On Thursday, January 29, news outlets reported that President Obama had called the bonuses that some Wall Street financial firm executives received for their 2008 performances "shameful" and the "height of irresponsibility". The bonuses totaled $18.4 billion. His concern was that those firms should not have accepted federal money when they obviously had plenty of cash for bonuses. President Obama's concern, as outlined in the hald dozen accounts I read, seemed more than justified. My initial title for this Friday's blog was "Obama's Criticism of 2008 Wall Street Bonuses Justified". Then, I dug further.
I learned that the source of Obama's criticism was a report by the New York State Comptroller. So I went to the source. Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's report, DiNapoli: Wall Street Bonuses Fell 44% in 2008, did mention that $18.4 billion was paid in bonuses. The title of the report itself, however, suggests that its focus was on the decrease. What wasn't even mentioned in most other news articles was that this amount represented a 44% decrease as compared to the 2007 bonuses.
Does this excuse the $18.4 billion that was paid out? Depends. Was some of that money paid to executives of firms that were profitable in 2008? That detail is missing. Was some of that money paid out under obligatory, written pre-existing agreements in the executives contracts? That detail is missing. Where is the investigative reporting in the media that should have uncovered these facts?
What is shameful is if some of that money was paid out to executives by boards of directors of firms that incurred large losses, and then begged the federal government for money. In those cases, those boards clearly did not exercise their fiduciary responsibilities.
The federal money that was loaned to these firms should have had specific, legally binding wording that would have prevented use of the money to pay unwarranted bonuses. That no such wording was included is the fault of the politicians who wrote, amended, and scrutinized the legislation. There is blame aplenty to go around.
It's said that when a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The same applies to headlines and reports. If it sounds as simple as black and white, it probably isn't. There is an almost infinite number of shades of gray into which the truth may fall.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
State Of New Jersey Kidnaps Three Children
In a case that seems more reminiscent of Nazi Germany than the United States, on Tuesday, January 13, New Jersey authorities removed three children from their parent's home in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The children's names are: Adolf Hitler Campbell (age 3), his sister JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell (age 1), and other sister Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell (age 8 months). No allegations of abuse of any kind were leveled against the parents, Heath and Deborah Campbell.
You may recall the December, 2008 incident about a New Jersey store that refused to put Adolf's full name on a birthday cake. Who would have expected that it would have been a mere prelude to this outrageous act, this virtual kidnapping, by New Jersey's Department of Children and Families.
Let's cut to the chase. It was about the kid's names. Sure, the parents are idiots and cowards. They gave their children names like Adolf Hitler, Aryan Nation, and then, in an even further attempt to profess their ignorance, "Honszlynn Hinler". Honszlynn Hinler? There was the infamous Heinrich Luitpold Himmler, head of the Nazi SS during World War II. The Campbells made an interesting choice to both feminize the Nazi thug's name and then misspell it as well. They probably never heard of Eva Braun.
And if the Campbell parents love Nazis so much, why didn't they change their own names? Here are a few I found listed in Wikipedia that Heath and Deborah might like for themselves: Mengele. Bormann. von Epp. And one that is new to me, but that embodies the finest of Nazi idealism and Aryan superiority: Oskar Dirlewanger (Commanded the infamous SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger unit, which was composed of amnestied Germans convicted of major crimes). Does anyone hear the Campbells scurrying to the court house for their own name changes? Me either.
Yet, as foolish as the Campbell's choices were, do they equate to abuse? No. They do not. What's next? The Official List Of Approved Names For Children Born In New Jersey? Approved Religions? Mandatory Religious Upbringing? Approved Political Viewpoints? If the state has allegations of physical or emotional abuse, let's hear them. If not, it should butt out and return the kids immediately. If the authorities insist on keeping the kids, a lawsuit must be filed and, if necessary, fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In reality, the children will be unmercifully teased as they grow up. Perhaps fights will be picked with them. But, once they reach legal age, they can have their names changed. If they so desire, absent parental consent, they could probably retain an attorney at an even younger age to have their names changed. Wouldn't it be poetic justice for Adolf to change his name to Martin Luther King Junior Campbell?
You may recall the December, 2008 incident about a New Jersey store that refused to put Adolf's full name on a birthday cake. Who would have expected that it would have been a mere prelude to this outrageous act, this virtual kidnapping, by New Jersey's Department of Children and Families.
