One of our esteemed members of Congress was quoted today as saying, "There's no education from the second kick of a mule." Oh, sir, you may have something there. We have had multiple kicks from the Republican-led House of Representatives and multiple repetitions of the Republican Big Lie that the stimulus didn't work. And the second kick didn't add to our learning.
But wait a minute. Are we sure of that? What if we go back a bit?
I realize that reviewing history is not something the Republicans in the current Congress favor, but hang in there faithful reader, there may be something here...
Congress prevented the full stimulus that President Obama wanted, but it's his fault that the stimulus didn't work.
First kick from the mule. Well, it was the elephant, actually, but still...
What did we learn? Well, the stimulus did work, even as watered-down as it was. How are your roads compared to before the stimulus? How many of your acquaintances working in construction are back to work now as compared to before the stimulus? Any bridges near you repaired or rebuilt lately? Any new construction at all in your town? In your state?
Resist the Republican disincentive and think back. How many of those new jobs and how much of that new construction happened after the housing bubble burst and after the stimulus? How much new employment and new home purchases happened since the Republican-led, national-debt-related cuts in government funding? Anybody laid off find a job in that time-frame?
The stimulus may have kept us from a world-wide depression.
But wait. The national debt increased because of the stimulus.
Second kick. Still from the elephant in the room, but...
The short-term debt has increased, but the Federal Reserve is buying up the debt so we are paying essentially no interest. None. Read my lips. None. This means that there is no larger long-term debt. This means that if we can just improve employment and slow down mortgage foreclosures, taxes from us middle class folks will eliminate the debt in fairly short order. If we can force Congress to tax the top one percent of wage earners into paying their fair share, there will be no national debt problem even sooner.
Sure enough, no additional learning. The stimulus did work and it's unrelated to the national debt problem. Well, I'll be...
So now, President Obama wants an additional stimulus, which the Republicans resist on the strength of the assertion that the first stimulus didn't work.
By golly, kick number three and still no additional learning.
By golly, esteemed Congressperson, you are right. No additional learning from the second kick from the mule. Or elephant. Or third kick. Whatever.
Thanks ever so.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
In Memoriam - Barbara Starfield
There is a memorial today for Dr. Barbara Starfield, esteemed primary care and public health advocate, teacher, physician, and much more. Those of us who are unable to attend share in the admiration and sense of loss for this exemplary human being. Fortunately, the example remains in her research, opinions, and in the memories of those who knew her. Those links are just a few examples. Click on links to Surf Canyon or wikipedia link to learn more. Adieu Dr. Barbara Starfield.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Matt's Post
Here's the promised post from Matt Phillips:
Older homes can be quaint and charming, and sometimes are located far enough from cities that residents can avoid unpleasant, unhealthy fumes and pollutants. But despite the benefits, living in older homes can be extremely dangerous.
Asbestos is a natural mineral found in older homes and buildings. Asbestos was primarily used because of its fire-resistant qualities. It was a building a material in some dry wall, insulation, fireproofing, tiles, and heating appliances. It can also be found in textiles and some car parts.
Asbestos removal can be extremely hazardous and must be handled with care to ensure the long-term health of those with the mineral in their homes. Here are some asbestos removal guidelines:
1. If asbestos material is discovered and undamaged, it’s often best to leave it intact. If asbestos is disturbed, the fibers are released into the air. When inhaled, these fibers can cause a serious lung cancer called mesothelioma.
2. If asbestos is discovered and already disturbed or damaged, do not touch it. Instead, call in a professional asbestos abatement contractor. They are trained and certified to remove asbestos without causing harm to residents or to themselves.
3. Refrain from sanding, ripping, or cutting asbestos materials. If you do speak with a contractor, discuss the possibilities of sealing up the asbestos rather than removing it. In some cases this option could reduce the risk of mesothelioma.
4. If residents of your home have been exposed to disturbed asbestos, it is vital that they seek a doctor and ask for both a mesothelioma and asbestosis screening. Asbestosis is the scarring of the lungs due to asbestos inhalation. Mesothelioma is a lung cancer. Mesothelioma symptoms are subtle and are usually latent for 20-50 years after exposure. If exposed, because of this latency, mesothelioma life expectancy can be extremely short.
So, if you or someone you know lives or spends time in an older building, remember not to panic and not to ignore the possibilities and dangers of asbestos, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.
Thanks, Matt, for this great post.
Dear readers and net surfers, if you like several sources of information, check out these websites, too:
• More information: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Medline Plus has info on Mesothelioma and Asbestos with links to more information.
• Correct diagnosis: To help us follow Matt's advice not to panic the Medline Plus page on Mesothelioma reminds us that there's also a non-malignant Mesothelioma.
• Asbestos removal: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes training and accreditation available for asbestos removal professionals. A page on the EPA website shows who has had that training in your state.
• Cost of removal: If you can't afford the removal of disturbed asbestos or sealing up of undisturbed asbestos, go to this page and scroll down to find your State Health Agency. Contact the State Agency and ask if your local public health department will help you make your location safe for everyone in your community. In these days of reduced spending on public health, these programs may have been cut back, but it never hurts to ask.
Wishing you the best of good health,
Sherry
Older homes can be quaint and charming, and sometimes are located far enough from cities that residents can avoid unpleasant, unhealthy fumes and pollutants. But despite the benefits, living in older homes can be extremely dangerous.
Asbestos is a natural mineral found in older homes and buildings. Asbestos was primarily used because of its fire-resistant qualities. It was a building a material in some dry wall, insulation, fireproofing, tiles, and heating appliances. It can also be found in textiles and some car parts.
Asbestos removal can be extremely hazardous and must be handled with care to ensure the long-term health of those with the mineral in their homes. Here are some asbestos removal guidelines:
1. If asbestos material is discovered and undamaged, it’s often best to leave it intact. If asbestos is disturbed, the fibers are released into the air. When inhaled, these fibers can cause a serious lung cancer called mesothelioma.
2. If asbestos is discovered and already disturbed or damaged, do not touch it. Instead, call in a professional asbestos abatement contractor. They are trained and certified to remove asbestos without causing harm to residents or to themselves.
3. Refrain from sanding, ripping, or cutting asbestos materials. If you do speak with a contractor, discuss the possibilities of sealing up the asbestos rather than removing it. In some cases this option could reduce the risk of mesothelioma.
4. If residents of your home have been exposed to disturbed asbestos, it is vital that they seek a doctor and ask for both a mesothelioma and asbestosis screening. Asbestosis is the scarring of the lungs due to asbestos inhalation. Mesothelioma is a lung cancer. Mesothelioma symptoms are subtle and are usually latent for 20-50 years after exposure. If exposed, because of this latency, mesothelioma life expectancy can be extremely short.
So, if you or someone you know lives or spends time in an older building, remember not to panic and not to ignore the possibilities and dangers of asbestos, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.
Thanks, Matt, for this great post.
Dear readers and net surfers, if you like several sources of information, check out these websites, too:
• More information: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Medline Plus has info on Mesothelioma and Asbestos with links to more information.
• Correct diagnosis: To help us follow Matt's advice not to panic the Medline Plus page on Mesothelioma reminds us that there's also a non-malignant Mesothelioma.
• Asbestos removal: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes training and accreditation available for asbestos removal professionals. A page on the EPA website shows who has had that training in your state.
• Cost of removal: If you can't afford the removal of disturbed asbestos or sealing up of undisturbed asbestos, go to this page and scroll down to find your State Health Agency. Contact the State Agency and ask if your local public health department will help you make your location safe for everyone in your community. In these days of reduced spending on public health, these programs may have been cut back, but it never hurts to ask.
Wishing you the best of good health,
Sherry
More Frequently Avoided Questions...or Not
Well, friends, I apologize for neglecting you these many days since our last one-sided chat.
It turns out that my head really wasn't screwed on straight. And as you might expect, it was causing all manner of problems beyond those you've observed over the years.
I had neck-adjusting surgical repair in early March, complete with brand new screws to hold the wire staple in place (or something very like it if the x-rays are being honest). So there I was - slooooowly adjusting to my corrected perspective and having celebrated Independence Day with family and friend (hope you're not jealous) - driving my back-comforting, brand new, hardly-ever-been-used, 2002 Lexus and proceeding dutifully to my first post-op, professionally guided neck stretching (also known as physical therapy). And I was caught by surprise between an inattentive driver to the rear and stopped traffic in front.
Talk about irony. Good thing it's my favorite form of humor, n'est-ce pas?
The good news is that the surgical repair held, which is really good news because everything else is going to pot (and not the fun, unencumbered-by-ambition kind). The rest of the backbone is jumbled, collapsed, or otherwise extremely irritated. The muscle systems want to hold tight and scrunch everything up in anticipation of the next attack, which is a natural reaction for them but not really what the backbone needs. And the gut has found a weak spot in the muscle wall and is making a run for it. Who wouldn't?
Health care advisers assure me that the muscles need to firm up and relax, the spinal bones need to distance themselves from each other, and the gut needs to be put in its place. Isn't that just like the establishment, contradicting itself while telling us all to settle down, stop bellyaching, and get back in our places? Only, in this case, all the other body parts do need to stop being so obstreperous so the brain can take that job back. Once again, an uneasy compromise is the order of the day.
In any case, rest assured that some of the kink in the spine is still there and it's likely to be impervious to surgical or therapeutic assault.
And we haven't even gotten to the political won't yet.
Oh well.
I hope you can fend for yourselves for the next little while, and I'll get back to you with Frequently Avoided Questions as soon as I can.
