Periodically, I review the blogs I write as a self-imposed mental health checkup. The goal is to determine:"Have I totally lost it - or not"? It truly is not an exact process.
Like a "Catch-22" demonstration, I'm not sure a well-informed decision will ever be reached by this writer.
My reading of my buddy Harry's blogs helps me with my analysis. There are probably times we both are in danger of being perceived as worthy to be hauled off to the looney-bins - and that's okay.
We're protected by the First Amendment.
But, I find, like the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theatre thing" it is a good idea for me to keep a check on what my blogs are saying or suggesting. I'm sure Harry does the same as his research is much more thorough than my own.
I admit to getting a kick when a more reliable media source repeats and agrees with some of the stuff I've said previously.
A good example is extracted here from an editorial that appeared in this mornings "USA Today."
The opening line was, "The fact that campaign money distorts money and policy is pretty obvious; it's one reason why big financial firms have been able to fight off many restrictions they so richly deserved after taking the economy off a cliff, and why taxpayers often get stuck paying for weapons systems the Pentagon says it doesn't need.
Getting campaign cash under control has never been easy, particularly since a string of Supreme Court rulings deeming the spending of money on behalf of political objectives to be constitutionally protected free speech." (Arizona public finance ruling leaves a silver lining; Tuesday June 28, 2011)
They then went on to suggest that the recent 5-4 majority that found that public financing laws in Arizona violate the First Amendment - need not be viewed as a bad thing as there were viable alternatives in place.
They also pointed out that Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated that their conclusion was not intended to evaluate the wisdom of public financing; and saw that as the light at the end of the tunnel.
The crux of the decision appeared to be the manner and timing in which Arizona was distributing the public financing funds.
The opposing view written by a guy that appeared to be from a lobbying firm used the argument against Arizona that the state was wrong in it's use of public financing as so many of the Arizona politicians on the dole were crooked.
This response ignored the fact that the current system isn't working and that it's harder to find a poor politician than for Diogenes to find an honest man.
The importance of so many of the high courts decisions is to look at both sides of the affirmative and dissenting justices opinions.
I found that particularly revealing as I reviewed both sides of the many Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that impacted upon how my employer and our local management group were conducting business.
We need a body of law in order to keep us from residing in a land of absolute chaos. Sometimes we will not agree with the interpretation by the High Courts. As a result we will look for only political prejudice as a direct cause in the matter decided.
In some instances those suspicions may be well grounded - but the Supreme court is what it is - even if the humorous Walter Matthau did not really sit on the bench as the movie suggested.
A concern of many is that the Court does not appear to be influenced by a groundswell of people who question the wisdom of their decisions. Whether that is a good thing or not - only time will tell.
However, if their stated responsibility is simply to interpret the current legislation based on long standing historical fact-finding and tenets that have stood the test of time, then perhaps we'd be in worse straits if they failed to do so. See Wal-mart v Dukes.
We can clearly see how the Law is changing without spending a lot of time reviewing some Supreme Court decisions in prior centuries that should provoke any fair and reasonable person to wince when reminded of them.
I believe it is not the Court's responsibility to react to public opinion but am not above stirring it up when I fail to understand the fairness of what they decide.
Until we replace Supreme Court Justices with robots we will always receive decisions that contain some portion that had as it's origin - simple human bias - with a splash of politics.
I'm more concerned over the failure of our elected officials to listen to the electorate - and puzzled as to why that is so.
Like this writer's blogs - the whole process involving both the Justices and the politicians appears to be a work in progress.
In the meantime there is absolutely no wisdom in failing to voice our opinions - in polite conversations - at the ballot box - and in these opinion sites called blogs.
Both Harry and I employ them to voice our humble views on what's going on, and how we might make things better as a nation.
I'm so glad that my friend encouraged me to become part of that First Amendment activity.
I encourage you to continue to view his blogs as he has a lot of worthy information to impart.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
THE TROUBLE WITH "BRIGHT" PEOPLE - PART II
There is little doubt in the minds of anybody currently or previously in business, and who followed the "Walmart vs Dukes" class action lawsuit; that "something taint right."
Many if not most, if surveyed, would probably conclude that some of Wal-Marts actions in dealing with their female employees smacked of discrimination.
Based upon the tone and content of most in letters to the editor who responded to this recent Supreme Court decision, the members of the class action were severely short-changed by the decision.
That is not the subject of this blog.
What is our point is the continuance of a belief we are allowing otherwise bright folks to proceed on the assumtion that the rest of us are stupid. We use this case as just one more example.
Several rather bright plaintiff attorneys agreed with those hind sight letter writers and filed a "class action" lawsuit against Wal-Mart.
Unfortunately, the key ingredient in the Court's decision appears to be the greed of many of the class members as well as the attorneys representing the "class".
Both demonstrated that the use of the word "class" was a poorly chosen one - for many reasons.
The main problem in the alleged class-action suit was that this aggregation of plaintiff attorneys - claimed to have 1.5 million members who were discriminated against by Wal-Mart.
That would be "every" woman who had worked for Wal-Mart since 1998.
As USA Today said in their "Our View" column: "Given the number of women who have risen to senior jobs and management positions at the company, it's unrealistic to claim that every one of them was discriminated against."
However, the editorial staff - or at least the one(s) writing the column - also were upset because the 5 member male majority of the Justices chose "killing (the) huge sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart women."
