Music Monday: Hands Off, Crazy -- BONUS

I found this on Twitter, after Congressman Akin's fantastic example of why politicians should not be involved with women's health-- at all. I think contraception and abortion should be issues that doctors and women deal with. Medical ethicist should be the ones who set medical policy, using REAL science and ethics, not religion.

I also think that as long as employers ask employees to share in the cost of health insurance premiums, they should not be allowed to disallow procedures or coverage along gender lines. If prostrate exams are covered, so must be pap smears and mammograms. If you cover pregnancy, then you must cover contraception (not everyone wants to be pregnant.) If you have a religious objection-- too bad, unless you want to foot the entire bill. An employers religious choices should not trump the employee's religious/ethical opinions/thoughts-- unless the employer wants to foot the ENTIRE BILL (I call this putting YOUR money where your VALUES are.) Cost sharing means belief compromise.

At the moment employees are all at the mercy of their employers for insurance and that is wrong... there is no real choice-- they throw out a plan and we pay for it... That is not a free market. Employers should not hold all the power. They just shouldn't. Unless they want to foot the entire bill.

Furthermore, I say unless you actually have a vagina-- your opinion as to how one cares for the vagina (or the womb for that matter) is really not at all germane to the conversation. I would not dream of weighing in on the care and treatment of a penis or prostrate... I don't have one and therefore I have zero frame of reference... Just as I will never experience a "hard on" or an inconvenient erection during a meeting, or erectile dysfunction... men will never enjoy the joys of a monthly period, the struggle with the side effects of oral contraceptive or monthly depression around a monthly period, which is only alleviated with the oral contraceptive, or a difficult pregnancy. Men will never experience first hand the crush of a miscarriage or the horror of becoming pregnant from rape or incest.

Men can waltz into any drug store or gas station and purchase inexpensive condoms. No doctor visit, no copays, no nothing. Women on the other hand have a variety of options open to them some of which are better than condoms, but they are costly and invasive. If men want more control over the birth control process-- how about they ask for and fund research to find more RX options for themselves? Instead of seeking to control the birth control options for women, why not seek out options for men, that won't end the journey of a fertilized egg-- but instead prevent fertilization AT ALL... Temporary prevention of sperm production would solve a multitude of problems and put birth control control squarely in a man's control. Men would then be empowered to control their OWN bodies. If I were a man, I would not spend my time trying to control women and their bodies-- but be seeking a way to better control my own.

Given that no one is focused on that-- makes me believe this debate is truly about the social control of women and sexuality... not about the mutually assured access to healthcare options and family planning. I think most men, do care about their female partners and want what is best for their future. I would humbly submit those men want birth control covered for their spouse/partners/lovers. Those men are not the ones spouting weird science and wanting to ban all access. Those men aren't crazy.

Take one and call me in the morning...

It seem to me that alot of people, have alot of opinions about women's reproductive health, how women's bodies work and who should have the final say as to what is standard of care and what isn't. I have even read lately that many insurance plans, employers and legislatures do not actually feel that pregnancy is a medical condition and that many female problems don't actually warrant coverages. (do these men actually have female partners, daughters or sisters?)

Let me start by telling you a story:

Once upon a time, there was a young woman. Her monthly cycles started around age 15. By the time she was 18, having very painful menstrual cramps, cramps that interfered with normal activities were increasingly the norm.

For a period of time in college, her cycles were not regular and honestly thru self medication (Mary Jane was the drug of choice) she managed to keep the worst of the cramps at bay. After a pregnancy scare and traumatic break up, she invested some time in herself, sought professional help and stopped self medicating.

By her senior year the first ten days of her cycle (the 4 for the actual menstruation and then the following 6 were blissfully pain free.) Immediately prior to ovulation and the days following, the pain was so amazingly intense, it became common place for her to vomit in between classes or as the months went by to flea class to vomit and come back. She carried a tooth brush and saltines in her backpack. (Doesn't everyone?)

Luckily her school had a health center and there was an actual OB/GYN on staff part time. Otherwise you were stuck with a GP or family medicine doctor. Dr. R in the beginning of the fall semester senior year diagnosed dysmenorrhea or menstrual cramps.

Armed with pamphlets and proper Motrin dosing, she resolved to cut out caffeine and exercise more (which is hard when one is vomiting regularly, but she was an ever determined one.)

Dr. R had floated the idea of the birth control pill. Studies at the time where showing it to be very effective in regulating and lessening the severity of menstrual cycles. The girl rejected this idea. She had a strong family history of hypertension, blood clots and stroke and was very much convinced that natural therapies would be better. Plus the pill can cause weight gain and the girl had worked very hard to shed her freshmen 15 and was very vain to the point of obsessive about her weight.

The Motrin was slowly eating a hole in her gut and the exercise and other non-chemical treatments weren't working either. At about the same time she was becoming intimate with her now husband, her painful periods were so bad that she was missing classes regularly, in too much pain much of the month to actually think about sex and weighing less than was advisable. (Not to mention that regular vomiting can cause electrolyte imbalances and is very damaging to the teeth. Google bulimia if you are curious.)

It might be important to mention that her roommate was often not actually at their apartment. He had a boyfriend in the closest big city and spent almost all of his non-class time there.

One night, she awoke to the most gut wrenching pain ever. After depositing the remains of her dinner in the toilet and dry heaving for what felt like an eternity, she passed out on the bathroom floor. Dehydrated and feverish, this is where her roommate finds her, when he runs in before class on a whim, to check his stack of mail. It is 10 am. When he tries to help her sit up, she screams in gut wrenching pain.

He takes her to the health center on campus, because according to the insurance coverage, all care must begin there. Luckily the OB/GYN can see her and immediately calls for transport to the local hospital.

