Eyes on Life

Follow-up on "They Shoot Laptops, Don't They?"

2012-03-07T10:54:00.000-06:00

In response to the furor his angry video caused on YouTube, and the thousands of comments it garnered as well as commentary in the blogosphere and broadcast media, Tommy Jordan, the angry father who shot his teen daughter's laptop, appeared this morning with his daughter and wife on The Today Show. Matt Lauer asked the questions everyone wanted to hear asked. I found it interesting to see this family together, to hear the father admit his mistake in the way he handled his daughter's Facebook post, but the daughter also admitted she'd made a mistake.


Credit: The Today Show

Mr. Jordan still stood by what he'd said and did in the video. I stand by what I wrote in "They Shoot Laptops, Don't They?" Given the information Mr. Jordan provided in his video, his demeanor and his actions, I guess I'd like to know how I could have come to any other conclusions. I now see this as a beautiful example of unintended consequences, and how, once something is on the internet, it's nearly impossible to control its dissemination or interpretation.

Everyday, people post videos on YouTube and other people view them without knowing anything about the posters. Strangers providing strangers with video content for their entertainment. Sometimes posters have a specific constructive purpose in mind, e.g. teachers who post lessons. Certainly YouTube can be educational. It is a service that anyone can use. But apparently Mr. Jordan forgot, in the heat of his anger, that it wasn't private. He and his wife both commented that what happened with his video illustrated beautifully to their daughter what can happen and the reason they were so angry with her postings on Facebook to begin with.

Credit: ABCNews.com

His daughter has lost her laptop, though. The violence of that destruction was way out of proportion to his daughter's letter on Facebook. Even his daughter called it an "overreaction." Mr. Jordan did remove her hard drive before destroying the computer, which was thoughtful of him. When she can have another laptop, all she needs to do is install the hard drive and she'll have all her data. But I still question if it was really necessary to destroy the laptop, and especially in the way Mr. Jordan chose. It sends a message of using violence to get his point across, which is not really a positive message.

I was glad to hear that they did talk about what happened when tempers had cooled. The video experience may also teach them that a cool-down period may be wise before responding when you're angry. Mr. Jordan may have chosen a different way to respond than the video if he had waited.

Good job to The Today Show for following up with this family and giving them an opportunity to speak, to show the world what they're like and tell the whole story.

Less is Better?

2012-03-05T11:06:00.000-06:00


From: thekitchn.com

Have you noticed that some companies repackage their products either in smaller size or with fewer items but charge the same amount as they did for the original larger size? This drives me crazy! Last week I bought a box of cream of wheat instant packets. The box I'd just used up had 12 packets. The box I bought had 8 packets. I don't recall how much I paid for the 12-packet box but I was dismayed that I could not find the product again in a 12-packet box. Now, I thought maybe it was the store I shopped at -- they chose not to carry the 12-packet box. So I went to another grocery store. The second store didn't carry the instant packets at all! Geez.

From: magicpork.com

And then there's toilet paper. Believe it or not, I have a reserve package of TP that I've had for years: 4 "big" rolls of 352 one-ply sheets per roll. This product came in four sizes at the time: regular, big, giant and mega roll. Now, in order to get 352 one-ply sheets per roll, I must buy mega rolls! And because they're "mega" rolls, they cost more.... Then there's "ultra soft" or "ultra strong." Why can't there be toilet paper that's both ultra soft and strong? Why are they two different products?

A favorite cracker package recently "downsized" from 16 oz. to 15.1 oz. for the same price. Eeeeeerrrrrrgh!

It's not enough to have plain facial tissue, but you can now buy facial tissue that's been softened with lotion. I'm sure the lotion makers aren't too pleased, except, of course, the one that has the deal to provide the lotion to the facial tissue company. I used to buy giant boxes of facial tissue. Now, the "giant" boxes have shrunk but not the price. Maybe we should all return to using cloth handkerchiefs.....

Companies rake in the dough from all these "downsized" products so for them less is better. They force us to return more often to the store to buy more because we run out of the product faster. So, this is a clever trick: instead of raising the price on a larger-sized package, they keep the price the same but shrink the package size. Consumers buy more. The effect is probably the same as a price increase. And I can't help but feel companies are hoodwinking me.

I can imagine their rationale, too. A company PR exec might respond to my complaint by saying that prices have increased for production, distribution and marketing. Those costs need to be incorporated into the product pricing. Rather than increasing the price, they do their customers a favor and maintain the price they expect, but they decrease the amount of product the consumer buys for that price. The American dollar just doesn't go as far as it used to.

What are my choices in this situation? I can continue to buy the downsized products at the same prices as before. I can stop buying those products. I can switch brands (but I suspect I'd run into the same situation eventually). I can join a warehouse discount store and buy in bulk which for me living solo means enough for a year, probably. I have choices, so why complain?

Because I still feel like I'm being hoodwinked! I mourn the day long past that quality meant far more to establish and maintain consumer brand loyalty than it does now. And I hate shopping....

Sex or Babies?

2012-03-02T11:21:00.000-06:00

Credit: soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com

This morning on The Today Show I saw two different stories about sex and women. The first concerned Rush Limbaugh's tirade against the bill and its supporters that would require insurance companies to provide full coverage for contraceptives for women. Mr. Limbaugh focused, as many conservative men seem to do who want control of women's bodies, on the freedom contraceptives give women to have sex. From there he leaped to the bill's requirement actually paying women for sex and the bill's supporters wanted to be paid for sex.. Really? I thought it was about insurance coverage which means the insurance companies would pay pharmacies who sell the contraceptives. So, does that mean, following Mr. Limbaugh's reasoning, that the insurance companies would be paying the pharmacies to have sex? What a jaw-dropper!

Mr. Limbaugh, by focusing on contraceptives giving women more sexual freedom misses the whole point of contraceptives: to prevent pregnancy. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, is that bad? Not really. It's her body and she should have control over her body. If she wants to have sex, is that bad? Not really. Sex, in and of itself, is not bad. It's what people think about it, the beliefs that have come down over the generations about it, that were designed to keep sex under the control of men. There are still men in this world, in the 21st century, who want women to be totally submissive to them, to not think or feel, to do whatever the men tell them to do, and to exist for their sole benefit and pleasure. They do not like at all that women have won so much independence, equality and respect in the last 40+ years. The use of contraceptives, by preventing pregnancies, may also prevent abortion. That cannot be bad. While women seek sexual equality and partnerships with their significant others, the men who want submissive women seek domestic dictatorship.

Credit: thecoldshower.wordpress.com

Which brings me to the second story about sex and women which aired about an hour after the Limbaugh story on The Today Show. A novel entitled Fifty Shades of Grey by E L James has soared in popularity recently among bookclubs with all-women members. This novel is part of a trilogy by James that explores a woman's relationship with a man who wants to dominate her sexually and inflict pain. The story on The Today Show showed women talking about this novel as if it were a primer for men to learn what women really want sexually. But if you read the reviews at Amazon.com, the story actually involves a college-aged woman who is trying to figure out why the man she's fallen in love with would want to hurt her. Hmmm...sounds to me like a woman-rescuing-man-from-his-demons type of story. So why the focus on the sex?

The report stated several times that the sex is explicit and graphic, that it deals with a common female fantasy of wanting a man to take control in the bedroom. One woman even commented that she was tired of going to work, making dinner, taking care of housework and kids, then expected to do everything in bed, too. Dr. Drew Pinsky on The Today Show commented that the book disturbed him because it equated the infliction of pain during sex as arousing and OK. He made the point that people who were physically and/or sexually abused as children -- and let's face it, folks, it happens more often than we would like to think -- receive the message that pain is sexually arousing, and inflicting pain on someone else is also sexually arousing. Dr. Drew has a point. What we learn in childhood follows us throughout life. But why "glorify" unhealthy sex? From the reviews at Amazon, it sounded like the novel's female lead was not particularly happy with her boyfriend's need to inflict pain, so perhaps she had some sense of what is healthy sex and what is not. I have not read the book (don't plan to either) but I do hope that the female protagonist chooses respect, love and healthy sex in the end.

Sex sells. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh ranting about birth control pills or a romance novel with passages of explicit sex, it gets our attention. Novels allow us to explore the dark side of our natures safely, as well as how to deal with that dark side. What dismayed me about The Today Show's coverage of the novel was their not allowing Dr. Drew to talk about healthy sex between consenting adults and that the infliction of serious pain is not healthy during sex. The person who's inflicting the pain has a psychological problem, but so does the person who accepts being hurt. They both need help.

