Getting Beyond Covid-19

Hello Everyone

For the past week, I’ve been on-line a lot, maybe too much. There is so much to read, so many unknowns, so many experts, so many theories, so many stories most of which grabbing your eyeballs and not leaving you in a better place.

I tried to distill some of the better information about things that you can do, replacing the fear and hysteria. This a combination of many others’ work, and I’m borrowing the words below.

There are personal essentials: eat, sleep, exercise, and hydration. These are not options; regardless of the events of the day, we must do all four. There are plenty of sites on the internet discussing each of the Essential Four. There are no best ways to achieve them. I have opinions, but these are personal decisions.

Now for the rest of your day, here are three things that you should consider.

Develop A Plan for Staying in Touch: 

Jot down a list of people – even just three, four, or five – under the following headings: friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors. Develop a contact plan for the days and weeks ahead. It could be an aunt who lives alone, an older neighbor, or a neighboring couple. Some you may want to contact every day or even every week. These need not be long conversations. Just reaching out is often enough. 

Make Use of New Technologies: 

Use the fantastic new communication technologies available today – Zoom, FaceTime, Skype, Google Hangouts, etc. to create regular group conversations with your family or a specific group of friends. If you have folks in your circle who have never embraced platforms like these, do them a favor; call them and walk them through setting up. It will change their lives. 

Give Yourself a Break: 

Start a virtual book club over Skype or Zoom. Plan to watch the same comedy on Netflix with a friend. These moments of human contact – even if they’re virtual – are even more important in times like these. Seeing a familiar face is comforting, also if it is on a device screen. 

#Covid-19 #MentalHealthintimesofcrisis #GettingBeyondCovid-19 #Whattodowhentheofficeisclosed #ChinaFlu

Save the Straw, Worm Habitat Destroyed

The announcement that Starbucks and Hyatt Hotels will be withdrawing the plastic straws by 2020 has been met with horror and dismay by the worm community. 

There is always another side to every story.  When we are presented with only one view, we see the world in its finest duality, creating distance between our fellow human beings.

Animal rights group meetings in secret, in universities and colleges throughout the world,  are working hard to formulate a response to the good intentions of the environmental movement to eradicate the plastic drinking straw. In contrast, the plastic bottle and the 6 pack plastic holder are notorious pollutants of water and land.  Particularly the 6 pack plastic holder has caused irreparable harm to marine mammals.   It is well known that the 6 pack hold’s plastic resembles jellyfish and light reflecting off of fish scales, luring a feeding response. It is equally well studied that bright pink fluorescent pigments to the plastic would significantly reduce the feeding response.

The plastic straw has taken on an evolutionary role in the habitable domestic earthworm, an endangered species in North America.  With the introduction of the Asian earthworm eatausallius, a parasitic invasive species brought to North American on sailing ships, native earthworms have been all but entirely displaced.

The potential salvation of the domestic earthworm population, so far, has been the earthworm’s adaptation to the usage of plastic straws as a breeding, sanctuary, and temporary home.  Ideal in structure, the plastic straw ranging in aperture from the swizzle stick to the coffee stirrer, to the narrow gauge straws used in bar and upscale eateries, to the standard size soft drink straw going up to the super end big gulp straw provides the ideal environment for the growth and development of the North American earthworm population.

Dr. R.U Reel, the well-published expert from the University of Southwest Northern Michigan, has stated in the EW international Symposium back in 1989 that habitat evolutionary adaptation of the domestic earthworm to the usage of tools is remarkable and encouraging.  Dr. Reel has written extensively about the difficulty of government agencies address this problem that is both unique and evolutionary.  The government wants to look at everything in terms of absolutes; it is either good or bad.   In the case of the earthworm, bad is good, and none is terrible.  Dr. Reel admits this is a hard concept to wrap your head around.

