Candace's Blog

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.

CRAIGSLIST LAWYERS: Cyber-bullies or Helpful Hints?

Many months ago, I experienced great success searching for input from the CraigsList Pets Forum regarding Bark Softening for my dogs.  Recently I was dismayed to discover that I am faced with a minor legal issue that could turn into major money (quelle surprise). I decided to try out the CraigsList legal forum -- both to confirm that my potential attorney fees were realistic for such a minor problem, as well as to get other opinions on my legal conundrum. I presumed the CraigsList Legal Forum would be read by mostly lawyers who -- either seeking new business or interested in debating legal issues -- might respond as the Pet Forum people did: With professionalism and respect for my stated motives.

Briefly, I outlined my problem, mentioned the legal fees estimated for a procedure that – while it does not necessarily require an attorney -- I thought prudent. 

I received some very good advice.  However, many opinions were conflicting.  (Interesting for me to note that “simple” laws frequently are not clear even to attorneys.)  I got many questions, too. I presumed  these were attempts to provide the most accurate advice. I extend many thanks to those who provided logical, sane advice, even if some of them contradicted each other. 

I also recognized many "scare" tactics. And a surprising number of respondents, jumped to erroneous conclusions, presuming a lawsuit was already in process (which I never said), and  few who literally screamed at me to hire an attorney immediately, or I might lose my youngest child and my right arm (Ok, I am exaggerating, here...just to be accurate since I am putting this in writing.)   

Meanwhile, one of the presumed lawyers using the handle “beek” decided to investigate my CraigsList Forum "profile."  I had only used a CraigsList forum that one time before, many months ago.  I forgot about filling out a profile, nor was I aware the default setting for such forum profiles was "public.”  This would not have disturbed me, as I was not ashamed of my inquiry, and my profession long ago made me a public personality, although I hardly regard my public information as particularly fascinating or remotely scandalous.

However, never did I ever consider in my wildest dreams (for some the word “nightmares” would be more appropriate) that a member of this professional legal forum would react as they did. 

Suddenly the discussion became a personal attack -- my hair, my looks, my background, my presumed income, and most of all, my stupidity at presuming they would not feel compelled to publish and promote my web site and, therefore my, identity within the forum. I mean, if someone is interested, and wants to look up my profile, I have no shame with the information about me that is on the Internet.  But publishing my identity in a legal forum where I had gone for some discrete legal advice?  Was this a case of cyber-bullying?  Should not the members of this forum set higher standards for the participants?

To recap the series of comments: "beek" felt compelled to publish the following: "Here is a pic and bio of the OP (me, the inquiring person): http://www.walnut28.com/walnut28_about.html.  This is the Web site for my consulting business.

When I responded to "beek" my surprise that he/she felt compelled to do such a thing, and I didn't necessarily think it appropriate, "beek" responded:  "So why post your personal information  on here if you didn't want to be identified? Your profile leads directly to your identity."

I did not have time to reply to beek before someone with the handle "ElHoofadora" pronounced that my photo demonstrated a terminal case of "split ends" and a "brassy hair color" that was really horrifying and offensive.  Another agreed and suggested my "hair colorist be keelhauled" just on general principle.

I suggested that such personal attacks were neither professional nor appropriate for this forum, and might be construed as cyber-bullying. And, since the LEGAL issue of cyber-bullying, along with many other CraigsList controversies might be something that participants in a legal forum might avoid lest a person with thinner skin react in such a way as to cause CL to terminate this otherwise valuable forum.

Then "beek" came back once again, aggressively blaming ME for his/her decision to "publish" my identity, my Web site and my photo. 

Then -- most shocking and outrageous of all -- "beek" added this: "How can you afford all the equestrian activities (very expensive) but not a cheap attorney at $225 per hour?"  I don't know about you, but I was truly shocked.  First of all, no good lawyer would presume that all equestrians are rich.  And, even if I WAS rich, should this require me to subsidize attorneys for a higher than market rate? 

Finally, any lawyers with the slightest modicum of knowledge about the horse business, should know that the horse business has been a popular tax shelter, but presumes one has money to shelter. As my professional profile explains, I eventually left the horse business and readers should come to the conclusion that I enjoyed a much more lucrative career in the High Tech industry.  As an executive in corporate communications, I gained some fame and/or notoriety as launching the first blog in High Tech that targeted investors, industry and financial analysts. (see blog entry by a long time International Analyst Robin Bloor entitled: "Alien Sex Pills." Robin is a published author, a clever writer, a respected international analyst, and a much sought after speaker at Tech forums known for his humor, impeccable vocabulary, analytical skills and particular knowledge of the impact of open source vs. Commercial technology.) 

To my dear, new-found non-friend "beek:” Really and truly, if this is the type of logic and tactics you use in your legal practice, and you feel that because my profile happens to be public for any who goes looking, this gives YOU an urge to publish my identity in such a public forum where so many inquiries involve litigation or potential litigation, one must question your ethics and your legal judgment.   

Beek's anger and disgust with me for questioning legal fees because I ride horses, presuming I am "rich" resulted in beek's conclusion that I have no right to ask about rates and fees.  Furthermore, “beek” chastises me – not once, but several times -- for my stupidity for having a profile that was public, and therefore repeatedly suggests that therefore this justified his/her actions, along with the catty feeding frenzy that followed. 

Beek’s entire train of thought revealed a frightening, resentful, ignorant, petty, possibly disturbed individual, who probably should not be allowed on this forum, let alone practicing law!

Maybe I am expecting too much....Ethics?  Logic?  Fair pricing?  Respecting the right of an individual new to the legal profession to ask questions about pricing?  Should I have expected a less prejudiced conclution that equestrian skills entitles lawyers to whatever wealth I may have?

All in all, I got a few very good, cautious and un-presumptuous comments which made my use of this forum worth my while.To all those attorneys on the forum who gave me good advice...again, I thank you. In  spite of the few bad apples, I do recommend the Legal Forum, both for good lawyers, as well as for those seeking advice. Maybe bad-apple beek was just a case of a "beek" acting like a pecker.

PS - Benefit to my Blog: After "beek" exposed my identity, one forum participant dug a little further into my identity and complimented to the group my "very intersting blog." Legal forum readers -- maybe I made it all up, a planted question designed to test the intelligence of the participants (which beek failed), and to get more hits on my blog. The number and scope of readers worth every insult about my hair color! But then, abusing the forum for my own gain would not really be very ethical behavior on my part, would it?

COULD OBAMA BE CREATING NEW JOBS by SUPPORTING SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

Just heard an Obama critic saying that the Commander in Chief should be focused on creating more jobs instead of recognizing same sex marriage.  This remark stirred a memory. Seems like just yesterday, when Same Sex Marriage was made legal in MA, non-gays from all the primary tourist locations -- suffering from the state's economic downturn -- were THRILLED with the huge influx of same sex weddings and the much-needed, positive,trickle-down economic impact on local economies. Excerpt from a YouTube Video entitled "THE EFFECTS OF GAY MARRIAGE ON THE ECONOMY":

"Spending on new weddings alone would generate $2 billion for businesses in the wedding industry.  Places that allowed same-sex couples to marry reported noticeable boosts in business for hotels, caterers, florists, and other wedding-related businesses."

While some political moralists claim he is "declaring war on marriage," could Obama's decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of a law banning federal recognition of same-sex unions be just another part of the economic stimulus package?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50082.html#ixzz1Eqf888tv

"DISTRACTED DRIVING" -- more laws to come; another reason to encourage, NOT PUNISH, Scooter Commuters

If only Boston weather permitted year-round scooting.  But I'd settle for a state that didn't charge so much for the few months of the year that I can drive a vehicle that actually prevents or, at least, alleviates "Distracted Driving." Click here, and just imagine how different the outcome would have been, had the "distracted" driver been riding a low-speed scooter (however, he would not have been distracted!  But even so, not a single student would have been hurt. Only the errant driver).

DISTRACTED DRIVING, heard on NPR yesterday -- One more news story that just EMPHASIZES more advantages of driving low speed scooters, and why our law-makers should encourage, not punish, scooters commuters (EVEN if they fail to have the newly required operator's permit, license plate and insurance.)  At the very least, not being in compliance with the misunderstood, complicated new laws should NOT be criminal, but rather treated like an expired inspection sticker.  Read on, you won't believe it....that low speed scooter drivers are getting fined, while these auto gadgets are completely legal. CLICK HERE, and please tell me which YOU think is more dangerous on the road, low speed scooters, or cars which legally permit many distractions from build in radios and GPSs, to rowdy passengers, food and even that delightful cup of coffee:

"If your eyes are off the road, and your hands are off the wheel, that's a problem. And if your brain is engaged in something else, that makes it even worse," says Paul Green of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

These days, Green and other safety experts are focusing on those infotainment systems that LaHood mentioned. Ford, for example, has a new technology that replaces manual control knobs with a computer screen, with icons that you touch with your fingertips. It can take a lot of glances away from the road and a lot of your hand leaving the steering wheel just to switch on the air conditioning.

David Champion of Consumer Reports says this system and others like it are too distracting.

"Actually, Ford now is having a tutorial that they put drivers through before they buy the car, which is ridiculous, really," he says.

Champion says voice commands have the potential to be less distracting. But if they don't work, it can be just one more spinning plate [the story compares EACH distraction, which includes everything from other passengers to GPS panels]. Ford officials declined to be interviewed about the so-called MyFord Touch system, saying driver distraction is an industrywide problem."

The single most striking experience when I first acquired my low-speed scooter was the total awareness of my surroundings!  Suddenly I smelled my surroundings -- leaves, trees, flowers, and even road work.  And my visual awareness of my immediate surroundings was dramatically heightened.  People in the cars next to me frequently smiled and even spoke to me whenever I was stopped at a light (especially if the dogs were riding with me.)  At first, I really missed listening to NPR on my junkets, as I really enjoy their stories and calming voices (I'm not a shock jock junkie. Life is stressful enough).  But eventually, I went through media withdrawal, and really enjoyed the break from all distractions, the journey became the reward as I began to love all the sights, sounds and smells of and interactions with my surroundings.  My hands are never off my handles, and my eyes are always on the traffic around me, unless I am at a stop sign or a light.  At these moments, smiles and humorous banter frequently make red lights just another enjoyable interlude instead of a frustrating annoyance (and, if I happen to be running late, or if it's a case of grid lock, I can always get off my scooter and walk it around the auto-mess.)

But don't just listen to me.  Go to YouTube and type in "Distracted Driving." I was blown away at how many videos were there.  Then just imagine the outcome had the distracted driver had been driving a low-speed scooter.  Are our law-makers crazy?  Where are their priorities?  If there are enough incentives (esp. responsible "anywhere" parking!) -- especially for kids -- I predict a dramatic decrease in all injuries and accidents while driving.  Not to mention the decrease in gridlock, etc., etc. (if you watch this gruesome one, I'll just say, a low-speed scooter would not have been here at all, because they aren't allowed on high speed roads.)

