When I think about the Republican field for President, on the one hand, I gotta hand it to them for finally providing a diversified field. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the "rank and file" party members like any of them and must be in quite a quandry over who to vote for. Given my own upbringing and background, plus what I see in today's public media, the 'generic' Republican voter tends to be white, middle aged, Christian (not necessarily evangelical, but certainly only believes in one way to God), above-average income, married (and monogamous), and to put it bluntly, rather old-fashioned in a belief that women and non-whites have to 'know their place.'
Now this is certainly not the case for every Republican, and likely not even most, but it does seem to be a plurality. I'm sure there are many who are fine with a woman nominee, but there's also probably enough that feel the exact opposite that it probably hurt her chances regardless of her politics. Yeah, Sarah Palin got the VP nominee last year, but she wasn't voted in via a primary election, she was chosen. And she (and McCain) didn't win, and I have no doubt that there are some people out there that didn't vote at all because they didn't want to vote for a woman on one side, or a non-white on the other. Yes, those people still exist.
So how do the nominees stack up?
Michelle Bachman - Female, so any that don't like women in power won't vote for her. Plus, she's show a distinct lack of brainpower.
Herman Cain - Black, so any that don't like non-whites in power won't vote for him. Ditto on the lack of brain power.
Newt Gingrich - Smart, but he cheated on two ex-wives and divorced one while in the hospital. Not exactly a poster boy for 'family values' that so many Republicans like to spout.
Mitt Romney - Mormon, so any Christians that are real hard-liners (evangelicals, for instance), won't vote for him.
Jon Huntsman - See Mitt Romney. Plus, who?
Rick Santorum - Google it
Rick Perry - One George W. Bush was enough (and this one seems even dumber)
Ron Paul - Too libertarian - so any that are against legalizing drugs won't vote for him.
Not a single one of the candidates have all the qualities necessary to win over the majority "generic" Republican voter. There's not one white, male, Christian (preferably evangelical, but they'll accept any protestant - non mormon), still married to one woman (and not cheated), smart, totally conservative candidate, who's name can't be googled with laughter. Frankly, I see most Republicans holding their noses at the voting booth come 2012.
I think this is why, for the most part, Mitt Romney is presumed to win the nomination. He'll get enough plurality votes, 30% or so probably, that he'll have most of the delegates he needs, but no doubt he'll have to be saddled with some Tea Party darling (maybe even Michelle) to make the even further right consider voting for him to counter for his forays into bipartisanship (gasp!), while they agonize over his religion.
No doubt, its not a sure thing for Obama, but I think there's still enough divide in the Republican party that they'll have people staying at home rather than voting for one of these nominees as President.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Bubble
I recently finished reading Michael Lewis, "The Big Short" which is about the housing bubble, how it started, how wall street traders who originally bought/sold government bonds created mortgage bonds, which then got bundled into credit default swaps and thereafter rebundled again into collaterialized debt obligations, and when people making $10,000 year could no longer afford to pay their mortgage on $500,000 homes, the market crashed. And if you know what any of those things are, you're ahead of 95% of America (not to mention 95% of investment bankers).
The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.
It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.
Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.
Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.
I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.
What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.
What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.
The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?
The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.
It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.
Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.
Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.
I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.
What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.
What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.
The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
Some people are prescient. I present Keith Olberman's "Special Comment" from August 1, 2011 (repeated on Oct. 14, 2011) regarding the raise the debt ceiling deal. In particular, his call at the end to rise up and protest. It seems that some people were listening.
I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.
Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.
We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.
We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.
We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.
It would be comical if it were not tragic.
Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.
Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.
For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.
Except this one.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?
This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.
Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it.
And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.
Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.
What happens if there's ever another… war?
Or another… terrorist attack?
Or another… natural disaster?
Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.
And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.
We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.
The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.
The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.
By a committee.
A committee that has yet to be formed.
There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.
Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leap website paywalls or could not afford cable tv?
Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?
Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?
Where is the outrage to come from?
From you!
It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.
It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive details about exactly how the bank robbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.
It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.
The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.
And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.
It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.
I cannot say to you, meet there or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.
Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.
Good night, and good luck.
I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.
Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.
We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.
We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.
We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.
It would be comical if it were not tragic.
Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.
Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.
For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.
Except this one.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?
This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.
Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it.
And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.
Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.
What happens if there's ever another… war?
Or another… terrorist attack?
Or another… natural disaster?
Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.
And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.
We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.
The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.
The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.
By a committee.
A committee that has yet to be formed.
There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.
Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leap website paywalls or could not afford cable tv?
Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?
Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?
Where is the outrage to come from?
From you!
It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.
It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive details about exactly how the bank robbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.
It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.
The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.
And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.
It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.
I cannot say to you, meet there or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.
Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.
Good night, and good luck.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Not Knowing
Yup, long time since last post. Busy busy.
Today, Occupy Wall Street is marching in Philly. My secretary had no idea what that was, although its been in the news for close to a month. Granted, mostly in NYC, but still, that's pretty close to Philly that we usually get their big news. Yes, it started small, but its grown quite a bit in the last two weeks. I don't watch "regular" news, primarily The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Countdown, but since its been in the newspaper, I figure ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have at least touched on it a tad.
Also today is the fall out from everyone (you'd think at least) hearing about Steve Job's death. Again, my secretary had no idea who he was. Only the man that created Apple, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, essentially he created our personal computing/social media culture. Without Jobs, there would be no Twitter (which is, of course, how I first learned of his death at 7:40 p.m. last night), no Facebook (no Winklevii for Zuckerman to allegedly cheat, hah), music would still be bought on CDs as complete albums, TV/movies would still only be on TV or through DVDs and we wouldn't be up in arms with Netflix raising prices to stream movies and TV. I wouldn't be writing this blog right now, and neither would millions of others. We'd still get our news via paper or TV.
I was a little surprised my secretary hadn't heard about Occupy Wall Street, but then again, she doesn't pay all that much attention to life outside her kids, her job, her home. But that she didn't even know who Steve Jobs was just gobsmacked me. How could anyone not have heard about Steve Jobs?
But I also remember that my secretary doesn't read a news paper, she doesn't watch the news, she doesn't have a smartphone, she doesn't vote. She has never voted in any election and sees no reason to start. As such, she doesn't bother finding out anything that's going on in the world, the country, even her own city unless it directly impacts her family.
Surprisingly, or maybe not, more than half of this country is the same. Everytime I think how can people vote against their economic interests, I have to remind myself that the vast majority don't even know what their economic interest is, and don't bother to find out enough information to vote.
Even in our last presidential election, 122 million voted out of approximately 230 million voting age people. Just over 50%. That means almost half of this country doesn't care about their economic interest, their social interest, or really much of anything beyond their own life, much like my secretary. The vote was historic. We'd either have the first black president, or the first female vice president. Yet still half didn't care.
I can't imagine going through life and not knowing what's going on. I remember how embarrassed and dumbstruck I was when I went on a two-week vacation to France in August 2005, and because my in-laws' computer connection was very slow, I only checked my email a couple of times, nothing else. My in-laws didn't get a news paper (and I'm not sure I could have read much of it anyway). It wasn't until I came back to the US that I heard about Hurricane Katrina. How could I have not heard about this during my trip? I swore never to be so out of touch again. Its one of the (many) reasons I don't think I could ever be a Survivor contestant, don't think I could stand to be so unplugged for an extended amount of time again.
I'm sure some people like not knowing what's going on. "Ignorance is bliss" is the phrase. I don't agree. All ignorance does is allow other people to control things that affect your life, even if you don't realize it. Its amazing, for example, that one person controls so much that he got all or nearly all Republican office holders to sign a pledge never to raise taxes for any reason (although despite this pledge, some apparently distinguish between raising taxes on wealthy people - no no no - and the middle and lower classes - yes yes yes). Is that really the best thing for this country or just for a few thousand? But this is what comes from not knowing and allowing others to control this country.
One doesn't have to be smart or understanding everything that happens. I don't understand investment banking, although I've been trying to educate myself (and what I've read so far, just strikes me as incredible that people were so gullible - no actually it doesn't - and that our country has let so many people get away with almost outright fraud - except that its hard to prove because people are so gullible). But it doesn't take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in someone saying they pledged never to raise taxes for any reason, but its ok to "broaden the tax base so more people contribute (i.e. pay) taxes. Um, if that doesn't mean a raise of taxes on some people, i.e. those at the bottom of the base, which supposedly you pledged not to do, I don't know what does.
I may not agree with other people, but at least read a newspaper, or watch some news on your computer (thank you Steve) or TV (and make it more than just Fox news, please). At least know the names of the people who have a significant impact on your life.
Today, Occupy Wall Street is marching in Philly. My secretary had no idea what that was, although its been in the news for close to a month. Granted, mostly in NYC, but still, that's pretty close to Philly that we usually get their big news. Yes, it started small, but its grown quite a bit in the last two weeks. I don't watch "regular" news, primarily The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Countdown, but since its been in the newspaper, I figure ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have at least touched on it a tad.
Also today is the fall out from everyone (you'd think at least) hearing about Steve Job's death. Again, my secretary had no idea who he was. Only the man that created Apple, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, essentially he created our personal computing/social media culture. Without Jobs, there would be no Twitter (which is, of course, how I first learned of his death at 7:40 p.m. last night), no Facebook (no Winklevii for Zuckerman to allegedly cheat, hah), music would still be bought on CDs as complete albums, TV/movies would still only be on TV or through DVDs and we wouldn't be up in arms with Netflix raising prices to stream movies and TV. I wouldn't be writing this blog right now, and neither would millions of others. We'd still get our news via paper or TV.
