Greg Felton has gotten in the habit of making accusations that I am following him around the internet maligning him. So if he sees someone make a comment that bruises his ego, he immediately jumps on it and pins the comment on me.
Like so:
http://www.westcoasttruth.com/2/post/2011/12/how-do-you-feel-about-greg-felton-being-on-the-west-coast-truth.html
I would be flattered, except that I don't care. It was fun in the beginning, matching wits, exposing to the Craigslist community who was the guy behind the trash talk, it was a piece of investigative work that I was somewhat proud of. Once I realized that Greg is not one to change his stripes and behave in a civil fashion it became pointless, so I moved on to other things.
I still like to read his lacerating commentary directed at others less fortunate as I realized long ago that engaging him in discourse is an absolute waste of time and like any old dog you soon realize that his bark is worse than his bite.
Recently however CL posters were a featured sub-segment of one of Russell Scott's podcasts and he gave Greg Felton about 5 minutes to tear up Jamie Scott.
Transcript of the exchange:
From about 57:40 to 1:02:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkTbW3WoBI
RS:Jamie Scott, You have anything to say about Jamie Scott? I don't think I've seen him on there lately.
GF: Ah, no, lets hope you don't. Huh. Jamie Scott is a bizarre character. I mean he came in the last election with the truth forum...
RS: I think Jamie Scott has some good ideas I am unsure about his motives, I'll just leave it there but I think he has some good ideas I don't think they are all that well formed however...go ahead
GF:Not for...anybody I, I question him yesterday about the Truth Party and how you can't call yourself the Truth Party the truth is not something you can own. The truth is a matter of perception. Once you call yourself the Truth Party then you become little more than a tyrant. Because you have for example pravda, in Russia, means truth, so does istina and um so you have the Russians say this is the truth, the party truth, you read this and well people...I was in Russia and people didn't really believe what they read. So Jamie Scott really is half-baked um I find him quite ridiculous. But he is also rather negative factor because there are some very good people out there who want to reform politics we need reform, we desperately need reform and we can't really respect independent thinkers if they act in such bizarre and totalitarian ways the way Jamie Scott did. When Jamie Scott really had I don't think had much to say. He had maybe a few ideas battling around his head but they were not formed, they were not developed, they were not formed, they weren't really ideas, they were like disembodied notions looking for a home and so I just found him quite ridiculous and I think he is dangerous in many ways, he poisons the political environment for other people who want to start up their own political party. If someone like Jamie Scott can say well this guy is a bit of a crank I mean he got nothing in the last election he made these outrageous statements, why am I going to trust any other independent...candidate, is he typical or what? So I thought it was...I think we'd be better off without him and I hope he sort of...I hope he stays away. I just don't think he ought....
RS: I am hearing more out of Stewart Easton than Jamie Scott these days.
GF: I don't hear much from St...I don't pay much attention to the forum anymore... I found it too much of an energy suck, that's why.
RS:Greg well enough with the politics forum.
GF: Yeah...
RS: I noticed that the politics forum I've noticed is kind of dead these days so...
End of Transcript
So I gotta ask? Is Jamie ridiculous? Or is Jamie dangerous? It doesn't appear to me that he could be both. I suspect you really think he is the latter for you dismiss his "disembodied notions" without addressing what they are and accuse him of being "bizarre" and a "totalitarian" and a "tyrant". Not a bad piece of work, if you worked for FOX news. I expected better from you.
I think Mr. Felton's understanding of our political system works is lacking. He seems to think that if we get a few non-mainstream candidates that don't tote the line then the perception of independents as a whole goes down the drain. I hate to break it to him but our entire political system is set up to favour parties, not independents. If he actually had partaken in the last federal election he would know this.
What Mr. Felton doesn't like is populists. He has said as much. And the list of what he deems as populist encompasses a fair number of parties/movements, well pretty much all of them except the main three parties and perhaps the Greens. What he doesn't acknowledge is even if populist movements don't get the reigns of power (and history says the deck is stacked against them), established parties will adopt populist measures if only to maintain their political legitimacy.