Have a teenage driver?  Do everyone a favor and get them a low-speed (preferably one-seater) motor scooter, and avoid what THESE PARENTS have suffered (CLICK HERE).  Once again, this accident happened on a high speed highway, where low-speed scooters are not even allowed.

 

CRIMINAL CHARGES DROPPED: Candace Clemens vs. the CommonSenselesswealth of Massachusetts

Jan. 20th was round 2 in Criminal Court.  In round 1, I refused to accept the $300 fine the very kind and wise judge originally offered me at my first hearing in Criminal Court.  $300 and all three criminal charges would be dropped. As I told this very wise and kind judge, his offer was very tempting. 

But, no.  I wanted a Jury trial.  I am angry about this new law.  It is totally contrary to just about every citizen behavior modification our state AND our nation is allegedly encouraging! AND...while on the surface it is bringing in much needed state revenue, it really is costing the taxpayers a LOT more money in both the short AND long term.  Why?  For one reason, because of the salaries we pay police officer and meter maids to enforce these petty laws...and the trickle down economics for tow trucks (yes, even for low-speed scooters) and storage fees required by impoundment lots.  This is nothing short of extortion.  My scooter is worth $500 tops.  If it were to be impounded for not taking up a car parking space (as required by the new law), I would have to pay more than the value of the Scooter.  But, because it is now licensed, I would not be able to "abandon" it without being charged a daily storage rate!

I suppose I could have accepted the judge’s offer during my last hearing.  But maybe the voice of my ancestors were nagging and scolding me.  After all, my great, great aunt was Lucretia Mott, a famous woman suffragette, ostracized and threatened for BREAKING THE LAW and stepping on toes in her outspoken attempts to improve womens' rights, wages, and voting privileges, in addition to being an outspoken opponent of slavery.  And before that, Deborah Sampson, who taught herself how to read because back in the 1700’s it was AGAINST THE LAW – at least in her parish – for girls to get a formal education.  Later, she disguised herself as a man and enlisted in General George Washington’s army and fought in the Revolutionary War.  The 2^nd bullet she took put her in the infirmary, where her gender was discovered. Still, in spite of BREAKING THE LAW by fighting as a soldier in the male-only army, she was given an honorable discharge.  Later, she was the first woman to receive a pension from the Army.  Fast forward a few generations, to my mother, a journalist, who was dedicated to the constitution, freedom of speech ALONG with responsibility of the press to report the truth. One of her greatest achievements was exposing the publisher of racist and anti-semitic hate literature that was being distributed at local high schools. She risked her life by tracing the source of this hate literature to George Lincoln Rockwell, one of the founders of the American Nazi Party. Her newspaper received a award for her work. She received death threats. Much later in life, my mother was so proud of her husband, my step-father, a former soldier and P.O.W. in World War II, when – in his 70’s – he was arrested for picketing in front of the White House against apartheid.  He took a bus into Washington, DC from their retirement center in Maryland, so that he could PROTEST A LAW that he felt was wrong.   Maybe I felt compelled to fight this law because of a cumulative result of my upbringing. I believe it is the responsibility of citizenship.  As a child, our minister -- a white Southern Baptist -- marched arm-in-arm with Martin Luther King, and I have lived to see the results of such responsible-yet-peaceful Civil Disobedience as promoted by H.D. Thoreau. 

Maybe I’m just trying to be a responsible citizen.   I’m extremely upset at a stupid law that is transparently about revenue.  This would be understandable, but it is ignoring the bigger picture. Sometimes the short term gain is not worth the long term, sometimes hidden costs. How much are we paying our police officers to enforce these scooter laws?  Criminal charges for operating a low speed scooter?  You gotta be kidding.  And, especially since it is a NEW law and EVERYONE is so confused, the police should be prohibited from giving tickets, especially when they are criminal charges, for a grace period of say a year.  Or AT LEAST until there is less confusion about exactly WHAT ARE THE NEW LAWS?  I found this quote from a scooter rider on the web site www.savescooters.com:

"In my experience, few law enforcement individuals are able to correctly answer parking questions. Sometimes I ask them a question I already know the answer to. They give the wrong answer about half the time. Whether or not I get a ticket on any given day has more to do with who’s patrolling that street and what kind of mood they’re in...

A friend of mine saw this firsthand in court, when she went to fight a scooter parking ticket. The judge and the cop couldn’t even agree. Her argument was, “If neither of you can explain the law, how am I supposed to follow it?” CLICK HERE to see TV COVERAGE of this issue.

BUt...in the end, I sold out. Jan. 20th, I woke up so dizzy and feverish (a result of some recent surgery that should have healed by then), I had to take a taxi to the DMV. 

Net-net --- I just didn't want to continue the fight.  I was totally out of energy.  However, it was VERY educational. 

Police Officer Cronin of Arlington, MA, had actually been wrong about two things -- 1. he claimed the new requirements for scooters were not new at all...had been that way as long as he could remember (NOT!!!); 2. he cited me for the criminal charge of driving an unregistered, unlicensed vehicle.  In fact it WAS registered, but the registration sticker had expired.  The judge picked up on this and dismissed that charge altogether because a lapsed registration is not a criminal charge, but a civil charge. 

I successfully argued that my lack of a "modified motorcycle operators permit" was the fault of the DMV, because when I initially went to the DMV to get the newly required "modified motorcycle license" (instead of the formerly required sticker) they knew I was riding my scooter because I told them, AND I had my helmet in my arms. Yet they did not even INFORM me that I had to take a test and get an operator's permit, let alone insist that I do so then and there, before going back on the road.

So the judge dismissed 2 out of 3 of the criminal charges.

I could have argued about the lack of insurance, since the Globe article said that was "up in the air" and still being debated, and when I asked, my own insurance agent did not know if it was mandatory....yet.  When I finally was informed by the DMV, I was en route to get insurance when Officer Cronin stopped me and felt compelled to have my scooter trucked six blocks to get it off the street, and to issue three criminal charges against me, very serious charges had I been driving a car.

The issue about mandatory liability insurance for low speed scooters is arguable because I cannot imagine any collision that would do more damage to another motor vehicle than the amount of my deductible. Since health insurance is already mandatory in the Commonwealth, injuries to drivers or pedestrians are already covered.  A well-tuned racing bicycle can easily exceed 40 MPH, and a modified reclining bicycle has been clocked at 80 MPH.  Yet these do not require special operators permits, insurance or license plates, and regarding parking – the wheel base of most low speed scooters is smaller than that of a bicycle.

While I realize criminal court is not interested in considering such questions, I also question if the new scooter law arguably might be unconstitutional.  Tax payers never got a chance to vote on this, although ENCOURAGING low speed scooter commuting would save the taxpayers lots of money.  I DID notice we got the chance to vote on taxing booze in the last election.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why we would choose to boost state revenue by tripling the costs and multiplying fines, towing and impounding fees for low speed Scooters, while dropping the "double" tax on booze (I'm not necessarily in favor of double taxation, but if this is just about revenue, let's keep our priorities straight!)  Which causes more trouble for our state, and what costs the taxpayers more money to police and treat – booze abuse or scooter abuse?   

On any day when whether permits, if 1/10^th of the cars in the city of Boston and surrounding suburbs were low speed scooters, AND the old parking regulations allowed low speed scooters to park like bicycles, just think of all the problems this might solve:

a.       Minimal grid lock.

b.      More parking for cars.

c.       Minimal cell phone abuse

d.      Minimal text messaging while driving

e.      No need to police teenagers using cell phones

f.        No high speed police chases

g.       No drunk driving

h.      No drinking while driving

i.         Minimal smoking while driving

j.        Minimal road rage

On this last point, I would like to point out that just this year, an off-duty police officer was shot to death over a disputed city parking space.  The news story quoted a local resident, whose only comment was, “parking spots are really hard to find in this neighborhood.  It doesn’t surprise me when tempers flare.”

Prius owners have been given tax incentives.  Considering all the benefits from low speed scooters, shouldn’t the Commonwealth be encouraging and rewarding people who use low speed scooters for commuting?  I maintain that they are safer than bicycles -- since bicycles are either stop or go, and feet are frequently strapped into the pedals.  Additionally, many bicycle commuters are doing it for exercise or preparing for competitions, so many of these racing types like to go really fast, and don't like to slow down or stop for things like pedestrians or traffic lights.  Low speed scooters do not involve any shifting, and – unlike bicycles -- they can go as slowly as the surrounding traffic requires without tipping over. And, on a practical level, you can go to work fully dressed, and not have to take a shower when you get there.

But this hearing was not about whether or not the new scooter law is smart or stupid, good or bad. It is whether or not I broke the law. 

If anyone is interested, drop me a line, and I will forward to you what I presented to the D.A. fully intending to use it for my jury trial, including a photograph of 10 scooters taking up 10 car parking spaces. After all, it is no longer a "Scooter"...it is a "licensed motor vehicle." And the law requires a $65 fine for any licensed motor vehicle parked on the sidewalk.  And sometimes they can even impound. Apparently, London has passed a similar law, only the Civil Disobedience is much more organized and vocal. The Brits are making the once rebellious Yankees look like a bunch of lemmings! Considering the traffic problems in London, I'm glad to see it. Seems like we're so focused on Repbulicans vs. Democrats, we're not paying attention to these little, unnecessary laws that are creeping into our lives and making responsible, good citizenship not only difficult, but expensive and even illegal! I could use a few Brits over here to join me in my protest.

YouTUBE WEDDING: Shed the Stress and Share the Joy

Another new use of YouTube -- spontaneous weddings.  What a great story! An innovative and imaginative use of YouTube AND of glorious shopping malls.  Click HERE and enjoy a Wedding that has now gone viral. Considering the costs and stress of weddings, I invite others to follow this glorious example that illustrates so well the lyrics from Paul Stookey's The Wedding Song: "For whenever two or more of you are gathered in His name, There is Love."  

PUT COMMON SENSE BACK IN THE COMMONWEALTH: Mopeds, Scooters, Lawnmowers and Pomeranians

As my jury trial approaches for the crimnal charges pending against me for operating a "licensed motor vehicle" (i.e. formerly a Moped, now a "modified motorcycle" in the State of MA -- as of 2010), I maintain that operating a well-tuned snow blower or a modified lawn mower might also require operators permits, as well as licenses and insurance.  Perhaps even....a Pilot's License?  Click HERE to see proof that a lawnmower might be more dangerous and challenging to operate than a low speed, no-shift motor scooter.  Perhaps lawnmowers should be required to park on the street...or maybe even at the airport?  (IMHO, the law requiring low speed scooters to take up urban parking spots is equally ridiculous. Reference the Web site: www.scooterlust.com)

At a time when we are allegedly trying to reduce fuel consumption, reduce urban traffic, minimize street parking, and minimize cell phone abuse while driving, the new Moped/Scooter laws are a great example of stupid laws for short term gains but myopic when it comes to the big picture...what's really good for Boston and the Commonwealth.  If all we need is more revenue, perhaps the Mass. Dept. of Motor Vehicles should expand its jurisdiction to license anything with a motor?  And what about racing bicycles? With a strong rider, a good racing bike can actually go faster than my motor scooter.

