Sainthood for John Paul II?

The Roman Catholic Church is speeding towards naming Pope John Paul II a saint. My take? 3 words.

Molested little boys.

It's not just that the scandal erupted on his watch.

It's not just that the perversion against the Church's most devoted followers happened during his long tenure as priest, cardinal and Pope.

The reason JPII shouldn't be a saint is that he did nothing--nothing--to react to the scandal when it broke. In fact, he went out of his way to protect the most guilty (like moving Cardinal Law to the Vatican to escape investigation and prosecution).

He should have acted swiftly and with a vengeance that this church seems to reserve only for gays and women.

He should have come to America to smite the offenders and personally comfort the victims.

He should have done..something.

Instead he dithered and he lied and he protected the guilty wolves from the offended sheep.

Not very Christ-like.

So should he be beatified and eventually granted Sainthood?

Nope.

He should be vilified and excommunicated.

But hey, that's just me. When I think of Saints and martyrs I think of people who protected others, who died for others, who tried to uphold the highest degree of morality.

Not this Pope. Not this...bureacrat.
(see my earlier post for more details)

The Dole

We are never going to be able to confront this nation's financial mess until we start telling some truths.

Here's one you don't hear in too many places.

Social Security and Unemployment "insurance" are merely forms of welfare.

Both programs are couched as "insurances" and "rights" because people allegedly pay for them. They were started that way because most Americans back then rejected handouts. They wanted to earn what they received.

Quaint notion, eh? Hard to conceive of that in a day and age when virtually every American, of every race, creed, color and economic strata eagerly pushes their way to the government trough of benefits, contracts, grants, etc. In fact, our blatant desire to grab government largess may be today's defining American character trait.

The problem with calling Unemployment and Social Security "insurances" and paid-for benefit programs is that for the most part, they aren't. The benefits of these programs--each of which was supposed to be self-sustaining-- have been repeatedly and regularly increased by our politicians of both parties. But the payments into the programs haven't been, unless you count the increased taxes on higher wage earners and businesses.

Latest example? The continuing cry to extend unemployment benefits. Now, it is extremely difficult to say you want someone who is unemployed to lose the little income afforded by this program. No one wants to see people suffer.

But the extensions do not come without costs. There isn't a magic tree to be shaken for those dollars. The funds come from former employers-- meaning there is less money to hire-- and from the general tax pool.

Now, when the suggestion is made that people on unemployment be required to perform services for their pay--anything from picking up trash, to reading to kids at schools, to working with seniors or providing day care services for the working poor-- the cry goes out NO! I paid for those benefits--it's unemployment INSURANCE.

Except it's not. And certainly the unpaid-for extensions aren't.

Which means that unemployment--to the extent at least of the extension-- is what used to be called "the dole"--welfare.

Same thing with Social Security. Most seniors got all their money back within a few years. Arbitrary increases, COLA's, increased Medicare coverages, the drug coverage, etc.--these are things that simply were not paid for by seniors. Which means Social Security is, for want of a better term, welfare--not something people earned or paid for during their working lifetimes.

For instance, take a 75 year old retiree. When he was 25 back in 1960 the FICA rate was 6%-employer plus employee! Capped at $4,800 in income. Thus the maximum contribution was $288. For the whole year.

When he was 35? Employer and employee combined paid 8.4% on a maximum income of $8,400. Total maximum contribution? $655.

You get the point.

The average senior today receives about $1,100 per month. It doesn't take too many months for benefits (forgetting Medicare and the drug benefit) to completely outstrip lifetime FICA contributions.

Are too many seniors in poverty? You bet. Do we need a better system to care for the unemployed and our seniors in need. You bet.

We need to find a way to help those in need, and, indeed, a way to pay them much more than they receive. But the systems now don't work and common sense changes are rejected out of hand becaus eof this fantasy that people have somehow paid for these benefits.

Thus we have people with large incomes and significant assets receiving the same benefits that truly needy people receive--and we have healthy people with skills sitting at home on the couch (or working off the books) receiving money while there is work to be done.

It's time to get serious. Let's at least start the conversation by telling truths.

