Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

An interesting read from the Washington Post. sm

Posted By: MT and worn out on 2009-05-16
In Reply to:

Draw your own conclusions on the state of the MT industry. Should we be worried? I would be as the gov't NEVER moves fast on anything unless it benefits them somehow. I had never heard of the HIMSS until I read the article.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503667.html?wpisrc=newsletter




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.

Reprinted in Boston Globe.  Sorry!


How about the Washington Post?

How about this isn't a new story at all?  How about the government lied to these poor parents, who lost their SON?!  How about the COMMANDER IN CHIEF dishonored and disrespected Pat Tillman and his family?  How about being so blind while unquestioningly idolizing a very false idol, a flawed, lying, devious, unethical, warmonging leader that you, as well, dishonor this woman and her son by still trying to use him as a Bush poster boy?  


I have a feeling that when Fitzgerald is finished with his investigation (the crux of which is the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat/lie that Bush used to sell this country on an illegal, immoral war) and the facts are disclosed, Bush and his cronies and his followers will be headed down the toilet.  Maybe the Tidy Bowl Man will throw you a life preserver, not that you'd take it.  People like you would be honored to drown in the same S***T as Bush. 


Pat Tillman and his parents deserve to be honored.  How many of YOUR children were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan by this lying president?  Until you've lost one, you're simply not qualified to demean and disrespect those who did.  You think you're some sort of proud American who claims to support the troops?  You're a fraud.  You're nothing but a heartless war monger and deserve no respect whatsoever. 


Here. Have some more Kool Aid.


FROM THE WASHINGTON POST EARLIER THIS YEAR:


Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army
Family Questions Reversal On Cause of Ranger's Death


By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 23, 2005; A01


Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.


More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's lies about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.


Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did, Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.


Tillman, a popular player for the Arizona Cardinals, gave up stardom in the National Football League after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Army Rangers with his brother. After a tour in Iraq, their unit was sent to Afghanistan in spring 2004, where they were to hunt for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.


Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men.


In separate interviews in their home town of San Jose and by telephone, Tillman's parents, who are divorced, spoke about their ordeal with the Army with simmering frustration and anger. A series of military investigations have offered differing accounts of Tillman's death. The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death.


The latest investigation, written about by The Washington Post earlier this month, showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake in what they believed was a firefight with enemies on a tight canyon road. The investigation also revealed that soldiers later burned Tillman's uniform and body armor.


That information was slow to make it back to the United States, the report said, and Army officials here were unaware that his death on April 22, 2004, was fratricide when they notified the family that Tillman had been shot.


Over the next 10 days, however, top-ranking Army officials -- including the theater commander, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid -- were told of the reports that Tillman had been killed by his own men, the investigation said. But the Army waited until a formal investigation was finished before telling the family -- which was weeks after a nationally televised memorial service that honored Tillman on May 3, 2004.


Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given to the family. He decried what he calls a botched homicide investigation and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting outright lies to the family and to the public.


After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this, Patrick Tillman said. They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy.


Army spokesmen maintain that the Army has done everything it can to keep the family informed about the investigation, offering to answer relatives' questions and going back to them as investigators gathered more information.


Army officials said Friday that the Army reaffirms its heartfelt sorrow to the Tillman family and all families who have lost loved ones during this war. Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, an Army spokesman, said the Army acts with compassion and heartfelt commitment when informing grieving families, often a painful duty.


In the case of the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family, Brooks said. For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes.


Brooks said the Army has actively and directly informed the Tillman family regarding investigations into his death and has dedicated a team of soldiers and civilians to answering the family's questions through phone calls and personal meetings while ensuring the family was as well informed as they could be.


Mary Tillman keeps her son's wedding album in the living room of the house where he grew up, and his Arizona State University football jersey, still dirty from the 1997 Rose Bowl game, hangs in a nearby closet. With each new version of events, her mind swirls with new theories about what really happened and why. She questions how an elite Army unit could gun down its most recognizable member at such close range. She dwells on distances and boulders and piles of documents and the words of frenzied men.


It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way, she said. You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest.


Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for dishonorable acts. He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.


Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore, he said. Pat's dead, and this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has.


That their son was famous opened up the situation to problems, the Tillmans say, in part because of the devastating public relations loss his death represented for the military. Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism -- just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.


