Bad idea all the way around

Gov. Ted Strickland, who has been quite two faced about gambling (outlawed cash-paying video games in bars and taverns, opposes casinos, but calls Keno just part of the lottery), and the state legislature last week approved a plan to install up to 2,500 video slots at each of Ohio's seven tracks as a way to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the state budget. So gambling’s OK as long as the state’s raking it in for social and education programs, but not if private parties get their cut by competing with the state. When Ohioans voted down casinos do you suppose that meant they wanted slots in their place?

No, Mr. Governor, Mr. former-preacher-man. It’s bad for people, bad for Ohio and bad for horses. State run gambling is a tax on poor people and stupid people and then we have to raise more taxes to help them out of the hole we helped them dig. Horses are thrown away like the racing greyhounds, over medicated, over raced. Who would adopt a has-been thoroughbred today? Good for dog food or to be shipped to Asia as steaks. There is just nothing good in this scenario.

Although it’s one of the few issues where I’d stand with the Council of Churches and the Methodists on their liberal social agenda. If the Lutherans have commented, I’ve missed it. The Methodists have got this one down cold. They put up a valiant fight against the state lottery--which was supposed to bring in all sorts of money for education, but it didn’t. Cleveland is probably lower now than it was then (just 28% of the class of 1998 earned a diploma; 23% of white students graduated -- far lower than any other district studied -- while 26% of Latinos and 29% of blacks graduated. Stats from Manhattan Institute

"Religious leaders vowed to fight Ohio's plan to install video slot machines at racetracks to help close a budget gap.

The Ohio Council of Churches and the United Methodist Church say they will ask the Ohio Supreme Court to declare the plan unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The churches say they will urge local leaders to delay installation of slots until the court completes its review or state leaders back down.

The churches say they will also mobilize their members to begin a grassroots campaign against the plan. The churches will hold a news conference on Wednesday to outline their opposition plan.

"For 19 years the Ohio Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church and tens of thousands of other in the faith community have successfully stopped predatory gambling from entering the state of Ohio with slot machines and casinos," the churches said in a joint statement. Cincinnati.com

Invasion of privacy

ABC News and the Obesity Police have gone too far in bringing up Regina Benjamin's weight. What else can the media do to discourage women from running for public office? The biggest topic on the anti-Hillary blogs wasn't her politics, it was her legs. So far, I think Benjamin's the best of the bunch of all the Obama appointees. At least I don't think she has evaded her taxes, been a lobbyist or hired an illegal. And OMG! She has actually worked for a living--owned her own medical practice! It's not a position with power, but she will have some visibility and like Clarence Thomas who also came up from poor, southern rural roots, she exemplifies the best in our society. And she'll be a role model for young women who don't fit the rah-rah cheerleader mold. Women like Sarah Palin who played on the team instead of cheering for it and didn't run on the reputation of a husband or father. You go girl. Now, some of the male members of Congress on the other hand, Murtha, Dodd, Kennedy, Frank. . . that's a lot of fat cat flatulence in the atmosphere. Didn't Dodd and Kennedy sponsor some anti-obesity legisation?

Retiring minds

Twice this week I made a mistake with my maturing CD. On Monday I went in to the bank to retrieve it. Wrong day. One day too soon and I hadn't read the small (or even medium) print. So yesterday I parked between Huffman's (grocery) and the bank, intending to shop, then retrieve the CD. Forgot. Here's an item from my 2005 blog about Sally Kriska's teaching at Lakeside.

One of the tips that Sally passed along was the 10-24-7 tip. She said that in order to incorporate something into the long term memory, review it 10 minutes after hearing/reading it, then review in 24 hours, and then a week later. Then it is much more likely to make it to the long term memory, because most things drop out of our memory very quickly."

Today I'm doing Fran's mail run and she'll do mine next week. I tell myself every day, "don't forget the Wednesday mail run." But retiring minds are forgetful. Now, what was I saying?