At Dr. Reel’s office, plastic straws are at the centerpiece of his earthworm breeding, recycling, and reintroduction program.  With reintroduction sites planned throughout North American, Dr. Reel’s carefully detailed rollout of adapted earthworms may be derailed by the well-meaning but short-sighted vision of the environmental movement.

Dr. Reel is currently living in an aqua – environment adjacent to the hot water volcanic vents in the central Pacific, studying the microhabitat of the sulfur feeding tube worms.  In his recent video conference to his 15,000 worm enthusiasts, Dr. Reel announced preliminary findings that his research had uncovered worm technologies that can reverse the carbon accumulations in the atmosphere bonding sulphuric, carbon into a rubber-like substance that generated energy in movement and is resistant to abrasive wear, potentially perfect for electrical car tires.  As Dr. Reel states, you can reduce greenhouse gases and generate electricity by driving your vehicles, a perfect symbiosis of a problem begetting a solution without human habit changing.

When Dr. Reel was informed of the human withdrawal of straw-based worm habitat, he was deeply saddened.  Fortunately, his staff and assistants have a stockpile of 107 million straws sufficient for the first phase of introduction in Vermont and Massachusetts.

Dr. Reel suggests that everyone ought to take their straws to a park, lawn, or public square and plant a straw for the time being.  This is best done by first boring a simple aperture hole at a depth of 1-inch longer than the host straw. That is all you have to do.  Ideally, the soil/earth should be wettened before straw planting.  And as Dr. Reel always says, nature will take its course, and remarkable adaptations will occur.  It is the perfect human participation, plant it and forget it.

In an interview before the release of this article, Dr. Reel was informed that a straw, straw replacement may be available. He stated that that would be ideal as long as the structural integrity of the straw holds its shape for at least 93 days of the maturation cycle for the North American earthworm.

Unfortunately, Dr. Reel’s satellite connection was curtained by the pending onset of the super typhoon in the mid-Pacific. Before Dr. Reel’s sign-off, he implored his students to look for alternatives to the plastic straw as he noted that something would go amiss when a man decides to do something regardless of the expected and best intentions.  As often cited, the North American Bison and the carrier pigeon are prime examples of things that go wrong and are short-sighted.

As a sidelight, Dr. Reel’s semi-submersible habitat is designed to weather storms of super typhoon strength and waves of 127 feet in height.

#earthworms #plasticstraws #eviromentalplastic #banningplastic straws #seniorsprotestplastic straws ban #Adultsippycupss #http://tiny.cc/968w0y #http://tiny.cc/3b9w0y 

July 22, 2018

Study Gun Violence

The new budget bill is more than 2,000 pages long, and it includes billions of dollars for the Pentagon, the opioid crisis, and infrastructure projects. It lets the CDC study gun violence.

What? The CDC. The same agency that warns us every year, to get the FLU shot, Then reports at the end of every Flu season that the vaccine was only 3% effective. Every year!!!
The upside is it and pours hundreds of millions into the coffers or the vaccine makers.

I’d say there is a credibility gap. Can you really trust the study from the CDC?

If we want a government agency to investigate gun violence we have the opportunity to address two problems with the same….bullet, excuse the pun. Assign the task to the US Postal Service.

Nowhere in the government is there so many disgruntled employees, who face all sort of mental anguish and resort to gun violence. The whole study can be done in-house. The study fulfills all the criteria of the scientific method: it is geographically diverse, ethnically diverse, it is a chronic problem, the sample size is large. From a business standpoint despite all the problems can and does deliver the mail pretty darn well pretty much every day.

Yes, occasionally they misplace the mail or get the address wrong, but that is a tiny, tiny percentage of wrong delivery versus the CDC which is 3% accurate.

The other benefit is if we fund the violence study with the Postal Service we can easily justify the money poured in annually to cover revenue shortfalls and in return, we get a really interesting report.

Sure the result may be politically twisted as being bias, discriminatory, racist, not politically correct and mostly likely very accurate.

Sneak peak of the results, coming soon.