Hmmm, since I have to license my Pomeranians, too, maybe, if I got enough of them, I could hook them up to a cart.  Wonder how long before I'd need an operator's permit for THAT?

SPIRITUAL NETWORKING - Great Holiday Humor for the Digital Age

If you haven't seen this already, it's a fabulously clever retelling of the Christmas Story c. 2010 -- the Digital Age.  Click HERE to see how Mary and Joseph made their way around the mid-East using Facebook, Google, Maps/Directions, even Web travel arrangements.

CRIMINAL INSANITY: Candace Clemens & her scooter vs. the State of Massachusetts

FOR THE BACK STORY: I quote an excerpt from www.savescooters.com:

"We’re dedicated to fair laws governing low-impact alternative transpotation in Massachusetts. Beginning on 8/1/2009 Massachusetts will begin enforcing a law which will make owning and operating 49cc scooters expensive and parking them difficult.

This law is an environmentally and socially irresponsible. It penalizes those of us who choose to use one of the most efficient and ecologically sound transportation options in an already over-crowded area.

This law contains no provisions for encouraging the use of alternative transportation, nor does it mandate that cities supply alternative parking options. It only places restrictions and undue burdens on scooter owners in the form of parking restrictions, mandatory registration, and required insurance for 49cc scooters previously classified as “mopeds”.

HERE's MY STORY:

My first day in criminal court as a defendant!  For the horrible crime of driving a scooter w/out a scooter operator's permit, uninsured, and unregistered. All pretty serious crimes in a car, but a completely new law that -- as of Jan. 1, 2010 -- began to impact those of us who owned and operated such scooters previous to August, 2009. I purchased my used Honda Met in 2007, after a drunk driver totalled my 2005 Prius.  I was left with a 4WD pick up truck and just couldn't justify the insurance on two vehicles, anymore. The new scooter law is one that even the people at the DMV think is silly.  They cheered when I told them about my plans to picket, and the TV news saying they'd show up to cover it.

Funny, but the judge did not even know it was a scooter when he read the litany of my violations!  Once they passed that @#!*%  law, the former "mopeds" are now considered just another "licensed motor vehicle," a phrase that is going to wreak havoc on parking laws, and even loaning the to my daughter Sam, or other friends (not unlike Bermuda!)  when they come to visit and need a vehicle to get around when it's good weather.  Now I cannot offer this alternative to out of state visitors.  My daughter won't have a "modified motorcycle driver's license" because she's a resident of NC, and they don't have such a license down there!

Sam fell in love with the scooter last summer, when she was up for a week between a wedding and a family funeral, and her company let her work out of their Boston branch office.

So....here's a recap of Day #1 of Candace in Criminal Court. I know I should have opted for the fine, but I just could NOT bring myself to do it.  And the judge was soooooo sweet and so kind to me....I felt like I was at a yard sale, bartering over an old, used piece of furniture.

This judge was really all about trying to cajole various offenders into paying fines instead of opting for a jury trial, which is really a stupid waste of taxpayer money and judicial time.
 
Most offenses were really petty things, but the fines are getting steeper (i.e. $200 instead of $100, I'm sure a result of the state's need for revenue, although the judge always made sure to offer people payment plans -- since none in attendance appeared to be wealthy.)

Many of those facing charges appeared to be bright, sweet people that didn't speak English very well, if at all, and therefore didn't quite understand MA's extremely complicated, outrageously expensive, exorbitant motor vehicle laws.  They needed translators. When the judge asked the traditional, “do you understand the charges against you,” one frightened, modestly dressed, obviously devout and "good" (i.e. religious) seemingly Latino woman did not understand the charges.

I think she had a vehicle that might have been off the road, so unregistered, and probably loaned it to a visiting relative.  Meanwhile, you can't even KEEP and unregistered/unlicensed car on your own property in MA!  except maybe in a garage. Can you believe that????

This was actually a little relevant to my own case, as -- in addition to Sam, I once let my friend borrow it to go see her son race in the "Head of the Charles."  This rowing event is so popular, there is no parking within miles of the River.  She had to rush to drop her son off pre-race, drive home, and then go back a few hours later to watch him race.  So I suggested, "take the scooter!"  She never had ridden it before. I gave her a crash course (no pun intended) and off she went.  She scooteed the few miles, taking the back roads over to Mem Drive, parked right next to one of the bridges where she could cheer him as he passed under, and then scooted back home. She LOVED it, and agreed it was safer, much more balanced, with a much lower learning curve compared to a bicycle.

But I digress…back to criminal court. 

One man was charged with having an unlicensed, unregistered vehicle on the street because the leased garage for his antique car had some structural problems, threatening to damage the car.  So he backed it out and parked it out on the street for 24 hours while he did the repairs to the buildling.  The "no overnight parking" law brought it to the attention of the police, who promptly had it towed, and he was charged with criminally operating an uninsured, unlicensed vehicle.  He said he had all the photos, and proof of the circumstances.  But the judge said his role was not to hear the case, but to offer him the CHOICE of a fine vs. a hearing.  The judge explained that a jury of his peers might appreciate his situation, and decide he s hould not have to pay anything, or he might get a very harsh fine.  Because the law is the law!

This wonderful judge offered this man a $50 fine!  Wow.....there might be hope for me, yet, I thought.  He seems like such a reasonable judge!

I actually applauded out loud when this man gratefully accepted the nominal fine!  IT WAS SUCH COMMON SENSE!  Yes, the law is the law, and it serves its purpose, to prevent people from diving uninsured cars. But sometimes it truly clashes with common sense!   This ruling DESERVED applause.  Haha....the entire court room went silent and looked at me. 

I think I saw the judge surpress a smile.

BUT, I had three very serious charges. 
The judge made me an offer of $200 per "charge." If it weren't a scooter and the law was not brand new this year, would be really bad offenses:
1. Unlicensed driver
2. Unregistered vehicle
3. Uninsured vehicle

Obviously I have my driver's license.  I've had one since I was 16.  But JUST LAST FALL, the DMV decreed that people who drive scooters that go over 30 mph, but still under 40 mph (so you can't go on the highway...strictly for around town and back roads) need a SPECIAL "modified motorcycle" operator's permit.  Which is SUCH a crock!  Pretty soon we'll need a permit to operate a snow blower, a golf cart, bumper cars, go-carts, or a lawn mower! I predict eventually, we'll have to pay for our children to get learner's permits to learn how to ride a tricycle!

It gets worse. There are serious, legal remifications CALLING it a "licensed motor vehicle."  Worst of all is forcing low-end scooters -- used to be classified w/ the Mopeds which allegedly are limited to 30 mph -- to TAKE UP AN ENTIRE PARKING SPACE ON THE STREET.  Gratefully, the cops are still a little fuzzy about enforcing this.  But this was the #1 reason I opted for a low speed scooter, and not a high speed one.

It was just so WEIRD to be in criminal court, charged w/ criminal offenses.  And to take such a risk because -- not only do I disagree with the law itself (I think low end scooter commuters should be rewarded for alleviating Boston's traffic and parking problems) -- I don't agree with how the new law is being handled.  

When the judge told me that the fines totaled $600, I replied "my scooter isn't worth that much."  So he countered w/ $400.  I told him it probably wasn't worth that much, either.  I humorously imagined saying, "Do I hear $300?"  As if reading my mind, the judge countered, "$300 -- and that's as low as I'll go."  At this point, the judge was indeed smiling, and I truly had to repress a laugh.  I felt as if I was an auctioneer!

I smiled politely and respectfully.  I said his offer was very tempting. But, not without a little self-doubt, I said that I felt compelled – as a good citizen -- to argue my case. It is complicated, not without a touch of Civil Disobedience. But that's my heritage...my responsibility as a citizen. As a college student -- I protested the Vietnam War. I come from a long line of women activists, and suffragettes -- Lucretia Mott and Debrah Samspon are among my ancestors! My mom, a journalist, would have been proud of me. Even my mom's husband, my step-father, a WW II Vet and P.O.W. once was arrested for picketing against Apartheid. My mom was so proud of him. (He was in his 70’s…and took a bus in to the White House from their retirement center in Md.)

It used to be against the law for women to own property or to vote; it used to be against the law for gays to serve in the military; "the law" used to sanction buying and selling slaves; and it was against "the law" for slaves escape to freedom in the North. So just saying "it's the law" doesn't always mean a responsible citizen should accept the punishment without a protest.

But I really don't want to spend $5 K.  Nor do I want to go to jail (except maybe in a warmer climate?)  So I need to simplify the case. To prove that the law was so fuzzy, even the folks at the DMV, the police, and the insurance companies were confused.   I think just by showing the summary that the Boston Globe did back in july 2009 -- which was given to me by my insurance company -- and basically summarizes that the law is totally half-baked, and many aspects being "reconsidered" -- esp. the requirement for an operator's permit (easier to drive than a tricycle), and need for insurance, as well as the whole parking issue.

The judge asked if I would have counsel or was chosing to represent myself.  I said the latter. Did he smile?  He then warned me that I was risking a $5 K fine, (no jail time, though), or I could get off paying nothing if the jury agreed w/ me.  Next will be a pre-trial hearing on Jan. 20.

All in all, the judge was very personable, and even paternal, praising and encouraging one young mother who -- for reasons I could only guess -- had been separated from her baby until she was deemed fit to be a parent again.  I restrained myself from jumping up and yelling, "don't do it.  the kids will just get you in MORE trouble!  If you're not a substance abuser already, you probably will be by the time you have teenagers!" Now that I think of it, so many of the challenges of having teenagers would be SOLVED if they were encouraged to use one-seater, low-speed scooters instead of cars. (Per my picket sign on Facebook.)

At the end, this wonderful judge asked if I had any questions or comments, and I said, "I was very impressed with your conduct and several of your rulings."  He laughed, and asked his stenographer if she got that down.

NON-SURGICAL BARK SOFTENING was a win-win-win-win....especially for the dogs.

SHOCKED TO HEAR FROM A KNOWLEDGEABLE CALIFORNIA VET THAT HER STATE MAY SOON FOLLOW MASS, NH, MAINE AND OTHER STATES RESULTING in a BAN for ALL BARK ALTERING PROCEDURES (the law says surgical...but I could NOT get ANY vets except one -- in CA -- to respond to my requests to find help for bark softening), I POSTED THIS ON CRAIGS LIST in NYC today, in the discussion section on Pets:

I live in MA, and since bark softening is illegal up here, now...and in NH and Maine, I did a post on this forum seeking a vet who was good at the non-invasive procedure of bark softening. I got two great referrals, and one well-intentioned dog loving responder who suggested that a cheaper alternative might be to take a screw driver and puncture my neighbor's ear drums.

The problem with the latter, aside from being illegal, I like my neighbors and their babies, and feel I should be responsible to their rights as well. And, as a result, my mom's adorable boyz were increasingly confused about constant reprimands, anti-bark collars, shock AND citronella, ultrasonic devices, expensive trainers who said you could not TRAIN this out of many breeds, esp. when there are two of them.... and ultimately the pups were not allowed to run and play unleashed or unsupervised in our dog-proof back yard.