After a trans vaginal ultrasound and a regular pelvic ultrasound, it was determined that she had a larger than normal normal functional ovarian cyst and a newly ruptured functional cyst. She also had what appeared to be endometriosis.  While it appeared that the ruptured cyst had not caused any permanent damage, she might not be so lucky the next time. Also vomiting to the point of passing out regularly had inherent risks also.

Now it gets fun.

She went back to the health center doctor for treatment, as the insurance would only pay if she did that. In the short term she got shots of a synthetic narcotic, two in the ass, please and thank you. She also got a stern talking to about the risks of letting either condition going untreated, even though neither had any solid treatment options.

Long story short she went on birth control pills. These as a matter of fact. Luckily they were on the health centers formulary and they were a low dose, low hormone pill, which were generally tolerated by women with family history of high blood pressure and heart disease.

The doctor also wanted her to have a second opinion at the hospital in the nearest big city.

A very expensive prospect. You see, this girl did not have mommy and daddy's money paying for school. She was paying for school, borrowing some money and then working 2-4 jobs, in addition to shouldering a full load of classes.

The copays and "out of network charges"  alone would equally nearly what she paid in rent for 2 months. After some pavement pounding she located her father and he agreed to cover the medical costs.

The second opinion agreed, yes she had cysts, yes she had endometriosis and yes the only really viable treatment was birth control pills.

She could obtain them at the health center for $10 per pack. She was able to get a few extra packs prior to graduation.

Now this girl was a "lucky" girl she landed a job and a job with benefits. Comprehensive coverage the HR rep had claimed.

Her health insurance cost her $65 a pay or $130 a month.

Imagine her surprise when her comprehensive coverage did not cover her pills, her OB/GYN visits or her annual pap smear.

Her insurance cost her $1560 a year or 8% of her annual salary and it did not cover any of her medical concerns. Beyond these pesky "female issues" and seasonal allergies, which she did not take medication for, she was basically healthy.

Her local Planned Parenthood only offered birth control subsidies if you were at a certain income level or unemployed. Sadly, she made too much and had a job.

Ironically the pills cost more in 1995 as they do in 2012. Today 3 months cost $60. In 1995 she paid around $36 per month.

So while she is paying 8% of salary towards an insurance policy that covers basically none of her health care concerns (I guess the older, white men, who owned the business were just padding the insurance pool at the expense of healthy young women, their health concerns were covered and hers were not.) Then and now it sounded like a money grab to her.

She now also has to spend, out of pocket and post tax, $36 a month on medication, that she takes to stave off debilitating cramps and heavy bleeding, hopefully staving off the spread of the endometrial tissue, which will damage her future fertility and functional cysts, while they seldom do damage, can and a damaged ovary is a useless ovary.

For the math challenged - $36 a month is $432 a year or 2% of her annual salary. Not to mention the cost of the doctor's visit to obtain the RX.

She didn't feel this was very fair. Why should this medically recognized treatment for a very real chronic medical condition get special treatment? Is it really any less of a disorder than say diabetes, high blood pressure or thyroid imbalance? Are the possible long term health consequences really any less impactful?

Because this very real medical condition only affects women. Because women's health issues aren't really medical issues, they are "female problems." Because the only known treatment happens to be hormonal treatment which also happens to prevent pregnancy and we all know that preventing pregnancy is wrong, sinful and/or unnecessary.

This girl got a second job. In part to cover her out of pocket medical expenses.

Shortly thereafter she quit all together, what good was a job with a medical "benefit"  that did not cover her medical issues. She made more at her second job in one night than she did all week at her fantastic career building job with "benefits."

Then she got a job, which had a health plan, which covered "female problems."

As it turns out she could have kept her first job and petitioned the partners to cover her medical condition-- if they felt it was warranted? After she asked around and found out only young women seeking birth control had to submit to such nonsense was around the time she told them were they could shove that job. Any other medical condition seemed to be covered.

You know this girl. She is me...

I was lucky, I had already at 21 a ton of work experience, I started working when I was 15 years old. I was a hustler. I worked hard.

And yes, I was poor, I was less than one paycheck away from being homeless and that first year post college, I doubt I could afford the USDA basics at the grocery on a regular basis. I get it that a lot of people mistake my current home address and my manners and the experiences I have with that old money. Sorry, but no. I grew in a pink collar/blue collar household. We could afford a middle class lifestyle until my parent's marriage imploded.

Then I woke up 19 and holding a big ass tuition bill. I went from working for book and spending money, to working for the whole nut. I shelved dreams of graduate school for that career building job with f-ing benefits BECAUSE I HAD BEEN SO VERY VERY SICK. I was being a responsible adult -- only to get slapped by the hand of misogyny pretty damn hard.

Trust me it wasn't the last time either.

I do however think it was the MOST unfair.

Our medical system only truly serves those with insurance. It is easy for a simple injury to nearly bankrupt a family with out insurance. Not having insurance, unless you are very poor is simply not an option. That second opinion at the BIG medical center. I had to pay cash up front before the doctor would see me. He didn't want to get stiffed and the hospital had a payment plan for the tests, he did not.

On top of that... workers in the US have zero say in what their insurance covers. That is bullshit. It is not a benefit if it does nothing for you and you have to pay for it. If it were 100% funded by the employer, then yes, they can pay or not pay for anything they desire. That insurance policy at my first job cost me 8% of annual salary and did nothing for me. I was literally flushing money down the drain, no wait, that would have been great... at least it would have been my choice. Instead I was funding some partners diabetic medication, high blood pressure meds, when trust me he could afford those on his own. Talk about getting fleeced.

It isn't a benefit if it does nothing for you.