NFL Losing it Audience

Recent, articles about the NFL losing audience is rather interesting in that the NFL seems to be clueless about the core reasons and why people watch football.  What interests the fans is the game, the battle on the field. http://tiny.cc/w1mery

What the audience is annoyed at is the political view of the players. It is about the game.  The audience wants entertainment.  The don’t want a political statement, listening to the transgressions of the players off the field, the terrible personal judgements the players make, the obscene amount of money the players get paid for playing a game.

In this time, of divisiveness in the political arena, the less that stellar moral character of the political leaders, the outrageous and blinding lust for power over right action, the American public wants entertainment to be just that.  The political view are personal matters.

What does a 24 year old making millions know about the world, working hard to feed a family, hold down a job, paying bills, getting out of debt, paying taxes.  Every bump and bruise is examined in the media as if it where a life threatening ailment.

The media is desperate for stories to capture an audience.  The lust for a story outweighs the facts and it’s relative importance. If the NFL wants it audience back, focus on the game, the strategy, the players skill, the matchups.

Yes, the photo of the ballplayer with his scantily clad wife/girl friend in a compromising situation gets attention, momentarily, it minimizes the value of the player’s perception in the eyes of the audience.

If we want to improve the narrative of the players, lets focus on their contributions off the field.  Heroes visiting the hospitals, cheering up the sick, visiting schools and talking about contribution and leading by example.  Whereas it may not be sexy to visit a high school and explain how to cover a receiver. For lives it does touch is  experience is uplifting, long lasting and deeply meaningful.

 

Lastly, we can’t lose sight of the fact, that the players live in the United States, a country that is giving them the opportunity to reap the benefits of their inherit athletic gifts.  The players own the country far more than than the courtesy of standing for the national anthem.  For the privilege of playing in the NFL they ought to feel the obligation to give back.

If there is a need to make a political statement may it be with the foresight to lead by example, clear in its purpose and not offend the sport, the country and the people that give them the opportunity.

#NFL #Standing for the National Anthem #NFL TV Ratings #NFL Player Association #Do the Right Thing.

Making Money Off of Healthcare

Almost a billion dollars in profit in the past ninety days for a health insurance provider? If Trump wants to fix the healthcare industry he needs to take the profit out of writing healthcare insurance. It is morally reprehensible to make money on people who fear of not being able to pay for their medical care and have no choice but to buy insurance. The non-stop premium increases with its own self-generating and unbridled cost structure with no correlated to inflation, but a leverage of fear and no choices.

Aetna made 836 million dollars in the 3rd quarter. how do they make that profit? The charge an egregious amount of policies and pay out a pittance. https://news.aetna.com/news-releases/aetna-reports-third-quarter-2017-results/

There is math behind these statements. The number of policies that Aetna writes, the premiums paid and the payout or underwriting profit. If Trump truly wants to solve this problem the companies need to become mutual companies, where the premium holder is the shareholder, and the interest of the premium holder is aligned with the company’s operations. That is to reduce costs to the buyer/the shareholder, whether that mean negotiating prices for drugs, an efficiency of procedure, bulk buying of a lab test, empowering the patient/the shareholder to report abuse, fraud, malpractice, and any other offense that increases the cost of providing healthcare. If there is an underwriting profit, the money is returned to the policyholder in the form of reduced premiums in the successive years.

The next cost containment breakthrough for effective healthcare is to establish best practices. To make the program successful there need to be technical tracking proven results. The program is a 2 way street for savings and feedback through documenting ailments and successful treatment. The genome mapping will be part of the integrated relationship.

In the coming missives, I will discuss the system for best practices, patient and doctor benefit and how to create massive savings.

Cost of Being Free

What is the cost?  Clearly we have spent billions to make our country secure. It is time to ask some fundamental questions.

What do we want our country to be?

A quasi-militarized state where suspicion is a norm?

Where the battlefield is in our backyard? Is there a political purpose?

Do we want to live with the mindset of scarcity?

Do we want energy to continue to get a larger share of our personal budgets?