We have no air conditioning, so I leave my windows open and use fans. I finally wrote a note in this forum, knowing from an article in the NYT, that bark softening is still legal in NYC. Mom was desperate. I got her the pups when she started getting so depression after the loss of her husband. BUT...more importantly, people against bark-softening are just totally mis-informed. Opponents say it is cruel, the dogs are in pain, it hurts them...etc., etc. The procedure was incredibly quick and simple, and when the anesthesia wore off, they pranced out of their travel crates to take a pee, and were happy as ever.

They can still bark, too! only it's a whisper. And we are all soooooo happy. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in their behavior, except perhaps they are happier because everyone loves them again, and they are no longer confused about how their instinctive behavior was causing such unhappiness.

We may eventually pass laws that just result in a lot of lonely people having to give up their companions, and potential euthanasia of dogs whose only "crime" is an instinct to HERD and ALERT critters, such as sheep and cows, or bunnies, squirrels and birds, that used to be unwelcome in the days of growing our own food, and keeping grain for the horses used for transportation (not bite or kill, as cats do); or even making noise while rough housing with each other (can you imagine if these pups got zapped or sprayed each time they barked while playing with each other???? Is THAT humane?)

FOR THOSE WHO ARE READING...at the risk of getting lots of hate mail, if you have a problem with a barking dog, let me know.  I have finally found some sensible animal lovers who understand the complexity of the problem, and the importance to accept that people should have the right to love both their dogs AND their neighbors. Click HERE to access an informative newsletter. (POST SCRIPT: one of the searches that led a reader to my web site used these words: "neighbor bark sensor hurts my ears."  State should really offer the right to petitions along with a list of approved bark softening veterinarians so that urban and suburban neighbors can live in harmony.)

OBAMA's TRADE: Unemployment benefits in exchange for the Rich staying Rich -- makes sense to me

I keep hearing all these talk show hosts AND Democratic members of congress totalling dissing Obama for "selling out" to the Republicans, when he "caved in" to Republicans by allowing Bush's tax benefits for the wealthy to continue in exchange for extending unemployment benefits.  Am I confused....haven't the Republicans made it VERY CLEAR that they will not cooperate with anything Obama's proposes?  That their stated goal is for a one term president, and they have demonstrated that they do not care a whit if the country remains dead in the water, as long as Obama is not allowed to pass a single law. 

Except when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy.  I gather that is kind of the sacred cow for all Republicans.  And, finally, Obama discovered the silver bullet.  Allow Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to continue, and they will allow Obama -- maybe -- to extend benefits for the unemployed.  And, yes -- from the perspective of the short term benefit  of our national debt -- it seems absolutely absurd.  How can we possibly take on more spending (in terms of unemployment benefits) unless the gov't increases revenue?

BUT...if you stop to think about the alternative...without unemployment, those who are unemployed (now hovering close to 10%, higher in many states) without benefits, will definitely lose their homes, possibly become homeless, won't be able to feed their families....and the already bad housing industry will tumble even further.  So, to me, it makes perfect sense for Obama to make the deal with the Republicans, if only to keep the unemployed (increasingly "infecting" middle class white men, as per the new movie "Company Men") housed and fed. 

If he was willing to sacrifice the fate of the unemployed for "Democratic ideals"....well, where's THAT at?  Who's THAT going to hurt?  Not the wealthy.  Not the Republicans.  And it's not going to score any points for the Democrats, either....because it's going to hurt people who have lost their jobs, who will vote against anyone who threatens their welfare, and the welfare of their families).

NOW HERE's A NOVEL IDEA!!!....all these wealthy billionaires who are promising to give 1/2 their fortunes to charity...how about using that money to "sponsor" some unemployed people?  Sort of like sponsoring a poor child overseas.  The Federal Government could allow such donors to select a substantial group of the unemployed, and pay their benefits.  (Better yet would be to offer them a JOB!!!)  Hey, it's the HOLIDAY SEASON....time to watch "It's a Wonderful life."  But maybe it's time for us to start LIVING IT!

Ultimate Extreme Biking through Scotland: Shared video -- Sports, Dance or Art?

This is pretty amazing....watch this "extreme sports" bicyclist Danny MacAskill make his way around Scotland, done to a nice musical score.  Beautifully done.

YouTube video ROCKS (and rolls): re-cycling art

Click HERE to see an amazingly well-done medley of dance clips put to new music, celebrating decades of dances in the movies.  From Gene to Jacko to the Jets, check out the moves, courtesy of the world's largest art and media gallery YouTube.  Recycling art via video edits, and exhibiting to the world via YouTube and similar sites is a modern phenomenon.  I've already featured Phillip Scott Johnson's now famous "women-in-art" blended with Yo Yo Ma's cello, (and, for film buffs, Johnson did one of the Hollywood Starlets to the same score), but I have since found many other video-morphing works of art on YouTube, including THIS ONE.  Music not nearly as well integrated as the Dance Medley and Johnson's art morphing piece, but the editing is superb. 

YouTUBE: Provides Introductions to and Archives of EXCELLENCE: Zenyatta, Totilas, and Manny Pacquiao

UPDATE on ZENYATTA on YOUTUBE (EXCELLENCE #1): THIS is one of the most incredible uses of YouTube I've ever seen.  Click HERE to actually experience a ride on Zenyatta -- kudos to whoever thought of putting a camera on a race horse jockey's helmet -- but especially Zenyatta's jockey's helmet.  Experience mounting up on this exceptionally tall race horse, experience a stroll out the barn, being greeted by a race horse "pony" (really not a pony, but a horse...but next to you on top of Zenyatta, it APPEARS to be a pony) and first walking, then trotting, then cantering while being ponied on the track and greeted by fellow jockies.  Then, experience Zenyatta as she spies her "racing date" -- Green Cat -- and "they're off."  And then you are on top of this incredible mare, and you have no sense of speed because she races by lengthening her stride -- over a foot longer than Secretariat's -- not by moving her legs faster. The only thing you notice is the sound of the wind picking up as she slowly comes from way behind Green Cat and then catches up and overtakes him.  And then a lot of pride and laughter from "us" -- the jockey -- as he greets all the on-lookers, thrilled at the results of this workout.

EXCELLENCE #1 - ZENYATTA -- A Facebook Friend recently gave me a hot tip (pun intended) on the newest potential race horse challenge to the greatness of SeaBiscuit, Secretariat, or Seattle Slew. Only this one is a LADY HORSE!  It is Zenyatta.  And it's not just that she is a mare, and she was unbeaten in her first 19 consecutive races (in GREAT company...winning the 2009 Breeder's Cup, which is almost as prized as the Derby or even the Triple Crown) and only second in the last posted race, the 2010 Breeder's Cup.  But only by a nose. Captivated, I studied first her racing style.  She always runs the same strategy -- stays dead last until about the home stretch; then moves TO THE OUTSIDE (counter-intuitive, because it makes for the longest distance to run to "catch up") and then -- without appearing to go ANY FASTER, she just lengthens her stride like a cat, and passes EVERYONE -- always good company -- unbelievably, crossing the wire in first place.  Hypnotic to watch...really...especially when you see all the homestretch runs back-to-back in this MEDLEY of her first 14 wins.  There are a few horses in racing history who like to come from behind, RARELY this extremely behind. BUT....most unique and endearing quality is the Zenyatta STRUT or "Dance" that she does in post parades, as well as even AFTER the races when most horses are tired.  She has a very unique movement of her front legs -- in dressage it is a non-classical, show off movement called The Spanish Walk...kind of a goose stepping of the front legs while the horse marches firmly with her hing legs...not jigging with tension.  Check it out by clicking HERE.  She is a phenomenon in the field of Flat Racing.  Captured on YouTube for all to see and appreciate...even her AMAZING PERSONALITY...this lady knows she's a superstar.  POST SCRIPT - Zenyatta has now been retired to make babies in Kentucky.  How wonderful to have her archived on YouTube!

EXCELLENCE #2 - TOTILAS - Months ago, I literally stumbled on just a brief clip of Totilas...not even sure HOW...but completely by accident.  I just watched the opening "fun" part...not the whole musical ride (see earlier post "SPECTACULAR HORSE & RIDER")...and I was so blown away by his movement AND his obedience and training, I posted something on my blog then and there.  I was just speechless....not knowing anything about this magnificent, well,... "phenomenon" applies here, too... in the world of Dressage. I thought I had retired the "favorite dressage horse" and footage to Blu Hors Matinee, who sadly was injured before the Japan Olympics, and died later that year.   But I always loved her musical free style best of all, and her spirit and intelligence which, as with Zenyatta, makes the observer feel that she truly knows and loves what she is doing, and is showing off.  I didn't see anything that special, even in the Olympic winners at Japan.   I had sort of lost interest in the world of Upper Level Dressage. I mean, I just didn't think anyone would ever top the incredible Grey Mare....until, quite by accident, I saw THIS on YouTube, warming up in front of a wild crowd. I did some YouTube research to see if it was just a fluke.  But he was for real... a European phenomenon. I would never have had the opportunity to have seen him move...except for YouTube.  Turned out my first impression was accurate...this was not a fluke moment for this horse. He went on to win all his classes at the European Championships at Aachen, with an unprecedented score of over 90% (unlike other Olympic sports, you don't see scores in the 90's in International Grand Prix Dressage.) And then, he came to the United States to Compete in the World Equestrian Championships in Lexington, KY this fall.  And he won everything, again scoring in the 90's and high 80's: the Grand Prix, Grand Prix Special, and Musical Freestyle or KUR.  I had relatives who went, and this time, I managed to catch his test on TV.  He is spectacular.  Many are calling him "perhaps the greatest dressage horse in modern history." And...everyone can see this magnificent Black Stallion perform...strutting HIS stuff, too, Horse of the Year in 2010...thanks to YouTube.  Since the competitive life span of these upper level dressage horses is not that long, and he has since been retired to stud! -- so how wonderful to enjoy this archive of excellence.

EXCELLENCE and INSPIRATION #3 - Manny Pacquiao.  On the human side, today on NPR, I heard about a boxer. From the Philippines. But much more than a professional boxer, Manny Pacquiao is also "a phenomenon."  The famous trainer, Freddie Roach, who was interviewed on Boston NPR affiliate, WBUR, was asked point blank...how would he rate him among all boxers in history.  He paused and said, "he is the best." "Better than Mohammed Ali?" the NPR reporter asked?  "Yes, and I think Ali would agree."  But what is so amazing about this boxer is that he came from abject poverty, which -- in the Philipines, is not like poverty here in the US.  Freddie Roach spoke about how long it took his body to catch up to the malnutrician, and yet he still was winning at big boxing matches.  He has risen above the world of boxing to become a singer, an actor, and a Filipino Politician. And, for Boston fans, he is an honorary member of the Boston Celtics, as he uses basketball to cross train for boxing.  And, I guess they just like him.  Who can help not?  I am not a fan of boxing, but I am going right now to YouTube to find a link so that I (and my readers) can see this man "in action," and can hear and see him sing. He may not be the best singer....but wow...what an amazing, inspirational life.  He has reason to sing.  And we have reason to listen.  

