Update no.551

Update from the Heartland

No.551

2.7.12 – 8.7.12

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The Patriot Post, Founder’s Quote Daily offered this jewel:

“The true test is, whether the object be of a local character, and local use; or, whether it be of general benefit to the states.  If it be purely local, congress cannot constitutionally appropriate money for the object. But, if the benefit be general, it matters not, whether in point of locality it be in one state, or several; whether it be of large or of small extent.” [emphasis added]

The quotation is actually an extraction from: “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution” (1833) by Joseph Story, LL. D.; Volume III, Chapter XXVI: Powers of Congress — Internal Improvements, § 1268.  Story published his Commentaries as the first Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University.  He was also a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1811 to 1845, and the youngest justice to ascend to the high court at 32 years of age.  Apparently, the wisdom of Justice Story has been long lost on contemporary legislators as they continue to spend precious Treasury funds on purely local, earmark projects to benefit their constituents, friends, contributors, and of course their re-election prospects.  I naïvely thought the trauma of the Great Recession, along with the enormous expenditures to wage war successfully against Islamo-fascism, would have convinced our Federal representatives to confine their spending to projects for “the common defence, or the general welfare of the Union.”  We, the People, have not been so fortunate.  I would love to see a constitutional law case before the Supremes; however, finding a citizen with appropriate standing for such a case would not be easy, and even if we could find such a claimant, the case would undoubtedly be confined to one particular object-issue, rather than all earmarks for local projects.  We can always hold onto hope that sanity and respect for the Constitution will someday return.

A rather lengthy thread began within a different network with a contributor to this humble forum.  So it began . . .

“The 2,700 pages for the ACA would make wonderful kindling ya know, or perhaps a great standby item in the library to wipe with when we are done.

“We all have a great thing to look forward to, the same service and efficiency of the U.S. Post Office, extended to our so-called health care.

“I was thinking how the psyops of the ACA and massive discussion of it does to the human psyche...to further subordinate our own capacity for healing and health maintenance (and balance), to the so-called authorities or gods running around with medical degrees, not to mention while providing incredible profit margins to BIG-PHARM. Of course BIG GOV wanted in on the BOOTY. The more we think about HEALTH CARE and being a number in a factory (hospital), the MORE WE DIS-EMPOWER our natural capacity that GOD gave us (not some doctor who has no clue but orders hundreds of tests and experimental pharmaceuticals, that serve to make you sicker, create more imbalance and generally serve to ENHANCE the F.U.D. factor (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) which depressed your immunity/balance/healing.

“The ticking clock to midnight is getting closer, that midnight for me is time to vacate America and move somewhere much more FREE and SANE (remember, freedom is not free, it comes with a very high tax fee).”

[This is the link & article that instigated this thread.]

http://lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi224.html

“Oh-No-bamacare”

by Bill Sardi

My response:

Please help me understand the evils you suggest?  If you have medical insurance today, you will have the same medical insurance tomorrow.  Granted, if we do not force hospitals and caregivers to reduce their overhead, as the un-insured or under-insured decrease in numbers, the costs will go up.

Hospitals are no different from banks or corporations in a capitalist society, they will gladly pocket the windfall that comes with cost reduction.  So, help me understand, please?

 . . . round two:

“I don't have medical insurance, and I do not want to pay $800/month for it (assuming that is what it might soon cost me, and nor could I afford it). I would rather opt-out of medical insurance and also opt-out of having to become dependent on the medical-pharm industrial establishment to tell me I am well, sick, will be dead in 10 days. I realize I could have a catastrophic health issue in 2-hours that my choice would be to live versus die, or I could get t-boned in an auto accident which I avoid all the time as much as I am on the roads. I would be taken to a trauma care facility and possibly saved. Rather than having our GOVERNMENT force upon me, health insurance with threat of penalties and IRS enforcement, I personally will sign a document that says the if I have no insurance and cannot afford the emergency care, maybe I don't get it.

“The ACA is going to add-to the demand for health care because for everyone without insurance or under-insured, you have a 100 to 1 ratio of 99 other people unlike me, who actually will flood the clinics, pharmacies and more, for anything/everything from sore toes to treatment for obesity. The people with HIV will demand care without having to pay any additional in their premiums and especially will yell discrimination the minute ANYONE wants to bump up their rates or deny service. And the weight of those 99 people to me, will cause the system to implode. We cannot afford it.