To some their conclusion suggested the decision was actually a male vs female issue.
Their concerns appeared to be that, by doing so, the Supreme Court had set too high a bar for proving bias by a large defendent such as Wal-Mart. They used the argument "look at statistics - not boilerplate policies."
To go too deep here would be to write a book as opposed to a blog.
All 9 Justices - both male and female - disagreed with the 9th circuit courts decision to uphold the certification of the class action lawsuit.
In addition, 5 of the 9 Justices - all male - killed the lawsuit by
their interpretation of whether or not there were additional issues
One such issue addressed was the blanket allegation that what Wal-Mart (might) have done was a pattern of practices in each of their stores.
They also declined to see the alleged statistics and their corresponding connection to discrimination to be a foregone conclusion.
My perception is that what the court was really saying - in their 5 to 4 decision was - by including every woman who had ever been employed by Wal-Mart since December, 1998 the plaintiff attorneys were guilty of "over reach".
USA's position is that they should have allowed the suit to go forward.This was sort of a "Let's throw everything up in the air and see what sticks" approach.
But, we see the decision as, finally, some wisdom and fairness in the well thought out examination of what is and what is not a valid "class action" lawsuit.
Traditionally, the goal of class-action lawsuits was to right a wrong and the filing of same resulted in many positive decisions that levelled the playing field.
Unfortunately,the filing of class action lawsuits got out of hand.
The lower courts were reluctant to decertify them as same. This is despite the fact that it was clear the plaintiff counsels' intention was to bludgeon the target defendent into submission by dint of their questionable allegation of the size of the class.
This, in effect, encouraged various plaintiff attorneys to see how much air they could insert into the balloon - before it might break.
Many of their lawsuits - as with this one - lumped legitimate plaintiffs in with those whose claims were clearly frivolous.
Their theory was simply that of: "bigger is better and size does matter."
There has been a growing trend to do so and too many weak kneed judges have allowed this travesty of justice to go on much too long. Faced with the outrageous size of the class members, many defendent companies have opted to "fold rather than fight."
Wal-Mart did not.
The unwillingness of their predecessor firms to take on "the plaintiff bar" served to provide us once more with a great example of bright people who assumed that the rest of the populace - or at least the jurists - were stupid.
Here's an analogy with something that took place in Philadelphia in the 70's - or about the time class-action lawsuits started to take off.
A streetcar (for those old enough to remember) could hold only "X" number of passenger. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that they held 40 people on average.
If the streetcar - which was locked into a set of tracks - was involved in an accident with another vehicle - the motormen (operators) would often open the doors to allow the passengers the opportunity to go on their way rather than wait for the police to conduct their lengthy investigation. Some did just that.
Strangely enough though, many opted to stay in the hot sweltering heat of the streetcars. By the time the police arrived the 40 folks previously on board had swelled to 80 "injured" people - many climbing on board the streetcar during the wait.
WELCOME TO THE CLASS REPRESENTED IN "WAL-MART VS DUKES"
As the obviously NOT "non-partisan" writer from the Chamber of Commerce wrote in their USA Today "opposing view": "Far too often plaintiff attorneys view the class-action device as a financial opportunity, but it is American business, workers and their families that pay the price for such class-action abuse. We simply cannot sue our way to prosperity."
Here's the final point of the blog - in quotes:
"Anybody who sees any similarity between what the plaintiff attorneys are doing and our last blog as to what our politicians are doing to you - please raise your hands - and having raised them, keep them up until you can pull the appropriate lever in your voting booth."
Don't encourage the erroneous assumption of bright people to become a reality."
Honest, you're not stupid!
Many if not most, if surveyed, would probably conclude that some of Wal-Marts actions in dealing with their female employees smacked of discrimination.
Based upon the tone and content of most in letters to the editor who responded to this recent Supreme Court decision, the members of the class action were severely short-changed by the decision.
That is not the subject of this blog.
What is our point is the continuance of a belief we are allowing otherwise bright folks to proceed on the assumtion that the rest of us are stupid. We use this case as just one more example.
Several rather bright plaintiff attorneys agreed with those hind sight letter writers and filed a "class action" lawsuit against Wal-Mart.
Unfortunately, the key ingredient in the Court's decision appears to be the greed of many of the class members as well as the attorneys representing the "class".
Both demonstrated that the use of the word "class" was a poorly chosen one - for many reasons.
The main problem in the alleged class-action suit was that this aggregation of plaintiff attorneys - claimed to have 1.5 million members who were discriminated against by Wal-Mart.
That would be "every" woman who had worked for Wal-Mart since 1998.
As USA Today said in their "Our View" column: "Given the number of women who have risen to senior jobs and management positions at the company, it's unrealistic to claim that every one of them was discriminated against."
However, the editorial staff - or at least the one(s) writing the column - also were upset because the 5 member male majority of the Justices chose "killing (the) huge sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart women."
To some their conclusion suggested the decision was actually a male vs female issue.
Their concerns appeared to be that, by doing so, the Supreme Court had set too high a bar for proving bias by a large defendent such as Wal-Mart. They used the argument "look at statistics - not boilerplate policies."
To go too deep here would be to write a book as opposed to a blog.
All 9 Justices - both male and female - disagreed with the 9th circuit courts decision to uphold the certification of the class action lawsuit.