AND THEN THERE IS BUDDING TALENT....check out THIS young break dancing talent!  Wow...he's so good, hard to beleive it's not edited.  But it looks like the real deal.  "ExcellANTTTTT"... :-)  We'll keep an eye out for this kid on YouTube...and, maybe, in time on TV.  "You Think You Can Dance?"  haha...the answer here is definitely coming from Austin Powers..."Yeah, Babeeee."

PATRIOTISM -- TRADE IN YOUR SCOOTERS FOR BOOZE (and lots of quarters for the parking meters).

Criminal charges against Defendant Candace Clemens (me) provokes me to question the priorities of the State (and my fellow residents) who voted to drop all taxes on booze while tripling costs of operating a low-speed motor scooter.

I have received my court date and location – Dec. 16, 2010 at the 4040 Mystic Valley Parkway in Medford, MA  courthouse for the following criminal offenses:

1.       90/34 J – Uninsured Motor Vehicle (my 50 cc, 2000 Honda Metropolitan Scooter)

2.       90/10/A – Unlicensed operation of Motor Vehicle (Easier than a bicycle to ride)

3.       90/9/B – Unregistered Motor Vehicle (I tried to re-register but was told, after 2-1/2 hours that insurance is now mandatory, no longer optional, because of the extra 5 MPH the 50 cc scooter can do over a Moped….all of which is subject to debate. Maybe I should just put tape over my 40 MPH number on my speedometer?)

Meanwhile, I voted to keep the tax on Booze in our most recent elections.  Obviously our state needs more money or else they wouldn’t create this new “class” of what used to be a Moped, but now is now a Motorcycle…this allows the state to double the registration rates (from $40 to $80), require an operator’s permit ($80, formerly $0), require insurance ($150, formerly optional) and require a road test (TBD…I’m guessing…$80?). 

Apparently, others feel that cutting the tax income from Booze is better for our quality of life than is encouraging residents to drive low-speed scooters whenever possible, and to free up the sparse parking spaces for CARS.  The logic?...I guess if you drink enough (within the very defined legal limits), the gridlock and traffic jams don't bother you as much?

Yes...I can understand that the state now needs the extra revenue from us scooter owners, now that the booze tax is gone.  However, requiring said scooters (smaller wheelbase than many bicycles) to take up a full parking space AND pay parking fees is truly beyond me.  "It's not about revenue, it's all about the speed," a spokesperson from the DMV said about the new class of Moped.

And just HOW FAST does a scooter go when parked in a bicycle spot?

And HOW fast can a bicycle go, anyhow?  And, if the correct answer to the question "I may not operate my moped faster than 25 MPH" (on the written test for the operator's permit)...if this is true, it begs the question that maybe a Moped CAN go faster than 25 MPH. 

And many bicycle racers go faster than my scooter, especially when I am limited by the speed of surrounding traffic!

We're in a sad state if this becomes a case of "if you can't beat it, join it." Maybe I’ll sell my scooter, buy a cheap car, lots of tax-free booze, and park my bottle and myself in a prime parking space...maybe on Beacon Hill.  I'll Bring lots of quarters for the meter, a folding chair (because I don't think you can drink alcohol in a car, even if it is parked), and my cell phone. I'll just sit there and send drunken text messages all day long.  I think that's legal.

Apparently, voters and law-makers of this fine state think THIS is a better way to provide the much needed increase in revenue.  After having to go out of state to be a responsible dog owner -- also due to lawmakers who do not take the time to think "big picture" -- I am questioning the sanity of a state that PUNISHES good citizens who trying to be part of a solution instead of part of the problem.  Can our law makers say the same about themselves?

PeTA -- Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare: A NEW TERRORIST THREAT, HERE AT HOME?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE HORRIFIC NEGATIVE PUBLICITY about bark-softening (a.k.a. "de-barking" -- truly a misnomer)?  Yes...there are occasional "bad surgeries" performed, probably a result of the procedure NOT being taught properly in vet school, since it has fallen out of favor.  But for every "bad" one, there are probably thousands of successful surgeries.  No body even notices that my dogs barks have been softened...except my VERY GRATEFUL NEIGHBORS.

As a result of my blog post, I received several comments from vets, THANKING me for "telling it like it is."  And many of them terrified of PeTA, and other animal rights extremists, who have been responsible for bombing research labs, and spreading mis-insformation, such as the common misconception about the cruelty of bark-softening (when it could save the life and/or ownership status of an otherwise WONDERFUL companion, esp. for those who have no one else in their lives.)  I thought I'd feature just ONE of the comments, from a vet, about PeTA.  I have so many, many animal loving friends (most of them childless) who are giving lots of money to this organization, not knowing that their funds may be going to the opposite ends of what they would like achieved:

"I attended a workshop put on by animal rights zealots and they openly talked about getting this law passed so that more dogs would and could be taken and killed. Their goal is the elmination of pet ownership. They are also pushing for changing ownership to guardian so they can legally take your pet from you. These organizations are very dangerous to your pets. HSUS, PeTA, Dr. Katz, Best Friends are all animal rights organizations which is not animal welfare. These people are using these laws to kill more domestic animals not save them. If you count the animals that died because of MSN, raids put on by HSUS, PeTA's outright attempt to kill everything coming through their door you would realize that they have caused the deaths of more a million pets by passing laws that cause responsible owners to give up their pets."

I have since checked with several vets and a few people who attended grad schools where PeTA has bombed labs, even one lab trying to find a cure for a disease plaguing ANIMALS!

 

Based on my dedication to being a "good neighbor" and doing "the right thing," after much research, I recently had a bark softening procedure performed on my two otherwise delightful Pomeranian brothers.  My responsible decision was made MUCH MORE DIFFICULT by my state's government officials -- Massachusettes legislators -- voting 150-1 -- to BAN this procedure in my state.  I tried calling many vets out of state but, without a referral, no vet will admit to performing the very harmless procedure, MUCH less invasive surgery than, say, spaying or neutering.  All I got was offers to find new homes for my otherwise wonderful pets and companions.

Fortunately, I "met" a breeder, trainer and shower of Pomeranians who referred me to a vet who specialized in the procedure. My dogs don't even know their barks are softened. 

They are now free to race, tumble, play, chase the squirrels and birds from "their" yard, and welcome all my visitors -- without fear of being shocked, sprayed, ear-zapped with "humane" sonic anti-bark devices.  They can still bark...but it is like the barking the did before their voice changed DRAMATICALLy around age 1.

They have no scars (the procedure is done through the mouth), and were out and about as soon as the anaestesia wore off.  They ate their dinner that night with no noticable discomfort.

ANIMAL ACTIVISM-- WHERE WILL IT STOP?

I know at least one horse owner, who pays $800/month to board her horse, who does not ride the horse at all, "because it causes him stress."  That is her choice, of course.  But if it was up to this woman, she'd probably have a law passed prohibiting the riding of horses, regarding it as "cruelty to animals."

Recently, YouTube has featured a spate of hate-spewing videos attacking some of the world's top dressage riders and trainers. Most feature still photos taken out of context, and commentary that displays ignorance of upper level dressage.  Once you have trained an upper level dressage horse -- the horses who love it, love their work, and love to show off, just like any other athlete.   

DECLAWING of CATS: A SIMILAR DEBATE  (QUOTE FROM CAT OWNER who pays a fortune to keep her diabetic cat alive, regarding PeTA: "I cannot support an organization who puts animal rights ABOVE people's rights.  I had my cats declawed as kittens.  Because I invested the money in this procedure, obviously, I take full responsibility and CARE about my cats.  Why would I risk their lives?")

KUDOS to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who has the strength to stand up against what I see as a form of insanity.  He recently vetoed a bill that "went too far."  Whatever you think of such procedures -- declawing of house cats, or bark softening of dogs, I think that Pet Owners should have rights to do what they think is the best thing for their pets, and depend on their VETERINARIANS to give them sound advice.

Excerpt from article: "The California Veterinary Medical Association had asked the governor to veto the legislation, questioning the connection between declawing and public safety, and warning the bill would lead to legislation "limit[ing] the veterinarian-client-patient relationship."

"The CVMA believes declawing is necessary for medical reasons such as chronic infections or tumors in cats, or if the pet owners are elderly or disabled. The group says behavioral issues such as "using claws in a destructive manner" are among the main causes of abandonment of cats."

NEWS UPDATE: MAN MURDERED OVER PARKING SPOT -- relevant to The "new" class of Moped: now required by law to take up parking spots intended for (and needed by) cars

Within the week after posting the note below, an off-duty police officer in Baltimore was murdered over a disputed parking space.  While obviously an extreme case, this comment in one article just emphasizes that our lawmakers are PROVOKING such confrontations by requiring scooters to take up parking spots intended for cars:

"At the scene, neighbour Tricia Zebron said that the neighbourhood is typically chaotic on weekends. She said parking spots are hard to come by - her car was parked in the same lot where Stevenson was attacked, though there are ‘private parking’ signs posted."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321336/Off-duty-police-officer-killed-incredibly-petty-row-parking-space.html#ixzz12k42Nd6H 

I had hear rumors and rumbles, but did not believe our local decision makers would be THAT stupid and/or THAT greedy for money.  But, yes, the new scooter law, which defines (and charges steeply for, and requires insurance for operating) a new class of moped -- worst of all, it prohibits parking like a bicycle.  Which was the second primary reason I elected to get a low powered scooter, instead of one I could take on the highway.  WBZ ran this story (the title should read: CURIOUS WHY SCOOTERS CANNOT PARK ON THE SIDEWALKS instead of what it does say):

http://wbztv.com/local/scooters.sidewalks.park.2.1942936.htm

If I were driving a car and looking for a parkingn space in, say, Back Bay, and saw a scooter/moped parked in one, I'd be really annoyed!  Maybe I'm weird, but I think THAT is "unfair"....and just plain stupid. 

BICYCLISTS...YOU ARE NEXT!

Check out this comment from someone on my angst over the bait and switch scooter laws: "If it was put to a vote, I can promise you the public would vote to require all motorized vehicles to have plates and insurance and would
probably also want to see the same on bicycles."

CANDACE CLEMENS CHARGED with CRIMINAL OFFENSE: Operating an uninsured 50 cc Scooter

I HAVE CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST ME!!! My 50 cc Honda Scooter had an expired sticker. Under the new 2010 Mass. State Law, scooters that formerly did not require insurance are now divided into two categories -- under 30 MPH (still don't require insurance); and those that go 40 MPH max (now require insurance). I CHOSE to purchase my low-speed scooter for ONE REASON....to avoid insurance. Period.

So when I went to renew my sticker, after waiting 2-1/2 hours, I was told I now needed insurance. I decided it is time to exercise..."Civil Disobedience"-- what I consider to be my patriotic duty. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29

Here's an excerpt: "....people should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences."