Every day is sort of emotional, Mary Tillman said. It just keeps slapping me in the face. To find that he was killed in this debacle -- everything that could have gone wrong did -- it's so much harder to take. We should not have been subjected to all of this. This lie was to cover their image. I think there's a lot more yet that we don't even know, or they wouldn't still be covering their tails.


If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else.


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
I heard Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post
yesterday say, in response to the question, who made Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the spokespersons for the black community? and he said We did. meaning the media in all its various forms. He said every time something happens that could be perceived as racist everyone (black, white, red, brown and yellow) who are out for the scoop call those two guys 3 or 4 times a day to find out what they think and what they are going to do. Interesting sideline.
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?

My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?


 


Washington Post: Commission admits they thought they were being deceived.sm

After C Span aired the 911 Scholars Symposium in LA for 3 days, the questions and information has started to flow.  Looks like some are starting to do some CYA.  There are articles in the NYT, Vanity Fair, and even the Washington Post.  For a change, they are not calling skeptics names.  It is only a baby step, but this has made my day. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new


interesting read
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/04/gb.01.html
An interesting read.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Very interesting read indeed. Thanks for posting.

Very interesting and funny read. sm
Just goes to show that, as far as we humans are concerned, nothing ever really changes much. LOL
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.

interesting article, have read many similar these past few days...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1231-23.htm
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.

The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.

And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!

I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!

Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).

I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
Thank you, gt, interesting post

I think that historically the highest socioeconomic class has always sent the lowest socioeconomic classes to carry out their wars. 


My boyfriend has said since this Iraq debacle began - if you're truly in support of this war, hey, why aren't you over there?


There is an interesting post
on the Faith board posted by sbMT titled Democracy under Theocracy. Interesting read.
I found you post interesting!
Setting any views you may have aside, you admitted Hillary was at least good at handling herself!! That is the main reason why I still think she's in the race. I was shocked that she faltered at the last debate, so I'm glad she redeemed herself at least a little at this one. Other than that, I missed it so I can't comment.

Overall, I think Senator Biden says some very powerful things, but the debates are the only time I see him. If he would've been able to get out there as much as the other three, he might've done well.
Interesting post regarding US Citizenship on another board...
Not true at all, even if your parent is a us citizen, if you are born in another country, you are a us citizen, but you are forever disqualified from running for president. This does not apply to military bases and diplomats. That is the law. My boss happens to have been born in canada to us citizens working there at the time. Took him 3 years to be able to get a passport to leave the us on vacation and yes they notified him he could never run for president. That is the difference between being a us citizen and a naturalized us citizen.

I believe it is also the same for anyone whom has ever claimed citizenship outside of the us, once you claim citizenship anywhere else, you are disqualified from running for president.
Interesting story regarding a post below about the so-called "racist" John Gibson...

A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed A reporter for an NBC affiliate in Baltimore who inserted a racist remark into a video clip of FOX News' John Gibson and posted it on YouTube is no longer employed by the station.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499525,00.html


 


I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
I did read the post that way.
One poster asked who would join in rebuilding Iraq and this poster answered she would join.  I am not quite sure why the quibbling of semantics.  Do you do that to all posters who post here?  If so, it's disturbing.
I don't think your read my post
I said the main reason for newspapers' decline was the internet, but your insinuation that people don't read the newspaper simply because they can't read well really doesn't make any sense and is frankly, condescending.
Read the post Ex....
you can disagree without mocking and ridiculing...and yes, sometimes, you CAN take the high road and just ignore a post by someone who posted emotionally and took personally a post because her son is serving in Iraq and tells a different story. What could that possibly have hurt, just to let that one slide? Or respond to it in a less personal or ridiculing way?

And then "think Liberal" asserting to me that she had the right to disagree and criticize something she did not believe it...but berating "sick and fed up" in a rather personal manner for doing the same thing. THAT sounds pretty one-sided to me. And not necessary.