In addition, 5 of the 9 Justices - all male - killed the lawsuit by
their interpretation of whether or not there were additional issues
One such issue addressed was the blanket allegation that what Wal-Mart (might) have done was a pattern of practices in each of their stores.
They also declined to see the alleged statistics and their corresponding connection to discrimination to be a foregone conclusion.
My perception is that what the court was really saying - in their 5 to 4 decision was - by including every woman who had ever been employed by Wal-Mart since December, 1998 the plaintiff attorneys were guilty of "over reach".
USA's position is that they should have allowed the suit to go forward.This was sort of a "Let's throw everything up in the air and see what sticks" approach.
But, we see the decision as, finally, some wisdom and fairness in the well thought out examination of what is and what is not a valid "class action" lawsuit.
Traditionally, the goal of class-action lawsuits was to right a wrong and the filing of same resulted in many positive decisions that levelled the playing field.
Unfortunately,the filing of class action lawsuits got out of hand.
The lower courts were reluctant to decertify them as same. This is despite the fact that it was clear the plaintiff counsels' intention was to bludgeon the target defendent into submission by dint of their questionable allegation of the size of the class.
This, in effect, encouraged various plaintiff attorneys to see how much air they could insert into the balloon - before it might break.
Many of their lawsuits - as with this one - lumped legitimate plaintiffs in with those whose claims were clearly frivolous.
Their theory was simply that of: "bigger is better and size does matter."
There has been a growing trend to do so and too many weak kneed judges have allowed this travesty of justice to go on much too long. Faced with the outrageous size of the class members, many defendent companies have opted to "fold rather than fight."
Wal-Mart did not.
The unwillingness of their predecessor firms to take on "the plaintiff bar" served to provide us once more with a great example of bright people who assumed that the rest of the populace - or at least the jurists - were stupid.
Here's an analogy with something that took place in Philadelphia in the 70's - or about the time class-action lawsuits started to take off.
A streetcar (for those old enough to remember) could hold only "X" number of passenger. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that they held 40 people on average.
If the streetcar - which was locked into a set of tracks - was involved in an accident with another vehicle - the motormen (operators) would often open the doors to allow the passengers the opportunity to go on their way rather than wait for the police to conduct their lengthy investigation. Some did just that.
Strangely enough though, many opted to stay in the hot sweltering heat of the streetcars. By the time the police arrived the 40 folks previously on board had swelled to 80 "injured" people - many climbing on board the streetcar during the wait.
WELCOME TO THE CLASS REPRESENTED IN "WAL-MART VS DUKES"
As the obviously NOT "non-partisan" writer from the Chamber of Commerce wrote in their USA Today "opposing view": "Far too often plaintiff attorneys view the class-action device as a financial opportunity, but it is American business, workers and their families that pay the price for such class-action abuse. We simply cannot sue our way to prosperity."
Here's the final point of the blog - in quotes:
"Anybody who sees any similarity between what the plaintiff attorneys are doing and our last blog as to what our politicians are doing to you - please raise your hands - and having raised them, keep them up until you can pull the appropriate lever in your voting booth."
Don't encourage the erroneous assumption of bright people to become a reality."
Honest, you're not stupid!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
THE TROUBLE WITH "BRIGHT" PEOPLE
The trouble with "bright" people is that they often assume everyone else is stupid.
That's not the first time I have written that - and unfortunately it won't be the last. We just continue to see a repetition of this home grown aphorism in practice.
The positive is that it doesn't include all bright people. There are some pretty smart people out there who don't abuse their intelligence.
The conclusion in the title is so complex that I have chosen to spread out the examples over two blogs; this being the first.
Let's look at Congress as the first offending party.
Congress is an aggregate of people smart enough to get themselves elected to public office - but, who then decide to do stupid things.
Why do they do it? Because they conclude that the rest of the people out there are too stupid to catch them.
So, they do it - because they can. By our blind insistance on re-electing our officials- despite their greedy actions- we are allowing this to happen.
This is despite the fact we have never had so many watchdogs out there looking at the actions of almost everyone. Ask former representative Weiner.
Case in point: Congress in 2011 found a way around "one more promise to the public". This time it was an end run around the Republican house majority declaring a ban last December on members pet spending projects.
How did they do it, you ask?
Well, they took a $1 billion defense fund and the House members dipped into it to the tune of $600 million in special projects.
How did we find out?
The Taxpayers For Common Sense watchdog group outed the House members.
You remember the term "Billion " don't you?
That's the one being bandied in plural form by Congress who's many members have decided "Social Security is costing this country too much and it's time to act."
At the same time Congress already has plans in sight to rob Social Security via other end runs.
Personally, as a recipient, I find no problem with examining ways to repair Social Security, but only if there are credible accompanying guarantees that Congress will stop raiding it.
At one time, it was perhaps the only program that was self sustaining - thus the first program Congress went after.
Remember, this is also the same Congress,led by House Republican
"leadership" who, in their "search for savings", decided in a recent 217 to 203 vote to cut the Womans, Infants, and Children program which offers food and education to low income mothers and children.
The cut is by $868 million. "Still, it's not even a a billion," I can hear them say as they defend their actions. That's assuming they believe they have to.
At the same time, the Rwepublican majority in the House rejected bi-partisan attempts to reduce Farm subsidies to large corporations; among others.
I gotta ask you again, "Are you sure this isn't graft?"
Somebody is obviously benefitting by these decisions - and it doesn't take "Hawkshaw Hawkins, Private Detective" to determine who.
