Candace's Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 12, 2012

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

**

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

Examiner’s Report

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

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

[edit] Fraud charges

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OBAMACARE DEBATE for BLONDES: A 3 minute summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't it? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Many thanks to this thoughtful warning. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH's APOLOGY? He should be fired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPER PACS: Shame on the Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

Viagra remains covered by most health insurance companies.

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

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

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

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

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

An excerpt from Wikipedia:

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Warren vs. Wall Street: Warren has a Point

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

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

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

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

Here is an excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Investor:

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

How can we make money off them?

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Lloyd Blankfein

Chairman, Goldman Sachs

 

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

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

FAREWELL to STEVE JOBS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TASKRABBIT: Matchmaking Hardworking Entrepreneurs with Needy Homeowners

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.