I am not convinced that ObmaCare is going to fix that. I am convinced that we are starting to see some people's true colors. Birth control isn't just about women being empowered to have sex. It is about their ability to control their fertility. This girl's story could have turned out a different way. She could have lost an ovary or had so much scaring in her fallipian tubes that she would never have been able to have the babies - which she treasures above anything else. What if she had made a choice so many young women make and forgo treatment due to cost concerns?

So next time you feel like siding with those who are waging war on women and their health care choices. Please remember, I too am ONE OF THOSE WOMEN.

Doors

Our house is a very traditional neo-federal style house. It has very simple lines and not uncommon to this simple house style, a market or tradesman's door. It is the first door you come to along the front walk.

This door leads into the hallway and nearly directly into the kitchen. Hence the name, Market door or Tradesman's door. At our house this door has another wonderful feature; it is covered.

Let's recap. The market door is closest to the driveway and covered.

And yet - this is how Fedex keeps addressing the delivery of packages on rainy days:

 

FedEx and the USPS are the only ones who choose a plastic bag over the covered porch.

 

As we can all see here, even on what had been a very rainy and windy night and morning, the covered porch is nice and dry.

So that begs the questions, which is superior? My covered porch or the the thin as can be, won't stop a serious rain, plastic bag?

Why it is wrong...

so I have been fired up. I try to avoid the news. I really do, but sometimes things are just so glaringly wrong, that they have to be talked about. Or researched. And I have spent the last two days doing both.

I also want to say that this is a free country, we have the first amendment and it is an important one.

So there is a show on TLC about Muslims living in Dearborn. I suspect the point of the show is to show Americans what it is like being an American and Muslim. I watched the bits of the show I could find on Hulu, YouTube and the TLC website. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty normal stuff. Some wedding stuff, some baby stuff, some I want a baby stuff, some work and life balance stuff. Might I even say that it was approaching boring stuff...

Which I think was the point. These are Americans, in many cases first, second and third generation Americans. (As an aside, my husband is a 1st generation American. You guessed it, my husband's parents were not both American citizens at the time of his birth. They both emigrated from Germany. Right after WWII for his father and the early 70s for his mother. They spoke no English in the house until H went to school.)

No big deal right? Another reality show, on a channel devoted to reality shows.

The FFA didn't think so. They felt that because the show only showed normal boring stuff that they were covering up the Islamic agenda. So let me get this straight, if the show had been about my husband and his family and it showed them going to Catholic mass, work, school, and out to dinner, speaking German and so forth, then that show would be somehow covering up the insidious German Catholic agenda. All Germans back then were Nazi's right? How could they make a show that did not reflect that stereotype?

Or are Muslims somehow special?

The entire point of the show is to say - hey look, it isn't all that exciting, we do what you do. We eat lunch out, we have babies or we are trying to have a baby, we have interfaith weddings, and we struggle for family life balance. We struggle with our faith. We make choices about god, and god's place in our lives.

And understand, I support FFA's right to write letters, to maintain a website and they certainly are entitled to their opinion. That is part of the first amendment. And I did something many people who are upset probably didn't do, I actually read their website. It was hard. I think they are off base on 99% of what they have posted, but that is the beauty of a free country, I am free to disagree. I will say, in their slightly marginal defense, if what they have posted is true about a possible honor killing in Tampa, which is not being prosecuted, then that is the issue they should be focused on.  As much as I value religious freedoms, no one, is free to kill their daughter in the name of "religious" and cultural traditions. Not in the US for sure. That said, it is hard to take them seriously on this very serious issue, when they have so much other noise going on.

So what is so wrong. I will tell what is so wrong. Both Lowe's and KAYAK have confirmed that out of the 27 businesses targeted, they pulled their ads from the show. Based on the opinions and letters of a few, these companies choose to break their ad contracts with a given show, because in the minds of a few, the show is not fitting their stereotype of what a Muslim is.

Update: This evening it appears that perhaps FFA duped Lowes into believing more companies were on the bandwagon. That is even more disturbing to me. I also think that someone should be looking into FFA's use of trademarked logos on their site without permission.

And certainly, had either Lowe's or KAYAK cited that the show did not have enough viewers or some other verifiable business reason (note: data, real verifiable data makes it easier to make a case that there was a business purpose and not bigotry involved), this would be a none event. In fact the show, averages an average viewership. It is scheduled to be 8 episodes. I suspect the viewership has gone up slightly now... the other advertisers thank you Lowe's and Kayak. Instead Lowe's links to the letters from FFA and their supporters, offers a lamely written excuse and then hides. They have all but retreated from their social media sites.

That is what is not ok. Television is about a certain perceptive. Docudrama is a genre all its own. It isn't designed to be taken a gospel or fact. Reality television is rarely grounded in 100% reality. I find many other shows on TLC much more offensive. Much.

For Lowe's and KAYAK to bow down to single opinion of a fringe extremist group, which is what FFA is, is discriminatory and it is insulting. To us ALL. We live in a free democratic society and with that freedom comes great responsibility. We are free to hold our own thoughts and beliefs, we are free to write about those beliefs, make shows about those beliefs, hold public meetings about those beliefs, make purchasing decisions taking into account those beliefs,  what we are not free to do is impose those beliefs on others. We are not free to assume that others must believe what we believe. What happens in your own home and your place of worship is up to you, what happens on the public street, on the public airwaves, is printed in the media, that must be held to a community standard and the community standard must take into account all parties involved and not just the loudest and best funded few. Religious preferences of any persuasion cannot be the only basis for that standard. Stereotypes held by a few cannot be the basis for that standard. The standards must be grounded in verifiable facts, not religious texts and teachings, not stereotypes, not bigotry, but verifiable fact. Furthermore, these standards should be such that they are not exclusionary, but rather inclusive and sensative to the needs of others. We are all free to then limit what we expose ourselves and our children to, but we cannot do that by legislating, we have to own our convictions and be honest about our convictions with our children, families and friends.