More importantly, what do we want for our future?

The time to dream is now. Dream of an abundant future. Dream of a future filled with opportunity, where problems are addressed with the best minds and swept out of the way to make room for higher callings.

This country was founded on principals of liberty and the abolishment of tyranny.  Our Declaration of Independence clearly stated the principle of our founding. If there were a time to review our founding document the time is now.

We need to envision a boundless future, instead of the political, racial, religious squabbling that has cloud our vision for the past 6 or 7 years.  We must demand an abundant future and seek leadership based on experience, not pandering promises.

 

Living Within One’s Means

How long can you survive borrowing from the future?  The founders of this country knew of the dangers of debt and the servitude and the shackles for which we hobble the future.

A farmer fully understands, that if he sells all his seeds he has nothing to plant the next year.

(For those of you who know that currently there are provisions in the contract with seed company’s that restrict the use of reseeding from existing crops, sorry for the example, but the metaphor is: you can’t borrow from the future without consequences.)

Maybe a better analogy is going to the gas station, if you only have $20 and fill the tank, you’d be indebted $60. You better have a great relationship with the gas station.

We desperately need a dose of common sense for decision-making. I remember the summary of Obama’s Obama Care Program.  We will add 30 million people to the healthcare umbrella and it won’t cost anyone any more.

The logic does not work and the politicians can’t explain it.

Politicians are in the business of staying elected. Term limits gives us the opportunity to see fresh faces and maybe the end of the elected officials career path.

We need the people we elect to have experience at running something were we do not provide on-the-job-training.

If you want to be a leader, prove you are worthy. Get a job, create value, create jobs, learn leadership, be in a position to give back. The job of the public official should be to provide the leadership and experience.

How can a job in the public sector, with job security, standardized pay raises based on longevity, not performance measures receive higher pay than a comparable job in the private sector. This is crazy.

We are creating life jobs that only do one thing; reduce the “unemployment figures” while increasing the cost to the taxpayer.

What does the government produce? More regulation, more bureaucracy, more Administrative agencies.

Let’s go back to the founding documents to determine what the government is supposed to do:

If there is a problem to be remedied, how about an committee to determine the solution, who’s purpose is to set forth a framework for accomplishing the solution, then the committee disbands. The solution if need be, establishes an administrative body; created to solve the problem.

Built into the administrative body is a series of milestones to determine the state of progress and once the task is complete the administrative body disbands.

Before, I close this missive, I do not intend to dismiss the value of our military, our court system, our police or firefighters, our teachers and the support staff necessary to maintain our country as a country ruled by law.

The role of government is clearly mapped our in our constitution, the expansion of which undermines the very beauty of the United States.

Our Country’s Obsession

We are in trouble when the head of state brags about killing someone. This is no longer a political issue.

Killing Osama Ben Laden, has been an obsession of our government since September 11, 2001. I have no issue with this obsession; our country has been violated, fundamentally and profoundly. Our government has take this violation and converted it to a security obsession that has no boundaries, crossing the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, personal dignity and geopolitical sovereignty.

Osama Ben Laden is dead. No politician should or can take credit for this act.  The US Military has done their job, eliminated a threat. Can we move on?

From a political standpoint, having a threat serves a useful purpose, it focuses our collective attention to an outside problem, away from the domestic issues that are affecting all Americans. Issue’s like unemployment, run away cost of health care, low or no-growth in our economy, galloping governmental mismanagement of the economy and the acceptance of high risk decision making with little concern about the ramifications of failure.

The way our government deals with a problem is rather simple:

  1. We identify some symptom that we don’t like
  2. We create some regulation
  3. Set up a institution to remedy the “problem”
  4. Never look back

Funding is set, and overtime the institution grows and takes a life of its own.

This is not what the United States is about. Our government officials both elected and appointed have it all wrong. The government is obsessed with looking like it is doing something to justify it existence. Rather than ask the question over and over again, “Is what we are doing working” and “have we achieved the objective?” The government tries to look like is doing something and justifies its actions without an objective criteria for success.