I was a little surprised my secretary hadn't heard about Occupy Wall Street, but then again, she doesn't pay all that much attention to life outside her kids, her job, her home. But that she didn't even know who Steve Jobs was just gobsmacked me. How could anyone not have heard about Steve Jobs?
But I also remember that my secretary doesn't read a news paper, she doesn't watch the news, she doesn't have a smartphone, she doesn't vote. She has never voted in any election and sees no reason to start. As such, she doesn't bother finding out anything that's going on in the world, the country, even her own city unless it directly impacts her family.
Surprisingly, or maybe not, more than half of this country is the same. Everytime I think how can people vote against their economic interests, I have to remind myself that the vast majority don't even know what their economic interest is, and don't bother to find out enough information to vote.
Even in our last presidential election, 122 million voted out of approximately 230 million voting age people. Just over 50%. That means almost half of this country doesn't care about their economic interest, their social interest, or really much of anything beyond their own life, much like my secretary. The vote was historic. We'd either have the first black president, or the first female vice president. Yet still half didn't care.
I can't imagine going through life and not knowing what's going on. I remember how embarrassed and dumbstruck I was when I went on a two-week vacation to France in August 2005, and because my in-laws' computer connection was very slow, I only checked my email a couple of times, nothing else. My in-laws didn't get a news paper (and I'm not sure I could have read much of it anyway). It wasn't until I came back to the US that I heard about Hurricane Katrina. How could I have not heard about this during my trip? I swore never to be so out of touch again. Its one of the (many) reasons I don't think I could ever be a Survivor contestant, don't think I could stand to be so unplugged for an extended amount of time again.
I'm sure some people like not knowing what's going on. "Ignorance is bliss" is the phrase. I don't agree. All ignorance does is allow other people to control things that affect your life, even if you don't realize it. Its amazing, for example, that one person controls so much that he got all or nearly all Republican office holders to sign a pledge never to raise taxes for any reason (although despite this pledge, some apparently distinguish between raising taxes on wealthy people - no no no - and the middle and lower classes - yes yes yes). Is that really the best thing for this country or just for a few thousand? But this is what comes from not knowing and allowing others to control this country.
One doesn't have to be smart or understanding everything that happens. I don't understand investment banking, although I've been trying to educate myself (and what I've read so far, just strikes me as incredible that people were so gullible - no actually it doesn't - and that our country has let so many people get away with almost outright fraud - except that its hard to prove because people are so gullible). But it doesn't take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in someone saying they pledged never to raise taxes for any reason, but its ok to "broaden the tax base so more people contribute (i.e. pay) taxes. Um, if that doesn't mean a raise of taxes on some people, i.e. those at the bottom of the base, which supposedly you pledged not to do, I don't know what does.
I may not agree with other people, but at least read a newspaper, or watch some news on your computer (thank you Steve) or TV (and make it more than just Fox news, please). At least know the names of the people who have a significant impact on your life.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Liars and Hypocrits
Watching my favorite show, TDS from Thursday night. I totally floved that $700 billion bit. Its been said that if Obama and The Dems got their way and eliminated the tax cuts on those that make over $250,000 a year, it would raise $700 billion dollars. The Republicans/Faux News keep saying that the amount wouldn't do anything to solve our debt crises and in fact take need money away from the so-called "job creators" that only seem to be able to create jobs in third world countries.
However, the Republicans are all fine with increasing taxes on the poor and middle class. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the bottom 50% of the country has a combined wealth of $1.4 Trillion, about the same amount as the combined wealth of the top 2%. If one takes half of that amount, its, oh lookie, $700 billion.
The republicants that are all 'no raising taxes' and can't let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because its a 'tax increase' but have absolutely no problem with refusing the extend the payroll tax holiday on the poor and middle classes (who are the only ones that pay it all in full) because "its fair to make them pay" and the country needs their money to reduce its debt.
It just amazes me that the faux news people can say with a straight face that $700 billion from millionaires is "eh, too little to consider", but when its from the poor and middle class, suddenly its a game changer and a save to the country.
And yet, those morons in the "heartland" continue to vote for these hypocrits and liars because of the social issues and the lie the republicans keep telling them that Obama wants to raise their taxes. I bet there isn't more than 20 people per "heartland" state that make more than $500,000, yet their all afraid that the bad black man will raise their taxes. Its such bullshit.
Come on Dems show them who is really lying out there. Quit bending over and kowtowing to these liars and hypocrits. Most of the media would probably like to be on your side, if you'd give them something to hold on to.
However, the Republicans are all fine with increasing taxes on the poor and middle class. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the bottom 50% of the country has a combined wealth of $1.4 Trillion, about the same amount as the combined wealth of the top 2%. If one takes half of that amount, its, oh lookie, $700 billion.
The republicants that are all 'no raising taxes' and can't let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because its a 'tax increase' but have absolutely no problem with refusing the extend the payroll tax holiday on the poor and middle classes (who are the only ones that pay it all in full) because "its fair to make them pay" and the country needs their money to reduce its debt.
It just amazes me that the faux news people can say with a straight face that $700 billion from millionaires is "eh, too little to consider", but when its from the poor and middle class, suddenly its a game changer and a save to the country.
And yet, those morons in the "heartland" continue to vote for these hypocrits and liars because of the social issues and the lie the republicans keep telling them that Obama wants to raise their taxes. I bet there isn't more than 20 people per "heartland" state that make more than $500,000, yet their all afraid that the bad black man will raise their taxes. Its such bullshit.
Come on Dems show them who is really lying out there. Quit bending over and kowtowing to these liars and hypocrits. Most of the media would probably like to be on your side, if you'd give them something to hold on to.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Maybe Raising Taxes is the Solution
I am just flabbergasted that PA's governor wants to slash 1 billion of education funding, but impose absolutely no taxes/fees on natural gas frakkers. I know that he claims that it will 'create more jobs' but frankly that's bull. Those companies will hire workers regardless of whether they have to pay taxes or fees. Its not like they can effectively harvest the natural gas in another state, its in PA, so why not get something for it?
I'm tired of hearing businesses complain that their taxes are too high (hello GE who got a 14million refund). I've never run a business, so maybe this is incorrect. But aren't the wages paid to workers tax deductible as a business expense? Has anyone thought that perhaps if businesses paid their employees more, perhaps give them the same percentage of raises and bonuses given to executives, that their tax burden would be less? Then any tax hikes on those businesses won't actually affect them (much).
Maybe the reason maybe why businesses started complaining so much about what they paid in taxes is because they stopped increasing their workers' pay in the 70s and thus had less tax deductions and more 'profit' that was being taxes. Go back to increasing worker pay to meaningful levels and lower your tax burden.
Plus, those employees who now make more money can spend that money and increase their "consuming." That will then create even more jobs, which will make businesses grow and hopefully earn more money for everyone. More profits for the execs, more employees getting better wages, able to spend more, requiring businesses to hire even more workers. More people can afford to buy homes again and will want to, because their employer needs them to stick around and pays them well.
Win win for everyone. Yeah, maybe those execs/stockholders won't be super super super rich, maybe they have to just settle for super super rich. Is that so bad?
I'm tired of hearing businesses complain that their taxes are too high (hello GE who got a 14million refund). I've never run a business, so maybe this is incorrect. But aren't the wages paid to workers tax deductible as a business expense? Has anyone thought that perhaps if businesses paid their employees more, perhaps give them the same percentage of raises and bonuses given to executives, that their tax burden would be less? Then any tax hikes on those businesses won't actually affect them (much).
Maybe the reason maybe why businesses started complaining so much about what they paid in taxes is because they stopped increasing their workers' pay in the 70s and thus had less tax deductions and more 'profit' that was being taxes. Go back to increasing worker pay to meaningful levels and lower your tax burden.
Plus, those employees who now make more money can spend that money and increase their "consuming." That will then create even more jobs, which will make businesses grow and hopefully earn more money for everyone. More profits for the execs, more employees getting better wages, able to spend more, requiring businesses to hire even more workers. More people can afford to buy homes again and will want to, because their employer needs them to stick around and pays them well.
Win win for everyone. Yeah, maybe those execs/stockholders won't be super super super rich, maybe they have to just settle for super super rich. Is that so bad?
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Another One, Seriously?
While I believe that politicians' sex lives shouldn't be important and as big a deal as our media makes it out to be, the fact is, our media does, and our public does. Otherwise, tabloid papers and paparazzi would be out of business.
So, knowing that it is a huge deal that is totally blown out of proportion, and knowing that anything once put on the internet is forever on the internet, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN? I mean seriously, is it that hard to keep one's sex life private and off the computer? Is it that hard to stay faithful, or have an agreement with one's wife? Did you even try to talk with your wife about your issues?
These men have to know that every moment of their life has the potential to be scrutinized and publicized. If they don't want to be public figures, then stay out of politics. You can't have it both ways - obviously. They obviously know what they are doing won't be viewed in a good light, that's why they lie about it, which of course, makes it worse. And naturally, those lies will be exposed. You think that makes people view you better? Now you've exposed yourself in some way and you lied about it, in public. Way to go.
If you want to have your sex and politics, move to France or Italy. Otherwise, buck up, live within this society's prudish morals for politicians, and keep it off the internet.
So, knowing that it is a huge deal that is totally blown out of proportion, and knowing that anything once put on the internet is forever on the internet, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN? I mean seriously, is it that hard to keep one's sex life private and off the computer? Is it that hard to stay faithful, or have an agreement with one's wife? Did you even try to talk with your wife about your issues?
These men have to know that every moment of their life has the potential to be scrutinized and publicized. If they don't want to be public figures, then stay out of politics. You can't have it both ways - obviously. They obviously know what they are doing won't be viewed in a good light, that's why they lie about it, which of course, makes it worse. And naturally, those lies will be exposed. You think that makes people view you better? Now you've exposed yourself in some way and you lied about it, in public. Way to go.