This is the first of two examples of what I think of bright people's "misinterpretation" of the intelligence of the rest of the populace. Our actions at the polls to call them to task will prove them wrong.
Second, we have the Plaintiff bar - or maybe just a few plaintiff attorneys - whom the Supreme Court in a 5 /4 decision, recently gave their "comeuppance". They too misjudged others.
The issue - not a simple one - had to do with the certification of what may or may not constitute a valid Class Action lawsuit.
Like Roz, in our commercials down here, "I am not a lawyer - so please think of what follows as a speculative overview."
However, I believe it says much to defend the conclusion listed in the title of this blog.
It's not that we haven't devised methods to keep the fox out of the henhouse. It's just that too often we don't take the time to determine whether or not those methods are working.
The current Supreme Court did - and they decided they weren't working.
That's not the first time I have written that - and unfortunately it won't be the last. We just continue to see a repetition of this home grown aphorism in practice.
The positive is that it doesn't include all bright people. There are some pretty smart people out there who don't abuse their intelligence.
The conclusion in the title is so complex that I have chosen to spread out the examples over two blogs; this being the first.
Let's look at Congress as the first offending party.
Congress is an aggregate of people smart enough to get themselves elected to public office - but, who then decide to do stupid things.
Why do they do it? Because they conclude that the rest of the people out there are too stupid to catch them.
So, they do it - because they can. By our blind insistance on re-electing our officials- despite their greedy actions- we are allowing this to happen.
This is despite the fact we have never had so many watchdogs out there looking at the actions of almost everyone. Ask former representative Weiner.
Case in point: Congress in 2011 found a way around "one more promise to the public". This time it was an end run around the Republican house majority declaring a ban last December on members pet spending projects.
How did they do it, you ask?
Well, they took a $1 billion defense fund and the House members dipped into it to the tune of $600 million in special projects.
How did we find out?
The Taxpayers For Common Sense watchdog group outed the House members.
You remember the term "Billion " don't you?
That's the one being bandied in plural form by Congress who's many members have decided "Social Security is costing this country too much and it's time to act."
At the same time Congress already has plans in sight to rob Social Security via other end runs.
Personally, as a recipient, I find no problem with examining ways to repair Social Security, but only if there are credible accompanying guarantees that Congress will stop raiding it.
At one time, it was perhaps the only program that was self sustaining - thus the first program Congress went after.
Remember, this is also the same Congress,led by House Republican
"leadership" who, in their "search for savings", decided in a recent 217 to 203 vote to cut the Womans, Infants, and Children program which offers food and education to low income mothers and children.
The cut is by $868 million. "Still, it's not even a a billion," I can hear them say as they defend their actions. That's assuming they believe they have to.
At the same time, the Rwepublican majority in the House rejected bi-partisan attempts to reduce Farm subsidies to large corporations; among others.
I gotta ask you again, "Are you sure this isn't graft?"
Somebody is obviously benefitting by these decisions - and it doesn't take "Hawkshaw Hawkins, Private Detective" to determine who.
This is the first of two examples of what I think of bright people's "misinterpretation" of the intelligence of the rest of the populace. Our actions at the polls to call them to task will prove them wrong.
Second, we have the Plaintiff bar - or maybe just a few plaintiff attorneys - whom the Supreme Court in a 5 /4 decision, recently gave their "comeuppance". They too misjudged others.
The issue - not a simple one - had to do with the certification of what may or may not constitute a valid Class Action lawsuit.
Like Roz, in our commercials down here, "I am not a lawyer - so please think of what follows as a speculative overview."
However, I believe it says much to defend the conclusion listed in the title of this blog.
It's not that we haven't devised methods to keep the fox out of the henhouse. It's just that too often we don't take the time to determine whether or not those methods are working.
The current Supreme Court did - and they decided they weren't working.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
SENIORS SENSE OF HUMOR
It is amazing to me that most of the really funny e-mail I receive comes from seniors.
That's not meant to be critical of other generations but, to point out most seniors are not afraid to make fun of themself and where they are in this chronological business of aging.
Take some excerpts from today's e-mail
Q: "Where can senior men over the age of 60 find younger women who are interested in them?"
A. Try a bookstore - under fiction.
Q: "How can I increase the heart rate of my over-60 year old mate?"
A. Tell him you're pregnant.
Q: "Why should 60-plus people use valet parking?"
A: Valets don't forget where they park your car.
Q: "What can a man do while his wife is going through menapause?"
A. Keep busy. If handy with tools, you can finish the basement. When done, you have a place to live.
Q: "Someone told me menapause is mentioned in the Bible. Is that true - where can I find it?"
A. Yes. Matthew 14:92 "And Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way to Egypt.
Q: "How can I avoid that terrible curse of unsightly wrinkles?"
A: Take off your glasses.
Q. "Seriously! What can I do for these Crow's feet and all those wrinkles on my face?"
A: Go braless. It will usually pull them out.
Q: "Is it common for 60-plus year olds to have problems with short term memory storage?"
A. Storing memory is not a problem. Retrieving it is the problem.
Q: As people age, do they sleep more soundly?"
A. Yes, but usually in the afternoon.
Q: What is the most common remark made by a 60-plus year olds when they enter antique stores?"
A. "Gosh, I remember all these!"
And these:
(1)"While working for an organization that delivers lunches to elderly shut-ins, I used to take my 4-year old daughter on my afternoon rounds.