Would you read a "romance" novel about a man who likes to hurt women? How is that romantic? There's a part of me that really wants to ask Rush Limbaugh if he'd read the novel and tell me what he thought.....

Turn it down, please!

2012-02-29T11:18:00.000-06:00

From: tuneoftheday.blogspot.com

Have you ever noticed the joy on a baby's face when he's making a loud noise (other than screaming while crying)? I've wondered if a baby under one year of age is self-aware enough to comprehend that the noise comes from him. Surely, the baby also must learn what "shshshshush" means as well as where it's appropriate to make loud noises and where it isn't. At least, that's what I've always thought.

Now, I'm not against loud talking, loud music, loud laughter or other loud vocalizations per se. I think there are appropriate times for all of them. Some examples: screaming at the top of your voice from your seat in a stadium at a football game, trying to carry on a conversation in a crowded bar, or having a party (as long as it ends before 10 p.m. on weeknights and midnight Friday and Saturday nights).

But what about the neighbor who parties with friends on a weekday night well past midnight without any sign of stopping? That happened to me several years ago, and I've been hearing more and more stories of it happening more and more frequently in large urban areas. The first time, I called the cops. The second time, I began working with the building management to address the problem. The neighbor had to receive two warnings before she finally got the message. Even then, she continued to turn up her TV to top volume, play music at 3 a.m., and generally appear to be unable to judge when she was too loud. Eventually I met her and learned that she was 18 years old. Hmmmmm....

Who are the most likely loud noise offenders in public spaces? I don't believe it's babies, actually, or pre-pubescent kids or adults. I believe it's teens.

Credit: sjs-sound.com

God love 'em. Teens have all the exuberance and energy of a life just starting, testing boundaries, seeking attention, wanting to be heard. One teen in a public space tends to be quiet...unless talking on a cell phone. As a writer, I love to eavesdrop on them just to glimpse their lives, the way they talk, the way they think. It can be scary. I don't know how many times while riding public transportation, I've been the unwilling witness to one side of a teen's cell phone conversation; indeed the entire bus or train car heard it. But I cannot fault teens alone in this. Adults are as likely to forget they are in a public space while on a cell phone (one of my top pet peeves).

But what about teens in a group? Yesterday, while riding public transportation, all the people on the bus were subjected to a group of teens sitting in the back, talking at top volume, laughing, screaming, shouting, and generally making it impossible to concentrate on anything else. The driver did nothing. None of the other adults did anything. I also did nothing because I would be one vs. half a dozen.

The girls were the worst of the lot. Or maybe it's just that their voices have a higher frequency. Piercing doesn't adequately describe their voices. Why couldn't they lower their voices? Why did they need to be so loud? Were they totally unaware of just how loud they were? As I listened, I imagined how they'd react to an adult telling them to shut up. I doubted it'd be pretty. I've witnessed similar confrontations in the past. A group of teens unites when confronted by an adult. But, I thought that's what they needed. They needed to be told that their behavior was unacceptable in a public space.

To be fair, I've ridden public transportation with other groups of teens who have talked quietly among themselves in pairs or small groups. The difference was they were chaperoned by a teacher or two. So I wonder, if teens crave attention, do they understand the difference between positive and negative attention from adults? Or even their peers?

It's too easy to say, "when I was a teen." Society has changed in amazing ways in the last thirty years. But I wonder if that means we can leave courteous and respectful treatment of each other in the past. If we lose courteous and respectful behavior in public spaces, what else do we lose as a result?

The bottom line for me is this: being loud and disruptive in public spaces is not acceptable behavior. But I would like to understand why teens like being loud.....

Movies!

2012-02-27T11:42:00.000-06:00

Ah, movies. The cinema. My love for movies began early in childhood long before I'd ever heard of the Oscars. When I think back about what drew me to them, the first thing that pops to mind is the story. Even better than someone reading a story aloud, in movies the story is acted out in the story's locations. My early movie viewing focused on animated films, especially from Walt Disney. Once I began school and we were allowed to watch more TV shows, I preferred live action. Real people acted out the stories and I was amazed. For a long time as a child, I wanted to be an actress when I grew up (or a nurse, inspired by TV medical shows). I wrote stories for myself. I created stories for the neighborhood kids and me to act out. Watching actors at work in movies was the beginning of my education in creating and developing characters. I moved on to writing, and I never lost my love for movies.

I look forward to the Oscars every year not for the fashions or the winners but for the celebration of movies. The 84th Annual Academy Awards on television last night surprised me by going over its allotted time by only three minutes. Congratulations to the producer and director for a job well done. I especially liked the "bundling" of similar awards to give them out together. That saved a lot of time. I didn't miss production numbers of the nominated songs. I loved that some presenters chose goofiness over seriousness -- yay, to Jennifer Lopez and Cameron Diaz, Emma Stone (hilarious), Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow. Smart too for giving out the Governors' Awards at a separate evening gala rather than part of the telecast, as the technical awards have been for years. I think my only quibble concerns how they dealt with winners who looked like they would go over the 45-second acceptance speech limit -- please, please, do not turn off the microphones! That's just rude.

So, full confession, here: I'd seen only two of all the nominated films, Hugo and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. However, it felt like I'd seen much more due to the media exposure of most of the movies, especially those nominated for best picture, and the actors in the acting categories. I'd hoped for some fun upsets to the media consensus about who would win. My personal favorites? Gary Oldman, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow (finally), but none for best director or picture. I guess the campaigns for my picks weren't strong enough to sway the Academy's voters.

Credit: tvline.com

Loved Billy Crystal. I do wish James Franco and Anne Hathaway had also been there, though, to have some real fun without the pressure of hosting. Crystal's opening entertained with its ingenuity and you got to admire the guy for belting out the song medley when his voice is definitely not what it used to be. What the Academy needs to find is a classy young comedian who can succeed those who have set the standard -- Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, Billy Crystal.

Nostalgia reigned last night and no big surprises which made for a somewhat bland show. What would it be like if there were no campaigns for movies? What would it be like if the media had nothing to speculate on or promote with coverage? What if there were no foregone conclusions? Before the advent of campaigning Academy members for votes, no one had a clue who'd win. There were no frontrunners, no friendly rivalries (Pitt and Clooney), no endless speculation about why one film or performance or screenplay or director was more deserving over another. Then the awards show was nothing but surprises. Wouldn't that be fun? What we have now is sort of like watching a trailer for a movie -- nowadays, trailers include all the major plot points so viewers know exactly what they'll see if they choose to go see the movie. But sometimes why bother when you know already what happens?

I think sometimes that this need to know what happens before seeing the story is a very human reaction to the uncertainties of real life. It's like with the popularity of murder mysteries -- it's comforting to see them solved instead of what happens in reality. We cannot control our environment to the extent we'd like, perhaps, but we can control our storytelling. Sad. We need stories in our lives to help us deal with life, not to make it easy or create the illusion that it's controllable. We need stories to see how others deal with both ordinary and extraordinary situations, to challenge us with how we might deal with the same situations. Welcome surprises. Especially to awards shows!

Next year, I'd like to see no campaigning to the Academy members and the media for the Oscars. Let's be truly surprised.....


Credit: oscars.org

Enough Already

2012-02-25T11:25:00.000-06:00

Only two months into the presidential primary campaign and I can't wait for it to be over. I'm tired of it, of the candidates, of politics, and of the screaming pundits with selective perception. This year, more than any other, politics reminds me of a pack of wolves going after the alpha male. They focus so closely on bringing down that alpha male, that they don't pay attention to other things.


Credit: cnnblogs.com

For example, the Constitution. This week's GOP debate seemed to focus on religion, who was more Christian, who could most effectively represent religious conservatives. Well, folks. Here's what those smart GOP candidates forgot, if they knew it to begin with: in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution it states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This means that anyone running for public elected office in this country, including the presidency, need not claim religious belief or repudiate it in order to serve.


Credit: en.wikipedia.com

In 1960, when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was running for president, a concern arose that perhaps he would be more faithful to his Catholic faith (and the Vatican) than to the U.S. His Catholicism made no difference in how he executed the duties and responsibilities of office. He kept his faith personal. This is an example that I wish the GOP would take to heart and stop allowing a religious group wield so much power and influence over them and the political discourse in our country. Keep religion personal. Keep it out of politics.