“For me it's very binary Cap, our government needs to stay out of our personal lives, and if it were a true free-market capitalist system with any fairness, then supply and demand dynamics drive costs/prices (I know, except there is the GREED factor always inherent because of human nature).

“Maybe the obese guy with HIV, should not be able to afford health insurance, and if I were a doctor, I should have the FREEDOM to say ‘I won't treat you’ and as an insurance company, I should have the FREEDOM to say "you are too risky to rate, sorry, unless you want to 400% higher premiums."

“What is it that we think we have a right to affordable health care? When we cross the line into socialism, we are on a slippery slope. This is not about health care in my humble opinion Cap, it is more government intrusion into my life (and yours), and it is about alternative taxation under the guise of making everyone safe and secure in the medical-pharm industrial establishment.

“Our BIG GOV is supposed to be about BASIC function and national security, not to be co-opt'd by their lobbyists from Wall Street, Lockheed Road and Kaiser Avenue.

“Nothing if free. I am not entitled to anything.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: insurance.  I can fully understand.  In fact, I completely accept and support your decision.  Do you drive your car or your limousine with passengers without insurance?  As I have written before, I can fully support any citizen choosing to reject insurance as long as there are no expectations of treatment without compensation.  You may be wealthy enough to pay for necessary medical care.  I am not so blessed.  I have relied upon medical insurance in the military and in my employment all my life, in that I am fortunate.  Likewise, I understand the dilemma faced by so many citizens.  There are provisions in PPACA for those citizens who cannot afford insurance.  For better or worse, PPACA tries to solve the problem.  This may not be the best way or even the correct path, but it is the best shot we’ve taken so far. 

            Re: coverage.  Yes, PPACA will increase the number of citizens who have access to the health care system.  Yet, most folks will not seek medical treatment.  I broke my back a few years ago.  My wife drove me to the emergency room (in hindsight, a bad move).  Oddly, while I was laying on the gurney waiting for a CT scan, I remember a woman who was incensed that she was not being seen for her head cold and sore throat.

            Re: cost.  Yes, there will be those in at-risk categories who will cry discrimination for being asked to pay more.  Insurance works by distributing cost over a large base, i.e., most folks under-utilize to cover those in greater need.  The key is the largest possible base.  There are limits to everything.  We will be able to deal with the costs far better if those costs are out in the open instead of hidden as they are now.

            Re: government.  We share the exact same belief . . . government must be removed from our private lives.  We have allowed the government’s intrusion way too much.   In a true capitalist system, you have to pay to play; no pay, no treatment.  Our commitment to life makes that cold demarcation impossible to maintain.

            Re: FREEDOM.  Odd, as I read your words, I see a judgment on the private lives of other citizens.  How do you rationalize making those judgments about other people, and at the same time, demand that no one make those judgments about your life?

            Re: socialism.  Perhaps!  I am not convinced we are at risk of crossing that threshold.  As noted above, I share your apprehension regarding government intrusion in our private lives.  The problem we face is un-insured citizens place a burden on us all, and we are not given a choice, we are not consulted; we simply have to pay.  So where do we draw the line; where is the threshold of tolerance? 

            Bottom line: I am glad PPACA is at least taking a shot at fixing the problem.  It is probably not the answer, but at least it is a shot.  As a young lieutenant of Marines, I was taught, any action is better than inaction.  At least the PPACA is an action.  Now, let’s make it better, not throw it out.

 . . . round three:

“Any of my cars have been insured since I was driving at 16, though I had a couple breaks for a few months without coverage. I have never submitted an insurance claim on my automobile policies. Both then 20th Century and later AAA, give me ‘good driver’ discounts and I get fairly good rates though I wish I could get a discount for no claim ever.

“I'm note really the right person to be defending staying uninsured with health, as I am lucky to not have had to go to a doctor since 1990 (22 years), and am plain old lucky. That does not mean I won't keel over in an hour dead from something I should have used doctors for those so-called ‘routine checkups.’

“My problem with PPACA is the way I interpret it (and I've not read it, just like most our legislators and leaders, similar to how many admitted they never really read the Patriot Act, prior to becoming signatories on such a nation-changing document), is that someone who is higher income will need to pay for the low income people who tend to be more unhealthy and often times abuse their bodies from lifestyle choices. I don't think Mary earning $330K/year should have to subsidize or help support John who gets drunk every night, smokes like a chimney, and weighs 350 pounds, and earns $9,700/year. What is fair about that?

