Now, it seems as though the tide has changed. After Daine's abrupt interview with Ali Skinner on WGY out of Albany, just one of many instances where he, the Governor, and local legislators have been put on the hot seat to answer questions about the mandate, it seems the Governor has now suspended the vaccinations.
In the Skinner interview the Commissioner cut the interview right in the middle of Skinner's question regarding Daine's wife's work for Goldman Sachs and the apparent conflict of interest that it might present. Does Daine's have a conflict of interest here? That's all Skinner was trying to ask. I think Daine's should have answered the question and that would have avoided some of this controversy. If you're wondering if Goldman Sach's could have an interest in the mandate -- check out this story Reuter's ran in 2007 that showed that investment firms like Goldman Sachs do have vested interest in pharmacueticals [read here].
Lo-and-behold the Governor now has suspended the vaccinations. All-be-it because he deems it's in short supply and should be given to those who need it most first. That's true and that has been most important from the start for Americans, but has it been that way for the Governor and the Commissioner? As altruistic as the explanation might seem on the part of the Governor, does he think the American public can't read between the lines? Who really benefits from the mandated half-million vaccines for New York State healthcare workers? Yes, vaccines are important, but the line between making money and what's best for an individual is becoming more blurred every day.
Check out Al Roney (weekdays 9 am to noon 810am) and the WGY website to find more information on this interesting ongoing controversy [click here]. Then weigh in. Middle class Americans need to be heard whether it's on the steps of the Capital, calling into a radio show like Al Roney's, writing a letter to your Congressmen, or just writing to your fellow American's on the Internet. Start here by telling me what you think. It's time to start asking the tough questions and if our legislators can't answer them, then let's vote them out and find people who can!
Posts
1 comment:
Sent via email from Jack Shufelt:
The issue goes far deeper than the talking heads and the managers involved. This goes to the core values that people now have in this country. There are few real values remaining, if any, as individual and corporate greed prevails in all walks of life. I have written Jeff Immelt Chairman of GE on two or three occasions regarding the lack of political objectivity on MSNBC and NBC. Hell, his objective is to meet Wall Street expectations and harvest a significant bonus, so why would he concern himself with a little distortion in the news.
We cannot expect the talking heads to modify their approach to reporting, if there is no direction or incentive to change coming from the top of the organization. As a talking head why should I do anything different than what I do today, especially when I get rewarded for bringing in a larger audience, regardless of how I do it. A short meeting in the wood shed for overstepping station ethics (what's that) now and then does not change the culture. Drinking on the railroad was a way of life until the FRA decreed that drugs and booze will no longer be tolerated and enforcement was mandated. How do you get the talking heads to respect values? Well now, thats a difficult question with no easy answer. Who is going to mandate the required changes the CEO, Congress, .........................................? Beats me all to hell.
Look at the car insurance ad's on TV, all of the companies will save you from $183 to $423 (+ or-) a year. The fact that it is a teaser to get people to call for a quote is not relevant, it is not consistent with real values and honesty. Nobody cares or so it seems as these type of ad's have become more and more aggressive and commonplace. Is there any duplicity boundary for offering goods and services, I think not, but if there is, it is getting narrower and narrower. Is there any veracity boundary for presenting the news and opinions, seemingly no.
Look at Congress with a recent 29% approval rating. Have we heard anything from either the House or Senate on steps they are going to take to really look at themselves. Has Congress requested that an independent group compose of distinguished and highly respected individuals review and evaluate what Congress might do to change their image and how they might better represent the people? Does the media clamor for an investigation into why Congress cannot do a better job in representing the people, nope. Who the hell then really cares?
We the people cannot really make a difference, so we are in effect immobilized, until something of considerable consequence takes place that causes those who can make a different, Congress who we elect and CEO's who are appointed by boards of directors, to reexamine their values and objectives.
Post a Comment