Candace's Blog

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

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

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

Until now.

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

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

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

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

Here's some of what's happening:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

 

 

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. 

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.  

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?

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

The story goes on to make the following key points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube VALENTINES

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

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

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

MORE YouTUBE ADS THAT MIGHT QUALIFY AS CINEMA ART? (most banned from TV)

As I predicted many years ago, (and, as I'm sure Google realized when they purchased it)  YouTUBE has become mainstream for alternative advertising with many advantages.

Budweiser is know for its great ads.  A few Bud Light ads are just brilliant....such as THIS ONE, about how to have your cake and drink it, too.

And THIS ONE....when it comes to zoo animals, turn about's fair, and very funny, play!

And from a Euro Beer maker, THIS ONE....so true, a good illustration of how one might become an alcoholic!  Maybe that's too harsh...let's just say, life looks better with Tuborg.

And THIS ONE from Bridgestone Tires, probably banned from TV, but definitely one that viewers will send to each other for entertainment.  I haven't seen such character development in a dog since Lady and the Tramp (in this case, the honeymoon is over...Lady IS the tramp and breaks her man's heart.)

 While I was doing this research, I stumbled on this brilliant and hysterical canine version of Jim Carey in Liar, Liar...or, for another generation, Dr. Strangelove and his residual Nazi arm with a mind of its own.

It's not an ad...but I just had to post it. 

THE MILITARY vs. MARIJUANA

A friend just forwarded me this article -- 10 Reasons the U.S. Military Should (Officially) Use Pot -- written by Penny Coleman.  Coleman is the widow of a Vietnam veteran who took his own life after coming home. Her latest book, Flashback: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicide and the Lessons of War, was released on Memorial Day 2006. Her Web site is Flashback.

A few YouTube clips on the subject are very compelling, including this one  about a man who was able to make it out of his wheelchair, thanks to medical marijuana.

And THIS ONE about a possible cure for various cancers through the use of hemp oil.  It is posted in 7 parts on YouTube.  Here is a link to Part 2.

Download the whole movie for free at http://www.phoenixtearsmovie.com

VIEW ALL 7 FILES AT http://www.youtube.com/chrychek

As with all medications (and foods) "Mary Jane" is not for everyone.  But, it's self-regulating. If it doesn't make them feel better, people don't use it.  Using it is a victimless crime. The biggest danger, IMHO, is when people mix it with alcohol, which is legal, btw.

HEALTH CARE vs. HEALTH SCARE: Osteopenia

NPR did a great analysis of how a "normal" status quo state of being was turned into a disease that needs to be treated.  I suppose all for a good cause (Osteoporosis.)  But, especially in light of the whole Health Care Reform debate, it is pretty frightening that Osteopenia has now been labeled a disease, and millions of women are taking medication for it.  Originally, neither testing nor treatment was not covered by insurance.  But a large "ethical drug company" (ironic name, hmmm?) convinced the government that it was a disease and should be covered by insurance.  Listen to the story.  It's worth it.  And makes you wonder how many other "normal conditions" are driving up the cost of health care.

And, as backup, I found THIS on YouTube.

"WORDS YOU DON'T KNOW" -- A PERFECT GIFT for Language and Scrabble Lovers, from the author who brought you "ALIEN SEX PILLS"

If you are struggling to find a unique gift for the intellectual in your life, especially one who has everything (and still has a sense of humor), or for a scrabble-playing loved one, or for anyone with an appreciation of the obscure, I highly recommend the paperback book "WORDS YOU DON'T KNOW," by Robin Bloor. 

ALIEN SEX PILLS....Author Bloor actually researched my longest-running post for the "Most cosmic Web Site" for my blog, when I was writing it for Progress Software Corporation.  Bloor had me laughing so hard at his written summary of his "most cosmic web site" research that I suggested he start his own blog, which he did.  He used it to provide a fun-to-read summary of emerging and morphing technologies, but always concluded with a "Surfin' Safari" entry, an early introduction to how Search Engine Optimization might work.  The first was a re-write of what he submitted to me...."Alien Sex Pills."

Known in the High Tech industry for his quick wit and as one who doesn't just write about things, but actually does them (i.e. programming languages, web design, open source technologies, etc.), Robin Bloor has taken time from his market research to collect a book of "WORDS YOU DON'T KNOW." 

One of my favorites is "Hippopotomonstrosesquippediliophobia" [whew...I THINK I copied that correctly]. Bloor explains, "This word is blatantly intimidating and was almost certainly invented by a sadistic psychiatrist.  At 36 letters, it's longer than any of the words mentioned [in the chapter of 'Very Long Words'] and it means (I almost can't believe it) the fear of long words. Only a sadistic psychiatrist would concoct such a word to describe the fear of such long words.  I mean how is that preferable to longwordaphobia?" 

But imagine pulling this off in Scrabble, although I don't think the board is large enough.

After leaving Progress, I finally retired the "most cosmic web site" to YouTube. I devoted myself to being a communications analyst and YouTube futurist, and dedicated my blog to emerging communication trends on and/or leveraging YouTube. I told Robin I needed a YouTube video that was relevant to his book.  The prescient Mr. Bloor had already created a YouTube video to promote his book.  Of course, the expat Brit used it to poke fun at the French language.  You can take the boy out of Britain, but you can't take Britain out of the Boy.

To find out what others have to say about Bloor's new book, check out the author's summary and equally entertaining comments by other readers on Amazon.com .

PS: to whet your appetite, your might enjoy Robin's initial blog entry of "10 IT words you don't know" that inspired the book.  I feel compelled to cite a few of my favorite excerpts.

"Cyberchondria: This is another surfing term, referring to hypochondria caused by surfing to medical sites that give descriptions of the symptoms of given illnesses. If you’re a doctor and one of your patients insists that he or she is suffering from pneumonic plague or blackwater fever, in all probability they are only suffering from cyberchondria.

Friendorphobia: A cyberchondriac might well suffer from friendorphobia, but not necessarily as a result of cyberchondria. I think most of us suffer from friendorphobia nowadays. Friendorphobia is the fear of forgetting a password. By the way, I am not making this up – there is such a word."

Since Robin published this blog entry, I heard NPR do their annual summary of new words added to the defacto American dictionary.  One was "sexting."  But, my mind was jogged by Robin's second word, and I wondered if anyone has recognized the new now-commonly-used verb "friend"....as in "friend me."

SOUTHWEST AIR: Another Great Ad not seen on TV, only on YouTube

Considering the news about the latest attempted airline terrorist, and some of the bad flight experiences with the recent East Coast snowstorms, I thought it might be a great time to revisit this awesome scene from SouthWest Airlines.  Now THIS is what I call a good flight experience!  Give it up for SW Airlines' talent David Holmes.  Not only will I not mind the extra charges on my "plastic" I might even tip!