She was unfailingly intrigued by the various appliances of old age, particularly the canes, walkers and wheelchairs.
One day I found her staring at a pair of false teeth soaking in a glass.
As I braced myself for the inevitable barrage of questions, she merely turned and whispered, 'The tooth fairy will never believe this!"
(2) "I'm working as hard as I can to get my life and my cash to run out at the same time. If I can just die after lunch Tuesday, everything will be perfect." - Doug Sanders
"Time sneaks up on you like a windshield on a bug." - John Lithgow
TAKE TIME TO LAUGH AT YOURSELF.
That's not meant to be critical of other generations but, to point out most seniors are not afraid to make fun of themself and where they are in this chronological business of aging.
Take some excerpts from today's e-mail
Q: "Where can senior men over the age of 60 find younger women who are interested in them?"
A. Try a bookstore - under fiction.
Q: "How can I increase the heart rate of my over-60 year old mate?"
A. Tell him you're pregnant.
Q: "Why should 60-plus people use valet parking?"
A: Valets don't forget where they park your car.
Q: "What can a man do while his wife is going through menapause?"
A. Keep busy. If handy with tools, you can finish the basement. When done, you have a place to live.
Q: "Someone told me menapause is mentioned in the Bible. Is that true - where can I find it?"
A. Yes. Matthew 14:92 "And Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way to Egypt.
Q: "How can I avoid that terrible curse of unsightly wrinkles?"
A: Take off your glasses.
Q. "Seriously! What can I do for these Crow's feet and all those wrinkles on my face?"
A: Go braless. It will usually pull them out.
Q: "Is it common for 60-plus year olds to have problems with short term memory storage?"
A. Storing memory is not a problem. Retrieving it is the problem.
Q: As people age, do they sleep more soundly?"
A. Yes, but usually in the afternoon.
Q: What is the most common remark made by a 60-plus year olds when they enter antique stores?"
A. "Gosh, I remember all these!"
And these:
(1)"While working for an organization that delivers lunches to elderly shut-ins, I used to take my 4-year old daughter on my afternoon rounds.
She was unfailingly intrigued by the various appliances of old age, particularly the canes, walkers and wheelchairs.
One day I found her staring at a pair of false teeth soaking in a glass.
As I braced myself for the inevitable barrage of questions, she merely turned and whispered, 'The tooth fairy will never believe this!"
(2) "I'm working as hard as I can to get my life and my cash to run out at the same time. If I can just die after lunch Tuesday, everything will be perfect." - Doug Sanders
"Time sneaks up on you like a windshield on a bug." - John Lithgow
TAKE TIME TO LAUGH AT YOURSELF.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Just Dis n Dat
I visted our main Post Office twice this week. One clerk was working and apparently in no rush. We love the branch PO set up in a convenience store down the road. People are friendly - take time with you - and show you how to save money.
So, what is it? The conclusion that the Post Office will be phased out - so who cares at one place - and the other just more optimistic?
Resolving the chicken and the egg thing has always bothered me. But, then again, it just could be that the lady running the convenience store location, is from Pittsburgh.
No prejudice here.
------------------------------------------
Speaking of Pittsburgh - it's nice to see the Pirates fielding a competetive team, so far. Much will be watched closely after inter-league play and contracts start to run out.
Then we'll find out if it's just a case of "The same old Pirates" -
or signs that our Buccos have regained that fire in their bellies.
You have to love the pitching improvement as well as Hurdles early showers.The wins on the road speak well for their growing maturity.
Hope to catch a couple games in person with the kids
-----------------------------------
Now, they done it! With the realization we're going to be climbing a lot more steps in Pittsburgh I've returned to the diet mode. For a good reason:
The Tampa Bay Rays asked me if they could attach a tether to my legs, inflate me- just a little- and shove a camera in my rearend for additional improved televising of home games.
Yep, it was time to start another diet but maybe this time skip that old skimmed milk inclusion.
A recent article asked this question: "Is skimmed milk making you fat?" Then they proceeded to answer the question in an obtuse way by quoting one recent study that concluded - "Contrary to our hypothesis - skim and 1% milk were associated with weight gain but dairy fat was not."
I'm starting to adopt Woodrow Wilson's "watchful waiting" policy where "scientific" health studies are concerned.
I am now enjoying guilt free my one daily piece of dark chocalate and the occasional red wine. I'm also enjoying pasta more now that I've been told it won't kill me.
Please give me a call, therefore, when some government study announces "hot fudge sundaes are just fine for your health."
--------------------------------
Finally, Massie Energy - or whatever it's called now - has announced that the disaster we all watched and prayed for safe resolution was not their fault. It was just an unavoidable natural disaster.
This company has been cited for more violations than any I can recall. Still they continue to deny any published report containing scientific data that points out their safety failures.
So, apparently it's deja vu all over again on the part of the mineowners?
That this country has allowed these company safety abuses to exist as the total number of deaths to their "pseudo -indentured servants" continue to climb - is a crying shame and per the various studies it's largely avoidable.
The Wallenda family experienced sadness in their vocational choice, but, they were few in number and declined certain safety protection precautions without which most of us would have been observed hunched over in a corner snivelling.
Miners are not refusing better safety protection.
In most instances, mining is all many of these coal digging folks have ever known in their family for generations. Geography is just one factor in their choice of work.