“My income bracket (really poverty wages considering San Diego's cost of living and the economy) would lead most people to think I should fully support PPACA since I could then AFFORD insurance. The fact is no one owes me health care, not my government, not China, and not the higher income taxpayers in my nation.

“You spoke of the incident of breaking your back two years ago (sorry to hear, hope it is all healed). The triage part you mention, is very much a reality now, and I suspect with PPACA, the situation will become worse because you will get millions of people demanding health care and better health care.

“The problem with our health care system aside from those that really serve and want to help others, there are a greater amount of people who are profit-driven in their profession. I don't want this conversation to tact over to capitalism and the flaws of the model, but most of health care distribution is the ultimate in what I call CORPORATISM. My belief is there is so much money being made off of people being sick (and made sickly), people dying, that BIG GOV wanted to get in on the booty (in other words, tax us on it). It's not simply about profit margin percentages but what kind of new drugs can DRIVE GROWTH and not only 4% growth but double-digit growth. Just like the problems we saw with 2007+ and greedy people putting large pools of money at risk, like the greed-driven institutional Goldman Sachs types that took sub-prime mortgages and using mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, hedged (bet) making enormous profits (wrong). Et cetera, et cetera. We have an entire medical-pharm industrial complex that has a core mission: Make Profits. My health care is second to that. Maybe I am jaded and just don't trust those that put smiley faces of sick and old people on the walls of hospitals with motivational messages.

“On the judgments I made on other people, I think it was in context to why should the income earners and taxpayers have to support the obese guy with HIV? On a Jesus Christ level, I don't want to judge that guy, on a how to break a nation level, I say this is where we are going when we will have to support the overly sickly. We have an industrial system that helps make people sick, then we have all these so-called advances at treating them (prolonging life, when maybe the quality of life is not worth prolonging [now we go into the debate of assisted suicide, which I am actually opposed to, but still have your mother in mind who you told me about, and the fact that we keep people alive using meds and machines, when nature would dictate they should pass along]).

“We have created such a great system of victim-hood, and some sense of entitlement. The populace that most subscribes to the aforementioned attributes/paradigm, will most take advantage and abuse our health care system (especially if it is FREE for them).

“We need to address the DIGNITY of mind issues too. Personally, I have told a friend, that if I ever ended up like Christopher Reed (whether by accident or illness), I would want him to put a bullet in my head. I would not want to be dependent on someone to change my underwear, bathe me, feed me, or keep my respirator and tubes all clean, while assuring my wheelchair batteries are recharged. I would not want my friend to be arrested for murder, but sure would want someone to do me a favor of taking me out. 30 years ago people we now see in Wal-Mart, would never have lived, simply because we did not have the so-called ‘advances’ (if you can really call 'em that) in keeping the sickly alive. Then add-in all the other benefits these people get from social services, free apartments built for people in wheelchairs, disability, unemployment, Section-8, welfare, free health care, free transportation. And we wonder why the ancients would look at us now and see how truly DEVOLVED we really are.

“Truthfully, I have seen the Hegelian Dialectical Process used in this entire health care debate (not with you, I'm speaking of the national debate). I'm sure you recall it from any LOGIC classes you took where thesis equal antithesis, resulting in a synthesis. SEE:”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3rxAWM2t8Q

 . . . my response to round three:

Darren,

            As with most, if not all, socio-political debates or issues, the trick is balance – too much toward either pole is imbalanced – communism/capitalism, conservative/liberal, et cetera.  So it is with this debate.  We want everyone to take care of themselves and be accountable for their choices; yet, we feel compassion toward our fellow man when they are struggling.  The same challenge exists with PPACA.  Like you, I want the government out of our private lives.  I think my political positions are well documented; I do not support the government’s intrusion into what substances I choose to ingest, or how I choose to satisfy my libido, or whether I wear a helmet on my Harley or a seatbelt in my truck, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.  Likewise, as I said, I can fully support altering PPACA to allow an individual to opt out as long as there is some personal identification to preclude medical treatment without payment; until that societal decision threshold can be attained, I will support the individual mandate provision of PPACA.

            Re: reading legislation.  Spot on, brother.  The level of debate regarding PPACA prior to passage was frightfully slight, which is one of many flaws in our current legislative process.

