http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/22/income-inequality-a-deeper-look/

The article speaks to the Number Games for certain. The comments interestingly reveal the problem with trying to find hard social facts from numbers.  My comment is on the comment of another who, in my view, isn’t seeing the forrest for the trees. It is an odd world we live in. Another commenter suggests the average man has income inequality because  we’ve added the cost of electronics to our budgets. Modern electronics replace former costs of tv’s, land line phones, postage, and reduces inefficient transportation expense. It should be held at arms length when people who have jobs and higher education attempt to analyze the economic world of those less fortunate than themselves. And somehow their numbers are valued more than the opinions of those experiencing the pinch. Legislators have lost their minds. What sense does it make that state budgets killed teacher jobs and now they are being brought back with a jobs bill?  Those jobs should never have been cut in the first place. I’d like to see a chart of the amount of money state budgets have required be cut from privatized functions. If I was a bettin’ woman I’d say they didn’t.

11/7/2010

I have linked some not so light reading here… a couple of articles I came across, about a week apart, but really got me thinking about the largess of what we are dealing with and why choosing to rescue free market businesses over individual people is problematic… I wish the experts would stop prediciting things and get it right!

The Haves and the Have Nots

And then consider where the funds have gone, exactly…

Follow the Money

For the 3 trillion we’ve already spent, every American could have otherwise received a check for over $9500.00 What would you have done with it? Personally I would have paid off some debt. Bonus… Bank gets their money. TARP is essentially the trickle down practice of economics and complete garbage. At every turn economic theorists cannot conceive of giving “the people” back their own money, it would seem the taxpayer is not to be trusted.

LIVING WAGE

12/7/2009  

     I have been thinking a lot about Middle Class America and it’s importance in  American culture.  I have some issues with the constant repeal of living wage debate in our legislative bodies. Living wage is the idea that the minimum wage is one  that actually covers basic needs or that a single person can actually live on… not a bad thing. The problem, some business or economic intellectuals argue, is that increasing minimum wages creates increases in consumer prices, creating an unending cycle. This is absolutely flawed. If a business lobbies the government to “say” it can’t afford to raise the smallest wage earner and then in the board room, votes to inflate the highest wage earner, they are self-serving and full of shit. By their logic, the cost of executive wage increases would get added to the consumer price as well, and clearly they haven’t been afraid to do that over the last several years!  Hmmm…

So I got to thinking about how in my Oct 2008 post below, and in all my calculations, I never looked at minimum wage as any guidepost for the average household financials.

Here are the numbers, assuming  full-time (50 weeks/yr of 40 hrs/week) for two workers in the minimum wage household…

Year *Min. Wage $/hr* Median Income*2 Earner Min Wage Income     1968            $1.60                      $7,740.00                       $6,400.00                    2008           $6.55                    $50,233.00                     $26,200.00

I think the numbers speak for themselves. In 1968 a min. wage household almost made the median income, in 2008 they make about half the median income! A living wage, suggested at $11, would bring a two earner min. wage household to $44,000 a year…better.  As a small business owner I refuse to pay people minimum wage as it currently stands (7.25/hr), I know that’s not enough in my community.  Minimum wage was introduced in 1938 for good reason, because businesses asking people to work without proper compensation is tantamount to slavery. People who can, must work… business paying a wage that does not sustain living is wrong.  Minimum wage must be in place to ensure civility, the Fair Labor Act also outlawed child labor, thankfully. Businesses must not be allowed to run rough-shod over their workers…the very resource of their incoming funds! Clearly in the other direction (think UAW union), workers will try to negotiate to be paid for doing nothing.  Both the worker and business sides have valid points to make, both sides also have abusive extremes. At the end of the day, the government should always be there to stand up for the individual with a position based at the very least on the true cost of basic living!

Clearly a year later from my prior posts below usury laws have yet to be changed. Lots of people are right at this moment are opening mail and finding a change of terms sheets informing them their interest rates are going up or their credit lines are dropping in February. The Middle Class are being enslaved further by banks. They are out of control and something has to be fixed.  Consumer protection failures and active wage suppression is clearly at play.  Middle Class America…you are being attacked.

MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA

1/30/2009

I am thrilled to hear the words spoken on this issue by both Obama and Biden. As an small business owner/operator and artist, and I consider myself middle class although my households’ income falls below the median income of fifty two thousand a year. Middle class issues are health care and its exorbitant rates, the loss of consumer protection in the financial and insurance sectors, and rising costs of energy and education beyond the growth in income. Low interest rates do nothing for those who cannot afford to purchase a home. Credit card rates are higher than mortgage rates, many Americans pay over 15% interest some as high as 32%. Usury laws must be revised and state exemptions must be carefully reviewed to ensure fairness in lending and credit for all Americans regardless of headquarters location. All Insurance becomes a pyramid scheme when motivated solely by profit and not human need. If every policy holder needed help tomorrow, insurance companies could not provide the level of coverage they promised to everyone. It’s a statistics game.
Generally, the privatization of government functions over the last 40 years has shifted motive and abuses have been allowed to take place in many arenas. We extol the virtues of the work of non-profits because there is an inclusive goal of improvement and filling community need. Our government is invested by us to act as a non-profit with a focus on the American people as beneficiary, after all, we create the funds our government plays with. Consumer protections must be taken seriously.
 I must say I am concerned about all this quick spent TARP and other Funds, not put back in the hands of the taxpayer, instead pumped into slow lumbering corporations that already have (but refuse to use) exit strategies built-in to free enterprise. Sustainability is the cap stone of a free market economy, in that capitalism only works when consumers truly have the power to kill a business. Every household could have received more than $7,000.00 for the same expense in funding budget. For many people it would pay a year of mortgage payments, pay down expensive debt or pay for medical expenses, and otherwise provide savings/spending for everyone. If the businesses needed government assistance because homeowners were defaulting, how many people could the government have kept in their homes while also sustaining the customer base for these big companies? I work hard in my business, when I have to tell my employees that they aren’t getting a bonus while I cut my pay, then hear that executives of bailout recipient companies are getting bonuses on top of pay increases and not changing wasteful spending. Disgusting. Executive retention?! Why are they worth keeping? They are not victims of their business, they are responsible for it, and the captain must go down with the ship!
In order to control the beast that is corp. officer compensation while gaining valuable tax revenue, the government should remove the caps (in tax) for FICA, let it be a simple percentage of the dollar amount earned, a flat tax if you will. It’s currently 7.65% of a person’s income if they make $102,000.00 a year or less. (And don’t forget your employer matches the dollar.) So the person making 4 million a year is contributing the $7803.00 the same as the person who makes 103 thousand a year. How can you ask one person to contribute 7.65% of their income and ask another to only pay .2%? Respecting human life requires a priceless attitude when it comes to health. We should all be just as valuable as each other, refer to both the Constitution and the Bible to understand this concept. If a millionaire can’t afford to contribute 7.65% of their income, how can you ask anyone else to?
Understand that the spending in the government is huge dollars, but the line items on those budgets must be revised and prioritized according to “people first, then money, then things”, as Suze Orman likes to say, and she’s 100 percent right, morally and fiscally.
I hope Obama can cope with the rigors of the office of President. I sometimes feel like Bush did this on purpose, squeeze the last possible dollars out of the system for his buddies…and then leave the next guy to fix it. A giant “fuck you” if you will. Good luck President Obama.

LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS

penned  10/20/2008
Recently I read a letter to the editor of Mountain Xpress, from a person who suggests that we no longer spend wisely, or live within our means, and instead recklessly rack up debt to afford our lifestyle. While it is easy to blame an individual in specific circumstances like the retail therapy patient or shoe-aholic, I do not think we are as frivolous as the writer thinks. I wanted to learn more about what “living within our means” means for the average American and why it seems hard for us to do it in this day and age. With this financial meltdown, everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. Some blame the government or Wall Street, banks and creditors, others blame the individual. Historically, individuals are far more conservative with funds than governments or businesses tend to be. This current crisis began with the claim that “too big to fail” banks were going under because of sub-prime loan defaults. The fact is 75% of subprime loans continue to be paid on time. These banks chose the terms and path along which the average American would acquire a home loan. Companies that claim bankruptcy still have assets. Now we have our government throwing money at the problem instead of taking the time to analyze and think. If businesses are “too big to fail” is our government “too big to fail”? If this crisis is so complicated that our financial leaders don’t agree on a solution, how is the average American to understand?

Since living within your means equals the B word, I researched budget calculators and tried to make a composite of what the budget guru’s recommend. What a flummox! Depending on whom you talk to or where you look, there is not one definitive budget. Those from debt counselors and financial advisors vary widely and most budget calculators’ percentages add up to more than 100 percent. Most calculate between 82 and 147 percent, which I think is truly disastrous. How can anyone understand budgeting advice with a disclaimer that categories do not add up to 100 percent? Here are the categories with the % ranges; savings 5-20%, housing 20-35%, utilities 5-10%, food 5-20%, transportation 6-20%, personal/clothing 7-10%, medical/health 2-10%, recreation 5-10% and charitable 4-15%. Any household budget must include all the realistic expenses required to survive while staying within the framework of their income. The best approach to budgeting I found was from a guy who suggests only five categories; needs/commitments 60%, wants/fun 10%, long-term savings 10%, short term savings 10% and retirement 10%. Personally I like the five categories idea, needs and commitments category includes whatever fits your life, the rest is for savings, the future and fun stuff. It feels easy, and that is the best place to start when making a budget.

