So, I scheduled to begin chemotherapy today. In a rather convoluted manner.
My oncologist applied for assistance, which meant Day 1, Friday was covered. I had to pay /day 2 – next Friday.
Week three was a week off!
And there was the Fourth Friday, which was covered again by insurance.
Then I was fully covered though the end of the year!
Obviously, I’m changing insurance next year for a lower catastrophic deductable!
The fly in the ointment? We’ve nor yet heard back from the assistance!
So were postponed until Tuesday!
It’s always something…
I return to the oncolologoist this after 1500, to see the result of the blood and bone scan. This may determine the poisons they inject me with.
A recent court case in California could have long reaching implications for Second Amendment rights and the way firearms can be sold to the public.
The case, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, has not gotten a lot of attention, but could drastically impact the ability of individuals to sell firearms in private party sales. As it stands, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is a victory for those who wish to limit gun and firearm sales.
In the case, an individual wanted to open a full-service firearms shop; the intended location fell into a zone that required a conditional permit. In this location, a conditional permit is needed to open a gun shop near a school, daycare, residential area, liquor store or other firearms location. In short, the current law makes it very difficult to open a facility at all, since pretty much every location in the county is near one of the outlawed facilities or near a residential neighborhood.
The business owner challenged the ordinance, but was struck down by the court. Both the original decision and the appeal ruled in favor of the county, restricting the shop owners second amendment rights. As the plaintiff and business owner pointed out, restricting their ability to open a shop at all also prevented local citizens from purchasing firearms, potentially impacting their Second Amendment rights as well.
Should the plaintiff wish to appeal, the case could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices would address whether the county’s ordinance and the court ruling were truly constitutional. The argument that prospective customers might not be able to buy firearms is not at the heart of the case; there are other gun shops nearby — the county could be infringing upon the owner’s Constitutional rights.
California’s 9th Circuit is already well-known for supporting laws and rulings that limit the rights of gun owners. In recent years, the court has upheld restrictive concealed carry laws and with this recent case, restricted the rights of business owners as well. Will this be the case that requires the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify what rights individuals have to sell firearms and establish businesses under the Second Amendment?
As more and more locales seek to restrict rights, particularly in Democrat led areas, it may be time for the highest court in the nation to make rulings that clarify the protections the Constitution holds for law abiding citizens.
They’ll just keep battering away at common-sense language until nothing means what it says. Much as the Communists do with rights.
Gee, I wonder if there’s a connection somewhere?
Well, today I get to pick up my ‘films (‘from my last MRI and PET scan) and deliver them to the surgical center miles away, wherein this coming Monday I get to have another MRI (using those as maps) to obtain yet another MRI and lymph node biopsy.
The hope is the diversity of the samples will provide a better sample with which to produce a more precise chemotherapy cocktail with which to treat the lymphoma.
Hopefully, this can be concocted and administered later this week, or early next week.
(Just out of curiosity, why do the doctor’s rely on their patients to be messengers-some of whom are weak and ill?)
While they are in there, they they will also be doing an angiogram – just because they found a tiny problem they want to check.
Things aren’t complicated enough…
This came across my email a couple of days ago.
The point is, does it have some teeth, or it is just BLUSTER?
(from Gun Owners of America, in part)
Don’t Let Ryan Get Away with Any 2A Infringements!
This is becoming painful to watch.
House Speaker Paul Ryan is now asking — begging, really — the Trump administration to unilaterally impose gun control restrictions.
“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix,” Ryan said.
What was he talking about?
The Hill explains:
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday the Trump administration should move quickly to ban a device used in the Las Vegas mass shooting that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.
So Speaker Ryan is urging the ATF to ban bump stocks — even while he has indefinitely pushed back the pro-gun agenda.
But there are two major problems with this.
First, there is no way that Congress — or the administration — will be able to ban or regulate bump stocks without also opening the door to prohibitions on other parts, accessories and magazines.
This is because all of the legislative proposals currently on the table would ban ANY item or device that helps “accelerate the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm.
Using that standard, you can kiss your detachable magazines goodbye!
But the other problem is this: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from imposing ANY infringements upon our gun rights.
If the Trump administration starts supporting infringements — even if they are so-called minor ones — it will weaken their ability and resolve to oppose the next set of infringements that come down the pike.
Help GOA stay on the frontlines. Every dollar you contribute to GOA right now will be automatically doubled, thanks to a very generous GOA Life Member!
Take Action and Put the Heat on Congress!
Please contact Your Representative and communicate the following:
1. Uphold your oath of office. Do not support ANY infringements upon the Second Amendment — including those that would jeopardize detachable magazines.
2. Tell Speaker Paul Ryan to STOP compromising. If legislators want to follow Ryan off a political cliff, they will truly regret it when voters “remember in November.”
We need to let Ryan know that millions of gun owners oppose his compromises, which will endanger our ability to own detachable magazines.
Plus, he needs to know that there will be SERIOUS ramifications at the polls if he and other Republicans do not stand up for our Second Amendment rights.
We are in a political war to preserve our gun rights.
I want to thank you for your help in putting the heat on your legislators.
So please take action, and urge your family and friends to do so, as well.