Let's talk about the last federal election.
I find it laughable that Mr. Felton points to the last federal election and makes statements like "he got nothing in the last election". What were you expecting Mr. Felton? Dona Cadman, whom by all accounts was a no-show for the last election, got about 13,181 votes.
All for doing nothing, because she had the backing of money and the momentum of being an incumbent. The winner of that riding Jasbir Sandhu, although not particularly articulate or impressive at the debates he showed up at, won by a over a thousand votes.
Let's look at what was spent. Shinder Purewal spent the most and came in third at $84,753. Dona spent the second most at $78,926. Jasbir spent the 3rd most but came in first, his price tag was $75,464. The range between difference spent the 1st and 3rd candidate is less than 10K, but all outspent the bottom 4 candidates many times over. Money buys elections. You can see some other factors that influence votes, such as name recognition (i.e. Green Party), but ultimately money is what gets you elected.
Jamie's performance wasn't atypical of most independents that ran.
You can see that his performance pretty much played out as was expected. As did all the independents with few exceptions. Not because he is outrageous, not because he is "totalitarian", but because he ran with little money and little support, as most independents do. Noteworthy is that Jamie did beat the Christian Heritage and Libertarian candidate which have traditionally beaten independents and more fringe party candidates like CAP in previous years.
Most astonishing is that at the debates where the Liberal and NDP candidate showed up, no one rebutted Jamie Scott's statement about how private (or chartered) banks are charging the government interest on money that could be issued interest free by the Bank of Canada. I mean, you would think that the other candidates would jump all over him, an opening like that. Not a thing. Except that the Libertarian candidate echoed his statement and the CHP candidate did as well. Response from the mainstream candidates? Zero. So you could draw the conclusion that most politicians do not have any idea how our monetary system works, or if they are in a party they just shut up about it.
I would say that I didn't see neither of you running, so whether Jamie's performance was good or bad is moot. He took a risk and engaged in the process, which is more than I can say for most. This is a great failing in our society, that we raise up our children to be afraid to fail, and by doing so condemn them to a life of mediocrity.
Let's discuss the nature of the name "Truth".
This brings back so many memories, this was the exact same argument you used way back in the day and it holds as much meaning then as it does now. To paint a clear picture, the name is irrelevant. It was something Jamie picked to encapsulate the "idea" that politicians should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us and should be obligated by law to be honest or suffer the consequences. "Truth" seems to capture the essence of that very well, it is a logical connection. What you are accusing him of is engaging in doublespeak without ever having demonstrated that Jamie has any Orwellian intentions what-so-ever. If it helps, lately he has been thinking about "BC United", hopefully that passes your doublespeak filter, oh wait, dammit, "United" he really means "divided". Let us get back to you on this, we might have to go with the "It" party or just The "Party" party, or the "the" party.
Sorry I'm going to segue to Russell for a second, because this fits in with Mr. Felton's accusations of tyranny and totalitarianism. First, you must realize the irony that the same issues Greg takes with Jamie's choice of name also would apply to the West Coast TRUTH. Second, why exactly are you unsure of Jamie's motives? Oligarchy relies on nepotism, trappings of privilege and influence. Jamie is not rich nor does he circulate in professional circles (lawyers, doctors, businessmen, bankers). Of course you could be unsure of other "motives", if so please enlighten me.
Back to the idea that politicians should be obligated to tell the truth. I would say that this is not an isolated feeling that only Jamie Scott harbors.
Is this blogger bizarre?
Perhaps Duff Conacher LL.B in this article for iPolitic.ca is equally "bizarre".
Or maybe it is the seed of an idea that maybe, just maybe, politicians should be held to the same standard of ethics that doctors or certified accountants are held to. If a doctor or accountant lies to their patient/client they are going to lose their job and their license, we don't wait a number of years to elapse then vote them out. Why on earth is it so hard to expect the same treatment for those that make all the important decisions for 4 year blocks of time?
Are we to assume that most of the population of Canada have infantile reasoning? Can I infer that by Greg's comment that a survey said over half of the people voted for Harper so they didn't have to vote again? And from Russell's comment from a previous show that you want only smart people like Jimmy Pattison running the economy?
