Candace's Blog

MEXICO: DWD Retirement Centers -- a solution for multiple problems?

What do the following socio-economic problems have in common?

1. Illegal immigrants from Mexico seeking work in the U.S. and/or escape from drug wars in Mexico

2. The expense of Border Control to U.S. Taxpayers

3. The Baby Boomer bubble of humanity hitting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid at the same time

4. The rapidly escalating cost of Health Care for the elderly

5. The high cost of caring for Alzheimer's and other age-related diseases and other terminal illnesses

6. Death with Dignity options illegal in most states in the U.S. (and the fate of Jack Kevorkian, who tried to change this.)

7. Increasing murders and violence related to the Mexican Drug Cartel

***

Now, imagine that some of the heads of the Mexican Drug Cartels used their wealth and power to start and run some exotic retirement centers in Mexico.  Mexico offers beautiful beaches, palm trees, historical Mayan ruins, a plethora of citizens seeking work, most of these spiritually dedicated and family oriented, many respectful and caring of the elderly.  Mexico also offers a very low cost of living.  

Such centers could also offer to teach Spanish to English speaking U.S. residents.  Leaning a new language is supposed to be great for brain health, and preventing dementia and Alzheimer's.

The problem with most U.S. based retirement centers is that they a) cost a fortune (usually depleting the life-savings of residents, many of whom would prefer to leave some inheritance to their surviving family members); and b) they keep Alzheimer's and very, very old and/or infirm people alive muh longer than nature intended. 

Instead of waging war against their own people, Mexican Drug War Lords could go "main stream" by opening legitimate and affordable retirement centers for U.S. aging residents, who are seeking an affordable, pleasant environment to live out their final years. Such centers could provide a tremendous number of jobs for Mexican residents, many of whom are those attempting to enter the U.S. illegally to find jobs caring for elderly, landscaping, and doing property maintenance. 

In addition to easy access to medical marijuana for the elderly (instead of anti-depressants so common in U.S. retirement centers), such centers could also offer, upon written consent, nurse administered "death with dignity" injections (cocaine or heroin, which could be introduced in small doses over days or weeks) as an alternative to the prolonged, expensive bed-ridden stays which seems to be the only option currently available in the U.S. 

For an extra fee, such centers could offer to ship bodies or ashes of loved ones back to their relatives in the U.S. for burials and/or memorial services.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see if such retirement centers attracted a mass exodus from the U.S. of the current population of Mexican "illegals."   

We all know how well the "War on Drugs" is going, and how much it is costing U.S. Taxpayers.

And everyone is hollaring about the rising cost of health care, along with Obamacare...not to mention the uproar over immigration reform. 

The problem with Jack Kevorkian is that he was trying to change a country that "has lost all common sense." Perhaps one of the wealthy drug Cartel leaders might use his power and wealth, and like the post-prohibition Joe Kennedy, go mainstream.  And possibly offer what could be a great solution for his country and fellow citizens. Not to mention a much needed alternative to those facing the growing expense of growing old in the U.S.

And, considering the job market in the U.S., if such retirement centers caught on in Mexico, the Mexican government might have to build "the fence" to stem the tide of the U.S. unemployed seeking jobs.  And THAT would save U.S. Taxpayers a lot of money!

 

HOMELAND SECURITY OR JOB SECURITY: My Recent Experience at Logan Airport

Since December 2012, I traveled by air to and from California twice, and into the U.S. from the Caribbean once.  Same carry-on luggage each time. 

When I flew to California from Logan in early April, I took the same carry on luggage -- purse inside of a tote bag, and computer inside roll on bag.  Prior to this trip, I noticed some controversial news about the TSA's decision to now allow people to carry knives.  Congress wasn't happy about this, and it was up to debate.  

With this in mind, I was relaxed. I don't do knives and weaponry.  Almost always, I forget about some almost empty bottles of water from my last air flight, and it gets discovered and tossed.  But this time, I was pretty sure that all I had inside my purse and roll on computer bag was the same little collection of hotel body lotions and one hotel sample of Hair Conditioner. 

I like those little lotion bottles because I have very dry skin, and they fit nicely in my purse. (and they are FREE!) But here was one new addition on this trip...a $75 tube of "thermal accelerating creme" that I got to help smooth out some ripples left by some surgery necessitated by a torn muscle. It wouldn't fit in my overstuffed suitcase that I checked in for $25.

A very zealous inspector pulled me aside after the bags went through the x-ray scanner.  I was puzzled...positive that I didn't forget to pull out any water bottles this time.  She pulled on her rubber gloves and rifled through my purse and computer bag, pulling out the little hotel samplers. Also, in my purse was my beloved bottle of Green Tea purfume which I am never without.  It comes in handy to hide the smell of horses after a trip to the barn when I don't have time to shower and change. Which is frequent. 

"Oh, please don't throw away my perfume," I pleaded. "That stuff's expensive."

"You're lucky.  It's within the weight limit, so I'll put it into this zip lock baggie with the rest of these creams. You know, they announced it while you were in line!" she scolded. "All creams have to be inside a zip lock baggie," and she proceeded to stuff it all in a baggie for me."

Then she pulled out the $75 post-surgery cream.  "But this is over the weight limit.  You have a choice of going back to the check in counter and checking it in as a piece of luggage, and then you'll have to ocme through the security linen again.  It costs $25 for an extra piece of luggage. What do you want to do?"

"Throw it away," I sighed. By now, the tube was at least half empty, and probably would have been within the weight limit, if they had a scale. 

"You might consider keeping all these lotions in this baggie for your return trip," she suggested.

Later I thought to myself....if hand creams and such are somehow "suspicious" and possibly hiding explosives, how does putting them in a baggie protect passengers from an explosion?  Maybe I don't understand something about the lotions-in-the-baggie rule. 

After I got to California, I returned one of the lotions to my purse.  Sure enough, my skin got very dry during a day spent visiting a horse farm.  I pulled out my lotion and rubbed it on my hands and face.  But it didn't feel right.  I put my glasses on and realized I had just rubbed some hair conditioner on my skin. It felt kind of sticky and gross.

When I got back to my hotel, I replaced the cream rinse with some body lotion. On the return trip, I just left it in my purse, ready to throw it away at the airport.  I forgot.  But this time, nobody seemed to care about the body lotion in my purse. 

"Those slackers," I chuckled to myself, relieved that I had something for a dry skin attack on the plane. And I wondered why my skin cream was considered more dangerous than a knife. But I'm happy for the TSA workers that they have a job.  And, hopefully, they enjoy good health care benefits, too.  

CHUCK HAGEL vs. JOHN McCAIN: History of US Engagement in Iraq still TBD

Click HERE to see an excellent interview with Hagel done four years ago when his book, "America, Our Next Chapter" was first published.  In it, he shows a tremends depth of knowledge about the issues surrounding our invasion of Iraq, consistent with how things have played out since then.  I was impressed with him then (see my blog entry), and I remain even more impressed with him now.

I have trouble believing John McCain is asserting that the history has already proven that the "surge" in Iraq has proven to be absolutely "right." McCain is now using Hagel's ambivolence about the original decision to invade Iraq (based on faulty intelligence about WMD) as evidence that he is somehow the wrong person for the job of Defense Secretary.  Additionally, McCain has attacked Hagel's concerns about the wisdom of the surge possibly throwing good lives and good money after bad, as I think most people believe that we never should have entered Iraq to begin with.  It was done under false pretenses.  Getting out proved to be VERY DIFFICULT.  IMHO, the surge was done as an effort to withdraw from what, in hindsight, was what Chuck Hagel thought it was to begin wtih -- a bad decision.

Everyone agrees that Hussein was a brutal dicator.  BUT...he was a Suni dictator, always at odds with his Shiite neighbors, especially in Iran.  From a dispassionate view, taking out Saddam Husssein essentially left Shiia-run Iran as the major power in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia is also Shiite, but -- for now -- the secular/business leaders in Saudi Arabia remain allies of the U.S.  Not necessarily true of the religious element which, as with Iran and other "Arab Spring" countries, could take over if the royal family is every toppled from power.

So now, by handing power in Iraq to the Shiites, Iran's control is virtually unchecked by some one like Sadam Hussein.

Hagel is absolutely right to say HISTORY -- not yet written -- will be the judge of the decision to dump Billions into the invasion of Iraq and subsequent "surge" required for us to draw down "with honor."  Without being propped up by U.S. $$ and lives, can the Iraq military indefinitely protect the country against the forces of a) The Taliban; b) Al Qaeda; c) Iran?  

Previously, Iraq and Iran were ruled by opposing factions of Muslim, and held each other in check.  While everyone agrees that Sadam Hussein was a brutal despot (same with Muammar Gaddafi whose elected replacement is still being evaluated by history), by taking down his regime, the U.S. effectively turned the balance of power in the Middle East over to Shiite run Iran.

I applaud Chuck Hagel for his circumspect refusal to provide Congress with a knee jerk apology for his original assessment about the invasion of Iraq.  It has proven to be one of the two longest, very expensive wars in the history of the U.S., with a very dubious and debatable outcome.  In fact, many experts and military leaders believe that the diversion of focus, troops and military spending from Afghanistan into Iraq just undid all that had been accomplished in Afghanistan in the first very active years post 9/11.  I believe McCain must be desperate to justify Congress's approval of the huge expense of the war in Iraq, which Congress approved (although G.W. Bush had already ordered troops deployed even before Congress voted.)  Perhaps that explains why McCain is so dedicated to prove Hagel wrong and/or seek revenge by refusing to approve this fellow Vietnam war hero, and fellow Republican for a position for which he is, arguably, better qualified than anyone else in our useless Congress, the epitome of waste of taxpayer dollars.

Perhaps Congress is trying to "save face." They might say it's too late for Hagel to redeem himself.  Funny, but that's how I feel about Congress. Members of Congress appear to know very little about the issues behind their votes.  Even if they eventually DO admit that Republican Hagel was right to question why we were diverting money and lives from Afghanistan into Iraq, once again, Congress is proving themselves to be more dedicated to party politics than to solving problems. 

 

KUDOs TO THE GOP: Finally, They Tell Grover Norquist to "Take Your Pledge and Shove It"

On last night's news, I heard -- and saw -- Grover Norquist compare the life-long obligation to his "pledge" to marriage vows.  I truly about fell off my chair.  Considering the divorce rate, perhaps I should have been pleased.  But  it was a cheap shot by a desperate man.

EXCERPT From one of many media summaries (right and left leaning): "The Republicans have been victims of Stockholm Syndrome; held captive by the grizzly-chinned anti-tax zealot, Grover Norquist, for so long – and with such seductive dictates – that they’ve lost all sense of their emotional imprisonment to actually embrace the man who’s been their captor.

Until now.

In the current climate of political upheaval, at a time when the GOP has lost their finger-on-the-pulse of the electorate; in an economic era when wiser minds will survive only if they shuck off old thinking, Grover Norquist has become…old thinking.

In a surprise move this past week, Saxby Chambliss, the Republican Senator from Georgia long known as one of the fiercest champions of the Norquist anti-tax pledge and a deep conservative in a red-red state, has stepped forward to signal his break with Norquist."

Kudos to all Republican members of Congress who are finally calling a spade a spade, and a dictator a dictator.  Many are putting their foot down about the extorionary tactics of Grover Norquist, who openly bragged on 60 Minutes [CLICK HERE] that he dictates how elected Republican members of Congress may vote on many issues...or else "suffer the consequences."  He makes no bones that he has the power to  throw elections.

Whether or not one favors higher taxes for the wealthier members of society, I think we all agree the budget must be balanced....sooner rather than later.  But EVERYONE should agree that no official, especially an un-elected official, should dictate how elected officials vote, and to whom they owe their allegience. 

Here's some of what's happening:

"Fewer and fewer Republicans want to be in bed with Grover Norquist and his no-new-taxes pledge these days. The anti-tax evangelist became a punching bag for the right this holiday weekend.

"Grover Norquist is an impediment to good governing," Republican political strategist Matthew Dowd said on the ABC television program "This Week." He added, "The only good thing about Grover Norquist is, he's named after a character from 'Sesame Street.'"

But it wasn't just pundits going after Norquist. With pressure on Republicans to solve the fiscal cliff, members of the GOP have started to break rank."

So far, the list of GOP Congressmen FINALLY calling a spade a spade.  Whatever one might think of the following elected officials politics, I am very, very proud to see them stand up against Norquist!  He is a bad, bad man....an extortionist who, IMHO, has nearly destroyed the Repubican Party.  Once I saw the 60 Minutes interview with Norquist, I made a pledge with myself -- never vote for a Republican who has signed "The Pledge," and consider voting for any Republican who has the guts to stand up to this anti-American criminal, and hopefully ban him from the GOP altogether.

Some recent quotes from GOP members of Congress (CLICK HERE FOR THE SOURCE):

Lindsey Graham, R, S.C. –  On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Graham said, "I agree with Grover, we shouldn't raise rates. But I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can't cap deductions and buy down debt. ... I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform."

Peter King, R, N.Y. – On NBC's "Meet the Press," King said, "A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress. ... For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a declaration of war against Japan. I'm not going to attack Japan today. The world has changed, and the economic situation is different."

Saxby Chambliss, R, Ga. – Chambliss said last week that he doesn't care about being criticized for breaking rank with Norquist. "I care too much about my country — I care a lot more about it than I do about Grover Norquist," Chambliss told Georgia's WMAZ. "Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt, and I just have a fundamental disagreement about that and I'm willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves."

Norquist is just an extortionist criminal in a suit. And the GOP is starting to wake up and put their COUNTRY and their constituents BEFORE Grover Norquist and his unconstitutional pledge backed up by threats. I AM THRILLED to see the GOP members of Congress getting some backbone, and FINALLY having the courage to speak out against this poor excuse for a U.S. citizen.

No matter what any of us thinks about the GOP vs. Democrats vs. Independents....I cannot tell you how relieved i am to hear -- one-by-one -- FINALLY -- the GOP members of Congress having the courage to walk away from this horrific creep, nothing less than a traitor to his country.  Lobbying is one thing, but forcing elected officials to sign a pledge to an unelected dictator is quite another. (The video in this story includes interviews with several Republican members of Congress, saying the same thing -- Congress needs to solve the fiscal problem, not let a single person ruin the country by an anachronistic lack of logic.)

I applaud these courageous GOP Congressmen for standing up to Norquist, and agreeing to work with Democrats to balance the budget -- for the good of the United States of America, although it's taken way too long.  But better late than never. 

Who knows...maybe I'll register as a Republican for the next primary?  There's a lot of great Republicans out there.  They've just been driven away and/or into silence by the likes of Grover Norquist.

 

CHUCK HAGEL, BILL BRADLEY, JOHN HUNTSMAN: some good suggestions for filling openings in the Cabinet

I was listing to Saturday's edition of "On Point" on WBUR this morning.  There was a discussion about who might make a good selection to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and Ben Bernanke, who is expected to step down (or be asked to?) as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

I jumped for joy when I heard the political analyst suggest crossing party lines to fill some of these positions. 

I had always wished Obama had picked Republican Chuck Hagel as his running mate back in 2008.  Could such a move have avoided the incredible split and polarization that has made Congress appear to be hopelessly partisan and completely useless when the country is facing such serious challenges?  

From Wikipedia: "Since his election to the Senate in 1996, Hagel served as deputy whip for the Republican Caucus. He was chair of both the Senate Global Climate Change Observer Group and the Senate Oversight Task Force. He served as co-chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. He also served on the NATO Observer Group. Hagel was a member of four Senate committees: Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Rules and Administration."

I heard Hagel -- one of the only members of Congress to immediately oppose Bush's decision to enter Iraq after 9/11 -- interviewed on NPR when he was stepping down from the Senate.  His independent intelligence, and honest connections with and respect by high ranking members of the military impressed me.  I immediately thought he would be a great running mate for Obama.  Here's some more interesting information on Hagel from Wikipedia:

"On August 18, 2005, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes".^[28]

In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement:  

"To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic."

(This was in reference to the lack of open debate in Congress regarding the Iraq War, and in

defense of his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.)

