitter said that “I believe that every judicial nominee deserves a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote, and I am pleased that enough senators decided it was time to overcome this filibuster of Judge Southwick. Unfortunately, Sen. Landrieu was not among that group, continuing her trend of not allowing nominees that have direct connections to Louisiana to even receive an up-or-down vote – much like she is doing to David Dugas who is nominated to fill another critical court vacancy in the Middle District Court of Louisiana.
“Judge Southwick has received high marks from the American Bar Association and was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for his current judicial position. His nomination was being opposed for purely partisan reasons, and this seat on the 5th Circuit – which has jurisdiction in Louisiana – has been deemed an emergency need to fill. Thankfully, we can now fill this critical need with a thoughtful, strict constitutional jurist,” said Vitter.
Note: David Dugas is a personal friend, a good man and deserving of far better than he's getting from Mary.
As Cajuns say, "Hot damn!!!"
From WAFB TV:
Odom Drops Bid for Re-Election
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - Bob Odom, a Democrat who has been Louisiana's Commissioner of Agriculture since 1980, says he's dropping out of the November 17th runoff election, handing victory to challenger Mike Strain, a Republican state representative.
Odom has been battling criminal corruption charges since August 2002, when he was indicted on 21 counts. The case was whittled away over the years, and a state judge dismissed all remaining charges earlier this year. However, prosecutors have appealed that ruling, asking for the case to be reinstated.
Despite his legal problems, he won re-election four years ago, and he led a field of three candidates in the October 20th election with 41% of the vote, but he required a majority to win re-election.
Strain finished just behind Odom with 40%.
Odom Drops Bid for Re-Election
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - Bob Odom, a Democrat who has been Louisiana's Commissioner of Agriculture since 1980, says he's dropping out of the November 17th runoff election, handing victory to challenger Mike Strain, a Republican state representative.
Odom has been battling criminal corruption charges since August 2002, when he was indicted on 21 counts. The case was whittled away over the years, and a state judge dismissed all remaining charges earlier this year. However, prosecutors have appealed that ruling, asking for the case to be reinstated.
Despite his legal problems, he won re-election four years ago, and he led a field of three candidates in the October 20th election with 41% of the vote, but he required a majority to win re-election.
Strain finished just behind Odom with 40%.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
E-ditorial
As I drove, this morning, to the voting machine warehouse, prior to swinging by the reception for Governor-elect Bobby, I made the mistake of listening to Dave Graichen, on KSYL. He was complaining – in a real snit, actually - about the new statute regarding closed primaries for federal elections. Apparently, the topic of closed primaries is now a hot one because the new law will apply to the special election to fill Governor-elect Bobby’s U.S. House seat.
What has Dave, an Independent, steamed is that the LAGOP has adopted the policy that only registered Republicans may vote in Republican primaries. No!!! Really??? Only registered Republicans may have a voice in the Republican Party's endorsement process??? Ya think?
On the other hand, the Dems, who prefer the Jungle Primary in all elections, have decided to allow Independents to vote in their party primaries. Hmm… I guess they figure, if Independents are invested in the Dem primaries, they’ll stay on the Dem reservation for general elections. While an interesting voter recruitment tactic, should Independents wield too much power in their endorsement process, the Dems will either kick the Independents to the curb or reconstruct the smoke-filled back room. Rank and file Dems are a tightly controlled bunch, whether they realize it or not, and their leadership doesn’t relinquish control without, as Jimmy Carville says, “an out ‘n out wah.”
That said, I honestly don’t understand Independents. They haughtily dismiss organized, political parties and concomitant platforms and ideologies. Nevertheless, once they learn those eschewed political parties will marginalize them, when it comes to endorsements, they pitch a collective fit and demand inclusion. If Independents find their independent status oh-so-cool, why don’t the just sit down, shut up and let the organized parties sort things out for general elections in which every registered voter may vote?
Nope, like spoiled, anti-establishment brats, they insist they be affirmed, acknowledged and *included*, across the political board and in all processes. Okey dokey. Do they realize, however, that the Dems disdainfully consider them useful idiots? Because that’s what you’ll become to the Dems, Dave, a useful idiot. How cool is that?