            Re: corporatism.  Your articulation reflects one of the key strengths and brutal weaknesses of our money-driven socio-political system.  The profit motive is the fuel that drives our economic progress and it is conversely the mortal sin that corrupts virtually everything.  Again, our challenge is finding balance, often via regulation, which in turn again puts the government’s nose in our tent.  I see corporatism quite like the gunslinger of the Wild, Wild West – used for good, brings order; used for bad, brings anarchy.

            Re: death with dignity (AKA assisted suicide, consensual physician-assisted death, or any other myriad of descriptors).  Here, we shall respectfully disagree.  I see the end-of-life decision in exactly the same perspective as all the other social issues; it is a moral decision between God and me – NO ONE ELSE!  If you do not support assisted suicide, I respect your right to choose as you wish.  All I ask is everyone else including the government respect my choice.  I just finished the recent Canadian end-of-life court ruling, so there will be more on this topic in this week’s Update [551].

            Re: your choice.  Odd, you say you oppose assisted suicide, and yet your offer a scenario in which you would ask your friend to commit murder under the law and suffer the consequences of honoring your wishes/decision.  As noted above, more on this issue to come.

            Re: Hegelian Dialectical Process.  I understand the process.  I do not understand the application.

 . . . round four:

“Thanks for taking the time/energy to reply, and may I in kind:

“True, the labels/paradigms do a good job keeping the people polarized versus solving problems.

“You and I are right on-cue with your statement in paragraph one.

“Re: Corporatism, you said it so right! Good analogy on it and the gun slinger of the Wild West.

“RE: Death with dignity. Difficult topic that is going to grow with much intensity in short time around our globe. I do believe much of the cross-section populating of those in marginal quality-of-life situations from handicapped, disease, and elderly in advanced age, is directly a result of our technology/machinery of keeping people alive beyond the point of useful quality. I am not saying quality-to-society as that would be a most slippery slope that we know would be hinged/coupled to a productivity quotient, or even cost/contribution ratio for said individual. Plus this quality-to-society rings thoughts of Hitler and the Nazis, specifically eugenics. But, I am only referring to the quality-of-life for individual and/or their family. Maybe I do not fully understand the quest for survival once health is compromised, but I am not the one you will ever see in a motorized wheelchair, maybe a respirator, with urine in my diaper, waiting for a bus, on 15 different meds to keep me alive and 5 meds to keep balance from the other 15 meds. I would want to sign documents in advance that state such conditions would allow my decision to terminate life. Now I have just violated the some Biblical principles that I adhere to (or try to like many of us), that God (or nature) be that force that determines our life and death.

“You duly noted the conflict I have with the doctor assisted suicide which amount to self-suicide, when conditions/quality don't meet our desires. Obviously these decisions need to be made while in our right mind.

“There are many who have committed suicide spur-of-moment (I've had family that did, and family of friends), and in many of those cases all of us are quite sure that had that individual waited it out, their course could have change to positive, and they could be leading a good life. This is not the case with some terminally ill folks that are not capable of executing such a decision, and then often are only kept alive by machinery/meds, to prolong a state of tragic misery.

“On Hegelian Dialectical Process, excuse me if I did not better articulate myself, but the application in regards to national health care (for example, though it is applicable in so many of our realms where the masses discourse is already determined, too often), is where We the People end up accepting something we were principally opposed to, because of the use of the Hegelian Dialectical Process which leads to synthesis or COMPROMISE. I am not saying compromise is evil, except in some specific issues.

“Thanks for letting me hold court. Hopefully I have better stated my position, though I continue to have an open mind on matters. More often than not, I do not plan my rants and rarely proof them, something I should start doing.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Re: Death with Dignity.  I write more on the topic in this week’s Update after review of Carter v. Canada.  I do not see the connection to eugenics.  Death with Dignity is an individual choice.  Eugenics (in the Nazi perverted extreme) is state-imposed death.  I want to stay in this life as long as I possibly can.  My survival instinct is as strong as the next person.  When my time comes, as it came to my Mom, I will know.  When that time comes, I may not choose to use the capability of Death with Dignity, but I deserve the right to control my life – freedom is freedom – and, the issue is what is the proper State interest?  IMHO, the State does NOT have the authority to impose the Christian interpretation . . . of our lives in God’s hands.  Not everyone believes.  We do not have the right to impose our beliefs on everyone, including those who do not believe.  Procedures can be (have been) established to protect the State’s proper interest; the rest is between the individual and God.  The procedures also separate those who are not terminal; Death with Dignity is NOT state-sanctioned suicide.  Suicide, or self-murder as Sir William called it, remains illegal; assisting suicide remains illegal.  We can differentiate between suicide and end-of-life, Death with Dignity.