A Winter's Quest

I'm ready for an adventure.

I'm ready for a change in attitude, if not latittude.

I'm ready for a big challenge, somethng beyond the borders of my town.

I've been very lucky to date. I've been involved in my community, and have been honored to have been honored for my work (though everything I've done has been as part of a team--thus it has been more than a little embarrassing being honored individually for a group effort.)

I've kicked around stating a local arts council. I've thought about volunteering with an established local group.

But, to tell you the truth, I've done that.

I want to do more, something that will have a more lasting influence, over a broader spectrum.

I don't know what "it" is yet--but I'm searching. I've been watching and listening to TED Conference presentations (great stuff!) and banging around the 'net.

I've been thinking about the core things that affect humans-- energy, the environment, education. Maybe population control. Nothing has sparked yet. Maybe it won't.

But I'll be spending the Winter in contemplation--and asking friends--

What would you do if you had time, energy, a moderate ability to organize and create events and organizations, and a driving need to want to help?

Important Stuff

I haven't written much here in a long while. I'm still yelling at the TV and now I make the occasional comment on Facebook--though referencing anything political on Facebook feels like a faux pas.

But I am compelled to document my thoughts on a subject of vital importance to me.

Not health care. Not nukes. Not immigration or taxes. Neither the Tea Party nor President O.

Something much more important.

The Mets.

My Mets.

My Mets...suck.

And there is no hope in sight.

I can deal with St. John's being bad, and I've become accustomed to the Islanders being wholly horrible, year in and year out. The Knicks? I'm a Knick fan in theory only, like someone who says they'd rather take the Lotto money they hope to win in one lump sum rather than over 20 years. Will I root for the Knicks if they ever again field a basketball team? Yeah, probably.

The Jets surprised us all, but as much as I love football, it seems a temporary thing--something to get us through from the World Series to pitchers & catchers.

But the Mets? They're the only team that can, and regularly do, break my heart.

As the season started I noted on Facebook how disappointed I was with the team. I was told I had to believe. I responded:

"I lost hope when they didn't fire the GM or manager, when they didn't make a run at Roy Halliday, or John Lackey, or even Orlando Hudson, and when they went into the season with a #1 pitcher and 4 possible #5's, no first baseman, no second baseman, an overrated--and hurt--SS; a hurt CF'er; a hope-he'll-play-well RF, and no catcher. And no bullpen leading up to an admittedly super closer.

I see lots and lots of 6-2 losses.

Lots."

I didn't throw in the owners. Unfortunately Madoff didn't steal Fred Wilpon's first born along with Fred's money--that would have been a great help. Little Jeffrey the Idiot falls into that same new class of owners plaguing NY-- Jimmy Dolan, Jeffy Wilpon and Hank Steinbrenner-- morons whose only reason for their position is that they won, in my brother's words, the sperm lottery.

Ah, the Mets. As I write this they are 2-6. Can 3-11 be but a week away?

I hate it when my sports summer ends in April--though truly this season ended in January.

What am I going to do this summer--follow soccer?

Maybe I'll get lucky and the Weber grill will explode, leaving me in a coma til the football season starts.

A Crisis of Competence

As we enter the third year of this economic mess, I am more convinced than ever that this isn't a crisis caused by greed or a failed system.

It is a crisis caused by a lack of competence.

This is a short list of people or organizations who just simply haven't done their jobs in recent months. It is not a complete list. It isn't even a well-researched list. These are just the ones I recall--in no particular order:

The FAA-- massive delays, an antiquated air traffic control system
TSA- need I elaborate?
Immigration authorities
Every banker who OK'd a 110% loan
Every financier who agreed to bundle, buy and sell packages of 110% loans
Consumer Product Safety Commission-- how many lead-based toys does it take to kill a generation?
Toyota-- record number of recalls
GM, etc-- for decades of crap cars
FEMA
CIA-- for Iraq, for starters
Congress--both sides of the aisle
The Army personnel who ignored/didn't see the Fort Hood situation develop

The list goes on.

Consider your day-to-day transactions. How many clerks do you run in to that have no idea what they are doing? How about the "customer service reps" you talk to on the phone?