To find the budget for the average American, I looked up median incomes, median home prices, and other data for the average Household; all of which are available through government websites. So let’s look at the needs category of 60%. Most would agree the average household (or any human for that matter) needs food, water, shelter, clothing, transportation, health care, education and art/religion. I suppose that the funds from the wants /fun category could combine with the needs category to give the budget extra funds, but as we know all work and no play make Jack a dull boy. Living within one’s means should mean that we have room for life and living. In 2008 the average household earns $50,233.00 a year. A proper budget will allocate $30,150.00 a year to pay for all their needs. $5,023 for fun/wants and the rest for savings and retirement adding up to $15,060.00.

So since homeownership is at the crux of this “living within our means” crisis, let’s have a good look at costs for shelter and what has happened to our ability to buy a home while considering we must live within our means.

A few years ago I remember hearing about 0 down payment loans or 100% financing and thought it was a mistake to allow people to have a home without first saving some funds. The standard down payment is 20% of a house’s value, so perhaps lowering the down payment to 10 or 5 percent would have been a better idea than no down payment. There is no question that banks had dollar signs in their eyes and never thought for a moment about the financial impact of a borrower without the ability to save before becoming a homeowner. If you can’t save anything, not even 5%, how will you be able to pay for the new roof, furnace or other home upkeep? I am sure those who wanted to buy a home and could not accumulate a down payment were not attempting to get something for nothing as many would imply. Instead, they ended up getting nothing for something by paying interest only and gaining zero equity for the few years they could afford the loan. The secure feeling of being a homeowner was their motive and we cannot fault anyone who has those feelings, it human to need shelter. The banks simply should have known better, they are the financial experts and it is their instruments they are selling. Even when you go to a carnival you have to be “so many inches tall” before you can ride the rides. While I am sure carnies would love to have the extra income from the littlest ones, there is a reason why there are qualifications to ride. It should not be up to the rider to know what those safety pitfalls are; it’s up to the carnival to know what they are selling and inform their customers. What happened to consumer protections?

In order to compare where we are we have to look to a time prior, I picked forty years, 1968 because it seems long enough ago to be a “different time” and not so long ago no one remembers it. In an effort to simply examine all the points of home buying on a budget let’s assume that the average household saves a modest 5% of their income for a 20% down payment on a home. Let’s also assume that with their down payment they qualify for a loan and get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage in order to keep their payments affordable. This is the traditional, safe, sound way of buying a home.

In 1968 the average household made $7,740.00 dollars a year. The average home price was $20,100.00 and the average interest rate was 6.75%. The average household in 1968 would need 10 years to save for a down payment, and once they got a loan they would spend $104.00 a month, or 16% of their income. In 2008 the average household makes $50,233.00 a year. The average home price is $203,000.00 and the average interest rate is 5%. The average household today would need 16 years to save for a down payment, and once they got a loan they would spend $872.00 a month or 21% of their income. Wait a minute, what happened? Why does it take us 6 years longer and cost us 5% more to secure a home than it did 40 years ago. Let’s assume that the average household starts saving at 18 years old. In 1968 they would save and pay for a home by the age of 58, four years before retiring. In 2008 they would save and pay for a home by the age of 64, two years after retiring. What does this mean for the future average household, will it take them 70 years to save for and buy a home? At what point does it no longer make sense to even try to buy a house, if you die before you can pay it off? Is there something flawed in my simplicity?

Perhaps the gap is not caused by the price and financing of a home but in the buying power of our income. Perhaps this only shows us that our incomes have not kept pace with cost of living. What happened to our income? Let’s compare average executive compensation with the average worker compensation for 2008 and 1968. In 1968 the average executive made 24 times their average worker, or the executive made in one day what the worker made in one month. In 2008 the average executive makes 50 times their average worker, or the executive makes in one day what their average worker makes in two months. This is the average mind you, as we have seen in the news; some executives get paid as high as 275 times the average worker! American executives are the highest paid in the world bar none. The average Japanese executive makes only 25% of an average American exec. In Canada, the average exec. makes 50%. Why are our executives so overpaid? What should the average household do about this, not go to work or maybe work for themselves? But I digress.

This article is about living within our means and whatever the reason is, average housing for the average household costs 21%. Now this does not include utilities like electric, heat or water, maintenance, property taxes and flood insurance, so let’s assume that the yearly cost for all that is another 9% or $4520.00 a year. So the cost of living in your own house is 30%. Half our budget for needs is gone. But it seems to fall in line with most budget calculators. We still have to eat, have transportation and health care.

Let’s tackle health care first; we can eat beans and rice and ride a bike. If you are fortunate enough to have employer provided health care, they help cover half of the expense. If you aren’t, the average household is paying for a policy that costs about $10,000. This is an average policy that has a high deductible and does not cover vision, dental or prescriptions. Lord, help those with preexisting conditions. I went to several “compare a policy” sites and they only got more expensive to cover everything or got cheaper but covered only catastrophic costs. Independent health care costs 20% of our average household’s income. Let’s hope that the average household has health insurance through their employer and their cost falls to just 10%. However, if they end up needing to pay their deductible ($5,000.00), that cost will rise back up to 20%. And if the independent policy is used and they need to pay the deductible, their health care costs could soar to 30%. Bye-bye to the rest of the needs budget, yikes. I tried to find health insurance statistics but the only information I could find begins in 1988 and it doesn’t cover cost related info. I wonder why.