            Re: Hegelian Dialectical Process.  Your concern and caution are appropriate, rational and quite worthy of our suspicion, which is precisely why We, the People, must remain vigilant, inquisitive and engaged.

            Re: PPACA.  My point is, the law is not the consummate evil some choose to portray the law, simply because it was passed during the Obama administration.  The Supreme Court’s decision is next on my list.  I have read part of the law as judged by district and appeals courts.  I suspect most of the folks criticizing the law have not read it.  Let’s give the law a chance.  It attempts to focus on a very real societal issue.  If the law does not do what we expect it to do, let us amend the law, to improve the law, but not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I finally completed my review of the Canadian death with dignity court ruling – Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) [2012 BCSC 886].  British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith carried out an extensive analysis of the available law.  She noted the historical observation of Sir William Blackstone (1769), which is perhaps the best articulation of ancestral crime and punishment; on the issue of suicide: Book the Fourth: Of Public Wrongs; Chapter the Fourteenth: Of Homicide; pages. 189-190: Self-Murder.  Several centuries ago, the punishment for the “crime” was imposed upon the family and heirs, since the perpetrator of “self-murder” was “beyond the reach” of the king; the offense was seen as a crime against the king, thus the dramatic penalties.  Justice Smith reviewed the contemporary law, process and experience in jurisdictions that have some form of death with dignity provisions or processes, including Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, as well as Oregon, Washington and Montana.  Somewhat surprisingly, Justice Smith did not mention the Purdy case in England or the laissez faire situation in Colombia.  As she notes, the experience in permissive jurisdictions indicates fractional utilization and a paucity of abuse.  Justice Smith declared the nation’s suicide prohibition [§ 241(b), R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46] to be a contradiction of and an unconstitutional violation of § 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [, which states:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Beyond the legal, historic and academic analysis regarding an important contemporary societal issue, the most significant element of the Carter ruling was Justice Smith’s decision for one of the plaintiffs in this case – Ms. Gloria Taylor, who was diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disorder, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.  In conjunction with her broad review, Justice Smith issued a constitutional exemption for both Ms. Taylor and her physician that “would allow her to avail herself of a physician-assisted death at such time and subject to such terms and conditions that the Court allows or requires.”  Justice Smith took an extraordinary step.  The judgment will hardly convince the skeptics, yet it is a substantial compendium of the law to this juncture as well as an enlightened interpretation.  I am proud of and grateful for our societal emphasis on life.  Yet, despite our lofty ideals, we have selective exceptions – self-defense, justifiable homicide, capital punishment, warfare, necessary use of deadly force, et cetera.

            It is easy to argue for and maintain the status quo, to blindly defend our traditions, customs and principles.  Challenging the basis of society we were all taught or learned as children remains a daunting task at best and overwhelming process for our cognitive capacity.  Yet, the very essence that makes us human demands we question the judgment of our ancestors, and their interpretation and application of those principles that formed the basis of this Grand Republic, the common law of England, the substance and longevity of the Roman Empire, and the thoughtful genesis of freedom itself.

            Death is an inevitable part of life for each and every one of us – no exemptions, no deviations, no avoidance.  As with our lives, freedom means choices.  The final choice each of us has to decide is how we wish to live our end of days.  Most of us may choose to leave our lives in God’s hands and suffer the consequences of that choice, after all, it is God’s will.  However, some of us may choose to live our final moments on our terms, by our choice, and opt for dignity in our passing. Only the individual citizen can make the quality of life decision, and that choice is between him and God – no one else.  The State does have a proper and reasonable interest in that individual choice, not in the frame of self-murder against the king or the Christian interpretation of scripture, but in protecting the imposition on the weak, infirm or incapable among us.  Experience has shown that the availability of such legal / medical provisions do not encourage utilization and only provides a capability for those citizens who choose to avail themselves of the process.  Just because the procedure is available does not mean all qualified people will use it; in fact, the experience in permissive jurisdictions is quite the contrary.  Those who have passed before us cannot offer testimony regarding their end of life suffering, anxiety or trauma.  Since the Heredity Laws of Nazi Germany, no one has argued for preemptive euthanasia of the weak, aged, infirm or disabled; that position has not changed.  I am advocating for the choice – an option or tool – to be available under very strict conditions for those at their end-of-life moment and only as an exercise of free choice, which means the individual must be capable of informed free choice to qualify.  The procedures have been defined and protect against imposition, which will satisfy the State’s legitimate interest.  Just because the provision is available does not mean anyone will or can be compelled to utilize the procedure; it should be available to everyone who wishes to use it for their dignity at their end of days.  Let freedom ring!