Although the Republican Party won’t indulge you, Dave, we won’t use you, either. Grow up and get a clue.
What has Dave, an Independent, steamed is that the LAGOP has adopted the policy that only registered Republicans may vote in Republican primaries. No!!! Really??? Only registered Republicans may have a voice in the Republican Party's endorsement process??? Ya think?
On the other hand, the Dems, who prefer the Jungle Primary in all elections, have decided to allow Independents to vote in their party primaries. Hmm… I guess they figure, if Independents are invested in the Dem primaries, they’ll stay on the Dem reservation for general elections. While an interesting voter recruitment tactic, should Independents wield too much power in their endorsement process, the Dems will either kick the Independents to the curb or reconstruct the smoke-filled back room. Rank and file Dems are a tightly controlled bunch, whether they realize it or not, and their leadership doesn’t relinquish control without, as Jimmy Carville says, “an out ‘n out wah.”
That said, I honestly don’t understand Independents. They haughtily dismiss organized, political parties and concomitant platforms and ideologies. Nevertheless, once they learn those eschewed political parties will marginalize them, when it comes to endorsements, they pitch a collective fit and demand inclusion. If Independents find their independent status oh-so-cool, why don’t the just sit down, shut up and let the organized parties sort things out for general elections in which every registered voter may vote?
Nope, like spoiled, anti-establishment brats, they insist they be affirmed, acknowledged and *included*, across the political board and in all processes. Okey dokey. Do they realize, however, that the Dems disdainfully consider them useful idiots? Because that’s what you’ll become to the Dems, Dave, a useful idiot. How cool is that?
Although the Republican Party won’t indulge you, Dave, we won’t use you, either. Grow up and get a clue.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Bobby's "thank you" tour!
Please Join…
Governor-Elect Bobby Jindal
For A Thank You Bus Tour
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
10am
Bellino’s Restaurant
4619 Jackson St.
(The Gold Room)
4619 Jackson St.
(The Gold Room)
Alexandria, LA
***Pass Along to Your Family and Friends***
Thursday, October 18, 2007
How low can you go, Georges?
Hat tip: Chad E. Rogers, The Dead Pelican
From LAGOP spokesman, Michael DiResto:
A thought experiment: What if John Georges were Bobby Jindal?
Imagine, if you will, that in the closing week of the primary election campaign, one journalist reported, based on an interview with the candidate, that Bobby Jindal accused one of his opponents of deliberately endangering his own child. Imagine that, in his own words, Jindal said one of his opponents "orchestrated" a situation which, in Jindal's estimation, "definitely put his child at risk." What do you think the reaction would be?
Here's what I believe would almost certainly transpire after the initial report of Jindal's accusation:
First, that night, the report would be the lead item in every evening TV and radio news broadcast in the state, and the next morning it would appear on the front page of every leading newspaper in the state.
Second, reporters would clamor for Jindal to explain this horrible charge against his opponent, and they would demand that Jindal provide proof to support such a bizarre and personal allegation.
Third, when Jindal proved unable to reasonably explain and support the charge, the pressure and publicity surrounding it would ultimately force him to issue a retraction and apologize for the allegation.
Fourth, in the aftermath, political commentators and voters alike would be heard to conclude that Jindal had "stepped over an important line of decency and appropriateness," and that the entire episode showed the "extreme steps Jindal was willing to take to get elected" and cast doubt on his "judgment to serve as governor."
Of course, Jindal never made such an allegation about one of his opponents. But one of his opponents, John Georges, has made such an allegation about him.