Meanwhile, a guest post was kindly prepared by Matt Phillips, who has been waiting patiently, lo, these many months, to see it posted. So look up there at the top of the screen...
It turns out that my head really wasn't screwed on straight. And as you might expect, it was causing all manner of problems beyond those you've observed over the years.
I had neck-adjusting surgical repair in early March, complete with brand new screws to hold the wire staple in place (or something very like it if the x-rays are being honest). So there I was - slooooowly adjusting to my corrected perspective and having celebrated Independence Day with family and friend (hope you're not jealous) - driving my back-comforting, brand new, hardly-ever-been-used, 2002 Lexus and proceeding dutifully to my first post-op, professionally guided neck stretching (also known as physical therapy). And I was caught by surprise between an inattentive driver to the rear and stopped traffic in front.
Talk about irony. Good thing it's my favorite form of humor, n'est-ce pas?
The good news is that the surgical repair held, which is really good news because everything else is going to pot (and not the fun, unencumbered-by-ambition kind). The rest of the backbone is jumbled, collapsed, or otherwise extremely irritated. The muscle systems want to hold tight and scrunch everything up in anticipation of the next attack, which is a natural reaction for them but not really what the backbone needs. And the gut has found a weak spot in the muscle wall and is making a run for it. Who wouldn't?
Health care advisers assure me that the muscles need to firm up and relax, the spinal bones need to distance themselves from each other, and the gut needs to be put in its place. Isn't that just like the establishment, contradicting itself while telling us all to settle down, stop bellyaching, and get back in our places? Only, in this case, all the other body parts do need to stop being so obstreperous so the brain can take that job back. Once again, an uneasy compromise is the order of the day.
In any case, rest assured that some of the kink in the spine is still there and it's likely to be impervious to surgical or therapeutic assault.
And we haven't even gotten to the political won't yet.
Oh well.
I hope you can fend for yourselves for the next little while, and I'll get back to you with Frequently Avoided Questions as soon as I can.
Meanwhile, a guest post was kindly prepared by Matt Phillips, who has been waiting patiently, lo, these many months, to see it posted. So look up there at the top of the screen...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Redefining Normal
Hello friends and neighbors back here on this little planet on the left side of nowhere.
Which may be better than being on the right side of nowhere.
As a member of the most predatory, most violent species on this little planet, I wish you well.
I wish you peace, long life, and little violence.
I do not hope for it, because that would be to stretch hope too far.
I do not expect it, for obvious reasons.
I wish it.
I was listening to the public television news today, listening to the principal of the Colombine school talk about redefining "normal." We are always redefining "normal."
Generally we use a definition less violent than the previous one, so this is a good thing.
The definition is generally more violent than many of us would like, and that's a bad thing.
But I, among the many of us, I get far more violent – in speech only, because I'm a pantywaist – than I would like. I don't seem to be alone in that. That is not a good thing, but I'm working on it.
I'll bet you are, too. And that's a good thing.
But my point is, less is more.
Violence is less violent than it used to be. Example: torture is less disfiguring.
Extremism is less extreme than it used to be. Example: the average white person is able to recognize a person of color as a human being. OK. Almost. But still.
Self satisfaction is a little bit less self satisfied.
And that's as it should be, always.
So anyway, how was your Wednesday?
Uneventful, I hope.
Which may be better than being on the right side of nowhere.
As a member of the most predatory, most violent species on this little planet, I wish you well.
I wish you peace, long life, and little violence.
I do not hope for it, because that would be to stretch hope too far.
I do not expect it, for obvious reasons.
I wish it.
I was listening to the public television news today, listening to the principal of the Colombine school talk about redefining "normal." We are always redefining "normal."
Generally we use a definition less violent than the previous one, so this is a good thing.
The definition is generally more violent than many of us would like, and that's a bad thing.
But I, among the many of us, I get far more violent – in speech only, because I'm a pantywaist – than I would like. I don't seem to be alone in that. That is not a good thing, but I'm working on it.
I'll bet you are, too. And that's a good thing.
But my point is, less is more.
Violence is less violent than it used to be. Example: torture is less disfiguring.
Extremism is less extreme than it used to be. Example: the average white person is able to recognize a person of color as a human being. OK. Almost. But still.
Self satisfaction is a little bit less self satisfied.
And that's as it should be, always.
So anyway, how was your Wednesday?
Uneventful, I hope.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Sunday, Sunday
There are many things to think about on a Sunday morning. But this Sunday, not so very many. This Sunday I will not finish my almost annual, always belated new year's greeting.
This Sunday, I can't think back to last year, only to yesterday. Only to yet another use of firearms to stop beating hearts. Only to this country's separate and separating ideologies that erupt all too often in senseless violence. Only to Judge John M. Roll who was and always will be younger than I am today. Only to Gabrielle Giffords, who is more moderate than most conservatives in Europe, and may she continue to be for may years. Only to those unnamed, grief-stricken families.
This Sunday, I'm thinking about the politicians and reporters who whip up a frenzy of fear, exaggerations, and extremist predictions. And who are probably standing with heads bowed today. And who make me wonder if they feel any guilt at all.
When did we let our disagreements carry us so far? Can we find our way from here to a spirited, sane, honest, non-violent debate of ideas? Devoid of accusatory rhetoric? Silent on the private, personal behavior of others? Mute about the motives of anyone but, for each of us, our own selves?
We can never make this right. Should we try to make ourselves a little more right? This year, I resolve to try -- to be a little more accurate and a little less righteous; to be a little less sure that the opposition has less right to speak than I do; maybe even to consider differences instead of attacking them. I might work up to joking about them. But not today.
This Sunday, I can't think back to last year, only to yesterday. Only to yet another use of firearms to stop beating hearts. Only to this country's separate and separating ideologies that erupt all too often in senseless violence. Only to Judge John M. Roll who was and always will be younger than I am today. Only to Gabrielle Giffords, who is more moderate than most conservatives in Europe, and may she continue to be for may years. Only to those unnamed, grief-stricken families.
This Sunday, I'm thinking about the politicians and reporters who whip up a frenzy of fear, exaggerations, and extremist predictions. And who are probably standing with heads bowed today. And who make me wonder if they feel any guilt at all.
When did we let our disagreements carry us so far? Can we find our way from here to a spirited, sane, honest, non-violent debate of ideas? Devoid of accusatory rhetoric? Silent on the private, personal behavior of others? Mute about the motives of anyone but, for each of us, our own selves?
We can never make this right. Should we try to make ourselves a little more right? This year, I resolve to try -- to be a little more accurate and a little less righteous; to be a little less sure that the opposition has less right to speak than I do; maybe even to consider differences instead of attacking them. I might work up to joking about them. But not today.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Mostly Apologetic
Well, here I am, just as the quote introducing my last blog warned, happily wrong. Luckily, this is a well-accustomed state, so I can deal with it. I hope you can, too.
Wrong about what, you ask? Well, even if you didn't, here goes.
I stated that "the primary reason [for the deficit] is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened." That was inaccurate. I should have said, "the primary reason under the control of the incoming Democratic party is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened."
The primary reason for the deficit was that the housing bubble burst. I can, perhaps, be foergiven for this lapse because my husband and I purchased a house just before the bubble burst and are one of those many families suffering the consequences. So how could I have forgotten? That old human capacity for selective memory was operating with its usual efficiency.
Nonetheless, I do apologize for such a gross misstatement. Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department: The reason for the deficit is that the housing bubble, unsustainable, burst. Sadly, many, many families are in much worse trouble than mine as a result.
Sadly, too, many of those families voted for the Republican party because the Obama administration did not fix this. This is especially sad because it was largely the Republican administration that caused this problem, although many Democrats are not innocent.
Sadly, finally, anything that could have been done to fix this problem is now less likely because all those Republicans were elected. I'm not against a two-party system, only against a right-leaning middle (Democrat) and a far-freaking-right-wing (Republican) party being the only viable choices.
This is so sad that I can't think of a farbleatziong thing funny to say about it. I hope you can forgive that, too.
Mostly apologetic,
Sherry
Wrong about what, you ask? Well, even if you didn't, here goes.
I stated that "the primary reason [for the deficit] is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened." That was inaccurate. I should have said, "the primary reason under the control of the incoming Democratic party is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened."
The primary reason for the deficit was that the housing bubble burst. I can, perhaps, be foergiven for this lapse because my husband and I purchased a house just before the bubble burst and are one of those many families suffering the consequences. So how could I have forgotten? That old human capacity for selective memory was operating with its usual efficiency.
Nonetheless, I do apologize for such a gross misstatement. Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department: The reason for the deficit is that the housing bubble, unsustainable, burst. Sadly, many, many families are in much worse trouble than mine as a result.
Sadly, too, many of those families voted for the Republican party because the Obama administration did not fix this. This is especially sad because it was largely the Republican administration that caused this problem, although many Democrats are not innocent.
Sadly, finally, anything that could have been done to fix this problem is now less likely because all those Republicans were elected. I'm not against a two-party system, only against a right-leaning middle (Democrat) and a far-freaking-right-wing (Republican) party being the only viable choices.
This is so sad that I can't think of a farbleatziong thing funny to say about it. I hope you can forgive that, too.
Mostly apologetic,
Sherry
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Vote after Reading
"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong." -John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), economist (Wordsmith.org, AWAD, 9-3-2010)
Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...
Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)
Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.
Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.
Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.
Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.
Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.
Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)
Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.
Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.
Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.
Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.
Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.
Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.
To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.
Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...
Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)
Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.
Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.
Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.
Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.
Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.
Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)
Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.
Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.
Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.
Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.
Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.
Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.
To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Updated Blog Page
Hello again, you two. Sorry to have neglected you so this year.
While trailing as usual, I've been participating in the preparation for the mid-term election here in the US of A. For those of you who are not from here, we here in the US of A like to spend as many months and dollars as possible arguing, fretting, advertising, and increasing our heart rate and circulation prior to any election. To help us in this pass-time, the press publicizes the outcome of elections long before the event. In the mid-term elections - the one between presidential elections - they tell us the party in power will be ousted. This is a sure thing, they say, because it is the historical trend.
Either the press has never heard of "self-fulfilling prophecy" or they think we haven't.
Sometimes, it does seem that the political decision-making is all in the advertising, mud-slinging, and predictions. So when it comes time to actually vote, most everyone with any sense is so sick and tired of hearing about it that they just don't vote at all. That way, our Representatives and Senators are elected by the remaining 10% of the voting population (about ten in every hundred citizens actually does get out and vote, it appears).
I've begun a blog about the upcoming election that I hope to get published before the fact, so as to join the throng that talks a good game...
You will also note, if you mosey down to the bottom of the page, a counter that keeps track of the number of folks looking at this blog, which might help us (me, anyway) keep track of what happened yesterday. When you get to be old and gray like me, you need these aids to memory. As Mark Twain was reported to have said, "When I was young, I could remember everything perfectly, even those things that never occurred." Now, I need assistance...
If you ever look at or post comments, be further advised that I also deleted advertisements or links to web pages I do not think are appropriate for this blog. If I missed any or deleted a valid link by mistake, please let me know.
While trailing as usual, I've been participating in the preparation for the mid-term election here in the US of A. For those of you who are not from here, we here in the US of A like to spend as many months and dollars as possible arguing, fretting, advertising, and increasing our heart rate and circulation prior to any election. To help us in this pass-time, the press publicizes the outcome of elections long before the event. In the mid-term elections - the one between presidential elections - they tell us the party in power will be ousted. This is a sure thing, they say, because it is the historical trend.
Either the press has never heard of "self-fulfilling prophecy" or they think we haven't.
Sometimes, it does seem that the political decision-making is all in the advertising, mud-slinging, and predictions. So when it comes time to actually vote, most everyone with any sense is so sick and tired of hearing about it that they just don't vote at all. That way, our Representatives and Senators are elected by the remaining 10% of the voting population (about ten in every hundred citizens actually does get out and vote, it appears).
I've begun a blog about the upcoming election that I hope to get published before the fact, so as to join the throng that talks a good game...
You will also note, if you mosey down to the bottom of the page, a counter that keeps track of the number of folks looking at this blog, which might help us (me, anyway) keep track of what happened yesterday. When you get to be old and gray like me, you need these aids to memory. As Mark Twain was reported to have said, "When I was young, I could remember everything perfectly, even those things that never occurred." Now, I need assistance...
If you ever look at or post comments, be further advised that I also deleted advertisements or links to web pages I do not think are appropriate for this blog. If I missed any or deleted a valid link by mistake, please let me know.
Friday, September 10, 2010
them and us
"We don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us." President Barak Obama, September, 2010.
Before 9-11, I had a tag line that said, "We're all in this together. Luckily."
So then, should I drop the "Luckily," or what?
I dropped the tag line.
On the other hand, most of us know, deep down, that we're all in this life together. Luckily or not.
One of the nice things about being a citizen of the United States of America is that the common abbreviation is "US." You can't fault the sentiment, even if you fault the yelling. Or the frequently unwarranted self-satisfaction.
Nonetheless, I am proud to be an American.
Not so proud about our characterizing ourselves as the only important folks in several continents who should get to call them-/ourselves Americans. Continents where lots of important folks—who are not citizens of the US of A—live. But you can't have everything.
We, on the planet we call Earth, are all in this together. If people in Pakistan are dying, it should concern us, being people ourselves. (As a researcher, I was taught to say "persons" rather than "people" because only scientifically definable groupings are "people." Researchers are not always right.)
What do we mean when we differentiate between "them" and "us"? I mean, we all do it so it must mean something. Maybe it just means that we can't solve and protect everything so we should just work on things that concern "us." OK. So where do we draw the line?
This is the stuff that keeps me awake nights. This and the arthritis pain. So if it keeps you awake too (not, I hope, the arthritis pain—just the other stuff), maybe you can come up with some solutionary ideas.
Since it's just us, I hope you can because I'm trailing again.
Before 9-11, I had a tag line that said, "We're all in this together. Luckily."
So then, should I drop the "Luckily," or what?
I dropped the tag line.
On the other hand, most of us know, deep down, that we're all in this life together. Luckily or not.
One of the nice things about being a citizen of the United States of America is that the common abbreviation is "US." You can't fault the sentiment, even if you fault the yelling. Or the frequently unwarranted self-satisfaction.
Nonetheless, I am proud to be an American.
Not so proud about our characterizing ourselves as the only important folks in several continents who should get to call them-/ourselves Americans. Continents where lots of important folks—who are not citizens of the US of A—live. But you can't have everything.
We, on the planet we call Earth, are all in this together. If people in Pakistan are dying, it should concern us, being people ourselves. (As a researcher, I was taught to say "persons" rather than "people" because only scientifically definable groupings are "people." Researchers are not always right.)
What do we mean when we differentiate between "them" and "us"? I mean, we all do it so it must mean something. Maybe it just means that we can't solve and protect everything so we should just work on things that concern "us." OK. So where do we draw the line?
This is the stuff that keeps me awake nights. This and the arthritis pain. So if it keeps you awake too (not, I hope, the arthritis pain—just the other stuff), maybe you can come up with some solutionary ideas.
Since it's just us, I hope you can because I'm trailing again.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Healthcare Reform Update
Hey folks, we've been missing the main point in this healthcare reform debate. I know, you're tired of hearing about it, but back here at the Trailing Edge, we've hit on the solution!(1) And since this is a blog, we're going to share this amazing discovery with both of you. The solution to the high cost of healthcare and the way to eliminate the need for healthcare reform, which was right in front of us all the time, is…
Stop Being Poor!
That's right! All you poor folks who are getting way too sick before you go to the doctor or hospital, all you poor folks who are eating all the wrong things because healthy food is too expensive, all you poor folks who are smoking, drinking, or using street drugs because you need to face your life in a fog just to be able to face it at all – all of you just stop being poor! Your health problems will be solved!
Amazingly simple! Healthcare costs in all the major city hospitals will drop dramatically! The healthcare reform bill, which does not distinguish well between the needs of the rich and the needs of the poor, will work! The recent increases in health insurance that the insurance companies blame on the healthcare reform bill won't be necessary. They'll continue, but they won't be necessary, and that's the main thing. Why? Because there won't be any poor!
You poor people must quit your selfish adherence to poverty. Just stoppit.
I know it'll take a while; there's a lot of inertia from the rich and well-placed that you'll need to overcome. But don't be daunted. Here are the five simple steps to stopping your dependence on poverty – with a few necessary sub-steps, naturally:
With our simple 5-point plan, the entire US could be on its way to reduced healthcare costs and true healthcare reform.
Don’t thank the Trailing Edge for generously offering this simple solution. Just envisioning the millions of no-longer-poor healthy, happy children that the tens of millions of no-longer-poor parents can afford to nurture, feed, and love is thanks enough.
Footnotes:
(1) We've always said that one of the advantages of always being late is that we get to hear lots of different viewpoints before making a decision. Of course, we lose lots of potential friends and miss out on lots of useful information, but no system is perfect.
(2) For those of us who are arithmetically challenged, this means that to stop being poor, your income has to be twice what the US Federal government currently defines as being poor. The US government is changing this definition, for statistical purposes at least, but why wait? For those of us who don't know what "arithmetically challenged" is, as a prerequisite to step 1 (that is to say, before undertaking Step 1) you'll need to find somebody rich to support you while you go back to school.
(3) You will likely need to pay for these mental health services yourself, as most insurers include only nominal, inadequate coverage for mental healthcare. In addition, if you happen to reside in one of the states that is medically underserved (that is, there are not enough mental healthcare providers anywhere in the state), you may need to relocate and begin again at Step 1.
Coming soon: How to eliminate inequities due to gender, age, education, and inherited country or countries of origin: Be a young, male, college graduate of predominantly Western European ancestry!
Stop Being Poor!
That's right! All you poor folks who are getting way too sick before you go to the doctor or hospital, all you poor folks who are eating all the wrong things because healthy food is too expensive, all you poor folks who are smoking, drinking, or using street drugs because you need to face your life in a fog just to be able to face it at all – all of you just stop being poor! Your health problems will be solved!
Amazingly simple! Healthcare costs in all the major city hospitals will drop dramatically! The healthcare reform bill, which does not distinguish well between the needs of the rich and the needs of the poor, will work! The recent increases in health insurance that the insurance companies blame on the healthcare reform bill won't be necessary. They'll continue, but they won't be necessary, and that's the main thing. Why? Because there won't be any poor!
You poor people must quit your selfish adherence to poverty. Just stoppit.
I know it'll take a while; there's a lot of inertia from the rich and well-placed that you'll need to overcome. But don't be daunted. Here are the five simple steps to stopping your dependence on poverty – with a few necessary sub-steps, naturally:
1. Find jobs that pay better.
1.a. To do this, you may have to get somebody to recognize that you can't acutally stop being poor unless you have income from a single, full-time job that is 200% of the current poverty level or more.(2)
1.b. To get a raise to above the laughably low poverty level, you may need to unionize your workplace. To do that you may have to overcome a few problems, but nobody said this was going to be easy. Just simple.