Okay… housing 30% plus health care 20% equals 50%, which means the average household has 10% left or $5023.00 to eat and get to work 5 or 6 days a week for one year. Transportation is an expense that depends on where you live, what you do and how you do it. If you live in New York City you are likely to not own a car and take public transportation. If you live in Los Angeles you are likely to have a car and drive long distances to get to work. With the millions of cars driving around on the streets let’s assume the average household needs at least one car to get to work. Budget calculators range transportation between 6-20% Hopefully the average households paid for this car with their short term savings and do not also have a car payment. If they do have a car they either bought an old cheap car that gets terrible gas mileage or an expensive new car that gets terrible gas mileage. In Europe cars are mandated to get higher gas mileage than in the US. You can’t blame an “addiction to oil” on the average household, because the available technology doesn’t give them a choice to reduce consumption.  I was in England recently and the Land Rover SUV got 45 miles to the gallon. Yup, it’s true, I checked and double checked. Now it was different in that the car body was narrower than one you’d find here, but just as comfy, everyone had a cup holder and there was enough room for 4 peoples’ luggage. Where is this car in America? Why are the Land Rovers here only good for 18 mpg at best? Why don’t we have a choice? Again I digress; it does nothing in real terms for our budget. Assuming that in order to stick to their budget the average household can only spend on the low end 5 % $2511.00 a year on transportation, or $209.00 a month for gas, oil changes, inspections and insurance. Repairs will have to come from their short term savings. That leaves 5% or 50 dollars a week for food for our average household or $7.14 a day. No eating out for them, beans and rice it is. Already they have spent the entire needs/commitment budget and they haven’t bought clothes, shoes, soap, or a toothbrush. They haven’t tithed their church or bought birthday gifts.

So let’s figure out how much money we have left of our average income. Housing- 30% plus Health care 20%, plus transportation 5% and food 5% equals 60 percent.

 Add clothes, shoes, soap, a birthday dinner out and car repairs- 10% That’s 70% We’ve busted our Needs Commitments percentage and sucked up the wants and fun, dang.

Plus education or early child care-5%, plus charity 5%, now we have spent 80%. That leaves 20% for savings, retirement, and the ever mysterious miscellaneous.

 In order to save funds for retirement let’s assume a modest 10% ($5,023.00 a year) in the budget. Let’s also assume that our average American saves 5% for a long term savings. Now we have spent 95% of our budget. But wait there are more bills to be paid. What haven’t we paid for yet?

Oh right, vacation, gifts, leisure activities, well…we’ll see. What else? Uh visits to the dentist, life insurance, right, I forgot about that, oops. Take prescription drugs? That might take a bite out of things. Now what else do you need to pay for if you are an average household? Ooooh… credit card debt, never mind…  any remaining cash will easily be sucked into paying off credit card, maybe even more than that, sucking up potential savings and retirement dollars. YIKES we are flat broke. But we will survive, that’s what people do. It’s just money. In this scenario the household has middle class income, but half the households live under this median amount.

I think we have created a new world order where the costs of basic living are getting too expensive. Who the “we” is depends on who you ask and how you look at the world, I guess. Ultimately, the problem is that we cannot collectively as humans allow the cost of basic existence on this planet more than what an average human life can afford. Churches travel all over the world and build schools and hospitals, help find clean water sources, feed the hungry, actions that insure the basic survival of the people. Governments are similar to churches in that we all tithe our government (taxes) in exchange for expenditures on our behalf. Clearly the largest problematic segment of the average households’ budget is insurance at 30%. The privatization of insurance has created greed not tempered by the humanity of need. Basic human needs require the protection of leaders in order to maintain a civilized group, hence the word government. The questions of whom what where when or why about governments is beyond my scope for today.

Living in our means is important, in both discussion and practice, but only when there is enough income to pay first for the fixed cost items you have little control over, such as health care and housing. The problem we face today is bigger than one individual household’s ability to exert force on this failing economy. We must be wary of blaming each other as individuals when we are talking about sacrifices for balanced budgets. There clearly are forces at work increasing the cost of living beyond acceptable limits for the average household. We have to make choices and it is clear what sacrifices people are making. We have record highs of 47 million uninsured. We have foreclosures and defaulting loans in record numbers. Savings at all time lows. We can’t remove eating from the budget, so we scrimp and bargain hunt as the cost of food rises to record highs. Charities beg and plead for donations, while the average household feels terrible about having to say no. Restaurants and retail sales are hurting, while oil and gas companies are thriving. Is all of this because true market factors are at work or is there manipulation, price fixing, and wage suppression occurring? Who or what has warped the true cost of human survival? Should we be more concerned with a balanced budget than the line items on that budget? What if the average household did not pursue owning a home? What if the average household was paid properly and fairly? What if executives had caps on their ratio percentages thereby creating incentive to bring everyone else up in order to increase their own pay. What if the average household lived within their means because it was possible to do so!