Thanks for your post.
Did you even read the post???
we are talking about a program that is already in place, the money already there...lots of red cents as a matter of fact. We have more social programs than any country in the WORLD = millions of red cents. What pray tell are you talking about? Billions for killing Iraqis? Are you prez of Michael Moore's fan club? Sigh.
You obviously did not read my post...
Air America failed because not enough people listened to it. Simple as that. I thought your original post said something about Republicans in the minority...not all Republicans are conservative and not all Republicans are Christians. And, there are a bunch of Democrats who are Christians. So what are you talking about? Christians or Republicans?

LOL ... if you read my whole post ...
I have said I have not made up my mind about who I am voting for.

I SAID I have not formed an total opinion on Palin.

I have watched many of O'Bama's interviews ... ... I read his book ... I'm evaluating his "judgment" ...

And to me, he comes across as arrogant. AND, THIS IS JUST WHAT IT IS -- MY OPINION. And I am entitled to it, just like you are entitled to yours!!!

That does not make me stupid. But if it makes YOU feel better to call anyone who doesn't agree with you and your opinions stupid, go ahead -- go for it! I can take it.

Also, glad to see now I'm a mina bird .. Love It!

no, make that a "stupid mina bird" ...

.... too bad I have to go to work now .. who names what other names I could be called ... just because I have my own opiniosn and they are different from yours!

good day!

ROTFL .... outta here



At last. Some who actually read the post.
nm
Read the other post again.
If you were not in a chat room, but rather were in an office setting with co-workers, you would not be in a situation where you could openly discuss religion or politics. It is a work setting. Noone said anything about religion not be the "fabric of your life." Good for you. Go for it. Whenever you decide to impose your religious or political beliefs on somebody else, you are going to hit a snag. Point it, the founding fathers explicitly expressed "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of reigion." This is the FIRST directive in the FIRST amendment. They then proceeded to establish a secular federalist system, not a theocracy. Congress, though the may have agreed among them to say a prayer before their session, are to check their religion the moment they start to make law...which is, after all, their jobs.
read 2nd post from top
nm
Read my post below........
.
Please read my post above and ....
read the snopes link info. The meaning is very different when looking at the entire context. And I am not an O fan but posting information taken out of context is just wrong no matter what side one is on. If the first post was an honest mistake/
misunderstanding, hey, that happens, but the snopes link demonstrates the truth of the quote so don't compound the mistake by continuing it.
I did read you whole post and all I can say....sm
is what is wrong with you? Get a grip! Why so much negativity? Give the guy a chance. Are you hoping and praying he will fail so you can be right? We all have questions and no one knows how all this will pan out. The country is in a crisis and he is going to be the POTUS. Not having to join a bread line will be a plus for me. That being said, yes, I do have hope he is the right person at the right time for our country, and I pray for his to have the strength, intelligence and compassion to see us over this rough road.
Did you even read the post
Doesn't sound like things are going to be much better from what I read.
Should have read the WHOLE post
and then you would know why I  said what I said.
Should have read the WHOLE post
and then you would know why I  said what I said.
Again--read the whole post...
"I should have written that I am more concerned with lying, if it turns out that he is lying"
I believe you need to actually READ the post!
VV
Perhaps you need to re-read my post
Nowhere did I say I had the right to smoke anywhere I chose. I didn't even try to insinuate it. So before you get all righteously indignant on me, perhaps you'd better clarify whether I even made the claim you seem to want to argue.
I can also read them and post responses to them
if I like and sometimes I choose to, and I don't use use rage to get my point across like you do.  You are the one that needs to take a serious chill pill...that is if you want to, but I seriously doubt it.  You revel in your rage.
It might help if you actually read my post before so inaccurately

characterizing what I said.


Unless, of course, you're simply choosing to believe that I think bringing Jesus Christ into people's lives is a bad thing, even though I said the opposite in my post.


You've incorrectly pegged my very clear post in the very same way you incorrectly pegged Phil Donahue. 


Please post where you read of the stench
Could you please post the sites/newspapers/whatever where you read about the stench of the anti war people?  The wide sweeping generalization can be thought of as ignorant and bigoted.  I would hope the places where you got the information are legitimate news sites and not freeper baloney.  I assure you, liberals/democrats/anti war people smell just as good and bad as conservatives/republicans/pro war people. 
Perhaps you didn't READ my post
I said -- keep it the hell out of politics.
You're welcome to claim whomever you'd like as your Saviour in the privacy of your own home and the community of your own church.
Then you read my post wrong.
I don't know what conversations have occurred on either board.  I was mainly interested in why you and gt would made the assertion that somehow conservatives don't care about child molestation.  Frankly, I was rather taken aback.  I have never even seen the far left pin that one on conservatives.  My posts have been respectful totally.  I thought you wanted debate.  I made that mistake one other time on this board.  I won't make it again. 
Maybe you should actually read the post before responding.