According to Georges, as reported by a columnist for The Times-Picayune:
"They've been obsessed with us since the day I called him a midwife . . . when he orchestrated the delivery of his child," a reference to the at-home birth of Jindal's third child last year. Jindal has always said the baby came before he and his wife could get to the hospital, and no other candidate has questioned his truthfulness. " I definitely think he put his child at risk." [emphasis added]
That allegation appeared in that paper yesterday, and yet this morning we find that, for some reason, the news was not picked up elsewhere and a journalistic clamor over it never materialized, as it almost certainly would have had Jindal made the comment. And I have a theory as to why. It's because Bobby Jindal, as the "frontrunner," is held to one very high expectation and standard of behavior, while John Georges is held to an altogether different, if non-existent, standard. I suspect by now the media has grown so immune, as a result of repetition, to the strange comments Georges constantly makes, that even when he makes such an extreme and personal allegation such as this, it barely registers.
As a result, Georges suffers from what President Bush, in another context, has labeled "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Well, strange as it may sound, I believe I actually have more respect for John Georges than all those who would overlook such an episode, because I grant him the seriousness with which he holds his own chances of becoming governor, and take his comments seriously and as serious indicators of how he would govern this state if elected.
So far this week the Georges campaign has been making robo-calls, newspaper ads, and TV commercials in a frenzy to say that information released about his gambling ties is "false" and "lies," even though all the information is accurate and they've said nothing to refute its accuracy. What's more, Georges has been on something of a rampage to declare that Bobby Jindal, unlike himself, has broken a promise to run a positive campaign and launched a completely unprovoked attack, even though none of the gambling information is remotely comparable to the false and vicious accusation Georges has made about Jindal.
If John Georges wants to live up to his promise, he could start by retracting the horrible and unfounded attack he has leveled against Bobby Jindal, and apologize for this outrageous and personal allegation concerning one father's love for his child.
From LAGOP spokesman, Michael DiResto:
A thought experiment: What if John Georges were Bobby Jindal?
Imagine, if you will, that in the closing week of the primary election campaign, one journalist reported, based on an interview with the candidate, that Bobby Jindal accused one of his opponents of deliberately endangering his own child. Imagine that, in his own words, Jindal said one of his opponents "orchestrated" a situation which, in Jindal's estimation, "definitely put his child at risk." What do you think the reaction would be?
Here's what I believe would almost certainly transpire after the initial report of Jindal's accusation:
First, that night, the report would be the lead item in every evening TV and radio news broadcast in the state, and the next morning it would appear on the front page of every leading newspaper in the state.
Second, reporters would clamor for Jindal to explain this horrible charge against his opponent, and they would demand that Jindal provide proof to support such a bizarre and personal allegation.
Third, when Jindal proved unable to reasonably explain and support the charge, the pressure and publicity surrounding it would ultimately force him to issue a retraction and apologize for the allegation.
Fourth, in the aftermath, political commentators and voters alike would be heard to conclude that Jindal had "stepped over an important line of decency and appropriateness," and that the entire episode showed the "extreme steps Jindal was willing to take to get elected" and cast doubt on his "judgment to serve as governor."
Of course, Jindal never made such an allegation about one of his opponents. But one of his opponents, John Georges, has made such an allegation about him.
According to Georges, as reported by a columnist for The Times-Picayune:
"They've been obsessed with us since the day I called him a midwife . . . when he orchestrated the delivery of his child," a reference to the at-home birth of Jindal's third child last year. Jindal has always said the baby came before he and his wife could get to the hospital, and no other candidate has questioned his truthfulness. " I definitely think he put his child at risk." [emphasis added]
That allegation appeared in that paper yesterday, and yet this morning we find that, for some reason, the news was not picked up elsewhere and a journalistic clamor over it never materialized, as it almost certainly would have had Jindal made the comment. And I have a theory as to why. It's because Bobby Jindal, as the "frontrunner," is held to one very high expectation and standard of behavior, while John Georges is held to an altogether different, if non-existent, standard. I suspect by now the media has grown so immune, as a result of repetition, to the strange comments Georges constantly makes, that even when he makes such an extreme and personal allegation such as this, it barely registers.
As a result, Georges suffers from what President Bush, in another context, has labeled "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Well, strange as it may sound, I believe I actually have more respect for John Georges than all those who would overlook such an episode, because I grant him the seriousness with which he holds his own chances of becoming governor, and take his comments seriously and as serious indicators of how he would govern this state if elected.