I am at war. I struggle with science, scale, societal governance and popular emotion. I know the planet is self-sustaining. Earth is far bigger and powerful than we generally give it credit for. The Earth might shake us off like fleas, but our planet will ”go on” cause it works in repetitive cycles with slow, effective processes at work. Science tells us matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered. You can’t really “waste” water, you just make it undrinkable for humans. Truthfully and scientifically, the idea of  ”Save the Human” really is more the point of sustainability than actually saving the Earth.   

Human history has taken severe and aggressive leaps into the future over the last 100 years, especially when compared to science and technology from the 100 years prior to that, ad infinitum. But in todays social and political climate, sustainability and going green is wholly linked with reducing our individual impact. Get off the grid, paperless billing, recycle, compost, use rain barrels, organic food, caveman diet, just turn on the tv for another example. But how is all of this really reducing human environmental impact… exactly? In real terms of impactful scale to actually effect climate change. My ultimate concern is big business continues to  shirk the full brunt of the environmental monster they created by pitting us against ourselves, like a well planned guilt trip.  And perversely, individuals are spending a lot of consumerist energy trying to reduce their marginal impact. Have you seen the commercial where they suggest you throw away your old vacuum and replace it with this environmentally friendly one made from recycled plastic! Uh wait, what? Actually… the best thing to do is keep one vacuum for the rest of your life, fix it when it’s broken and recycle it if it dies. But who fixes appliances anymore? Repair is usually more expensive than to buy new.  If you are claiming environmental sustainability while you are selling something, I’m suspicious. The jury of scientists is still out, but marketers are running hot and heavy with it anyway.   

Everything, every material and every resource on this planet is natural, but not every natural thing is good for humans. It is not just the scientific altering of matter that creates all the problems. In every generation the experts or “smartest” most influential people, don’t always fully understand what they know or what they are doing, exactly. Not so long ago in our history, a nifty machine in the big shoe stores let you slip your foot into a box and look down on your foot to see if your shoes fit. (Sold  to retailers with the idea parents may better fit children’s feet) This box was a live x-ray machine… irradiating people to sell them shoes! Who approved this for commercial purposes? I’d guess the experts in science and technology of the time. It leads me further to assume that the science and technology of our time is no different in base dynamic.  I immediately think of trans fats and wonder what where the blinding motives of the science at the time or perhaps more insanely, did it have a big business agenda?  Also consider a simple alloy of lead , copper and tin called pewter which for many hundreds of years, people fashioned into plates and cups! While no lead is allowed in pewter today, it took many generations of scientists to discover the facts behind why lead is so dangerous. It is clear, historically, that the world of science will repeat this pattern no matter the advancement of their collective knowledge.  A part can never know the whole but gosh they sure will make assumptions along the way. The cutting edge of science always cuts both ways and so long as we forget to temper scientific academia with the potential dangers of the unknown we will always be their guinea pigs.  The modern use of the words Natural and Organic in the food marketplace is disturbing to me for this exact reason.  All carbon based living things are organic, if it decomposes, it’s organic. The word’s definition has instead been hijacked to imply pesticide or hormone free. Now consider Rotenone, a natural pesticide made from jicima used by organic farmers.  (I’d bet you didn’t know organic farmers used chemical pesticides!) This naturally derived chemical, banned from use in 2005, has since been re-approved for organic farmers. Uh, wait what? Clearly they are still experimenting!  

"The Earth Laughs in Flowers" is one of my favorite books of poetry

Remember all those gullible people who were willing to sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (aka water)?  This study mistakenly assumed people’s scientific ignorance as the  reason for agreement. I would argue that our aversion to complex scientific names is intrinsically linked to a general understanding that the world of science is experimenting on us, whether through carelessness or intent.  

8/23/2010  

Farming ain’t Easy  

 So I happened on this article about farmers who are rogue planting GMO crops in Italy and getting shut down by their government. (Feel free to take a minute and read it. http://nyti.ms/d5mPro ) So… I think it quite a mistake to assume that because no ill effects can be proven today of GMO crops that there is no cause to be cautious, and how weird is it that any country must submit to planting seeds it doesn’t want to. That would be like my neighbor insisting that I plant blueberries in my yard because he’s planted some in his!  