And, when they do their death defying stuff, nobody applauds as they climb out of the mines at the end of their performance -except when they leave their relatives and friends permanently buried behind them.
We need to insist on safety in this industry and punish those who abuse common sense for the sake of a buck. It's been going on too long but, seems to take another tragedy to get our attention.
So, what is it? The conclusion that the Post Office will be phased out - so who cares at one place - and the other just more optimistic?
Resolving the chicken and the egg thing has always bothered me. But, then again, it just could be that the lady running the convenience store location, is from Pittsburgh.
No prejudice here.
------------------------------------------
Speaking of Pittsburgh - it's nice to see the Pirates fielding a competetive team, so far. Much will be watched closely after inter-league play and contracts start to run out.
Then we'll find out if it's just a case of "The same old Pirates" -
or signs that our Buccos have regained that fire in their bellies.
You have to love the pitching improvement as well as Hurdles early showers.The wins on the road speak well for their growing maturity.
Hope to catch a couple games in person with the kids
-----------------------------------
Now, they done it! With the realization we're going to be climbing a lot more steps in Pittsburgh I've returned to the diet mode. For a good reason:
The Tampa Bay Rays asked me if they could attach a tether to my legs, inflate me- just a little- and shove a camera in my rearend for additional improved televising of home games.
Yep, it was time to start another diet but maybe this time skip that old skimmed milk inclusion.
A recent article asked this question: "Is skimmed milk making you fat?" Then they proceeded to answer the question in an obtuse way by quoting one recent study that concluded - "Contrary to our hypothesis - skim and 1% milk were associated with weight gain but dairy fat was not."
I'm starting to adopt Woodrow Wilson's "watchful waiting" policy where "scientific" health studies are concerned.
I am now enjoying guilt free my one daily piece of dark chocalate and the occasional red wine. I'm also enjoying pasta more now that I've been told it won't kill me.
Please give me a call, therefore, when some government study announces "hot fudge sundaes are just fine for your health."
--------------------------------
Finally, Massie Energy - or whatever it's called now - has announced that the disaster we all watched and prayed for safe resolution was not their fault. It was just an unavoidable natural disaster.
This company has been cited for more violations than any I can recall. Still they continue to deny any published report containing scientific data that points out their safety failures.
So, apparently it's deja vu all over again on the part of the mineowners?
That this country has allowed these company safety abuses to exist as the total number of deaths to their "pseudo -indentured servants" continue to climb - is a crying shame and per the various studies it's largely avoidable.
The Wallenda family experienced sadness in their vocational choice, but, they were few in number and declined certain safety protection precautions without which most of us would have been observed hunched over in a corner snivelling.
Miners are not refusing better safety protection.
In most instances, mining is all many of these coal digging folks have ever known in their family for generations. Geography is just one factor in their choice of work.
And, when they do their death defying stuff, nobody applauds as they climb out of the mines at the end of their performance -except when they leave their relatives and friends permanently buried behind them.
We need to insist on safety in this industry and punish those who abuse common sense for the sake of a buck. It's been going on too long but, seems to take another tragedy to get our attention.
Friday, June 10, 2011
WHAT IS TOO BIG TO FAIL?
Let's assume you know a guy named Tony, who loves his beer.He spends all of his beer money in one beer joint owned by a guy named Bennie.
You suspect Tony may have a brain that has been permanently anesthetized as a direct result of his prodigous beer consumption.
Tony fails to notice,at first, that just about every time he comes in the front door of the bar, Bennie the bar owner ducks out the back door and goes up to Tony's house where he and Tony's wife get it on.
Finally, Tony's beer drinking capacity diminishes due to liver problems, and he starts going home earlier. On one of those visits he thinks he sees Bennie, the bar owner, going out of Tony's back door - and the Bennie look-a-like appears to be in a big hurry. He confronts Bennie the nedxt day. Bennie refuses to admit any wrongdoing.
For a period of 19 months Tony starts coming home early a lot more frequently after that.For some unknown reason Tony doesn't head directly for the back yard to assess the comings and goings of the bar owner via the well traveled rear exit.
Tony insists on entering the house from the front door.Bennie has little incentive to deny his nocturnal cravings once he hears Tony approaching.
Finally, Tony has had it. He's sick and tired of this arrangement.In his extreme state of anger he confronts Bennie in the back room of his bar and threatens him.
He says, "Look Bennie, I know whats been going on. If you don't stop this stuff I'm going to make a strong stand. But, if you make 'substantial improvements' in your behavior, I'll spend my money here again". Bennie laughs at him.
Pretty lame, right?
Do you feel as if Tony has to be the biggest fool in town as well the least courageous? Yeah, me too.
Recently, it was the Treasury Department - not Tony - who took a stand. But instead of Bennie being the target - it was Bank of America (BOFA); along with Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, et al. .
It seems that a long time ago(2009) Treasury's auditors concluded the big three mortgage servers were failing the government via their violations of the rules of Making Home Affordable (MHA)work.
The audit discovered more homeowners had been kicked out of the program by the banks than are receiving assistance. Yet, the banks continued to accept incentive payments,ie, $24 million last month.
Now, 3 days ago, Treasury has decided to take a "strong" stand! They are going to withhold those incentive payments to the Big Three.(Wow!)
Let's review. The purpose of Treasury's incentive payments to the banks via the MHA was to lower monthly payments, reduce loan balances, or enable distressed borrowers to sell their homes before they're seized.