If you want to have your sex and politics, move to France or Italy. Otherwise, buck up, live within this society's prudish morals for politicians, and keep it off the internet.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Another Rare Rave
Today, I'm raving about a recent travel experience I had. Of course, it didn't start out that way. I had to fly to Germany for some depositions. Knowing how much travel sucks, especially with luggage, delayed flights, etc., I decided to travel a day earlier than I really needed. I wanted to give myself plenty of time to arrive, prepare for the depositions and get enough rest/overcome jet lag. So I flew out on a Saturday evening and arrived Sunday afternoon in Germany. I arranged to meet the local Germany attorney we had retained on Monday afternoon and Tuesday was the depositions.
Well, good thing I was prepared. Because this trip was several days, I opted to check my luggage. Besides clothes, I also packed a large amount of documents that I planned to review for the depositions, which were a bit too heavy to easily carry, especially since I had to take two planes (couldn't fly direct). I carried on the plane my purse and laptop.
Naturally, as I swear has happened the last four times either my or my husband's family have flown in or out of Europe, the luggage didn't complete the trip. Despite a four hour layover in Zurich, somehow my small suitcase didn't get transferred from US Airways/Lufthansa to Swiss Air. I filed the claim with Lufthansa immediately and they gave me an overnight package of toiletries (toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, lotion). It worked for Sunday night, but I was hard pressed to put my now two-day worn clothes back on again Monday. Plus I had the meeting that afternoon.
Swiss Air/Lufthansa still hadn't found my bag by Monday morning and certainly made it sound like it was lost. Fortunately, almost all the documents I brought were scanned on my work's computer system, so I could access them on the laptop. But I still needed new clothes. Lufthansa said I'd be reimbursed 50% of my purchases, so out I went shopping.
Given that it was very possible I wouldn't have my luggage at all, I bought 2 days worth of clothes. That got me through my meeting Monday afternoon. Happily, my suitcase was finally found and returned to me Monday night, so I could wear my packed clothes for the depositions the next day.
As there was the possibility of further meetings on Wednesday, I didn't schedule my return trip until Thursday. That provided me with the time on Wed to return half the clothes I bought, as the meetings didn't happen (although I was able to do some other work on the laptop in my hotel room). I wasn't sure I would be reimbursed for 2 days of clothes, when my suitcase was delivered only 1 day late. I might have kept the extra clothes, but they were a bit expensive, especially with the exchange rate and I really didn't need them.
When I arrived back home, I again followed up with Lufthansa about reimbursement for the clothes I did keep (and couldn't return - well, I suppose I could have hidden the tags, but I did like the outfit a lot). Lufthansa referred me over to Swiss Air, which responded very quickly. Swiss Air confirmed that they would reimburse my purchases up to 50%, with a certain capped amount they didn't disclose. I provided them with my receipts, nearly 300 euros for shoes, skirt, blouse, jacket, hose, underwear, toiletries, which cost me $438. I wasn't sure whether I spent too much, or if they'd take issue with the extra toiletries, claiming I didn't really "need" them or that my buying them wasn't due to the lost luggage (some perfume, scented soap/lotion, tampons - yes I have wonderful timing with my traveling).
To my surprise, Swiss Air quickly acknowledged everything, and sent me a check for $267.50 (which was an exchange rate of $1.83 compared to the $1.45 +3% my credit card charged). No questions about my purchases, no issue with spending too much, just thanks for the receipts, here's your money. Less than a month from my trip, I got reimbursed for more than 50% of my purchase, effectively giving me a nice new outfit for $170.50.
So despite losing my luggage, Swiss Air/Lufthansa get a rave for their quick and very easy reimbursement me for new clothes.
Well, good thing I was prepared. Because this trip was several days, I opted to check my luggage. Besides clothes, I also packed a large amount of documents that I planned to review for the depositions, which were a bit too heavy to easily carry, especially since I had to take two planes (couldn't fly direct). I carried on the plane my purse and laptop.
Naturally, as I swear has happened the last four times either my or my husband's family have flown in or out of Europe, the luggage didn't complete the trip. Despite a four hour layover in Zurich, somehow my small suitcase didn't get transferred from US Airways/Lufthansa to Swiss Air. I filed the claim with Lufthansa immediately and they gave me an overnight package of toiletries (toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, lotion). It worked for Sunday night, but I was hard pressed to put my now two-day worn clothes back on again Monday. Plus I had the meeting that afternoon.
Swiss Air/Lufthansa still hadn't found my bag by Monday morning and certainly made it sound like it was lost. Fortunately, almost all the documents I brought were scanned on my work's computer system, so I could access them on the laptop. But I still needed new clothes. Lufthansa said I'd be reimbursed 50% of my purchases, so out I went shopping.
Given that it was very possible I wouldn't have my luggage at all, I bought 2 days worth of clothes. That got me through my meeting Monday afternoon. Happily, my suitcase was finally found and returned to me Monday night, so I could wear my packed clothes for the depositions the next day.
As there was the possibility of further meetings on Wednesday, I didn't schedule my return trip until Thursday. That provided me with the time on Wed to return half the clothes I bought, as the meetings didn't happen (although I was able to do some other work on the laptop in my hotel room). I wasn't sure I would be reimbursed for 2 days of clothes, when my suitcase was delivered only 1 day late. I might have kept the extra clothes, but they were a bit expensive, especially with the exchange rate and I really didn't need them.
When I arrived back home, I again followed up with Lufthansa about reimbursement for the clothes I did keep (and couldn't return - well, I suppose I could have hidden the tags, but I did like the outfit a lot). Lufthansa referred me over to Swiss Air, which responded very quickly. Swiss Air confirmed that they would reimburse my purchases up to 50%, with a certain capped amount they didn't disclose. I provided them with my receipts, nearly 300 euros for shoes, skirt, blouse, jacket, hose, underwear, toiletries, which cost me $438. I wasn't sure whether I spent too much, or if they'd take issue with the extra toiletries, claiming I didn't really "need" them or that my buying them wasn't due to the lost luggage (some perfume, scented soap/lotion, tampons - yes I have wonderful timing with my traveling).
To my surprise, Swiss Air quickly acknowledged everything, and sent me a check for $267.50 (which was an exchange rate of $1.83 compared to the $1.45 +3% my credit card charged). No questions about my purchases, no issue with spending too much, just thanks for the receipts, here's your money. Less than a month from my trip, I got reimbursed for more than 50% of my purchase, effectively giving me a nice new outfit for $170.50.
So despite losing my luggage, Swiss Air/Lufthansa get a rave for their quick and very easy reimbursement me for new clothes.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Work Bits
Yay for more work rants.
Update from the prior post about subpoenas. I just found out that said sec'y who didn't know how to fill in said subpoena with a person's name or an accident date, failed to have said subpoena actually signed and stamped by the Court before she sent it out to the hospital and police dept. for the records. Now you might (and I mean MIGHT) get away with that with a small doctor's office, and that's even up for speculation considering HIPPA laws these days and doctors' general awareness of said laws. But no way is a hospital or a police dept. going to respond to a subpoena that's not signed and stamped. I mean really. I just can't believe this sec'y didn't know the basics. We had to redo the subpoena, get it signed/stamped, and re-served.
But then again, I asked her today if she sent out a document we just received yesterday for an estimate on its translation from German, and she honestly did not recall getting it (forwarded by my sec'y as I was out) and forwarding it onto the translator. Its like total swiss cheese in there. She honestly can't recall what she did the day before. I feel like I'm dealing with Momento. Its a good thing email can document these things.
Not that my own sec'y is any better sometimes. I specifically asked her to look through the file to find a witness phone number my boss wanted me to contact for a trial appearance (we represented non-party plaintiff employer on plaintiff's third party injury claim). I suggested starting with his depo transcript, and if it wasn't there to check discovery, attorney notes, correspondence. It wasn't in the depo. She asked Swiss cheese sec'y, who said she saw it in the attorney notes file (I can't believe she remembered that). However, the attorney notes file was missing (possibly accidently taken by my boss on his business trip - he forgot to take it out of his briefcase). Did she look elsewhere? No. Oh she said she did, but she clearly didn't because when I looked through the correspondence folder later, I found it. Of course, it would have been nice if someone had maybe typed up a list of the witnesses with their address and phone on a computer document. I do that because I if I lose the paper, I can look it up easily. But no one else thought to do this.
About the only thing that makes my sec'y better is that I know she doesn't know things. I know she doesn't know what an "affirmative defense" or a "new matter" or a "cross-claim" is. That's why I have to refer her to a specific document #1, cut and paste paragraphs 10 to 19, then go to specific document #2, cut and paste paragraphs 25-30, then specific document #3, etc. and I do it in order. She can at least follow those orders.
My boss assumes his sec'y knows what all those things are, so he just says "do standard affirmative defenses/new matter claims and std cross-claim for indemnity" and she has no idea what that is and of course, comes and asks me because she doesn't want to ask the boss. I do the work, and I bill for it. If my boss asks me why I billed for something (which he rarely, if ever does), I'll explain.
I suppose I could tell him about things as they are, but I'm not entirely sure it'll do all that much good. Besides, it helps me get to know the cases ahead of time, so I'm not caught too off guard when he asks me a question about the case (that he hasn't previously told me about).
I have to remember to keep these work rants very general, not be specific about any names, cases, etc. Was at an employment law seminar for two days and was reminded about confidentiality challenges in the electronic age, and the importance of googling oneself now and again. That's rather an interesting thing to do, its amazing what info gets out on the web. Like, how in the world did my name get attached as a "debt settlement attorney"? I have no idea, I've never done that sort of work. I also had to contact a few places that listed by work address as an attorney with my home address. Asked to have the address changed. I don't mind people having my work info, but not to publicize my home address.