A company committed to reflecting that standard does not pull its ads from a show that fails to paint a certain group in the stereotypically way a certain other group believes to be true.

Democracy cannot work that way.

You can't have it both ways...

I know - I should avoid topics of religion and politics, but this one bugs me... Blame H, he brought the USA Today home.

I read Thomas S. Kidd's "Time for government to butt out piece" in the October 3, 20011 edition of the USA Today  and I have to say he is both right and wrong. I should preface this with I am probably as close to agnostic as I have ever been and that I left the governing body of my former church very angry and very disillusioned. I also am not a tax accountant nor a lawyer. What I am is a tax payer who is tied of subsidizing companies - like BIG BANKS and Religious Organizations who want to cry separate when they break laws - like say equal opportunity clauses. (Beyond the fact that I find it - as a non practicing former/reformed/confused/angry Christian MORALLY REPUGNANT - that a religious organization would summarily dismiss, likely without an offer of disability, a teacher who developed a medical disability. This, this is their idea of walking as Christ walks and offering charity.)

Here's my take on the situation - if religious groups take any sort of governmental funding up to and including the 503c tax exemptions, then they are SUBJECT to limited governmental oversight. In my mind it really is that simple. If you accept grants from the federal or state government, you are subject to said oversight. If you don't pay taxes, because you seek a "special" exemption - thereby availing yourselves of all sorts of perks - like clean roads, bridges which carry your folk to and from the church, prime real estate at little or no property taxes, emergency services, police, fire, EMS, all without paying your fair share - then YES, you are subject to some federal, state and local oversight. While we are on it - religious institutions pay no sales tax. They take from the local economy every single day.

If this school avails itself of busing provided by the home school distract, it is subject to oversight.

If religious groups want to be SEPARATE, then no feeding off the federal, state and local trough. Hospitals, which take medicare funds, are subject to oversight. Many hospitals are 503c entities, too.

I agree government should have no say in the ministry of particular religious groups. We do not have a state religion - that said - if these groups want to be 100% government free - pay up. Pay your taxes, don't look for hand outs, don't ask for government funds to shore up your programing. Don't look for busing to your schools and don't avail yourself of services you aren't paying for. When your church is on fire or under attack - deal with it... otherwise, be like every other business and make no mistake there isn't a religious group out there that isn't a business, and pay your fair share.

And to Kidd's point -

One cannot imagine a more obvious feature of an establishment of religion, or a clearer violation of free exercise, than the government dictating to a church that it must rehire a religious teacher, especially a person who has violated church teachings or behavioral codes. The Justice Department's position, if vindicated, raises the possibility that courts and bureaucrats may, in the name of contemporary norms of fairness, begin requiring religious organizations to hire any number of candidates who do not accept that faith's tenets. One could easily imagine future decisions forcing churches, synagogues, or mosques to hire employees who do not adhere to the tradition's norms of sexual behavior, for example.

Religious liberty will be severely damaged if faith groups cannot hire and fire according to their beliefs. That's why leaders from such an impressive range of religions are united by the threat of a government clearly overstepping its well-defined boundaries. 

 I think there is a huge difference between firing someone who becomes disabled and hiring someone who's lifestyle choices are incompatible with a given religious groups viewpoint. Either way - if you take government funds -- you march to Yankee Doodle's tune. If you want to be separate, pay up and Uncle Sam will shut up.

While everything might seem legit...

H and I were busy today, minding our business and tackling house projects, planning a nice lunch out, when bang, bang, bang - this horrible noise shook the pipes in the basement.

I was downstairs hanging laundry and yelled up at him to go see what was causing that banging outside. It was a random guy. This random guy told H he was surveying the gas lines.

H came in to call the gas company.

I marched outside and told the guy he cannot be on my property without first knocking on the door and introducing himself and telling he plans to bang the shit out of my gas meter.

He informed me if he had to knock on everyone's door he wouldn't get anything done.

I told him he had no right to be assaulting my property with my permission and he needed to move it along.

At no point in time did he offer to show either H or I his ID or his work orders. His truck is basically a beater with stick on signs.

No PUCO permit numbers, no phone number... not helpful in the verification process at all.

H held with Columbia I am a Pain in the Ass, oops I mean Gas Company for a bit but when he found out it was going to be a 30 minute wait and the guy had left, he hung up. I posted the above photo to the Homeowner's Association Facebook page and tried to google his company. I contacted a company from Fairfield, Ohio who while they have the same name ARE a different company, as they sent a guy out to check on us. He also saw this truck in the neighborhood and assured me my random guy was not with them. This is a good company folks - they were genuinely worried one of their employees had gone rogue... They get an A+ in customer service from me, and let's face it, I seldom hand those out.

This made me feel worse NOT better.

I tried again to find a number for the "Premier Utility Services", who visited my house today. No luck. I nosed around the BBB, PUCO and Columbia Gas's website. Nothing. No mention of a project in this area, nothing.

As I left the development to run errands, I spot the truck and I stop and take more photos. (I love my iPhone. It's camera is powerful.)

Then at my mom's, I try yet again to locate a phone number for this company. Nada.

I then called the police and file a report. What other resources did I have. He was behaving in a suspicious manner. He offered no ID, no work orders and no project specs and fled when I ordered him off my property. You hear about these scams all the time. People posing as utility workers, who aren't. The PUCO did a public service campaign urging people to only allow people with IDs into their homes and onto their properties.