Impatience with the messiah analogy

At first it was tongue in cheek--referring to Obama as "the messiah" during the campaign. After all, it was so far beyond the pale it made a point. And that ridiculous Soviet realism style art on the posters and buttons--glinting eye, jutting jaw. It all fit. A leftover from an era when God had been kicked out of the public square. But I'm tired of it. Yes. It disturbs me. I think he and his true-believer followers have internalized it at some very deep level of consciousness. We're not helping them clarify their thinking by repeating and cheapening the word messiah. So Christians particularly might just stop joking about it. 'Taint funny anymore, folks.

This morning I was reading a 100 year old sermon by G. Campbell Morgan on the resurrection with reference to Romans 1:4, the centerpiece of our faith, looking forward to the final resurrection of the saints. He says he dreams of unborn ages and new creations, and marvellous processions out of the being of God, through the risen Christ and the risen saints. Then he tells his congregation (in London) to go away rejoicing in the resurrection of Jesus because it is the message of a great confidence.

"He is King, Priest, Warrior, and Builder, and all the great relationships are linked to His resurrection because he demonstrated thereby as the Son of God.

His Kingship is an absolute monarchy. I have no anxiety about His reign. I believe in an absolute monarchy when we can find the right King. We have found Him.

As to His Prophetic mission, it is one of absolute authority. What He said is true. It cannot be gainsaid. All the words gathered from His tender lips, and printed here and preserved for us, are words which abide. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away."

As to His Priesthood, the resurrection demonstrates its absolute sufficiency. Why do you grieve God by this perpetual grieving over sin, and the declaration that you cannot believe He can forgive you?

As to His triumph, He has broken in pieces the gates of brass. He has cut the bars of iron asunder. He has triumphed gloriously, and He will win His battle and build His city. Then so help me God, as He will permit me, I fain would share the travail that makes His Kingdom come, entering the fellowship of His sufferings, for all the while the light of His resurrection is upon the pathway, and I know that at the last, the things which He has made me suffer will be the things of the unending triumph."

That others have sneaked another name into those titles, responsibilities, and 3rd person pronouns is indeed a shame, but let's not encourage them.

Malaria, DDT and children who are dying today

Westerners must look like the most evil, inhumane specters of death to 3rd world peoples. We tell developing countries not to spray their swamps and villages or wait on industrialization so we won't breathe their dirty air, so we can continue on our merry way in pursuit of climate control. I'm surprised they didn't boot Hillary right out of India with her pandering about clean air and global warming sop. We don't have enough wind mills to even power the electric cars being built, nor do we have a dump for the batteries or the mercury filled light bulbs made in coal fired plants in China.

And then there's the Boston Globe reporter who writes that DDT makes him shudder. Really? Has he ever seen children dying of malaria or adults disabled by it? Now that should make him shudder.

“Why do we sit around looking for the impact on things we cannot see when we have the problem we can see right now?’’ Abwang Bernard said. “We have 5-year-old children dying. Many people have four episodes of malaria a year. They miss weeks and weeks of work. They cannot feed their families. Why not protect them for their future?

“I understand the environmental arguments, but sometimes they cry so much fear, their arguments become inhuman to the people. It’s almost like they want the people to perish for the animals. No chemical has no side effects. But let us first reduce infant mortality. That is the environment I care about right now.’’

Obama hasn't read the bill?

Is that why he doesn't know that private insurance will be regulated or driven out of business under this plan he's trying to railroad through? I doubt it. He truly believes that too much knowledge killed Hillarycare, so he's trying to see that as much of this remains in the dark as possible. It's easier to lie or say he doesn't know than to allow an open, honest discussion. When asked about Section 102 of the House legislation, he said he wasn't familiar with it, but he keeps telling us Americans we will be able to keep our own plan if we like it. Not so, and here's why, according to Heritage Foundation Morning Bell, July 21

Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the Americans people to stop making promises about what his health plan will and will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

A very small percentage of American citizens do not have health insurance, and most of the misuse and outrageous spending on health that we do have is in government programs. So what's the big rush? It's not like he's got a bottom line or anything.