 The argument that never happened in the US over GMO has produced fields of very little but those. The argument supporting GMO, is the alternative heavy use of pesticides. The only reason we cannot currently see side effects from GMO is because not enough time or study has been done with this singularly invisible factor truly isolated.  Perhaps a more thorough timeline of GMO can be studied to potentially connect some dots to obesity or diabetes or cancer or longer life, who really knows?! But we got in the game too late and more than 75 percent of corn and soybeans in this country are today, right now GMO. If you watched the movie FOOD Inc. then you see Monsanto for what it is, a shifty pedler of its branded seed. We cannot allow any company to establish a monopoly on plant life. The very idea that anyone altering mother nature can fully ”own” the rights to it, is perverse and wrong. We all “own” the plants, the water, the air, they are a divine gift. Can you imagine the day when households are required to pay the city monthly for rain barrels because we are collecting their water? Well… if water companies can ever claim to “own” water with full rights, then one day they just might.

I believe in the power of mind over matter. You could call it prayer, but I don’t always involve any god or prophets in my hopeful mantras. In attempting to make sense of the divine, I often don’t and instead turn my thoughts to being a better person to my fellow human beings. I can’t possibly worry about making someone I’ve never met upset, I just try to make sure I don’t piss anyone off without reasonable cause, though I’m not sure others think so. Perhaps the time spent visualizing whirled peas just shuts out all the other thoughts my ego is attempting to manuever. I trust that my brain is a store house of the divine, that in it are things I could never pinpoint, or fully manifest. I probably listen to my brain a little more than my body, as I have always had a sense that my body is just a physical manifestation to carry my brain through this world.

I believe people can think themselves into sickness or pain through attitude or feeling powerless. The big bang moment in my life on this issue came when I saw my step-grandmother give up on her life and the people in her life then die shortly afterwards. Her brain was leading the ship and she let it crash-land into a reef. The joyousness of a man certainly does prolong his days.

I am wildly sarcastic with occasional dry wit and the irony in sarcasm just makes me giggle inside to no end. I do like to make myself laugh a lot. I find much emotional relief in laughter and sometimes inappropriately. I often  suspect the people in my life who don’t know me very well, don’t get my jokes or get offended. It’s the one down side to my kind of humor. I like slap sticky, silly foolishness. I’m not much into the sad awkward genre of comedy, like Napoleon Dynamite. I sat in the movie theater with scores of people laughing all around me and I just didn’t get it, I just felt sorry for the guy, though there are a few funny bits. I was told you must have a dysfunctional family to understand the humor. My family is not without fault but mostly functional, won’t they be glad to know that. Laughing keeps me sane.

I love being naked and barefoot. I find clothes ill-fitting and rarely flattering, over-priced and thread bare, torn or stained within hours of purchase.  I am convinced that the rise of breast cancer in women is due in to the invention of the bra. Pinching and strangulating women in the ribs, restricting circulation of blood and glandular whatevers. My boobs are too large to bounce freely in public and I enjoy the perky lift of a lacy bra for a few hours a day but I hear some women sleep in bras. This is a WTF moment for me.  I don’t have the kind of budget for tailored clothing, though think it would make the most sense in terms of finding a flattering, high quality piece of clothing. I like to think I’m fashionable but I also realize that I just don’t care enough to really pull it off. My shoes tend to be lovely to look at and unbearable to wear or unbearable to look at and lovely to wear. I “rock the crocks” and don’t really give a damn if you find them ugly or so-o-o-o last season. It’s basically a means to keep the hook worms and shards of glass out of my feet and only on occasion to make me feel pretty or stylish. I wear my shoes like cars, unafraid of using a little shoe goo to keep them going a few extra miles.

I don’t feel comfortable asking for help even if I need it. I know “people who need people are the luckiest people in the world” but for some unearthed reason it doesn’t sit well with me when I find myself needing to ask. Perhaps I feel too vulnerable in the asking, too burdensome in the needing, too failed or shamed by admitting weakness. But I don’t see it that way if someone asks for my help and I do very much enjoy helping other people.  Lately though I do feel like my energy is misplaced into helping others too much. That I have neglected myself int he process. Charity begins at home they say.

I am foolishly confident in my ability and am fanatically DIY. You only have to come over to my house to see the slightly crooked tile job in the shower or visit my restaurant where a window full of scratched lps are chained together in curtain formation to understand that I’m creatively self-reliant. It probably doesn’t hurt that I’m forever rolling on a low-budget and can’t afford to pay an expert to do the work either. There is much learning in the process, perfection is of no use to me. The traveling is more fullfilling than the destination.

I’m writing this post in expression my own feelings about me, to try to root out my ego or id or whatever the hell motivates me to be the crazy fool I am. Thanks for listening, you are my free DIY shrink.

Here’s a little Wikipedia history of corporations for some larger perspective.