Treasury, in their benevolence after making this drastic decision, has also announced,"the withheld funds will be returned to the three banks once they make "needed improvements."
It's only a voluntary program and only God knows why. Was it Treasury's stated goal to help homeowners or just increase the dole to banks?
You have to ask another question, "When we bailed out the banking industry - once more - who was in charge of the governments monitoring team? Bud Selig? Treasury has long been criticized for it's lack of oversight.
Per one article, BANK OF AMERICA is the worst MHA performer of the big three. The bank is accused of having "poor internal controls for identifying and contacting homeowners. It's error rates were also more than four times Treasury's benchmark when calculating borrowers income."
Here's the kicker though: Treasury (not unlike Tony above) waited 19 months to take action.In 2009 they only confronted/threatened.
The article states,"Instead, The Obama administration spent the next year and a half defending itself against accusations levied by federal auditors, members of Congress, and consumer groups - that it was soft on big banks "abusive" behavior due to it's reluctance to follow through on the threat."
You think?
The Obama administration has no exclusivity when it comes to a political party willingly pandering to the absurd morality of the banking industry; and particularly BOFA.
Question: Who's watching the henhouse? And, why is it so damnably difficult to take positive action to put the Bank of America out of what appears to be a moral misery?
You gotta wonder, at which Christmas parties - and in which administration - did BOFA obtain all those revealing and embarassing photos?
If graft or blackmail is not fueling these mindless political decisions it has to be stupidity; and it may well be the reason this country's economy has been so slow to recover.
When will we finally come to the conclusion that we're improperly labelling the wrong institutions as "too big to fail", and, instead take the steps required to institute the AT&T/Bell approach with some of our financial institutions?
None of them is "too big to fail"! I'd start "substantial improvement" with examining legal means to disassemble The Bank of America.
Like Bennie the bar owner - BOFA is laughing in our face.
You suspect Tony may have a brain that has been permanently anesthetized as a direct result of his prodigous beer consumption.
Tony fails to notice,at first, that just about every time he comes in the front door of the bar, Bennie the bar owner ducks out the back door and goes up to Tony's house where he and Tony's wife get it on.
Finally, Tony's beer drinking capacity diminishes due to liver problems, and he starts going home earlier. On one of those visits he thinks he sees Bennie, the bar owner, going out of Tony's back door - and the Bennie look-a-like appears to be in a big hurry. He confronts Bennie the nedxt day. Bennie refuses to admit any wrongdoing.
For a period of 19 months Tony starts coming home early a lot more frequently after that.For some unknown reason Tony doesn't head directly for the back yard to assess the comings and goings of the bar owner via the well traveled rear exit.
Tony insists on entering the house from the front door.Bennie has little incentive to deny his nocturnal cravings once he hears Tony approaching.
Finally, Tony has had it. He's sick and tired of this arrangement.In his extreme state of anger he confronts Bennie in the back room of his bar and threatens him.
He says, "Look Bennie, I know whats been going on. If you don't stop this stuff I'm going to make a strong stand. But, if you make 'substantial improvements' in your behavior, I'll spend my money here again". Bennie laughs at him.
Pretty lame, right?
Do you feel as if Tony has to be the biggest fool in town as well the least courageous? Yeah, me too.
Recently, it was the Treasury Department - not Tony - who took a stand. But instead of Bennie being the target - it was Bank of America (BOFA); along with Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, et al. .
It seems that a long time ago(2009) Treasury's auditors concluded the big three mortgage servers were failing the government via their violations of the rules of Making Home Affordable (MHA)work.
The audit discovered more homeowners had been kicked out of the program by the banks than are receiving assistance. Yet, the banks continued to accept incentive payments,ie, $24 million last month.
Now, 3 days ago, Treasury has decided to take a "strong" stand! They are going to withhold those incentive payments to the Big Three.(Wow!)
Let's review. The purpose of Treasury's incentive payments to the banks via the MHA was to lower monthly payments, reduce loan balances, or enable distressed borrowers to sell their homes before they're seized.
Treasury, in their benevolence after making this drastic decision, has also announced,"the withheld funds will be returned to the three banks once they make "needed improvements."
It's only a voluntary program and only God knows why. Was it Treasury's stated goal to help homeowners or just increase the dole to banks?
You have to ask another question, "When we bailed out the banking industry - once more - who was in charge of the governments monitoring team? Bud Selig? Treasury has long been criticized for it's lack of oversight.
Per one article, BANK OF AMERICA is the worst MHA performer of the big three. The bank is accused of having "poor internal controls for identifying and contacting homeowners. It's error rates were also more than four times Treasury's benchmark when calculating borrowers income."
Here's the kicker though: Treasury (not unlike Tony above) waited 19 months to take action.In 2009 they only confronted/threatened.
The article states,"Instead, The Obama administration spent the next year and a half defending itself against accusations levied by federal auditors, members of Congress, and consumer groups - that it was soft on big banks "abusive" behavior due to it's reluctance to follow through on the threat."
You think?
The Obama administration has no exclusivity when it comes to a political party willingly pandering to the absurd morality of the banking industry; and particularly BOFA.
Question: Who's watching the henhouse? And, why is it so damnably difficult to take positive action to put the Bank of America out of what appears to be a moral misery?
You gotta wonder, at which Christmas parties - and in which administration - did BOFA obtain all those revealing and embarassing photos?