And in another act of transparency, Obama has decided not to release the mid-July economic forecasts. Wouldn't want the Congress making decisions on health care based on anything but his obombastic promises.

It's working

Congressman Chris Lee of NY said, "Since the stimulus was announced, we've lost 2 million jobs, so it hasn't done what it has proposed to deliver." Not so fast young man. I was watching a Toledo station last week and they were ecstatic that the area had landed 50 jobs for road repair. They said it was the stimulus money. And, Ohio had to pay half, but oh well. There were probably more government workers than that through whose hands it passed, so don't tell me it's not working! Gas is down to $2.20 in Columbus and that's probably put more money into people's wallets than anything.

Health care myths, pt. 2

Can the government do health care cheaper. No, that's a myth, or just a bald face lie. I was really puzzled by a report on rare and neglected diseases (TRND). Seems it costs private drug companies 2-4 years and $10 million to get a candidate molecule through preclinical development. Big hearted Congress is going to appropriate $24 million to work in this preclinical area and then pass it on to the drug companies for clinical trials. Maybe I'm math challenged, but even if the government could do something less costly (costs are probably high due to gov't regs), isn't that 2.5 molecules? Plus it wants "some funding from licensing." Sort of like owning a car company, heh?

And remember you won't pay higher taxes? Well, what is a user fee passed along to the consumer, if not a tax? In the omnibus spending bill for 2009 signed March 11 by Obama, Congress appropriated $1 billion for the FDA to regulate human drugs and biologics, which is made up in part from new user fees paid by the industries (google PDUFA). And I'm only guessing, but we'll still be getting our generics from India and China without the quality controls in order to "cut costs." (Have you forgotten pet food and lead in paint of children's toys?)

Also, a part of the big lie about costs is that what they shave off the federal ledger for health will be shifted to the states--and we all know what great shape Medicaid is in! States pay half of Medicaid now. How far back in time are they planning to go to recover those costs from surviving family members? Five years? Ten years? Also, if there is a profession with more garbled, obfuscation in its flowing prose than politics, it has to be medicine. Please translate into English or dollars

"accessible, comprehensive, integrated care based on healing relationships"

But perhaps the biggest problem with the "cost" lie is that cost is all Americans care about, and it's the most critical measure we have against some mythical, socialist industrialized nation with rationed care. Americans really do care about safety, timeliness, respect, quality, choice, outcomes and efficiency. Also, for every life we save with surgery, new drugs,chemo, or new technology, that's a life that is going to require even more care--very expensive, monitored and lab test care--than before the life-saving event. The person who dies on a waiting list in Europe saves their government a lot of money. Unfortunately, that's the sort of community spirit Obama wants for us.

Health care myths, pt. 1

Let me count the ways we're lied to by politicians. There has been a bunch of lies in Obama's recent lectures, but just let me point out the biggie--reduced costs if we go to universal, government owned health insurance. Name one thing the government does more cheaply or which hasn't mushroomed in costs beyond what was promised/predicted, whether it's a war, education, or social program. It is not in politicians' nature to ever, ever cut back--they only know how to spend more because it isn't their money. Also, it's what keeps them in power. Medicare, a government program originally intended to insure retired people formerly insured by employers (a bad private system from the get-go right after WWII) has incrimentally become the biggest boondoggle in government, with no one to blame but Congress and past and present presidents. I wonder if anyone has ever checked Congressional districts by higher-costs per-capita for Medicare or Medicare based on number of repeat terms in Congress by their representatives?

The June 24 JAMA reports that Medicare is expected to operate at a deficit this year and is projected to exhaust its reserve funds in 2017--2 years earlier than previously predicted (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html). That doesn't sound like news to me, but maybe the years are different. All I know is that after I retired from the University, my health insurance costs soared under my pension plan (state), and then when I went on Medicare (federal) I needed to buy a pricey supplement with a high deductible to control costs, plus I really couldn't find out the real cost of anything because the bills are so confusing. (I think that's intentional so you just stop looking at them and think it's "free.")