1.b.i. Find a workplace.
1.b.ii. Seek a union that is acceptable to both you and your employer.
1.b.iii. If attempting 1.b.ii. results in your losing access to that workplace, find another workplace.
1.b.iv. Repeat 1.b.ii. and 1.b.iii. as necessary.
2. Make sure your increased income includes the benefits necessary to keep you out of poverty.
2.a. Since half or more of all bankrupcies are due at least in part to the cost of healthcare, you'll need to have health insurance.
2.b. And a primary healthcare provider who makes sure you get high quality healthcare so you can keep working.
2.b.i. As necessary, see 1. b., iv., above.
3. Start eating better – whole grains, lean meats with minimal processing, fresh fruits and vegetables that don't have too many toxic pesticides still in them.
3.a. Some of your fruits and vegetables will need to be organically grown so you can avoid toxic pesticides, but the extra cost is only about double, and believe me, it's worth it.
3.b. You may need to move to a different neighborhood where healthier food is available.
4. See your primary healthcare provider for regular check-ups and health maintenance.
4.a. If your insurance does not pay for check-ups you'll need to pay for them out-of-pocket because in addition to keeping you healthy, these check-ups lower healthcare costs for the rest of us, which is, of course, the point.
4.b. Make sure your income is sufficient to cover health maintenance costs. (See, for example, 1.b., above.)
5. Make the other lifestyle changes that your improved economic outlook and sense of well-being allow.
5.a. Plan for a healthy, loving home environment for your future family before embarking on puberty.
5.a.i. Some attention to your mental health may be necessary to overcome some of the misadventures of your childhood or to stop consuming or otherwise using some substance that is detrimental to your health.(3)
5.a.ii. In some cases, you will perceive a sort of chicken-and-egg phenomenon where you will need to complete step 5 before attempting step 1 but can't afford step 5 until step 1 is accomplished. Just do your best. You're sort of on your own here.
5.b. Make sure your children do the same - that is to say, all of the above. This will do much to eliminate that pesky multi-generational poverty thing.
With our simple 5-point plan, the entire US could be on its way to reduced healthcare costs and true healthcare reform.
Don’t thank the Trailing Edge for generously offering this simple solution. Just envisioning the millions of no-longer-poor healthy, happy children that the tens of millions of no-longer-poor parents can afford to nurture, feed, and love is thanks enough.
Footnotes:
(1) We've always said that one of the advantages of always being late is that we get to hear lots of different viewpoints before making a decision. Of course, we lose lots of potential friends and miss out on lots of useful information, but no system is perfect.
(2) For those of us who are arithmetically challenged, this means that to stop being poor, your income has to be twice what the US Federal government currently defines as being poor. The US government is changing this definition, for statistical purposes at least, but why wait? For those of us who don't know what "arithmetically challenged" is, as a prerequisite to step 1 (that is to say, before undertaking Step 1) you'll need to find somebody rich to support you while you go back to school.
(3) You will likely need to pay for these mental health services yourself, as most insurers include only nominal, inadequate coverage for mental healthcare. In addition, if you happen to reside in one of the states that is medically underserved (that is, there are not enough mental healthcare providers anywhere in the state), you may need to relocate and begin again at Step 1.
Coming soon: How to eliminate inequities due to gender, age, education, and inherited country or countries of origin: Be a young, male, college graduate of predominantly Western European ancestry!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
YAAAAAY! Again
The healthcare reform law passed! YAAAAAY!
Wow! Two "YAAAAY"s in less than two years.
Yes, I know, the bill far from perfect. We Trailing Edgesters know all about being far from perfect. It's what we do best.
And yes, forcing people to deal with health insurance companies is a really poor approach. Especially when a single-payer system would be cheaper, better, and healthier.
But this law does also require that health insurance companies must actually provide health insurance. As opposed to taking money from only the healthy and denying claims when they get sick. Or, in a pinch, charging the unhealthy insured more money than healthcare would ever cost, and then denying the claims. If you wonder why the health insurance companies were so set against this bill, re-read those last two sentences, OK? (Linguistic purists, re-read the last two sentence fragments.)
I do not claim to understand why Congress, in its possibly-not-so-very-infinite wisdom, thought the Massachusetts model of healthcare reform was good for everyone. But it (they? he, she, and it?) did. So now everybody and her cousin (or, in this case, his brother) can sue the Federal Government for promulgating an unfunded mandate.
Mind you, the Federal Government has been visiting unfunded mandates upon the States for lo, these many years. Like "No Child Left Behind" for example. That was an unfunded mandate brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Republicans that guaranteed that non-rich American kids would be kicked out, so as to avoid being left behind.
That was an unfunded mandate. But as we can see, friends and neighbors, it depends a bunch on who's doing the unfunding. Not to mention what is being unfunded and why.
So complain to your Attorney General, if she or he is part of the Daring Thirteen who are suing the Federal Government, that this nonsense is costing you money she or he should save for suing insurance companies who don't comply with the spirit of the new law.
And complain to your legislators - better yet, tell them you won't vote for them - if they don't leave this law in place and fix whatever they don't like. They have until 2014 to fix the "required to buy health insurance" part, so they just might make it. If they hurry. And avoid the sentence fragments.
And if your Attorney General or legislator is a Republican, ask him or her to develop (or beg, or borrow or steal) a position. Challenge her or him to do that instead of spreading fear and discontent. It's a much healthier way of avoiding any actual work.
Or at the very least, tell them all to just, in the wise words of my Great-Granddaughter, stoppit!
Wow! Two "YAAAAY"s in less than two years.
Yes, I know, the bill far from perfect. We Trailing Edgesters know all about being far from perfect. It's what we do best.
And yes, forcing people to deal with health insurance companies is a really poor approach. Especially when a single-payer system would be cheaper, better, and healthier.
But this law does also require that health insurance companies must actually provide health insurance. As opposed to taking money from only the healthy and denying claims when they get sick. Or, in a pinch, charging the unhealthy insured more money than healthcare would ever cost, and then denying the claims. If you wonder why the health insurance companies were so set against this bill, re-read those last two sentences, OK? (Linguistic purists, re-read the last two sentence fragments.)
I do not claim to understand why Congress, in its possibly-not-so-very-infinite wisdom, thought the Massachusetts model of healthcare reform was good for everyone. But it (they? he, she, and it?) did. So now everybody and her cousin (or, in this case, his brother) can sue the Federal Government for promulgating an unfunded mandate.
Mind you, the Federal Government has been visiting unfunded mandates upon the States for lo, these many years. Like "No Child Left Behind" for example. That was an unfunded mandate brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Republicans that guaranteed that non-rich American kids would be kicked out, so as to avoid being left behind.
That was an unfunded mandate. But as we can see, friends and neighbors, it depends a bunch on who's doing the unfunding. Not to mention what is being unfunded and why.
So complain to your Attorney General, if she or he is part of the Daring Thirteen who are suing the Federal Government, that this nonsense is costing you money she or he should save for suing insurance companies who don't comply with the spirit of the new law.
And complain to your legislators - better yet, tell them you won't vote for them - if they don't leave this law in place and fix whatever they don't like. They have until 2014 to fix the "required to buy health insurance" part, so they just might make it. If they hurry. And avoid the sentence fragments.
And if your Attorney General or legislator is a Republican, ask him or her to develop (or beg, or borrow or steal) a position. Challenge her or him to do that instead of spreading fear and discontent. It's a much healthier way of avoiding any actual work.
Or at the very least, tell them all to just, in the wise words of my Great-Granddaughter, stoppit!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Debating Health Care Reform
I am pleased that Congress has taken up the issue of health care reform.
I wrote that sentence in June of 2009.
In point of fact, everyone here at the Trailing Edge is pleased with the idea of health care reform. All one of us. And we're coming out right now - a mere year late - in favor of it.
Now, that's trailing for you.
But our Representatives are the real experts at trailing.
After all, I'm actually publishing this blog. Congress is lagging behind the entire developed world when it comes to providing for the health of that small group of Americans who don't have a good health care system. That small group is made up of all the Americans who aren't rich. The non-rich Americans, as I like to call them.
Congress is doing what it does best. Nothing. Especially for the non-rich Americans.
And blaming the President for it, of course.
In fact, the only question about finger pointing that remains unclear is which house does it best. As for the most successful finger-pointing party, I think the Republicans are the winning.
Hands down, as it were.
But really folks, passing health care reform seems to be even less popular than passing noxious reminders of the digestive process. And a lot less likely. At my age, at least.
But that's another tale, although not unrelated to health.
Maybe I should stop blathering and focus on what's really at stake here. Perhaps I can even skip asking our representatives if they think it's fair for corporations to be considered individuals but not pay taxes like the rest of us. The answer to that question is pretty clear and doesn't seem to trouble anyone in Congress nearly as much as it bothers me.
Maybe I should ask you this: ask your Representative if he or she thinks it's OK for Congress to let babies die because they're too busy being pro-life to pay attention to living newborns.
Or maybe we should ask if it's OK for a pregnancy to end tragically as long as the reason was a lack of money or insurance for health care and not someone's choice.
OK, that was harsh. And I'd apologize if it were untrue.
You see, when the House of Representatives refuses to vote on the Senate health care reform bill (after which they can add their many revisions that make life wonderful for the health insurance companies), they are agreeing that letting babies die, and letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers, is better than spending money on preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy. Even though preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy is CHEAPER than letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers.