The First Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens religious freedom -- they can choose to believe in a religion or not, and that includes any religion. It also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, i.e. a President and Congress could not establish a state religion unless they managed to get the First Amendment repealed. Good luck with that. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, of the press, of the right for people to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, really, what is the point of the GOP candidates getting their underwear in a twist over religion? Over questioning whether or not Mormonism is a Christian sect? Religion is not a ruler by which a candidate's competency can be measured. And attending a church does not guarantee that someone is a moral person. While the GOP candidates debate about religion, which should not be a test for qualification, they are not debating about the issues that have affected and will continue to affect this country.


Credit: gptaskforce.org

So, yeah, I'm really tired of the presidential primary campaign. And from what I've seen lately, none of the candidates have risen above the fray to take a statesmanlike stance and move the debate in more constructive directions.

Can this please just be a bad dream?

How Much is Too Much?

2012-02-20T10:47:00.000-06:00


Credit: articlesweb.org

America believes in supersizing. Big is better, that's our philosophy. More is better. But is it? I believe in the freedom of choice, yeah. But at a certain threshold, and I do not know the precise number, the number of choices reaches a saturation point and suddenly too many choices overwhelm us. Walk into an ice cream shoppe that offers over 40 flavors. Are you more or less likely to try a new flavor or stick with your favorite?

Nine days ago, we learned that someone in Rhode Island held the winning Powerball lottery ticket -- only one winning ticket -- worth approximately $336 million. That's $336,000,000 or one third of one billion dollars. If the winner chooses the cash option payout, he or she collects something like $200 million. Wow. Who wouldn't want to win millions of dollars?


Credit: Powerball.com

Sure, I would, of course! But wait a minute. Stop and think. About what, you might ask? Well, how much would you need per year to live comfortably for the rest of your life? Have you ever figured that out? If you've done any retirement planning, perhaps you have. If not, it's worth taking a moment to look at it. I'd wager that it's actually much less than $200 million.

So here's the difference between what we need and what we want. We may want the biggest sundae offered in the ice cream shoppe, worth hundreds of calories, gadzillion grams of fat, and enough sugar to fly us to Mars. But do we need the biggest sundae to enjoy a delicious dessert? Not really. Our appetites far exceed our physical needs, and all that sugar and fat is arguably not terribly good for our bodies. We need food to survive, but not necessarily ice cream sundaes.

We need money to survive. This is a fact of our civilization. Humans established millenia ago that money is an instrument of the exchange of goods and services. We need money to pay for shelter, food, clothing, transportation, communication, electricity, water, sewage and garbage pick-up. We pool our money as communities to pay for services for the community, and we do the same on a state and national level. It should not be necessary to have any more money than we need. We usually look for jobs that will pay us the amount that we'd need to pay for the goods and services that we need to survive.

But playing a lottery for a jackpot isn't working for the money we need. It's a game, right? The whole point of a game is to win. Or is it how we play the game as our parents told us over and over when we were kids crying over losing? If we win, it matters what we win (the jackpot), but does it matter how much? How much is too much?

It could be argued that it doesn't matter how much, really. If I win millions of dollars, I can set myself up for the rest of my life, then establish a foundation to give away the rest on an annual basis. Someone else might just spend it all on cars, houses, clothes, travel, jewelry, sports teams, etc. to the excess. Or someone else might just be happy with the win and either give all the money away or decline the prize. Or the lottery could have more winning tickets for the same jackpot and produce more winners rather than only one for so much money. If 20 people had won that $336 million jackpot and they'd split the $200 million cash payout, that's $10 million for each. Still nothing to sneeze at, right?

Well, that $336 million jackpot is still quite a win, the biggest sundae in the ice cream shoppe....

They Shoot Laptops, Don't They?

2012-02-17T10:45:00.000-06:00

An angry father's video on YouTube has made the news this week and sparked discussion from all directions about parenting. The father is reacting to an angry letter his "15 going on 16" daughter posted on her Facebook Wall and tried to block her parents' access to it, apparently forgetting that her father is an IT professional. He reads the letter to the camera, responds to it, then takes his .45 handgun and shoots his daughter's laptop on the ground, the laptop he just spent $130 fixing and upgrading with new software she needed for school. He ends with telling his daughter that if she wants a laptop she'll have to buy one for herself, and he expects her to pay him back the $130 plus $1 for each of the bullets he used on her laptop.

Credit: Indyatwork blog

Good grief. My first reaction: wow, doesn't he understand the developmental stage called adolescence? His reaction was way, way over the top for her transgression. But it did sound like this Facebook letter was the last straw -- he mentions that she'd done it before and he'd grounded her for it, taken away computer and other electronic privileges. His message didn't get through, clearly. But then, her message to him and her mother also hadn't gotten through to them.

So, we have a communication problem here. One half of communication is speaking. The other, and arguably more important, half is listening. No amount of shooting bullets into a laptop will make any difference if the two sides continue to not listen to each other. The father's choice to stoop to the adolescent level and post the video online for the world to see -- at least his daughter made her written message private to her friends only -- threatens to alienate his daughter in a big way. Speaking to the world and collecting the world's comments is not an effective or productive way for these two to communicate with each another.

Credit: noblecohd.org

Parents model behavior and in this way teach their children by example. I was struck by something the daughter said in her letter, i.e. she was upset that after mopping the kitchen floor, her parents then tracked mud on it so she had to clean it all over again. Hmmmm..... Why bother cleaning the floor if it's not going to be respected and appreciated? I think her complaint about her parents not cleaning up after themselves is a legitimate one. They expect her to clean up after herself...and after them too. Successful behavior modeling would have the parents cleaning up after themselves to show what's expected of their children. And not selective things, but with everything. So, the father may do his own laundry, but if he doesn't clean up after himself, the message isn't an effective one.

The daughter suggests that her father pay her for her doing her chores. This is actually a good idea. Other parents pay their kids a weekly allowance that the kids earn by doing regular chores. If they don't do all their chores, they don't get their total allowance. If you want to teach your kids the value of hard work, start young with an allowance paid for chores. Draw up a written contract for your teen so everyone is on the same page about what is expected. Make it clear that the allowance pays for the teen's spending money so she won't be getting any other money except for more expensive purchases like shoes and clothes. At least until the teen lands a job and begins to earn more money.

Credit: stockxpert/textually.org

Adolescence is an extremely difficult developmental stage. Parenting an adolescent is equally difficult. Taking your issues to the internet to publicly humiliate each other resolves nothing and only fuels the fire. Taking your issues to a disinterested third party like a minister or counselor would be the more adult thing to do. If you want your kids to respect you, then you need to model that behavior. Respect each other and your kids. They need to learn how to resolve conflicts in a respectful, effective way and it's your job, parents, to show them.

Taking a .45 and shooting your daughter's laptop on video and posting it to the internet is not the way....

Credit: cbc.ca/daybreaksouth

Your Life or Money

2012-02-15T15:03:00.000-06:00

The power of money continues to astound me. Profits have a perverse pull on all business, but in the pharmaceutical industry, the pull can affect life or death situations.

Case in point: This past Monday evening on the NBC newscast, they reported a story about a shortage of an anti-cancer drug called methotrexate. The Huffington Post has also reported on it here. Now, this drug has other uses, for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis for example, but it's primarily a strong anti-cancer drug. It works by preventing the metabolism of cells which is effective against disease with abnormal rapid cell growth like cancer. As an older drug, it's now sold in generic form which is less expensive and less profitable for drug companies to manufacture. The drug companies prefer to focus their manufacturing energy on drugs that will bring them a healthy profit.

Credit: MDNews.com

Who isn't for a healthy profit? Well, maybe the children who have a of leukemia that's easily treatable with methotrexate which can result in cures. Without treatment, these kids' prognosis is not positive, to put it mildly. Pediatric cancer patients are not the only cancer patients feeling this shortage. Oncologists also use methotrexate to treat breast and lung cancer. Insurance companies love methotrexate because it's a generic and it's cheap, and they're also concerned about their bottom lines.

In a Capitalist economic system, profit is good. As Gordon Gecko so famously said in the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good." When are profit and greed not good in a Capitalist economic system? Is it possible to have a moral economic system?