Let's cut to the chase. It was about the kid's names. Sure, the parents are idiots and cowards. They gave their children names like Adolf Hitler, Aryan Nation, and then, in an even further attempt to profess their ignorance, "Honszlynn Hinler". Honszlynn Hinler? There was the infamous Heinrich Luitpold Himmler, head of the Nazi SS during World War II. The Campbells made an interesting choice to both feminize the Nazi thug's name and then misspell it as well. They probably never heard of Eva Braun.
And if the Campbell parents love Nazis so much, why didn't they change their own names? Here are a few I found listed in Wikipedia that Heath and Deborah might like for themselves: Mengele. Bormann. von Epp. And one that is new to me, but that embodies the finest of Nazi idealism and Aryan superiority: Oskar Dirlewanger (Commanded the infamous SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger unit, which was composed of amnestied Germans convicted of major crimes). Does anyone hear the Campbells scurrying to the court house for their own name changes? Me either.
Yet, as foolish as the Campbell's choices were, do they equate to abuse? No. They do not. What's next? The Official List Of Approved Names For Children Born In New Jersey? Approved Religions? Mandatory Religious Upbringing? Approved Political Viewpoints? If the state has allegations of physical or emotional abuse, let's hear them. If not, it should butt out and return the kids immediately. If the authorities insist on keeping the kids, a lawsuit must be filed and, if necessary, fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In reality, the children will be unmercifully teased as they grow up. Perhaps fights will be picked with them. But, once they reach legal age, they can have their names changed. If they so desire, absent parental consent, they could probably retain an attorney at an even younger age to have their names changed. Wouldn't it be poetic justice for Adolf to change his name to Martin Luther King Junior Campbell?
Friday, January 16, 2009
U.S. Airways Pilot A Hero? I Don't Think So
You cannot turn on the news since Thursday afternoon, January 15, without seeing breathless reporters praising U.S. Airways flight 1549's pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, as being a hero who performed a Miracle On The Hudson. Twenty-four hours of such lofty praise made me wonder if the media's designation of him as virtually the Second Coming of Christ was indeed warranted. I came to the decision that he was a good pilot, but not a hero. The subject of my rant for this week was clear.
But darn it if Rex Huppke, reporter for the Chicago Tribune, didn't beat me to it. His article, Have we set the bar too low for miracles? was right on the point. Huppke said it best in this choice paragraph:
- "The pilot, we now know, is highly trained and has years of experience. From a pragmatic standpoint, with an expert at the helm, the result was just what it should have been."
It seems like the reporters and news producers, so anxious to sensationalize stories for the sake of shock value, and subsequently higher viewership, ignored the testimony of other pilots they have had on their own programs. Those pilots have said they admired the skill of Sullenberger in what was obviously a sudden and dangerous situation. But they added that all pilots are trained for eventualities just like this - sudden loss of engine power, and how to land a plane in the water.
In fact, Ben Sherwood, author of "The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science That Could Save Your Life" devotes a section to what he terms "The myth of hopelessness." He notes, in a Time magazine website article, Q&A: How to Survive a Plane Crash, "But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived. That's an incredibly high survival rate."
Apparently Sullenberger is but one of a fairly large group of airline pilot 'miracle workers.' Why haven't these other pilots attained this level of publicity? Is Sullenberger merely the flavor of the day, to be replaced tomorrow by other so-called miracles: Angelina's New Baby's Name! And Exclusive Photos! Michael Jackson On Comeback Trail! Madonna Receives Marilyn Monroe Impersonator Of The Year Award!
Has our culture become so blase that people who do very well at remembering their job training are anointed with the title 'Miracle Worker'?
Is our society so worn out from years of warfare, and a sudden, devestating recession, that we need any kind of diversion just to get our minds off our problems?
Maybe. Captain Sullenberger did a fine job under the most trying of circumstances. For that I thank him, and wish him well in what I'm sure will be his upcoming book and book tour.
The aforementioned Tribune article quoted John C. Cavadini, chair of the theology department at the University of Notre Dame.
- "Strictly speaking, the term 'miracle' would be reserved for an event for which there is no natural explanation. Something is ineligible to be called a miracle unless there is no known natural explanation."
Amen.
But darn it if Rex Huppke, reporter for the Chicago Tribune, didn't beat me to it. His article, Have we set the bar too low for miracles? was right on the point. Huppke said it best in this choice paragraph:
- "The pilot, we now know, is highly trained and has years of experience. From a pragmatic standpoint, with an expert at the helm, the result was just what it should have been."
It seems like the reporters and news producers, so anxious to sensationalize stories for the sake of shock value, and subsequently higher viewership, ignored the testimony of other pilots they have had on their own programs. Those pilots have said they admired the skill of Sullenberger in what was obviously a sudden and dangerous situation. But they added that all pilots are trained for eventualities just like this - sudden loss of engine power, and how to land a plane in the water.