Bush is claiming they are working on nuclear weapons. 


Iran has always claimed they are working on nuclear energy.


Who's lying?  Which country has the track record for lying when it comes to reasons for declaring war on a country that didn't attack it first??


You didn't read my post
I was referring to people I talk to, as I stated.   I don't generally talk to Churchill or Chomsky.  In fact, I don't even pay much attention to them, nor should you.  Just as I don't pay much if any attention to crazy right-wingers.  Just common sense.
You read my post wrong
It is strange that this particular vet has had reported so many incidents with anti-war folks.  The death threat was from a white supremist, by the way.
Once again, you did not read my post before ranting...
and why do you resort to name-calling? Does it make you feel good to call me ignorant? Well, that is a stupid question..of course it does.

Demonstrate to me that you DO really care about the soldiers. Do you think the liberal harping away, cut-and-run attitude, right up to a congressional resolution does not state emphatically to the enemy that we are weak and have lost our will to fight for what we believe in? If you answer no to that question, you better re-think your *ignorant* comment and take a long hard look at yourself.

I did not say in my post anywhere that it was impossible for a Muslim to live in harmony with a Christian...I said when is the last time you saw one carrying a sign that says so, or even one publically saying so? I have heard nothing. I have heard no Muslims calling for peace between Christians and Muslims. Not a murmur. It is they, who by their silence, lead me to believe they have no interest in it.

Well I am glad you did admit that CBS is biased. You are the first one on this board to actually admit it. I will give you points for that one.

MY trash talking? Oh please. I have called no one names here, and you call me names every time I post here.

Yes, it is the liberal board, but as the monitor has posted ad nauseam, we are allowed to post here. This is still a free country, hard as you are trying to change that.

Yes, I did, Teddy....read the whole post.
I said show some that were not responses to baits or barbs thrown at me by piglet primarily. That is exactly what I said. Again, out of context.

As to Teddy/Taiga...I knew you only as Teddy (and a few other monikers by style of posting), and I do lean back toward that moniker when the posts lean in that direction, because under that moniker is when you were more likely to bait, demean, and ridicule. In short, "Teddy" seemed to be more "cranky" more often than does "Taiga."

As to posting as Observer....I don't know about that. No one was posting as Observer when I started posting using that moniker. Which has been quite some time now.

As to when someone does it first, why respond in kind? For a long time I did not. But I guess, like you, after a prolonged period of being baited, demeaned, and ridiculed, I got "cranky" too and responded in kind. So I guess we have that in common. Like I said...I am learning at the feet of the masters.

Some who post here tho, do not appear to be "cranky." Baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing seem to be in their nature (hence the Ann Coulter of the liberal board comment). I don't appreciate Ann Coulter's brand of humor either, by the way. I don't find baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing amusing. By anyone, on any side of any aisle.
Honest? I can't read this post.
Too windy, not enough time. I got as far as hippocracy, not true. Just waiting for our day in court that's all. Quite frankly, their crimes, if given the chance to be brought to light, and hopefully proven, will be far worse than anything Clinton did.

We don't need a hero. Waiting for the savior on the white horse? Doesn't exist. WE are the heroes.
Re-read the post before you pile on....
I was making a point that the child is alive, whether the pregnancy is a planned, wanted pregnancy or a pregnancy that was an accident, unplanned, yada yada. Because a woman who has a planned, wanted pregnancy knows that even in the early stages she is carrying a growing, living, CHILD. Not a blob of tissue. And if a woman chooses to abort a child, isn't it obvious that she doesn't want it? Why on earth would you abort a child if you wanted it? If a woman has chosen abortion, for whatever reason, she does not want to continue the pregnancy...she does not want the child. Is there some reason I am not aware of that a woman would abort a child she wanted?
Read the post again. Nothing said about how I vote..nm
nm