Essentially, Obama is saying we haven't been able to control costs or tests or lawyers or end of life care or expansion of coverage with a plan for a limited population, so give us a larger group and more bundles of money, and then we'll show you what we can REALLY do. Republicans, even the non-RINOS--just nibble around the edges--they don't really have much of a contribution and are no help at all.

A private system not tied to employers with incentives and competition is the only way to truly bring down costs, with a government safety net for that 10% who will never be able to manage on their own, and requirements to be covered, just like car insurance or house insurance. Yes, some 19-year-old might have to give up his pizza, tobacco and beer to have money for insurance. Unfortunately, that window of opportunity closed a long time ago when I was a young woman not paying attention, pushing a baby stroller with a trundle seat and washing cloth diapers, owning one TV, one car and one phone with a mortgage that fit our income. I'm older than dirt.

They've ruined The Closer

Whenever there's a good series and it runs a few years, the writers run out of ideas. The Closer is in its 5th season. So some hot shot comes along and says, let's bring in a new character to the ensemble. I know, let's have two females battling and at the same time let the new character say negative things about police in her role as a victims investigator. Oh goodie. I just turned it off in mid-program. I watched that gal once, and once is enough. Bring back Irene Daniels if another woman is needed.

Intimate Partner Violence

An "intimate" in sociologist lingo is a current or former spouse, a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, same or opposite gender. An intimate by definition is not a relative, friend, co-worker, neighbor, in-law, casual date or a stranger. The latest violence report from the Bureau of Justice has some interesting . . . well, quirks you'll probably never see reported in the MSM.

About 84% of white victims were victimized by white offenders.

About 93% of black victims were victimized by black offenders.

About 96% of females experiencing nonfatal intimate partner violence were victimized by a male and about 3% reported that the offender was another female.

About 82% of males experiencing nonfatal intimate partner violence were victimized by a female and about 16% of males reported that the offender was another male.

A 1994 study reported 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women identified as gay or lesbian. Estimates from the 1990 census indicate that 1.63 percent of people aged 15 and older nationwide reported themselves as unmarried partners of the householder. HealthyNJ.

Since most personal nonfatal violence is intraracial and the rates seem high among gays and lesbians based on their representation in the general population, what is going to be achieved with hate crime legislation (suggesting that mean words lead to violence against the person), except demonizing white straight men?

The most important thing, however, is that intimate partner nonfatal violence and homicide both are going down. You probably don't hear that on the news either.

Monday Memories--Lakeside in the mid-70s

We're back in Columbus this week, with a reasonably full agenda (for us) including hosting a large group for the Cum Cristo team (Cursillo) of which my husband is a member for the September event. I did walk at dawn this morning, but it's not quite the same when you can't see anything over the trees. Don't get me wrong--I love the trees--but you don't see much sun in the early a.m.

Lakeside lakefront cottages on July 18 reflecting the morning sunrise. These were all built around 1915-1920, I think. We rented the one on the far right (a 4-family) in the mid-70s when the children were small. I don't remember how we got into our apartment, but I don't think it was the front door. I think this is the spot where our son caught his first fish.

35 years ago, there were still flat rocks on which you could walk out into the lake to wade, or fish, or just sit on a park bench secured with bolts. As the lake rose to record heights, huge bolders were brought in to protect the housing along the lakefront. The lake has now receded, but the old beauty is now gone, replaced by immigrant bolders, with no work to do.

Abstinence never fails; condoms do

If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny. President Bush is being blamed for a rise in teen-age pregnancy and STDs. He was roundly criticised on the basis of NO evidence, even back when he was governor of Texas. In his first administration he was ridiculed for his plan. Now that couldn't possibly bias the research, could it? Would you ever hear a pro-chastity program on NPR, or see a report in JAMA advocating it as a way to protect young girls? I think not. I know this for certain; Bush wouldn't be getting the credit in the media if the research had gone the other way. His holding the line on stem cell research saved us from countless years of ethical wrangling, and indirectly led the way for a cheaper, easier, safer method. But he's still being criticized and Obama, the most anti-life, anti-child president ever, given credit.