Watch the news for a few days--you may find yourself asking, as I do: "Is anyone around here doing their job?"

The one underlying theme that ties all of these together-- incompetence. If people simply did their jobs, many of the crises we've seen should not, would not have happened.

Is it that American workers don't care anymore?

Or is it that our education system has produced decades of students incapable of performing basic functions--and now those failures are coming home to roost?

We have heard warnings about our failed education system for decades. Yet little has changed. We are stuck in a system that fails. Even our best and brightest are coming out with an education that pales against the education learned men possessed in years gone by. (And if you don't believe that, read a bit about our Founding Fathers, or even a speech by FDR-- literate writings and speeches meant for the "common man" reflecting a breadth of knowledge that should shame us-- it certainly shames me-- and I hold an advanced degree).

We have acted as a society as if the issue of whether the schools are "good" or not is equivalent in its effect to whether the movie we just saw was a "good" one or not. We have ignored, at our peril, that the result of turning out generations of poorly prepared students is this: a society that ultimately fails, often in catastrophic ways.

Economies collapse.

People die.

It's time for a change. Real change.

Interracial Couples

An idiot Justice-of-the-Peace in Louisiana has refused to marry a couple because they are interracial.

Yes, seriously. You don't have to check your calendar, it really is 2009.

His reason? "He was concerned for the children who might be born of the relationship..."

Yeah.

Children of interracial marriages never amount to anything.

Just ask, I don't know....President Obama.

or Tiger Woods.

or Derek Jeter.

Hard to imagine people like this still alive. The only good thing, I guess, is the near-universal denunciations that have crashed down upon this moron.

Hypocrites

Two items in the news, both of which show us why the dictionary contains the word "hypocrite".

First, NOW blasts Letterman, and is planning all sorts of juicy retribution.

"As 'the boss,' he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace — and he did that with sex," O'Neill (President of N.O.W.) said. "This places all employees — including employees who happen to be women — in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation."

A powerful man with a public forum like Letterman, O'Neill said, can get away with turning women into sex objects because "he can crack a few jokes and publicly apologize for his mistakes."

"It is this kind of hypocrisy that perpetuates the image of men in power preying on women, while many look the other way," O'Neill said.

NOW urged CBS to take immediate action against Letterman for his lewd behavior...

Really? Really??

Did NOW just come up with this stance? The biggest "boss" in the United States is the President. The most vulnerable employee is arguably an intern.

Where was NOW when the disbarred former President was turning women into sex objects? Silent, that's where.

Hypocrite 2-- the Black Caucus. They claim that they are out to protect the poor and disadvantaged from being preyed on by the rich and powerful. Their defense of Charley Rangel gets them the title this week.

The Black Caucus should not have protected Rangel this week. They should have disowned him and attacked him themselves, months ago.

Not because Charley didn't pay taxes. Not because he didn't list a few assets on his disclosure form (what's a few million between friends, heh?).

No, because of a reprehensible thing he did that Congress isn't even investigating him for.

That sonuvabitch took over 4 rent controlled apartments for his own use--three he cobbled together for a huge duplex. The fourth he uses as his campaign office!

That's three apartments that poor people-- the people the Black Caucus claims to represent-- could have used.

Worse, according to the New York Times, Charley has been silent about abuses his landlord has allegedly perpetrated on the good people of Harlem. Why? Perhaps in exchange for 3 extra apartments he never should have had, at ridiculously low rents (the Times estimated he was saving about $4,000 per month)?

And yet the Black Caucus protects him--instead of riding him out on a rail.

Shameful behavior on the part of Letterman and Rangel.

Greater shame falls on NOW and the Black Caucus for failure to protect their constituents.

Unemployment "Insurance"

As an employer who pays unemployment insurance, I have a question in the face of yet another extension of benefits, which, again, I will pay for:

Here in NY everyone contributes a little each week towards the 6 month standard unemployment benefit package. Fine. It works like insurance. There are few, if any, restrictions on what a person can do while unemployed--presumably they are looking for a job.

But when the payments get extended beyond the 6 month period, the "fund" no longer has the money to pay for the benefits. They come from two sources- former employers and the taxpayers.