Really.
For example, it can cost upwards of $600,000 for one baby to be born and live with an incurable health problem that might have been prevented by giving the young woman a daily dose of multi-vitamins. So why doesn't the woman just take the vitamins? Well, if she's like millions of young American women, somebody – like the doctor she can't afford to see – needs to tell her it's necessary. And some organization – like the healthcare coverage she doesn’t have just now – needs to pay for it. On the other hand, if she has the baby with the severe medical problem, the government will pay for the baby's health care.
And that's how the all the Republicans and some of the Democrats propose to save us money.
That's just one example. There are many, many others. The bottom line is this:
Our Representatives are voting in Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor and whining about the high cost of health care reform. Meanwhile, babies and children and adults are getting sick, even dying, because they can't afford health insurance or their coverage doesn't cover what they need. Meanwhile, the cost of providing preventive health care for everyone who doesn't have a regular source of health care is cheaper than the cost of Medicaid/CHIP after the relatively few Americans get dreadfully, heart-breakingly ill because they lacked that inexpensive preventive health care.
Government intervention is not the central issue. Health insurance is not the central issue. Job security for our legislators is not the central issue. Except for our legislators, of course.
Future generations of healthy, non-rich Americans is the issue. Avoiding bankruptcy of individuals, Medicare, and Medicaid because of costly health care for conditions that did not need to happen is the issue.
Tell your Representative that. Please. Do it for the babies.
I wrote that sentence in June of 2009.
In point of fact, everyone here at the Trailing Edge is pleased with the idea of health care reform. All one of us. And we're coming out right now - a mere year late - in favor of it.
Now, that's trailing for you.
But our Representatives are the real experts at trailing.
After all, I'm actually publishing this blog. Congress is lagging behind the entire developed world when it comes to providing for the health of that small group of Americans who don't have a good health care system. That small group is made up of all the Americans who aren't rich. The non-rich Americans, as I like to call them.
Congress is doing what it does best. Nothing. Especially for the non-rich Americans.
And blaming the President for it, of course.
In fact, the only question about finger pointing that remains unclear is which house does it best. As for the most successful finger-pointing party, I think the Republicans are the winning.
Hands down, as it were.
But really folks, passing health care reform seems to be even less popular than passing noxious reminders of the digestive process. And a lot less likely. At my age, at least.
But that's another tale, although not unrelated to health.
Maybe I should stop blathering and focus on what's really at stake here. Perhaps I can even skip asking our representatives if they think it's fair for corporations to be considered individuals but not pay taxes like the rest of us. The answer to that question is pretty clear and doesn't seem to trouble anyone in Congress nearly as much as it bothers me.
Maybe I should ask you this: ask your Representative if he or she thinks it's OK for Congress to let babies die because they're too busy being pro-life to pay attention to living newborns.
Or maybe we should ask if it's OK for a pregnancy to end tragically as long as the reason was a lack of money or insurance for health care and not someone's choice.
OK, that was harsh. And I'd apologize if it were untrue.
You see, when the House of Representatives refuses to vote on the Senate health care reform bill (after which they can add their many revisions that make life wonderful for the health insurance companies), they are agreeing that letting babies die, and letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers, is better than spending money on preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy. Even though preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy is CHEAPER than letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers.
Really.
For example, it can cost upwards of $600,000 for one baby to be born and live with an incurable health problem that might have been prevented by giving the young woman a daily dose of multi-vitamins. So why doesn't the woman just take the vitamins? Well, if she's like millions of young American women, somebody – like the doctor she can't afford to see – needs to tell her it's necessary. And some organization – like the healthcare coverage she doesn’t have just now – needs to pay for it. On the other hand, if she has the baby with the severe medical problem, the government will pay for the baby's health care.
And that's how the all the Republicans and some of the Democrats propose to save us money.
That's just one example. There are many, many others. The bottom line is this:
Our Representatives are voting in Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor and whining about the high cost of health care reform. Meanwhile, babies and children and adults are getting sick, even dying, because they can't afford health insurance or their coverage doesn't cover what they need. Meanwhile, the cost of providing preventive health care for everyone who doesn't have a regular source of health care is cheaper than the cost of Medicaid/CHIP after the relatively few Americans get dreadfully, heart-breakingly ill because they lacked that inexpensive preventive health care.
Government intervention is not the central issue. Health insurance is not the central issue. Job security for our legislators is not the central issue. Except for our legislators, of course.
Future generations of healthy, non-rich Americans is the issue. Avoiding bankruptcy of individuals, Medicare, and Medicaid because of costly health care for conditions that did not need to happen is the issue.
Tell your Representative that. Please. Do it for the babies.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Economics, It’s What’s for Dinner
My annual review and predictions didn’t cover the economic situation, and you may wonder why. Then again, you may not, but that’s not my problem.
The reason was that I couldn’t find anything funny to say about the economic situation.
I’m not alone in this, but there you are. I wanted the predictions to have some humor.
When it comes to economics, I do have some strong opinions. (Other people have biases; I have strong opinions.)
I’m in favor of the cooperative economic model.
“Why is that?” you ask.
And I’m so glad you did. Otherwise I’d have to shut up and sit down. Fortunately, I’m already sitting, and shutting up is unlikely.
Well, to answer your question, it’s because the cooperative model operates on the odd assumption that everyone in an economic transaction should benefit.
“What a thought,” you comment. “Who came up with this contrary notion?”
Again, so glad you asked. (As my actress mother always told me, it works so much better when the other fellow knows his lines.)
It certainly wasn’t the capitalists who thought it up. They benefit from their economic model because they’re rich. (Scratch a poor capitalist and you’ll find a dreamer longing to be rich.)
Nor was it the communists, who don’t benefit from anything but totalitarian rule, as nearly as I can tell. And these days, they only benefit from that in isolated, virtually insular, cases.
Nor the socialists, who generally don’t benefit at all, being too entrenched in saving others from capitalism. (I’m not saying this is bad, just that it’s not very profitable.)
No, the cooperative form of economic dealings eschews all that. And please don’t bless me for sneezing; I mean that the cooperative model is just plain different.
“And how is it different?” you continue to help me out by asking.
Well, being based on the notion that everyone involved in a transaction should benefit, this model requires us to pay more for goods and services than it cost to produce them.
No more making shoes for $1.50 a pair, selling them for $1.25 a pair, and making up the difference on the volume. After deducting entertainment expenses and bonuses. (Don’t laugh; this is how banking systems have been working lately. Thirty years ago, it was how insurance companies worked.)
The cooperative economic model also requires that the business transaction do no serious harm to those not involved in the transaction.
Such as destroying the environment on their planet.
Well, you can see why that hasn’t caught on.
But I still favor it. Silly me. Want to join me?
The reason was that I couldn’t find anything funny to say about the economic situation.
I’m not alone in this, but there you are. I wanted the predictions to have some humor.
When it comes to economics, I do have some strong opinions. (Other people have biases; I have strong opinions.)
I’m in favor of the cooperative economic model.
“Why is that?” you ask.
And I’m so glad you did. Otherwise I’d have to shut up and sit down. Fortunately, I’m already sitting, and shutting up is unlikely.
Well, to answer your question, it’s because the cooperative model operates on the odd assumption that everyone in an economic transaction should benefit.
“What a thought,” you comment. “Who came up with this contrary notion?”
Again, so glad you asked. (As my actress mother always told me, it works so much better when the other fellow knows his lines.)
It certainly wasn’t the capitalists who thought it up. They benefit from their economic model because they’re rich. (Scratch a poor capitalist and you’ll find a dreamer longing to be rich.)
Nor was it the communists, who don’t benefit from anything but totalitarian rule, as nearly as I can tell. And these days, they only benefit from that in isolated, virtually insular, cases.
Nor the socialists, who generally don’t benefit at all, being too entrenched in saving others from capitalism. (I’m not saying this is bad, just that it’s not very profitable.)
No, the cooperative form of economic dealings eschews all that. And please don’t bless me for sneezing; I mean that the cooperative model is just plain different.
“And how is it different?” you continue to help me out by asking.
Well, being based on the notion that everyone involved in a transaction should benefit, this model requires us to pay more for goods and services than it cost to produce them.
No more making shoes for $1.50 a pair, selling them for $1.25 a pair, and making up the difference on the volume. After deducting entertainment expenses and bonuses. (Don’t laugh; this is how banking systems have been working lately. Thirty years ago, it was how insurance companies worked.)
The cooperative economic model also requires that the business transaction do no serious harm to those not involved in the transaction.
Such as destroying the environment on their planet.
Well, you can see why that hasn’t caught on.
But I still favor it. Silly me. Want to join me?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
2008 in Review - 2009 Predictions
Well friends, neighbors, and fan, it’s time to honor long-established tradition of the Trailing Edge and post my second annual summary of the past year and predictions for the coming year.
2008 – The Year In Review
As years go, 2008 really didn’t come up to expectations in many areas; on the other hand, it exceeded expectations in a few key areas. We probably shouldn’t go with averaging here. Despite the USA’s electoral trends (oh, happy day), I think we’ll have to give 2008 a split vote, grade-wise.
Low Scoring Events:
Gag orders continued to encourage countries receiving funds from the USA to modify their health education and healthcare to suit USA officials who are remarkably free of any need for that health education or healthcare.
Gag orders abounded requiring government agencies in the USA to edit scientific reports to remove any undesirable elements, such as research findings.