I don't know how many schools implemented "chastity" as a policy (to receive federal tax money), but since that's hard to do, I'm guessing darn few did it with much enthusiasm. It would be like me instructing children in tennis. Every organization, union and association even remotely connected with education were lambasting him on this one (or anything), from the beginning of his career in politics. Perhaps he should have gone the route of another President (OSU). Gee's daughter got a lot of publicity for forcing Wal-Mart to carry Plan B--her fame got her an appointment to the Obama medical team. Although she didn't rise as high as the Alabama MD (Regina Benjamin) running the free clinic. Accessibility to birth control and quicky abortions only increases risk taking among teens, that's been shown countless times, it doesn't decrease it; and none of that removes the risk of an STD. Or emotional trauma or abuse.

Whatever was spent on chastity programs (which I'm guessing looked like the anti-alcohol programs we got in the 50s), it couldn't come close to the trillions in the entertainment field pointing the other direction. Glamorizing trashy, female-demeaning sex in entertainment, gaming and crotch grabbing videos and music is all the rage. However, can blame that on the President? Every method to clean up movies and TV has failed (remember when Tipper Gore led a crusade?) since Frank Sinatra crooned and Elvis thrust his pelvis on the Ed Sullivan Show. Teenagers and old ladies fainted, but for different reasons. In fact, those entreprenuers making the big bucks trafficking in women, teen girls and young boys may be libertarians when it comes to personal values, and Democrats in the voting booth where they can fight regulation. In 2006 the Democrats even pledged a "family values" direction, because they thought it was working for the Republicans.

The current generation of parents of teens has done a reversal of the parenting styles of previous groups--from the 50s-80s. Now, the style is "be best friends," and welcome them home instead of tough love when there's misbehavior. We've got the helicopter parents. Do they say NO to anything? Are they remembering their own youth of the 70s and 80s? What have they communicated? Probably much more than the President or the schools or the churches.

No way to know, of course. Terrorism, the threat of STDs that kill, a long war, a consumer culture out of control just may create an "oh, well" mentality in kids. And let's not discount meaningless technology fads that include e-mailing sexy photos, parents who disrupt children's lives with divorce, recouple, and live together to save on rent. But in the heat of the moment with the hormones raging, I truly doubt that any teen thought to ask, "I wonder if President Bush will be disappointed?."

"Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for American Values, which describes itself as a supporter of traditional marriage and "against liberal education and cultural forces", said the abstinence message is overwhelmed by a culture obsessed with sex.

"It is ridiculous to say that a programme we nominally invest in has failed when it fails to overcome the most sexualised culture in world history. Education that emphasises abstinence as the best option for teens makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education in the United States," she said.

"In every other area of public policy - food, drugs, alcohol - we tell children what is the best choice. It seems very bizarre that the sex education establishment rejects the idea that we should talk to kids about what is best for them. We don't take vodka to drivers education because children will drink and drive."

Banana Republic

Yesterday we had brief catch-up discussions with two different Columbus couples who had recently returned from Washington DC. They'd done some interesting tourist things, but the only location both saw was Arlington Cemetery. And this wasn't their first visit. Both commented on the trash and clutter--one said the area they were in still hadn't had the trash picked up from July 4 celebrations, and public restrooms were the worst they'd seen. But Obama posters were everywhere. Benevolent. Ubiquitous. Omnipresent.

She didn't say income, she said wealth

Many Americans, particularly Democrats, think that these figures of $250,000 or $350,000 for raising taxes mean income, and therefore, they are safe. Maybe they don't own a business; just work at a cushy GS job for $120,000 with bonuses. But income isn't wealth. Having a nice income that you can husband and use wisely, is nice. That's how most people become wealthy. But some people, like Ted Kennedy, inherit wealth and have never held a "real" income producing job, but they sure are wealthy. Because I was a librarian at a state university, my father once said I was on the "dole."