If that is so then it follows that as children we need to be lied to. It also follows that the current government is a bad parent. As all good parents know, if you want your children to grow up and be responsible adults you need to tell them the truth about things.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Sunday, July 03, 2011
A House Divided...
I have decided to end my association with TZM and TVP. This is a decision that I do not enter into lightly but over the past few months I have endured a few epiphanies that have finally illustrated to me that TZM and TVP in their current configuration are not going to be able to break into the mainstream. The last straw was Douglas Mallette's interview on V-Radio.
I still support the idea of an RBE, it is something that should be explored further, but if TZM wants to take this further they need to get their house in order.
Why I've come to this conclusion is as follows:
1. As an organization you have been too middle of the road in who you let represent these ideas. I understand you want to propagate these ideas far and wide, but you can't let just anyone represent themselves as movement members and then spout off about whatever agenda they see fit. You let people bring in baggage eventually that baggage becomes incorporated in the movement.
I am burned out trying to effect damage control. Although there is truth that the "forum is not the movement" it is public, anyone can read it and anyone can draw all sorts of inappropriate conclusions based on it.
You need more moderation, not less. And you need private forums. Better yet get rid of on-line forums altogether. Conduct town hall meetings and invite the public, this way you know you are putting your best foot forward. Lastly they only people who should be talking about an RBE are people who have explicitly expressed an understanding of it.
2. Drop the Zeitgeist name, distance yourself from the first movie. It is long past due that you do this. The first Zeitgeist is not engineered as a piece that will unify any group of people. It is polarizing and misleading. I am still mystified as to why Peter Joseph paid to have people write a 200pg support document and then released a re-tweak of the original movie, especially at a time when he was distancing himself from 911 Truthers. It is time to accept that conspiracy theory, new age, ufo's, NWO has no place in TZM. These people are not your audience, I cannot grasp how you do not understand that. Repudiate the first movie, and re-brand your group. Take the good ideas and shed the garbage. The fact that some of the more prominent members are afraid to disclose who they represent at conventions for fear of alienating the crowd before thy begin is proof enough that perhaps the Zeitgeist franchise has worn out its welcome.
3. Stop pushing the collapse porn. Waiting around for the collapse to magically usher in the thinking and attitudes necessary to birth a new economic order (oops did I just say that?) is foolhardy and irresponsible. And it won't happen. As I've argued before on the forums you cannot wait for collapse because people are going to rebuild what they know, not something new. Hopefully you are turning a new leaf with the new association with the food drive in September, but what took you so long?
4. TZM is a movement that is based on the scientific method applied to social concern. So bloody well use the scientific method already. If it can't be made falsifiable or replicable and no empirical evidence exists, then stop talking about it. Useless speculation is useless.
You want the mainstream to take you seriously, then start helping, start being part of your community, polish up your image, build your street cred. Start by owning up to past mistakes, rather than plunging headlong at full speed from one disaster to another. Build a respectable foundation around the idea of a sustainable economy/community. That is all you need. Indeed that is all you ever needed.
I still support the idea of an RBE, it is something that should be explored further, but if TZM wants to take this further they need to get their house in order.
Why I've come to this conclusion is as follows:
1. As an organization you have been too middle of the road in who you let represent these ideas. I understand you want to propagate these ideas far and wide, but you can't let just anyone represent themselves as movement members and then spout off about whatever agenda they see fit. You let people bring in baggage eventually that baggage becomes incorporated in the movement.
I am burned out trying to effect damage control. Although there is truth that the "forum is not the movement" it is public, anyone can read it and anyone can draw all sorts of inappropriate conclusions based on it.
You need more moderation, not less. And you need private forums. Better yet get rid of on-line forums altogether. Conduct town hall meetings and invite the public, this way you know you are putting your best foot forward. Lastly they only people who should be talking about an RBE are people who have explicitly expressed an understanding of it.