My apologies – having some issues here at home, I’ve not been as diligent as I have in the past regarding the fall-De-rall as I usually am regarding the silliness on the Hill.
And while I do support and respect Gun Owners of America, sometimes they get over excited in the name of financial support (learning from the NRA?)
So, what do you guys thing? Bluster or real danger?
So, I received two voice mails Wednesday, regarding scheduling the scheduling my next CT/lymph node biopsy. (apparently they didn’t get enough diversity last time.)
Unfortunately my cellular phone took a dump, and I didn’t receive them until Wednesday night!
So I called Thursday morning, early. At length, I was placed in a que, and told they would call me before 1300. If I didn’t hear from them, I was to call them. Subsequently, I wad placed in another que, and the would call me letting me know when they would call back. I was told 45 minutes. The said they would call after 9 minutes. They did eventually call, to advise me they were unable to take my insurance.
I spent most of my chair waiting for a phone to ring, only to be told they were unable to assist me.
Customer service, anyone?
My oncologist won’t return until Tuesday. His assistant was supposed to call me yesterday afternoon.
Guess what happened?
It’s no big deal, just being used to develop the correct chemotherapy medicine for me.
Since Thursday last, I’ve been living on oral medication, in the hope that it will keep my blood count at a correct level. lest I return to the hospital.
Today, I go to the oncologist/hematologist, to hear about his analyses of my bone marrow, blood and numerous blood tests. His analyses will determine what variety and schedule for chemotherapy I should be receiving.
And, of course when this will begin, and when I shall receive my ‘port’. (for the uninatiated, a port is a large IV, installed mid-chest, to accept said medication. They cannot use an arm, as those blood vessels are too weak to handle the poisons they are to give me.)
Better than dying of lymphoma, I suppose.
I will keep you advised, as I can.
Thank you all for your thoughts and prayers. – Guffaw
Supreme Court justices clashed on Tuesday over whether courts should curb the long-standing U.S. political practice of drawing electoral maps to entrench one party in power, with conservative Anthony Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.
The nine justices heard an hour of arguments in the major voting rights case out of Wisconsin involving the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. Their ruling, due by June, could have an impact on U.S. elections for decades by setting standards for when electoral districts are laid out with such extreme partisan aims that they deprive voters of their constitutional rights.
Kennedy, who sometimes sides with the court’s liberal justices in big rulings, did not definitively tip his hand on how he would rule but posed tough questions to Wisconsin’s lawyers that signaled his aversion to electoral districts drawn to give one party a lopsided advantage in elections.
Liberal justices voiced sympathy for the Democratic voters who challenged the Republican-drawn legislative map in Wisconsin as a violation of their constitutional rights. Conservative justices expressed doubt about whether courts should intervene in such highly political disputes, and questioned the challengers’ legal standing to bring the case. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority.
Gerrymandering, a practice that began two centuries ago, involves manipulating boundaries of legislative districts to benefit one party and diminish another.
As previously recounted in these pages, I was recently hospitalized for two separate visits. The first time for kidney and blood ailments; the second for a further analysis of these ailments, resulting in a diagnosis of lymphoma.
As it was the same hospital, the intake both times was similar. Entry through the ER, admittance, followed by a number of uncomfortable days and tests.
During the first day, I was given what I was told was a standard questionnaire. Questions asked and answered. Questions like: Do I wish my Life would end? Do I sometimes with I’d go to sleep and not wake up?
With the additional: Did I bring any weapons or drugs into the hospital? (They do have the standard useless sign prohibiting weapons upon entry.)
As I knew my personal items would be unsecured much of the time, I opted to go unarmed.
During the second admittance, no such questionnaire was offered on day one.
On Day Two, however…
A genial nurse brought the questions to my room. Do I want to kill myself, yatta, yatta, yatta. I could answer these in my sleep.
Then came the weapon and drug questions. No and No.
Then the nurse said, “NOW WE HAVE TO SEARCH YOUR CLOTHES!”
I asked her for her warrant. She said she didn’t have any, just like the airport. I said exactly. She, of course, didn’t understand my point.
After a long, angry standoff, she agreed to have me search my own clothes while she observed. (She obviously had no idea how to do a search.) I could have had two sidearms and kept them hidden from her!
I told her about my previous questionnaire, and no subsequent search. She said those folks would get in serious trouble for not searching me. Apparently, there have been problems with guns (and drugs)!
My search of my own clothes showed nothing.
I oft wondered if she did find weaponry, what was her next move?
And was such a search actionable…
Perhaps I should have posted this yesterday.
Like him or not, the man opened the door to The Sexual Revolution (at least as defined by him) and things continued the same.
Sadly, he supported many rights, but ignored The Second Amendment as a primary Freedom.
Libertine, YES, Libertarian, no.
And, he certainly didn’t support the Woman’s Movement, as least as defined by Steinem and other leftists.
He did spend much of his LIFE in bedwear and robes.
Perhaps there IS a message there. He did pass at 91.
Thank you Hef, for the wonderful jokes, cartoons, The Playboy Advisor, and, or course, the airbrushed nudes (including Marilyn!).
Gahan Wilson was a genius!
RIP, Mr. Hefner!