“The word “corporation” derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a “body of people”. Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient (world)… In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as …. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson’s Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.”-Wikipedia

 I understand the usefulness of incorporation for capital/societal reasons. Millions of small and big businesses, non-profits and municipal corporations exist, as a legal structure fully alienable if so agreed by all shareholders. Our government is in a very real way, an acting corporation of the people. This issue is legally circular in a very mind dizzying way.  The big, very important issue for me is the difference between humans and corporations, in that corps might not die off as ALL humans are certain to.  Every generation should have their shot at molding and influence in politics, while not being railroaded by giant dinosaur corps with deep pockets, ah hem. Federal Courts are obligated to put individuals at the base of context in our group system. Constitutionally, individuals are the shareholder of the government, not corporations! Since corporations previous to this ruling legally lobbied our Representatives, I say they now have inordinate power in the political arena. Our tax dollars are pooled for the needs of the state in fulfilling the societal needs of its individuals and not for the financial gain of the corporations created by groups of individuals. In addition we need clearer political and business separation in conflict of interest laws and ethics. Corporations are created within the structure of law and they are certainly alienable (for sale). Individuals however, have unalienable and inalienable rights. We must protect our individual selves at all costs and reverse this Supreme Court decision.

But my sticking point is how I’m actually dealing with people face to face, now used to quick wit and 140 character communications, real talk has left me feeling dorky. Not that I was the most socially eloquent before, but now if I can’t think of something amusingly interesting to say, I say nothing at all. Can you say awkward silence?

My friend visited for the holidays and I found us both on the couch face to face… texting each other. Or mid conversation, one of us (if not both at times) interrupting our finally flowing conversation to deal with our phones. It feels rude though I know it’s unintended… like waiting in line at a retail register only to be put off longer while the clerk converses with someone who (instead of marching themselves physically into the shop) decides to call and have the clerk look around for them. Customer service? Well you can’t have it both ways! The customer on the phone or the one in your face? Hmmm… please hold!

In short I am in the midst of a love hate relationship with my BlackBerry. I suppose in time I will be more adept and less “deer-in-headlights” about it. I’ll get back to you….

June 14 2010

So it’s been a while and I’ve gotten more adept at disconnecting and checking back, getting more face-time with friends and family, feeling a bit more eloquent and charming. I suppose you could say that the novelty has worn off, but it’s still as empowering as advertised. My effectiveness quotient is up and my ADD symptoms are easing. Everything can wait a few minutes.

 Banning smoking in bars and restaurants is often tied with setting workers free from this environment. The problem is that these workers are adults. When I hire a person, they are asked if they have any objection to working in smoke and are accomodated.  Most of them smoke themselves!  I get that smoking is bad but so is drinking.  How many places are we really affecting with the formal LAW. Most places are non-smoking these days anyway. This law confines only a few holdout businesses. Don’t believe the old “saving health care costs” rational because a healthy person usually outlasts a smoker by 8 years. Those last aged eight years are more expensive than a smoker’s death. Smoking taken too seriously and goodbye smoked bacon, see you later charcoal grill, mark my words. I think it is ridiculous that banning smokers outdoors is steps closer and even discussed. Especially by example of Prichard Park, where you can’t smoke a cigarette, but a delivery truck can sit idle for 15 minutes puffing out black smoke?  Secondhand smoke studies have NEVER been done outdoors because there are too many variables. The wind goes where it wants to, so can you.

 I will comply with the new indoor ban but I don’t like it! I see it as the Squeaky Wheel Act. Non smokers all over this country have rallied round the capitals to get their way so they can go everywhere and anywhere they want to. Smokers are fully within their rights to smoke, yet have no freedoms or places to do so except in “certain public places”. Exemption of Cigar Bars, exemption of smoking in non-profit clubs, (hmm…open alcohol container law exemptions in limousines), gee, these all together scream what is not good for the goose is okay for the gander. And that gander has expensive taste! These un-banned exceptions are disingenuous and another example of our political leaders treating “the public” like dumb sheep.  Those who can afford to can be seen drinking in limousines to and from the cigar bar and club enjoying a smoke, while the average smoker is forced outdoors, freezing in the winter or boiling in the summer, not able to find anywhere publically indoors to commit this legal adult behavior. How equitable!

Honestly I don’t see my small business as being a “public place” in nature, it’s certainly open to the public but quite privately owned, it is my second home. I can ask people to leave and not return, just as  people can choose to come in or not. It’s not the post office.   That’s why it’s called the hospitality industry, you are the host, they are the guest.  People smoke, I would like to be able to accomodate them but my hands are tied. More people smoke than you think. Believe me when I say there are numerous self-labled non-smokers who occasionally have a smoke with a drink!

4/4/10

So a few months in to the ban it is not so bad… I guess.  Like I said, I smoke outside in my own habit, but it should would be nice to have an adult spot where I could hang out indoors and enjoy!  Ha! Likely story.

I know I have to quit one of these days. Today is not the day.

First it was the President’s speech to school kids telling them to stay in school. Republican leaders rallied before knowing the exact content of the speech, creating a public fever over “indoctrination”. When I saw schools banning the President’s speech addressing kids, I was shocked and amazed.  Every President since the dawn of Presidents has addressed school kids; President Reagan had a huge contract-signing campaign in “Just Say NO”, on the morning of 9/11 we see President Bush in a classroom reading a book to children. There was no indoctrination outcry because that’s what Presidents do; the leadership position of President and Commander in Chief demands respect, you don’t have to agree with them but you have to listen. I was a Clinton supporter and thought had it been Hillary addressing our students, the Republican reaction would never have been as severe as to ban and censor the President. What Republican leaders are in effect saying by their radical opposition of the event is that “we don’t want our kids to see leadership from a black man”, because certainly the content of the event “we want our kids to stay in school” is supported by most Republicans. All Americans believe in the power of education to make lives better, but that is not a politically polarizing story.