Gags and other public-spirited messages and candidates assured us all that the only thing to fear is anything that would cause us to vote for a Democrat.
Gag-reflex-inducing antics of confused Robins-definitely-not-of-the-Hood continued to include robbing from “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (I read that somewhere) to feed the rich.
And so on.
High Scoring Events:
The electorate in the good old US of A finally got the idea that we could actually nominate a candidate and vote for him or her based on ridiculous criteria like merit, stated policies and plans, intelligence, and honesty, thus abandoning time-honored Christian values such as mud-slinging skill, folksy brazenness, homey ethnic humor, and word-twisting ability.
Three or more people in the national picture-window started talking about the nation’s health without focusing exclusively on our healthcare industry. I can’t remember who the third one was, but the then Health and Human Services Secretary Designate and then President-Elect spoke about improving our health without any sign of embarrassment, shame, or need to speak only in compound nouns. And some other public figure talked about health and forgot to add “care.” At least, I’m pretty sure someone else did.
In spite of – or perhaps in order to cope with – serious problems that seemed to compound faster than variable mortgage interest, people retained their sense of humor. For example, while President Elect Obama was saying that there should be only one president at a time, a frank member of the USA’s House of Representatives seemed to think “one” was an underestimate.
And so forth.
Looking Ahead
Now we get to the real issue. What’s going to happen from here to 2010? Well, friends and neighbors, the Trailing Edge is prepared to boldly go where anybody with a lick of sense would avoid like a banker’s solution to the housing bubble. Let the infinitives split where they may!
No, we’re not going to predict the choice of First Dog. This old Trailer isn’t that foolish.
Predictions for 2009 (trumpet fanfare, please)
Somebody will get the idea that if the President can speak in whole paragraphs, other politicians might try a diet of something other than empty sound bites. This new thought will give some politicians headaches, but others will try it anyway.
One or two more people in the USA – who are not public health professionals like me, with an ax to grind – will start talking about the nation’s health without a “care” in the word. Being extremists, they will want things like an infant death rate that’s as low as, say, Cuba’s. They may even think helping people find a job so they can afford safe housing and information so they eat healthy food might be a good approach to avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs. Of course, if this health promotion and disease prevention stuff catches on, there might be a run on our health information banks. Now that bailout would be interesting.
The Congress of the United States of America will avoid for as long as it possibly can making any decision about economic stimulus, bailout, or help for somebody other than the rich. Finally, the Republicans will suddenly realize that in trying to keep President Obama from looking good they’ve made themselves look so bad that they may have already lost the re-election they were so worried about. At that point, they will salvage the situation by taking credit for having forced those spend-thrift Democrats to come up with a really good law. Now, in the past, one party defined a really good law as one that makes the other party look bad. But this is one of those things President Obama wanted us to change as I recall. So let’s keep our fingers crossed about that. Better yet, let’s keep our fingers flexed so we can email our legislators, ask them to play nice, and remind them about who acutally does the voting.
The guy who’s wandering around the country talking to inner city youth about making money by going green – not Al Gore, the other one – will start to build a following of urban entrepreneurs who think there’s a chance that when he talks to them about green, it isn’t because he is interested in money laundering or got lost and wandered into the wrong room.
President Obama will continue to work steadily to undo the damage done in any prior administration that might have immediately preceded this one.
Sadly, it won’t all be beer and skittles. The economy will take more than this year to heal, and so, of course will war-torn regions around the world. The housing market and the banking systems will take longer than one year to revive, and so will our healthcare system. And we do have to talk about health with a care in the word, too, so we can fix it.
On the other hand, if the legislative branch of government in the US of A wakes up to its responsibility to all the voters, some of these ills may heal faster.
And if Rip Van Winkle kisses Sleeping Beauty awake and she and Snow White lead the Seven Mine Workers in forming a collective bargaining association, then Prince Charming can give up his flagrant lifestyle and ride off into the sunset with Little Red Riding Hood.
Or something like that.
Oops, please excuse that inadvertant eruption of cynicism.
Let’s keep working on the good hope. Baby steps, maybe, but with your help and mine 2009 will be a year of small improvements on all fronts.
And that’s really pretty good, as happy endings go.
2008 – The Year In Review
As years go, 2008 really didn’t come up to expectations in many areas; on the other hand, it exceeded expectations in a few key areas. We probably shouldn’t go with averaging here. Despite the USA’s electoral trends (oh, happy day), I think we’ll have to give 2008 a split vote, grade-wise.
Low Scoring Events:
Gag orders continued to encourage countries receiving funds from the USA to modify their health education and healthcare to suit USA officials who are remarkably free of any need for that health education or healthcare.
Gag orders abounded requiring government agencies in the USA to edit scientific reports to remove any undesirable elements, such as research findings.
Gags and other public-spirited messages and candidates assured us all that the only thing to fear is anything that would cause us to vote for a Democrat.
Gag-reflex-inducing antics of confused Robins-definitely-not-of-the-Hood continued to include robbing from “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (I read that somewhere) to feed the rich.
And so on.
High Scoring Events:
The electorate in the good old US of A finally got the idea that we could actually nominate a candidate and vote for him or her based on ridiculous criteria like merit, stated policies and plans, intelligence, and honesty, thus abandoning time-honored Christian values such as mud-slinging skill, folksy brazenness, homey ethnic humor, and word-twisting ability.
Three or more people in the national picture-window started talking about the nation’s health without focusing exclusively on our healthcare industry. I can’t remember who the third one was, but the then Health and Human Services Secretary Designate and then President-Elect spoke about improving our health without any sign of embarrassment, shame, or need to speak only in compound nouns. And some other public figure talked about health and forgot to add “care.” At least, I’m pretty sure someone else did.
In spite of – or perhaps in order to cope with – serious problems that seemed to compound faster than variable mortgage interest, people retained their sense of humor. For example, while President Elect Obama was saying that there should be only one president at a time, a frank member of the USA’s House of Representatives seemed to think “one” was an underestimate.
And so forth.
Looking Ahead
Now we get to the real issue. What’s going to happen from here to 2010? Well, friends and neighbors, the Trailing Edge is prepared to boldly go where anybody with a lick of sense would avoid like a banker’s solution to the housing bubble. Let the infinitives split where they may!
No, we’re not going to predict the choice of First Dog. This old Trailer isn’t that foolish.
Predictions for 2009 (trumpet fanfare, please)
Somebody will get the idea that if the President can speak in whole paragraphs, other politicians might try a diet of something other than empty sound bites. This new thought will give some politicians headaches, but others will try it anyway.
One or two more people in the USA – who are not public health professionals like me, with an ax to grind – will start talking about the nation’s health without a “care” in the word. Being extremists, they will want things like an infant death rate that’s as low as, say, Cuba’s. They may even think helping people find a job so they can afford safe housing and information so they eat healthy food might be a good approach to avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs. Of course, if this health promotion and disease prevention stuff catches on, there might be a run on our health information banks. Now that bailout would be interesting.
The Congress of the United States of America will avoid for as long as it possibly can making any decision about economic stimulus, bailout, or help for somebody other than the rich. Finally, the Republicans will suddenly realize that in trying to keep President Obama from looking good they’ve made themselves look so bad that they may have already lost the re-election they were so worried about. At that point, they will salvage the situation by taking credit for having forced those spend-thrift Democrats to come up with a really good law. Now, in the past, one party defined a really good law as one that makes the other party look bad. But this is one of those things President Obama wanted us to change as I recall. So let’s keep our fingers crossed about that. Better yet, let’s keep our fingers flexed so we can email our legislators, ask them to play nice, and remind them about who acutally does the voting.
The guy who’s wandering around the country talking to inner city youth about making money by going green – not Al Gore, the other one – will start to build a following of urban entrepreneurs who think there’s a chance that when he talks to them about green, it isn’t because he is interested in money laundering or got lost and wandered into the wrong room.
President Obama will continue to work steadily to undo the damage done in any prior administration that might have immediately preceded this one.
Sadly, it won’t all be beer and skittles. The economy will take more than this year to heal, and so, of course will war-torn regions around the world. The housing market and the banking systems will take longer than one year to revive, and so will our healthcare system. And we do have to talk about health with a care in the word, too, so we can fix it.
On the other hand, if the legislative branch of government in the US of A wakes up to its responsibility to all the voters, some of these ills may heal faster.
And if Rip Van Winkle kisses Sleeping Beauty awake and she and Snow White lead the Seven Mine Workers in forming a collective bargaining association, then Prince Charming can give up his flagrant lifestyle and ride off into the sunset with Little Red Riding Hood.
Or something like that.
Oops, please excuse that inadvertant eruption of cynicism.
Let’s keep working on the good hope. Baby steps, maybe, but with your help and mine 2009 will be a year of small improvements on all fronts.
And that’s really pretty good, as happy endings go.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day
Thank you, Mr. President
For having become you, Mr. President.
Our president.
It couldn’t have been easy,
Those many steps you took
Before the short, long walks you took today.
Thank you for understanding that our crisis isn’t
Simply in the interests of The Economy,
Solely about global warming,
Just about healthcare,
Merely about education,
Entirely about US.
Thank you for turning defeat into victory,
For turning victory into success,
For requrining success with honor.
Thank you, Mr. President
For an inaugural address that was everything I have come to expect from you
And more.
Thank you for your writing skill that gave us all those sentences
Full of meaning and promise,
For the meaning and promise you use that skill so well to express,
For giving us more than the sound-bite-sentence
Our broadcasters were waiting for.
