Jacob Soto may only be nine years old, but he’s a hero in the eyes of the Dallas Police Department.

Soto, then eight, saved a drowning three-year-old boy in late June when he pulled him from the bottom of an apartment complex swimming pool. For his efforts, the third grader at Mark Twain Elementary received the department’s certificate of merit on Tuesday.

“I thought what he did was noble and heroic,” Police Chief David Kunkle (pictured right with Jacob) said after a ceremony during which he handed out a number of awards.

Soto’s mother, Amanda Olivarez, and 16-year-old Taylor Larson, also received certificate of merits for working together to perform CPR on the toddler, who wasn’t breathing.

“Had he not found that little boy, I dread the thought of what would have happened,” Olivarez said.

Two gang unit officers were awarded the DPD’s highest honor on Tuesday for their heroic actions on January 6 when a colleague was fatally shot as they tried to serve a warrant at a crime-ridden apartment complex.

Senior Cpls. Mario Gomez (pictured right) and Craig Redden (pictured left) were honored for protecting other officers as they worked to pull a fatally injured Senior Cpl. Norm Smith out of the line of fire.

“The award is great, but we’d do anything to have him back,” Gomez, an 11-year-veteran, said after the ceremony. “We did what anybody else would do to try to help out our fellow officers.”

The Medal of Valor has only been awarded about 50 times during the department’s entire history, Kunkle said.

Four other gang unit officers – Senior Cpls. Rolando Arellano, John Puente, Jeremy Foy and Teena Schultz – who helped pull Smith away from the doorway also received meritorious conduct awards.

“They are all heroes,” Kunkle said. “I never forget that the men and women of the department are the good guys.”

Last September I was able to meet “The Hammer” in Valley Forge.  He really enjoys talking with his fans.  When it was my turn to get my puck signed, he wanted to know where I came from and which teams I watch.  Right before I left the table, he said that when Crosby comes to Philadelphia, they like to make him cry

I took so many photo’s the camera died. So here is gallery the first gallery… The second will be up later today.

We all came out to celebrate the life of an all around bad-ass dude. It was a bad-ass skate sesh with every single skateboarder you could imagine.

Stricker would have been amped on today.

Columbus Blue Jackets prospect Matt Calvert did the unthinkable this offseason – turned down a professional contract. Eligible for the AHL this season, Calvert instead turned down his contract offer from the Blue Jackets to finish his junior career with the Brandon Wheat Kings. The Wheat Kings, of course, are hosting the Memorial Cup this season, a big factor in Calvert’s return. (Slam! Sports)

Tampa Bay Lightning defenseman Victor Hedman has been cleared to return to action after suffering a concussion from a Chris Neil hit last week. Hedman leads all rookie skaters in icetime, averaging 24 minutes per game. (NHL)

The long adventure to the NHL for prospect Ryan O’Marra will take a positive turn as the former New York Islanders first round pick has been recalled from the Springfield Falcons of the AHL by the Edmonton Oilers today. O’Marra, who spent considerable time in the ECHL last season, is expected to make his debut against the Ottawa Senators tonight, marking the fourth league in four years for the Mississauga, On. native.(Hockey Fights)

Interesting comments from Western Hockey League veterans Ian Schultz of the Calgary Hitmen, Swift Current Bronco Cody Eakin and Everett Silvertips coach Craig Hartsburg in regard to the suspension levied on Michael Liambas for his hit on Ben Fanelli. The buzzword seems to be headshots, though, which wasn’t the case with Liambas’ hit. (Slam! Sports)

Allow me to first apologize that I was still unable to get through all of the health care bill passed by the House of (Non)Representatives on Saturday night. I am working through the first half of the week preparing for my business to run without me for the second half of the week. Never an easy task. Please remember all that I will have articles set to post for the second half of the week, but I will not actually be here posting them. I will attempt to jump in whenever possible to take care of any moderation, but can make no promises. I will return home after the memorial services on Monday and should be back in full swing then. For tonight I am going to focus the health care discussions on the premise stated in the title. Just a Citizen posted an interesting interview last night and when I watched it I was reminded of the right versus privilege debate. It seems that at the center of the health care debate is the debate over whether health care is a right, and it is time for us to discuss this….