In January 2006, Hagel took issue with Karl Rove over controversial statements the White House advisor made concerning the mindset of Republicans and Democrats. Hagel said, "Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context." He also said that "dark clouds" are hanging over the Republican party, and "If you look at the environment and the atmospherics politically in this town, read any poll. The sixth year of a governing party usually ... is not good ... the country is tired, a lot of complications in these international issues, we're at war."^[30] Hagel further criticized the Bush administration, saying, "National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try to get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party."^[30]

 

Both Hagel and John Huntsman were suggested as possible replacements for Hillary Clinton.  I think either could prove to be effective and intelligent choices.  Not only would it cross party lines (offering voters the beginnings of a "hybrid" government, a symbol for the need for dialogue, compromise in solving problems, and mutual respect), but each of these individuals have great experience in Inernational Relations. 

Regardidng a replacement for Ben Bernanke, the name of BILL BRADLEY -- one of my all-time favorite politicians -- came up.  I was impressed by his brilliant mind, thoughtful and responsible speaking, dedication to problem solving, his work ethic, and innovative thinking.

Please -- do yourself a favor and CLICK HERE to watch Bradley comment reflect on the need for Campaign Finance Reform.

Bradley has since written a book, "We Can All Do Better," and continues to serve his country as a public speaker and dedicated, altruistic thought leader.  His in-depth knowledge of macro-economics is among his many skills.

In spite of my overwhelming respect for Bradley, I cross registered in the political primary the resulted in G.W. Bush running for the GOP. I did this to vote for John McCain over G.W. Bush who did not impress me.  I knew Bradley had no chance to win in the primary over the incumbant Al Gore.  But he remains in my mind as one of the most impressive individuals in American politics. I have often joked (along the lines of Ayn Rand?), "I think Bill Bradley is just too good and too smart for most American voters."

Finally -- regarding the "Fiscal Cliff," I just received the following data points from an educated source:

 

The following ten items reveal the deadening effects of inequality in our country, and confirm that tax avoidance, rather than a lack of middle-class initiative, is the cause. 

1. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs.   According to both Market watch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds. 

2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.

In a world listing compiled by a reputable research team (which nevertheless prompted double-checking), the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than every measured country in the world except for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark, and Switzerland. 

3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by uber-wealthy Americans.

The Tax Justice Network estimated that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, that's $8 to $12 trillion in U.S. money stashed in far-off hiding places. 

Based on a historical stock market return of 6%, up to $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion. 

4. Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession.

After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, corporations have paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes. 

U.S. corporations have shown a pattern of tax reluctance for more than 50 years, despite building their businesses with American research and infrastructure. They've passed the responsibility on to their workers. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 22 cents. 

5. Just TEN Americans made a total of FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year.

That's enough to pay the salaries of over a million nurses or teachers or emergency responders. 

That's enough, according to 2008 estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN's World Food Program, to feed the 870 million people in the world who are lacking sufficient food. 

For the free-market advocates who say "they've earned it": Point #1 above makes it clear how the wealthy make their money. 

6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit.

Another stat that required a double-check. Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. 

Other sources have estimated that about two-thirds of the annual $850 billion in tax expenditures goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. 

7. The average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 IN NET WORTH.

The Insight Center for Community Economic Developmentreported that median wealth for black and Hispanic women is a little over $100. That's much less than one percent of the median wealth for single white women ($41,500). 

Other studies confirm the racially-charged economic inequality in our country. For every dollar of NON-HOME wealth owned by white families, people of color have only one cent.

8. Elderly and disabled food stamp recipients get $4.30 A DAY FOR FOOD.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has dropped significantly over the past 15 years, serving only about a quarter of the families in poverty, and paying less than $400 per month for a family of three for housing and other necessities. Ninety percent of the available benefits go to the elderly, the disabled, or working households. 

Food stamp recipients get $4.30 a day. 

9. Young adults have lost TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR NET WORTH since 1984.

21- to 35-year-olds: Your median net worth has dropped 68% since 1984. It's now less than $4,000. 

That $4,000 has to pay for student loans that average $27,200. Or, if you're still in school, for $12,700 in credit card debt. 

With an unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds of almost 50%, two out of every five recent college graduates are living with their parents. But your favorite company may be hiring. Apple, which makes a profit of $420,000 per employee, can pay you about $12per hour. 

10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks.

That's about the same amount of money made by America's richest 10% in one year. But we all paid for the bailout. And because of it, we lost the opportunity for jobs, mortgage relief, and educational funding. 

Bonus for the super-rich: A QUADRILLION DOLLARS in securities trading nets ZERO sales tax revenue for the U.S.

The world derivatives market is estimated to be worth over a quadrillion dollars (a thousand trillion). At least $200 trillion of that is in the United States. In 2011 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reported a trading volume of over $1 quadrillion on 3.4 billion annual contracts. 

A quadrillion dollars. A sales tax of ONE-TENTH OF A PENNY on a quadrillion dollars could pay off the deficit. But the total sales tax was ZERO. 

Food for thought as we, the voters, put increasing pressure on our apparently useless members of Congress to take some action to fix what is broken, now that the voters -- not Congress -- have decided who will be president for the next 4 years (with no ability to be re-elected.)  I hope Congress spends more time doing their jobs, and not the jobs of the voters.

YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP IF CONGRESS CONTINUES TO DO NOTHING: My idea on how we can fix Congress AND the economy.

Even Republican economists, such as David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett (Reagan and Bush, Sr.'s economic advisor) maintain that balancing the budget MUST be a mix of increased revenues and spending cuts.  Congress has not done much of anything for the past four years, mostly due to partisan politics, as well as many votes being controlled by SuperPacs and the likes of Grover Norquist, and it doesn't look like much is changing.  Even if Romney had won the election, as conservative economist Stockman says, "the GOP would have splintered."

A quote from an educator's educated blog The Progressive Professor: "Many past Republican leaders are privately shaking their heads, and see an electoral disaster coming, and we are seeing moderate conservative Republican Senators such as Olympia Snowe of Maine, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Richard Lugar of Indiana, all three leaving, with Lugar not by his own choice, bemoaning the turn of events toward unreasonable extremism, and failure to be willing to cross the aisle for support from Democrats."

"Former Senator Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson is another Republican who has condemned present Republican attitudes, and many former George H. W. Bush aides quietly have joined the Reagan former advisers in calling for an end to the extremism of the present Republican Party."

MY SUGGESTION TO FIX THE FISCAL CRISIS: on Nov. 11, 2012, 60 Minutes did a segment on a program in Nevada, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.  The program is sponsored by manufacturers, and involves a crash course on robotics and computerized manufacturing, re-training unemployed workers. 

The results?  The very enthusiastic participants in the re-education program landed jobs immediately.  They were thrilled to be getting $12/hour PLUS benefits...and the possiblity of a career path.

This started me thinking....what if motivated unemployed people, as well as high school and wannabe college students were tested for competancy AND ethics, and qualified individuals were offered a crash course in Macroeconomics, governance and ethics.  They could then replace the existing Congress, working at $12/hour WITH benefits.  And, if they were successful at balancing the budget, they would get an immediate raise....in line with the general population and cost of living.

The savings on Congressional lifetime salaries alone (along with lifetime cadillac benefits) would put a good dent in the burden on the taxpayers.  And really....what have we got to lose?  A group of monkeys couldn't do much worse than our shamefully incompetent Congress. 

We Need a SuperPac for "Death with Dignity"

Several months before the election in MA, a poll suggested 80% approval of the proposed "Death with Dignity" proposition. Even Governor Patrick was heard on a radio talk show that, while he opposed the medical marijuana legalization, he thought the "death with dignity" act was "probably a good idea."

Then, a TV media blitz occurred.  Not a SINGLE AD in favor of "death with dignity."  But there was a deluge of ads with scary music, and a scolding, God-like voice warning the viewers of the dangers of dying at home, without a doctor around, drinking a glass of water (on your own volition) with an overdose of Seconal (sleeping medicine, which DOES require a doctor's prescription.)

I felt like I was listening to someone warn me -- SCOLD me -- that the "SUN MIGHT COME UP TOMORROW IF YOU DON'T VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2."  And I'd say to myself, "and WHAT is so bad about this? WHY would it be so bad to die at home, painlessly, when I feel my time has come? BEFORE bankrupting my family and/or leaving them with the burden of carry for an Alzheimer's parent?  Having to give my home to the State instead of leaving it to my children?  What is so wrong with that????"

On voting day, the numbers were so close, the result -- defeat of the proposition -- wasn't able to be announced until the next day.

Who do you think paid for all those TV ads against the proposition?  Who has that kind of money?  Well...I could guess -- anyone who benefits by keeping the terminally ill and Alzheimer's patients alive:  i.e. those who bankrupt families forcing family homes to be liquidated to pay for nursing homes for Alzheimer's patients, pharmaceuticals, health care facilities, and, sadly, even doctors?

Of course, there is nobody with money to support ads in favor of the proposition.  'Cept maybe the companies that make Seconal.  But then, such pharmaceutical companies make a lot more money out of the recurring revenue from the painkillers and myriad of other drugs designed to stave off Alzheimers, treat cancer, and the anti-depressants overwhelmingly prescribed to those sitting around waiting around -- either lonely or bedridden -- to die of old age.

In MA, the first state to mandate Universal Health Care (a.k.a. "RomneyCare"), the taxpayers and the next generation will shoulder the burden of paying for health care of the growing number of retired, aging Baby Boomers.  For those of us with real estate assets but no income to pay for the rising cost of living, and increasing pressure resulting from losing our driver's licenses, not to mention the cost of owning a car, we might actually appreciate having the "right to choose" our time to go.

Myself...?  I can imagine a TV ad that features a "Secanol Send Off Party." 

I think the opportunity to surround myself with friends and family, and celebrate all I have accomplished in life, and laugh about my lovable eccentricities (not that I have any) -- while I am still alive to laugh and cry with them -- and to hug everyone and say goodbye. 

At the end of this party, everyone could lift their glasses and say a toast to me as I drink a painless, happy glass of Seconal-filled water and watch me drift off to sleep.  This would allow me to plan ahead, and continue to be a responsible citizen and parent.  Plenty of witnesses could be present -- maybe even a family doctor -- to assure officials that it was my choice, and I was not depressed and lonely from the isolation that plagues so many suicides. (Click here to see the 60 Minutes Interview with Dr. Kevorkian, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for standing up for a pain-free "death with Dignity." And talking about how hospitals currently "help" people die AFTER they have milked the cash cow dry.)

Death is part of life, people.  Wake up and rejoice in the opportunity to avoid suffering a terminal illness, or -- worse yet -- avoid saddling your family and society with a brain-dead Alzheimer's victim.

Well, until the next opportunity, I'll be working on some ideas for YouTube Ads [CLICK HERE for a sweet one from Switzerland], perhpas with a Martha Stewart-type showing the joy and fun of a stylish Secanol Send-off Party; of the opportunity to control my death as well as my life; the opportunity to avoid family squabbling and make sure my estate is handled as I want it to be!  And maybe it ISN'T so bad when the sun comes up in the morning?

Feel free to contact me if you'd like to join my "Death with Dignity" SuperPac.  Lord knows, it's certainly a better cause than the $600 Billion+ spent on the recent hate-filled election -- obsessed with issues like the soaring cost of health care, abortion and birth control -- all of which left me feeling a lot more afraid of the insanity of life than the sanity of death with dignity!

SUPERPACS: Use Your Mud-slinging Media Millions to "Bail Out" Hurricane Water and Wind Damage. We Know Who We're Voting for Anyhow.

According to the New York Times [CLICK HERE], Super Pacs and other special interest groups have spent over $200,000,000 on media mud-slinging ads for 2012 political campaigns.  Now that we're down to one week from voting, don't you think these folks could -- and SHOULD -- spend some of this wasted money to help clean up after the Hurricane?

And -- whoever gives the most might actually change some voters' minds.

POST SCRIPT, suggested by Frank Yetter, former VP at Businesswire, now active in non-profit work in S.E. Asia: "I still like Warren Buffett's idea the best: give every sitting member of Congress six months to come up with a solution to national health care (which would provide the same level of support that Congress receives to every American) or declare them all ineligible for re-election.

I'd like to add to their new job descriptions a requirement to find a solution to the Fiscal Cliff looming for January. Then sit back and watch the fur fly inside the Beltway. The political storm would make Sandy seem like a balmy breeze."

 

I Like SCOTT BROWN Better, but I'm Going to Vote for WARREN. Want to know why?

During this election, when he is running against Elizabeth Warren, I have been listening to Scott Brown's political ads.  I was PARTICULARLY impressed with the ad against Insider Trading by members of Congress, in which he concludes, "Politicians should live by the same laws as everyone else." (Click HERE to see this ad.)

When I heard this ad, I was ready to vote for Brown!  Why not? That is something I sincerely believe in, and something he and Warren seem to agree on. "Politicians should live by the same laws as everyone else."  YES! 

I have always admired Scott Brown.  I like that he appears to be an independent thinker, not a party-platform person (as was Bill Weld); he respects women's reproductive rights; he showed a lot of courage writing his book and speaking out about being molested at a summer camp, exposing a pedophile, but without naming names. In doing this, he encouraged others to speak up, which triggered a form of justice.  He has demonstrated a strong sense of confidence as well as a quiet courage.

However, I was heart broken to discover that Scott Brown has signed Grover Norquist's "PLEDGE."  After hearing about it, I couldn't quite believe my ears.  So I did some searching and revisited the 60 Minutes interview both with Norquist (who crows about his ability to throw an election if any GOP members dare to break their pledge to him!) as well as one brave Republican member of Congress, Alan Simpson, who has the courage to speak out against Norquist and his "PLEDGE" (a.k.a. blackmail).  Click HERE to see the 60 MINUTES interview with Norquist, and the outspoken courage of Congressman Simpson to call out Norquist for hijacking the GOP.

Isn't the real issue that our elected members of Congress are supposed to be respresenting their CONSITUTENTS?  Not Grover Norquist, or a small but powerful group of individuals, who use mafia tactics. 

NO elected official should be coerced or threatened by a single individual, or small group of uber-wealthy individuals, into voting and/or making decisions that may or may not impact the future of this country (and the world?) 

If we cannot balance our budget without some (temporary, if necessary) increased taxes for these same uber-weatlhy individuals, many of whom made their wealth on the backs of the questionable profiteering from the sub-prime lending practices, and avoid the drastic cuts in either critical entitlement programs OR the military, we may suffer the same fate as Greece.  

Regarding presidential voting, I am undecided -- teetering between the Democratic incumbant and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

But, until the GOP declares their independence from the strong-arm tactics of Grover Norquist, and makes their #1 priority to FIX WHAT IS BROKEN, and not MAKING [FILL IN A NAME] A ONE TERM PRESIDENT, I cannot support any GOP candidates. 

Last I heard, the voters are supposed to decide who is President of the United States.  And Congress's job is to HELP FIX WHAT IS BROKEN!  Sadly, it is Congress that is broken. However, I doubt that they will fire themselves. 

BUT U.S. Citizens should lobby heavily to have Grover Norquist's pledge made illegal. If necessary, the Attorney General should investigate the legality of this pledge. One must question the legality of this pledge combined with Norquist's threats to throw elections of any GOP Congress person who breaks it. 

Afterall, who are we pledging allegience to when we put our hand over our heart -- Grover Norquist or the United States of America?  Shouldn't we be asking this question of our representatives in Washington?

PS - If Brown was able to rid the GOP of such influences as Norquist, The Koch Brothers, and Karl Rove, I would vote for him to be President of the United States!

I Finally Got Around to Watching the Best Speech of This Election!

I'm not a night person, so I had to look to YouTube to see most of the "big name" speeches from both parties' national conventions.  Each of the candidates' wives certainly knocked it out of the park for their respective husbands.  Nice to see such strong, intelligent women involved, informed, assertive and supporting of their husband's careers as well as their own beliefs about the policies for this country.

But somehow, I never got around to seeing Deval Patrick's, and here I am, a resident of Massachusetts.  My own governor. I heard from a lot of friends from out of state that my own Governor gave a great speech.  

I heard him on the radio today.  96.9 Jim & Margery show have Gov. Patrick on fairly regularly, and he takes in calls from listeners.  I was not a Patrick supporter, but these radio shows, and his courage to take random calls, and thoughtful responses have turned me around.  

So today, his radio performance reminded that I hadn't yet seen his speech at the DNC. I finally just watched it.  I was totally blown away.  What a great speech. If you missed it, too, CLICK HERE to watch and listen.  It's worth it. 