Appearing on NBC "Meet the Press," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans is "a legitimate way to go forward" and beginning with people who make $350,000 is just a mark on the beach with a very hungry tide, in my opinion. She's really talking about taxing wealth, not income. Sebelius grew up in Ohio (governor's daughter) and vacations in Michigan, but she doesn't seem to grasp basic economics about wealth--another one who's never had an income producing job. Kansas, her state, was in tax trouble before the current melt down and she was the governor.

In fact wealth, not income, has always been behind this administration's health plan. There is such a tiny percentage of income earners paying the biggest portion, and such a huge group paying nothing in federal taxes, that there is no way to pull this off by returning tax rates to their Jimmy Carter days (about 70% for the big earners). ERTA, aka Reagan Tax cuts, dropped rates but "the share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988." JEC Report 1996.

There's a tiny article in the June 24, 2009 JAMA on "insurance affordability." Essentially, it says that even if everyone had insurance (about 15% don't, and many of those aren't citizens, or are very young adults in part time jobs, or are unemployed, or don't use the government programs available to them) there would still be inequitable health care--the reason being wealth.

"For families with access to employer-based insurance, those with insurance had a median income ($53,130) that was 2.9 times higher than for those without insurance ($18,401). But the median net wealth was about 23.2 times higher for those with employer-based insurance ($78,472) than for those who had access to it but were uninsured ($3,384).

For individuals without access to employer-based insurance, those with insurance (i.e., they were purchasing their own insurance the way we all used to do it), make 2.3 times more than their uninsured counterparts ($41,086 vs $17,690) and their net wealth is 34.6 times greater ($105,819 vs. $3,057).

So you see how this works? If you have decided to be one of the millions to start your own business or go into farming or become an entertainer or film maker or become a consultant using your savings, or inheritance, or capital from friends or family, opting for a lower income in hopes of a better future, you are living on your "wealth" and buying your own insurance. But in the government's eyes (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), you are rich and obviously the problem, not the solution--or that's how it will come down. You wait and see. "Wealth, income, and affordability of health insurance," by Drs. Bernard, Banthin, and Encinosa, in the May/June 2009 Health Affairs 28(3), pp. 887-896.

Disclaimer: If you are currently out of work and have lost your health insurance, Obama says, "That's the way the cookie crumbles. Getting my programs rammed through Congress is more important than restoring your pitiful job." (A paraphrase based solely on his behavior.)

What you can expect with government health care

After Obama succeeds in destroying your current health insurance plan by making it too expensive for small and midsize businesses, what can you expect from the federal government when your employer catches on? It won't be what our elected officials, or civil servants, or even Medicare recipients currently get (although that's about to end). Or even what 3.3 million Native Americans and Alaskan First People get, who have cradle-to-grave care and yet have the highest disease burden and the lowest life expectancy of any U.S. group (how's that plan working). We're about to see one of the biggest give aways to any special interest group (medical technology) from ARRA (stimulus package)--$20 billion--and I know that's just the beginning price tag. I don't know as I'd call those "shovel ready" stimulus jobs or not--the tech field was doing just fine, I thought, with entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and the Google Guys. If you've ever worked with computers, you know the constant upgrading, not talking to each other, and screw ups that can happen. Especially if the government is doing it (I've lost track of the times my identifying information (state of Ohio) has been lost to a hacker or someone taking home a gov't computer that shouldn't and having the computer stolen out of the back seat.)

But back to the Indians and their care givers--I wonder how the IHS will be able to squander the ARRA funds?

"Since June 2008, when Indian Health Service (IHS) officials agreed to implement more stringent controls over property management, the agency has lost about $3.5 million in equipment, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on June 2 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09450.pdf).

According to the report, missing items included an ultrasound unit (valued at $170 000), an x-ray mammography machine (valued at $100 795), dental chairs, cardiac and vital sign monitors, and a pharmacy tablet-counting machine.

The GAO criticized IHS for taking few steps to ensure that its employees are aware of and complying with property policies. It also suggested that the agency failed to hold individuals accountable, noting that the executive in charge of the agency's property group and other areas was given a $13,000 bonus after a GAO report issued last year found that an estimated 5,000 items with an acquisition value of $15.8 million were reported lost or stolen in fiscal years 2004-2007. Mike Mitka, JAMA, July 8, 2009, p. 136.