What I don't understand is this: if the drug companies who make methotrexate already have manufacturing facilities producing the drug, and they have other facilities producing other drugs, why it's not possible to do both. Why have the drug companies decided it's not a both-and situation but an either-or? I can understand a company in another industry, say tires, deciding to phase out an older model tire in order to ramp up production on a newer model they're selling for more. It makes sense to stop producing the product that's cheaper in favor of the more expensive one, from the manufacturer's point of view. Cars, electronics, furniture, and clothes have all succumbed at one time or another to this way of thinking without much complaint from consumers.

But...a drug that can save lives, that has no ready substitute, but happens to be generic and cheap? Should that drug be dropped in favor of manufacturing one that isn't generic and isn't cheap? At what point do we choose life over money? It's possible to have both, you know.

For full disclosure, I have psoriasis for which I take the oral pill form of methotrexate. I have used the liquid injectable form in the past, and it is the liquid form that is in short supply right now. Hospitals and cancer clinics use the liquid form for cancer treatment. I hope that drug companies in this country and around the world will continue to produce their drugs, especially those for which there is nothing better, and choose to save lives over increasing profit.

The Last Song

2012-02-13T11:26:00.000-06:00

Billie Holliday. Judy Garland. Janis Joplin. Jim Morrison. Michael Jackson. And now, Whitney Houston. Probably others, but these are the singers who came to mind when I thought about singers who died young, who died before they could grow old and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Why is it that some singers take care of themselves and others self-destruct? You have a Celine Dion who was discovered quite young, burst onto the music scene, and continues to sing and enjoy success now. How is she different?

Last night we saw the new play about Judy Garland's final months in London, End of the Rainbow by Peter Quilter, at the Guthrie Theater in downtown Minneapolis. Judy Garland died in 1969 at only 47 years old. Her voice showed the ravages of her addictions to alcohol, prescription pills, and cigarettes. Her behavior focused on pleasing people -- her new manager and fiance, Mickey Deans, her pianist, her public. At least until the pressures began to overwhelm her, and then she needed her "friends." Those closest to her tried to keep her off the pills and alcohol, but they had as much invested in The Judy Garland as Garland herself, and they needed the money. Fame eats a person alive who does not have a strong sense of self-worth and seeks approval all the time. Judy Garland just kept singing long after her voice had been sung out.

No secret what alcohol and drugs, even nicotine, do for a person. They make her feel good. How can substances that do that also be so bad for you? The human body is a finely tuned and balanced organism filled with interdependent organic systems. Introducing a chemical substance into her has an effect, whether negative or positive. Those that activate the pleasure center of the brain produce pleasure, and for someone who may be in pain, emotional or physical, they can stop the pain. But they don't remove the cause of the pain, and long-term use can disrupt the finely tuned organic systems in the body. In Judy Garland's case, she was in some deep emotional and psychological pain because of her lost childhood, the way the studio treated her as a child star, and not getting the emotional support that she so desperately needed as a child and teen. She didn't moan about it. She drowned the pain in alcohol and pills, and she complained that all her husbands had abandoned her.

The myth exists that the most creative people are those who've had the worst childhoods, who have the most emotional pain, or even, who have mental illness of some kind. But not all highly creative types fit that profile. We don't hear much about them, though. They tend to lead more balanced lives, have strong families and loyal friends, and they don't get into trouble or draw the attention in some other way of the tabloids. They can be world famous or only famous in their field of endeavor. They have little need for attention, approval, or for others to make them happy and try to assuage their neediness. They are not the big personalities (egos) or demanding Divas. They're not news.

After I heard the news of Whitney Houston's death, I thought of Michael Jackson. All the music I was hearing with the news stories were songs from 20 years ago. Like Jackson, Houston had allowed herself to lose her focus on singing and music in favor of other things that gave her pleasure, so all we have of them they produced years before their deaths, and for the time after there's nothing. Three times in rehab, marriage, a lovely daughter, a divorce. Houston wanted to return to singing and music now, but she still needed her "friends" apparently in order to do it. It saddens me beyond belief that her "friends" won her and not the music. Not us.

Rest in Peace, Whitney Houston. At least now you are out of pain, no more anxiety, no more pressure to be the singer you were 20 years ago instead of the singer you are now. My condolences to your family.....

Credit: CBS News

Oh, Baby, Baby, Baby

2012-02-10T16:54:00.000-06:00

Credit: Deb Murphy

Child-rearing terrifies me as well as inspires awe for the parents I've met who have done it well. My parents, specifically my mother since my father wasn't that active in my upbringing, followed Dr. Benjamin Spock's advice on child-rearing. They also firmly believed in the rule that children were to be seen, not heard, especially female children. They also drew a thick, solid line between adults and children. You would not catch either of my parents playing with us, being silly, or in any other way stepping into our world. We were expected to stay out of theirs, too.

Credit: Wikipedia

I noticed the hoopla over Amy Chua's child-rearing memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother last year. I have not read her book, but from all the interviews or reviews I heard or read, I understood Chua's methods to echo Dr. Spock's with a cultural twist courtesy of Chinese custom. If my parents were alive, I believe they'd look upon Ms. Chua's methods as quite appropriate. But what a hue and cry in the American media over that book! Weren't there any sections of her book that described her love and compassion for her children? Her dedicated support for their well-being and success? Her own fallibility?

Credit: Alessandra Montalto/NYTimes

This year, the new parenting book comes with a French twist. Earlier this week, I happened to catch an interview with Pamela Druckerman, wearing an unusual beret-style hat, on The Today Show, talking about her new book, Bringing up Bebe. As I listened to the things Ms. Druckerman had observed the French do, I was again reminded of my parents teaching us manners, good eating habits, and how to behave in public, as well as how to treat each other with respect. The French seem to be doing a lot of the same things my mother did.

As anyone else noticed the increase of children misbehaving in public spaces? I must admit, from what I've seen in the last ten years, young parents now seem to believe it's OK for their kids to misbehave in public as long as their kids don't interrupt what they're doing. That's a broad generalization -- I have seen parents on city buses who handle a tired child, a squirming child, or a loud child with impressive expertise and consideration for the other passengers. I've seen also other parents behaving just as badly as their kids when the kids misbehave -- yelling at the kids, grabbing them, belittling them, calling them names, sometimes even slapping them. It's painful to witness it. I'm surprised when someone younger than 30 gives up her bus seat for me, holds open a door for me, or does some other respectful courtesy because it is so very rare nowadays. I miss courteous people and children who behave well (quiet, polite, obedient) in public spaces.

I don't think Americans, as a group, like for people who are not Americans to tell them what to do. Have you noticed this too? We don't take criticism well from other countries. So it's interesting that both Chua and Druckerman are Americans drawing on the child-rearing customs of other cultures. Child-rearing is the hardest, most challenging job a human being does in life and we probably need to welcome all the help we can get, no matter from where. The American way is not the only way.

So while book reviewers may savage (or not) these two parenting books, I support them and will suggest them to my friends. If I had kids, I'd be reading them. What about you?

Credit: Thisislondon.co.uk

WANTED: President of the United States of America

2012-02-08T16:09:00.000-06:00

Call me crazy, but my job search experience the last 30+ months has made me sensitive to and critical of the interview and selection process for the top government job in this country. We the People need some guidance, I think, as well as prospective candidates. So, I decided to take a stab at writing a job posting for President of the USofA. I used a USAJobs job posting as my template, leaving off what I realized was probably irrelevant for this particular position, and adding what I would like to see included.

The Constitution gives little guidance for a job posting. I believe the Founding Fathers wanted the job to be open to anyone who met the basic age, citizenship and residency requirements. Remember, please, at the time they lived, only white male landowners could vote, so only white male landowners could run for elected office. They probably didn't feel the need to include much in the way of experience, education, etc. for qualifications because of that.

So, imagine you're an HR recruiter who's been tasked with writing the job posting for US President and read on.....

Credit: flagpictures.org

JOB POSTING

Job Title: President of the U.S.A.

Department: Executive Branch of U.S. Government

Agency: White House

Salary: TBD by Congress ($200K - $400K/year)

Position Information: Full Time

Posting Open Period: Open until Election Day

Duty Locations: 1 vacancy -- Washington, D.C.

Who May Be Considered: Only natural born U.S. citizens

Job Summary:

Chief Executive and Leader of a major North American country with a population of 311,800,000 people.