I'm pleased that my facebook profile shows almost nothing for the public. I will always keep it that way, no one gets to be my "friend" unless I really know who they are. I've declined invites from people who said they knew me in high school or even elementary school and I didn't recall them. I've made some MMORPG people "friends," some that I've never met IRL too, which is about the farthest I'll go.
Of course, pretty much everything has the potential to be exposed with a subpoena.
Update from the prior post about subpoenas. I just found out that said sec'y who didn't know how to fill in said subpoena with a person's name or an accident date, failed to have said subpoena actually signed and stamped by the Court before she sent it out to the hospital and police dept. for the records. Now you might (and I mean MIGHT) get away with that with a small doctor's office, and that's even up for speculation considering HIPPA laws these days and doctors' general awareness of said laws. But no way is a hospital or a police dept. going to respond to a subpoena that's not signed and stamped. I mean really. I just can't believe this sec'y didn't know the basics. We had to redo the subpoena, get it signed/stamped, and re-served.
But then again, I asked her today if she sent out a document we just received yesterday for an estimate on its translation from German, and she honestly did not recall getting it (forwarded by my sec'y as I was out) and forwarding it onto the translator. Its like total swiss cheese in there. She honestly can't recall what she did the day before. I feel like I'm dealing with Momento. Its a good thing email can document these things.
Not that my own sec'y is any better sometimes. I specifically asked her to look through the file to find a witness phone number my boss wanted me to contact for a trial appearance (we represented non-party plaintiff employer on plaintiff's third party injury claim). I suggested starting with his depo transcript, and if it wasn't there to check discovery, attorney notes, correspondence. It wasn't in the depo. She asked Swiss cheese sec'y, who said she saw it in the attorney notes file (I can't believe she remembered that). However, the attorney notes file was missing (possibly accidently taken by my boss on his business trip - he forgot to take it out of his briefcase). Did she look elsewhere? No. Oh she said she did, but she clearly didn't because when I looked through the correspondence folder later, I found it. Of course, it would have been nice if someone had maybe typed up a list of the witnesses with their address and phone on a computer document. I do that because I if I lose the paper, I can look it up easily. But no one else thought to do this.
About the only thing that makes my sec'y better is that I know she doesn't know things. I know she doesn't know what an "affirmative defense" or a "new matter" or a "cross-claim" is. That's why I have to refer her to a specific document #1, cut and paste paragraphs 10 to 19, then go to specific document #2, cut and paste paragraphs 25-30, then specific document #3, etc. and I do it in order. She can at least follow those orders.
My boss assumes his sec'y knows what all those things are, so he just says "do standard affirmative defenses/new matter claims and std cross-claim for indemnity" and she has no idea what that is and of course, comes and asks me because she doesn't want to ask the boss. I do the work, and I bill for it. If my boss asks me why I billed for something (which he rarely, if ever does), I'll explain.
I suppose I could tell him about things as they are, but I'm not entirely sure it'll do all that much good. Besides, it helps me get to know the cases ahead of time, so I'm not caught too off guard when he asks me a question about the case (that he hasn't previously told me about).
I have to remember to keep these work rants very general, not be specific about any names, cases, etc. Was at an employment law seminar for two days and was reminded about confidentiality challenges in the electronic age, and the importance of googling oneself now and again. That's rather an interesting thing to do, its amazing what info gets out on the web. Like, how in the world did my name get attached as a "debt settlement attorney"? I have no idea, I've never done that sort of work. I also had to contact a few places that listed by work address as an attorney with my home address. Asked to have the address changed. I don't mind people having my work info, but not to publicize my home address.
I'm pleased that my facebook profile shows almost nothing for the public. I will always keep it that way, no one gets to be my "friend" unless I really know who they are. I've declined invites from people who said they knew me in high school or even elementary school and I didn't recall them. I've made some MMORPG people "friends," some that I've never met IRL too, which is about the farthest I'll go.
Of course, pretty much everything has the potential to be exposed with a subpoena.
Monday, April 4, 2011
I'm Doing Two Jobs
Double post today, but this is annoying me.
I have a full time job. Actually more than full time. However, most days, I feel like its really two jobs. It may be close to three. Apparently, I have to seriously calendar and double check every thing at work that I give to my boss (or his secretary). I can't rely on my boss' secretary to have anything calendared for when stuff has to be filed with the court, or provided to the client, or otherwise followed up on. I have to double check that when I give something to my boss for him to review, a court filing, a letter to the client, that the document has subsequently been signed, filed with the court, mailed, etc. I have to double check everything that is created by my boss for filing, service, etc. because his secretary will not do anything extra.
The last couple of weeks were just amazing. We have a settlement conference in a case coming up. My computer reminds me two weeks before that I have to do the statement and have it filed with the court a week before the conference. I do the statement, give to my boss. The last day for filing, my reminder comes up (should have been the day before, next time). I never got the statement back from my boss (which he'd do if a change was needed), so I ask my boss' secretary if she filed it with the court. She looks on the computer to see if it was electronically filed (our local court does that for 90% of documents). I have to remind her that it won't show up on the computer because the settlement conference statement is hand filed, not electronically filed. She should know this.
However, she also doesn't find a cover letter of service to the other parties. I look in her redwell of documents for filing in our office files. Sure enough, there's the Settlement conference statement, signed by my boss, just sitting there ready to be put in the case folder. Not filed with the court (no stamp). Not served (no cover letter or proof of service). Fortunately, the courthouse is across the street, so we can get it filed and served on the last day.
How does she just put something in her filing folder without looking at it? Without knowing it has to be filed with the court? She supposedly has experience, but seriously she has to be told every little thing.
When we got a copy of the filed statement back, I double check the client correspondence file. My boss' last letter to the client, dated a month previously, said we'd let him know about the settlement conference when it was scheduled. No letter since then. With the conference a week away, I draft a letter to the client, enclosing the statement and asking him to call us before the conference to discuss our position. I print and give to my boss.
Now, three days before the conference, I find out that more than likely, the letter never got emailed. Oh, the letter is in the client correspondence folder, but its not signed, there's no email attaching it, and the settlement conference statement never got scanned in to be an attachment. Again, a document gets put in the file, by my boss' secretary, without actually having anything done with it. She can't recall a day or two later that a letter she's filing never got sent?
My bosses secretary also needed me to sign some cover letters today to serve subpoenas (because my boss is out). Good thing I had to, since I do read "routine" letters before I sign them. She hands me four subpoenas for records we need to get, one for accident/investigation records, two for medical records, one for employment records. The subpoenas simply say that, "Investigation records for accident." "Medical records and documents." "Employment records and documents." Nothing about um, like WHOSE records we're requesting. Nothing about um, like WHAT accident (date, location, something). I'm sure the hospital going to say, "Oh nice, a subpoena for somebody's medical records, that narrows it down." The Police Dept. says, "an accident report? How about a date maybe?"
I just can't believe this secretary was going to let those subpoenas be served. She says, I just type what he (my boss) tells me to. I want to say, don't you think he assumed you fill in whatever info is necessary, like a name, date, etc.? Haven't you ever done a subpoena before, since you're supposed to have been a legal secretary for 15 years? Don't you even read what you've typed from the point of view of the person receiving it? Did you really think the hospital records clerk is going to have ESP to know to which of the thousands of patients your subpoena referred? While most of the time, yes we're subpoenaing the plaintiff's records, in this case, we were also subpoenaing a co-defendant's records. The Hospital isn't going to know that. You really want to tell the boss you didn't know to put a name on the subpoena, or who he was referring to and then didn't ask him, when he inevitably gets the letter from the hospital saying "We have no idea what you want, the subpoena doesn't say what patient"?
The second excuse, that my boss probably looked at them when he signed the Notice of Intent (which has to be served on opposing parties 20 days before you serve the subpoenas, so they can object) and he didn't have any problems and opposing counsel didn't object, is also without merit. She knows my boss doesn't review what he considers to be 'routine' items. I doubt he even looked at them, he just signed the Notice of Intent and cover letter, and probably didn't read those either (the subpoenaes are signed/stamped by the court clerk, not the attorney).
My boss barely looks at discovery we serve. He had one set of "standard/form interrogatories" that had about 10 questions that needed to be slightly changed each time for the particular case facts (change names, dates, address, etc.). His prior secretary always made those changes, so he never bothered looking at them, he just signed the last page. The new secretary didn't make those changes (even after I pointed it out to her), so we started getting a bunch of "not applicable" or "I don't know what you mean" answers to those questions. We had one plaintiff threaten to file a motion with the court because our questions implied she had other problems with her house that she wasn't aware of, but that was only because the questions were from a different case. I finally had to take my own time to redraft "standard interrogatories" for each type of case and court system (state and federal) so that they didn't require any changes for the different cases because it became obvious that my boss' secretary was never going to individualize the rogs for each case.
Finally, of course, opposing counsel isn't going to object to vague subpoenas that aren't going to produce anything. Its not his problem if we don't get his client's medical records. He'd probably prefer we didn't, or at least that we cost the client more money so the defendant will want to settle.
This mindless, 'I just following the literal instructions,' is annoying as hell. Its not that difficult to think a little bit. Read what you type. Does it make sense? If not, figure out what will make it make sense.
I have the same complaint about my own secretary. She just types what she thinks she hears/reads, and doesn't bother to determine whether the sentence makes any sense. This is why most of the time, I do my own typing. I can type what I want to say in half the time it takes me to dictate, proof-read, make corrections, proof-read my corrections, make more corrections, proof-read those corrections, etc. Its bad enough that I have to do my time-sheets twice. Write them once (sometimes twice if I scribble), then review them again after my secretary types them into the time program, usually requiring multiple fixes.