Whatever you think of the candidates, this is just a great speech and a stellar presentation.  Even the negative comments from people who don't like Obama's policies admit that it was a great speech.  

Nice job, Governor Patrick. I am left speechless about your speech. And -- in spite of my grumpiness about the many challenges of living in this state -- with this speech, you gave me a feeling of pride to be living in Massachusetts. 

 

OF NOTE: On a recent Bill Moyers show, factchecker.org's founder, Kathleen Jamieson, declared that Bill Clinton's DNC speech was the most "fact-based." Check it out by clicking HERE.

 

How Did Grover Norquist Kidnap the GOP?

Nobody wants more taxes. But I think we also agree that something needs to be done to balance the budget, and it isn't as simple as cutting Entitlement Programs.  One lay-off, factory closing or corporate cut back can result in disaster and even homelessness for once middleclass, hard-working individuals and their families, should unemployment or Medicaid be cut.  For over 50 years, Social Security has alleviated the pressure on the elderly and their families.  Welfare is a sticky but sometimes necessary wicket, and the exorbitant and rapidly rising cost of health care can mean bankruptcy for many families (especially since Kevorkian's fate continues to deny the terminally ill the right to choose "death with dignity" over bankruptcy.)  

Macro Econmics has become so complex.  The disaster of the international economic collapse, and the impact of ignorant banking practices exposed during GW Bush's presidency, has challenged even the most fiscally conservative professional economists to emphatically state that "the fix" must involve a mix of cut backs with increased taxation, if only of the "very wealthy" -- if only temporarily.  (Click HERE to view an interview with Pres. Reagan's financial policy adviser, Republican economist and author, Bruce Bartlett. Even Harball's host, Chris Matthews, admires Bartlett for his clear grasp of U.S. economic history.)

So how did Grover Norquist manage to kidnap the GOP by forcing all its political members to sign the pledge banning ANY increase in taxes..."Even if  your country goes to hell." (said about Norquist in disgust by Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who also calls Norquist "ludicrous and deceptive.")  I'm just curious.  It does not seem right that our country's Congress is so controlled by one man, Grover Norquist along with the Koch Brothers.  None of these people were elected, but those Republicans who are elected, are forced to sign this "pledge" -- not to the U.S.A. -- but to Grover Norquist.  Click HERE to see a summary from "60 Minutes" of Grover Norquist and his mandatory pledge, required of all those running as a Republican.  I will guarantee you, it is pretty shocking to see this man gloating about his ability to "throw" elections, and admit that he is dedicated to rolling back our country's economy to "the turn of the Century" -- not the recent one, the 1900's.  Back before women had the vote, before unemployment insurance, before Social Security, and before the Great Depression.

If we are going to roll back our economy to pre-1900, perhaps we should start with cutting Congressional salaries and benefits. Perhaps then, congress people such as Orrin Hatch and former Sen. Sharron Angle, will stop referring to those who find themselves suddenly unemployed as "spoiled" or comparing the unemployed to "stray animals." (CLICK HERE -- do these people seem "spoiled" or like "stray animals?" Kudos to Joe Carbone for being part of the solution, and not part of the problem.)

If Only the Koch Brothers were the Koch SISTERS: Catholic, Jewish or UU, Female Leadership Oppose the "War on Women"

If the Koch Brothers were female, perhaps the GOP would be as enthusiastic about providing birth control for all women as they are about cutting taxes and repealing Roe v. Wade.  In fact, I suggest fiscal conservatives push through a bill making Birth Control mandatory as well as free for anyone applying for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, or any of the existing entitlement programs that they are hoping to repeal should Romney get elected. 

I maintain that "the Koch Sisters" would move swiftly to sanction male political candidates, such as Todd Akin, who don't even have a basic understanding of science and reproductive biology, let alone reproductive rights.

It strikes me -- and even some Catholic nuns -- as strange and even cruel that the same politicians who oppose birth control (which helps avoid the contentious issue of abortion, which they also oppose), also oppose all programs the programs that help feed, house and care for unwanted babies and children.  Such programs are rife with problems, fraud and abuse. Stories include foster home scandals, welfare fraud, including reports of welfare recipients having more babies just to collect welfare and/or foster care payments,  and food stamp fraud, including food stamps re-sold and/or used for illegal activities. Again, an obvious first step towards correcting these problems is birth control -- free and even mandatory for all participants in such programs.

Anyone truly dedicated to minimizing taxes should agree that minimizing the number of unwanted pregnancies and births is an obvious first step towards cutting the overhead of such "entitlement programs," originally designed to help those who are attempting to raise children while living in poverty. And anyone who gives lip service to loving children should not wish to see one born into poverty.  Unwanted pregnancies frequently force women to choose between unwanted marriages and poverty. Frequently, such women get both.  And domestic violence often follows. Many mothers stay in such marriages due to financial concerns.

Even if one opposes ObamaCare or the growing expense to the taxpayers of entitlement programs, young couples (some who already have children) are struggling to make ends meet in the current economic crisis. With mortgages difficult to get, rents and food at an all time high, and fuel on the rise, young married women must -- at LEAST -- have the choice of controlling pregnancies with female birth control.

Meanwhile, all women should fight to retain their rights to control their own health and the fate of their bodies. And male politicians should NOT have any say in laws that impact women's health, especially when it comes to reproduction.  Especially if the men include those who are so ignorant of biology as is Akin, and men who are making decisions based solely on their religious beliefs.  After all, freedom of religion is (allegedly) one of the cornerstones of our constitution, and of this country.  Many religions believe in a woman's rights to control pregnancies. Married or unmarried, no woman should be denied access to birth control.  And men should not be involved in making ANY decisions regarding Roe v. Wade. 

Let the women duke it out on that issue. 

Even Catholic Nuns are starting to question the male dominated world of their Church (80% of U.S. Nuns support speaking out) as well as on social issues, especially when it comes to decisions that impact women, including birth control.  Afterall, it was a male Catholic leader who made the decision to opt out of social security when the program was first started. The Catholic Church's once wealthy coffers, which could have helped support aging nuns, have been eroded by the many settlements resulting lawsuits because they knowingly allowed pedophile priests to molest children. 

But many of U.S. nuns are increasingly questioning the contradiction, even the hypocrisy of Church decisions (made by male Church members) regarding birth control and those living in poverty.   Many priests who are guilty of molesting children have been protected by the Church, while those who favor birth control and have been ex-communicated.  Many Catholic nuns are speaking out in favor of ObamaCare, because of their faith-based dedication to their work with the poor.

Click HERE for an excellent summary of all the issues.  "Some Catholic nuns have opposed the bishops by supporting Obama's healthcare reform law and contraceptive mandate. We speak to Sister Simone Campbell, head of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, which was harshly criticized in the Vatican report."

Whether it is within a religious community or among the elected officials of Congress, women need to make the decisions that impact only women.  Women cannot presume, nor should they, that male politicians will watch out for their best interests.  After all, as with the Priest Scandal, our elected officals haven't done such a great job watching out for anyone's interests except their own. 

To paraphrase a retired Congressman, does life really begin at conception and end at birth?  And another quip I read on Facebook, "Not every sperm deserves a name."

IMHO, the Koch Brothers need some female consultants since there aren't (yet) any Koch Sisters.  I suggest Sister (and lawyer) Simone Campbell.

The ObamaCare Ruling: A Good Start, But Tort Reform and Kevorkian's "Death with Dignity" Option Essential

Kudos to the Supreme Court on ObamaCare approval...with reservations.  What are my reservations?

Why not approve Jack Kevorkian's "Death with Dignity" option?  This would return individual rights to those who are suffering with terminal diseases. Many people might choose the right to die option as opposed to prolonged suffering (and costs), rather than allowing health care providers to go to extreme measures to keep them alive, no matter what the cost OR the prolongued suffering. Click HERE to see Kevorkian's machine that allows an individual to choose the right to die painlessly.

Approving Kevorkian's proposed alternative to prolongued suffering might have a dramatic impact on cost containment of health care.  To quote Kevorkian, "this country has lost all common sense." 

Death is part of life. Individuals with terminal diseases who wish to have the option to choose death with dignity and minimal suffering should have the right to make this choice.

The medical industry has increasingly moved from dedicated doctors into big business, run by business people and lawyers, not doctors. Additionally, without tort reform that prevent lawyers and surviving relatives motivated to use litigation as a windfall profit plan, health care providers are arguably forced to go to expensive "extreme measures" for those who might not want it.  This also drives up the cost of health care. Afterall, as Kevorkian said, death IS part of life. I accept that.  We all must accept it.  But Kevorkian believed that suffering could and should be minimized if the individual so chooses.  Why should someone who dreads the very thought of Alzheimer's be forced to be kept alive once diagnosed? Nor should doctors be held liable for litigation by surviving family members. And realistic caps on medical litigation awards should certainly be instituted ASAP. 

Click HERE to see a summary of how ObamaCare will be paid for.  Someone appears to have put a lot of thought into attempted fiscal responsibility.  But if we don't add tort reform and allow for the individual choice of death with dignity as part of cost containment, I predict that this commendable attempt to address the growing heath care crisis will become too expensive. Palin, Gingrich and others might attempt to taint ObamaCare with threats of "death panels" for cost containment. But if Kevorkian's proposal was legalized, it would return to the individual the right to choose one's own fate above any government operated health care mandates.

I don't want Newt Gingrich's religious beliefs deciding my fate any more than he wants a government panel deciding his fate.

 

JPL and Panavision Partner with Alacron and FastVision for New Semiconductor Inspection Camera

The most mind-altering movie I've ever seen is "The Hubble 3-D."  To my knowledge it is only available for viewing (thus far) at the Air & Space Museum in Washington, DC.  Produced by Warner Brothers and NASA, the IMAX movie does indeed "change our view of the universe," as the movie trailer says.  The JPL, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) logo is highly visible on the replacement "guts" to the Hubble Telescope, as the movie viewers join the astronauts in outer space to witness this amazing accomplishment. The results, shown in this movie, are unprecedented views, data and knowledge of the vastness and mystery that surpasses time and space.

From what I understand about JPL, I would not be surprised if their logo is on just about everything the U.S. has launched into space. 

So I was excited to discover that JPL, along with Panavision Imaging had partnered with entrepreneur and small business owner, Dr. Joseph Sgro to produce some game-changing, Machine Vision technology. The initial target will be semiconductor inspection, although it will be valuable for many other applications.  Dr. Sgro is the CEO of Alacron, Inc. and FastVision, LLC.  Sgro's background, unique among machine vision manufacturers, is in advanced mathematics and neurology.

Sgro has been a pioneer in the Machine Vision industry for 25 years. In 1985, he launched a leading Frame Grabber manufacturer, Alacron, Inc. In 2002, he started FastVision, LLC, a revolutionary developer and manufacturer of smart, high speed, digital cameras.

Panavision Imaging is a division of another "movie making" giant entity, Panavision -- whose advanced camera technology is affiliated with many Hollywood productions.

Panavision's Imaging division specializes in sensor technology.  Image sensors are the things that allow cameras to translate images into information that can then trigger responses.  Sensors (along with image gathering cameras) are at the heart of machine vision, now an option on most cars to prevent fender benders.  Image sensors fall into two categories: CMOS and CCD. Until now, the CCD sensors were considered to be newer, faster and better -- and therefore most expensive. (Click HERE to see a comparison of CCD vs. other CMOS sensors.) However, Panavision's Imaging division's Dynamax family of CMOS sensors have demonstrated advantages over both CCD and other CMOS technologies. Their sensor allows ultra-low noise levels (what I might call minimal static in each frame) while operating at high frame rates with wide dynamic range.

The result of the partnership between JPL, Panavision, Alacron and FastVision has been an exceptionally fast camera -- the FC 300 -- and a back side imager.  The back side imager utilizes JPL's patented delta doping process.  To the uninitiated, delta doping sounds a bit like something that gets athletes in trouble. Instead, this technology plays a vital role in the semiconductor industry.  From the "Semiconductor Glossary," delta doping is defined as: "formation of the doped layers which are atomic-layer thick, formed in the course of Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) of multilayer structures such as superlattices."  (If this sounds overly technical to my readers, semiconductor manufacturing is a highly specialized field with its own jargon.)

Enabling semiconductor manufacturers to better inspect their delicate product with microscopic parts has long been a primary goal of the machine vision industry. (Click HERE to read a relevant 2009 article in VSD Magazine.)

The techno-speak is a bit over my head.  But the semiconductor industry, which began around 1960, has grown to over $350 billion in 2010.  And I DO understand the business opportunities in a competitive, $350 billion, worldwide business! Net-net: the FC 300 is an extremely valuable improvement on existing technology for manufacturers in this industry.  It will allow for better, faster and less expensive inspection of semiconductors, enabling much better detection of abnormalities in their atom-thin layers. 

The FC 300 offers options that include back thinned versions with high QE (or "quantum efficiency") in the visible and NIR (or near infrared) range. It can be ruggedized, too.  This is useful, for example, for military use. Historically, frame grabbers were the predominant way to interface cameras to PC's.  When integrated with a high powered frame grabber/coprocessor board, the resulting system capabilities can be expanded by adding processors and memory to the board according to the application's demands.

All this means that the FC 300, along with the patented back side imager, offers an improvement to existing technology in the fields of medicine, military and manufacturing, especially in the demanding production of quality semiconductors. In the field of medicine, the DUV capabilities might be used in early diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's. It may prove useful in outer space exploration. Maybe someday, we'll see Alacron or FastVision's logos in an IMAX movie at the Air & Space Museum? Whether or not their logos make it into outer space or a feature-length movie, it is exciting to know that small businesses can still accomplish great things, earning the respect of and cooperation with such entities as JPL and Panavision.

FCC To Fight Back Against an Irresponsible Supreme Court Who Has Sold our Elections to the Highest Bidders

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court, our alleged "experts" on Consitutional Law, essentially sold elections to Big Business, and the very rich, including the billionaire criminals on Wall Street. These include those responsible for the Economic Meltdown, prompting President G.W. Bush to use taxpayer money to bail out Global and National financial institutions who otherwise would have collapsed, as did Lehman Brothers. 

In their decision regarding "Citizen's United," The Supreme Court opened the flood gates for big money to buy the media when it comes to political elections.  In case there were any doubts about the results of this decision, the dramatic results were certainly illustrated in almost ALL of the GOP Primaries.

I'd like to think Romney would have won these primaries anyhow, as -- IMHO -- he was the best of a sorry lot, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.  But most political analysts noted that Romney's Super Pac "fear ads" trumped and squashed his opponents in most of the swing states.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has brilliantly responded with a proposal requiring the media to post the cost of any political ads, so voters can actually SEE how much their votes cost...how vulnerable the public is to political ads that skew and twist the facts -- sometimes outright lying -- to get the desired candidates elected. It may upset the media.  BUT, as we have seen with the recent scandal over the power and abuse of Rupert Murdock's media empire, since the Supreme Court won't protect the individual voters from being manipulated by the media, perhaps the FCC offers the only solution. 

Here's an excerpt from Amicus Curiae, The blog for Professor Corcos' classes at LSU Law Center:

"FCC Promoting Proposal to Require Local Television Stations to Post Information about Political Advertising on Website

April 12, 2012

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is actively promoting a proposal that would require local television stations to post information about political advertising on an FCC central website. Local television stations are currently required to maintain public files at their offices for inspection by members of the public. The files normally include information about programming, staffing, and spending on political advertisements.

The problem is that few people know about the filing requirement and therefore very few people access the files.

The FCC proposal seeks to provide broader access to the public by requiring the television stations to upload the files to an FCC-operated website. Critics assert that the change would be an unnecessary financial burden for local stations and does not clearly benefit the public.

However, advocates for the proposal claim that the requirement will make it easier to access public information and provides greater transparency about the political advertisements during political campaigns. In addition, the FCC notes that initial uploading of the files will cost less than $1,000 for most television stations and will save television stations money in the long run by avoiding printing and storage costs. The FCC is expected to vote on the proposal at an April 27 meeting and it seems likely that the measure will pass."