Key Requirements:

You must be a natural born U.S. citizen to apply for this job. Naturalized citizens are not eligible.
You must have resided in the U.S. for the previous 14 years.
You must be at least 35 years old.
You will be subject to a background/suitability investigation.
Designated and/or random drug testing may be required.

Major Duties and Responsibilities:

The Constitution (contains job description) specifies certain duties and responsibilities, otherwise the job demanded the chief executive of the country to lead the Executive Branch, uphold, defend and protect the Constitution which is the governing document of the country.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and has the power to grant reprieves and pardons.
The President has the power to make treaties, with approval by the Senate.
The President shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Supreme Court judges and all other officers of the U.S. with the approval of the Senate.
The President has the power to make recess appointments.
The President will inform Congress of the State of the Union, and recommend actions and resolutions.
The President may, in an extraordinary situation, convene Congress and tell them when and where to meet.
The President receives Ambassadors and other public Ministers.
The President shall "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The President shall commission all the Officers of the U.S.

In addition:

The President sets foreign and domestic policy with the relevant Secretaries and with Congress.

Credit: whitehouse.gov

Work Schedule: 24/7 with extensive travel required. You will live in the White House complex which is also where you will work.

Qualifications:

Experience: Executive-level work experience with demonstrated exemplary people skills, communication skills, leadership and organizational development skills, critical thinking, problem solving, analysis, member of a political party may be helpful but not required, work in public service experience, world travel.

Education: At least an undergraduate degree from an accredited four year U.S. college or university recognized by the Department of Education. A graduate degree is desired but not required. Degrees in American, world or European history are helpful, as well as economics and foreign languages, comparative religions and political science or sociology.

You will be rated on the following knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) as part of the assessment questionnaire for this position:

1. Knowledge of world history, especially recent, including leaders of countries, their systems of government, economic systems, and relationship with U.S.

2. Knowledge of the Legislative Branch of the U.S. government, its members and how it functions.

3. Knowledge of federal laws, relationship between federal and state governments, and of the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government.

4. Knowledge of economics

5. Ability to communicate clearly with people

6. Ability to deal with conflict

7. Ability to work well and effectively with a broad spectrum of people with different ideas and agendas.

8. Skill in problem analysis, critical thinking, and problem solving.

9. Skill of imagination and creativity

10. Skill at fundraising.

Veteran’s Preference: Military service experience is helpful but not required. No veteran’s preference given.

Benefits: The Executive Branch offers a comprehensive benefits package that includes a house

for the duration of the employment, a jet plane, helicopters, limos with drivers, security, health,

dental, vision insurance, long-term disability, etc.

Relocation expenses provided.

The following documents are required to accompany application:

1. Resume

2. Responses to the assessment questionnaire

3. College transcript

4. Original birth certificate

5. Documentation of U.S. military service and veteran’s status, if applicable

Apply at the Federal Elections Commission office in your state.

Interview/Selection Process:

1. Preliminary – you will be required to file primary election papers in each of the 50 states in this country. You will be required to campaign in each state, meeting with the general population which will judge you on your ability to conduct an effective, successful, and relevant campaign. You will be judged on your ability to delegate tasks, the way you work with your staff and volunteers, the tone you set, and your accessibility. If you are a member of a political party, each state will send the supporters you earned in the primary to a national convention. The finalists for President will be chosen at each political party’s convention.

2. National – if you are a finalist, you will be required to debate the other finalists, hold town meetings with the general public, and conduct a general campaign for the position. You will be expected to answer all questions, submit to extensive background checks, travel to all 50 states again, and run an effective, relevant campaign that will also include your immediate family, staff and volunteers.

Credit: statesymbolsusa.org

3. Selection/Election – at the end of the national interview process, the general population of the country will vote for the candidate they believe will be the best President. The winner of this vote will become President.

Does that about cover it? Anything more?

Companies vs. Government

2012-02-06T17:28:00.000-06:00

"We don't have an obligation to solve America's problems." According to Rana Foroohar in the February 13, 2012 Time Magazine, that's what an Apple executive said recently as quoted in the New York Times. Hmmmm...I thought the people working at Apple were smarter than that. Don't they realize that if America goes under, it'll hurt their company and business too?

Credit: georgetown.edu

At the Davos World Economic Forum, according to Foroohar, the Apple executive's same sentiment echoed through panels and speeches. It's like multinational companies have grown so powerful that the countries in which they have their headquarters have no control or influence over them, and they don't seem to care about them. So this is what a global economy is? Companies sit on over $2 trillion in wealth and argue that they did create jobs and prosperity, only in other countries, not in America.

Credit: politico.com

Hmmmm...then you've got Mitt Romney claiming that corporations are people, too. OK. Where do these people live? Don't they care about where they live?

Now, I have a sneaking suspicion that what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has morphed into the corporate-industrial complex. Where's the military? Well, they end up in bed with corporations like Halliburton as well as the companies that make the materiel and ordnance that they use. The corporate-industrial complex looks like it has accumulated so much power that it just barrels over the government and any attempts to rein it in. Is this good for America?

The Republican candidates for President want to shrink government which will only increase the power of the corporate-industrial complex. Is this good for America?

Credit: Anja Niedringhaus/AP Photo from Irishtimes.com

Who benefits from the corporate-industrial complex? How will they solve the current problems of labor issues, debt and economic inequality, and not only in America? Who's going to be willing to take the risks to solve these issues?

If that Apple executive is right, not the members of the corporate-industrial complex in America and elsewhere. And of course, politicians nowadays, in my humble opinion, haven't the courage and imagination which may be the reason we're in this pickle to begin with.

Credit: World Economic Forum's Flickr Photo Gallery

I'm glad I wasn't at the Davos World Economic Forum. It sounds like it was a really depressing conference. Reading about it has certainly depressed me. And I wonder if any of the participants, including the multinational corporations, would have listened to me or anyone else like me. I just don't understand how an American corporation, multinational or not, cannot care about the country that spawned it or the government that protects its intellectual property rights and the trade routes for its products....

Snail Mail Rocks!

2012-02-03T11:28:00.000-06:00

This morning I realized that I now have seven -- 7! -- email boxes. No secret, either, how I acquired so many, gradually, over time. It began with the first, my personal email. I then opened a general business email, followed by a fiction writing business email. My college alma mater gave me an email box. My email situation remained there for a couple years. Then I decided that my novel series needed its own email, followed six months later by an email for this commentary blog. Finally, I have an email devoted almost exclusively to spam.


Credit: John Phelan

If I were to do the same with the US Postal Service (USPS), I'd have my residence mailbox and have to rent six more mailboxes. They'd love me, I'm sure, for the money I'd be paying, but it would be an expensive proposition for me. And that's one of the reasons the USPS has been waging a losing competition against email. We perceive email to be free because we don't consider the internet provider costs or cost of owning a computer as costs to use email. We see email as fast, convenient and versatile. Anyone younger than about 35, though, prefers texting -- email is too "formal." The courts accept email as legal writing, so an agreement done via email is as legally binding as any other written form.

However, first class mail has its advantages. It does? Yes. First and foremost it provides complete privacy. It is against the law to steal or open someone else's mail. A first class letter does not go through servers, sit on servers, or get eaten up by servers. Email accounts, unfortunately, can be hacked, the address stolen and used for nefarious purposes. If you use the same username and/or password for your email as you use for other online accounts, especially anything regarding money like online banking or shopping, you are vulnerable to losing a lot of money if they are stolen. The USPS offers a secure, private service with the foundation and experience of over 150 years.


Credit: USPS

Another characteristic that I consider a plus for first class mail is that it's an original hard copy. Yes, we can print out emails. Yes, we now have electronic signatures. But in my mind, there's no substitute or real alternative to someone's signature at the bottom of a letter on a piece of real paper. There's also no substitute for the happiness I feel when I open my mailbox and find a first class letter there. The best ones are from friends, but I also enjoy hearing from people I do business with. And direct mail? Compared with spam, junk mail is hardly an inconvenience and there are effective ways to limit it. The catalogs and flyers I receive generally are those I want to receive. But for me, there's nothing that can equal receiving a fat envelope filled with a long letter from a loved one.


Credit: Amazon.com

Writing emails has eroded our skills, if not completely obliterated or replaced them, for writing letters. And yes, writing a letter requires skill and craft, just as any writing does, although a lot of writing in electronic formats (texting and emails) require a much different skill set. This morning, I found that there's now actually a book for learning how to write first class letters.