Now it’s the songs. Have you actually read the lyrics? In them, the songs reflect what past Democratic leaders have said in much stronger terms. Kennedy said “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”. Martin Luther King said “I have a dream”. The rest of the lyrics mirror the Constitution, supporting equality and justice for all. These are American principles, not political ones. Any Presidents name could be insert into these lyrics (except maybe the part about being the first African American President). So the fever again is not about the content but about the man. It is a mistake for Republicans leaders to misrepresent the Presidents intent on a grand public scale like this. Most Americans do not believe the content of the message is “indoctrination” rather the core of our beliefs, basic American family values. If Republican leaders really do believe the content is indoctrination, they have yet to address exactly what President Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children into.

Winston Churchill said “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, it is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” He was right, no matter the politic. The Republican party took a beating this past presidential election, they are clearly grasping for straws (and voters).  For Republicans to gain back the sensible majority they must respect Obama’s leadership role and engage in the great debates of our time. Fear is a temporary motivator, truth is an everlasting one.

3/18/09
As I sit here tired from listening to the testimony of AIG CEO and listening to the questions and comments of the committee panel, the least of my concerns at this point is their bonuses. Bonuses are often fractions of what the executive and employee earns in a year. I am concerned that their strategy for the future is to sell all their profitable businesses in order to pay back the loan. Huh? So they are again depending on an interested big-money buyer of their stuff! Explain to me what sense that makes. AIG solicits the government for funds, and then sells off its businesses to pay it back? Why didn’t they just sell them off in the first place! Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. I’m tired of learning about so many schemes in so many places. This is the worst terrorism of all.

The last minute Bush Administration push for this AIG bag-o-shit is now in the hands of Obama. Let’s never be confused about when this fire-storm we are experiencing was initiated. I trust Obama can fix it, his major hurdle is changing the way things work, top to bottom. But this is not about partisanship, this is not a matter of politic, financials are finite and free of emotion. Outrage from deception is found on both sides of the aisle about both sides of the aisle. A lack of transparency and oversight always increases room for deception. White collar crimes are the most detrimental of all. Silent killers. Market confidence will be restored when the Justice System becomes a definitive player in this debacle.

Tim Geithner has been involved one way of another for some time, if he proves to be a major conflict of interest player in all this, Obama should consider a complete outsider to replace him. Transparency and future vision often comes with impartiality.

I hate to hear Obama saying that things are “too complicated to get into” when speaking to the press. We can understand, the “people” are not stupid, but our media sources might be! The internet has created a much needed checks and balances for media information. Complete access is powerful. But it also changes the way we move toward the future. People don’t want to pay for things they can get for free. Newspapers lose business. Things are changing and it’s great! That’s a free market; the people speak with their wallets. Newspapers will have to change to keep their market share. If change was really a problem we’d still be riding in horse and buggies. If only our government leaders had more confidence in or paid more attention to, the voice of the people.

Checks and balances are in place for a reason. We must be sure not to impede them. Perhaps the Justice Branch should weigh in on all bills and legislation. Someone should have to read the bills in their entirety. How on earth do they know what they are agreeing to, Senators saying they didn’t have time to read the legislation before passing it? Make time (expletive here). What else are you there for? You would think a huge systemic program like this would have been reviewed many times over, thoroughly discussed and debated. Maybe they should require a pop quiz before the vote, so they have to have read the damn thing to be able to voice an opinion on it! Hello is ANYONE at home?

As a nod to public anger, those who have called on people to hurt themselves or others are out of line. But justice must prevail and this little Bonuses tidbit is reasonable cause to blow the whole thing open and really look at it. Let’s slow down and take the time to read. By the by, all contracts have exit clauses, they are usually based on performance. If contracts aren’t negotiable they would never exist in the first place.

        In the world today we have a complete failure of economics because the US has been scamming the world and selling worthless paper. Blame wall street, the banks, the SEC, home flippers, agents and the various other players in a financial game that went unchecked and unguarded because the perceived risk did not outweigh the reward. (It never does) Lots of people made lots of money while we had a lack of oversight. Now taxpayers have to foot the bill for their extravagance. The government has tough choices to make, always will. Market forces should be allowed to play out as they will, government cannot force confidence back in on the system. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! They have bitten the hand that fed them, we will be far more skeptical now, than ever. No amount of government money tossed to these wasteful greedy corporations will make people invest with them. Ever. Trust is lost.  Tangible things like gold become favored over “papers or notes” for investing. People come to value other things.