Just tonight a Facebook friend posted that her neighbor's A/C unit was ripped off their house, leaving all sorts of exposed and live wires. Who is to say this guy was not casing my gas meter, with designs on stealing it for its metal content.

It really would have been so much easier had this guy been polite, knocked on our door, warned us he was going to be making some noise as he surveyed the gas lines. (Maybe he could have explained why and how one surveys gas lines. Please if you know, the comments are open.)

I am not holding my breath, that I will ever really know if this guy was legit or not. I have alerted the authorities. I am sharing my story in order to alert other people near and dear to me, I have photos. Should the PUCO, Columbia Gas, or the police contact me, I will gladly share my photos.

If my gas meter malfunctions, I have proof that it was not H or I who messed with it, I can prove that I attempted to verify with the proper people, who was messing with my meter. Columbia, I am a Pain in the Ass, I mean Gas Company cannot pin this on us.

It just isn't good business to enter someone's property and then do stuff with their gas meter - without telling them first. On so many levels this guy was raising suspicions and making it appear that he was not legit. So it is one of two things - he is legit but very poorly trained, employed by a company with zero interest in customer care OR he is not legit and I hope he gets caught, before he hurts himself or someone else.

An Inside Job - A look at how broken Wall Street is...

H picked this movie and we watched it Sunday night. If you follow my Twitter Stream, you likely know I was pretty fired up. For those of you new to the blog, I worked for Merrill Lynch. I held a series 7 license (which is issued by the NASD - a self regulatory body) and I now have an MBA.

I have been critical of Wall Street and US corporate practices for years. Even though I used to read the Wall Street Journal and Barron's cover to cover, I had no idea, until I watched this movie, that many of the key players and architects of the 2008 Wall Street Meltdown, are now serving in President Obama's cabinet or on various economic counsels. They aren't in jail, which is where they should be, they are now, currently making money, writing rules or more correctly prohibiting rules from being written, which could realistically prohibit this kind of criminal conduct from happening again.

I remember listening to this interview with Obama during the blooming crisis and thinking, yes that is what we need. Finally, someone who is going to limit the fox guarding the hen house practices. I was wrong. He did nothing, actually he did worse than nothing, not only has our President not pushed for targeted reform, he has put in positions of power some of the key players, who either should have done more to prevent this implosion or who were active participants in the implosion, those who profited from the implosion, into key power posts.

Furthermore - one of the reasons this should be unacceptable to all of us, is WALL STREET is a rigged game. I will tell you how Lehman and Merrill and AIG, ended up with investment grade credit ratings of AAA and A2, it is because it is a secret society based on the you scratch my back, I will scratch your back. The regulators are FRIENDS with the heads of these investment banks, as the film points out, the cycle of regulator, to BIG NAME BANK POWER BROOKER, to BUSINESS SCHOOL PROF is a vicious cycle, throw in board member or two and you have profitable cycle for these clowns.

Just as the narrator in this clip points out, it was not true that the regulators were aware of this mess, they weren't aware because they weren't looking. They trusted their friendships and likely were grooming those friends for future personal gains, like jobs and board appointments when their stint as a public servant was complete. What was good for the US tax payer and investor was the last thing on their minds.

Now I am sure you are all wondering - what is a CDO or a CDS and why is Susan all upset that they were being rated AAA and why is this such a big deal.

I will tell you, or more correctly I will let this movie clip sum it up for you...

I used to work with some debt and here is the deal AAA is the best rating, CREDIT RATING (think credit score) a company or in the debt world - Issuer can get. Government securities are AAA. Investment grade paper is in the A ranges. Anything less than that and it gets riskier. Anything much less than a B, and it is junk... Not as in no one should buy it, but junk as in, it is low rated paper, HIGH SPECULATIVE. You might get rich with junk bonds, but you might also lose the entire investment. Junk Bonds are not for pension funds or little old ladies. Junk Bonds are alot like the roulette table in Vegas.

These credit swaps - were less than junk. They are crap. As the clip points out - the underlying mortgages were high risk mortgages, made to people, who were likely not going to be able to make the payments and with no equity in the house, it was like renting and they would just walk away. This is what happened. This is not a AAA rated recipe for investment success.

The entire movie made me hopping mad, but I honestly think this is one part that really made me crazy.

Credit ratings are NOT just OPINIONS. They are a basis for entire system of investment. They define what is salable to certain segments of the investing public. More than once I or one of my colleagues got called on the carpet for selling someone a bond, with a questionable credit rating, based on some industry agreed upon conventions. I mean in the manager's office, defending my choice. Once, the sale was voided and the lose in price from day one to day two came out of my paycheck. I have known brokers who have been fined or lose their jobs for selling customers securities, which were deemed unsuitable, based on credit ratings. They are not just opinions.

It is my opinion that these lying sacks of shit, should all be on a garbage barge in the North Atlantic. These Credit Swaps were a HUGE ponzi scheme and we threw Madoff in jail for life and in the grad scheme of things he was but a bank robber in a sea of what amounts to full on, systemic and planned fraud. Not one of the architects of this mass implosion, which was felt around the world, has gone to jail, gone to trial. Likely they are all still working on Wall Street in some capacity.

This is wrong. The feds took down Eliot Spitzer, I think, in part to shut him up. What he did was wrong, no doubt, but no different from what Wall Street power brokers have done for years. Is it really any surprise to anyone, that the defacto "red light distract" of NYC is so bloody close to Wall Street? The issue is Mr. Spitzer burned through his cache of power, while the Wall Street hot rods still hold all the power, up to and including the President of the United States of America.

Something must be done to prohibit regulators from moving into business schools, to corporate boards and high level investment bank positions, people who once held high level positions in investment houses have no business being regulators. It is a fraternity (with a few woman thrown in), with secret handshakes and armies of lawyers, who do not have the public's good at heart, they want to enrich themselves.