Finally, there's the historical aspect. We know a lot about what everyday life was like for ordinary people at different periods in human history because of the written record they left in the form of personal letters, business letters and diaries. What will our written record consist of? Will the people who own all the servers used for email preserve all those emails, or will they periodically delete them permanently, wiping any written record of everyday life away? I'm no expert, but I have heard that digital files also become corrupted or eroded over time, especially if not used often enough. It makes sense. Paper can also disintegrate if not treated and cared for.

Snail mail rocks! I will continue to write first class letters and cards to my friends and family, and business letters to those with whom I do business. I prefer to have a hard copy record that I can file away for future reference. And I also prefer the buzz of happiness and excitement I get when I see those first class letters in my mailbox, a feeling I rarely experience with email....

Job Description: President of the U.S.

2012-02-01T15:41:00.000-06:00

So, this morning as I was listening to the latest political news on The Today Show, I started thinking about all the job descriptions I've written which then made me wonder if there was a job description for the position of President of the United States. Well, the Founding Fathers included a job description of sorts in the U. S. Constitution, in Article II, Sections 1, 2 and 3 and in Article VI (no religious test).

Credit: whitehouse.gov

QUALIFICATIONS
In Article II, Section 1, they spelled out the basic qualifications: must be 35 years of age, a resident within the U.S. for 14 years, and a natural-born citizen, i.e. someone born within the U.S. borders.
In Article VI, the Founding Fathers also specified that there will be no religious test to qualify, either for any religion or against. Geez, for the last 30+ months, I've been reading job postings for administrative assistants and writers, and they have included skill qualifications, education, and experience. Do you see anything about those in the qualifications for President? No. In fact, what the Founding Fathers spelled out is actually covered by the I9 form for all U.S. employees -- over 18? Check. Are you a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien? Check. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? I guess the Founding Fathers didn't expect a convicted felon to apply for the job.

I think anyone who wants to be President needs to fill out an application at USAJobs and answer an assessment questionnaire that covers the qualifications, skills, education and experience needed to carry out the duties and responsibilities. The vetting process is certainly rigorous, as we're seeing during the Republican primary process, but I believe it could be supplemented by background and credit checks done by the Office of Personnel Management. It really bothers me that there are no specific qualifications regarding skills, education and experience for this important government position. If I must be a college graduate, have certain skills and experience, then I believe any candidate for President should also.

What specific qualifications do you think a candidate for President needs?

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Credit: whitehouse.gov

The Founding Fathers wrote specifically about certain duties and responsibilities, otherwise the job demanded the chief executive of our country to lead the Executive Branch, uphold, defend and protect the Constitution.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and has the power to grant reprieves and pardons.
The President has the power to make treaties, with approval by the Senate.
The President shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Supreme Court judges and all other officers of the U.S. with the approval of the Senate.
The President has the power to make recess appointments.
The President will inform Congress of the State of the Union, and recommend actions and resolutions.
The President may, in an extraordinary situation, convene Congress and tell them when and where.
The President receives Ambassadors and other public Ministers.
The President shall "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The President shall commission all the Officers of the U.S.

It all seems rather broad to me. There are implied powers, such as for foreign policy creation in being Commander in Chief and appointing Ambassadors but nothing specific. I also don't see anything here about the American economy. That may fall under the public Ministers, as in Secretary of Treasury.

The Founding Fathers may have wanted this job open to any citizen of the U.S. who thought he or she could do it and that's the reason for the minimum qualifications and broad description of duties and responsibilities. Nowadays, it's clear that not just any citizen can apply for this job.

For example, one qualification now is to have wealth and/or financial independence. Another is to have crack fundraising skills and contacts. Another qualification that I've observed especially this year is selective perception of reality. Another is the ability to talk to the media and not say anything of substance.

What other qualifications would you like to see included for this important government position? Remember, the U.S. now has laws against discrimination for gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability.

What Would You Have Done?

2012-01-30T15:07:00.001-06:00

This morning, I heard an astounding story on local TV news. A man who had won a multimillion dollar lottery jackpot (wish I'd been listening more closely at the beginning to get the exact amount he won) had notified the lottery office in Nebraska (I think) that he was donating the entire amount to charity. He wanted them to pay out the money to the charities directly. They said they couldn't do that. He'd won the jackpot, not the charities. They'd pay the money to him or he could decline the jackpot. He chose to decline the jackpot.

What would you have done?

My reaction: why on earth did he decline the jackpot? The idiot! What? Didn't he want to deal with the paperwork involved with donating that money to the charities of his choice? What paperwork? If I'd won that jackpot, and I'd wanted the proceeds to go directly to charities, and I'd been given the choice he was given, I'd have accepted the proceeds, then swiftly written those charitable donation checks. I would have established a separate checking account that the proceeds could be transferred into so the money never touched my own personal banking accounts.

What would you have done? You, yes, you!

My suspicion was that the guy who wanted to give his lottery proceeds to charity didn't need millions of dollars. He already occupied a place as a one-percenter. He didn't need it. And, God love him, he wanted to give the money from the lottery office to his favorite charities so that...so that...I can't think of a single reason why he'd want to do that, actually. Charitable donations can be deducted from one's income taxes. Would he have to pay taxes on the original winnings before he donated them? Wouldn't the deduction offset the taxes? I think so.....

Fantasizing about winning the lottery -- who hasn't done it? I know I have. I know exactly what I'd do if I won a multimillion dollar jackpot. I would not give it all to charity but I have my causes. The Great Recession has not been kind to me, along with millions of other people. I'd want to replenish my retirement fund that I've been robbing and make certain I fulfilled my financial goals. Then I think I'd set up a foundation through which I'd make all my charitable contributions. After that, I'd return to my writing....

What would you do?

Credit: Disney

Men's Fashion

2012-01-27T11:31:00.000-06:00

Not long ago I watched an older gentleman on a city bus. Two grocery bags stood at his feet. As befitting the cold weather, he wore layers -- shirt, sweater, down vest, jacket. It wasn't until he stood that I noticed his pants -- old jeans -- that had slipped down his thighs, taking his underwear with them. I had an unwanted and unnecessary view of the man's bare butt. To his credit, he moved quickly to pull up his pants, pick up his bags and leave the bus. But I've had the image of his wrinkly bare butt in my mind ever since.

Credit: zBare-Butts-498

Now, that man on the bus had not intended for his pants and underwear to slip. It was an accident. I see men much younger than him, though, who wear their pants intentionally slipping down their skinny thighs, revealing their underwear. From what I've heard of this fashion, this particular fashion statement by young men is cool and emulates prison fashion, i.e. prisoners who must struggle to keep up their pants because they are not allowed belts. Most of the time, they let their pants slide hence the result emulated by young men not in prison.

OK, we observe fashion trends that come and go, sometimes return years later and go again. I'm waiting for a sharp-dressing role model to appeal to those young men with the falling pants so that they'll change their style. After all, I have that image of a wrinkly bare butt in my mind and I don't particularly want to reinforce it with more images of bare butts, wrinkly or not.

Have you ever watched a group of young men, their pants' waistbands down around their upper thighs, walking? There's kind of a trick to it, I think. They have a certain roll and bounce to their walk so their pants won't slide down any farther. I've sometimes wondered if they have actually pinned their pants somehow in order to keep them right at that level, no higher and no lower. But then I see them pull up their pants a bit and conclude that they're high risk takers, inviting someone to come along and just give their pants a little tug.

So this fashion emulates prison fashion and prisoners and began, I guess, with hip-hop back in the 1990's. I wonder, do these young men want to look like thugs or be thugs? If it's just looking like thugs, they don't need to worry about their pants being so low down. But if they want to be thugs? Running in pants on their way down is really awkward and slow and a really stupid thing to wear if you want to make a quick getaway after doing something thuggish or criminal. They are more likely to trip over their pants than make a clean escape from the police. Which maybe is what they want anyway to bolster their street cred with an arrest or jail.

I guess I just don't get the currents and trends of fashion for young men. Do young women really find the falling-down-pants fashion attractive and appealing? I don't. It takes all my restraint not to reach over and give those pants a little tug.....

Now this...

HD Digital TV and Airplanes

2012-01-25T15:51:00.000-06:00

Last night while I watched President Obama's State of the Union speech, I noticed something spooky. Airplanes flew over my building every few minutes on their approach to the airport 5-6 miles away. But nothing was happening to the picture on my TV screen. Spooky.