At first blush, the freedom to purchase and ride low-speed scooters without all the b.s. that goes with car ownership -- to be free from our increasingly POLICED LIVES -- is hardly comparable to, say, slavery, which is one of the issues where Thoreau suggests "breaking the law" is not only OK, it is a responsibility of citizenship.  (A relevant read, "Hitler's Willing Accomplices"....if we go along with our governments laws, just because it's "the law"....we may end up condoning some bad things, just because it's "the law.")

BUT...Take a moment to think about the potential positive effects of low-speed scooters and the difference they COULD make, esp. in Urban Areas.   Instead of making it more EXPENSIVE AND COMPLICATED to own, we should offer citizens -- esp. kids -- INCENTIVES to use scooters as much as possible, as alternatives to cars. 

Incentives could include -- parking them like bicycles; no mandatory insurance; minimal registration fees (if any); and possibly even special lanes on highways where they currently are banned because they can't go fast enough.  But there are plenty of back roads....and I am not one to suggest we spend more taxpayer money just to make room for low-speed scooters.  I'm really more about encouraging scooter use to SAVE Taxpayer money. 

Here are some of my reflections of the advantages of low-speed scooters:

1. affordable alternative transportation, esp. for kids
2. no cell phone usage (helmets, not to mention hands)
3. no texting (obvious)

 [BTW - HAS ANYONE THOUGHT HOW MUCH MONEY IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYERS TO HIRE EXTRA POLICE TO WATCH FOR TEXTING and/or TEENAGE CELL PHONE VIOLATORS????]
4. dramatic reduction in gas consumption and fumes
5. no speeding; minimal reckless driving
6. NO DRINKING WHILE DRIVING (both hands are occupied, and helmet restricts intake) --

7. also very, very difficult to drive while drunk (unlike a car, you will tip over if you are too tipsy to walk. And you will do it standing stll or else going at a slow speed).
8. no road rage/hand gestures
9. no traffic jams
10. no parking problems
11. no high speed police chases
12. you can ride one in formal working attire, and even dressed up

IF CITIZENS WERE GIVEN INCENTIVES TO USE LOW-SPEED SCOOTERS, TAXPAYERS MONEY COULD BE SAVED BY A DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN METER MAIDS, and TRAFFIC POLICE OFFICERS could be freed up to pursue real criminals....instead of harassing those of us who are trying to minimize gas consumption and decrease the number of cars on the road.

I HAVE LEARNED THAT IT WAS UP TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER'S DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT I COULD PUSH MY SCOOTER HOME (it was just a few blocks down Mass. Ave from my home) OR HE COULD REQUIRE ME TO BE TOWED. He opted for the latter, and so a HUGE FLATBED TOW TRUCK came to pick up my 50 cc Honda, at a cost of $100, CASH ONLY, of course. I wonder if any of that money went back to the arresting officer? Why else would he decide to have my 50 cc Honda -- which is not much more difficult to push than a bicycle -- towed on a huge flatbed truck?  If it was up to his discretion, there could only be TWO REASONS why he would force me to be towed:

A. he is getting a kick back from the tow company

B. he is just chosing to be mean to me...to teach me a lesson....because how DARE I break the law by knowingly NOT going back to the DMV after finding out insurance was now required, when that was what I was trying to avoid. 

I posted this on my facebook profile....and a friend added these OTHER advantages to the proliferation of low-speed scooters:

13. riding a scooter, one looks very "French" (especially sexy for female riders on Vespas) - [ACTUALLY, in my last trip to Europe, while in Munich, I noticed HUGE NUMBERS of low-speed scooters being driven by people in work attire....it is very Euro!  Considering it costs me $2 to fill my tank....and gas in Europe is now about $6 a gallon....commuting on a scooter is a sign of intelligence.] 
14. provides a legitimate reason for one to wear leather clothes, even in the summer [personally, I prefered riding around in the really hot weather in shorts and sandals...I felt like I was at the beach instead of on Storrow Drive, on my last trip to the Longwood Medical area. THE JOURNEY IS THE REWARD!]
15. one way to actually smell the roses [a VERY SPECIAL side-treat to low speed scooters is, indeed, the feeling of "experiencing" the world around you, as you commute to wherever you are going.]
16. provides High School students with another excuse as to why his/her homework was not turned in ("it blew off my scooter")....[ha ha....well...I'm assuming that the high school kids might actually appreciate being able to go to after school jobs and such.  If parents are worried about liability, get your kid a single seat scooter...that's what I have.]

MY FINAL QUESTION TO MY READERS:  Why are our politicians passing these laws that are forcing low-speed scooter riders to get insurance, get a special drivers permit (my daughter said it was easier to "learn" to ride my scooter than learning to ride her bicycle w/ training wheels), and -- new in Boston -- talk about forcing scooters to park in metered parking spots!

REVENUE FOR THE STATE!

But that is a very, very stupid way to get revenue when one considers all the BENEFITS and SAVINGS TO TAXPAYERS that would come by giving UP that source of revenue.  Let's get revenue by doing things like legalizing pot and taxing it; increase the tax on alcohol and cigarettes; increase the registration fees for any non-commercial vehicles that get less than 30 MPG.  And when it comes to saving Tax Payer money....

PS - because I have a CRIMINAL CHARGES filed against me, I am now REQUIRED to go to court. Which, of course, involves court fees.  When I expressed my dismay, my arresting officer said "no big deal....it will be dismissed and won't go on your record or anything.  You might have to pay a fine and the court costs."  I said, "well, if my scooter is my only means of transportation, how am I supposed to get to court?"  and he replied, "TAKE A TAXI!"

I can think of ONE police officer whose salary would no longer be a burden to the Tax Payers if we liberate low-speed scooter riders from the shackles of our Police State.

Larry Summers vs. Brooksley Born: Did We Let A Misogynous Fox in The (White) Hen House?

I stumbled upon the TV show FrontLine, featuring an interview with Brooksley Born.  WOW...a very smart lady.  Why is SHE not in the White House now, acting as part of the President's advisory team, instead of Larry Summers, who -- along w/a now-repentant Alan Greenspan -- was among the most active in putting her down, shutting her up, and pushing her out of her then role as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission:

"As head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], Brooksley Born became alarmed by the lack of oversight of the secretive, multitrillion-dollar over-the-counter derivatives market. Her attempts to regulate derivatives ran into fierce resistance from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who prevailed upon Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Aug. 28, 2009."

Click HERE to view some of the TV Interview.  But this footage does not show the ugly, vehement, arguably sexist response and attempts to discredit Born's request to "merely ask questions" about a troubling market. 

Booksley Born was essentially silenced, and ultimately resigned from her post during the Clinton's admin.  Beaten down by Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Arthur Levitt and lots of men in Congress who didn't see any reason to burst the economic bubble of the 90's.

I am, frankly, stunned, that Summers remains part of Obama's group of top financial advisers.  When he was first questioned for his misogynistic remarks as then-president of Harvard U., I thought his remarks were taken out of context.  Later, I just excused him of being a pompous know-it-all type.  Yes, he comes across as arrogant and superior. But usually those types of people DO "know it all," have a superior mind that understands a lot more about the complexities of a certain area of expertise -- in this case finances. As i always say about running a business, "hire good people and then let them do their jobs, and don't get in their  way as long as they are doing a good job!"

But Larry Summers is NOT NEARLY as smart as Brooksley Born, NOR as ethical.  In fact, he appears to be downright unethical. Because two of the four most vocal of Brooksley's opponents --  most notably Arthur Levitt, who publicly states he was wrong, was sorry he didn't listen to her because "I could have made a real difference," and Greenspan, who -- while I haven't heard an apology about his treatment of Born, he has admitted he was shockingly wrong about the level of greed in our financial institutions, and the need to closely monitor the derivatives market.

So Larry Summers continues to be rewarded for doing WRONG.  I think the Harvard faculty was right in demanding he step down.  He does NOT know it all.  And he should NOT be advising our president about how to manage our country's finances. We have allowed a fox to enter the hen house.   

POST SCRIPT: Feb. 2011, On behalf of Larry Summers, I feel compelled to post this recent quote from him in an article in Time Magazine about the need to educate girls in developing countries:

"Investment in girls' education may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world," Larry Summers wrote.  Could Mr. Summers have matured (and/or been humbled) since his original dissing of Brookesly Born?   

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2046045,00.html#ixzz1Ecrms6HJ

CANDACE CLEMENS ANNOUNCES BIBLE BURNING PLANS

Apparently, if any nut case makes a controversial statement about the Muslim religion, a) the media gives the nut case some actual credibility, b) some believers in the target religion feel justified in reacting violently, c) the nut case uses the resulting publicity to try to blackmail people into acting in accordance with his agenda.

This guy is allegedly a Christian minister.  That implies that he worships a man called Jesus and regards him as Christ, the Son of God, and his holy reference book is the Bible. I was under the impression that the man called Jesus was someone who preached "turning the other cheek" and "loving your neighbor" even if he/she isn't of the same faith, as presented by Jesus in the story of the good Samaritan (not one of "the Chosen" people...all those "chosen" people ignored a suffering man of their own faith.) I was also under the impression that this same Jesus was against perpetrating hatred, as is this at-best-fringe element who claims to be a Christian Minister, "spreading the word."  The question is, who's word is he spreading? And how is he getting the media to help him spread it?

Meanwhile, I'm a PR and Marketing person.  I am REALLY envious that this "Christian minister" is getting completely free publicity from worldwide media, and using it to try to get the attention of powerful people, as well as using the media to aid in attempted extortion. 

Hmmmm.  Maybe he's not a nut case after all.  According to Advertising Equivalency  this "nut case" has just been given billions of dollars of free media coverage, when I work so hard to get a little tiny bit of publicity for my clients, and sometimes my clients even PAY the media to get mentioned (which is called advertising.) 

These clients are mostly small businesses.  They employ American citizens, providing health coverage for their employees, probably most of them Christians (OK, I know one of them is Catholic....I'm not sure this minister would agree that qualifies as Christian.) And these businesses DESERVE AT LEAST as much free publicity as this allegedly Christian minister, who doesn't seem to add much value to America at all.

In fact, some might say, he's actually going to be responsible for some deaths of American soldiers, or even innocent Christian civilians (apparently, he wouldn't care if a few innocent Muslims died in the process, so we won't bother mentioning that). Why should HE be rewarded with free publicity? In fact, if anyone does get hurt or loses a loved one as  result of said publicity, I think a good lawyer could make a case for significant compensation -- his or her client suing both the nut case AND the media who initially reported the story.  Isn't this irresponsible reporting, an abuse of "freedom of the press?"

My Walnut28 Communications business has had a few clients over the past few years.  I think I'll get one of them to agree to join me in announcing that we will burn a few Bibles because we are mad at this Christian minister for endangering the lives of our troops in a very Muslim part of the world.  And if enough Christians get angry at the company for burning bibles, maybe the media will pick it up.  Or vice versa.  And -- bingo -- brand recognition.  The only cost is my consulting fee.

Maybe I should hire this nut case.  I think he's on to something. 

MACHINE VISION and SENSOR TECHOLOGY: possibly helping God to identify, measure, sort and send souls to Heaven or Hell? (But early versions potentially helping with problems here on earth)

It will be interesting to see which causes more damage to the earth -- nuclear accidents such as Chernoble, fossil fuel accidents like the BP oil spill, the clash of organized religions, or outrageous and unchecked litigation.

