Author Archives: Peter Sanford Kahrmann

Unknown's avatar

About Peter Sanford Kahrmann

Writer, disability rights advocate, civil rights advocate.

PRAISE FOR IRAQ STUDY GROUP

Posted on by
Reply

Written December 10, 2006

Let Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch of our government rejoice (and do a bit of learning while they’re at it); the 10-member Iraq Study Group has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a bipartisan effort by a group of people with a wide range of political views is possible!

Whether you agree with ISG’s report or not, they are a lesson in democracy. Any American not proud of their effort ought to hang their heads in shame. The last time I saw something like this was the Watergate Committee so many years ago now. Like the ISG, you could not discern the political party of the Watergate Committee member when they worked. Why? Because they were putting the welfare of the country first, which is, in my view, is exactly what the ISG did.

Just ponder the composition of the ISG: James A. Baker III, Lee H. Hamilton, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson; a diverse group to be sure.

When the ISG presented their report to the country, I was moved to tears. Here was a group of Americans who refused to fire rounds at past mistakes. Here was a group of Americans who stayed loyal to a “look forward” attitude. Here was a group of Americans that refused to be pulled off course by some media questions that reeked of one political agenda or another. Here was a group of Americans that put their country first and unanimously agreed on 79 points. If only the Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch would do that, imagine how the country would benefit.

Naturally, after the ISG issued their report, there were predictable responses from political slugs like Rush Limbaugh and the New York Post. Then again, Limbaugh and the New York Post really do have value; they remind us this is a free country and all views have their place. Limbaugh and the New York Post offer views that prove there is no relationship between hate and solution. The ISG, agree with their report or not, remind all Americans that what makes this country great, democracy, is still alive and well.

IT’S VICTORY FOR THE NY CRIME VICTIMS BOARD TOO

Posted on by
Reply

Written December 10, 2006

In the preceding entry there is a newspaper article about my court victory against the NY State Crime Victims Board. In fact, in my view, it was a victory against a CVB policy, not the entire CVB.

The CVB had adopted a misguided policy that said no crime victim would be reimbursed for telephone counseling. This, of course, is an appalling policy. I have known many victims (survivors of rape, gunshot wounds, etc.) that for physical or emotional reasons cannot get out of their homes or have a terribly difficult time retaining the ability to leave their homes. My guess is this policy was advocated by one or two people and the CVB made an honest mistake by adopting it.

Having said all this, the recent court decision in my favor is in fact a victory for the NY State Crime Victims Compensation Board just as it is a victory for all crime victims in my state. It would be brutally unfair to define the CVB by a single policy. The best boards in the world have made mistakes, or adopted a policy they believed was effective and then later changed their course. The NY CVB has done right by me for years and some of their staff have helped me in ways so meaningful the scope of my gratitude is beyond my ability to describe.

It was the policy that was flawed, not the entire CVB.

WIN FOR ALL NY CRIME VICTIMS

Posted on by
Reply

Berne man wins phone therapy suit

Judge: Crime victims panel must pay man’s therapist for rare form of counseling

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Saturday, December 9, 2006

A Berne man who sued the state for cutting off payments for his telephone therapy has won the right to keep getting the treatments reimbursed.
The New York State Crime Victims Compensation Board was “arbitrary and capricious,” in its decision earlier this year to stop payments to William Buse, a New York City therapist who provides counseling over the telephone to Peter Kahrmann, who moved to Berne four years ago.

“We just got the decision in the mail,” Kahrmann lawyer Michael Kaplen said. “He’s going to continue to get the therapy he needs.”

The case filed earlier this year challenged the board’s decision to stop funding the rare therapy. State Supreme Court Justice George B. Ceresia Jr. based his decision partly on the lack of hearings or other public input prior to the board’s decision.

“This is a victory for crime victims and I think it’s a victory for the Crime Victims Board too,” Kahrmann said. He said he hopes to meet with board members now that the case is resolved. “The Crime Victims Board is an honorable group of people, but they probably got some bad guidance.”

The board’s general counsel, John Watson, said it would have to review Ceresia’s decision before determining if it would change procedures at the agency.

Watson said the board gets about a half-dozen lawsuits each year similar to Kahrmann’s and there are currently three outstanding. Kahrmann sued under Article 78 of state law which allows people to go to court and fight decisions by government agencies.

Watson couldn’t immediately say how many people receive telephone therapy that is paid for by the board. Previous board officials have said it wasn’t more than a handful at most.

In 1984, Kahrmann was shot in the head during a mugging in New York City, where he lived at the time. After surgery to save his life, he spent a year cooped up in his apartment until Buse, a clinical social worker, helped him deal with the trauma.

Kahrmann became active in advocating for people with brain injuries and when he moved to Berne, continued with the occasional therapy sessions with Buse by phone.

Rick Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

BRAVO NYC!

Posted on by
Reply

Written December 6, 2006

New York City has made a decision that may very well save lives. It will certainly contribute to the quality of life and maybe even the lengthen the life of its restaurant-going citizens.

Today’s New York Times reports that NYC has adopted “the nation’s first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking, a move that would radically transform the way food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald’s to fashionable bistros to Chinese take-outs.”

Trans fats are directly linked to heart disease. Moreover, NYC will now require fast food chains and others to reveal that calories in the food they serve, a great step in addressing a nationwide obesity epidemic.

But the greed-drenched mind of the National Restaurant Association isn’t happy. The NYT quotes Dan Flesher, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association as saying “This is a misguided attempt at social engineering by a group of physicians who don’t understand the restaurant industry.” How Mr. Flesher and those of his ilk sleep at night is beyond me. What NYC and most people know is trans-fat kills and calories contribute to obesity and obesity kills. NYC has done what all people hope their governments will do, it has sought to make the world a safer place.

How groups like the National Restaurant Association can support a product that kills and causes heartbreak in familes across the nation is something I can’t comprehend. Public officials taking real steps to make the world safer is something I comprehend, welcome and digest quite comfortably, thank you very much.

The Draft, The New York Times and an Editorial Oil Spill

Posted on by
Reply

Written November 21, 2006

Finding a drop of ignorance in a New York Times editorial is not a commonplace occurrence. Finding an editorial oil spill in a New York Times editorial is so staggering an event I want to find some editorial scientists (if there are such a thing) and ask them to confirm the discovery. I say this because there was a major spill in today’s editorial criticizing New York Representative Charles Rangel’s proposal to bring back the draft. I’ll show you exactly where in a moment.

News reports say a primary reason behind Mr. Rangel’s proposal is his accurate assessment that the all-volunteer army, as currently designed, leaves most of the fighting (and dying and suffering) to the underprivileged and their families and friends while the well-heeled and well-connected get a pass. The editorial oil spill in today’s Times is this; “While there are plenty of underprivileged in the current force, at least they are there by their own choosing.” Maybe so. But what the writer does not understand is this. When you are underprivileged in this country (or any country for that matter) you do not have as many choices as the more fortunate. Not even close. It is not uncommon for an underprivileged man or woman to choose the service because there they will get food, clothing, shelter and healthcare.

The New York Times editorial page has a well-earned reputation for extraordinary marksmanship when it come to human rights and equal treatment for all. But again, there is no perfection, not on any editorial page.

Now I don’t know if Mr. Rangel’s call for the draft is, in fact, the best choice. But bless him for having the courage to propose it because there is one thing I do know; something must be done that requires all young men and women to serve their country in a time of war. Perhaps if all had to answer the call, there would be less war. Now that’s not a bad idea at all.