OK, I need to backtrack a bit, I can see. I was a good citizen and bought an HD-ready digital TV about 5 months before the transition deadline in February 2009. Excited, I set up the TV with the best of my old antennas and it worked fine. Until the first airplane flew near my apartment building. The picture broke up, then was lost completely. The TV provided a helpful note that the digital signal was low. After the plane had flown over, the picture returned.

I live under landing and take-off routes for the city's international airport. During peak times, the frequency of planes passing overhead can top out at 2 per minute. Every single time a plane passes, the TV picture breaks up and is lost, which interrupts whatever program I'm watching. Hey, I thought HD digital TV was supposed to be BETTER than analog? I never had this problem with analog TV! And it turns out that if there's a thunderstorm or gusts of high wind, they also interfere with the signal. Sometimes, the signal becomes "encrypted" and I must re-scan in order to recover the channel.

A friend who knew more than I about electronics, suggested that I buy a new antenna that could be amplified. So, I went out, bought a new antenna, set it up, turned on the amplification and waited. Now, I expected the problem to go away. It didn't. It's the same.

So, you see, that's why it was so spooky last night watching Obama's speech. I could hear the roar and rumbling of the planes flying overhead, about one ever 45 seconds for the first half hour, and less frequently after that. But I didn't lose the signal and the picture didn't even break up! Weird.

Was it something about the importance of the speech? Was it what President Obama said? Was it the presence of Gabrielle Giffords? Well, the picture stayed steady even during the GOP response given by Gov. Mitch Daniels. I sure wish my TV sucked up the digital signals like that for all the programs I watch!

These political speeches are usually ho-hum stuff for me, at least they used to be. I was so impressed with the speech last night, I got my hands on the full text of it today. I've also gotten the full text of Gov. Daniels' speech. Somehow, I think the two are the blueprints for the presidential campaign going forward. Consider this: the level of invective from the GOP responding to Obama's speech is directly related to Obama's perceived strength, his power, and the correctness of his ideas. In other words, how much you wanna bet that the GOP wishes they thought of it first? ("it" being any of the President's ideas that the GOP particularly shreds today and the rest of the week.)

My general opinion about what's been happening in Washington, D.C. in our government for the last 3 years? First, the Republicans are not just the "do nothingers." They're the "stop anything the Democrats and/or Obama want" party because they want Obama to be a one-term president. OK, but how is that governing the country, working in the best interests of the country? It stopped everything like legislation, appointments, etc. I want to believe that there are intelligent and reasonable Republicans in Congress who truly want to work together across the aisle, but they're afraid because they're own political party has created a totally nasty atmosphere in which to work. I want more than anything for the Republicans to stop playing politics and to start governing. You're looking really awful right now, Elephant Party.

Second, I think President Obama has not received all the credit that he deserves, and he's been blamed for circumstances and events that were set in motion long before he even ran for the Oval Office. He's done a good job. Far better than Congress, that's for sure!

So, what do you suppose my TV was saying about the speech last night....?

Capitalism and Economic Fairness

2012-01-23T15:35:00.000-06:00

David Morris, in the opinion pages of the Sunday, January 22,2012, Minneapolis Star Tribune, has also responded to Mitt Romney's comments on the Today Show last week. His five points about economic fairness show how envy of the rich may be an emotional factor, but there are other factors contributing to economic unfairness. Mr. Morris spells it out in a clear, concise article I'd recommend all the candidates, all of them, to read.

Now why couldn't Gov. Romney have confronted the issue squarely and talked about economic unfairness in more than sound bytes about envy and class warfare? This is what truly bugs me about all politicians now. It doesn't matter which political party, they all act the same in public. A confession: I haven't been watching the debates and perhaps they go into more detail about what's behind their sound bytes during them, but the clips I've seen look suspiciously like only verbal jousting without substance. It makes me wonder just how intelligent these guys are, you know? The purpose of political rhetoric in the present seems to be only to inflame emotions and prejudices rather than lead a civil, calm national discussion. Sure, I want to listen, but please have something substantive to say that isn't just a collection of sound bytes.

Then I spot an article in the January 30, 2012 issue of Time Magazine about fixing capitalism. Whoa! Is that possible? The author, David Rothkopf, wrote about the issues that will be brought up at the next World Economic Forum in Davos. Fixing capitalism relates directly to the issue of economic unfairness, and in fact, Mr. Rothkopf writes about the effect growing income inequality has on American capitalism.

Mr. Rothkopf talks about the rise of big stateless corporations that threaten capitalism, nations and governments as we've known them up until now. He claims these corporations essentially have more power than governments and can call the shots, and they've become entities that have more rights than people. How did this happen? Aaaaah, yes. Deregulation. Regulation serves an important stabilizing purpose in capitalism and to turn companies loose without any regulation is asking for disaster. Say, what? Oh, yeah, the housing collapse in 2007-08 followed by all those "too big to fail" business entities that came very close to imploding -- we're living that disaster right now! Where is the Glass-Steagall Act when we need it?!

I find it scary to think of large stateless corporations having their way with life on this planet. The thought conjures images of indentured servants, dark cavernous skyscrapers, and Gordon Gecko. To serve the god of capitalism, i.e. money. Mr. Rothkopf makes a strong case in his article that we need to re-evaluate American capitalism, Adam Smith's theories, and other models of capitalism, e.g.what the Chinese have been doing, Eurocapitalism, democratic development capitalism (India and Brazil) and small state entrepreneurial capitalism (Singapore) in order to develop a new capitalism. Other models favor a stronger state role in regulation, ownership and control of assets than American capitalism.

Greed is NOT good. It's destructive to society as well as to human interaction and relationships...

Credit: Matthew Sherwood for National Post

Obama's Social Security Number? Don't Think So!

2012-01-20T11:39:00.002-06:00


Photo from barackobama.com

There's an e-mail circulating this week with the subject line "Re: Stolen SSN 042-xx-xxxx" -- I'm not including the full number in case it is a real one that belongs to someone, but the full number is in the subject line and body of the e-mail. This note claims that President Obama's SSN was stolen by his grandmother from a man who immigrated to the U.S. in 1924 named Jean Paul Ludwig. Now, if red flags haven't already popped up in your mind, they should. But let's have some fun with this preposterous attempt to extend the dead controversy about President Obama's U.S. citizenship and his birth certificate. Let's take the note one paragraph at a time and do a little debunking....

Paragraph 1: "An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security Number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Was Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-xx-xxxx (Obama's current SSN) rec'd on or about March 1977."

Sources? If an intensive investigation has truly occurred, who conducted it? Was there a report?
Have the police been called in? Is there a police report? Has the Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management been notified? What has their response been? None of this most helpful information, if the claim were true, has been offered, so no substantiation exists. Also, how did the writer get this specific SSN?

Jean Paul Ludwig? If this man existed, he was 34 years old when he immigrated to the U.S. and would have wanted a job, I would guess. So when the SSA was established in the 1930's, in order for him to work, he'd have been issued an SSN at that time. Why he'd be assigned an SSN in 1977 when he would be 87 years old and retired is beyond me. There's no substantiating material about Mr. Ludwig's existence: Where'd he live in France? Was he married? A father? What was his profession?

President Obama? He's proved his U.S. citizenship by releasing his birth certificate. I think it's also relevant to note that for him to be employed in the U.S. by anyone since 2001, he'd have to fill out the I9 form and verify that he can work legally here. Along with that goes a background check, credit check, which often includes verification of the SSN. The Office of Personnel Management, I would expect, did all of this when Obama became a U.S. Senator. If there had been any serious problems with his information, he would not have served as a U.S. Senator. I expect the GOP vetted Obama carefully in 2007-08, looking for any real problems with his service and background they could use against him. The issue of his citizenship came up then and was addressed with Obama releasing his birth certificate.

President Obama was born in the mid-1960's and would have been assigned an SSN at that time, not after 1977. Isn't it a shame that Obama's grandmother is no longer alive to verify when he received his SSN?

Paragraph 2: "Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut. Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents. Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!"

SSN? It's no secret that the SSA uses a specific "code" to create SSNs. The first three digits identify the region or state the person was born in or lives when applying if a naturalized citizen or legal immigrant with a green card. What is the proof that this SSN beginning with 042 is Obama's? I went to the SSA's website yesterday to see if I could verify it. They offer a verification service for businesses but not for individuals. I'd love for someone with access to the verification service to verify Obama does not hold the SSN beginning with 042.