And although the government disapproves of businesses giving out bonuses to executives for incentives if the business is losing money, it doesn't mind giving bonuses through its own agencies and programs which are notorious spendthrifts and seem to have gotten us into this pickle, which the government now claims it is going to solve by throwing more money into the laps of the same people! This is not new to the Obama Administration. Before, Obama Bush was the all-time big spender President--Obama has made him look like a penny pinching piker.

"The federal government plans to kick its purchasing power into high gear by offering Medicare and Medicaid bonuses to physicians and hospitals that demonstrate "meaningful use" of interoperable, certified EHRs starting in 2011. The stimulus package also provides billions of grant dollars to federal and state organizations for research and the promotion of health-IT adoption." Government technology

I'm all in favor of incentives--but only in private hands. But guess what else is wanted with that $20 billion from the tax payers? Your patient data. Ah, yes. They are salivating over that--and not for you, oh no, but for the "common good" . . . "the collection of aggregate patient data that could vastly improve patient safety, public health monitoring, and medical knowledge. Kind of HIPAA in reverse, I think. There is also a proposal being floated that we not have a choice about participating in medical research (as a control, as a donor, etc.) "The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research," JAMA, July 1, 2009 p. 67. I thought it was about the scariest thing I'd ever read combined with the med tech rec threat. The authors, Schaefer, Emanuel and Wertheimer, called reluctance or refusal to participate, "free riding." In other words, your DNA, your experience, or your sick child are just so much gravel to pave the road to losing your freedom. It could be a trade off for the charitable deduction which will probably be taken away (Biden and Obama really didn't use those much anyway)--donate at the lab instead of church.

Another medical boondoggle in the ARRA is $1 billion to support comparative effectiveness research. I'd call that a jobs program for researchers who didn't get medical degrees comparing this device to that device, practice A to practice B, therapy Y to therapy X and then filing for more grant money when no one pays attention.

Lakeside Cottage architecture, pt. 3

Side gable houses with shed dormer to the street, pt. 2

It's difficult to find a cottage that hasn't been modified, filled in, or covered in aluminum or vinyl siding. But this one, which the owner thinks was built around 1910, seems to be almost original, except for an addition in the back which she added after she purchased it in 1974. Here the shed dormer roof doesn't go to the roof line and the windows extend out over the porch.

This one is very similar, with the tapered columns, shed dormer over the porch which doesn't extend to the roof line, but the cottage is wider. The front windows look very similar to the one above.

This home on the west end (older) was built in 1911 according to a plaque. It seems to have the original siding, and the dormer doesn't go to the roof line. The porch has been screened. It is just a block from the lake.


This also has a dormer that doesn't extend to the roof but is over the porch, and has a little extra awning roof over the porch.

This one is a new cottage, designed to look like the style popular 1910-1930 or so. I think it was quite successful. It has a very shallow dormer, and chunky columns with no railing. However, the front doors are double, which I think detracts from the basic style, at least as we see it in Lakeside, and those don't look like 1920s window styles. The new code requires off street parking for two cars which is why you see some odd arrangements, even for new homes. For summer homes people don't worry so much about having a 3-car garage.

I still haven't had a minute to get to to the archives and check out the history of what I see. However, if you are interested in cottages, the 53rd Cottage tour sponsored by the Women's Club is this Thursday, July 23. Two of them are new--one designed by my husband, and just a fabulous house with a great feel, beautiful design, and great attention to the view. We attended a "house blessing" there two weeks ago. Some day I'll blog about that--there are many house blessings on the internet, mainly Lutheran and Episcopal. Three of the cottages on the tour are old and older--from the early 20th, and late 19th centuries.