For a little levity on this subject, I suggest you revisit the Only "A" exam at the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering's Final Exam question for May of 1997 in Dr. Schambaugh's Thermodynamics class.  The question to be answered by Schambaugh's students: "IS HELL EXOTHERMIC OR ENDOTHERMIC."  (I will return to this later in this posting).

When it comes to global warming, how shall we prioritize the dangers of Nuclear Power, Electric Power, the over use of Fossil fuel cars, and hot-headed decision makers and the even hotter headed "average citizens" who seem so easily riled by non-analytical news reporting, and nonsensical religious and political leaders  (not to mention the potential warming effect of "all hell breaking loose" as per the aforementioned Thermodynamic exam essay.)

"What the heck does this have to do with Machine Vision and Sensor Technology?" you might be asking.  Eventually, I intend to use this rambling, obtuse blog to reveal my hidden agenda -- to promote my successful PR efforts for my former clients, frame-grabbing manufacturer, Alacron and smart camera manufacturer, FastVision and their CEO Dr. Joseph Sgro.  (It just took a while to hit the media).  And the method to my madness is that the products from companies such as Alacron and FastVision might allow us to identify and measure, as per Dr. Sgro's description, "abnormalities," to evaluate and -- using analytical software -- take appropriate action.  Nascent examples of this technology exist already: drones (a.k.a. "unmanned aerial vehicles"), cars that prevent accidents and wake you up when they sense you may be falling asleep at the wheel, and "hurt locker" types of robotics.  Yes, sometimes they make flawed decisions, but they are potentially much better than the alternatives (Al Queda frequently kill many more civilians in suicide and other actions with no attempts at identifying appropriate targets.)

Back to saving the world....how shall we prioritize our "dangers to society" within the context of Corporate Greed, Government regulations that intervene when they shouldn't and don't when they should, invasion of privacy vs. national security, a society that breeds a sense of entitlement resulting in ridiculous litigation and unjustifiable cash settlements, and extremely dogmatic religions who don't look for cash settlements, but rather settle matters with stoning and suicide bombings?

Perhaps the future of our planet has a much bigger threat from the growing population with a mentality that is part of the problem -- blame -- instead of thinking big picture, analytically, and seeking a solution. Seems like those pointing the fingers at those they see as "sinners" (according to their religious and/or political belief system) might stop and think about Tim Graham's "A" exam answer.  Mr. Graham, the author of the above mentioned exam response, says:

"As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially."....and Grahm's essay continues:

1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over."

So, perhaps Global warming is actually a result of all hell breaking loose, a result of too many souls going to hell?  If so, what percentage of Global warming does it represent?

How could we measure this?  The results could significantly impact how we prioritize our decisions regarding utilities and other socio-economic issues.

Two of my past clients were in the Machine Vision industry, specifically Alacron, who manufactures Frame Grabbers, and FastVision,  who manufacturer very high speed "Smart" Cameras (the link will take you to a TV spotlight on these past clients of mine.)

The recent oil spill is a disaster that imaging, machine vision, and sensor technology identified, understood, monitored and moderated.  Click HERE to read the article in the on-line version of VSD Magazine (Vision Systems Design.) 

BTW - I have long been an advocate of Nuclear Power, ever since in 1997, when I was working for the Electronic Publishing pioneer company, Interleaf, a Canadian Power Plant employee reminded me of the huge advances in sensor-to-computer technology, along with networking, that have taken place since Three Mile Island (where no one was hurt) and Chernobyl, significantly more deadly.

As everyone knows, technology can dramatically alter what works, what doesn't, and what is allowed to break.  Three Mile Island had two, non-networked 8086 computer on site.  Chernobyl had two non-networked 286s on site. Today's sensor technology either didn't exist at all, wasn't interfaced with analytical artificial intelligence (i.e. computers), or was in the nascent phase primarily being tested by NASA, but by no means available or affordable by the private sector or even by Nuclear Power Plants.  Had it been, I bet big money that neither Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (which was really just a very close call, with no casualties) would have taken place.

Sensor technology, combined with machine vision, is what is behind the new SMART CAMERAS, a primary focus of FastVsision.  CEO Sgro, founder of FastVision, and his affiliated frame grabber company, ALACRON, is betting the future of much technology on the marriage of sensor technology and machine vision to produce more intelligent cameras to benefit his three primary markets, "The 3 M's": Medical, Manufacturing and Military.

In conclusion, the marriage of sensor technology to Machine Vision might help us track the impact of the afterlife on such important things as Global Warming. 

Maybe the "right" God doesn't send everyone who isn't a "true" believer to what would quickly become a grossly over-populated Hell, possibly contributing to Global Warming, if the first of Tim Graham's conclusions is correct.  Maybe this God uses a spiritual form of Machine Vision and Sensor Technology to sort the wheat from the chaff of human souls. 

However, while we are still among the living, with the use of Machine Vision and Sensor Technology, we might finally learn how to better prioritize the things that really matter vs. the things that do not.  For instance -- inspired by a news item today -- what is more important to the citizens of Los Angeles --  encouraging citizens to (safely) use more bicycles and scooters while commuting around that city; or prohibiting same sex couples from marrying?  Machine Vision and Sensor Technology might help measure and analyze the results on everything from pollution to road rage and stress in the city of Los Angeles -- and we could compare the results.

Imprisoning people who smoke marijuana or allowing entrepreneurs to harvest the "weed" adding jobs and tax revenue to our ailing economy...AND, in doing so, taking at least THAT business away from the ruthless Drug War Lords south of our border?   Machine Vision and Sensor Technology might help us measure the impact of smoking marijuana on rage and criminal activities that hurt other people.  I haven't heard of violence being associated w/ pot heads.  But perhaps this should be measured.

Speaking of protecting our borders, since Machine Vision -- the frame grabbers manufactured by my past client, Alacron -- whose CEO Joe Sgro says, in his TV interview, that  tracks "abnormalities" which, along with sensor technology -- can better identify individual "units" that are "abnormal," "faulty," potentially dangerous and/or just don't belong in the group in which they are currently residing. 

The implication is that Machine Vision and Sensor Technology could be used to help prevent "bad" people from entering the United States.  This could expedite the entrance of "good people" into our country; thereby reducing stress, saving money and time, and --much like the faulty bottles shown in the video footage of Filtec/IDC's bottle inspection machine, terrorists and other "bad guys" could be automatically discarded into a place where they could not do their desired acts of terrorism.

However, it may be many, many "next generations" and distant future versions of sensor technology before people such "dangerous abnormalities" as Bernie Madoff and Enron's CEO Ken Lay are identified and removed from positions of power, where they can inflict so much damage on innocent civilians. 

Maybe by then, Alacron and/or FastVision will have developed a "spiritual" frame grabber which, along with spiritual sensor technology and a Smart Camera, maybe that is able to "look into souls" (apologies to Woody Allen) and identify and sort abnormalities -- much like that which the "True God" uses to decide who really should go to Heaven or Hell -- and maybe help voters and citizens of this world select ethical people, and prevent unethical people from achieving positions of power. 

But, of course, the flaw in this thinking is the postulate that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely."

KUDOs to COURAGEOUS CANINE VET who DARES TO BARK...SOFTLY

Relevant to my recent posting about the ban on bark-softening procedures, Dr. Sharon Vanderlip, who was the only person courageous enough to speak up NOT anonymously in the original article I read in the New York Times, has a piece in the newsletter I mentioned in my previous listing: the National Animal Interest Alliance.  She is extremely concerned that the California Senate may soon become yet another state that does not allow Bark Softening.  Click HERE to read her exceptional letter to the California politicians who are considering laws that they have no business considering.  Some of her more salient points are that kittens and puppies are extremely sensitive to anesthesia: 

An excerpt from her excellent letter....

I am a veterinarian licensed to practice in California and I vehemently oppose AB1634 as amended May 31, 2007. California veterinarians overwhelmingly oppose AB1634.....

For 28 years I have worked in reproductive medicine. I have worked extensively with responsible dog breeders and I have also worked in a very large California animal shelter. I have performed thousands of spays and neuters during my professional career, including early spays/neuters. I am convinced that AB1634 is a disastrous bill that will not solve a single problem, but will definitely create many more. This letter explains some reasons how and why AB1634 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS IMPOUNDED, ABANDONED, AND EUTHANIZED EVERY YEAR.

Veterinary medical decisions, including when/if to spay/neuter an animal, should be made by veterinarians and the pets’ owners, not by politicians.  I am a proponent of spay/neuter, but on a medical case by case basis, when the time is right for each individual animal patient.

For complex physiological reasons, young puppies and kittens cannot clear some drugs and medications from their bodies, or tolerate anesthesia and surgery, as well as adolescent or adult animals can. Puppies and kittens can develop hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and have difficulty maintaining a normal body temperature during and after anesthesia. The three main causes of death in puppies and kittens are hypothermia, hypoglycemia, and dehydration—all of which can occur as a result of anesthesia and surgery and can progress to shock and death.  In short, puppies and kittens are high risk patients. Words create images in our minds and direct our thoughts—and our decisions. “Neuter” and “spay” sound harmless and suggest these are simple procedures without consequences. These words don’t raise mental images of incisions, organs, blood—or risks. “Spay”, derived from the French word espeier, means “to cut with a sword”. Castration, from Latin, castratio, means “to cut”. Now, with these original words in our heads, our mental images change from something benign to something startling. For balance, we should call these procedures by their correct names that describe what they really are: gonadectomy, ovariohysterectomy, castration.  By doing so, we remain cognizant of the difficulties and risks associated with an invasive intra-abdominal surgical procedure (including those required for abdominally retained testicles), the removal of body parts, and their long-term effects. Gentle words like “spay” and “neuter” have lulled many non-veterinarians into a casual, worry-free attitude toward these surgical procedures.

Politicians and animal activists supporting AB1634 also take these surgical procedures and their profound medical consequences casually— so casually as to mandate the procedures for young pet companions with a broad brush stroke in a “one size fits all” approach. This is an excellent example of why politicians and animal activists must not be allowed to dictate how veterinarians practice their profession. It's dangerous and it's wrong." ....

# # #

TO MY READERS...I invite you to read the rest of her letter.  And to start thinking BIG PICTURE, not knee-jerk reacting to the occasional news stories...and the sad reality that, for both people and animals, there is suffering and death is an inevitable part of life.

OF NOTE [NOT at all part of Dr. Vanderlips letter, but perhaps relevant]: The lawsuit and horribly publicity about PETCO, based on "neutering bunnies without anesthesia"....a doctor friend of mine informed me that bunnies are highly intolerant of most general anesthesia, and their lives are far more endangered by general anesthesia than by the equivalent of a baby bunny bris.  This "scandal" was all over the news, shut down a lot of the PetCo stores that offered bunnies, and caused a lot of negative publicity, calls for picketing and shutting down of PETCO. 