**

I sure hope it does pass!  It won't cost the taxpayes a penny.  And I think that the Media can survive making public the cost of political ads, while keeping a separate pay scale for their "cash cow" of commercial ads.  In fact, since the Supreme Court has essentially sold elections to the highest bidder, the Media could play a vital role in keeping the individual voters informed about just how much control the Super Pacs have over our sources of information.  As such, THE MEDIA SHOULD BE PROUD to be part of doing their part to return the United States to being a government of elected officials "of the people, by the people and for the people."

To quote one editorial from the Register-Guard on the shocking rulings by the Supreme Court:

"...both Republican and Democratic political strategists are using super-PACs to circumvent a federal campaign finance system that was intended to limit individual contributions and require full disclosure....Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions paved the way for super PACs. The first, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, overturned a long-standing ban on corporate and union treasury funds being used in politics. The second, SpeechNow.org vs. Federal Election Commission, ruled that limiting donations to political committees was unconstitutional.

Super PACs pose many problems, but none is greater than their potential for magnifying the influence or power of an individual or a group of individuals and thereby diminishing the influence of ordinary Americans."

**

To quote a courageous TV political commentator, Edward R. Murrow, who had the courage to speak out against the horrors perpetrated by the then-powerful Senator Joseph McCarthy, "Good Night and Good Luck."  Let's hope the morning comes soon, along with the luck.  And possibly some elections that cater to informed individuals, and not the negative/twisted/un-truthful/fear-based/hidden agenda media campaigns I see coming from the Super Pacs.

 

 

Lehman Brothers Scandal on 60 Minutes: Brooksley Born tried to warn us. Elizabeth Warren picks up after Eliot Spitzer dropped the ball?

Please click HERE to see a shocking analysis of the collapse of Lehman Brothers by "60 MINUTES", and lack of prosecution of those who knew exactly what they were doing.  The alarmed, loyal and responsible employee of 14 years -- Mathew Lee -- who tried to alert Sr. Management at Lehman Brothers was "terminated."

While I do like Scott Brown, and admire some of his independent actions, his opponent in the upcoming Massachusetts race for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, is running on platform, with a proven history, of knowing what went down on Wall Street and a desire to prosecute those who were responsible.  Hopefully this will happen SOON and will include Lehman's auditors, Ernst & Young, as well as the so-called Federal regulators who were working IN-HOUSE at Lehman Brothers, and were aware of the abuse of the practice called "REPO 105."

From Wikipedia: "Repo 105 was used by investment bank Lehman Brothers three times according to a March 2010 report by the bankruptcy court examiner. The report stated that Lehman's auditors, Ernst & Young, were aware of this questionable classification.^[1] Law firm Linklaters has received unfavorable press treatment in relation to their issuance of an English law opinion which characterised the arrangements as a true sale as opposed to a transfer by Lehman with a charge back in favour of the transferor.^[2]

Examiner’s Report

The report published on March 11, 2010, was titled "Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Chapter 11 Proceedings". The Examiner in this matter was Anton R. Valukas, Chairman of Jenner & Block. The report details the use of both "repo 105" and "repo 108" which are basically identical procedures, the first costing 5% and the second 8% of the assets exchanged. In other words, assets valued at 100 will produce 95 in cash, assets valued at 100 will produce 92 in cash respectively.

After the Examiner’s report was published, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sent letters to chief financial officers of nearly two dozen large financial and insurance companies asking about their firms' use of repurchase agreements, including the number and amount of such agreements that qualify for sales accounting, and detailed analysis of why such transactions can be treated as sales. SEC chairman, Mary Schapiro, indicated that the agency was trying to determine whether other companies used similar techniques as the "repo 105" used by Lehman Brothers.^[3]

[edit] Fraud charges

In response to the report, the auditors said that the transactions were accounted for in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. However, New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo filed charges against Ernst & Young in December 2010, alleging that the firm "substantially assisted... a massive accounting fraud" by approving the accounting treatment.^[4] The Wall Street Journal drew attention to the increasing levels of fees that Ernst & Young had been paid by Lehmans from 2001 to 2008.^[5]"

**

I haven't yet heard of anyone being prosecuted and/or going to jail from these charges.  

Perhaps of interest: It was Sept. 13, 2008, when the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers saw that its shares shed three-quarters of their value, and announced a record $3.9 billion loss and a restructuring plan.

President at the time was George W. Bush.  However, Obama has not fired, or at least INVESTIGATED, Paulson or Geithner, who played suspicious roles in the bailout and possible cover up of Goldman Sachs role in our country's biggest Economic Crisis. Much as I admire Obama, I have wondered if our first black president was given a shot at the Presidency ONLY if he let the scoundrels maintain their positions in the White House.  Hopefully, he -- or someone -- will now get the chance to hold the offending parties accountable.

This is not a partisan issue.  This is an inssue that should concern all citizens and, in my opinion, is a lot more relevant to voters than same sex marriage, birth control, where the president was born, or who is a better Christian.  If we throw people in jail for smoking cannibus, or fine kids and their parents for underage drinking, shouldn't the people who KNEW about what sounds like criminal activities that impacted the global economy and the National Debt be held accountable? 

Of course, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for any such legal actions.  Just as we did for Kenneth Starr and the Lewinsky investigation.  The biggest scandal in that waste of time, IMHO, was that we paid Starr and Co. $70 million to investigate...ummm, a sexual indiscretion (which did not cost the taxpayers any money)? Meanwhile, taxpayer dollars continue to pay for Congress to investigate such things as the abuse of steroids by baseball players? Doesn't Congress have more important things to do than to investigate baseball and blow jobs (as long as taxpayer dollars aren't involved)?  Like maybe investigating some of those involved in contributing to the biggest economic crisis in our country's history? 

OBL's stated goal was to bring down the Western economy.  He was stupid. We appear to be quite capable of doing it ourselves. 

 

 

A Shout Out to Airline Pilots, Police, Soldiers, etc: WHAT ABOUT PREVENTATIVE MENTAL HEALTH CARE -- MANDATORY NEUROFEEDBACK

In this economy and job market, what person in their right mind is going to go to his or her boss and say, "I'm so agitated, I feel like I might go postal!"???

Recent news items have provoked citizens and the media to ask, "Why don't we screen pilots, soldiers, police and hired security guards for mental health?  Why didn't we know in advance that the soldier who gunned down the 16 civilians in Afghanistan had PTSD?  Why didn't we know that the Jet Blue pilot had mental health issues?"

Maybe these guys were very agitated, but didn't want to lose their jobs.  For certain jobs, there is still a stigma attached to seeking help with our mental health.  And most stress is dealt with via medication, which might leave someone too drowsy to do their job.  Other mental health treatments are seen as red flags, used to prevent people from assuming certain jobs.

If anyone remembers Thomas Eagleton, he was forced to step down as the vice presidential candidate in the 1972 Presidential Elections -- solely because he had been treated by a psychiatrist for depression.

Recently, I have witnessed the results of neurofeedback.  CLICK HERE to WATCH THIS VIDEO about neurofeedback.  Most of the "customer testimonials" are from soldiers and military pilots, who have found neurofeedback more than helpful in treating PTSD, ADHD, ADD, anxiety, and anger management. 

While nothing in life is guaranteed, I would strongly recommend that all people in stressful jobs where public safety is at stake, get regular neurofeedback sessions.  Don't wait until something bad happpens. Use it as a preventative measure. 

HOW DOES IT WORK?  Neurofeedback -- or "brain coaching" -- allows the individual to see, and change, how his brain is functioning.  Current software programs provide real-time graphs of one's different brain waves: High Beta, Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta and Gamma. [CLICK HERE.]  If one's brain is not agitated, the waves will fall in a certain order.  If one's brain is agitated, neurofeedback actually provokes and/or encourages the individual to "retrain" his or her brain.  The result is not unlike meditation or Yoga.  However, anyone who is in a stressful job, and is close to snapping, may not have the time, or be able to seek or learn meditation.

Rather than tackling this problem AFTER a crisis has occurred, why not offer -- or insist --on regular neurofeedback sessions for those people who are in high stress jobs?  Unlike medication or talk therapy, benign and passive neurofeedback allows the individual to maintain privacy, and could possibly prevent someone from going postal.   

Click HERE to read or listen to an NPR interview with psychologist Jerome Kagan.  Here is an excerpt: "Kagan also explained how psychology and psychiatry need to incorporate more neuroscience. “Every physician will order an x-ray, a blood and a urine test to make sure that the diagnosis is accurate. Contemporary psychiatry isn’t doing that,” he said."

THE OBAMACARE DEBATE for BLONDES: A 3 minute summary

This was a pretty good, animated explanation [CLICK HERE.]  It points out the similarity of Obamacare to mandatory auto insurance ('cept that poor people still have to pay auto insurance.)

Which is why I purchased my 50 cc scooter -- to avoid paying all the money, from auto insurance to an operator's permit -- only to have the Massachusetts law change two years later.  Now I am required to pay for: liability insurance, operator's permit, town fees for a "vehicle," annual registration fees, and inspection fees.  Had I known when I purchased my scooter, I would have purchased one that can go fast enough to travel on the highways. 

So I understand why people are agitated at the thought of more mandatory fees.  However, I think could accept mandatory health care coverage better than I accept having to pay fees so that I can drive a 50cc one seater scooter around my hometown of Arlington, MA.  But someone's gotta pay for our highways, right? 

BIRTH CONTROL REQUIRED TO TREAT ADOLESCENT ENDOMETRIOSIS: Post Script on Rush Limbaugh's "SLUT" Remarks

I happened across this story regarding a young teenager's struggles with Endometriosis.  [CLICK HERE for the FULL STORY.]  In addition to surgery, birth control pills will be required until which time she wishes to have children.

After her first period at age 13, this young woman began suffering from excruciating abdominal pains. The pain was so severe, she missed a total of 3 months of school, and was forced to drop out of all her scholastic sports.  After $16,000 of out of pocket medical expenses in less than two years, the young woman was finally (correctly) diagnosed with adolescent endometriosis. After undergoing surgery to alleviate the condition, she is now required to remain on hormone pills (i.e. birth control pills) until she wants to have children.  In the meantime, she will continue to suffer some abdominal pain, but not to the poing that she is crippled, sidelined her from life.  

Excerpt from the story:   "Now, Emily takes hormone pills that prevent her from getting her period until she wants to have a baby. To control her pain flare-ups, Emily continues to do physical therapy, and visits the Children’s Hospital pain clinic three times a week. Her regimen also includes Reiki, a technique for stress reduction, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and acupressure. “I think all of this does help, because it relaxes her body, and allows her to better deal with the pain,” her mother says. “But it’s a brutal disease.”

One comment from a reader about this story (presumably a doctor who, understandably, reacted somewhat defensively to another reader's criticism of the many doctors who were unable to diagnose the cause of Emily's problems):

"Please note that one of the doctors suggested birth control pills. And what are birth control pills recommended for? Endometriosis! And now? She takes 'hormone pills' that suppress menstruation. In other words... birth control pills.

The fact is that this poor girl came down with endo at the earliest possible age. It shouldn't be surprising that doctors didn't have this condition at the top of their list.

And this: "And because it falls under the rubric of “women’s troubles” — even worse, teenage-girl troubles — it can take patients and their families years to get the right doctor to pay attention."

**

Apparently -- and fortunately -- this young woman's parents were able to afford the $16 K spent diagnosing the problem.  No readers of this story have, as yet, commented on the possible need for health care coverage for the birth control pills that will be required for years to come.  Perhaps Rush Limbaugh would like to invite her to be a guest on his talk show.  And perhaps he might apologize to her, as well as Sandra Fluke.  And all women who require birth control.  If there is one thing that should be supported by both Republicans and Democrats it is the need to make female birth control available to all those who need and/or want it.  Perhaps the cost can be covered by requiring men to pay for their Viagra out of pocket. Clike HERE for a significant news summary of the Limbaugh/Fluke incident.  I was disappointed that Romney would say only "those are not the words I would have used."  I agree with the remark that Romney's reaction was "not exactly Profiles in Courage."

I do hope more Republicans, along with anyone else who may oppose abortion, have the courage to endorse the need for female birth control to be covered by any and all health care providers.  

Newt Gingrich Blames Obama for....A Remark by Robert DeNiro?

Let me get this straight.  Robert DeNiro, a Hollywood actor, makes a quip at a fund raiser event.  Obama is not present when the quip was made, but Newt Gingrich "blames" Obama?  Hmmm. Newt sounds like a desperate man grasping for straws.

Excerpt from Web site summary: "Cue outrage. On Tuesday, Newt Gingrich spoke at a Shreveport, La.campaign event and said that President Obama -- who was not in attendance when DeNiro made his oh-so-witty crack -- is responsible for the bad joke.

"If people on the left want to talk about talk show hosts, then everybody in the country should hold the president accountable when someone at his event says something that is utterly and terribly unacceptable as what Robert DeNiro said," Gingrich says."

**

I guess Obama is responsible for David Letterman's quip about Joe Biden when the first Lady made an appearance on a recent show. In fact, I think I may have made a quip about Newt Gingrich the other day. I wondered how he was able to have his marriage (with children) annulled.  Perhaps Obama is responsible for my quip, too?  Afterall, Obama was President when I made the quip. Isn't he responsible?

FISCAL CONSERVATIVES SHOULD FAVOR FREE BIRTH CONTROL for WOMEN; Moral conservatives should reconsider that birth control may really be pro-life.

While driving, I happened to hear an interview with a book author about the dramatic increase of per capital health care costs.  A special commission appointed to look at skyrocketing medical costs in Massachusetts alone, has estimated that percapita health care spending in the state will rise from around $10,000 in 2010 to almost $18,000 by 2020! The author cited estimates that 1/3 of health care coverage is due to needless and/or superfluous procedures.

These figures came on the heels of the great debate about birth control coverage for women.  Increasingly disturbed about the growing sentiment against female birth control coverage, along with the increasing sentiment against food stamps, welfare, and other "entitlement programs, I thought about the cost of pregnancy and giving birth. 

Surely the cost of giving birth is a lot more than any birth control? So I did some research.

Turns out the AVERAGE cost of giving birth in the U.S. (in 2009) is about $7,600. (Click HERE for the source.)  In cities, where the population is obviously more dense, the cost is much higher. In 2003, another source reported that U.S. hospitals charged an average of * $15,519 for a c-section. OF NOTE: in 1997, when I first joined Progress Software Corporation -- before the "pre-existing condition clause" enforced by Mass. health insurance policies was ruled illegal -- I personally spoke to a married woman who was pregnant when she switched jobs.  She said she had to pay $15,000 out of pocket when she gave birth. 

So, compared to the cost of birth control, not to mention the rising costs of child care and lack of the ability to guarantee child support for single mothers, this is kind of a no-brainer. 

Isn't it? 

Click HERE to see some intelligent and renowned women comment on trusting men to practice responsible birth control.

WHO DECIDED TO BAIL OUT WALL STREET? Political movie to air March 15th.

I noticed this post on Facebook: CLICK HERE.  During this pre-election period it is good to revisit the history of the controversial bail out Wall Street and related large investment agencies, who made the decision and why.  Also, it is good to revisit who initiated the two decade-long wars, as well as the current administration's role in these wars.  This movie will air on March 15th and will also touch on other key issues. 

Love him or hate him, Obama's election followed that of George Bush, II, an election that was decided by one controversial state election.  That of Florida, governed by Bush's brother.  Food for thought?

NATURAL GAS vs. OIL HEAT: Cautious Warning, Especially if post-Nuclear Japan switches to Gas

Between the rising cost of heating oil and the news reports on a "glut" of natural gas and dramatically lowered prices, I just made an appointment to get an estimate to switch from Oil Heat to Natural Gas. I made an inquiry of friends on Facebook, and got the following warning about Natural Gas. The most important and unpredicted factor is Japan switching to Natural Gas after the recent, post-tsunami Nuclear disaster. (Click HERE for the recent NYT report confirming this!)

"Hi, Candace. Thanks for getting in touch. The big problem with natural gas is that the low pricing you see today is unlikely to last. The glut is exaggerated. The Department of Energy recently announced that proven gas reserves had been overestimated by 66%. At the same time, producers like Cheniere are developing export capabilities to ship to places like Japan, which has sworn off nuke power and turned to natural gas. If a world market develops, we'll be exposed to pricing that is now five times higher than what we see. ($16 per million BTUs in Asia vs. less than $4 in U.S. now). The Oilheat guys don't say much, but they are switching to a much cleaner fuel (ultra low sulfur) that they blend with biodiesel, much of which is repurposed waste cooking oil - true conservation of resources. Oil burners are very flexible. They do just as well with biofuel blends as with heating oil, so there is a path forward with diminishing fossil fuels that natural gas does not have. Oilheat has been cheaper than gas almost every year before fracking began, and the EPA might impose tougher standards on frackers. The price equation could turn very quickly. Does that help?"