For this reason, we have created some seriously flawed institutions.

 

A Word on Risk

52% of all Americans do not pay income taxes – a startling percentage in light of the demand by the Obama administration that the rich should pay more. So if the logic continues the majority of Americans already take a free ride and based on the current plan more people will receive more and contribute less. Something for nothing, converts something to nothing.

Maybe this model should and has to be reexamined.

If you live in the US you need to contribute to the country’s well being. If the government is in the business of providing for everything, what is the purpose of the individual to consume, to take? Not acceptable.

Where has this been an effective model? The test is simple: does it work? Has the government had a history of good decisions? Or as a past mayor of New York Edward Koch used to say, how am I doing?

Let’s look at the history- the history of near decisions. With the economic downturn of the recent 4 year and the potential collapse of the banking system, the government provided a bailout program to shore up the banks by giving banks money at practically zero cost. With zero cost money, banks lent out the money reaping significant profits and the ability to repay the zero cost money. Okay the banks are fiscally solvent. But are they?

Are the customers better off? More profitable? Expanding?

The foundation is on shaky ground. It does not make a slight bit of difference what you build on top of shaky ground, it maybe pretty but it isn’t safe.

Let’s refocus on making the borrowers more stable. Maybe just maybe, we need to address the cost of money to the borrower. If the borrower is healthy the lender has a better chance of being repaid.

How did we get to higher interest rates? The history of this goes back to the lifting of usury caps on interest rates, and specifically on credit cards. Without boring you with history lessons about Citibank moving the credit card business to South Dakota and the state legislature lifting the usury ceiling in exchange for jobs. Believe it, you can look this up at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/rise.html

The real issue is what is a reasonable interest rate, if your cost of money is practically zero. If the risk free rate on government debt is .9% for a 5 year treasury security, lets say it is 4 times the risk free rate so a good return on money is 4% with a lending cap rate of 12% for high risk, speculative lending.

So lets make rate workable and inject money into the economy in a place that has a need, the ability to repay and make the banks responsible for its lending practices.

Let’s cap all interest rates at 12% – that is the usury ceiling. Let’s reduce all interest rates on outstanding mortgages, credit cards to that maximum and all interest rates on mortgages, reduced by 2%. The government can pick up the cost of the “re-pegging of rates”, not refinancing, of say $500.00. The banks create fee income from refinancing. All the paper work is there from the original closing; there is no need for attorney fee’s or title insurance. These fees drain the consumer for problems that originate in the abuse of the mortgage system.

For new mortgages, closing fees are appropriate and maybe necessary but for refinancing, it just abuse. If the original loan was improperly closed, the fault lays with the original transaction.

This proposal is not a bailout. This is a resetting of rates. Commensurate with the current rate environment and desired rate environment to control inflation. This is a policy decision to let money in the economy stay in the economy with the consumer, the borrower and taxpayer. Create a new value system based on affordable cost of money and risk. If you can successfully pay your mortgage and credit cards you should be rewarded and not have to subsidize bad decisions by bad banking practices. Legislative mandated risk taking.

If it is the desire for the government to mandate lending practices for social reform, the risk must be borne by a government insured and funded entity. That entity must be fully funded and overseen by a regulatory body that reports of funding level, measures success of the program. This program must have fixed parameters as to the lending levels, access requirements and sunset provisions such that once the program has achieve its requisite goals, it ceases to exist or if continued, continues by legislative approval.

Getting back to the interest limitations, the reorienting of the economy based not on speculation but on sound principals of ability to pay, resets the real estate market and creates unencumbered cash in the hands of the consumer and ultimately spurs economic growth. This growth is organic, in that the consumer has the money, subsidized with a no bailout basis.

The bailout mentality of loss safety nets with the government baring the risk of speculative default has to stop. The government’s roll is not to create an environment for speculation and acceptable high risk taking for individual gain, with failure borne by the taxpayer.