In fact, Ben Sherwood, author of "The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science That Could Save Your Life" devotes a section to what he terms "The myth of hopelessness." He notes, in a Time magazine website article, Q&A: How to Survive a Plane Crash, "But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived. That's an incredibly high survival rate."
Apparently Sullenberger is but one of a fairly large group of airline pilot 'miracle workers.' Why haven't these other pilots attained this level of publicity? Is Sullenberger merely the flavor of the day, to be replaced tomorrow by other so-called miracles: Angelina's New Baby's Name! And Exclusive Photos! Michael Jackson On Comeback Trail! Madonna Receives Marilyn Monroe Impersonator Of The Year Award!
Has our culture become so blase that people who do very well at remembering their job training are anointed with the title 'Miracle Worker'?
Is our society so worn out from years of warfare, and a sudden, devestating recession, that we need any kind of diversion just to get our minds off our problems?
Maybe. Captain Sullenberger did a fine job under the most trying of circumstances. For that I thank him, and wish him well in what I'm sure will be his upcoming book and book tour.
The aforementioned Tribune article quoted John C. Cavadini, chair of the theology department at the University of Notre Dame.
- "Strictly speaking, the term 'miracle' would be reserved for an event for which there is no natural explanation. Something is ineligible to be called a miracle unless there is no known natural explanation."
Amen.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending
Do you think I made that up? The title given to the January 8, 2009 New York Times article, Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending evokes a strong emotional response. Sounds drastic. Sounds like a knife through the hearts of not only current retirees, but also those millions approaching retirement age. "Overhaul" most often means cutbacks. What will be the first to go? Medicare prescription drug coverage? Social security cost of living increases? Raising the age requirements in the hope that those who have been taxed the most to support Social Security and Medicare will die before they become eligible? What a relief to the system! Those people are better off dead anyhow, than living to see the turncoat politicians bend them over again and again, aren't they?
But wait. Let's see what the so-called 'liberal' New York Times is saying in this twenty paragraph article. Here are the paragraphs that relate to the "overhaul retiree spending" the headline so boldly proclaims as the article's main thrust:
- President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.
- Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
- Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
- Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, and his House counterpart, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said the extensive borrowing by the government could be a disaster if Congressional Democrats and the new Obama administration did not also work on long-term solutions including changes to Social Security and Medicare.
This is the information, contained withing the second quoted paragraph above, that has the greatest relevance: "... he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare... But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month."
What shoddy journalism! The headline makes strong implications that Obama will drastically cut federal spending for retirees. He may, indeed, do just that. And if that happens, it will be bitterly analyzed right here on this blog. But there is not one scintilla of evidence given in the article, not even a possible set of scenarios provided, that may come forth when Obama announces his budget in February 2009. So what gives? Trying to out-sensationalize the National Inquirer?
I caution you. When right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and, increasingly, Lou Dobbs, froth at the mouth about the liberal, radical, left-wing, drive-by, mainstream media, check and doublecheck what they're saying. Their main target is most often the New York Times. Yet, in the article I discussed here today, the Times may have succeeded in planting seeds of doubt not only about Obama's true agenda, but also about whether he can be trusted. Sounds like what the Rush-Sean-Bill-Lou crowd loves to do. And all before Obama takes the oath of office.
Remember - these right-wing goons will never be satisfied with news outlets that don't march in lockstep with them. Even if they succeed in pushing the 'mainstream' media to the right, it will never be far enough right for them. I urge you all to do your own bitter analysis of everything you read and hear.
But wait. Let's see what the so-called 'liberal' New York Times is saying in this twenty paragraph article. Here are the paragraphs that relate to the "overhaul retiree spending" the headline so boldly proclaims as the article's main thrust:
- President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.
- Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
- Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
- Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, and his House counterpart, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said the extensive borrowing by the government could be a disaster if Congressional Democrats and the new Obama administration did not also work on long-term solutions including changes to Social Security and Medicare.
This is the information, contained withing the second quoted paragraph above, that has the greatest relevance: "... he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare... But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month."
What shoddy journalism! The headline makes strong implications that Obama will drastically cut federal spending for retirees. He may, indeed, do just that. And if that happens, it will be bitterly analyzed right here on this blog. But there is not one scintilla of evidence given in the article, not even a possible set of scenarios provided, that may come forth when Obama announces his budget in February 2009. So what gives? Trying to out-sensationalize the National Inquirer?