Is it unreasonable to ask that anyone receiving extended benefits report each day for "work" (except for those times actually interviewing, etc.?). Is it unreasonable to ask the unemployed to perform functions that might serve the community in exchange for the extended benefits? Working at soup kitchens, helping out at day care centers, fixing up playgrounds and ball fields, delivering meals-on-wheels, reading to folks at hospitals and nursing centers, etc?

Wouldn't that help our communities, provide services to our other needy, as well as weed out those who are working off the books, or who are delaying re-entering the workforce for some reason?

And wouldn't that help the long-term unemployed combat depression by getting them out of the house each day with a purpose?

Just a question or two as the Senate prepares to vote.

A Swiftian Question

If I have to pay for your and your family's housing, education, food--and now, health care, can I have a say in how many damn kids you have?

The number of people who can't afford any of life's basics, yet have 3, 4, 5 or more kids, is astronomical.

I would never begrudge anyone having a child. But number 2? 3? 8?

Don't we have a right to say no (or at least that there are no benefits)-- if only because we are being REQUIRED to pay for them?

According to the Census Bureau, of the families with zero children, only 4% are below the poverty line. 1 or 2 children? 12% 3 or 4? Then it jumps to 23%.

Of the families with five or more children, 41.5% are below the poverty line!

That means of the 8 million families with 3 or more children, over 2 million are below the poverty line--meaning they qualify for the full buffet table of government subsidies, handouts and aid.

Now, there are people who had 3 kids, could afford 3 kids until something bad happened.

But come take a trip with me to Family Court someday--you'll see plenty of women and men who have had children they could never take care of.

I don't suppose any of that is covered in the health care reforms before Congress.

A Couple of Quick Health Care Questions

I haven't heard or read anyone, other than me, talk about increasing the supply of health care workers, including doctors, to help lower health care costs and increase health care availability. Which leads me to this question: If one of the main goals of this effort is to insure the 45 million uninsured, and to move people away from emergency room care to preventative and primary care physicians-- do we have enough doctors?

Here on Long Island we have probably the lowest doctor-to-patient ratio in the country. Yet most times we have to wait for appointments and sit in the waiting room, sometimes for hours. I know doctors who are turning patients away. Doctors all claim to be overworked.

I assume the situation is the same, or worse, around the country.

If 45 million people show up next year for an annual physical, who is going to treat them?

Why aren't we addressing the supply portion of this equation?

2) The key problems I keep hearing are people being denied coverage for preexisting conditions; being booted from their plans for being sick; and lack of portability.

Can't those problems be addressed without a massive federal program? Haven't many states done so?

If the goal is to make health care better, and not let more power settle in Washington, aren't there better ways to go than the bill(s) presently in the House & Senate?

Health Care FAQ

Dems are bleating that the protesters of health care reform are misleading the public--yet I haven't heard anyone, including Pres. O, give a point-by-point explanation of the proposed legislation.

Pres. O and his team are so Internet-savvy--you would think it would be easy for them to whip up a web site, complete with a simple explanation of the bill--and FAQ's for people to see, easily, how this will affect them.

Some of the reforms I've heard I think I approve of. Some I am very concerned about. I hear talk that the bill must not add to the deficit--but if we are now going to offer health insurance to 40+ million, how can that not create new costs--and who will pay them? And how much?

The problem is that Pres. O left this to Congress. The same Congress that has about a 15% approval rating. And he's wondering why Americans are upset!

Quick Notes

...Problem with this health care "debate" is that we have no idea what we are debating. And that's Pres. O's fault. Of course people are angry, upset and, in the minds of the Dems, misinformed.

We ALL are misinformed--if that word means lacking information.

Pres. O should have met with his Dem leadership, put together a package, explained it to America, then passed it. They control everything--they can't be allowed to blame Republicans or conservatives. You have control. You think you have a way to deliver better, cheaper health care? Pass it.

Just don't blame us if we're concerned that your plan, whatever it might be, winds up being another FEMA.