So far this week the Georges campaign has been making robo-calls, newspaper ads, and TV commercials in a frenzy to say that information released about his gambling ties is "false" and "lies," even though all the information is accurate and they've said nothing to refute its accuracy. What's more, Georges has been on something of a rampage to declare that Bobby Jindal, unlike himself, has broken a promise to run a positive campaign and launched a completely unprovoked attack, even though none of the gambling information is remotely comparable to the false and vicious accusation Georges has made about Jindal.
If John Georges wants to live up to his promise, he could start by retracting the horrible and unfounded attack he has leveled against Bobby Jindal, and apologize for this outrageous and personal allegation concerning one father's love for his child.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Alexandria Conference Agenda
Member Conference Agenda Confirmed For November in Alexandria
Finalize your plans soon for the LFRW Fall Member Conference and Board of Directors meeting in Alexandria on November 3 and 4. All members are invited and encouraged to attend; club presidents are urged to make sure their club is represented (there to vote). Registration deadline is October 25th; registration fee is $45 members/$40 Magnolia Club members. Special room rate at the Best Western Inn & Suites is available thru October 19th. Gena Gore and the Rapides Parish RWC have made special plans for the weekend and look forward to welcoming us to Central Louisiana!
Saturday workshops are confirmed! The first time slot will feature Cynthia Jardon of the Alexandria Town Talk; she is the op/ed editor for the paper and will speak to us on "Managing The Media." Following her presentation, we will hear from Douglas Constant, a Life/Business Coach who will speak on the "Four Phases of Leadership: The Value of Emotional Intelligence." Both are useful topics as we build or programs and projects for the coming year!!
Saturday evening features a special Magnolia Club Membership Reception at the Alexandria Museum of Art hosted by Congressman Rodney Alexander. ALL conference members are invited to attend the reception for the kick-off of the 2008 Magnolia Club Membership Drive. From now thru December 31, members and supporters may re-new or join Magnolia Club for $95. Our banquet speaker will be State Tresurer John Kennedy...his first time to meet LFRW members! And, we will welcome and honor our 2007 "My Favorite Teacher."
Sunday business session will focus on reports from officers, report from the NFRW convention, the 2008 LFRW budget and other business of the LFRW. It is an important year-end meeting for LFRW.....plan to attend! Registration form and complete agenda are available on our website at www.lfrw.org.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Orwellian.
Now that Massachusetts has what can only be labeled socialized medicine – thanks, Mitt – pediatricians are turning their young patients into spies. Is that what is coming to us all?
Doc, what’s up with snooping?
Pediatrician paranoia runs deep
By Michael Graham
October 4, 2007
They’re watching you right now.
They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox game.
They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.
They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.
They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the NannyState.
I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.
Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.
“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”
“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”
I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”
She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.
“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”
Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.
We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.
We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.”
The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.
And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.
Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?”
When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.
If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.
But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.
She also got a new doctor.
In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.
Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs.
At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.
“I still like my previous pediatrician,” Debbie told me. “She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn’t seem to have a choice.”
Of course doctors have a choice.
They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children.
They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position.
They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office.
But the doctors aren’t asking us parents.
They’re asking our kids.
Worst of all, they’re asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent.
And then they wonder why we drink.
Doc, what’s up with snooping?
Pediatrician paranoia runs deep
By Michael Graham
October 4, 2007
They’re watching you right now.
They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox game.
They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.
They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.
They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the NannyState.
I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.
Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.
“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”
“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”
I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”
She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.
“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”
Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.
We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.
We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.”
The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.
And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.
Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?”
When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.
If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.
But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.
She also got a new doctor.
In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.
Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs.
At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.
“I still like my previous pediatrician,” Debbie told me. “She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn’t seem to have a choice.”
Of course doctors have a choice.
They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children.
They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position.
They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office.
But the doctors aren’t asking us parents.
They’re asking our kids.
Worst of all, they’re asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent.
And then they wonder why we drink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)