I could cry today, Mr. President.
I didn’t cry when you were nominated, although many did.
We had not come far enough.
I didn’t cry when you were elected, although many more did.
Not far enough, still.
Today we have not yet come far enough.
But we will.
Today I cried for happy.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Sherry Spence
January 20, 2009
For having become you, Mr. President.
Our president.
It couldn’t have been easy,
Those many steps you took
Before the short, long walks you took today.
Thank you for understanding that our crisis isn’t
Simply in the interests of The Economy,
Solely about global warming,
Just about healthcare,
Merely about education,
Entirely about US.
Thank you for turning defeat into victory,
For turning victory into success,
For requrining success with honor.
Thank you, Mr. President
For an inaugural address that was everything I have come to expect from you
And more.
Thank you for your writing skill that gave us all those sentences
Full of meaning and promise,
For the meaning and promise you use that skill so well to express,
For giving us more than the sound-bite-sentence
Our broadcasters were waiting for.
I could cry today, Mr. President.
I didn’t cry when you were nominated, although many did.
We had not come far enough.
I didn’t cry when you were elected, although many more did.
Not far enough, still.
Today we have not yet come far enough.
But we will.
Today I cried for happy.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Sherry Spence
January 20, 2009
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Home for the Holidays
Well, friends, now that the USA’s national election has been satisfactorily resolved - for me anyway - we can all turn our thoughts to important matters of concern to our nation.
In our town, that means resuming the yearly discussion about how to celebrate the holiday season with appropriate consideration for all religions, sects, creeds, and degrees of non-belief. You probably don’t recall this, but the solution our city fathers came up with last year was to have white lights, as opposed to colored lights, adorning all the trees in our quaint downtown neighborhood, Old Town. This was to celebrate the holidays without overt reference to Christianity so they wouldn't be forced to allow overt reference to some - and potentially all - other religion. I don’t know if our city mothers were involved in the decision. The city fathers (and, possibly, mothers) then backed off a bit and allowed store-owners to decorate their stores as they chose - on the inside. At that phase of this momentous debate, I sort of lost interest.
Before losing interest, I’d spent some considerable time trying to figure out why multicolored lights are religious and white lights are not. It’s important to understand the issues in a debate before weighing in on one side or the other. Now that the debate has resurfaced, I’m back to puzzling over the question of how a light bulb becomes religious. No success so far. If I come up with anything, I’ll let you know.
Meanwhile, other people in this and other towns are puzzling about other things almost as important. Things like how to keep their homes at least through the holidays and whether they have any relatives left who still own - or rent - a place that has room for extra beds. Now, being as that’s not as difficult a question, I came across what seems to me to be a good solution day before yesterday in an article by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research. I’d like to share it with you, in case it interests you more than the lightbulb controversy.
Suppose the congress passed a temporary law that banks could not foreclose on homeowners without offering them the option to rent their home, at current market rates, for the next 10 or 20 years. Then the banks would have a choice: they could collect rent and maintain the home they acquire from the former owner(s). Or they could renegotiate the loan and let the family continue to purchase and maintain the home at a lower cost to the family. The bank would likely get payments above the rental market rate, and the family would pay for the home’s upkeep. (I think this is what’s known in the arbitration business as a not-lose – not-lose situation.) There’s even a law already running around to do this; Representative Raul Grijalva proposed such a change in the Saving Family Homes Act. At least I think it’s running around; it doesn’t seem to be doing anything else.
If we can get Congress to pass this law, then the financial wizards who got us into this mess will have something constructive to do with the money our Treasury folks seem intent on giving them. Maybe there’s a problem with the proposed law. Maybe it makes too much sense to be a law or something. If that’s the case, any number of legislators could fix it.
So what can we do? Well, since the three of you won’t email me, even to join my war on violence, I’ll just ask those of you who are citizens of the USA to email your congresspersons and ask them to support this law without changing the intent too much. Or at all, even.
Of course, I could be wrong in thinking this is a good solution. However, like most people, I don’t often entertain the possiblity that I might be wrong. And even though that possiblity entertains me pretty frequently, I think this is the best approach to handling the situation and I think you should contact your congressperson about getting this act out of the House Committee on Financial Services and into law.
LATE BREAKING NEWS: When we went grocery shopping yesterday, we saw Christmas wreaths on several buildings in Old Town.
Taken together with the election results, is this an indication that common sense can prevail and there’s a glimmer of hope for the nation’s homeowners?
Now I know what I want for Christmas. If there are any middle class homeowners left by then. I can’t wait to see Santa.
In our town, that means resuming the yearly discussion about how to celebrate the holiday season with appropriate consideration for all religions, sects, creeds, and degrees of non-belief. You probably don’t recall this, but the solution our city fathers came up with last year was to have white lights, as opposed to colored lights, adorning all the trees in our quaint downtown neighborhood, Old Town. This was to celebrate the holidays without overt reference to Christianity so they wouldn't be forced to allow overt reference to some - and potentially all - other religion. I don’t know if our city mothers were involved in the decision. The city fathers (and, possibly, mothers) then backed off a bit and allowed store-owners to decorate their stores as they chose - on the inside. At that phase of this momentous debate, I sort of lost interest.
Before losing interest, I’d spent some considerable time trying to figure out why multicolored lights are religious and white lights are not. It’s important to understand the issues in a debate before weighing in on one side or the other. Now that the debate has resurfaced, I’m back to puzzling over the question of how a light bulb becomes religious. No success so far. If I come up with anything, I’ll let you know.
Meanwhile, other people in this and other towns are puzzling about other things almost as important. Things like how to keep their homes at least through the holidays and whether they have any relatives left who still own - or rent - a place that has room for extra beds. Now, being as that’s not as difficult a question, I came across what seems to me to be a good solution day before yesterday in an article by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research. I’d like to share it with you, in case it interests you more than the lightbulb controversy.
Suppose the congress passed a temporary law that banks could not foreclose on homeowners without offering them the option to rent their home, at current market rates, for the next 10 or 20 years. Then the banks would have a choice: they could collect rent and maintain the home they acquire from the former owner(s). Or they could renegotiate the loan and let the family continue to purchase and maintain the home at a lower cost to the family. The bank would likely get payments above the rental market rate, and the family would pay for the home’s upkeep. (I think this is what’s known in the arbitration business as a not-lose – not-lose situation.) There’s even a law already running around to do this; Representative Raul Grijalva proposed such a change in the Saving Family Homes Act. At least I think it’s running around; it doesn’t seem to be doing anything else.
If we can get Congress to pass this law, then the financial wizards who got us into this mess will have something constructive to do with the money our Treasury folks seem intent on giving them. Maybe there’s a problem with the proposed law. Maybe it makes too much sense to be a law or something. If that’s the case, any number of legislators could fix it.
So what can we do? Well, since the three of you won’t email me, even to join my war on violence, I’ll just ask those of you who are citizens of the USA to email your congresspersons and ask them to support this law without changing the intent too much. Or at all, even.
Of course, I could be wrong in thinking this is a good solution. However, like most people, I don’t often entertain the possiblity that I might be wrong. And even though that possiblity entertains me pretty frequently, I think this is the best approach to handling the situation and I think you should contact your congressperson about getting this act out of the House Committee on Financial Services and into law.
LATE BREAKING NEWS: When we went grocery shopping yesterday, we saw Christmas wreaths on several buildings in Old Town.
Taken together with the election results, is this an indication that common sense can prevail and there’s a glimmer of hope for the nation’s homeowners?
Now I know what I want for Christmas. If there are any middle class homeowners left by then. I can’t wait to see Santa.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Y A A A A A A A A A Y!
The following is a translation for non-English-speaking readers and bloggers:
YAAAAAAAAAY!!!
YAAAAAAAAAY!!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Being Democratic
So one day before Reverend Martin Luther King’s historic “I have a dream” speech, “Senator Barack Obama, the Hawaiian-born son of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, officially [became] the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party” (NY Times News Alert) of the United States of America (USA). On the day of the historic “dream” speech, Obama gave his acceptance speech. Wow.
Today (can you believe I’m actually blogging on the day of the event, albeit late in the day?), we hear of the Republican vice presedential nominee, and we see that the lines are drawn.
On the Republican side:
• Drill, tunnel, scrape, and plant to extract the energy Mother Earth has to offer for the benefit of citizens of the USA;
• Arm, plan, and fight for what we, in the USA, believe we have the right to seek;
• Share our bounty, developed from our free market economy and necessary USA government protection, with those less fortunate; and
• Change the USA’s healthcare system cautiously and carefully, protecting those in need within the framework of the larger economic and social needs.
On the Democratic side:
• Remove dependence on foreign energy resources by spending now on Mother Earth’s solar, wind, and geothermal resources for our energy needs;
• Use diplomacy to bring the global focus back to our shared needs so we can assure what the USA needs for our political, economic, and societal safety;
• Restore economic stability and tax equity and support free enterprise for small or start-up operations rather than for national or global corporations; and
• Improve healthcare for the most needy and make the cost of healthcare affordable for the average citizen in the USA.
I tried to sound unbiased, guys, really I did.
It’s not easy being green.
Or promoting social justice.
Or trying to stay healthy on a fixed income, for that matter.