...Governor Sanford should be impeached for leaving his post. They shouldn't have to be making up financial improprieties from years ago regarding flights he took that weren't the cheapest available. Nonsense. No one who runs a company or a State has any right to be missing that long-- what if a hurricane or train wreck or flue epidemic had hit? Didn't the people of South Carolina have the right to have their governor making decisions?

...Hillary got all up in the face of an African teenager for asking what her husband thought about an issue. The typical Clinton response--it was OK, because the boy was mistranslated.

Huh?

The Secretary of State looks and acts like a petulant child--in response to a question from a kid--and its not her fault? The Clinton morning news was great--she was tired; he was mistranslated; its about respect.

BS. It's about a woman who should have been able to handle that question with ease and who, as our leading diplomat, should have handled herself better.

She should apologize. I know that word isn't in the Clinton vocabulary--but she should. Without the usual Clinton spin and dance. Apologize and move on.

Health Care

My good friend Bruce wrote in a recent piece:

The question should not be why is health care so expensive. It's so expensive because it saves lives.

The question should be how do we save everybody's life.

I am really disappointed with the turn this health care debate is taking.

I agree with him.

Republicans blew it--on this and so many other issues--when we had control. Trying to keep demand down on health care is doomed to failure. Americans will not put up with restrictions on the quality or length of the lives of themselves or their loved ones.

The answer is supply side. We should be doubling and then doubling again the number of medical schools in this country. Doctors have imposed limits on the number of medical students-- there are about the same number now as 25 years ago, when there were less of us and we were demographically much younger.

We should have built dozens of new medical schools, or provided financial support for the independent creation and expansion of existing ones. Competition would go a long way towards lowering the cost of and increasing the access to medical care.

There obviously is no silver bullet. However, a combination of vastly increasing the supply of medical care providers, health savings accounts, public clinics (especially for Medicaid patients), the computerization of medical records (so you don't have to fill out the same damn clipboard 804 times), some med mal reform, and reasonable restrictions on insurance companies makes the most sense.

I like President Obama. I honestly do. However, this is the second time that he has pronounced the need for a solution to a problem NOW, and then let Congress come up with a "solution". It failed miserably with the so-called stimulus "plan". And it is failing now with health care.

Pres. O will get a bill. But it will be a bill cobbled together by the likes of Pelosi and Reid and Frank & Kennedy--4 people I guarantee few Americans would be happy to have babysit their kids, let alone decide the fate of our nation.

A Few Thoughts on GM

A couple of random thoughts about GM:

-- I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the Obama/Bush "strategy" of taking shares in exchange for bailout money, for GM & the banks, if there was a set timetable for the government to orderly dispose of the assets. For instance, the U.S. now holds 60% of GM. I would love it if the Administration announced that commencing January, 2010, we will be auctioning off 1% per month. That amount shouldn't shake the market; it gives us a better timetable for withdrawal from GM than we have from Iraq; and it would make it clear that Obama is not doing this to create a socialist society, but rather only as a needed short-term stop gap.

--This should have been done in the Fall, some $50 billion ago.

--I have no remorse for the retired GM workers. The ones who worked there in the '70's and '80's were the cause of this, with rapacious contracts and terrible work ethic. I remember sitting in my dorm room, in 1976, discussing GM with my roommate (his Dad owned a Chevy dealership)--and the topic then was the miserably built and designed cars. People used to take it as fact that you didn't want a car that came off the line on Monday (hangover day) or Friday (getaway day). This is simply a matter of reaping what was sown years ago, when people like me simply could not find a vehicle made by GM that was...satisfying.

--The first new car my wife & I bought was a Chevy Chevette. But we moved on, basically because for less money we were able to buy Japanese cars that were made better. Period. About 7 years ago I looked for a middle-age crisis car--I wound up with a Saab convertible after looking at every..single..American dealership. Nothing was made as well, nor designed as well. The last two years I've been driving a Prius--and I love it. Why don't American companies have similar cars? (And, except for the engine, mine was made right here. American workers can do the job-- is it our engineers who are lacking? Or is it some kind of Midwestern still-living-in-the 1950's nonsense that is keeping GM from designing cars most Americans will buy?

--I'll believe the Volt when I see it.