And we the tax payers - gave them more money to play with...

A flying...

F*CK!

This phrase has always struck me as bit off. I imagine little fairies or cherubs or 300 pound men on Circus trapeze, whatever. When kids would say this in High-school, or more correctly yell it, I was always puzzled. I digress.

I picked this title because a friend made a very funny funny and it inspired me. (Thank you R!)

If you are somewhat awake and following the news, you know that the TSA has been busy of late. Want to bone up on the full body scanners and enhanced pat downs - go here for a primer.

I will also note, H had an incident this week, at an airport, where these new procedures are in play. A butter knife was found and H followed protocol and the head of TSA for that airport came and that clown asked H if he wanted to search the plane or not. H is like, heck ya I wanna search the plane, I want to see what else you missed.The passengers deplaned and they all got re-screened and the plane got a thorough going over (all except the cargo, that is.)

I will let you in on a little secret. I dislike Big Brother (who now is turning into Creepy pervy - in a bad way - Uncle!) I have a real problem with people in authority who are stupid. While we are at it, I have zero tolerance or patience for stupid in general. I also have a BIG problem with my basic rights being violated. Convicted criminals cannot be subjected to this type of invasion of privacy without proper cause and yet we the American flying public are paying to be subjected to groping and radiation and news flash - it isn't doing anything to make us safer. Not when cargo goes unscreened or under-screened and airport employees are only randomly screened.

So while those of us who choose to fly (which is not me - after my trip to Cancun, I plan to stay firmly on terra firma for awhile.) are stripping down to our underwear, being zapped with what cannot be a safe amount of radiation, by people who may or may not be saving those images, and then poked and prodded in a manner that would get the average horny guy in a bar arrested and on a sexual predator list - millions and I mean millions of pounds of cargo are flying on commercial airliners - unscreened or under-screened. H says he routinely gets a manifest which includes cargo, that NO ONE had screened since it has been entered into the system and then it is likely the shipper answered some yes or no questions, and not enduring a groping.

Go with God, darling. Go with God. Especially when this is the US attitude toward screening of cargo.

U.S. Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole, who also attended the conference, said a delicate balance needs to be struck to ensure that the enhanced security requirements for air freight do not disrupt global trade.
"The flow of global commerce is key to economic recovery," Pistole said. "Security cannot bring business to a standstill."

So while we consumers, air travelers and normal Joe's are being subjected to draconian and I think illegal searches of our person and property, cargo, stuff in boxes is flying first class, unsearched and unscreened.

This Article has a great graphic detailing how cargo is processed. While there is some screening, it is not nearly as invasive or as thorough as passengers are enduring. Nor is cargo stored in a sterile area. It is often left unattended, on the tarmac, on a truck or in a warehouse.

Now if I were of a mind to wreck havoc, I would go for the airport employees - who come to work and largely get to pass through unscreened. While nosing around, I found this article about what the TSA says it is doing. I am not buying it. H says he has never, in all the airports he has been in, seen it either. I think that every employee of an airport should have to submit to the same screening as passengers everyday. Why should they be any different than the guy who flies two to three times a week? They are the door in. Let's face it, they are paid peanuts. Many are foreigners or new to the US and money is an issue. I am not sure how easy it is to do a 10 year background check on a tarmac employee, who is from Kenya or Somilia or Mexico and been in this country for a few years. I am sure those governments, in the developing world have great record keeping methods and I am sure they are super willing to share that information.

Also I recall rather fondly the time, I discovered while doing a client's 401 K pre-test audit and discovered that there were 17 different employees, at three different plants, with the same social security number. Fake ID's anyone? The terrorists who brought us 9/11, many of them had valid State issued ID. While it is illegal to lie to the BMV, a guy or gal who wants to blow something up, I seriously doubt lying to a quasi government agency, a government they have great contempt for, is a great moral quandary.

I am not the only one concerned about this. This article speaks to the perils of swipe cards and security by-pass procedures, which are the rule at US airports, not an exception. (Read more here and here )

So I do give a flying f*ck. My Sweetie, goes to work and his office is 35,000 ft off the ground. I want him to be safe and if I was assured that all the other loop holes were closed and the only way we could assure his safety was for me to strip naked and walk through the airport, get my thyroid fried with radiation and let some pervy, underpaid, under educated goon grope me, I would do it. Heck I might kiss the goon.

But that is not the case and until we close those other loop holes - this is a classic case of the government being lazy and stupid and motivated by corporate interests. Don't hold up cargo. Don't make my employees have to go through security, it eats into the work day. Why should I pay to have them groped. Blah, blah, blah.

The metal detector and the wand searches are enough. They are not 100%, but I think H's experience this week proves they are just as effective as the searches which steal our human rights. I would rather take my chances on what works reasonably well and maintains my dignity than what clearly doesn't work and puts us on the slippery slope to a police state.

Short term thinking breeds long term problems

I saw this link on several FB friends' pages the other day. The article, I think get's it about half right. I think we are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but to aim the ax mostly at US corporations is disingenuous. To blame this administration or the past two is likewise not the answer either. The American consumer, as much as the American worker also shoulders some of the responsibility.

For every bit of Chinese manufactured bit of fluff purchased at Wal*Mart or Target or where-ever that is one less manufacturing job in the US. The quality is sometimes shoddy, but hey it is cheap. It will likely break in a few months, but then it did not cost that much so what's the big deal. The big deal is the rich get richer and the poor, well poorer.