So while I think of the speech that Martin Luther King, Jr., made so many years ago yesterday, other memories come back to swamp my little pleasure boat:
• When I was twelve or thirteen years old, I went on my annual outing to the State Fair of Texas. This year represented a first: instead of three restrooms (“men,” “women,” and “colored”), there were two (“men” and “women”). In my naïve, pubescent mind, the idea of sharing a restroom with the opposite sex was apalling, so I welcomed the change. However, the two women (generally referred to as “negro” at the time) who were there when I walked in were clearly angry with me. What had I done? Ruined their chance to use a “comfort station” comfortably by my very need to do the same. My 80 pound presence was a real threat to them. They were scared; I felt the need – but didn’t have the guts – to apologize. Silence reigned. What a world.
• Around the time of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago – with all its chaos and drama – my friend Butch (still identified as “negro”) was reminiscing about his supposed friend who was referring to himself and some other white friends as “Americans.” Butch had pointed out that he, too, was an American, to which his “friend” had replied, “You know, real Americans.” I still couldn’t think of anything to say.
So my sense of history is that we’ve come a long way in the last half-century. And I still, all too frequently, can’t think of anything to say. And I still welcome the change. Maybe, someday, we could even do the same for women. You know, real humans…;-))
Today (can you believe I’m actually blogging on the day of the event, albeit late in the day?), we hear of the Republican vice presedential nominee, and we see that the lines are drawn.
On the Republican side:
• Drill, tunnel, scrape, and plant to extract the energy Mother Earth has to offer for the benefit of citizens of the USA;
• Arm, plan, and fight for what we, in the USA, believe we have the right to seek;
• Share our bounty, developed from our free market economy and necessary USA government protection, with those less fortunate; and
• Change the USA’s healthcare system cautiously and carefully, protecting those in need within the framework of the larger economic and social needs.
On the Democratic side:
• Remove dependence on foreign energy resources by spending now on Mother Earth’s solar, wind, and geothermal resources for our energy needs;
• Use diplomacy to bring the global focus back to our shared needs so we can assure what the USA needs for our political, economic, and societal safety;
• Restore economic stability and tax equity and support free enterprise for small or start-up operations rather than for national or global corporations; and
• Improve healthcare for the most needy and make the cost of healthcare affordable for the average citizen in the USA.
I tried to sound unbiased, guys, really I did.
It’s not easy being green.
Or promoting social justice.
Or trying to stay healthy on a fixed income, for that matter.
So while I think of the speech that Martin Luther King, Jr., made so many years ago yesterday, other memories come back to swamp my little pleasure boat:
• When I was twelve or thirteen years old, I went on my annual outing to the State Fair of Texas. This year represented a first: instead of three restrooms (“men,” “women,” and “colored”), there were two (“men” and “women”). In my naïve, pubescent mind, the idea of sharing a restroom with the opposite sex was apalling, so I welcomed the change. However, the two women (generally referred to as “negro” at the time) who were there when I walked in were clearly angry with me. What had I done? Ruined their chance to use a “comfort station” comfortably by my very need to do the same. My 80 pound presence was a real threat to them. They were scared; I felt the need – but didn’t have the guts – to apologize. Silence reigned. What a world.
• Around the time of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago – with all its chaos and drama – my friend Butch (still identified as “negro”) was reminiscing about his supposed friend who was referring to himself and some other white friends as “Americans.” Butch had pointed out that he, too, was an American, to which his “friend” had replied, “You know, real Americans.” I still couldn’t think of anything to say.
So my sense of history is that we’ve come a long way in the last half-century. And I still, all too frequently, can’t think of anything to say. And I still welcome the change. Maybe, someday, we could even do the same for women. You know, real humans…;-))
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Join the War on Violence!
Here it is, friends, the Trailing Edge is proud to announce the promised – delayed, naturally – launch of the war on violence.
Action Alert: Join me in fighting violence! Follow these simple steps:
• Step 1: Remove violence from our language (unless, of course, we are really, really angry).
• Step 2: Remove violence from our language when we are really, really angry.
In the spirit of trailing, we can deal with removing violence from our actions at a later date.
That’s it.
Simple, right? Well, no, not easy. But simple.
So why, you ask, would we want to wage yet another war against one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That answer is simple, also. Why not?
We’re prevailing valiantly against Pestulence and Famine, aren’t we?
OK, bad reasoning – we’re acutally not doing so well with those fights these days. Small farmers are working to survive by making money off food for fuel and agribusiness is cleaning up – monetarily speaking, of course. World hunger is winning that one. Sadly, the fight on the pestulence front is, in general, less than ideal. For example, in the funding vs. HIV battle, HIV is winning. The federal government here in the USA is working hard on these wars. However, not all funding seems to be on the anti-Apocalypse-Horsemen side, in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion.
Anyway, back to the front. Our War on Violence. Maybe we can make some headway there. In my search for reasons not to have violence – restricted, of course to violent language for the moment – I’ve come up with the following:
Violent language may lead to violent thinking, which may lead to actual violence, and acutal violence is expensive.
Outstanding thinking, don't you agree? Not to mention an outstanding example of a run-on sentence.
War for example, is very costly by any humane or economic measure. The National Priorities Project has been keeping track of the dollar cost of the war in Iraq for us:
click here to learn more
And even back in January 2007, some folks at the New York Times knew that there were some good non-violent things to do with that money. One thing would be health care for more than 20 million children for more than 10 years. My, my. Perhaps we could just try keeping all the kids in the US of A healthy for 5 years. Maybe longer, if we spent some of the healthcare funding on public health - you know, preventing diseases and accidents being cheaper than healing them. Maybe we could provide healthcare for everyone just by watching the overspending and misspending by government contractors in our war efforts. That is to say, by doing something about over-and mis-spending; some say we have been watching it for a while now.
So join the fight! And just to show you I'm ready for a long siege, I'll start by example right here in this blog. Here goes...
OK. So a quick re-read of the above comes up with seven violent verbs and more than 20 violent nouns (including repetitions).
So I may not be your best example of removing violence from language just yet. You sharp bloggees, you noticed that right off, didn't you? Maybe we all need to band together to fight this tendency to express ourselves violently. No. Wait. What I meant was...
Baby Step 1: Remove violent language from non-violent and/or helpful activities.
We will attack - or rather, cease using - expressions for prevention and cure of disease such as “the war on cancer.” Wanting to make - that is to say, help - people stop substance abuse will no longer be a “war on drugs.” And so on.
Let’s try this together:
Join forces... Not.
Team up to conque... Nope.
Heed the call to arm... Not even.
Email me to sign up.
One baby step for us, one giant step for non-violence. Or vice versa, perhaps. Email your acceptance of the terms of engagement, that is to say, of peaceful activity. (No offerers of purchases or large cash rewards need apply.)
We can do it.
First thing tomorrow.
Action Alert: Join me in fighting violence! Follow these simple steps:
• Step 1: Remove violence from our language (unless, of course, we are really, really angry).
• Step 2: Remove violence from our language when we are really, really angry.
In the spirit of trailing, we can deal with removing violence from our actions at a later date.
That’s it.
Simple, right? Well, no, not easy. But simple.
So why, you ask, would we want to wage yet another war against one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That answer is simple, also. Why not?
We’re prevailing valiantly against Pestulence and Famine, aren’t we?
OK, bad reasoning – we’re acutally not doing so well with those fights these days. Small farmers are working to survive by making money off food for fuel and agribusiness is cleaning up – monetarily speaking, of course. World hunger is winning that one. Sadly, the fight on the pestulence front is, in general, less than ideal. For example, in the funding vs. HIV battle, HIV is winning. The federal government here in the USA is working hard on these wars. However, not all funding seems to be on the anti-Apocalypse-Horsemen side, in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion.
Anyway, back to the front. Our War on Violence. Maybe we can make some headway there. In my search for reasons not to have violence – restricted, of course to violent language for the moment – I’ve come up with the following:
Violent language may lead to violent thinking, which may lead to actual violence, and acutal violence is expensive.
Outstanding thinking, don't you agree? Not to mention an outstanding example of a run-on sentence.
War for example, is very costly by any humane or economic measure. The National Priorities Project has been keeping track of the dollar cost of the war in Iraq for us:
click here to learn more
And even back in January 2007, some folks at the New York Times knew that there were some good non-violent things to do with that money. One thing would be health care for more than 20 million children for more than 10 years. My, my. Perhaps we could just try keeping all the kids in the US of A healthy for 5 years. Maybe longer, if we spent some of the healthcare funding on public health - you know, preventing diseases and accidents being cheaper than healing them. Maybe we could provide healthcare for everyone just by watching the overspending and misspending by government contractors in our war efforts. That is to say, by doing something about over-and mis-spending; some say we have been watching it for a while now.
So join the fight! And just to show you I'm ready for a long siege, I'll start by example right here in this blog. Here goes...
OK. So a quick re-read of the above comes up with seven violent verbs and more than 20 violent nouns (including repetitions).
So I may not be your best example of removing violence from language just yet. You sharp bloggees, you noticed that right off, didn't you? Maybe we all need to band together to fight this tendency to express ourselves violently. No. Wait. What I meant was...
Baby Step 1: Remove violent language from non-violent and/or helpful activities.
We will attack - or rather, cease using - expressions for prevention and cure of disease such as “the war on cancer.” Wanting to make - that is to say, help - people stop substance abuse will no longer be a “war on drugs.” And so on.
Let’s try this together:
Join forces... Not.
Team up to conque... Nope.
Heed the call to arm... Not even.
Email me to sign up.
One baby step for us, one giant step for non-violence. Or vice versa, perhaps. Email your acceptance of the terms of engagement, that is to say, of peaceful activity. (No offerers of purchases or large cash rewards need apply.)
We can do it.
First thing tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