The video in question is one from MSNBC where the moderator was interviewing Florida Democrat Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The topic was the passage of the health care bill in the House. You can see the video here (will open in a new window):

Representatives Schultz tells us that Health Care will finally be made a RIGHT

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

For those unable, or unwilling, to watch the video, Representative Schultz comes right out and declares the following: “Well, I think we are going to send a bill to the President, finally making health care a right not a privilege, by the end of this year. I feel confident about that. I think the momentum that has been building is really unstoppable at this point.” (Just for grins and giggles, watch the rest of the video to see Schultz’s further comments about women and the Republican party. She is either seriously demented in her assessment or intentionally misrepresenting the party in order to cause another false divide in America)

The Congresswoman makes a clear statement here that one of the things they are intending to do is to finally make health care a right, not a privilege. JAC, I have to personally thank you for finding that video, because it is enlightening to see the intent of the Democrats in Congress.

I don’t think this is a unique situation for the Democratic party. In my recollection, the progressive movement in America has consistently made their stance that all sorts of things are rights rather than privileges. I mean let’s be honest, there are a ton of new found “rights” according to the progressive liberal movement. People have the right to to a government sponsored public education. A right to government provided housing. A right to own a home regardless of ability to pay for it. A right to take money from those that earn it. A right to a government provided cell phone. A right to come into the country illegally and stay. A right to a wage determined by the government rather than the market. A right to cheap goods and extensive services at the expense of those greedy capitalist pigs. A right to not be offended by a Christmas parade they were not forced to attend. And now a right to health care.

In fact it seems the only rights that the progressive movement doesn’t support are the ones in the actual Bill of Rights. They seem to despise the right to own guns, the right to wear a christian symbol in public, the right to run a news organization that is critical of a Democratic President, the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor. But I digress, yet again.

The fact is that health care coverage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. To determine that it is a right is nothing more than a political play. This goes back to the progressive mantra that we must allow emotions to rule the day. It sure would be nice to see everyone in great health. It sure would be nice to see health care be affordable and available to everyone. But that does not make it a right my friends. No matter how many times you say it.

The founders felt that rights were given to man naturally (by the creator or nature depending on your beliefs). They are not the creation of government, they were there the whole time. That is why they were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a right to those things without or without government’s mandate. Most of us can agree on that premise. If it is a “right” we have it whether government grants it or not. We have it whether government exists or not. The very reason that our country was founded was because the people of that time felt that the Crown did not recognize their natural rights! Remember that the Constitution spoke out and identified our natural rights, it did not grant them. The government has no power to grant natural rights, and is supposed to have no power to infringe upon them.

Health care is not a natural right, folks. It was endowed to us by the creator (or nature). It is a scientific process that helps humans to better care for or repair our bodies. To believe that it is a right is to fall prey to the belief that our rights are the construct of government, that rights are given to us by government, rather than the other way around. To believe that health care is a right is to believe that rights only exist through positive government action.

I read somewhere, although I cannot find it again, a quote from someone that said something along the lines of “The rights to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are individual rights that I can pursue or neglect as I wish. Governments are instituted merely to secure these rights by providing the necessary infrastructure for their flourishing—this involves instituting a rule of law and order.” To me, that is the reality around rights. We have them. Government’s only purpose is supposed to be protecting them.

Has health care become unaffordable to many? You bet it has, especially if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of facing a truly difficult diagnosis. But we must first remember that the situation we find ourselves in in regard to health care costs have been driven by many folks who have implemented market controls or market distortions without any regard for factual economic consequences (yes, I am again talking about you, Keynes disciples). As a result it has become more and more a privilege that is more accessible for the wealthy. And that is somewhat of a problem here in the good old US of A. However, the fact that the prices of health care have grown out of control does not change the definition of what is a right and what is not.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff, whom some of you may remember from our “Building a Better Foundation” Series, offers that the founders were clear in defining that our rights are quite limited in that they are a right to action. He defines his terms better than I, and here is an excerpt, the entire speech of which can be found as the second link at the end of the article:

Leonard Peikoff

Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it, without effort, by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit — to a certain type of action on your part and its result — not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your “right” to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others’ expense means that they become rightless.