The REAL problem is as someone in the comments section of the article stated - it is all about short term solutions. In both business and government, and dare I say our culture in general we favor the short term quick fix to long term problems. ...Couple that with corporations being encouraged by Wall Street, to MAX out profits - notice I did not say be profitable - but max out profits quarter over quarter that you have CEOs and CFOs making short term profit maximization decisions and not decisions with an eye towards long term longevity and sustainable profitability.

The tipping point will be, I think, when the American consumer, cannot afford even goods and services using what I call the Walmart pricing model. That or we will all collectively stop supporting companies who fail to match their corporate strategy with our personal value systems.

We need less government intervention. I am very much a free marketer. We will live to regret not letting capitalism work its ruthless magic and allow Wall Street to implode itself. Someone would have stepped in with a business solution, not a tax payer funded solution. Money is like matter, it is never created or destroyed. Someone has money and will move to spend it, when the price is right. Governments creating artificial funding sources, just make matters worse and rarely better. Sometimes we only learn from terrible and painful lessons.

When I worked for Merrill Lynch a deathly hush fell over the office when Greenspan testified, I said then and I say now, it is dangerous fun to put so much focus and reliance on the ideas and theories of one man, no matter how much or little you think he knows. It was too much power, centralized in one part by the government and one part by the media. Was he brilliant, maybe. Was he savvy, you betcha. Could he read a crystal ball? Only at parties and only for fun. He got it wrong as much as he got it right.

The real issue is this, we lack a real sense of who we are and what we want to represent and the most worrisome statistic in the bunch to me is this one:

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

This is the crux of a major issue in American business, the fleecing of the stakeholder and the employees. There is no reason for this type of wage inequity. I have YET - to see a CEO who warrants this type of pay. In fact most CEOs of most US companies are not worth a plugged nickle and some hog spit. A leader leads by example. He or she does not fleece the business, cut the wages of the rank file, to enrich themselves. In my opinion, CEOs who cannot produce sustainable, ethical profits for a business, year over year, should earn nothing. It should be a commission based job. No golden parachute for a crappy job, no bonus if you have cut shareholder returns and slash rank and file pay. Earn your keep, like the rest of us.

Not accounting hocus pocus, but real income, real profit. No fancy accounting gimmicks or games of depreciation. I am talking about selling a product and banking real cash. Providing a service, providing it well and banking the profit. Let's pick on my industry du jour - the airlines. The CEO's of all the big ones, need to be put on a CRJ and pelted with garbage, becasue that is exactly how they treat their customers. They should not pass GO and they certainly should not earn 8 figures. The CEO of BP, who is stepping down. He should not get his golden parachute, he should get some hip waders and a one way ticket to a FEMA trailer on a beach on the Gulf Coast and a roll of bounty towels, to wipe down water fowl. That would be leadership. That would be making a difference. All he has done thus far is fail to come up a solution, look stupid and tank the stock.

Business used to be honest and straight forward. When we return to that, to a time when a hand shake meant something - and no double talk and loopholes, then and only then will we start to see a level playing field. It is about an honest days work and a job well done.

I also am totally against any more regulation, let's enforce the regulations we have. Look back on my blog, I have advocated for some time some real accountability. When people who commit fraud and fleece the American taxpayers and corporate stakeholders, they should do hard time, then and only then will it be a deterrent.

There is more than enough blame for this situation to go around. So next time you are trotting off to Wal*mart, with the remains of your ever diminishing paycheck, ask yourself, what am I doing to send the message to businesses that I am serious about keeping the Middle Class and American jobs stateside.

Understand, I am not picking on Wal*Mart exactly, but it is the idea that we think cheaper is better... sometimes it is and in the longer term, sometimes it just isn't.

Additional thoughts on travel

These people are killing me. Am I the only one, aside from some of my Tweeps, who see the value in families with small children flying together? From a sheer safety and comfort and liability perspective.

Seriously?

Furthermore why the assumption that parents are less competent than "nonbreeders."

I do agree with cjr - if parents/families do not attempt to make travel arrangements which include sitting together - then that is on them, but what about when you do, like I did. I did it right and still - the airline flubbed up. My kids should not suffer becasue of the airlines mistake.

cjr says:

“It’s these entitled “frequent travelers” that flying a pain for the rest of us.”

Wow, somebody else has the nerve to throw the “entitled” word around? Really?

I am by no means a frequent traveler; I fly a couple of times a year. But if I book a seat, I expect to receive that seat, regardless of you or your family’s seating problems.

I just flew home from London a couple of weeks ago on two legs of flights. On the second leg, a family tried to sit together, even though they didn’t have the seats. When the correct passenger went to their seat and it was taken, the family member glared at the other passenger and the flight attendant over it. Guess who felt like the “entitled” one?

“frequent travelers, be willing to give up “your seat””

Or, families, be willing to book far enough in advance to guarantee that you can select your seats to sit together on a flight. And if you didn’t, don’t expect sympathy from the rest of us from your inadequacies in planning your trip.

I follow up with...

@cjr and @Raven – all of you… WHAT I am trying to say is MOST PARENTS book seats together. ( I can show you easily 10 via my twitter rant) I always do. I plan ahead, I have even not taken flights at better times, becasue I cannot get seats together. Responsible and reasonable parents do plan ahead. When I booked the tix with CO, there was no charge to pick my seats, unless I wanted more leg room. Why would I take extra leg room seats when my two traveling companions’ feet don’t reach the floor. I picked three seats, middle of the plane together.

My point is – the airlines do not take this into account. Thru this mess with Continental – I have learned that it is their “informal policy” to allow priority elite and other frequent full fare business flyers to “bump” people from their preassigned seats. For a fee or not.

