Job losses are behind retail profit fall

Retail sales were down for the last quarter. This reflects downturns in the labor market.

What many in the pro-business camp fail to realize about business, is that labor is the true fundamental for improved business.

Here's why: You can have all the capital in the world, but if you don't have labor and qualified labor to process that capital into products for the economy, then that capital is worthless.

There's been a false dichotomy for years in our political discourse. Your either pro-business OR pro-labor.

You cannot have business without labor. It's that simple.

Labor may need management, but it still remains the raw material upon which business much work.

I've said all that, to say this: Unless a concerted effort to buttress jobs (viz., Labor) occurs, business will continue to decline.

Police kill Mayor's dogs, but refuse to admit mistake

Here's a sad story about a Mayor and his family in Maryland.

The police burst in without announcing themselves, shot his two dogs, handcuffed him, arrested him and his wife.

It turns out they made a mistake.

The mistake is obvious, but the police are admitting no wrongdoing.

I find it hard to listen to the police complain about how hard they have it, when they literally "screw up" this badly and then deny their mistake.

Someone needs to lose their job over this. Unless public servants begin to suffer personally for such disasters in judgment, then there will be little incentive to improve their performance.

CDC reports that ER waits growing longer--We need to change the incentives

Here's yet another statistic that points to a broken health care system.

The free market approach to saving lives currently used is failing miserably.

Furthermore, it's immoral to place people's lives at risk for the sake of profit. Why is that ignored in the calculus?

We need socialized health insurance.

We could even throw some incentives in, like capping malpractice claims for doctors who treat those for covered medical procedures and expenses. Such a plan would incentive-ize doctors and hospitals to provide as many covered services as possible to get the liability shield.

Madeleine McCan possibly taken by a pedophile ring.

This stuff makes my blood boil.

These perverts had better not get caught. I suspect that their lives would be forfeit to an angry mob if they do get caught. Rightly so.

How anyone could justify their own selfish urges at the expense of a child sickens me.

If I every caught someone doing this sort of thing, they had better have the police to protect them.

Mental health system rewards wrong things and undermines best patient interest

This article from Live Science points to the impact of economic incentives on mental health treatment.

Psychiatrists are trained to treat people with drugs, but also with therapy.

The shrinks make more money by seeing more patients. Psychotherapy takes time and thus reduces the actual number of patients seen.

Insurance companies make matters worse for patients (and provide further disincentives to shrinks) by refusing to pay for "talk therapy".

There are talk therapies that are 90% effective at treating some disorders, but those are disfavored because talk therapy "takes too long."

See my point about our health care system incentive-izing the wrong things?

This is yet another example of how our health care system is broken and rewards the wrong things.

Iraq can pay for reconstruction, but our government prefers that the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill

Here's a serious problem.

One of the selling points of the Iraq War was that oil revenues would be used to rebuild the country from the damage.

Apparently, that isn't happening. Instead, the American Taxpayer is footing the bill.

I have to ask: if Republicans are so opposed to taxes, why are they so damn earnest at putting the U.S. so far in the red that our dollar is worth squat and that taxes will be necessary to get us out?

This is wrong and it's time the Iraqis start paying the tab.

Movement conservatives are being shown the door by America

Leave it to a Progressive to hit the nail on the head when it comes to the conservative movement.

Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, the problems facing the Reaganites will not go away just by wishing. You can't stand on a train track, back to an oncoming train and believe yourself out of getting hit by the train.

Ideology does much in the way of fueling a movement, but it sacrifices pragmatism when it goes too far...like the neoconservatives and Reaganites.

Valid points.

David Zucker has traded one ideology for another in an intellectually dishonest move.

Here's an interesting article about a Hollywood big wig that's changed his ideological stripe from liberal to conservative.

David Zucker brought us some classic comedy movies, cf, Airplane, Naked Gun, etc.

Now, it seems that Zucker now believes Democrats are a scourge. Especially after 9/11. This sounds strangely similar to Ron Silver's conversion to right-wing politics after New York was hit on 9/11. (You rememeber Ron Silver, the liberal actor that conservatives hated until he spoke at the 2004 Republican convention?)

Zucker struck up a friendship with Dennis Prager, a conservative talk radio dude.

Here's what I see.

Zucker is not unlike those 60's liberals who think they MUST have an ideology in order to be political.

That's a mistake. Here's why.

Ideology carries with it certain blindspots to the actual reality. This applies to both liberal and conservative ideologies alike.

For example: How can conservatives supporting Bush blame liberals for all the shenanigans of the Bush administration? They can't, but rather than acknowledge it, they stick their heads in the sand and give Bush a pass, since he represents the conservative ideology in the political sphere.

I agree with Zucker's irritation with Democrats after 9/11. But, my irritation with Democrats doesn't mean I should jump in bed with the other side. To do so shows a dearth of intellectual depth and a susceptibility to ideology.

My issues with the Democrats remain (spineless more often than not), but if the alternative it to support the Republicans (feckless more often than not), as the Dennis Pragers of the world would have us, then that's not much of a choice--in fact it's a Hobson's Choice, meaning that it's no real choice at all.