***

Many thanks to this thoughtful warning. 

The GOP must embrace Birth Control in order to become a viable party

As a single mother who raised two very young children with no child support (after a 15 year marriage), I am stunned that the GOP is actually protesting Obama's insistence that Health Insurance programs provide birth control for all who want it.  Tax payers don't have to pay the premiums.  Arguably small businesses should not pay the small additional cost.  Possibly the profitable Insurance Industry should be required to absorb the costs (since Viagra is covered, it seems only fair.  I doubt that The Bible says Viagra is "God's Will.")

This editorial was in the New York Times recently [CLICK HERE].

Here is an excerpt from the exceptionally well-witten editorial:

"...a ray of hope: A group of evangelical Christians, led by Richard Cizik of The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, is drafting a broad statement of support for family planning. It emphasizes that family planning reduces abortion and lives lost in childbirth.

“Family planning is morally laudable in Christian terms because of its contribution to family well-being, women’s health, and the prevention of abortion,” the draft says.

Amen! Contraceptives no more cause sex than umbrellas cause rain.

So as we greet the seven-billionth human, let’s try to delay the arrival of the eight billionth. We should all be able to agree on voluntary family planning as a cost-effective strategy to reduce poverty, conflict and environmental damage. If you think family planning is expensive, you haven’t priced babies."

**

All voters should read this editorial....AND perhaps any Catholics opposed to Birth Control should study the history of their Church, and the behavior of trusted Church Leaders as well as reading Angela's Ashes and/or studying the history of Southern Ireland. In certain circumstances, unplanned preganancies condemn the children to horrible fates, their families to poverty, and the society into which they are born a serious price -- if not welfare and food stamps, then the increased overhead for hospitals, police, prisons, social workers, and prisons. Surely Birth Control is the best alternative.

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH's APOLOGY? He should be fired.

Sorry, but Rush has to go.  Since he said an acceptable compensation for "paying" for Birth Control would be watching porn of the college coed having sex, I suggest the authorities might check his on-line activities.  What about all those underage girls who take birth control for extreme menstral pain (CLICK HERE for doctor's report.)  Parents of such girls have to foot the bill for their daughters if insurance doesn't cover it.

I've seen way too many talk show people fired for much less egregious comments than those by Rush Limbaugh.  And there are too many intelligent, less misogynistic people who could and should replace him.  If he was really sorry, he wouldn't have gloated about it for days afterwards.  Why the alleged change of heart?  There is a petition circulating requesting all those who advertise on his show to pull their ad.  Sanctions are needed.  If Limbaugh didn't have a job, he might learn what it is like to not afford the medication needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies (married or otherwise) and/or to prevent other health threatening conditions. Not to mention the costs to the taxpayer in the current economy (and judicial system) for unwanted babies.

Is he sincere with his apology?  If he wants to keep his job, perhaps Limbaugh should be required to care for a few drug addicted babies? Or, at least, pay for their care?  Maybe then he'd get a much needed education about how to a more responsible media spokesperson and citizen.  Just this morning, I saw some (male) college students commenting on the rising price of gas, and how they can barely get by as it is.  I doubt that Limbaugh will make nasty comments about these young men, and the need to put a lid on price-gouging by gas stations.

Ultimately, LImbaugh may have provided the Democrats with better PR than any SuperPac.  He has just drawn attention to the fact that the GOP candidates are opposing making birth control available for those who cannot afford it.

(Click HERE to view excellent documentary on babies of female drug addicts. After viewing, ask yourself if you might prefer subsidizing birth control for drug addicts vs. pay the price for the care of their babies. Note mention of Barbara Harris's program to pay drug addicts to get sterilized.  Ms. Harris herself has adopted many crack babies already, so it's not for lack of love for these unwanted kids.)

Wonder what Husbands Would Say if their Wives used an "Apirin Between Their Knees" as Birth Control

WHAT PERCENTAGE of women using birth control are married or want to be married?  If more than 50% of women using birth control are married, would their husband's prefer that they use an "aspirin between their knees?"  SOMEONE SHOULD REALLY DO A SURVEY OF MARRIED MEN!!!  Why does everyone (including Rush Limbaugh) presume that birth control is only for promiscuous women who are not married? 

I think everyone agrees the highest priority of government (on all levels) should be the economy.  The problem with ANYONE who is anti-birth control, in ANY way, shape or form, they are not realistic about the economy (or about sex). Because unwanted pregnancies drive up the costs for the taxpayer -- whether it be via welfare, food stamps, family counseling, social workers, or -- if we just let unwanted children starve -- you will have higher costs for police, courts and jail. 

Birth control is indeed a realistic and necessary preventative medicine, especially considering the current economy combined with the population explosion.

We all know that any organization and/or government must prioritize their goals.  We, as a country, must put the economy, jobs and balancing the budget first.  Birth control is a critical factor in this equation. So, if Romney is unable to be firmly in favor of a women's right to contraception in all states, that leaves Ron Paul.

But even Ron Paul seems to have some conflicts here, too.  This really isn't about freedom of religion.  (I'm wondering if the "Church" approves of Viagra.  Because insurance covers it.)  I wonder if Ron Paul knows of the mother of 17 children attempting to get DNA testing to determine the father of her latest child?  I might ask the GOP candidates if the best solution to welfare fraud might be to require anyone applying for family welfare use the birth control of their choice. 

If anyone in the GOP wants to unseat Obama, they better work on getting their priorities straight.  And, at the very least, ensure (if not insist) on subsidized birth control for those who cannot afford it.  If morally opposed to it, one might listen to the Pope, who regards it as the lesser of all the "evils." (Click HERE to view an excellent documentary on Crack Babies. Note Barbara Harris's Program paying female drug addicts to opt for sterilzation.  Not saying this is "right," but arguably the lesser of the evils.  Expecting a drug addict to not have unprotected sex, is -- well -- kind of naive.)

A NEW & IMPROVED LARRY SUMMERS? interviewed by EMILY ROONEY on WGBH

I just saw Larry Summers interviewed on WGBH last night.   I have always detested him.  First, for his role as part of the Wall Street elite, knowledgeable of what was happening w/ the derivatives industry and part of the "gang" that silenced Brooksley Born when, in 1993, she attempted to alert Congress to the need to monitor the Derivatives market and the dangers of credit default swaps. 

His behavior towards Born (in front of Congress) was bullying and misogynistic...followed by similar behavior as short-lived president of Harvard. 

BUT...the Larry Summers I saw interviewed last night appeared to be a new and relatively humbled man.  He fell short of admitting to making a huge mistake by opposing regulations of the derivatives industry, probably afraid of prosecution, arguably something that should worry all those who knew about the threat and did nothing. BUT, he appears to be very much in support of Elizabeth Warren.  Because as he now says about Warren (not unlike Brooksley Born), Warren is extremely aware of the need to regulate Wall Street to protect the middle class.   

I'm not taking sides about Warren vs. Brown here.  I admire them both. I'm just pointing out two important things:

1) the fact that it appears that even the most arrogant of our leaders can, in fact, grow and change.  At least Summers appears to be willing to accept that, in hindsight, some of his decisions were just plain WRONG and to endorse those who are correct in their assessment of the fall out of Wall Street's willingness to sacrifice the country's future for short term greed.

2) Meanwhile, it is OUR responsibility, as voters, to educate ourselves about all the issues, and vote accordingly.  Because we have trusted people like Greenspan, Summers, Robert Rubin, and Ben Bernanke (all White House appointees under administrations prior to Obama, who has maintained some of these appointments), as voters we must learn that we must NOT stay ignorant, leaving important decisions up to those who allegedly "know better."  We cannot just trust those running for office to "know what's best" for us, espcially when it is based on irrelevant ideology.

Such as who claims to be the "best Christian," or anyone who puts religious ideology ahead of the pressing needs to address the complexities of the Global Financial crisis....i.e. Luke 20: 25 and Mark 12:17: "render until Ceasar what is Ceasar's."  (But, to quote a comment from a Facebook friend "Just because Caesar asks for it doesn't make it right.")

Below is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Brooksley Born and her attempt to alert Congress and others to the possible pending financial crisis that could result from credit default swaps within the unregulated derivatives industry:

"CFTC regulation was strenuously opposed by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, and by Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.^[5] On May 7, 1998, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt joined Rubin and Greenspan in objecting to the issuance of the CFTC’s concept release. Their response dismissed Born's analysis and focused on the hypothetical possibility that CFTC regulation of swaps and other OTC derivative instruments could create a "legal uncertainty" regarding such financial instruments, hypothetically reducing the value of the instruments. They argued that the imposition of regulatory costs would "stifle financial innovation" and encourage financial capital to transfer its transactions offshore.^[10] The disagreement between Born and the Executive Office's top economic policy advisors has been described not only as a classic Washington turf war,^[8] but also a war of ideologies,^[11] insofar as it is possible to argue that Born's actions were consistent with Keynesian and neoclassical economics while Greenspan, Rubin, Levitt, and Summers consistently espoused neoliberal, and neoconservative policies."

SUPER PACS: Shame on the Supreme Court

I cannot believe the Supreme Court gave their blessing on the role of Super Pacs in purchasing media to support "their" candidates.   I must apologize post-humously to my late mother, who -- back in the 1990's, at age 85 -- pleaded with me to contact my congress person to plea for campaign finance reform.  Second in her political concerns was the National Debt.  I thought she was making much ado about nothihng.  I'm sorry, Mom.  I should have listened to you.  You were prescient.  You were right.

BIRTH CONTROL vs. FOOD STAMPS: Does Anyone Really Think Starving Babies Is Better than Birth Control?

According to headlines, Earth's population hit an all time high on Oct. 31, 2011.

Meanwhile, in the same 24 hour period of news, President Obama was criticized by several GOP candidates and Speaker Boehner for Obama's approving a bill insisting that employees of faith-based employers have access to birth control through their health insurance, should they so desire.  During this same 24 hour period, I also heard many of these same individuals, most notably Newt Gingrich, expressing outrage at the record numbers now enrolled in the government's Food Stamp program during the current administration. 

Viagra remains covered by most health insurance companies.

Meanwhile, I think both the GOP and the Democrats agree that families involved in schemes to crank out babies in order to participate in welfare fraud is a very bad thing, contributing not only to higher taxes but a lot more babies growing up in less than desirable conditions.  Additionally, several GOP candidates are accusing Romney of being a "small food stamp proponent" vs. Obama, who is the "Big food stamp president," due to the record number of both employed and unemployed families requiring food stamps.  I've heard interviews with many of these people who find themselves on food stamps for the first time.  These interviewees (click HERE for NPR story) noted that the cost of "bare necessities" is at an all time high, and jobs that pay enough to make ends meet are scarce. I am presuming that those criticizing Romney would prefer no food stamp program at all?  Still, I am having trouble getting my head around the fact that these individuals are the same ones who don't think birth control should be available to those who want it.

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan said that Obama has just lost the election because the Catholics won't vote for him, now, because the Pope(s) remain opposed to birth control.  An excerpt from the article: "The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures....There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology."

What about food stamps, Ms. Noonan?  Don't we want to reduce the need for food stamps?  Many of those who are employed by Church-run organizations are not Catholic and/or may be women who do not want to have a baby everytime they have sex, whether they are married to their partners or not.  Many of these employees are already making marginal salaries, and the cost of caring for a child (especially if one works) is exorbitant.  As Ms. Noonan points out: "I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines." I'm presuming the dedicated employees of these same organizations may not be highly paid, and might not be able to afford more children, if they can afford children at all.

I also wonder what the exact impact of health care costs would be to Church-run organizations if they made contraception available to employees.  If, as Ms. Noonan says, it is "purely ideological" and the health care costs to the Church negligible (especially when compared to the huge litigation costs that continue to haunt the Church after all the Clergy sex abuse scandals), then why the big fuss? 

For a little background, let's revisit history of Pope's edicts, and later apologies for being "wrong. For instance, several Popes' opposed both Copernicus and Galileo's insistence that the earth is not the center of the Solar System, let alone the Universe. Some scientists were even tried and imprisoned for publishing findings that disagreed with the Church's stated beliefs at the time. 

An excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church's history, including the trial of Galileo among others.^{[51][52] "}

One wonders if someday a Pope will apologize for denying women the right to decide if and when they want to have children, or making a responsible decision that they cannot afford any more children, although they may wish to enjoy conjugal rights with their spouse or life partner.  And maybe this Pope may also admit that men, too, should have a right to decide that they do not wish to risk creating a child every time they are phyiscally intimate with a woman, their wife or perhaps an extra-marital affair, in which a few of our political candidates, Congressmen, and even presidents have been known to indulge. 

Yes, the Pope(s) might argue for abstinence, but many of those practicing birth control are married, and conjugal rights are usually expected -- and even condoned -- by the Catholic Church. Most modern day clergy agree with the marriage counselors that physical intimacy between spouses is good for the marriage, while abstinence frequently hurts a marriage.

**

I think both the GOP and the Democrats agree that the problems w/ the entitlement programs, esp. welfare, is a result of too many poor people....and/or too many people making money off of having too many babies ....i.e. welfare fraud, and/or taking advantage of programs that were created to help those who are unemployed and/or underemployed and starving, to help feed their families.  An obvious quick fix could be that, in order to qualify for welfare, a mother should be required to have an IUD inserted, or the newer "vaginal ring", one that only could be removed by an approved doctor, to prevent more babies until they can afford to support them.  But, hey....that's birth control.  And the Pope and some other faith-based groups don't approve of birth control.  I wonder if it will take 400 years for the Catholic Church to admit that perhaps Pope made a mistake about birth control, like they did after condemning the findings of Copernicus and the trial of Galileo.

Apologies to any faith-based groups who are offended by my opinions. But in this day of global warming, the exploding global economic crisis which is undermining the middle class and increasing the ranks of those living in poverty, birth control makes more sense than Viagra. 

I wonder if, in a few hundred years, the sex-abuse battered Catholic Church, along with many faith-based organizations who currently oppose birth control for religious reasons might acknowledge that birth control is the most logical and humane (dare I say "Christian") alternative to food stamps or poverty.

 

JOBLESS PROHIBITED FROM GETTING JOBS?!!!! Seriously?

I noticed this entry on a blog by former Director-level colleague at Progress Software, Judy Mintz, an experienced Director of Marketing and also a talented writer/author.

http://judymintz.com/2012/01/31/no-job-then-no-job/

It's entitled "NO JOB? NO JOB!"  I had heard about this on NPR already. Here's an excerpt:

"Increasingly, though, jobless workers are facing the ultimate barrier. Some employers are saying if you're out of work, we don't want to hire you."

But I had trouble believing that it actually happened to someone so talented and experienced as Judy. Considering all the anti-discrimination laws regarding hiring practices (handicapped, obese, age, race, gender, religious, gender orientation), and the growing ranks of baby-boomers losing their jobs, and the resulting domino effect on many who are losing their homes, etc., etc. -- I am stunned that, in fact, there is NO LEGAL PROTECTION for the jobless being denied interviews, let alone jobs!  Just because they are unemployed.  No matter HOW experienced and qualified they may be.  

Isn't this a no-brainer?  How about (while they work on cutting back unemployment benefits) our elected officials pass an obvious law to protect those who are unemployed, talented, longing to do what they are experienced and good at doing, and truly seeking employment...not only because they need jobs, but they actually love what they do, and they have years of experience doing it and doing it well! Personally, I KNOW what it feels like.  When you have been blessed with a great career, and you actually know how good it feels to put your talents to work, you are tempted to work, like Lee Iacocca, for bonus only -- just for the joy of "using your skills to make good things happen."

It's one thing to get an interview and not get the job.  But to deny someone an interview just because they were laid off and are currently unemployed?  Such people can't even call Jim Sokolov, because it is not yet considered discriminatory! Much as I hate to say it (because there are too many laws already)...but there otta be a law.  