Secretaries are supposed to help us do our jobs. They are supposed to be a back up for dates, names, etc. It does not help me, and in fact makes my job twice as hard, if I have to track down and follow up on every thing I give my boss, or that my boss does to make sure its been done right, or even done at all.
I better get a good raise next review time.
I have a full time job. Actually more than full time. However, most days, I feel like its really two jobs. It may be close to three. Apparently, I have to seriously calendar and double check every thing at work that I give to my boss (or his secretary). I can't rely on my boss' secretary to have anything calendared for when stuff has to be filed with the court, or provided to the client, or otherwise followed up on. I have to double check that when I give something to my boss for him to review, a court filing, a letter to the client, that the document has subsequently been signed, filed with the court, mailed, etc. I have to double check everything that is created by my boss for filing, service, etc. because his secretary will not do anything extra.
The last couple of weeks were just amazing. We have a settlement conference in a case coming up. My computer reminds me two weeks before that I have to do the statement and have it filed with the court a week before the conference. I do the statement, give to my boss. The last day for filing, my reminder comes up (should have been the day before, next time). I never got the statement back from my boss (which he'd do if a change was needed), so I ask my boss' secretary if she filed it with the court. She looks on the computer to see if it was electronically filed (our local court does that for 90% of documents). I have to remind her that it won't show up on the computer because the settlement conference statement is hand filed, not electronically filed. She should know this.
However, she also doesn't find a cover letter of service to the other parties. I look in her redwell of documents for filing in our office files. Sure enough, there's the Settlement conference statement, signed by my boss, just sitting there ready to be put in the case folder. Not filed with the court (no stamp). Not served (no cover letter or proof of service). Fortunately, the courthouse is across the street, so we can get it filed and served on the last day.
How does she just put something in her filing folder without looking at it? Without knowing it has to be filed with the court? She supposedly has experience, but seriously she has to be told every little thing.
When we got a copy of the filed statement back, I double check the client correspondence file. My boss' last letter to the client, dated a month previously, said we'd let him know about the settlement conference when it was scheduled. No letter since then. With the conference a week away, I draft a letter to the client, enclosing the statement and asking him to call us before the conference to discuss our position. I print and give to my boss.
Now, three days before the conference, I find out that more than likely, the letter never got emailed. Oh, the letter is in the client correspondence folder, but its not signed, there's no email attaching it, and the settlement conference statement never got scanned in to be an attachment. Again, a document gets put in the file, by my boss' secretary, without actually having anything done with it. She can't recall a day or two later that a letter she's filing never got sent?
My bosses secretary also needed me to sign some cover letters today to serve subpoenas (because my boss is out). Good thing I had to, since I do read "routine" letters before I sign them. She hands me four subpoenas for records we need to get, one for accident/investigation records, two for medical records, one for employment records. The subpoenas simply say that, "Investigation records for accident." "Medical records and documents." "Employment records and documents." Nothing about um, like WHOSE records we're requesting. Nothing about um, like WHAT accident (date, location, something). I'm sure the hospital going to say, "Oh nice, a subpoena for somebody's medical records, that narrows it down." The Police Dept. says, "an accident report? How about a date maybe?"
I just can't believe this secretary was going to let those subpoenas be served. She says, I just type what he (my boss) tells me to. I want to say, don't you think he assumed you fill in whatever info is necessary, like a name, date, etc.? Haven't you ever done a subpoena before, since you're supposed to have been a legal secretary for 15 years? Don't you even read what you've typed from the point of view of the person receiving it? Did you really think the hospital records clerk is going to have ESP to know to which of the thousands of patients your subpoena referred? While most of the time, yes we're subpoenaing the plaintiff's records, in this case, we were also subpoenaing a co-defendant's records. The Hospital isn't going to know that. You really want to tell the boss you didn't know to put a name on the subpoena, or who he was referring to and then didn't ask him, when he inevitably gets the letter from the hospital saying "We have no idea what you want, the subpoena doesn't say what patient"?
The second excuse, that my boss probably looked at them when he signed the Notice of Intent (which has to be served on opposing parties 20 days before you serve the subpoenas, so they can object) and he didn't have any problems and opposing counsel didn't object, is also without merit. She knows my boss doesn't review what he considers to be 'routine' items. I doubt he even looked at them, he just signed the Notice of Intent and cover letter, and probably didn't read those either (the subpoenaes are signed/stamped by the court clerk, not the attorney).
My boss barely looks at discovery we serve. He had one set of "standard/form interrogatories" that had about 10 questions that needed to be slightly changed each time for the particular case facts (change names, dates, address, etc.). His prior secretary always made those changes, so he never bothered looking at them, he just signed the last page. The new secretary didn't make those changes (even after I pointed it out to her), so we started getting a bunch of "not applicable" or "I don't know what you mean" answers to those questions. We had one plaintiff threaten to file a motion with the court because our questions implied she had other problems with her house that she wasn't aware of, but that was only because the questions were from a different case. I finally had to take my own time to redraft "standard interrogatories" for each type of case and court system (state and federal) so that they didn't require any changes for the different cases because it became obvious that my boss' secretary was never going to individualize the rogs for each case.
Finally, of course, opposing counsel isn't going to object to vague subpoenas that aren't going to produce anything. Its not his problem if we don't get his client's medical records. He'd probably prefer we didn't, or at least that we cost the client more money so the defendant will want to settle.
This mindless, 'I just following the literal instructions,' is annoying as hell. Its not that difficult to think a little bit. Read what you type. Does it make sense? If not, figure out what will make it make sense.
I have the same complaint about my own secretary. She just types what she thinks she hears/reads, and doesn't bother to determine whether the sentence makes any sense. This is why most of the time, I do my own typing. I can type what I want to say in half the time it takes me to dictate, proof-read, make corrections, proof-read my corrections, make more corrections, proof-read those corrections, etc. Its bad enough that I have to do my time-sheets twice. Write them once (sometimes twice if I scribble), then review them again after my secretary types them into the time program, usually requiring multiple fixes.
Secretaries are supposed to help us do our jobs. They are supposed to be a back up for dates, names, etc. It does not help me, and in fact makes my job twice as hard, if I have to track down and follow up on every thing I give my boss, or that my boss does to make sure its been done right, or even done at all.
I better get a good raise next review time.
Government Jobs and Vacation
I was watching Bill Maher's show on Saturday (recorded from Friday night). I don't always agree with him, particularly on extreme anti-religious views. Some yeah, I can agree with, like how so many people just take on face value what a priest, or pastor or other church leader tells them is "God's word" or what God wants them to do, without doing any investigation on their own, without asking any questions, just being told "you must believe it" and they do. In this day and age, when there are so many resources available to people, you have question, you have to investigate, and yes, you may then have to just follow your heart, but you just can't blindly believe.
But besides that, I tend to agree with a lot of Maher's politics (again, not all, he's a bit too liberal on drugs, for example), but I have no qualms agreeing with his socialism. Maher had an excellent panelist, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He was so articulate and clear about the health care law and education (we're cutting funding for millions of kids, but the Republicans are saying "but wait, we're helping 1700 kids in DC, yay us").
Another point brought up is how the corporations pay little, if anything, in taxes, yet they complain about raising corporate tax rates. Of course GE might be upset if the tax rate got raised from 35% to 39%. GE might actually have to pay taxes instead of getting a 3.2 billion refund/rebate on its 14 million in profits. In addition to the huge sums that corporations don't have to pay in taxes, these corporations cut jobs, freeze wages, cut/freeze or just never provide benefits, like sick and vacation time.
Then the corporations get its employees all worked up against public employees who do get sick and vacation time. Thus, instead of being mad at their bosses, the CEOs, the management, for only getting 2 weeks vacation, if that, the private sector workers get mad at the public sector employees who do get sick time and 5 weeks vacation. Its like having 20 cookies to share amongst a CEO, a Teabagger, and a union worker. The CEO takes 19 cookies, then tells the Teabagger to watch out for that greedy union worker stealing the last cookie. And the Teabagger falls for it.
Why isn't the Tea Party riled up against corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes? Heck, so many billion dollar corporations don't pay any taxes and yet the Tea Party is worried about people making less than $50,000 a year not paying enough taxes, having health care and getting too much vacation? Are you kidding me? Seriously, if you want that 5 weeks of vacation so much, why don't you rise up against the CEOs of these corporations rather than trying to take it away from other workers?
Already today, workers in America work far more than any other industrialized nation in the world. We work the longest hours and get the fewest number of paid vacation days. No, providing more paid vacation days would not necessarily have to lead to higher prices on goods and services. GE could well afford to have slightly less profits, or at least a lower tax refund.
And don't tell me that one just has to negotiate for better benefits. Even in the "boom times" I didn't know anyone who got more than 3 weeks vacation. One worker cannot adequately negotiate with a business/corporation, that's why there are unions, that at least bring collectively bargaining, the strength of thousands, to have some possibility of equal bargaining power with a corporation. Many places have never had unions, and realistically, the vast majority of employees can't dictate their salary and benefits. Most of us, are extremely fungible. Maybe you can get a little more, IF you have some special/rare skill, IF you are highly desired by the company and IF you have multiple offers for your services. But really, how often does that happen? Even the lowest fast-food employee in France gets 5 weeks vacation, I never got paid vacation when I worked at Burger King, you really think I could have negotiated for that?
I might be more sympathetic to corporations if they maybe used their profits and lower taxes for better work benefits or even jobs here in America. While current reports show that many corporations are making new jobs, those jobs are in China, India, Indonesia, where they can pay workers $1 a day. Come on, we're not even talking about minimum US wages, let alone union wages that are reportedly so outrageous. Do we really want to force US workers to live on a $1 day? Do we really want that standard of living?