This is the problem with ideology and the simplistic thinking from the 60's--Everything is black or white, everything is either up or down, and liberal or conservative. That ignores the complexity inherent in modern political life.

Here's what I say to that: I actually use my brain and can see that the world has degrees and shades of gray.

Ideology works best for those without much of a brain or for those who are too blind to their own limitations. This applies Zucker (and Ron Silver...) if he cannot see the real complexity in the world.

PETA and newly-converted vegetarians.

While I'm on the pet peeve path, I might as well get another one off my chest.

PETA and all recent converts to vegetarianism.

Some background: I've been a vegetarian since the age of 18. That's 21 years and counting. I've finally reached that point where the thought of eating meat grosses me out. I'll probably be a vegetarian for the rest of my life.

I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Namely, I don't think I should eat something that I won't kill and clean myself. I don't kill animals because I don't have the ability to create another living creature, so I better not be messing something up that I can't fix.

Being a vegetarian has brought on a lot of grief. Early on, I was an asshole about my lifestyle choices, expecting everyone to cater to my particular worldview.

I'm more tolerant now. I don't want others dictating my life, so I don't think it correct for me to dictate to them on their choices, poor though they may be.

Here's my beef with PETA: PETA is to vegetarianism as the NRA is to guns. Both may have valid points, but both organizations are whack jobs.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and I exercise my rights. As for PETA, their antics serve to alienate the shit out of people--vegetarians included.

PETA takes the extreme position that everyone should bend to their worldview. I beg to differ. I'm perfectly capable of finding the truth on my own and don't need some ideological nimrods whose agenda excises any sense they may have had, telling me right from wrong.

Making matters worse is that by being a vegetarian, I get lumped in with the likes of PETA when non-vegetarians find out. The inevitable questions as to the why's and wherefore's of my lifestyle choices come flying.

PETA, by their actions, does not want to change people's minds. They want to piss people off so they can start a fight that they can't win. How moronic is that?

On to my next gripe: A couple of years ago I went to the home of a recently converted vegetarian. The point of my visit was to help set up her grill and to enjoy some company. Well, when I broke out my vegetarian hot dogs, I got an earful on how it was wrong to eat something that looked like meat and probably tasted like meat, even though it wasn't meat.

I was dumbstruck. What the hell? Here I was, a 20 year vegetarian being lectured by a woman who was a newly-minted vegetarian on my choice to eat a tofu pup? Give me a break.

What reeked of irony was the fact that I cooked them on her grill that I just assembled. It's not okay to eat soysage, but it's okay to have a grill whose main purpose is to cook raw meat?

Somehow, the whole PETA agenda has moved into fake meat products. How is that harmful to animals? The argument goes: By eating fake meat, I've not really given up meat and my love for it. Huh?

Ideologues are morons.

Pet Peeve Alert! Grammar

Okay.

I've decided to blog about a serious pet peeve of mine that I encounter on an almost daily basis online.

It's a grammar issue.

As far as grammar goes, I may not be the best, but at least I make the attempt to be proper and when I suspect a problem, then I try to find the correct solution before I put something up for the world to see.

Here's my gripe.

I've noticed many business websites and craigslist ads that improperly use the word "then".

For example: "Our products are better "then" the competitors..."

The proper word is "than" not "then." "Then" is an adverb (modifies a verb) denoting a time element. "Than" does not. "Than" is a conjunction (similar to "and") denoting comparisons, like "Better than that" "Then" is more about "way back then".

It takes all of 30 seconds to look up a grammar issue on the internet.

Loss of Freedom is occurring behind the scenes and in gradual steps: Beware Folks!

Here's a little thought experiment for those of you who think that Bush and the Republicans advocate "freedom".

The DHS claims the authority to seize travelers laptop computers, review the data, share the data with other agencies, and use it to prosecute people--ALL WITHOUT A WARRANT OR PROBABLE CAUSE.

That's right folks, welcome to the land of lost freedom and the government poking around in your personal private stuff. I have Attorney-Client Privileged stuff on my computer and I'll be damned if I'll turn it over without a fight.

Did this happen while a Democrat was in the White House? No.

This is nothing more than a naked power grab at our expense.

I'll say it again: We need a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy.

If you support these policies then you are a fool and don't deserve the freedoms we are losing daily to these fascist pigs.

Economic models predict an Obama win this Fall, but not by much.

The scientists who have successfully predicted presidential outcomes by using economic models have offered their prediction for this November's election.

Obama wins, provided nothing major occurs between now and the election.

The model doesn't predict a landslide, so the country is still rather divided.

Some stop Mike Myers before he strikes again...

Mike Myers is at it again with another movie. This time it's a sequel to Austin Powers.

Yikes!!

Someone please stop him before he shags again...

Black Plague may become history if vaccine proves effective.

A team of scientists has possibly found a vaccine for the Black Plague.

This is great news if it bears out in human trials.

The Black Plague is a scourge that killed a significant portion of Europeans during the Middle Ages.

At one point, it was made worse when a Pope called pilgrims to Rome to pray for deliverance from the plague. All those people together, then carried the fleas back home a spread the plague further.

Great news from the world of medicine.