Wikipedia Stops an Ignorant Congress from Using the Atom Bomb as Weed Killer

Kudos to Wikipedia for stopping an ignorant U.S. Congress from passing a short sighted law about which most knew nothing of the contents or the impact.  Not unlike the flap with Napster and the music industry, someone -- perhaps in Hollywood -- could make a bundle if they tackled the problem as Steve Jobs did: if you can't beat it, join it and make money off of it.  We are clamoring for more jobs (no pun intended), and a clever person could easily create a way to protect Intellectual Property without shutting down sites like Wikipedia and YouTube and/or forcing the sites to close due to overwhelming responsibilities of censorship. More to come. 

A GAP in the GOP? If so, GOD help US.

First we had Cain, Perry, & Bachmann, all of whom struck me at times as sounding illiterate and/or just not presidential material. I was relieved when Gingrich dropped out early on.  I have issues with the gross hypocricy of his past (i.e. which one of his 3 wives is the "one" wife according to his definition of marriage? Not to mention allegations of non-payment of child support); his $1.6 million "connection" with Fannie Mae; but most of all, with his abuse of his power as speaker of the house, closing down the Federal Government -- allegedly because he didn't get the seat he wanted on a trip with Clinton on Air Force One.  Is that the attitude we want in a president?  Should taxpayers suffer because of an individual's egotistical temper tantrum?

I do have a lot of respect for Romney. I think he is grounded in financial reality.  Which, IMHO, is probably the crux of today's civilization.  But, when it comes to financial reality, ETHICS are critical.  I was terribly disappointed to discover that he knowingly approved a smarmy TV ad that deliberately mis-quoted Obama, who was really quoting McCain in the last election.  Only the ad took it out of context.  I thought that was a new low in political advertising.  Otherwise, I have a lot of respect for Romney. I have trouble understanding why his obviously tongue-in-cheek gesture of challenging Gingrich to a "bet" was somehow much more groteque than Gingrich's ties with Fannie Mae, and his 1995 snit over his seating position on Air Force One. 

Huntsman seems to be fairly well spoken and intelligent.  But he doesn't seem to draw any attention from the press.  A former ambassador to China, he must have a more global view of our country's economy than, say, Bachmann, Perry or Cain. But he doesn't seem to have much of a following.  Perhaps it is because he, like Romney, is a member of what many of the religious right call "the Cult?"

I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. He is an admirable Libertarian.  I like his honesty and consistency.  I LOVE much of his hands off thinking! But I'm just not sure how realistic some this thinking is, in this day and age of global economy and global terrorism.    

Meanwhile, there is a 500 pound gorilla being totally ignored in the GOP debates. The bankruptcy of MF Global exposes missing of $2.6 BILLION that was just plain stolen from their investors.  While the GOP debates remain focused on issues such as medicare, social security, and "Obama-care", the criminals that were the primary cause of the REAL global economic crisis remain unpunished and, to an extent, unregulated.  I have not heard anyone from the GOP address the need to identify, punish and provide restitution to those victimized by the sub-prime lending scandal and the resulting credit default swaps of the derivatives industry.  Unless I missed something, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement has been ignored or even dismissed as rabble rowsers by the GOP candidates.  The "kids" may not be well informed.  But the basis for the movement is -- IMHO -- a very legitimate one.  

In 1999, as a registered Democrat in MA, I cross registered to vote in the Republican primary.  Bradley was one of my all time favorite politicians, but I knew he didnt' stand a chance against the incumbant, Gore.  Between the GOP candidates, I much preferred McCain over GW Bush. I'm just pragmatic by nature.  Better to have the best two candidates in the final vote, because one will end up in the White House.  Obviously, there are fundamental differences between the two parties.  But the intelligence of the individual is important. As is the founding fathers' insistence on a separation of Church and State.

Well, speaking of separation of Church and State, I guess I'll just have to leave it up to God to pick the best GOP candidate.  Because, at least at this point in time, the GOP, along with the media, cannot seem to decide on much of anything or anyone. 

Elizabeth Warren vs. Wall Street: Warren has a Point

I was inspired to write this blog post by watching the latest political ads for Elizabeth Warren vs. the ads against Elizabeth Warren for her support of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

Warren's ads explain who she is and why she supports efforts to expose those on Wall Street who took advantage of the sub-prime lending crisis.  Their proposed "credit default swaps" for mortgage debt bundles resulted in the near collapse of large financial institutions, necessitating the huge bank bail outs, requested by President G.W. Bush.

With very few exceptions, the perpetrators of this global financial crime remain unpunished.  And the SEC remains unable to define, regulate or monitor these criminals. I was first introduced to this economic perfect storm by reading the book "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine."  

Wikipedia has a fairly good explanation of the fall out from the sub-prime lending crisis.  Click HERE for one of the many, non-partisan Wikipedia articles summarizing the macro-economics that Elizabeth Warren would like to address. 

Here is an excerpt:

Estimates of impact have continued to climb. During April 2008, International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that global losses for financial institutions would approach $1 trillion.^[272] One year later, the IMF estimated cumulative losses of banks and other financial institutions globally would exceed $4 trillion.^[273]

Francis Fukuyama has argued that the crisis represents the end of Reaganism in the financial sector, which was characterized by lighter regulation, pared-back government, and lower taxes. Significant financial sector regulatory changes are expected as a result of the crisis.^[274]

Fareed Zakaria believes that the crisis may force Americans and their government to live within their means. Further, some of the best minds may be redeployed from financial engineering to more valuable business activities, or to science and technology.^[275]

Roger Altman wrote that "the crash of 2008 has inflicted profound damage on [the U.S.] financial system, its economy, and its standing in the world; the crisis is an important geopolitical setback...the crisis has coincided with historical forces that were already shifting the world's focus away from the United States. Over the medium term, the United States will have to operate from a smaller global platform – while others, especially China, will have a chance to rise faster."^[196]

GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has argued that U.S. trade deficits and budget deficits are unsustainable. America must regain its competitiveness through innovative products, training of production workers, and business leadership. He advocates specific national goals related to energy security or independence, specific technologies, expansion of the manufacturing job base, and net exporter status.^[276] "The world has been reset. Now we must lead an aggressive American renewal to win in the future." Of critical importance, he said, is the need to focus on technology and manufacturing. “Many bought into the idea that America could go from a technology-based, export-oriented powerhouse to a services-led, consumption-based economy — and somehow still expect to prosper,” Jeff said. “That idea was flat wrong.”^[277]

Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2009: "The prosperity of a few years ago, such as it was—profits were terrific, wages not so much—depended on a huge bubble in housing, which replaced an earlier huge bubble in stocks. And since the housing bubble isn’t coming back, the spending that sustained the economy in the pre-crisis years isn’t coming back either."^[278] Niall Ferguson stated that excluding the effect of home equity extraction, the U.S. economy grew at a 1% rate during the Bush years.^[279] Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has argued that this is an economic reset at a lower level, rather than a recession, meaning that no quick recovery to pre-recession levels can be expected.^[280]

The U.S. Federal government's efforts to support the global financial system have resulted in significant new financial commitments, totaling $7 trillion by November, 2008. These commitments can be characterized as investments, loans, and loan guarantees, rather than direct expenditures. In many cases, the government purchased financial assets such as commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities, or other types of asset-backed paper, to enhance liquidity in frozen markets.^[281] As the crisis has progressed, the Fed has expanded the collateral against which it is willing to lend to include higher-risk assets.^[282]

The Economist wrote in May 2009: "Having spent a fortune bailing out their banks, Western governments will have to pay a price in terms of higher taxes to meet the interest on that debt. In the case of countries (like Britain and America) that have trade as well as budget deficits, those higher taxes will be needed to meet the claims of foreign creditors. Given the political implications of such austerity, the temptation will be to default by stealth, by letting their currencies depreciate. Investors are increasingly alive to this danger..."^[283]

The crisis has cast doubt on the legacy of Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System from 1986 to January 2006. Senator Chris Dodd claimed that Greenspan created the "perfect storm".^[284] When asked to comment on the crisis, Greenspan spoke as follows:^[143]

The current credit crisis will come to an end when the overhang of inventories of newly built homes is largely liquidated, and home price deflation comes to an end. That will stabilize the now-uncertain value of the home equity that acts as a buffer for all home mortgages, but most importantly for those held as collateral for residential mortgage-backed securities. Very large losses will, no doubt, be taken as a consequence of the crisis. But after a period of protracted adjustment, the U.S. economy, and the world economy more generally, will be able to get back to business.

***

I'm not saying that Warren has the solution to this incredibly complex problem.  But I agree that we should be more concerned with what and who could have prevented this "perfect storm" of macro-economics and greed.  And what, if anything, we can or should do to correct "the bizarre feeder markets where the sun doesn’t shine, and the SEC doesn’t dare, or bother, to tread: the bond and real estate derivative markets where geeks invent impenetrable securities to profit from the misery of lower- and middle-class Americans who can’t pay their debts. The smart people who understood what was or might be happening were paralyzed by hope and fear; in any case, they weren’t talking."

"The crucial question is this: Who understood the risk inherent in the assumption of ever-rising real estate prices, a risk compounded daily by the creation of those arcane, artificial securities loosely based on piles of doubtful mortgages?" (Amazon.com's summary of Michael Lewis's book "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine.")

INVESTMENT TIP (Shhhh......The Emerging Global Rage Fund offered by Goldman Sachs)

The following was sent to me by a relative.  Do you think it is a humorous parody about the financial group who claims to be doing "God's Work"?:

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)– The following is a letter released today by Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman of banking giant Goldman Sachs:

Dear Investor:

Up until now, Goldman Sachs has been silent on the subject of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street.  That does not mean, however, that it has not been very much on our minds.  As thousands have gathered in Lower Manhattan , passionately expressing their deep discontent with the status quo, we have taken note of these protests.  And we have asked ourselves this question:

How can we make money off them?

The answer is the newly launched Goldman Sachs Global Rage Fund, whose investment objective is to monetize the Occupy Wall Street protests as they spread around the world.  At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain – but there’s plenty of money to be made on the way down.

The Rage Fund will seek out opportunities to invest in products that are poised to benefit from the spreading protests, from police batons and barricades to stun guns and forehead bandages.  Furthermore, as clashes between police and protesters turn ever more violent, we are making significant bets on companies that manufacture replacements for broken windows and overturned cars, as well as the raw materials necessary for the construction and incineration of effigies.

It would be tempting, at a time like this, to say “Let them eat cake.”  But at Goldman, we are actively seeking to corner the market in cake futures.  We project that through our aggressive market manipulation, the price of a piece of cake will quadruple by the end of 2011.

Please contact your Goldman representative for a full prospectus.  As the world descends into a Darwinian free-for-all, the Goldman Sachs Rage Fund is a great way to tell the protesters, “Occupy this.”  We haven’t felt so good about something we’ve sold since our souls.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Blankfein

Chairman, Goldman Sachs

 

PS - YOU KNOW SOMETHING'S STRANGE WHEN BOTH GLEN BECK AND JOHN STEWART AGREE. PARTS 1 AND PARTS 2 OF PBS's ANALYSIS OF GOLDMAN SACHS ARE PRETTY INTERESTING, AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND.  "AN EASY MONEY SCAM"...is an excerpted quote from one GOP Presidential adviser.

PPS - Today Goldman Sachs announced lay-offs.  No matter how smarmy their role in the sub-prime lending/derivatives industry, I'm sorry to hear more people are losing their jobs. 

FAREWELL to STEVE JOBS

I have surprised myself by the undercurrents of emotions with the passing of Steve Jobs.  He certainly lived a lot longer than expected considering the type of cancer he had; and he accomplished enough for several lifetimes.  Yet I am haunted by vivid memories of my first encounter with "the Mac" on a visit to a rural Pennsylvania dairy farmer's home, at night, after the milking was done.

The big country kitchen actually smelled of cow dung....not in a gross way.  Just very "authentic." We bought our first Mac from this unlikely computer distributor -- the first in this rural Pennsylvania area, and I became the "key computer operator" at my husband's small town architecture office. 

I LOVED MY MAC!  It made tedious office work so much fun!!!!  It had a mouse, like a toy or a game!  But when divorce prompted me to leave my horse farm in rural PA, and re-enter the city workplace, I was so embarrassed at how user friendly our little Mac had been, that on my job applications I said I didn't have any computer experience (DOS and IBMs were still the default setting in most offices.)  How strange for me to land my first office job at Lotus Development Corporation, at a time when IBM and Lotus were scrambling to move the industry to OS2 and away from Bill Gates, who had IBM by the short hairs with clunky, ugly, complicated DOS. 

When I first saw OS2 and, later, Windows, I was flabbergasted.  They were all just trying to copy the Mac's GUI -- and were still years away from the ease of use of the first Mac.  That Macintosh OS that was so easy and intuitive, I didn't take it seriously and refused to put it on my resume, afraid that someone might think I actually knew something about computers.  Then I watched as the entire computer industry scrambled to catch up with the GUI of that original Mac that I first saw demonstrated at a rural Pennsylvania dairy farm. 

Then there was a big gap after Jobs was fired. Apple's stock tanked.  1-2-3 for the Mac, always an afterthought, took a back burner, as the desktop application wars threatened Lotus's high rolling days.  Lotus acquired ccMail, while the company continued to promote Lotus Notes.

Only die-hard Apple zealots clung to their religion.  But a few of my computer friends confessed that they were "bi" -- they kept a Mac as well as a PC.  And they whispered that the Mac's were much more stable, faster, easier, bug-free and, as the Web took off, apparently immune to the virus's that started attacking PCs. 

Then there was the Napster scandal.  I remember thinking, "why are the record companies being so stupid?  The cat is out of the bag. They are trying to close the barn doors after the horses have already escaped...and are out frolicking in the pastures." While Napster and the record companies were tied up in years of litigation, and my daughter was dancing to a lot of songs mysteriously coming from the family PC, the iPhone was launched. And then Jobs announced iTunes, with songs easily downloaded for a penny a piece.  I remember thinking, "FINALLY...someone is seeing the OBVIOUS need to change the business model!"  I loved it that you didn't have to buy a whole ALBUM of songs.  And how cool to be able to create your own play lists! 

Shortly after iTunes came on the scene, I noticed my family desktop PC was acting sluggish. I investigated, and noticed an icon on the desktop -- "iTUNES."  I clicked thought to "my songs." And I found over 1,000 songs!   No wonder my teenage daughter was working two jobs. And no wonder the PC was sluggish.

Hmmmm....I wonder....had it had been a Mac, do you think it could have handled all those songs with ease, acting as a part-time juke box, part-time photo album, homework headquarters and family post office?  I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs would say "of course.  But why not upgrade to an iPad?"

TASKRABBIT: Matchmaking Hardworking Entrepreneurs with Needy Homeowners

I just had a significant, seasonal job done by a TaskRabbit. 

TaskRabbit is a new on-line Web service that allows renters and home owners to post small jobs and accept bids from member workers of TaskRabbit (whose pictures are posted, along with rankings from those for whom they have done jobs.) The service is a great way to help hard workers quickly find jobs (and income), and to help home owners, pet owners, and working parents, who might also be financially strapped, find pre-screened, affordable, trust-worthy help to do odd jobs -- from assembling furniture to winterizing a pool, and everything in between.

The bid for my task came in $12 less than the $200 I estimated (more than $100 less than commercial prices), and the job was properly done in record time. An additional surprise for me was that Diane' Sawyer's TV crew showed up to interview my hard-working TaskRabbit and to film him executing my task.   I had noticed Diane was featuring stories on how people are finding work, generating income, and making ends meet in the challenging economy. I will be watching to see if my task -- and my TaskRabbit -- make prime time.

PostScrip - IT DID MAKE PRIME TIME:  CLICK HERE to see Diane's story on TaskRabbit. Very nice piece.  Kudos to TaskRabbit's Director of Marketing, Jamie Viggiano, and her PR team.

 

YOU CAN SHOW YOUR LOVE 365 DAYS OF THE YEAR

This Vietnam Vet's story is worth watching.  After being shot several times, he suffered a stroke that left only animals to understand him.  He eventually started his own zoo on his property in Maine.  His advice to the kids who visit the zoo is fabulous. His love of life is contageous.  Thanks to streaming video, we can all learn from his story.