I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the Tea Party if they weren't complete and utter tools of the Republican (Corporation) party. All they talk about is cutting spending to reduce the deficit. How about raising taxes on those billion dollar corporations and millionaires? How about raising more money to lower the deficit. Why take it out on kids, the poor, the sick, rather than those that can truly afford it. Don't blame unions or government workers who only want to eat 1 cookie, blame it on the 19cookie hoarding corporations.
But besides that, I tend to agree with a lot of Maher's politics (again, not all, he's a bit too liberal on drugs, for example), but I have no qualms agreeing with his socialism. Maher had an excellent panelist, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He was so articulate and clear about the health care law and education (we're cutting funding for millions of kids, but the Republicans are saying "but wait, we're helping 1700 kids in DC, yay us").
Another point brought up is how the corporations pay little, if anything, in taxes, yet they complain about raising corporate tax rates. Of course GE might be upset if the tax rate got raised from 35% to 39%. GE might actually have to pay taxes instead of getting a 3.2 billion refund/rebate on its 14 million in profits. In addition to the huge sums that corporations don't have to pay in taxes, these corporations cut jobs, freeze wages, cut/freeze or just never provide benefits, like sick and vacation time.
Then the corporations get its employees all worked up against public employees who do get sick and vacation time. Thus, instead of being mad at their bosses, the CEOs, the management, for only getting 2 weeks vacation, if that, the private sector workers get mad at the public sector employees who do get sick time and 5 weeks vacation. Its like having 20 cookies to share amongst a CEO, a Teabagger, and a union worker. The CEO takes 19 cookies, then tells the Teabagger to watch out for that greedy union worker stealing the last cookie. And the Teabagger falls for it.
Why isn't the Tea Party riled up against corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes? Heck, so many billion dollar corporations don't pay any taxes and yet the Tea Party is worried about people making less than $50,000 a year not paying enough taxes, having health care and getting too much vacation? Are you kidding me? Seriously, if you want that 5 weeks of vacation so much, why don't you rise up against the CEOs of these corporations rather than trying to take it away from other workers?
Already today, workers in America work far more than any other industrialized nation in the world. We work the longest hours and get the fewest number of paid vacation days. No, providing more paid vacation days would not necessarily have to lead to higher prices on goods and services. GE could well afford to have slightly less profits, or at least a lower tax refund.
And don't tell me that one just has to negotiate for better benefits. Even in the "boom times" I didn't know anyone who got more than 3 weeks vacation. One worker cannot adequately negotiate with a business/corporation, that's why there are unions, that at least bring collectively bargaining, the strength of thousands, to have some possibility of equal bargaining power with a corporation. Many places have never had unions, and realistically, the vast majority of employees can't dictate their salary and benefits. Most of us, are extremely fungible. Maybe you can get a little more, IF you have some special/rare skill, IF you are highly desired by the company and IF you have multiple offers for your services. But really, how often does that happen? Even the lowest fast-food employee in France gets 5 weeks vacation, I never got paid vacation when I worked at Burger King, you really think I could have negotiated for that?
I might be more sympathetic to corporations if they maybe used their profits and lower taxes for better work benefits or even jobs here in America. While current reports show that many corporations are making new jobs, those jobs are in China, India, Indonesia, where they can pay workers $1 a day. Come on, we're not even talking about minimum US wages, let alone union wages that are reportedly so outrageous. Do we really want to force US workers to live on a $1 day? Do we really want that standard of living?
I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the Tea Party if they weren't complete and utter tools of the Republican (Corporation) party. All they talk about is cutting spending to reduce the deficit. How about raising taxes on those billion dollar corporations and millionaires? How about raising more money to lower the deficit. Why take it out on kids, the poor, the sick, rather than those that can truly afford it. Don't blame unions or government workers who only want to eat 1 cookie, blame it on the 19cookie hoarding corporations.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Rich Teachers and 93 Sentras
So put me in the camp in support of the union supporters in Wisconsin. I find it absolutely incredible that people that want to keep the top 2% of American's income, i.e. those that make over $250,000, at a lower tax rate, they get to keep a whole $5,000 or so a year (yes, more for those that make $1,000,000 - oooo, I bet they really feel the pain), and instead are trying to take away the wages and benefits of people that make $50,000 a year. Yes, these teachers that make a fifth, or even less of the richest people in America, those are the people that are the "blame" for our country's budget woes. As Stephen Colbert states, damn those rich teachers and their 93 Sentras. Totally makes sense to go after people driving almost 20 year old cars instead of those that, you know, own several 2011 Rolls Royces, or Bently's, or Mercedes, or Porches.
Now the unions in Wisconsin are willing to compromise. They are willing to accept less in wages and less in benefits. They understand that everyone needs to contribute in these hard economic times to help balance budgets. But what they are not willing to accept is their absolute destruction, the complete inability to later bargain and negotiate to get those benefits and wages back when economic conditions improve. These people will sacrifice some money now, but want the right to get it back later. Compare this to bankers, who didn't even have to sacrifice their money, not one single penny of it, now. The bankers got bailed out in the billions. They got their six figure bonuses. Did you get a bonus for Christmas this year? Or last year? Did you get a raise? Bankers did, teachers did not. Teachers are giving up their ability to trade in their 18 year old car for a 10 year old car, whereas bankers are trading in their 2010 RRs for the new 2011 model. Cry me a friggin river you top 2%.
Oh, but those teachers get 3 months vacation and only work till 3pm. Well, let me say Bullshit! My mother was a teacher. She worked well past 3pm. At home, she was always grading papers, getting lesson plans together, making bulletin board displays. She worked summer schools often. I remember seeing many of my teachers working in grocery stores over the summer because they just couldn't last 3 months without a paycheck. That's right, its not like these teachers get 3 months "paid vacation." They get 3 months without a paycheck. You try living 3 months without a paycheck.
QUIT BALANCING OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF TEACHERS AND KIDS! We have to pay teachers well to encourage more to enter the field. I've constantly heard the excuse by big companies. Oh, we have to pay our CEOs these millions of dollars to encourage them to stay/come to our company. That's what "big lawfirms" say to excuse their $160,000 paychecks to top law students. Why not use that same excuse to attract more teachers to the profession?
Maybe, just maybe, if more teachers entered the profession and could make living wages, our kids would be better educated. I've heard arguments that teachers are so secure in their jobs, so they don't try. How about, our teachers are so overwhelmed with 35+ student classes, having to find ways to get school supplies, even paying for them out of their own pocket (there's a special tax write off for that too, you think that would be necessary if teachers were getting such supplies from the school?), having to be babysitters as well as teachers because both parents (to the extent there are two parents) are working long hours trying to pay the rent or mortgage and put food on the table. These teachers are exhausted, and so are the parents. Meanwhile the poor top 2% are having to "sacrifice" by canceling one of their ten trips to Europe this year and only being able to buy 10 new pairs of shoes this year instead of 15. Lets get that violin out.
A poor education leads to poorly trainable workers. A recent article in my local paper talked about problems with the new Septa rail cars. They have a lot of defects. They're being made in America (which we're all supposed to encourage, right, rather than having them made in Mexico?), but the Korean supervisors are complaining that all the workers are unskilled and they are difficult to train. Maybe if they could read and do math better, they'd be better workers. And maybe if those workers had better education in school they could read and do math better. And maybe they'd get that better education if there was more money being paid to the schools and the teachers.
Some say that "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT! How about we give it a try and throw more and more money at education, and do it for like 10 years and see if things improve?
Unions may not be perfect. There may be corruption at the top. But there's no way there's more "corruption" in unions than there is at the top of big business, and no way that union bosses earn more than the CEOs of these businesses. You think CEOs "make jobs"? Yeah, maybe, but I bet half of those jobs are in other countries, Mexico, India, China. Union bosses, however, make American jobs. Union bosses fight for more wages for their union members, giving them more money, so that maybe the members can afford to eat out at Applebees once a month, thereby allowing Applebees to hire more waiters, servers, cooks and dishwashers. There, more jobs created and in America.
So I say no to abolishing unions or taking away collective bargaining rights. Frankly, I don't think they should be giving up any of their hard earned wages or benefits, not unless the top 2% make similar concessions in their taxes. You want union employees to take a 5% cut in wages and benefits, then raise the taxes 5% on the top 2%. Guess which one creates more money for state and federal budgets?
Now the unions in Wisconsin are willing to compromise. They are willing to accept less in wages and less in benefits. They understand that everyone needs to contribute in these hard economic times to help balance budgets. But what they are not willing to accept is their absolute destruction, the complete inability to later bargain and negotiate to get those benefits and wages back when economic conditions improve. These people will sacrifice some money now, but want the right to get it back later. Compare this to bankers, who didn't even have to sacrifice their money, not one single penny of it, now. The bankers got bailed out in the billions. They got their six figure bonuses. Did you get a bonus for Christmas this year? Or last year? Did you get a raise? Bankers did, teachers did not. Teachers are giving up their ability to trade in their 18 year old car for a 10 year old car, whereas bankers are trading in their 2010 RRs for the new 2011 model. Cry me a friggin river you top 2%.
Oh, but those teachers get 3 months vacation and only work till 3pm. Well, let me say Bullshit! My mother was a teacher. She worked well past 3pm. At home, she was always grading papers, getting lesson plans together, making bulletin board displays. She worked summer schools often. I remember seeing many of my teachers working in grocery stores over the summer because they just couldn't last 3 months without a paycheck. That's right, its not like these teachers get 3 months "paid vacation." They get 3 months without a paycheck. You try living 3 months without a paycheck.