Hate crime fad

Slate takes a poke at the Knoxville Church shooting.

The headline reads: "Is killing Liberals a Hate Crime?"

The whole hate crime craze befuddles me. How can you execute someone more just because they are animated to kill by prejudice? Killing is by definition showing extreme prejudice. What more do you need?

Hate crimes never made sense to me because laws already on the books deal with the results of hate crimes.

Do I approve of prejudice? No. But, it crosses the 1st Amendment line of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, etc. when you criminalize someone's beliefs, regardless of how disgusting you may find them.

This guy in Knoxville is guilty of murder, plain and simple. Tennessee has the death penalty, so chances are he'll be put to death. I personally, don't agree with the death penalty, but in the context of hate crimes, you cannot punish this guy any more than execution without violating the 8th Amendment.

Diploma mill performs a public service--it shows the character of those who use them.

Here's a story that a lot of people may find incosequential, but it really isn't.

Almost 10,000 people have gotten degrees from a diploma mill in Washington State. Many are using these fake degrees to get jobs and pay raises.

All without doing the work to justify those degrees.

I'm a little insulted by this behavior. I spent 20 years of my life getting a traditional education. I earned every grade and put in the actual study time.

How people can justify using a fake degree escapes me. Where do they get off?

I suppose the status of education is so important to some that they willingly take short cuts to get it. I'm sure cognitive dissonance comes into the equation if they profit from their subterfuge. Meaning, they feel justified in their actions.

National Enquirer is ticking me off with their failure to release alleged photos and story about John Edwards--Enquiring minds want to know already.

The John Edwards - Rielle Hunter thing is showing the difference between real news and tabloid news.

Tabloids, like the National Enquirer, hold the photos and the story until they can get the biggest bang for the buck...or until they can manufacture some evidence.

Mainstream Press puts it out there quickly, then cleans up the mess later.

I"m growing suspicious of the Enquirer's approach. The longer they delay, the less credibility they have...if they had any to begin with.

I want to see the proof. Get it out there and let me puzzle it out. Don't sit on it to build buzz and then drop it. That points to some backroom shenanigans or at least the suggestion of it.

Socialized health insurance should not be conflated with Socialized Medicine

Just a note on the state of our health care system.

I frequently speak of socialized health insurance. Some, especially those opposing anything with the word "social" in it conflate socialized insurance with socialized medicine.

The two are mutually exclusive. Both may travel together like they do in the British health care system, but they are not required to do so.

Socialized health insurance doesn't make doctors or hospitals employees of the government, whereas socialized medicine does.

My advocacy of socialized health insurance derives from a serious and significant problem common in capitalistic systems: Externalization of Costs.

Our current health care system externalizes the cost of providing care to poor and under-insureds to the rest of the system. They do this by increasing costs to those that can pay.

My position on health care has a moral component, but more importantly is economic. Morally, is it proper to harm a segment of the population and to charge the remainder more for health care than is necessary? I think not.

The costs of providing health care cannot be avoided forever and to best deal with those costs, it is better to manage them from a proactive stance of socializing them rather than using the current ad hoc approach.

Ad hoc approaches are not cost-effective due to inefficiencies that inevitably creep in. Ad hoc approaches still socializes the costs, so why not get control of those from the outset rather than letting the chips fall where they may...to great and unnecessary expense?

If we can reduce by 20% or more health care costs for the country as a whole through socializing insurance for basic and preventative care, then we're doing everyone a favor. It's the fiscally conservative thing to do.

My proposal allows people to maintain private insurance and allows doctors and hospitals to work for themselves instead of the government.

I challenge anyone to call my plan socialized medicine. It isn't.

I also challenge anyone claiming to be a fiscal conservative to continue advocating a system that adds upwards of 20% to the cost of health care for no apparent reason other than to give windfalls to doctors and hospitals while letting insurance companies off the hook.

High Context versus Low Context Cultures

Here's a link to a site containing information about cross-cultural communication issues that arise between "High Context Cultures" and "Low Context Cultures"

This concept is very useful when trying to understand people from different cultures and communication situations that arise.

For example: High Context cultures carry a package of information and communication between members includes much that is left unsaid.

On the other hand, Low Context Cultures allow easy access to information because members regularly convey what's needed and are explicit.

Fascinating stuff when applied to the world at large.

Arab countries, France, Asia and Latin American countries are all high context.

Whereas, the U.S., Britain, and Germany are low context cultures.

This concept explains so much when we see other people getting angry over things we're not fully aware of, like say their peculiar history.

Woman wins lawsuit against cold-footed groom to be---Explain how this is just

I'm a little flabbergasted by this verdict.

This is a woman, perfectly capable of making her own money, and doing so, successfully suing her fiance when he ended the engagement.

Back in the day, when women were economically dependent on husbands and family, this type of lawsuit was understandable. Sometimes it was the only viable option for a woman who had no choice but to bank on a good marriage prospect for her livelihood.

But now?!

Please.

Who will marry this woman now?

I can see the eHarmony headline: "Marry me or I'll sue your ass."

There's a winner.

This guy will win on appeal. I'll bet good money on it.