I found this to be the absolute best description of the rights of the people in America that I have read. I urge all of you to read Peikoff’s entire speech, which was given back in 1993 in opposition to Hillary’s push for a government health care system. One of my favorite lines of all time in the world of political discourse happens to come from this speech, which is why I know the speech so well and remembered to include it in this discussion. Later in the speech, Peikoff says precisely how the American political system has gotten out of whack in terms of rights versus privileges. That favorite quote of mine is:

The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men’s actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country’s founding documents — rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it — period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens — to their individual rights — to their real rights — in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

Therein lies the problem with the direction of society today. The invention and reclassification of so many things into the category of “rights” is morally corrupt and denies the acknowledgement of the true “rights” that we have. Our country has lots of issues. Health care costs are one of them. We are in need of some forms of health care reform. While I am ideologically opposed to government intervention in the market, there has already been far too much meddling by government to do nothing now. The question instead becomes what is the proper approach? I submit that the approach we are taking now is completely wrong. Addressing the costs is the way to go. That could work in some ways. And there are moral approaches that could be taken should addressing the high costs become the route pursued.

But establishing health care as some sort of “right” is a recipe for disaster. The current path is unsustainable in even the short term, and will result in a catastrophic change to the American health care system, which is the best in the world, despite the inane claims to the contrary. Beyond that, declaring health care a right is morally wrong, as it ignores the fact that real rights are there whether Nancy Pelosi dictates them to you or not.

And that is why I am opposed to the health care reforms being presented today on principle alone. Declaring health care a right dooms us to an eventual dependence on government for that vital service, which is already being provided for every single person in America, regardless of the abundance of or lack of health insurance. The question becomes not whether we should offer universal health care. The question is whether we are to be equally self-reliant, or equally dependent.

Below I offer a few articles that I either quoted above (in Peikoff’s case) or that I felt did a good job of laying out their arguments. There are articles from both sides of the issue. OK, now you can all fire away at me.

Is health care a right or a privilege? – Health Policy | Physician Executive | Find Articles at BNET

Health Care Is Not A Right

Foto: Alice Drogoreanu

Deşi domnul plutonier-major Onici s-a străduit să ne convingă despre avantajele metodei Schultz, maniera sa prea teoretică ne-a făcut să nu ne prea dumirim.

- Cum, adică, să corectezi derapajele logice? – se miră Caius.

- Aşa, bine! Le corectează…

- Bine, dar, cum? – insistă Caius.

- Prin aplicarea metodei…

Cum nu se ivi nicio lumină suplimentară, ridicarăm din umeri şi mai luarăm un rând. În acest moment, intră în Papa-Caffe o figură nouă, amintind izbitor de domnul Boureanu. Onici decise să ne demonstreze practic valabilitatea tezelor sale.

- Uitaţi, îl vom întreba pe dumnealui cât fac patru şi cu patru şi cu patru…

- Patru! – răspunse acela, foarte decis.

- Păi, nu prea face atât… Să mă exprim mai limpede: patru plus patru plus patru cât face?

- Patru. Este o redundanţă aici. Patru e o unitate, în rest se repetă acelaşi lucru…

- Doar aparent se repetă – consideră plutonierul. S-o luăm altfel. Câte degete sunt aici? – şi-şi afişă degetul mic, inelarul, mijlociul şi arătătorul mâinii stângi.

- Patru.

- Perfect! Dar acum? – mai zise Onici, ridicând şi degetul gros al stângii, apoi degetele mâinii drepte, Teodosie alăturând şi el două degete.

- Acum este o problemă, a intervenit şi colegul. Nu poţi aduna mere cu pere!

- Păi, eu ţi-am zis să aduni degete, nu mere cu pere! Au legătură degetele cu perele cam cât ai dumneata cu Prefectura…

Neînţelegând aluzia, individul se ambală:

- Dumneavoastră nu aveţi cunoştinţe elementare! Să luăm, de pildă, un trapez cu laturile inegale…

- Lasă, bă, trapezul! Cât fac patru plus patru plus patru?