INSPIRATIONAL NEWS FROM JAPAN: a lesson for the West?

Just heard on the news (excerpted from the news story):

"More than 5,700 safes that washed ashore along the coastline have also been hauled to police stations by volunteers and rescue crews.

Inside the safes officials found about $30million in cash. In one safe alone, there was the equivalent of $1,000,000.

Other contained gold bars, antiques and other valuables.

Japan’s National Police Agency said nearly all the money found in the areas worst hit by the tsunami has been returned to its owners."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027129/Honest-Japanese-return-78million-cash-earthquake-rubble.html#ixzz1VQKaNnxW

What strikes me the most is that this country was hit with a triple whammy -- earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown.  Their factories came to near a standstill, during a Gobal economic crisis.  I find this display of apparent honesty and integrity in the face of such adversity inspirational.

BRILLIANT JUSTICE for the UK RIOTERS - good punishment for Wall Street criminals?

Just heard on BBC news - a UK judge is sentencing those found guilty of destruction in recent riots.  The punishment -- the destroyers will have to work to repair the damages they did, wearing bright orange jump suits so the neighbors will know who they are, and why they are "working."  The rioters will have to face those who they left left homeless, jobless, without their businesses, their cars, or -- in some cases -- their loved ones. This is much better than incarceration, essentially free room and board paid for by the taxpayers.  In my opinion, this is the closest thing to "civilized" justice I've seen in a long time. Meanwhile,here in the litigation-heavy US, any work-program for prisoners is regarded as "cruel and unusual" punishment. Perhaps we should reconsider.  I cannot think of a better punishment for the Wall Street robber barons than working to help those swindled to pay their debts and/or restore their retirement funds.

Kudos to, at least in this case, a fast-acting and creative member of the UK judicial system. (Not always so good, especially when related to those commuting into London on motorcycles and motor scooters.)

I don't yet have any YouTube news footage to validate this judge's ruling, but will post links as I find them.

OBAMA - Is HE the Third Party?

The Republicans don't agree with him. The Democrats think he sold out.  Many ignorant people don't support him. Many educated people don't support him. Some think he is a war-mongering Hawk.  Others think he is a weakling Dove. Some  blame him for what others say he inherited. Others respect his spirit of compromise. Some believe he is trying to fix what is broken.  Others hold him responsible for everything from bad weather to Japan's natural and man made disastors.

Maybe this means we already have an indepent third party in the White House?

From WBUR's On-Point: “Barack Obama is being blamed right, left, and center — by almost everyone for one thing or another — including the credit downgrade, the market crash, a slouching economy, and the miasma of the Washington swamp. Critics and erstwhile admirers grumble among themselves — and, mostly anonymously, to the press. Columnists once ready to cheer Obama’s rise now jeer his timid, professorial leadership; Maureen Dowd ridicules him as the “Withholder in Chief.”"

To quote one of our public officials: "There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics."  As per our founding fathers, while I respect his right to say what he says, I disagree with the President.  I think there IS something wrong with our country.  I hope the country proves ME wrong. 

POST SCRIPT: Prior to his speech at the U.N., Obama was accused of being a Muslim.  After the speech in which he warned against the U.N. recognizing a Palestinian State until said Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, I heard several commentators accuse Obama of being "a Jew." Personally, I think he must be a Buddhist, as the guy somehow manages to keep from totally losing his temper at Congress, at least in public.  He's gotta be practicing some form of meditation.  But I doubt even Donald Trump would claim that the cult of Buddism lies in Obama's questionable heritage.   

 

THE NEED for SPEED to LEGALIZE WEED: Mass. to vote on Medical Marijuana

Massachusetts may soon get the opportunity to vote to legalize medical marijuana.  I strongly support anything to legalize the harvesting, selling (and taxation) of U.S. grown "weed" for the following reasons:

1. Prior to end of prohibition, cannabis -- the legal word -- was considered a medicine.  The word Marijuana didn’t exist.  It was only introduced after prohibition ended.  Possibly as job security for Elliot Ness and his team?
2. Any U.S. growers busted just drives money out of U.S., makes the wealthy Mexican drug cartel king pins even richer, and takes small business opportunities and jobs out of the U.S.
3. It is self regulating.  People who don’t like it, don’t use it.  It is safer than alcohol, unless it is combined with alcohol, which is legal. 
4. The only thing that links pot to confirmed-addictive, dangerous "hard' drugs" is the distribution channel.

Earlier in this blog, I did a piece on the need to legalize weed.  Ifelt that the amount of money going to the Mexican drug cartel, combined with the need for jobs in the U.S. (not to mention the debt crisis) makes it imperative for us to reconsider our "prohibition" on cannabis. 

Recently, I saw an exceptional piece on FRONTLINE.  Called "The Pot Republic," this excellent piece of investigative reporting featured a Mendacino Sheriff who is pioneering a new approach to local citizens who grow marijuana.  Later in this TV spot, a Federal official threatens to "go after" this same Sheriff for his innovative attempts to lay the groundwork for regulated pot growing by US citizens.  Meanwhile, one of the local politicans in California cited an increase from $1 million to $6 million in taxes from medical marijuana...a drop in the bucket should the income from all pot sales be taxed.  

Also featured in "the Pot Republic" was some recent busts in California (including Northern CA) of HUGE crops funded and run by Mexican drug cartel, many of these on U.S. Federal Land.  These guys carry guns and have been known to order visitors out of park land, and engage police and agents in gun fights. 

Because of the money involved, until/unless we legalize and regulate the growing and selling of marijuana, we will continue to invite Cartel-operated activities into the U.S. along with the lawless mayhem that is taking place in parts of Mexico.  Our choice is pretty simple -- provide jobs for U.S. entrepreneurs for the growing and selling the relatively harmless, self-regulating plant of cannabis; regulate it and tax it.  Or we can continue to give pot money (and jobs) to Mexico, while we pay the extraordinarily high price of losing the endless and futile "War On Drugs."

 

QUESTIONABLE USES OF OUR TAX DOLLARS & OUR COURTS

Two lawsuits were mentioned on today's news on WBUR. Both are sacred cows -- causes about which no one wants to appear critical.  But some might argue that neither of these cases belong in our courts.  It is one thing to want to initiate change or honor our loved ones, but another thing to ask for monetary compensation and to tie up the courts and related taxpayer money in litigation.

1. Ond of the families of a 9/11 victim is refusing to settle, asking more damages from United Airlines (above and beyond the million plus dollars offered to all victims of the hijacked plane crashes), also citing Massport and the TSA.  Interviewer Evann Gastaldo writes about the family that It's not about the money, "it’s about holding United and other defendants accountable in a public courtroom."

I believe there is a good story that should be told.  The family wants to further expose something we should already know -- that a lot of individual human beings didn't act aggressively enough to stop the bad men with box cutters who unprecedentedly used our own commercial airplanes as weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to 9/11, the resulting infrastructure was not in place, and racial profiling was grounds for a lawsuit (is it still?). Should the airlines really liable for issues involving citizen surveillance and law enforcement? 

Another interesting point the family wants to make: as a responsible, individual citizen, the victim himself acted assertively, attempting to call officials' attention to two of the Al Qaida participants who were trying to board the plane. He thought their behavior was suspicious, and they were "up to no good." 

I have since seen TV documentaries demonstrating that three Federal Agencies -- NSA, CIA and FBI -- each had advanced warnings about 9/11 and the participants were under surveillance. But the agencies didn't share information. Are they being sued?  As we have seen in Norway -- sometimes bad stuff happens, bad people get away with murder, and hindsight is 20/20.  The families of the 9/11 victims have each been offered over a million dollars. All families have accepted the settlement except this one.  Meanwhile, US airlines are in a shambles and air travel is increasingly unreliable and expensive.  Our economy is in a shambles.  We now have to live with the legacy of 9/11 -- Homeland Security, an expensive, unweildy procedure that air travelers would never have tolerated prior to 9/11. And there remains the resulting war in Afghanistan, at mind-boggling expense to taxpayers.

Neither the taxpayers nor air travelers need to foot the bill for an expensive legal showdown intended to tell a story that really should be a book, a movie, or more tributes, such as this one [CLICK HERE].

Kudos to the brave young man for his attempts to stop the Al Qaida bad guys. Sympathies to his family for their loss.  He was obviously an exceptional and courageous person, not unlike many of those who have given their lives while serving our country in Afghanistan -- an on-going, very expensive response to the innocent civilians murdered on 9/11. 

2. A class action lawsuit claims that MassHealth violated the Massachusetts State Disabilities Act.  The story cites complaints by, among others, a blind person who couldn't read the mail notifying of action required for his insurance to be continued.  My heart goes out to those who live with any disabilities, especially sightlessness. But how does this person go about reading the rest of his mail? 

Another plaintiff contends that "earlier this year, she attempted to contact MassHealth to help understand a certain form. Because the agency failed to provide her with necessary assistance, the suit argues, she missed a deadline to recertify her health insurance. In June, her insurance was suspended."

The suit maintains that Masshealth "...unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.”  I  maintain that, if the plaintiffs want to make this public service better, maybe we can initiate some much needed tort reform, and introduce changes in procedural "remedy at law" to avoid this costly use of our courts, not to mention the costs to Massachusetts taxpayers who foot the bill for Masshealth coverage for those who can't afford insurance.

HOWEVER...this class action also seeks “monetary damages to each individual Plaintiff in an amount that will fairly and adequately compensate each Plaintiff for his or her endurance of great mental, psychological, and emotional pain, suffering, and anguish, shame, mortification, indignity, disgrace, embarrassment, humiliation, anger, discomfort, stigma, demoralization, inconvenience, delay, worry, distress, anxiety, nervousness, depression, powerlessness, and other injuries to his or her feelings and sensibilities and continued suffering of all of the foregoing for an indefinite period of time.”

Hmmm...if this is a defining precedent, perhaps many of us deserve some compensation for similar distress resulting from such agencies as the Federal IRS, state tax revenue collection, credit bureaus, banks, traffic police, family courts (for starters) -- not to mention inappropriate litigation by private individuals -- for the same reasons mentioned in this class action suit...great mental, psychological, and emotional pain, suffering, and anguish, shame, mortification, indignity, disgrace, embarrassment, humiliation, anger, discomfort, stigma, demoralization, inconvenience, delay, worry, distress, anxiety, nervousness, depression, powerlessness, and other injuries to his or her feelings and sensibilities and continued suffering of all of the foregoing for an indefinite period of time.” 

Inconvenience, delay and worry?  Seriously?  Anyone been audited lately?  Anyone been blind-sided by massive government fines?  Or "criminal charges" and mandatory cout time, called for by the new MA law for drivers of low speed scooters?

OBESE KIDS to be TAKEN FROM PARENTS? What's Next -- a Parent Tax?

Some doctors thinks parents should lose custody of their obese children, and "Government" should take care of them?  What's this about?  Since I managed to be blessed with an idyllic childhood (i.e. avoiding obesity), all I can do is refer my readers to www.formerquartertonman.com. The author is a Boston-based stand up comic and published author. I have had the privilege of hearing some of his memoirs from his childhood.  His mother, a single parent, was a stable and loving heroine in an otherwise challenging, confusing and sometimes violent urban world.  I'll have to ask him, but I cannot imagine that he would have been in favor of being removed from his mother's custody.  However, another question might be -- DO THE TAX PAYERS NEED TO PAY FOR CUSTODY COURT BATTLES AND FOSTER CARE FOR CHUBBY CHILDREN????  Seriously, does Big Brother really need to intervene?  Should chubby children really go to government-funded foster homes where they may be "abused" in other ways...all at the expense of the taxpayer?  If the Government feels the need to meddle, why not just give the parents of obese children some RFID food stamps that restrict what foods are available.  This might be a lot cheaper to the taxpayers than footing the bill for foster parents -- and, later, for these orphaned kids to get psychological counseling from the resulting trauma. 

CONGRESSIONAL REFORM ACT of 2011: Congress should live by the same rules as their constituents

I just got this in my email.  Makes sense to me.  Not about partisan politics. Just about Congress living by the same laws as those who elected them to "serve."

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system  immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.  Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves..

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

BULGER vs. KEVOKIAN

It will be interesting to see how much time Bulger gets in jail for having tortured and murdered many people, especially when compared to Jack Kevokian's sentence.  Kevorkian sacrificed his career and, late in life, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for having painlessly assisted in the deaths, sometimes called "murders," of those suffering from terminal illnesses, many facing prolongued pain and wishing to end their lives painlessly.

In 2005, Kevorkian was denied parole by a board on the count of 7–2 recommending not to give parole. Nearly 80, he was finally released on parole on June 1, 2007, on condition he would not offer suicide advice to any other person.

Now we're looking at Mobster Whitey Bulger who is about the same age as Kevorkian was, after 8 years, he was released from prison on parole. Bulger, too, may be facing some jail time, also for "murder" according to the laws of our land.  If Bulger gets life in prison for his alleged 19 murders and many other threatening actions -- most of them involving fear, torture and revenge -- how much longer will he spend in prison than what Kevorkian got for helping people end their lives, painlessly and by their own free will? 

Perhaps Bulger will get released after 8 years, on an agreement that he won't murder, torture or intimidate anyone. 

CYBER-BULLIES in the BAR? (Lawyers on CraigsList, that is)

I recently noticed a huge spike in reading of my blog.  Upon investigation, I discovered the following post on ALL CraigsList Legal Forums, nationwide!!! Wow!

"I stumbled across this a few days back. < futuresot > 06/18 14:43:04
Im not sure if any of you have seen it, so I'll post it anyways. Sorry if it's a re-post.

http://cclemens.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/craigslist-lawyers-cyber-bullies-or-helpful-hints.html

 

In addition to many new readers, this resulted in two comments on my blog entry about my entry, linked above "CraigsList Lawyers: Cyber-bullies or Helpful Hints":

Laura L. said:

With a subtitle like "Creative Communications Commentary", I would assume that your blog deals with communications issues. As such, you ought to understand a very basic rule of online forums: read before you post. A casual perusal of the CL legal forum makes it very, very clear that the primary function of the forum is entertainment, usually at the expense of thin-skinned posters. Don't call Car Talk if you don't want to hear jokes about your car, your city, your wife, etc. And don't post in the CL legal forum if you can't take a little abuse. Seriously... "cyber bullies?" I'm not at all surprised you got dumped on.

and

Joe Bleaux said:

When you access the Legal forum on Craigslist, the very first page has a large disclaimer, which reads: "DISCLAIMER - craigslist is not responsible for, and you may not rely upon, the accuracy of any information or advice posted here - this forum is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only - you should consult with an attorney prior to acting on any information found here." What part of "entertainment purposes only" don't you understand? And unless you've only been accessing a forum of any kind on Craigslist or elsewhere for 5 minutes, you should already understand that when you post, you're going to receive a mix of good information, bad information, and abuse. The fact that you're actually surprised at receiving negative feedback is frankly amusing. I agree with the poster above.."cyber bullies?". How old are you, 12?

**

I responded as follows:

"Candace Clemens said:

Hardly "dumped on." As per my response to Joe Bleaux: "no, I have never heard Car Talk maliciously expose anyone's identity. Howard Stern, maybe. I'm fine with what CL is and provides. I just thought it darkly humorous that someone felt it obligatory to expose my identity to the forum, rather than dropping me a note telling me that I was exposed. Now THAT might have been a lawyer I would have hired."

Kind of like the answer to "why does a dog lick its private parts..." -- is the default setting to act irresponsibly and potentially abusive to "innocent" individuals who seek help from the Legal Forum? I only ask a question....I do not make a statement. If this kind of behavior is entertainment to the participating lawyers, then I am happy to have provided entertainment."

**

Remember...I was only asking a question, not making a statement. 

What originally troubled me the most was the underlying ethics.  AND Lawyer Beek's illogical conclusion that a) because I ride and train horses, I must be rich; and b) because I am rich, I therefore am obligated to pay top dollar for legal advice, on all matters, large and small.  Having scored fairly well on the LSAT's myself, and being a lover of logic, Lawyer Beek's faulty logic still troubles me.  While I agree that the distribution of wealth is increasingly problematic in today's society, I am not sure this "Robin Hood" conclusion is copacetic with capitalism or free enterprise.  (I doubt that the members of the legal forum would like to see all lawyers forced to price their services on a sliding scale to match their clients, or to be obligated by law to offer a certain percentage of their time as pro bono). 