I caution you. When right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and, increasingly, Lou Dobbs, froth at the mouth about the liberal, radical, left-wing, drive-by, mainstream media, check and doublecheck what they're saying. Their main target is most often the New York Times. Yet, in the article I discussed here today, the Times may have succeeded in planting seeds of doubt not only about Obama's true agenda, but also about whether he can be trusted. Sounds like what the Rush-Sean-Bill-Lou crowd loves to do. And all before Obama takes the oath of office.
Remember - these right-wing goons will never be satisfied with news outlets that don't march in lockstep with them. Even if they succeed in pushing the 'mainstream' media to the right, it will never be far enough right for them. I urge you all to do your own bitter analysis of everything you read and hear.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Bush Allows Religion to Block Your Health Care
It would have been nice for George W. Bush to just fade away, like a bad memory. January 20, 2009 is not that far away. But no. He had to stick his big fat 'Christian' religious nose where it doesn't belong before he and his ilk creep away from Washington, D.C. Maybe he's a frustrated proctologist wannabe. That would explain a lot.
On December 18, 2008, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued a chilling statement entitled "HHS ISSUES FINAL REGULATION TO PROTECT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FROM DISCRIMINATION."
Here is part of that statement: "In the preamble to the final regulation, the Department also encourages providers to engage their patients early on in “full, open, and honest conversations” to disclose what services they do and do not provide. While it would strengthen provider conscience rights, the regulation would in no way restrict health care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that offers it. For example, the regulation does not affect the ability of medical institutions to provide abortion services in accordance with the law."
Examples of how this regulation could allow health care providers to refuse treatments abound. Abortions, anti-AIDS drugs, day-after contraceptive pills might all fall outside belief-systems of certain doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. Here's another example:
Let's say you're driving through a county whose hospitals are staffed mainly by doctors who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's say you have an accident that requires a blood transfusion. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. So be prepared, if you are conscious that is, and if not, your next of kin if they can be reached in time, to be engaged by your health care providers in “full, open, and honest conversations” to disclose what services they do and do not provide."
I can hear it now. "Hello patient X. I'm your 'Doctor'. Your suffering and imminent death can be prevented by a blood transfusion, but... well, you know how it is, gosh darn it, the God I worship (the only REAL one, of course) doesn't permit such foul degradations of the human body. But don't think we're totally without compassion. We've alerted the local cab company, and within about 30-90 minutes or so, the driver will take you to any heathen hospital you want. Your body may recover, but your soul, alas, will perish. What was that? You don't know of any hospital that does blood transfusions in the area? Do we know? Why of course we do. But our conscience simply will not permit us to tell you. Perhaps the taxi driver will know. Have a nice day. And may the God I worship (the only REAL one, of course) have mercy on your soon to perish soul."
Good bye, Dubya. And good riddance.
On December 18, 2008, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued a chilling statement entitled "HHS ISSUES FINAL REGULATION TO PROTECT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FROM DISCRIMINATION."
Here is part of that statement: "In the preamble to the final regulation, the Department also encourages providers to engage their patients early on in “full, open, and honest conversations” to disclose what services they do and do not provide. While it would strengthen provider conscience rights, the regulation would in no way restrict health care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that offers it. For example, the regulation does not affect the ability of medical institutions to provide abortion services in accordance with the law."
Examples of how this regulation could allow health care providers to refuse treatments abound. Abortions, anti-AIDS drugs, day-after contraceptive pills might all fall outside belief-systems of certain doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. Here's another example:
Let's say you're driving through a county whose hospitals are staffed mainly by doctors who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's say you have an accident that requires a blood transfusion. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. So be prepared, if you are conscious that is, and if not, your next of kin if they can be reached in time, to be engaged by your health care providers in “full, open, and honest conversations” to disclose what services they do and do not provide."
I can hear it now. "Hello patient X. I'm your 'Doctor'. Your suffering and imminent death can be prevented by a blood transfusion, but... well, you know how it is, gosh darn it, the God I worship (the only REAL one, of course) doesn't permit such foul degradations of the human body. But don't think we're totally without compassion. We've alerted the local cab company, and within about 30-90 minutes or so, the driver will take you to any heathen hospital you want. Your body may recover, but your soul, alas, will perish. What was that? You don't know of any hospital that does blood transfusions in the area? Do we know? Why of course we do. But our conscience simply will not permit us to tell you. Perhaps the taxi driver will know. Have a nice day. And may the God I worship (the only REAL one, of course) have mercy on your soon to perish soul."
Good bye, Dubya. And good riddance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