- Patru! – se răsti subiectul. Dacă avem limită din x care tinde către zero…

- Când îţi fut una, o să tinzi tu către minus infinit! Mă iertaţi – ni se adresă domnul plutonier nouă – pentru limbajul buruienos, dar face parte din metodă… Ei, cât fac? – reveni la îndărătnicul oaspete.

- Patru! E ca şi cum ai avea un om. Nu-l poţi aduna cu el însuşi…

În acest moment al experimentului, domnul plutonier tăbărî pe ipochimen cu pumnii:

- Futu-ţi râtul tău de imbecil, tu faci bancuri cu mine? Vrei să-mi zici că negrul e alb? Cât fac, bă, patru plus patru plus patru, că te omor! – şi-i aplică, suplimentar, un picior în gură.

- Doisprezece… – gemu acela.

- Vedeţi? – ni se adresă Onici triumfător. Efectele metodei Schultz!…

Demonstraţia fusese convingătoare, dar Caius dori să afle detalii suplimentare:

- Dar, cine-i Schultz ăsta?

- Dracu ştie… Însă, metoda funcţionează.

Among the most tiresome things about cable TV commentary programs is their increasing fixation with airing extensive serial feuds with other cable news networks and personalities.

Every night now, Dobbs, Schultz, Beck, Maddow, Hannity, Olberman, O’Reilly and the other faux furious fulminators rant off cue cards about what each other said during the day. They inevitably make the case that the latest utterance from their hated rival is THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THING EVER, and then offer an equally outrageous rebuttal, which their rival will very predictably characterize tomorrow as THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THING EVER.

This constant stream of “who said what about whom” reporting feels a lot like professional wrestling. Or junior high school.

Ratings obsessed network executives must be convinced that this cross-channel bickering helps ratings more than it hurts, because they are not reeling it in. In fact, they seem to be making sure it finds its way onto cue cards every single night of the week, whether or not the dig du jour is remotely feud-worthy.

Because of this, I’m assuming the problem is us – the people with the Nielsen boxes on our sets — not the Kabuki commentators. In which I case I just have to say, I am so sick of us.

- Loveland

Written by Guest Contributor 2morrowknight

Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Rep. Wasserman Schultz at a April town hall with her constituents.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz testifies during the nomination hearings for Judge Alito in January 2006.

Meet 2morrowknight…

He’s a author, blogger, and community activist whose work has been published in the Huffington Post, The Stimulist, Womentality Magazine and Essence.com. He has lectured at leading colleges and universities, including Morehouse, Spelman, and Emory University. As a volunteer internet strategist for the Obama Presidential Campaign, he created an effective, “50 State” email list that helped increase traffic to the campaign website and helped neutralize the falsehoods and misconceptions about then candidate Obama. 2morrowknight’s first children’s book is scheduled to be released in early 2010. Follow 2morrowknight on Twitter

Really, like what can you write about this?

Ryan

Model: Ryan @ Photogenics

Makeup: Anthony Merante

Hair: Noogie

Stylist: Marco Morante

This book really opens up to who Charlie Brown really is. It also, open me up, it was just so funny. I love it. He makes going to bed kind of interesting, just think about it. Washing your hands…..washing your face….Brushing your teeth…….what a waste of time I’m just going to bed. lol

Baby Schultz, originally uploaded by MADNAP.

Effexor suspected in recent intrauterine death of Baby Schultz. http://twohours.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/devastated/

Posted by Audiegrl

Joe Scarborough, Host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, former member of Congress

Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama’s hometown will not be hosting the 2012 Olympic Games.

Chicago is a beautiful city that would have made a perfect backdrop for the Olympics. The President was right to fly to Copenhagen to try to land the games, not for the sake of his city, but for the good of his country. The fact President Obama failed makes me respect him more for taking the chance, and the fact many right-wing figures opposed the President’s mission shows just how narrow-minded partisanship makes us all.

For the better part of 20 years, a bitterness has infected our politics that has weakened our country.

We Republicans spent eight years trying to delegitimize Bill Clinton.

Democrats spent the next eight years doing the same to George W. Bush.

Now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office again, it is the GOP who is trying to delegitimize a sitting president.

When I try to talk to Republicans about the need to break this cycle of viciousness, some cite the chapter and verse of every hateful left wing attack against George W. Bush.