  

The CraigsList Legal Forum is obviously a form of social networking and entertainment, apparently for lawyers.  I had no problem with having had my identity exposed to the group, and having my physical appearance mocked and taunted, especially since it resulted in more blog readers. But this entire incident does raise a question to me about our society in general, but particularly the group of professionals whose role is supposed to be part of a system that protects citizens from wrong doing. 

The question of ethics -- specifically within this group of professionals -- and that a large group of professionals finds it "entertaining" to publicly humiliate anyone who unknowingly enters their domain.  Again...happy I could provide some entertainment to this esteemed group.  I do NOT feel "dumped on." It was harmless fun at my expense and/or my advantage. 

But for someone else, it could have been MORTifying.  Which was the question I posited in my blog.  A thin-skinned person (or someone pretending to be thin skinned) might have reacted in such a way that a good lawyer could claim damages from Cyber-Bullying.  Which, as our legal system has already established, is illegal. And such a suit could impact the freedom and advantages of CraigsList. IMHO, that would be really bad. 

But for someone strictly litigious, the ends justifies the means, and such people don't care about the Big Picture.  Just short term, selfish gains.  No worries here. I'm just asking questions. It was harmless but thought provoking.  And apparently I struck a nerve...enough to provoke someone to re-post my blog entry nationwide.  

The Need to Legalize Weed

An obvious step towards reducing the drug-related murders in Mexico and, in the process, fixing our own economy -- is legalizing the growing of pot in the U.S., and then significantly taxing the sales. 

Whenever there is a bust of a U.S.-based grower, all this does is re-funnel the same money into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel, money that would otherwise remain in the U.S.

Pot is a self-regulating drug.  Those for whom cannibus acts as an herbal tranquilizer use it.  Others do not do well with pot, and choose not to use it.  I wonder if prisons should consider growing cannibus on the grounds, inmates could do the growing, and the prison could then offer the harvested crop to inmates at no cost to the taxpayers.  Pot heads tend to be non-violent.  Some argue that pot causes users to lack motivation and/or memory, but perhaps the use of cannibus by prison inmates could possibly reduce violence in prison.

I ask my readers -- what harms the U.S. society more: Pot? or unregulated Wall Street mavins, managers of the fuzzy world of hedge funds and the derivatives industry? 

Those who knowingly profited hugely from the sub-prime lending debt being bundled into derivatives and other funds have gone completely unpunished.  Many "good citizens" lost their life savings and retirement funds as a result of the unregulated and mostly unpunished abusers of Wall Street infrastructure.  Yet, someone growing pot in the U.S. -- an industry that could be taxed and alleviate some of the burden on the taxpyers -- is treated as a criminal, usually resulting in incarceration, also at great cost to the taxpayer.

The war on the Mexican drug cartel is costing us all big money.  Why not fight fire with fire...and alleviate some of the burden on the U.S. tax payer?

LATE BREAKING NEWS: Just heard tonight (6/17) on TV news: The federal budget for the "War on Drugs" has ballooned from $151 million in 1971, to more than $15 billion.  At the least, legalize and regulate the growing of marijuana. The same new story reported that the number of people jailed for drug violations has also grown exponentially.  Again...all at the taxpayers' expense. Granted, some of these are dangerous and violent individuals who are dealing in arms as well as addictive substances.  But have we not enabled some of these dangerous people to gain power and wealth due to our short-sighted drug policies?

An extreme concept that might sound shocking -- what if the government made hard drugs available for free, and let those who are stupid enough to get hooked can self-destruct.  Just take away their drivers' licenses.  It sounds pretty harsh.  But really....not unlike cigarettes and alcohol, those who play with fire know they might get burned.  Why should we waste so much of the taxpayer dollars in fighting a war that cannot be won; a war that each individual really needs to fight for himself.  I believe it's called self-discipline.

At the very least, approach the "War Against Drugs" with economic common sense.  Keep the money in the U.S. and allow more jobs through the benign industry of medical marijuana.

CLICK HERE for LATE BREAKING NEWS about this.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian vs. Universal Health Care: Pacino plays the Good Doctor in “You Don't Know Jack"

Dr. Jack Kevorkian died on June 3 of this year.  He was 83 and died of natural causes, having spent 8 of his years in jail for empowering people to take control of their desired fate, allowing a  pain-free alternative to those who choose to by-pass the health care system.  It's not for everyone, but should it really be a crime?  I am inspired to comment on his passing primarily because of the socio-economic and political context of his death.

Only recently did I hear that -- when the Social Security program was started, in August of 1935 -- life expectancy for men was 58, and for women was 62.  

Think about that – Social Security begins at age 65. 

80 is now the average life expectancy in the U.S. Add to this dramatic increase in life span, the costs of Medicare and Medicaid; the advances and associated costs of medicine (from inoculations against childhood diseases, to organ transplants, to cancer treatment); and malpractice litigation should anyone die, at all, from any diseases for which there was previously no treatment -- or from an unpredictable accident or cataclysmic event, such as 9/11 -- or even something predictable, such as smoking cigarettes.  The cost to tax payers rapidly becomes unsustainable. 

Then you add the now-competitive Big Business of hospitals and pharmaceuticals, and you have created something not unlike the plant in "Little Shop of Horrors"....saying to the shrinking U.S. work force, "Feed Me, Feed Me!"   As with all macro-economics, it is hard to separate the financial crisis caused by the rising cost of health care from many other factors contributing to our massive national debt, but also on the overwhelming burden on a smaller population of working youth, supporting an aging population of baby boomers.  What we have is a financial version of an inverted pyramid.  It is a delicate balance before it topples.

Dr. Kevorkian stood up for an individual’s right to choose his or her time of death.  He literally sacrificed his medical career, and went to jail for his beliefs that an individual has the right to choose a pain free death over an expensive, prolonged life – probably well illustrated by such cases as Judith Bement and Terri Schaivo. 

None of us want to see our loved ones die, even if “their time has come.”  Considering we all have to die sometime -- and many regard death as the end of suffering -- is it not the grief of those who are left behind that which provokes us to keep our loved ones alive at any expense?  I respect everyone's rights to choose the amount they wish to spend on "going to extreme measures" to keeping alive a loved one who would otherwise perish. Some people do this with their pets.

BUT….how many of you are willing to pay the incredible expense to keep alive other people’s loved ones, no matter what the cost?  Would you be willing to pay for Terri Schaivo to be kept on life support for another 15 or 20 years?  Or would you rather see that money go to keep alive your own loved one? Or even yourself? 

Much of the conundrum of Universal Health Care is -- who decides when to pull the plug?   Who decides what is covered by minimal mandatory health care?

Dr. Kevorkian's death, along with the current cost of mandatory, universal health care in Mass., made me wonder -- how much of this aspect of the universal health care conundrum would be resolved by legalizing responsible “assisted suicide?" and, as Dr. Kevorkian proposed, licensing those doctors who are qualified to assist.  It would be interesting to know how much legalizing assisted suicide might impact the cost of health care, possibly even the national debt.  

Aside from the national debt and our individual unwillingness to foot the bill for the medical expenses of others, kudos to Kevorkian for his courage, for standing up for his ethical beliefs and for individual rights. "Jail is not that hard when you know you are innocent."  

For those who thought Kevorkian was a murderer and should have gone to jail, do you also oppose Universal Health Care, Socialized Medicine, and do not want to pay more taxes to subsidize the health care of those who can't afford it?  If so, I suggest thath you reconsider Kevorkian's whether he was a criminal by offering an alternative, at no financial gain to himself. 

I invite you to click through to any of the links to TV interviews [THIS is one of my favorites.  Very provocative, and Kevorkian's logic is exceptional.  What struck me as most humorous paradox was Andy Rooney calling Jack Kevorkian "a bit of an odd ball." Just listening to this intereview, I have to ask..."Who's really the odd ball?"] This interview shows an aged but obviously very sensible and rational man, just released from 8 years in prison. "You've lost common sense in this society!" he states very correctly with great passion.  (I believe I have a post on this blog about the "Commonsenseless" Commonwealth of Mass.)

After his prison time, Dr. K. went on to have an impressive speaking career.  Al Pacino played Kevorkian in a movie on Kevorkian's life, YOU DON'T KNOW JACK. [Click HERE to see his last interview, after having seen the premier of this movie about him; and click HERE to see the movie trailer.] The only justice that came from sending this man to jail -- he got free room and board in his old age -- paid for by U.S. tax payers.   

Not only do I agree with Kevorkian about our society having lost most of its common sense, and with his assertion that "dying is not a crime," I agree with this comment by a viewer of one of his many YouTube TV clips: "Yes, Doctor Kavorkian, RIP~~~I believe you hit upon a major concept, we all die alone and we all have different versions of 'death with dignity'." 

GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN? Lessons from Lincoln -- is the paralysis of polarity going to break this country?

Coincidental to the 150th anniversary of the first battle of the Civil War, there is an increasing uproar about Presidential powers -- who should have final say about the Federal Budget and by whom, who should have been consulted about Libya, and who should have the final say about Health Care.

Everyone agrees the budget needs to be cut, but no one wants to cut that from which they benefit.

Due to extreme and growing polarization within our congress, there has been increasing stagnation, paralysis and total inability of our government to address any of the myriad of pressing problems facing out country.

Neither side will budge.  The most current threat is the shut down of the Federal Government.

I invite you to review this fabulous 1-1/2 minute long analaysis of the Federal Budget, featured in a previous post.  It is a good understanding about the complexity, size and scale of our budget; and how much of it is not flexible but fixed in stone.  It emphasizes how the curent congress created a salemate from what is less than a drop in the bucket. (Although I suspect the REAL stalemate was and/or is about the underlying issue -- the relationship Planned Parenthood vs. Roe v. Wade.) 

If we end up in an expensive stalemate, the country will suffer (NOT Congress) and perhaps a President will be provoked to take action to save the "Union." I do hope our elected officials will not push things to this extreme.

WGBH has been running its award-winning detailed documentary about the Civil War.  Previously, I was not aware of how much Lincoln overstepped the contitutional boundaries of Presidential authority.  Perhaps most outrageous and unconstitutional was Lincoln's deicison to issue an arrest warrent for Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney after Taney issued an opinion that only Congress, not the president, can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

However, at the end of the day, Lincoln is considered by most to be one of the greatest Presidents ever.  First, because he successfully held together the United States of America as we know it today.  Secondariy, for the end of slavery (originally NOT his motivating factor.) He made the decision to declare war against those many states that wanted to secede from the Union. 

This resulted in our Civil War that arguably had the highest number of casualties than any war in our country's history (exact numbers most difficult due to lack of records from Confederate Army, as well as a huge number of post-war lingering deaths from disease and wounds).   

FROM THE WEB SITE "HISTORY COMMONS" -- "President Abraham Lincoln, responding to a Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in South Carolina, does not wait for Congress to begin its next session to make his response. Instead, Lincoln, wielding powers that the Constitution does not grant him and without a formal declaration of war, drastically enlarges the Union’s army and navy, blockades Southern ports, spends money not appropriated by Congress, and arrests Northern citizens suspected of being Confederate sympathizers. All of these steps exceed his authority under the Constitution and under federal law. Lincoln addresses Congress as soon as it reconvenes, admitting that he has exceeded his authority (see 1787 and 1793), and refusing to argue that his actions are lawful based on any “prerogative of power” inherent to the presidency. Instead, he explains that he felt he had to respond immediately to the sudden crisis, and asks Congress to retroactively authorize his emergency actions. He says, “These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity, trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them.” Congress gives Lincoln the retroactive authorization he seeks. [Savage, 2007, pp. 16-17]"

The controversy about whether Lincoln was a "bad guy" or a "good guy" for over-stepping his power to prevent the disolution of the United States -- the end justified the means -- is well captured in many comments responding to an artistic tribute video [CLICK HERE] posted on YouTube:

"...I never fail to live a day in my life without being grateful our country and our government endured."

"I'm a historian, and after reviewing the comments before me, I am simply reminded how much a momentous time in our country's history can bring out the best, and the worst of each of us. We are all entitled to any opinion we wish, but negativity and scournful remarks towards one another only jeopardizes our freedom and patriotism. It does not enstill it."

"It's unfortunate that emancipation had to be achieved this way, but guess what; it was worth it. Whether you like it or not, the unsurpassed racial equality of this nation was precipitated in large part by Lincoln."

"I think Abraham Lincoln was elected at the right time for presidency. He did what he thought was right for the divided nation and will go down in U.S. history as one of the greatest leaders of all time."

"Abe Lincoln was the man for the job. He was the only one who could have pulled us through and caused for the reuniting of this divided nation. Even his death was something that was necessary for all this to have worked out. We learned our lessons as a country. We prevailed; for a short time, we were the model that all other societies desired to be. But it took much bloodshed and much suffering to achieve this. Pray for strength now. We need it more than ever."

And from the other side, those who believe Lincoln was a very bad president (erroneously believing the Civil War was only about slavery) comes this sophisticated comment: "why do americunt f--kfaces worship this mass-murderer who made war on his own people to free a bunch of apes so they could end up in prison and raping everyone?"

 

A Lincoln supporter or, as per the last person to comment, a Lincoln hater,  I don't think anyone would like to push (or trust) any president to feeling, as did Lincoln, that he or she is provoked into seizing such absolute power in order to save the union from itself.

In my opinion, as a country, we are behaving increasingly like the polarized nation that precipitated the Civil War.  If our elected officials can't come to agreement on a such a relatively small budget cut, what will they do with the big picture issues?  What kind of stubborn elected officials do we have in Congress?  Elected officials still get paid in a government shut down of their making, and there is no punishment -- therefore no incentive -- to work out a compromise and allow our country to function. 

They don't pay the price if they take their toys and go home.  Maybe, in addition to the Federal Government, members of Congress should have their salaries "shut down" whenever they refuse to do their jobs.       

Will it take a Civil War for the members of our Congress to realize that their commitment to partisan politics no matter who it hurts, is not good for the country? Do we really have to shut down our country's government BEFORE we shut down congressional salaries? Is Congress behaving in such a childish, selfish manner that another President will feel compelled, as did Lincoln, to overstep Presidential boundaries just to prevent a collapse of the Union?  I hope not. But somebody in Washington has to be The Grownup and act quickly to take the power away from the children who continue getting paid -- for the rest of their lives -- whether or not they do their jobs and play nice in their expensive sandbox. 

 

TERRY JONES: If a tree falls in the forest and no media covers it, is there a sound...and will al Qaeda retaliate?

Granted, nothing justifies the actions of the Afghanis who stormed and murdered 20 U.N. workers in response to an allegedly Christian minister burning an alleged copy of the Koran.  And perhaps an appropriate punishment would be to send Terry Jones to Afghanistan to preach directly to those "sinners" who arguably over-reacted to his desecration of their holy book. Maybe he could convert them to his particular flavor of Christianity?

BUT... how did anyone even hear about this nut-case burning a single book?  When I first heard about Terry Jones, I responded with a blog entry threatening to burn a thousand bibles -- as a marketing stunt for one of my clients -- when I first saw the amount of free publicity for the questionably motivated, questionably sane, attention-getting Pastor Terry Jones.  How come the media provided so much PR, empowering a single nutcase to provoke other mentally unstable, violent individuals to commit murder? Isn't such media coverage extremely irresponsible?  The media knew that reporting this insane behavior of a single individual might a) endanger the lives of innocent people and/or U.S. troops; and is b) a case of turning non-news into inflamatory headlnes.

My theory is that Terry Jones liked all the original attention, even a scolding by the President of the United States. Perhaps he thought people were forgetting about him.  Like a bad little boy who wants more attention, he burned a single Koran.  Did he issue a press release?  Why does the media even give this guy any attention?  He is a single nut case.  

Who should be held responsible for the resulting deaths?   Some, such as Bill O'Reilly, think Pastor Terry Jones should be held culpable; Terry Jones thinks the angry, murderous crowd of Afghanistan religious extremists are murderers and validate his opinion of Islaam. But what about those intelligent individuals in the media -- people who should know better -- people who chose to elevate into news the action of an individual mental case?

WORLD MUSIC: Global video band gives a new meaning

Check out this truly global rendition of "STAND BY ME"  created and appreciated via shared video.