If graft or blackmail is not fueling these mindless political decisions it has to be stupidity; and it may well be the reason this country's economy has been so slow to recover.
When will we finally come to the conclusion that we're improperly labelling the wrong institutions as "too big to fail", and, instead take the steps required to institute the AT&T/Bell approach with some of our financial institutions?
None of them is "too big to fail"! I'd start "substantial improvement" with examining legal means to disassemble The Bank of America.
Like Bennie the bar owner - BOFA is laughing in our face.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
A LITTLE BACK STEPPING
Many female activists claimed that ballroom dancing was a good example of why women were brighter than men.
They reasoned that it takes much quicker thinking to be able to step backward than forward.
That theory became old quickly when women started dancing with each other and also became tired of following in mens footsteps; but, that's another story.
No, today's back stepping is being done by a man - Me!
I just polished off a blog on the dangers of being a "number cruncher". Now it's me who is going to attempt to use numbers to clarify something.
My goal here is to explain why I love my hometown of Pittsburgh and it's people, so much. It's also part of the reason I'm anxious to return for a few months - or so.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is known for it's originating and publishing of various surveys that the readers can respond to online. I was amused by the readers response to some recent surveys.
I speak of Pittsburgh often. People, including my wife, will often ask me why I remain so enthralled with the city 25 years after last residing there.
The question surprises me as I believe my positive Pittsburgh attitude is shared by my two brothers; neither of whom reside there now.
Perhaps the three survey results that follow will help to explain that affection:
I. "Congressman Anthony Weiner has admitted to sexually charged online relationships with several women. He says he never had a physical relationship with any of the women. Is it still cheating?"
A. Yes - 69%
B. No - 23%
C. I'm not sure - 8%
D. He should change his last name -0% (ok, I made up that one.)
II."Republicans lawmakers have introduced a bill that would outlaw strikes by public school teachers. Would you like to see this become law?
A. Yes - 27%
B. No - 72%
C. No opinion - 1%
D. What's a Republican lawmaker? - 87% (ok, you got me again)
III. "Will enforcement of parking meters until 10 p.m. affect your decision to attend events or go to restaurants in affected areas?
A. I will curtail my trips to those areas - 66%.
B. I work during those times, and it will cause a hardship. - 5%.
C. It will have no effect - 23%
D. No opinion - 6%.
E. What are parking meters? 16% (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Number cruncher conclusion:
(I)Pgh people have strong feelings about sex.
(II) Pgh people don't trust Republican lawmakers.
(III) Pgh people don't like change of any type.
My conclusion:
1. They are good people who really care about others - except for Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers, of course.
2. They are still strong labor union people with a great work ethic and who understand the plight of others.
3. They like to bluff because they don't like cluttering up their glove box with all those stolen little cloth "sockies" that say: "This meter is out of order."
They might not be real big fans of "change" but, they are always ingenious enough to figure out some way to deal with it.
4. They also like to reply to surveys.
No back stepping here. I am indeed a Pittsburgher.
They reasoned that it takes much quicker thinking to be able to step backward than forward.
That theory became old quickly when women started dancing with each other and also became tired of following in mens footsteps; but, that's another story.
No, today's back stepping is being done by a man - Me!
I just polished off a blog on the dangers of being a "number cruncher". Now it's me who is going to attempt to use numbers to clarify something.
My goal here is to explain why I love my hometown of Pittsburgh and it's people, so much. It's also part of the reason I'm anxious to return for a few months - or so.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is known for it's originating and publishing of various surveys that the readers can respond to online. I was amused by the readers response to some recent surveys.
I speak of Pittsburgh often. People, including my wife, will often ask me why I remain so enthralled with the city 25 years after last residing there.
The question surprises me as I believe my positive Pittsburgh attitude is shared by my two brothers; neither of whom reside there now.
Perhaps the three survey results that follow will help to explain that affection:
I. "Congressman Anthony Weiner has admitted to sexually charged online relationships with several women. He says he never had a physical relationship with any of the women. Is it still cheating?"
A. Yes - 69%
B. No - 23%
C. I'm not sure - 8%
D. He should change his last name -0% (ok, I made up that one.)
II."Republicans lawmakers have introduced a bill that would outlaw strikes by public school teachers. Would you like to see this become law?
A. Yes - 27%
B. No - 72%
C. No opinion - 1%
D. What's a Republican lawmaker? - 87% (ok, you got me again)
III. "Will enforcement of parking meters until 10 p.m. affect your decision to attend events or go to restaurants in affected areas?
A. I will curtail my trips to those areas - 66%.
B. I work during those times, and it will cause a hardship. - 5%.
C. It will have no effect - 23%
D. No opinion - 6%.
E. What are parking meters? 16% (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Number cruncher conclusion:
(I)Pgh people have strong feelings about sex.
(II) Pgh people don't trust Republican lawmakers.
(III) Pgh people don't like change of any type.
My conclusion:
1. They are good people who really care about others - except for Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers, of course.
2. They are still strong labor union people with a great work ethic and who understand the plight of others.
3. They like to bluff because they don't like cluttering up their glove box with all those stolen little cloth "sockies" that say: "This meter is out of order."
They might not be real big fans of "change" but, they are always ingenious enough to figure out some way to deal with it.
4. They also like to reply to surveys.
No back stepping here. I am indeed a Pittsburgher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)