Side gable, shed dormer, pt. 1

No Respect for this wise Latina

What's most upsetting about the Sotomayor hearings is her lying. I'd actually feel better about her if she had stuck to her beliefs that Latinas (females who claim a genetic link to a Spaniard, rather than some other European) are better at being judges than some male of English, Irish, African, Asian, East European, Scandanavian, German, Russian, or Italian ancestry. And let's face it--some leftists probably aren't happy to hear her make the switch, even though they know she'll reverse it once on the bench. They can be purists, too. She's said it numerous times over a number of years--she will judge based on her feelings and personal experiences, not the law. Why switch horses now? This pony has served her well. Identity politics and the diversity dance got her to a SCOTUS nominee hot seat, and we all know she'll be confirmed. Obama "owes" them--women and Latinos. This is not about her. Why can't she just be honest? That goes a long way with me.

Arlington Cemetery grave offenses

When I heard a story on the news about problems at Arlington Cemetery, I said to my husband, tongue in cheek, "It's probably Bush's fault." And that was the slant. Reporter said that computerization the last 8 years hadn't happened. Apparently paper records sufficed for years, but computer mix-ups (remember Obama wants this for all our health records) are Bush's fault. So I tried to google the story, first finding nothing, and it finally appeared as an "investigative report" on Salon.com, where CBS must have found it. Hmmm. That story, which draws its report from some disgruntled former employees, and the cemetery's long standing rule of cleaning out memorials like photos, flowers, notes (many cemeteries do this) reports:

At the center of the chaos is [Thurman] Higginbotham, [Gina]Gray's former superior and a focus of the Army investigation [Gray was fired and is one source for the story]. While cemetery Superintendent John Metzler is the titular head at Arlington, Higginbotham runs the show, say current and former employees. A tall and imposing man, Higginbotham has worked at the cemetery since 1965. He started as a security guard and worked his way up to deputy supervisor in 1990. In his current position, he has earned a reputation for running the cemetery with an iron fist. (Higginbotham declined to talk to Salon.)

One of Higginbotham's failures, say employees, has been his inability to rectify disturbing discrepancies between burial records and information on headstones. For years, Arlington has struggled to replace paper-and-pen burial records with a satellite-aided system of tracking grave locations. "My goal is to have all the gravesites available online to the public, so people can look up a grave from home and print out a map that will show exactly where the gravesite is," Higginbotham told Government Computer News in April 2006. Such systems are standard at other cemeteries, like the Spring Grove Cemetery in Cincinnati, Ohio, nearly identical to Arlington in age and size. Yet an effort begun in 2000 to set up a similar system at Arlington remains unrealized."

Ah, there is it. The magic date. OK, Bush didn't take over until 2001, but basically, it must be his fault. Every failing of Congress, all the WMD misinformation that the Democrats promoted in the 90s, it's all Bush's fault. And Higginbotham's position since 1990? Oh well. Have you ever tried to fire a government employee? You can hardly vote out an elected one.

Why they are rushing health care through

"Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks." WSJ Review and outlook

Looking back at what I've written since last July when he became the putative president, why am I not surprised? His handlers carefully went over Hillary's mistakes on health care government take-over of the early 90s, and decided to take a different route--speed, obfuscation and no discussion. Hit 'em high, hit 'em low; apply a twitch so they don't notice the other searing pain (farrier tool).

But perhaps the silliest thing I've seen in print in a long time in the WSJ was the next article by Ted Van Dyk (Hubert Humphrey's assistant in the Johnson White House and active in national Democratic politics over 40 years), subtitled: "The president we have is very different from the man who campaigned for the office in 2008." No he's not. Only an aging Democrat with buyer's remorse could say that. Those of us who saw through the pretty words and polished oratory knew exactly what would happen. There is no one to block him and his "ruin America" agenda. Of course, I didn't believe he was intellectually superior to Bush or that he was a graceful and spellbinding speaker, either. I listen to content, and was very, very afraid of what I heard undergirding the blatitudes and spamobams. Must have learned more in all those boring Russian history classes than I realized.

Obama's methods of take over have certainly caused me to lose faith in Bush's strong belief that democracy was needed in the Middle East. We can't even handle it here in a country where we've had a long tradition of voting and freedom.