QUIT BALANCING OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF TEACHERS AND KIDS! We have to pay teachers well to encourage more to enter the field. I've constantly heard the excuse by big companies. Oh, we have to pay our CEOs these millions of dollars to encourage them to stay/come to our company. That's what "big lawfirms" say to excuse their $160,000 paychecks to top law students. Why not use that same excuse to attract more teachers to the profession?
Maybe, just maybe, if more teachers entered the profession and could make living wages, our kids would be better educated. I've heard arguments that teachers are so secure in their jobs, so they don't try. How about, our teachers are so overwhelmed with 35+ student classes, having to find ways to get school supplies, even paying for them out of their own pocket (there's a special tax write off for that too, you think that would be necessary if teachers were getting such supplies from the school?), having to be babysitters as well as teachers because both parents (to the extent there are two parents) are working long hours trying to pay the rent or mortgage and put food on the table. These teachers are exhausted, and so are the parents. Meanwhile the poor top 2% are having to "sacrifice" by canceling one of their ten trips to Europe this year and only being able to buy 10 new pairs of shoes this year instead of 15. Lets get that violin out.
A poor education leads to poorly trainable workers. A recent article in my local paper talked about problems with the new Septa rail cars. They have a lot of defects. They're being made in America (which we're all supposed to encourage, right, rather than having them made in Mexico?), but the Korean supervisors are complaining that all the workers are unskilled and they are difficult to train. Maybe if they could read and do math better, they'd be better workers. And maybe if those workers had better education in school they could read and do math better. And maybe they'd get that better education if there was more money being paid to the schools and the teachers.
Some say that "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT! How about we give it a try and throw more and more money at education, and do it for like 10 years and see if things improve?
Unions may not be perfect. There may be corruption at the top. But there's no way there's more "corruption" in unions than there is at the top of big business, and no way that union bosses earn more than the CEOs of these businesses. You think CEOs "make jobs"? Yeah, maybe, but I bet half of those jobs are in other countries, Mexico, India, China. Union bosses, however, make American jobs. Union bosses fight for more wages for their union members, giving them more money, so that maybe the members can afford to eat out at Applebees once a month, thereby allowing Applebees to hire more waiters, servers, cooks and dishwashers. There, more jobs created and in America.
So I say no to abolishing unions or taking away collective bargaining rights. Frankly, I don't think they should be giving up any of their hard earned wages or benefits, not unless the top 2% make similar concessions in their taxes. You want union employees to take a 5% cut in wages and benefits, then raise the taxes 5% on the top 2%. Guess which one creates more money for state and federal budgets?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Legal Profession?
Have got to cut and paste a few comments from my favorite Legal Blog, Above the Law. The article concerned how DeVry University (you know, the "institute" that provides vocational education with lots of TV spots, mostly in fields like medical billing, human resources - i.e. employment benefits mgmt, network administration, etc.) may be buying the Bar/Bri prep course business from Thomas Reuters (who instead of investing in teaching Americans how to pass the bar and practice in the US is now investing in foreign attorneys/document reviewers by buying Pangea3 - a firm that primarily handles outsourcing legal work to India).
The article's author thinks that the marriage of DeVry and Bar/Bri is perfect because its clear that lawschools don't adequately prepare students to pass the bar, let alone actually practice law. Its truly amazing that three years of education and you still need to take a six-week 'focused' course on how to pass the only test that allows you to practice law. Three years and the school can't even teach you how to pass one friggin test? Considering the profit mills that many lawschools have become, it just makes sense that a for-profit vocational "institute" takes over the only course that actually gives students the information they need to pass the Bar exam.
Seriously, the legal profession used to be looked up to as respectable and you had to be smart and dedicated to law in order to get into lawschool. Now anyone with a pulse can pay $50,000+ a year or more to get three years of crap education, then pay another $6,000 for the Bar/Bri course to learn how to pass the bar.
So anyway, here are some of the comments:
"When I read these types of articles, it makes me appreciate the fact that I left this corroded profession. The value of a JD is at its nadir. When I became a lawyer, an LLB was the key to the kingdom. Kids today cry about a $160K/year salary. When I joined this profession, I was barely making $16K a year (1/10 of what kids think they deserve today). I was able to buy my first home outright with no mortgage within 3 years of becoming a licensed attorney. I had no student loan debt and I was financially secure within 5 years from passing the bar. Folks, the sad reality is that the dream is dead and has long been dead for decades. I recall a normal partnership track being 5 years. I remember being mentored and groomed, not hectored or humiliated. Times have changed and if you still signed up for a JD today, then you are truly a masochist. Kids, do yourselves a favor and go to a trade school. Mechanics and refrigeration technicians will earn more money than you and will serve a function in society. I never thought I would be alive to see the value of a JD being equal to a diploma issued by the Sally Struthers School of "Fill in the Blank." That is all."
"Isn’t Devry one of those schools that advertise on TV at times when everyone with anything better to do is away from a television set? If you’ve ever been sick at home and stuck in front of a TV you know what I’m talking about.
If an organization I only know about from bad TV is going to buy Bar/Bri, I think it should be that ‘Feed the Children’ Christian charity. I can see the commercials now: slide after slide of somber, doe-eyed 3Ls staring up at the camera from dim and dusty library tables while that fat bearded guy’s voice tells a few of their tales: “This is Margaret. She went to Baylor. There was a time when Baylor graduates could at least count on legal staffing jobs in Houston to pay their bills. Now Margaret faces a future as the bottom rung of her aunt’s Mary Kay distributorship pyramid. For just a few dollars a day, you could help her sit for the Texas Bar. The Texas dream of a lexis may not be in her future, but with your help, she may afford the payments on her Hyundai.” "
"My point here is that the line between "professional" school and "vocational" school has substantially blurred, that it actually makes sense for DeVry to take on this responsibility, and that to the extent that people graduate from 3 year law schools still needing to go to a finishing or vocational school before they can actually practice is a damning illustration of the state (and outsized cost) of legal education.
-- The ATL comment thread is the DeVry of commenter education schools."
The article's author thinks that the marriage of DeVry and Bar/Bri is perfect because its clear that lawschools don't adequately prepare students to pass the bar, let alone actually practice law. Its truly amazing that three years of education and you still need to take a six-week 'focused' course on how to pass the only test that allows you to practice law. Three years and the school can't even teach you how to pass one friggin test? Considering the profit mills that many lawschools have become, it just makes sense that a for-profit vocational "institute" takes over the only course that actually gives students the information they need to pass the Bar exam.
Seriously, the legal profession used to be looked up to as respectable and you had to be smart and dedicated to law in order to get into lawschool. Now anyone with a pulse can pay $50,000+ a year or more to get three years of crap education, then pay another $6,000 for the Bar/Bri course to learn how to pass the bar.
So anyway, here are some of the comments:
"When I read these types of articles, it makes me appreciate the fact that I left this corroded profession. The value of a JD is at its nadir. When I became a lawyer, an LLB was the key to the kingdom. Kids today cry about a $160K/year salary. When I joined this profession, I was barely making $16K a year (1/10 of what kids think they deserve today). I was able to buy my first home outright with no mortgage within 3 years of becoming a licensed attorney. I had no student loan debt and I was financially secure within 5 years from passing the bar. Folks, the sad reality is that the dream is dead and has long been dead for decades. I recall a normal partnership track being 5 years. I remember being mentored and groomed, not hectored or humiliated. Times have changed and if you still signed up for a JD today, then you are truly a masochist. Kids, do yourselves a favor and go to a trade school. Mechanics and refrigeration technicians will earn more money than you and will serve a function in society. I never thought I would be alive to see the value of a JD being equal to a diploma issued by the Sally Struthers School of "Fill in the Blank." That is all."
"Isn’t Devry one of those schools that advertise on TV at times when everyone with anything better to do is away from a television set? If you’ve ever been sick at home and stuck in front of a TV you know what I’m talking about.
If an organization I only know about from bad TV is going to buy Bar/Bri, I think it should be that ‘Feed the Children’ Christian charity. I can see the commercials now: slide after slide of somber, doe-eyed 3Ls staring up at the camera from dim and dusty library tables while that fat bearded guy’s voice tells a few of their tales: “This is Margaret. She went to Baylor. There was a time when Baylor graduates could at least count on legal staffing jobs in Houston to pay their bills. Now Margaret faces a future as the bottom rung of her aunt’s Mary Kay distributorship pyramid. For just a few dollars a day, you could help her sit for the Texas Bar. The Texas dream of a lexis may not be in her future, but with your help, she may afford the payments on her Hyundai.” "
"My point here is that the line between "professional" school and "vocational" school has substantially blurred, that it actually makes sense for DeVry to take on this responsibility, and that to the extent that people graduate from 3 year law schools still needing to go to a finishing or vocational school before they can actually practice is a damning illustration of the state (and outsized cost) of legal education.
-- The ATL comment thread is the DeVry of commenter education schools."
Thursday, January 20, 2011
TDS and CR - RAVE!
I just love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their shows are just wonderful with humor, information, and satire. The last two nights have been great.
Jon did a wonderful bit about how the Dems are so curiously focused on the name of the Repubs attempt to repeal the health-care bill (about it being "job killing") that they completely miss the point that the bill substantively isn't "job killing". How about addressing the real issue Dems, instead of just the stupid name?
Then Stephen Colbert's show Tuesday night. He had a great bit about a tea party guy attempting to destroy an integrated school district because it actually was addressing the problems caused by separation.
# See, misguided government doogooders foolishly diluted the problem by addressing it. We need to ignore it so we'll pay attention to it.
# The injustices will become so apparent to everyone, that we'll put aside our differences that we worked so hard to reinstate, and join together in a new civil rights movement to undo the undoing of what we've already done.