Paragraph 3: "Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died. Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu, Hawaii, Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals. The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised."

Ludwig's death? How does the e-mail writer know the SSA was not informed of Ludwig's death? When did he die? Where is the documentation?


Credit: lifeinlegacy.com

Obama's grandmother? She worked at the Bank of Hawaii until her retirement in 1986. She did not work for the Probate Court. She was a Vice President at the Bank of Hawaii. This is public record. She did not have the access to the deceased persons' SSNs that the writer claims.

Paragraph 4: "The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama."

??? Obama was not born in Kenya, his father was. An adoption does not confer citizenship on someone, although I don't know what the law in Indonesia is about becoming a citizen, and it sure would have been helpful for that documentation to be provided. But it wasn't.. Since Madelyn Dunham did not work at the Probate Court, she could not scour the records there.

Paragraph 5: "Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O's use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama. Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term 'natural born' there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud."


Credit: Getty Images

Trump? Well, I guess we now know the source of this message. If not Mr. Trump himself, then a supporter of his.

"Natural born" -- Leftist heads will not be exploding because there is no issue here. Obama is a natural born citizen of the U.S.

"Using someone else's SSN"? Still no evidence, no proof, no substantiation. And I'd suggest that whoever wrote this e-mail is a prime example of complete stupidity, irresponsibility, and deception. If any of these claims was true, there'd be evidence and the writer would be more than happy to provide it.

Paragraph 6: "Let's all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists. If the voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying, deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the biggest and best news in decades for our country and the world. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.' Benjamin Franklin If you can just say 'oh well, ho hum' after reading this you get what you deserve."

Deceitful? Clearly a rant against Obama that lacks any substance whatsoever. And the e-mail itself is 100% deceitful and I'd hope that when the writer is brought to justice, it will be the biggest and best news in decades for our country and the democratic election process.....

Think, people! Don't fall for cheap lies no matter who the target is. Deconstruct the message and find the holes. Look for evidence and logical substantiation. If you demand evidence, proof and documentation from the opposition, you must demand it from your own side, too. I've notified Obama's campaign of the existence of this e-mail using an SSN that the writer claims to be Obama's and I'll be happy to forward the e-mail to them if they want it.

I am just astounded by the stupidity of this e-mail and its message......

The Disappeared

2012-01-18T15:47:00.000-06:00

You know what frustrates me? What's frustrated me for a very long time? Ever had this experience?

A couple years ago, I found what I consider to be the ideal sugar free gum. The taste bursts in the mouth and lasts much longer than other gums. And the flavors! Raspberry Sorbet, Cool Lemon, Peppermint with the punch of a York Peppermint Patty, Spearmint that tingles, tangly Kiwi Watermelon and Wintergreen that's cool and smooth. Each piece is a cute little cube. You'd think the world would love this gum from Ice Breakers by Hershey's. I looked forward to many years of gum-chewing pleasure.

But no. A couple months ago I noticed that all of a sudden the inventory of this gum at the store had shrunken dramatically. When I shopped for gum a couple weeks ago, I found only the raspberry and wintergreen flavors in the economy size plastic cups. Nooooooo! Say it ain't so! Once again, something that I love is disappearing.

I seized the opportunity at a conference last year to corner a sales rep for Abbott Laboratories. I wanted him to explain to me why Abbott had stopped making the Wild Berry flavor of their popular Ensure nutrition supplement drink. Know what he told me? You can probably guess. I had no clue until he told me. I thought of course my favorite flavors were everyone else's, too; but no, Abbott Labs had stopped making Wild Berry flavor because it wasn't popular and sales were low. I let him know that I was not pleased. He offered coupons toward my next Ensure purchase. Then Abbott went and changed the packaging, creating different kinds of Ensure to address different physical issues, e.g. muscle growth, immune system support. I have no idea if the formulations truly are different for each kind. Frankly, all I care about now is that they don't eliminate any more flavors I love.

Hamburger Helper used to offer a product called Rice Oriental. I loved it. Of course, they stopped making it. Revlon used to make a perfume called Scoundrel that I loved. To this day, I have no idea why they discontinued it. Some other examples of "the disappeared": Simpsons postage stamps and Evergreen postage stamps, aerograms, purple ink Papermate stick pens, a totally rad sweater jacket that L. L. Bean used to sell (but no more), and the TV show Lie to Me.

Why does this happen? Why do things I love disappear? I know, I know. It's the rule of the almighty marketplace, and as the Abbott sales rep said so succinctly, "Low sales." Gone are the days when products continue on because they are quality products even if they have less than stellar sales. I mourn for all "the Disappeareds" in my life. They force me to face the fickle tastes of the general population. They force me to find another "love," even as I fear that that love will also disappear.

Physical existence on this planet involves the concepts of constant change and impermanence. But why can't we have our favorite things always as a hedge against the inevitable? Doomed, we are. I say, we are doomed to re-live the loss of our favorite things, even life.....or maybe that store just decided not to carry Ice Cubes gum and it's really at other stores. You think?

Ricky Gervais

2012-01-16T11:07:00.000-06:00

Courtesy NBC

Like millions of other people, last night I watched the annual Golden Globe Awards telecast. I enjoy it each year for its more relaxed party atmosphere, and its quirky celebration of the movies from the previous year. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association puts on a fun party. One of the quirkiest elements of that party is the host, Ricky Gervais, who's hosted for the past three years.

Gervais has impressive comedy chops, no doubt about that. He's a good-looking guy, too, and reminds me a lot of the mischievous kid in the back row who's pushing at the teacher's patience. When he sticks to playful jabs, he's hilarious. It's when he strays into the mean-spiritedness of jokes at the expense of other people that I lose patience with him. That kind of humor requires no imagination or creativity, and I believe Gervais is far more capable than that.

The interesting thing about his mean-spirited humor is that he chooses things about people that are true. In other words, he avoids a libel lawsuit or two or three. He makes it clear up front that he's just joking around, but seems to be clueless that jokes have just as much of a hurtful and damaging effect as the cutting put-down. He balances on a tightrope between funny and totally inappropriate. The thing is, people usually do not want their flaws and foibles highlighted with jokes. By choosing that kind of humor, Gervais does little to endear himself to his audience...or, more accurately, victims.

Humor has an abusive side. It's the joke that puts down, diminishes, or otherwise hurts another person. I have no patience with this kind of humor and find it not humor at all. Gervais walks a fine line between humor that's funny and humor that's abusive.

The good news: He toned down his joke attacks last night compared with last year's telecast. The bad news: While he may have toned down most of his comments, he still landed some penetrating stabs at NBC and others. Wow, go ahead, Ricky. Make NBC's day! Of course, the network can take it, that's not the point. The "bad boy" thing gets old fast with such bad taste. Not that criticism is out of line. But it depends on how it's delivered and there was nothing constructive about Gervais' NBC comments last night.

More good news: The audience had prepared for Gervais and gave as good as it got, but in a much classier way than Gervais. I particularly loved Colin Firth's description of demonstrators outside the hotel and their placards sending the audience to perish in fire and brimstone...ignorant of Gervais' devilish presence inside the hotel. Or maybe that was exactly the demonstrators' point?

Gervais' comment comparing the Golden Globe telecast with the Academy Awards may backfire on him. Saying the Oscars have more esteem than the Golden Globes hits the Hollywood Foreign Press squarely between the eyes. Again, the audience members countered Gervais with their outpouring of appreciation for the Hollywood Foreign Press in acceptance speech after acceptance speech. The Hollywood Foreign Press' efforts in support of the Hollywood community and film industry includes the Golden Globes, a little fact that Gervais managed to forget last night.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give Ricky Gervais a 3. He wasn't that funny, his abusive humor fell flat, and he could have kept the show moving. At least he wasn't as over the top nasty as he was last year. Of course, serving alcohol before and during the telecast tends to slow acceptance speeches, so it's always something of a miracle that the show never runs over its allotted time. Gervais contributed to a lack of discipline last night in maintaining the show's pace -- before he began hosting, this telecast was playful fun, unpredictable fun, and respectful fun. And it was especially fun to watch.

My vote for host next year is Nikki Finke from Deadline.com......