            FYI: On 22.December.2009, I submitted a written request and open letter to my state representatives, advocating for amendment to Kansas state law, allowing a death with dignity option for state residents.  I did not receive even a receipt acknowledgement, let alone serious consideration.  A lot has happened that first letter.  It is time for me to try again.  For this attempt, I will draft a law for the legislature’s consideration.  For anyone who wants to amend their state laws, I would be honored to support your effort with adaptation to your state law, as you may wish.

News from the economic front:

-- Last week’s public disclosures [550] regarding the Barclays involvement in the London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR = the average interest rate at which a select group of large, reputable banks [“reputable” is hardly an applicable word]) scandal got jacked up several orders of magnitude this week.  First, several Press reports indicated Barclays Chairman Marcus Agius intended to step down imminently.  Second, Barclays CEO Robert Diamond resigned, effective immediately, undoubtedly stimulated by the bank board.  Third, the bank announced Aquis would head the search for Diamond’s replacement.  Then, as Parliament prepared for hearings into the scandal and Barclays involvement, meeting notes taken in 2008 by Diamond were leaked to the Press and suggest that an official from the Bank of England, under pressure from the government, may have set off the chain of events.  I suspect the dominoes have only just begun to fall as Barclays is not the only bank involved.  This will not improve the already abysmal image of international banks in the Great Recession.

-- According to the Institute for Supply Management (ISM), the U.S. manufacturing sector contracted in June for the first time since July 2009 as new demand dropped sharply.  The ISM's manufacturing purchasing managers' index fell to 49.7 last month from 53.5 in May.  A reading above 50 indicates expanding activity.

 -- The People's Bank of China announced it will cut the one-year yuan lending rate by 0.31% and the one-year deposit rate by 0.25%, the second rate cut in a month.

-- The Bank of England held its key rate on hold at 0.5% but increased its bond-buying program by £50B (US$78B).

-- The Labor Department reported U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew by a paltry 80,000 jobs in June, not enough to significantly reduce the backlog of nearly 13 million unemployed workers.  The lackluster increase followed a revised May increase of 77,000 jobs.  The unemployment rate remained 8.2 %.  The June employment report is yet another sign economic growth is slowing.

Comments and contributions from Update no.550:

Comment to the Blog:

“I agree with you in supporting the Supreme Court’s minority opinion on Montana’s appeal of the damn-fool Citizens United ruling.

“I have come to understand that when a bank settles a court case, even for sums that seem astronomical to ordinary people, the bank wins that conflict because that money is barely a blip in their budget. The amounts of money involved in a Barclays organization (or Chase or the rest of them) boggle my mind. I also want to see criminal prosecution when criminal conduct occurs. That kind of conduct seems to be common at the bigger banking institutions.

“Here in Ohio, I am one of the ‘relatively’ blessed. My ex is really blessed; the only thing that went out where she lives was cable. My power was only down for about one day after the storm Friday. The power company (American Electric Power or AEP) is working very hard to restore power. This morning (Monday, 8 a.m. Eastern) only about 125,000 households here in Franklin County still lack power, compared to 300,000 Friday night. The ‘follow-up’ storm last night took a few people back out. I have family in Amish country; I bet the Amish and other off-gridders are appreciating their choices about now. Just to make it more interesting, along with traffic lights being out we are having a transit strike (65,000 riders looking for an alternative) here in Columbus. I’m not working today, and I’m grateful for that.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: banks settling out of court.  Spot on!  Fines mean little to massive banks; they simply pass long the “expense” to their customers as a cost of doing business.  They only thing that has any meaning to these crooks is prison time and expulsion from the brotherhood.

            Re: storms.  Sorry y’all got hit so hard by the storms last weekend.  Hopefully you will recover quickly.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                 :-)