While it should not surprise any of us, we tend to over-react to the media, which picks up stories that are "fed" to them, and frequently those doing the feeding have their own agendas and/or are maybe 'extremists.'  I mean, in Afghanistan, where women are regarded as "property"....and a woman mis-behaves, she might have her nose cut off....without anesthesia. 

When seen in the context of some of the world's problems, having our politicians wasting tax-payer money getting involved in decisions about how we are to treat our pets...it is not appropriate. 

Dylan Verge introduces me to a feline parody of President Obama and his Secretary of (S)cat(e)

OK....Nine year old Dylan Verge introduced me to this awesome presidential election video...the treadmill of politics.  Somehow I missed it.

SPECTACULAR HORSE and RIDER

Ahhh....how grateful I am to YouTube to enable me to become inspired by some incredible horses and riders that I otherwise would not see.  If you liked Blu Hors Matinee, you will love this magnificent dancing man and stallion team...Totilas and Edward Gal.  Better than "Dancing with the Stars."  You will see a horse who truly loves showing off to a crowd.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, YouTUBE!

Hard to believe, YouTube is 5 years old this month.  It truly changed the world of communications.  My latest "User Generated Video Competition" is among the employees at Constant Contact, the grand daddy of e-newsletters and e-marketing.  Here is one of my favorites: Constant Contact Saves Trees.

THE NATIONAL BUDGET FOR BLONDES

A friend just pointed me to this AWESOME explanation of Obama's plans for the National Budget, and the Federal Deficit, and what we can spend, and what we can't.  It's really GREAT...and fun to watch, too.  Click HERE to enjoy a 1.38 minute explanation by a college student of something very few people understand.  Or want to understand.

LET'S SUE THE HISTORY CHANNEL: Italy vs. YouTube

I am shocked about the Italian judicial system finding Google executives guilty on criminal privacy charges for the posting -- by an Italian citizen -- of a video  on YouTube showing bullying and abuse of an Italian Down's syndrome child by other Italian teens. 

I mean, should the History Channel be sued for airing footage of the survivors of Nazi Concentration camps? It's an invasion of the privacy of the concentration camp victims; the individual survivors didn't give permission; and it shows a horrific scene of man's inhumanity to man. The truth is, much of this footage served to shock the post World War II citizens about the horror and reality of the Holocaust, and many of the Holocaust memorials continue showing this footage so that we never forget.

The following is excerpted from the story in the on-line version of WIRED:

“Today’s stunning verdict sets an extremely dangerous precedent that threatens free expression and chills innovation on the global internet,” Harris said in an e-mail statement. “If the conviction is allowed to stand, it will chill the provision of Web 2.0 services that provide user-generated content platforms in Italy, and Italian internet users will find themselves without a powerful forum for free expression...

The story goes on to make the following key points:

1. "...Many see [the ruling] as thinly veiled machinations against Google by Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who has nearly monopoly control over Italy’s mainstream media. Italy’s parliament is currently considering a law that would put online video services under the same rules imposed on broadcast stations — legislation intended to stifle online speech.

2. Google, for one, called the decision “astonishing.”  “It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the internet is built,” Google lawyer Matt Sucherman wrote on Google’s blog. “If that ’safe harbor’ principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.”

The story goes on to compare this case with others in U.S. courts that, in my opinion, are not relevant to this.  In these cases people abused social networking services with malicious intent that resulted in harm to others. Those being prosecuted are the same people THAT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME (very different from the Italy vs. Google case.) 

Google executives did not commit a crime.  In fact, the YouTube video allowed authorities to identify, arrest and punish 3 of the 4 people abusing the handicapped person. 

One might argue that by providing the opportunity for people to post records of themselves committing criminal or  misdemeanor behavior, Google/YouTube allows authorities to identify, warn and/or arrest those who break the law and then brag about it on YouTube.  Society can emphasize what we consider right and wrong. 

Google executives did the only thing they can and should do -- remove the offensive material as soon as there are complaints.  And, perhaps in such cases of abuse, cyber-bullying, and criminal behavior, the new media giant can work with authorities to help

In the recent cases of cyber-bullying provoking suicides or making fun of handicapped people, kids should be educated about the responsibilities of freedom. Cyber-bullying is sick and irresponsible.  As citizens and parents, we need to take some responsibility for our behavior and the behavior of our children.  What sicko gets kicks out of bullying anyone, let alone a handicapped person, and then BRAGGING ABOUT IT ON YOUTUBE? 

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/italy-google-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher#ixzz0grY32P5e

DIPLOMACY in the TIME of HILLARA: Should Hillary Pack a Paddle?

When she was 6, my youngest daughter overhead the grownups discussing a news story about judicial corruption.  She asked and we explained the issues of the news story, and the problem of the erosion of ethics in the different areas of government.  Her solution: "I think that every judge, every  lawyer, every leader of every country should HAVE A MOTHER!"

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has raised eyebrows and broke with tradition just as she did when she spoke up about a looming Health Care disaster while being just a wife of a President.  In her profile published on August 6, 2009, The New York Times wrote:  "On her first trip as secretary, Mrs. Clinton traveled in February 2009 to Seoul, where she warned that a succession battle in North Korea could complicate nuclear negotiations with that country's government. With it, she broke an informal taboo: Diplomats do not talk publicly about what comes after Kim Jong-il, the convalescing dictator who turned his isolated country into a nuclear rogue state.

The question is whether Mrs. Clinton made a beginner's error that could upset other players in the negotiations, like China. Or whether she showed refreshing candor -- the kind of approach that could shake loose what has been a diplomatic quagmire for the last eight years."

In October of 2009, Hillary paid a visit to Pakistan.  She took a lot of heat for scolding the Pakistan government for not rounding up more of the Al Queda militants known to be hiding out in that country. She told the Pakistan leadership that it was "failing to do all it could to track down Al Qaeda."

Clinton told a group of journalists in Lahore that she found it "hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." Al Qaeda, she said, "has had a safe haven in Pakistan since 2002."

Just as when she warned of the pressing need for Health Care Reform back in 1993, everyone in the U.S. media gasped, and said, "ohhhh...she shouldn't say that.  She's out of line.  She's being bossy and will offend our allies."  But maybe those guys needed a scolding from a woman! Because guess what....in the past week, Pakistani authorities have arrested nine top Al Qaeda leaders.

Maybe her title should be changed to Mama Hillary, and maybe she should pack a paddle?  

TUFTS pioneers YouTube College Essay Applications

Front and center -- page that is -- of Sunday (Feb. 21) Boston Globe: "A Fresh Pitch on 'U' Tube --

Tufts, in a first, invited applicants to submit one-minute videos. A creative flood followed." 

The NYT also covered this momentus event.  I excerpt below, from the Times article:

"Lee Coffin, the dean of undergraduate admissions, said the idea came to him last spring as he watched a YouTube video someone had sent him. “I thought, ‘If this kid applied to Tufts, I’d admit him in a minute, without anything else,’ ” Mr. Coffin said....

For Tufts, the videos have been a delightful way to get to know the applicants.

“At heart, this is all about a conversation between a kid and an admissions officer,” Mr. Coffin  said. “You see their floppy hair and their messy bedrooms, and you get a sense of who they are. We have a lot of information about applicants, but the videos let them share their voice.”

“We’ve got some who are really good with the technology,” Mr. Coffin said. “There’s a real technical savvy out there in this generation, and this lets them show off their splicing, their stop action, their animation. Some of the engineering applicants show us what they’ve made. One kid is talking, and then all of a sudden, he’s in the water, to show off his underwater camera.”

While elephants are a common theme in the videos — Jumbo the elephant is Tufts’s mascot — only Michael Klinker went so far as to build a small remote-control blue-elephant helicopter that flies merrily around his backyard.

Some of the videos have developed a YouTube following. The popular favorite is probably Amelia Downs, with more than 6,000 views for her video combining “two of my favorite things: being a nerd and dancing,” in which she performs a bar graph, a scatter plot, a pie chart, and a sine and cosine graph."

The Times article featured the following videos:

 Rhaina Cohen’s video, working off the saying “You never truly know someone until you have walked a mile in her shoes,” and featuring the blue sandals from her bat mitzvah, the white sneakers she bought cheaply in Britain, and the black heels in which she “stood next to Hillary Clinton.”...

While elephants are a common theme in the videos — Jumbo the elephant is Tufts’s mascot — only Michael Klinker went so far as to build a small remote-control blue-elephant helicopter that flies merrily around his backyard.

Some of the videos have developed a YouTube following. The popular favorite is probably Amelia Downs, with more than 6,000 views for her video combining “two of my favorite things: being a nerd and dancing,” in which she performs a bar graph, a scatter plot, a pie chart, and a sine and cosine graph.

While the application allowed students to put their video on any easily accessible Web site, he said almost everybody used YouTube.

Having seen the popularity of the videos — and heard from current Tufts students who want their favorite applicants admitted — Mr. Coffin now plans to put the best ones into a “Tufts Idol” contest once admissions season is over."

HERE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITES:

A day in my life (rap) [THE BEST! My favorite. A real work of art.]

Stick figure going through life, ending at Tufts

What’s on my iPod – lip sync

I could be a spoiled ASPEN ski brat, but helped after Katrina, and in 3rd world countries - You decide

Glass half full: it's all in your outlook on life

Young Man Searching for the Right School (approved for all audiences)

The sound of paper (had me laughing out loud)

An incredible medley of the many talents of Young Man: Musician, Athlete, Skateboarder

and this very creative video of another multi talented young woman (WOW)

I'm guessing most Tuft's applicants are gifted and skilled writers.  But a 1 minute video about yourself (presumably featuring your talents and strengths)...that's really tough to do in such a way that it a) is easy and fun to watch; b) doesn't come off as bragging c) doesn't require tremendous video editing skills and/or expensive equipment d) stands out in the crowd; and e) captures the essence of "you."  This is an art form that requires self awareness, understanding your audience, and multimedia communication skills, beyond writing.  Similar to the art of of the short, short story, the one minute video college essay demands the art of the best of advertising; the art of movie making; innovation and creativity -- in other words, the best of YouTube art, marketing and communications.

POST SCRIPT -- TUFT'S should recruit this GRAD STUDENT?  OR PERHAPS AN HONORARY DOCTORATE? 

GOOD NEWS ABOUT FEISTY BOSTON OLDSTER -- LIVE ON VIDEO

Granny packs a punch.  You GO, Girlfriend....or, old-lady-friend...or both.  She must be Boston born and bred...  "Love that dirty water..."

YouTube VALENTINES

Wow...this is a cool Valentine's Day story.  Another new, unexpected use of YouTube....a new way to fall in love, love, love.

In fact, I received THIS YouTube jewel as a Valentine's Day gift, from my sister in Holland.  And that started me searching for a few great Valentine's Day Beatles songs to post for all my Facebook Friends, AND I found several that I put together in a Valentine's email to a few special loved ones.  AND, then I discovered that a few people have actually done medleys of their favorite Beatles love songs.  Here's just one.

Which is your favorite Beatles' love song? I mean...maybe there's been love all around, but maybe we never heard it singing....we just needed those boys to remind us to keep looking for it.