I did everything right. I planned ahead, I picked my seats online, I did not take a flight that did not offer me seats together, I checked in 24 hours prior, discovered CO’s error, contacted CO and was told it was not their problem. Had the CO website offered me the choice to lock those seats in stone with a fee, I would have, I understand that is in the works, when I booked travel, that was not the case. IN SHORT I DID EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING PARENTS SHOULD DO. READ: EVERYTHING YOU DO.

I paid for the same services, rights and privileges you did. Why must I, then settle for less than what I pay for, while you enjoy exactly what you paid for. I paid the full fare for my kiddos, a fair I felt was reasonable, given the stipulation that I would be sitting in the seats I selected, seats that had me with my kids.

There needs to be a system in place to keep parents and kids under the age of 15 together. At 15, I flew to Europe solo. I can see that being ok. But a 5 year old. No way.

Or let’s allocate the last 5 rows on each plane to families with kids. No one wants to sit back there anyway. No priority elite passenger is going to bump me from the last row.

My point in all of this is the airlines create these situations and it is their problem to fix it. I also think that if we are all traveling together, we need to think about what is the safest and best way to ensure that everyone has a reasonably comfortable flight. Kids count. They pay the full fare and if their parents have taken pains to make sure they are booking seats together - then there is no reason for the kids to have to sit alone, with strangers on a flight.

End of story.

Traveling with kids...

So Regina - comments negatively on parents wanting her to move so they can sit together on the travel blog I mentioned in the previous post:

Pick your seats when you book so that you all sit together! Wow, I really had to wrack my brain to come up with that one! As is so often the case, people with children think the whole world revolves around them. If they can’t be bothered to choose their seats ahead of time, tough luck. Don’t expect others to give up their seats for you. Flight attendants should not buy into that nonsense and it’s appalling that they would try to guilt people into it. I totally agree with Raven – I choose an aisle seat for a reason and I’m not giving it up.

Thanks Regina - I never would have thought of that. That is why I actually did that when I booked my full fare tickets on Continental's website. I did not go discount, I did not look for the cheapest fare - I bought my ticket directly from the service provider, providing the service I am buying. I even took care to book seats in the back of the plane, the seats no one really wants. It was a 737, I booked ABC and yep, Regina, I was going to spend the three hours in dreaded middle seat.

Here is the deal, there are some parents out there who are clueless and insensitive to those also traveling. Flip the coin? There are some travelers who are really clueless and insensitive about kids. News flash, those kids paid the same fare you did. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Children are not plague. Nor are they put on this earth to make your life, Regina or those like you, miserable.

Let's go back to my example. I did not create the travel bru ha ha. Continental did. They separated me from my children. It was not sloppy planning on my part. I was not looking to sit with my kids, because I want to be difficult. It is for safety reasons first and foremost, that I sit with my children. L and E are little children. I would not allow them to ride in a car with a stranger. I would have children's' services on my case of I put them on the bus alone.

Let's think this through, in the event of an emergency is a stranger really going to want to deal with my hysterical child, while I am 10 rows forward. I think not. Is that same stranger going to want to deal with the spilt apple juice, crushed crackers, or other issues, which are NORMAL for children to experience?

This is my response to Regina and other people commenting on the blog:

@Regina – I did. I picked my seats with CO. I was traveling solo with my kids ages 5 and 7. Due to an equipment change, we were scattered all over the cabin. Not acceptable. Southwest is cattle call and you take your chances. When I booked with CO, I selected seats together. Ergo in my mind, I paid for seats together.
@ Everyone else – Really? On a 3 hour flight, late in the day, who but me, wants to fly with my kids??? Do you, Mr. “I want the aisle seat” want sit with my tired, hungry and now SCARED 5 year old. Being over 10 rows from mommy is a panic inducing moment for most 5 year olds. Do you Mr. “I plan to stretch out and nap with my leg room” really want to sit next to my chatty 5 and 7 year olds, separated from mommy? Both of my kids talk a mile a minute, which I try to mitigate for the sake of those around us, if I am separated from them, there is little I can really do. I cannot shush them from 10 rows away and you - just don't have the authority or right to be rude to my kid. Let’s not even talk about kicking the seat. Again if I am next to them, I am there to nip that in bud. 10 rows away, what am I going to do to stop that. Do you have their toys, their lovey, their mp3 player, crayons or books. No I don’t think so.
Had I not booked ahead and selected seats together – I could see this being my “problem” the reality is – families with small children do not just “want” to sit together – it frankly is the only things that makes sense.

Did I mention that I called CO twice the day prior, I tried in CMH and IAH repeatedly to get us reseated appropriately, safely and sanely (cuz I gotta tell you a book and nap has a certain appeal, but my kids are my responsibility and no one elses’) and then having failed, appealed to the lead FA, who ignored me. So yes, my crying kids clinging to me, did manage to get us back together again. But really? It SO did not have to be like that.

I was not asking for special treatment. I was asking for sensible treatment, which I had paid for and dearly. Furthermore, I reached out to the service provider - Continental - asking them to correct their error. They changed the equipment or merged flights or something and as a result, they busted up our seating. Don't ask me to pick seats and then sprinkle us around the plane on a whim, knowing full well I am traveling with small children, to the detriment of everyone. No one, certainly not Regina it would seem, wants to sit with or near my 5 or 7 year old but nor do they want to make the sacrifices to get us back together, so that I can care for them properly on the flight. That is my role. It is no one's job but mine to care for them during the flight. That said, I cannot care for them properly if Continental makes such egregious errors in judgment and then refuses to correct it. No less than 7 Continental employees failed to provide any of us with the correct and sensible level of service. This was a process failure at its finest.

So next time you want to jump on the parents traveling with children and wanting special treatment - let's take a deep breath. Sometimes they are boneheads. Sometimes they are getting the screws put to them, by companies who want to take their money and not deliver on the services promises.