Finally, Stephen's Palin rant was incredible. Copying it because it was so brilliant:
"Mika, you need to buck up. I know you think this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin's name in the headlines for another news cycle. I know you think she has nothing to offer the national dialogue, and that her speeches are just coded talking points mixed in with words picked up at random from a thesaurus. I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus and at worst a shameless media troll who'll abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far right base that may include possible insurrectionists. I know you think her reality show was pathetically unstatesmanlike and at the same time, I know you also think it represents the pinnacle of her potential, and that her transparent desperation to be a celebrity so completely eclipsed her interest in public service so long ago that there would be more journalistic integrity in reporting on one of the lesser Kardashians' ass implants. I know when you arrive at the office each day you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for 10 fucking minutes. I know, because I can see it in your eyes."
Yes, don't we all wish that SP would shut the fuck up for 10 minutes.
OTOH, I hope both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert keep talking for a long long time.
Jon did a wonderful bit about how the Dems are so curiously focused on the name of the Repubs attempt to repeal the health-care bill (about it being "job killing") that they completely miss the point that the bill substantively isn't "job killing". How about addressing the real issue Dems, instead of just the stupid name?
Then Stephen Colbert's show Tuesday night. He had a great bit about a tea party guy attempting to destroy an integrated school district because it actually was addressing the problems caused by separation.
# See, misguided government doogooders foolishly diluted the problem by addressing it. We need to ignore it so we'll pay attention to it.
# The injustices will become so apparent to everyone, that we'll put aside our differences that we worked so hard to reinstate, and join together in a new civil rights movement to undo the undoing of what we've already done.
Finally, Stephen's Palin rant was incredible. Copying it because it was so brilliant:
"Mika, you need to buck up. I know you think this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin's name in the headlines for another news cycle. I know you think she has nothing to offer the national dialogue, and that her speeches are just coded talking points mixed in with words picked up at random from a thesaurus. I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus and at worst a shameless media troll who'll abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far right base that may include possible insurrectionists. I know you think her reality show was pathetically unstatesmanlike and at the same time, I know you also think it represents the pinnacle of her potential, and that her transparent desperation to be a celebrity so completely eclipsed her interest in public service so long ago that there would be more journalistic integrity in reporting on one of the lesser Kardashians' ass implants. I know when you arrive at the office each day you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for 10 fucking minutes. I know, because I can see it in your eyes."
Yes, don't we all wish that SP would shut the fuck up for 10 minutes.
OTOH, I hope both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert keep talking for a long long time.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Gun Culture
I've been surprised that not more had been said in the media about politicians and others calling for more gun control in the wake of the AZ attack. I guess I shouldn't have been. According to what I've read, any politician that suggests even the smallest bit of gun regulation apparently draws both barrels from the NRA and thensome. Apparently the NRA caused the Dems to lose Congress in 1994 and also caused Al Gore to lose the presidential election. Here we are wondering if the Tea Party is going to take over the country when the NRA has already done it. It seems the NRA controls which political party wins elections (if the NRA decides to exert itself). I'm surprised that the NRA didn't come out barrels blazing against Obama and in support of its poster-babe Palin.
It just incredible. Seriously, being able to shoot at 6 targets in a matter of seconds or a minute isn't good enough. It has to be 30. With the tragedies we've had in CO, VA and AZ, people still have no problems with having these automatic weapons available to anyone with a few bucks.
It just incredible. Seriously, being able to shoot at 6 targets in a matter of seconds or a minute isn't good enough. It has to be 30. With the tragedies we've had in CO, VA and AZ, people still have no problems with having these automatic weapons available to anyone with a few bucks.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Second Amendment Should be Rethought
I'm posting some comments I made on a blog or two about the recent terrorist attack in AZ. I know a lot of people think we should focus on the Republican hate-speak people like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., which may be appropriate (they at least help stir things up), but in my opinion, we should just take the damn guns away. That's right, I said it, not everyone in this country has a God given right to bear any damn assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, and handgun they want just because we have a Second Amendment. Maybe the 2nd Amendment isn't Godspeak, you think? It was written by a bunch of men who were fighting against a tyrannical government. They never had any expectation that some nutjob would be allowed to fire 30 bullets into a crowd at a market, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.
What really should happen is tougher gun laws, such as banning automatic guns. Seriously, they have no purpose except killing people. So to the Repubs and the NRA, I say shut the hell up about no gun restrictions. I'm calling for a ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, just like we had in 1994. I'm even calling on more restrictions on handguns, the need for everyone to get a permit for one. I'd like to see them outlawed completely, but I know that won't happen. I say that the 2d Amendment, allowing everyone and anyone a gun is just wrong.
I respectfully disagree that if we have a law banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons that people like Jared would have been able to get one by other means. In that case, the bullets shot before reloading is significantly reduced and maybe, just may...be, a little 9 year old girl, as well as several others, would be alive today.
If we have more restrictions on getting handguns as well, more waiting time, better background checks, then maybe he wouldn't have gotten one of those either.
So where would this guy have gotten a gun if certain ones were barred and others significantly more difficult to obtain? Steal one? From who? Again, if said automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned and handguns more difficult to obtain, the people from whom Jared could have stolen a gun would be significantly fewer.
And don't give me the bullshit that if we ban weapons or make them harder to get, only criminals will have weapons (I suppose that may be true, since you'll be a criminal if you have one). If automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, NO ONE would have such weapons. Persons caught with such weapons (including "criminals", who are "criminals" by definition of having such guns) would be arrested and the guns take...n away and eventually destroyed.
Second, many criminals get weapons either from gun shops or from "law abiding citizens" (straw buyers or theft). Again, if certain weapons were banned and more restrictions placed on other weapons, then criminals would have a hard time getting such guns either.
Third, if permits were required for every gun and must be produced upon request, then again, many criminals would lose their guns because they would not be able to produce such permits.
The 2d Amendment is not the Bible. It is not sacrosanct just because it's in the Constitution. Slavery used to be in the Constitution too, as well as forbidding the right to vote by women and blacks. Prohibition was an Amendment. All of this was in the Constitution and later removed because they were wrong. So maybe the 2d Amendment is wrong too.
I'm hoping that this tragedy will wake up people to realize that we have to do something about this gun-loving 'I can do whatever the hell I want culture.' NO YOU CAN'T. Not when the lives of 9 year old girls, mothers, fathers and others are at risk. Ban these automatic and semi-automatic weapons and their magazines. Place better background and more restrictive checks and permit requirements on other guns. Require more than a week of waiting before you get your gun. Stop the sales of guns by unregistered dealers at gun shows. Stop the ability to buy a gun immediately at said gun shows unless one has already passed a background check and brings said paperwork to the gun show. You want a gun? Then do the homework!
A gun has no purpose except to kill. Drugs can be helpful or harmful, and we regulate those, why the hell can't we regulate something that has a very small helpful purpose (hunting animals)?
See http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-doesnt-kill-people-guns-on-the-other-hand/#more-52245
What really should happen is tougher gun laws, such as banning automatic guns. Seriously, they have no purpose except killing people. So to the Repubs and the NRA, I say shut the hell up about no gun restrictions. I'm calling for a ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, just like we had in 1994. I'm even calling on more restrictions on handguns, the need for everyone to get a permit for one. I'd like to see them outlawed completely, but I know that won't happen. I say that the 2d Amendment, allowing everyone and anyone a gun is just wrong.
I respectfully disagree that if we have a law banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons that people like Jared would have been able to get one by other means. In that case, the bullets shot before reloading is significantly reduced and maybe, just may...be, a little 9 year old girl, as well as several others, would be alive today.
If we have more restrictions on getting handguns as well, more waiting time, better background checks, then maybe he wouldn't have gotten one of those either.
So where would this guy have gotten a gun if certain ones were barred and others significantly more difficult to obtain? Steal one? From who? Again, if said automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned and handguns more difficult to obtain, the people from whom Jared could have stolen a gun would be significantly fewer.
And don't give me the bullshit that if we ban weapons or make them harder to get, only criminals will have weapons (I suppose that may be true, since you'll be a criminal if you have one). If automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, NO ONE would have such weapons. Persons caught with such weapons (including "criminals", who are "criminals" by definition of having such guns) would be arrested and the guns take...n away and eventually destroyed.
Second, many criminals get weapons either from gun shops or from "law abiding citizens" (straw buyers or theft). Again, if certain weapons were banned and more restrictions placed on other weapons, then criminals would have a hard time getting such guns either.
Third, if permits were required for every gun and must be produced upon request, then again, many criminals would lose their guns because they would not be able to produce such permits.
The 2d Amendment is not the Bible. It is not sacrosanct just because it's in the Constitution. Slavery used to be in the Constitution too, as well as forbidding the right to vote by women and blacks. Prohibition was an Amendment. All of this was in the Constitution and later removed because they were wrong. So maybe the 2d Amendment is wrong too.
I'm hoping that this tragedy will wake up people to realize that we have to do something about this gun-loving 'I can do whatever the hell I want culture.' NO YOU CAN'T. Not when the lives of 9 year old girls, mothers, fathers and others are at risk. Ban these automatic and semi-automatic weapons and their magazines. Place better background and more restrictive checks and permit requirements on other guns. Require more than a week of waiting before you get your gun. Stop the sales of guns by unregistered dealers at gun shows. Stop the ability to buy a gun immediately at said gun shows unless one has already passed a background check and brings said paperwork to the gun show. You want a gun? Then do the homework!
A gun has no purpose except to kill. Drugs can be helpful or harmful, and we regulate those, why the hell can't we regulate something that has a very small helpful purpose (hunting animals)?
See http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-doesnt-kill-people-guns-on-the-other-hand/#more-52245
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)