Whenever I attempt to have a conversation with some Democrats about the need for us respect our president– whether he be an Obama or a Bush– I am told that Bush deserved whatever he got because he was a lying war criminal who hated the Constitution and loved torturing people.

Fortunately, there are a growing number of Americans who believe we cannot continue going on this way.

You and I may disagree on how the CIA handled terror suspects. But that does not mean that you are soft on terrorism anymore than it means that I hate the Constitution.

You and I may have a different approach to Afghanistan. But just because you want to stay there another five years doesn’t mean you are an imperialist. And if I believe a decade in that forsaken land is more than enough, that doesn’t mean I’m soft on al Qaeda or the Taliban.

It just means that we view the world differently.

That creative tension–that intense give and take–has been what has kept America strong since Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton fought like hell in George Washington’s White House.

Hamilton wanted a strong centralized government while Jefferson believed that the government that governed least governed best.

Both men were frustrated by the checks and balances that stood in the way of their agendas, but that debate shaped America for years to come.

But something has gone terribly wrong.

Today on Morning Joe, NBC News Legend Tom Brokaw remarked to Pat Buchanan about how the level of partisanship is even more intense today than during the depths of the Watergate crisis. Brokaw was commenting on Congressman Grayson’s comments, but he could have easily
been talking about Joe Wilson or death panels or the bizarre claim that the President “hates all white people.”

Some of the rhetoric is dangerous. But what we saw from some conservative corners regarding the President’s failed Olympics bid was just plain stupid.

I’m happy for Rio and think it is past time that South America got a chance to host the Olympic Games. But put me down as one conservative who is glad my president flew across the ocean to try to bring the 2016 Games to America.

Nice try, President Obama. And thanks for taking time away from your young girls for the sake of your hometown and your country, Michelle. I know that’s never an easy thing to do.~~Joe Scarbourough

More @

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz , Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and MSNBC Contributor Jim Warren discuss why the Republican Party’s has a anti-Obama’s agenda from the Olympics to health care reform.

Rachel Maddow is joined by Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) to try and make some sense of conservatives celebrating the news that the International Olympic Committee decided the summer Olympic games won’t be held in Chicago in 2016.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, E.J. Dionne, and NYT conservative Columnist David Brooks comment on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

Joe Scarborough discusses the Republicans cheering for the failure of America getting the 2016 Olympics

To a lot of entrepreneur, hiring more seasoned executives can be threatening, and actually delegating power to them is even more so. In my own case, I have to admit, it wasn’t easy. My identity had quickly become so closely tied up with that of Starbucks that any suggestion for chance made me feel as if I had failed in some aspect of my job. Inside my head, it was constant battle, and I had to keep reminding myself: These people bring something I don’t have. They will make Starbucks far better than I could alone.

Howard Schultz, Pour Your Heart Into it, p.155

The company that added “venti” and “frappuccino” to American vocabularies is making a push throughout North America to convince connoisseurs to sample what many see as a down-market drink — instant coffee.

Nearly eight months after Starbucks Corp. began selling its Via instant coffee in Seattle and Chicago, the company will begin offering the dissolvable drink to the rest of the country and in its Canadian stores.

Backed by the company’s first-ever television ads, along with large-scale distribution to about 1,500 sites outside its stores, the Via launch shows just how determined Starbucks is to own a stake in the $21 billion worldwide instant coffee market.

“Based on the success we’ve had, we feel strongly that we’re sitting on a very big opportunity,” said Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said during a conference call with journalists. “What’s going to sell Via at the end of the day is that (it) delivers in the cup. Most people will not be able to tell the difference.”

While instant coffee is pervasive throughout Europe — accounting for as much as 80 percent of coffee sales in the U.K. — the insta-brews haven’t won over American taste buds, in large part because of their image as an inferior knock-off of drip-brewed beverages.

But it’s that perception that Starbucks executives are trying to change. They hope the skinny cylindrical 3-packs ($2.95) and 12-packs ($9.95) of coffee that dissolve in water will eventually be as prevalent on store shelves as its packaged coffee is now.

The coffee is available in Colombia and Italian Roast flavors, and more varieties are expected to be introduced in the future.

 A coleção primavera/verão 2010 da Schultz.

Sem mais.