Author: R J Adams

From WTOL11, Toledo:^[1]

“WEST TOLEDO — She can’t walk. She can’t drive. She says she can’t even work. Now her only source of income has been taken away, and she can’t afford to live.

In desperate need of help, this west Toledo woman is turning to Call 11 for Action Problem Solver Mika Highsmith.

Janice Turner relies on wheels to get around. She explains, “I have fibromyalgia. I have a bulging disk.”

She only has one leg. “A guy I’d known for years pushed me out of truck and ran over me because I wouldn’t give him any money,” she says. The tragic incident changed her life forever. She hasn’t worked in the last seven years.

Turner was getting by on social security benefits, which were a little more than 600 dollars a month. But this past November, Turner got a letter saying it was her last check. And the reason? “They said because I wasn’t disabled,” she tells News 11.

Turner says she re-applied immediately, but has yet to get an answer. “I got a letter saying I’d hear something within 100 days. It’s been five months.”

Now this 52-year-old woman who has already lost so much is about to lose everything. “I’m four months behind on rent. My light bill is 400 dollars. They’re about to turn off my phone on the 16.”

Turner adds, “I want my social security. I want my life back — what’s left of it. It’s bad enough to be in pain, but to be in pain and be stressed out like this. I can’t handle it.”

Problem Solver Highsmith spoke with a rep from social security. She said you have to be re-certified every one, three or five years.

When it’s your turn you’ll get a letter in the mail. If you’re denied, you have ten days to file an appeal for payment continuation. After that, you have 60 days to make an appeal without pay.

In this case, the rep says she can’t give specifics due to privacy laws, but says she looking into the situation. “

It poses the question: how many legs do you need to lose before the SSA recognizes you’re disabled? Are they, perhaps, afraid Ms Turner may have grown a new one since she was last ‘certified’?

From KIDK3 in Idaho Falls:^[2]

“This is 45-year-old Susan Mattson. She’s worked for over 27 years at Basic American Foods in Shelly. Susan’s survived two aneurysms and several seizures.
But she may soon loose her home and a farm that’s been in the family for 137 years.

Susan Mattson: “The week of my brain aneurysm I had almost 100 thousand dollars saved and 55 thousand dollars worth of cattle. The cattle are gone and the savings is almost gone.”

Her medical conditions have cost her almost everything she has, not to mention her health.

She’s been turned down for Social Security disability three times now and has filed for a federal judge to hear her appeal. The one-time athlete has never taken advantage of the system. And she has one question.

Susan Mattson: “Why do I continue to be denied government disability? Why? I want someone to tell me why.”

One doctor has sent letters and medical records to the government on her behalf since 2006.

Dr. William Domarad: “I see her for an ongoing neurological condition for which she takes medicines every day.”

Susan also suffers from chronic rheumatoid arthritis and has had hip replacement surgery twice.
Dr. William Domarad: “I believe that she should qualify for disability. I believe that she’s disabled.”

Susan has survived having her right hip replaced twice, a broken back and a many other injuries.

She continues work full-time at the potato processing plant and looks forward to the day when she’ll get an answer to her question.

Social Security Officials would not comment on her case.”

Susan obviously has no chance of receiving disability benefit, after all she still has two legs.

Susan Mattson: “An average day for me is very very painful, depressing and most of all I hate my government.”

Susan, rest assured, the whole world hates your government.

<sup>[1] “Social security says one-legged woman isn’t disabled”, WTOL, April 2nd, 2008.

[2] “One Woman’s Fight”, KIDK3, April 4th, 2008.</sup>

Filed under: SSA broken

There’s a lot of hot air spouted, usually among politicians, about not mixing sport and politics. Much is said of the sportsmen and women losing out to political dog-fighting, particularly over such events as the Olympics.

Frankly, the hypocrisy is hard to stomach.

Can it truly not be argued that the IOC made a political decision when it decided to award the 2008 games to China? Whether or not that decision was made under political pressure will probably never been known for sure, but it’s a fair bet that it was. It’s also odds-on the pressure came from the United States, a country that owes China big, and the one likely to wield most influence over the International Olympic Committee.

Today, China sentenced a young man, Hu Jia, to three and a half years in jail. His charge was “inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system”. Hu Jia was, in fact, guilty of peacefully campaigning “for the environment, religious freedom and for the rights of people with HIV and Aids”.^[1] Two weeks ago, Yang Chunlin, another campaigner, was jailed on similar charges.

Most of us will be aware of the recent inhumane treatment meted out to Tibetans desperately trying to wrest their country from Chinese occupation over the last fifty years. It seems the Chinese dictatorial government has little respect for humanity, either in the East or the West, as it ruthlessly dispenses its malevolent punishments.

It is no longer a question of the separation of sport and politics. Some are suggesting world leaders should boycott the opening ceremony. How weak and spineless can one be? There is only one right course of action to be taken, by competitors and politicians alike. The games should be the subject of a concerted Western boycott.

Like the judgment to wage war in Iraq, the initial flawed decision by the IOC to choose Beijing cannot now be undone. As in Iraq, the only course of action is a withdrawal. It is time for competitors and politicians from around the globe, whose consciences one hopes are troubling them, to say enough is enough.

Leaving China with a massive failure would show that country how their human rights record is really viewed by the world. Individuals should consider carefully the effects of their attendance.

To suggest, as China and many western politicians have done, that politics and sport should not mix, is phony. Today, it would seem the Olympics is all about politics. The sport is only a sideline.

^{[1] ” Jail for Chinese rights activist”, BBC, April 3rd, 2008.}

Filed under: Olympic embarrassment

American news anchors have been virtually purring over the results of a BBC World Service poll that suggests love for the US has increased throughout the rest of the planet.^[1] The poll shows those with a positive view of America have risen by a full 4% – from 31% to 35%.

Looked at another way, 65% of the planet continues to disapprove of this militant ‘superpower’.

It’s that old chestnut again – statistics. You can show ’em in a positive light, or a negative one. It just depends what you want to convey. Of course, American news programs want to broadcast the ‘good’ news angle. And, let’s not forget that latest edition to the US media circus, BBC World America. Thanks mainly to the best efforts of its lead anchor, Matt Frei, BBCWA has managed to rapidly metamorphose into just another NBC or ABC news slot, only with English accents.

Kurt Volker, a “principal deputy assistant secretary of state” at the US state department, said of the poll:

“……people look at the US and the electoral process here and are reminded that this is a major transparent democracy, a vibrant and diverse country, and that reflects really well on the image of the US.

He may not be very big in the state department, but Kurt Volker obviously enjoys a joke.

The true reason for this very slight rise, Mister Volker, is absurdly obvious to anyone not steeped in the process of persuading themselves and their fellow Americans that this nation is a wonderful, benevolent land unfairly misunderstood by outsiders.

The true cause of the four percent increase is due to George W Bush, and his cold-blooded, torturing band of distasteful hangers-on, vacating the stage in a few months, thus engendering the aspiration of replacement by some warm-blooded, mammalian, personages who are not intent on plunging the world into further violent chaos.

One can only hope the four percent are not being overly-optimistic.

^{[1] ” US welcomes just a little more love”, BBC, April 2nd, 2008.}

Filed under: False love