2. Drop the Zeitgeist name, distance yourself from the first movie. It is long past due that you do this. The first Zeitgeist is not engineered as a piece that will unify any group of people. It is polarizing and misleading. I am still mystified as to why Peter Joseph paid to have people write a 200pg support document and then released a re-tweak of the original movie, especially at a time when he was distancing himself from 911 Truthers. It is time to accept that conspiracy theory, new age, ufo's, NWO has no place in TZM. These people are not your audience, I cannot grasp how you do not understand that. Repudiate the first movie, and re-brand your group. Take the good ideas and shed the garbage. The fact that some of the more prominent members are afraid to disclose who they represent at conventions for fear of alienating the crowd before thy begin is proof enough that perhaps the Zeitgeist franchise has worn out its welcome.
3. Stop pushing the collapse porn. Waiting around for the collapse to magically usher in the thinking and attitudes necessary to birth a new economic order (oops did I just say that?) is foolhardy and irresponsible. And it won't happen. As I've argued before on the forums you cannot wait for collapse because people are going to rebuild what they know, not something new. Hopefully you are turning a new leaf with the new association with the food drive in September, but what took you so long?
4. TZM is a movement that is based on the scientific method applied to social concern. So bloody well use the scientific method already. If it can't be made falsifiable or replicable and no empirical evidence exists, then stop talking about it. Useless speculation is useless.
You want the mainstream to take you seriously, then start helping, start being part of your community, polish up your image, build your street cred. Start by owning up to past mistakes, rather than plunging headlong at full speed from one disaster to another. Build a respectable foundation around the idea of a sustainable economy/community. That is all you need. Indeed that is all you ever needed.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
If you want to have your say just ask
So a curious thing happened when I posted yesterday, I got an anonymous comment from a poster that said the following:
Same day to which is highly unusual considering my little blog hasn’t gotten more than 1000 views in the 6 years it’s been up. People who come to my little humble site are mostly other movement members looking to see if I’ve covered a topic refuting a popular notion regarding TZM.
Then it hit me. Google alerts. By putting “Greg Felton” in the body of my blog of course it would trigger an alert. Given his anti-Zionist literature, no doubt he is very sensitive to the use of his name on the internet. Who else could it be? The question is who else would care enough to post on my backwater little blog?
So Greg, here is what I am going to do. I am going to post your arguments on my blog, unaltered and I am then going to post my rebuttals, compared in chronological sequence perhaps we can figure out if I indeed “bobbed and weaved and changed the subject.”
Some background for those of you coming into this late, I used to post ads on Craigslist in the politics sections advertising our meet and greats at the Vancouver Art Gallery. I stopped doing this however around January of this year because of the toxic environment I saw developing on the forum of certain elements against alternative ideas. Not wishing to offend or get embroiled it yet another debate on a public forum (I get into enough of those elsewhere) I decided to stop posting there. I still continued to read and would from time to time try to make contact with posters that seemed to be in line with our views or seemed to be looking for an alternative.
A couple of weeks ago a on-line publication called the West Coast Truth began advertising itself on Craigslist, nothing offensive or in your face, but they had the misfortune of having an ad for our latest documentary Zeitgeist: Moving Forward on their homepage. One or two posters began to pick on the publication, calling it an “organ” for the Zeitgeist Movement. This went on for awhile until I piped up and asked them what their beef was. And boy did they ever tell me!
“I saw the negative comments about West Coast Truth, and you deserved everything you got.
You didn't even make an attempt to address the points the person you say was "Greg Felton" brought up. You bobbed and weaved and changed the subject.
Also, I am certain there was at least one more voice against WCT, so don't accuse people without proof.”
Same day to which is highly unusual considering my little blog hasn’t gotten more than 1000 views in the 6 years it’s been up. People who come to my little humble site are mostly other movement members looking to see if I’ve covered a topic refuting a popular notion regarding TZM.
Then it hit me. Google alerts. By putting “Greg Felton” in the body of my blog of course it would trigger an alert. Given his anti-Zionist literature, no doubt he is very sensitive to the use of his name on the internet. Who else could it be? The question is who else would care enough to post on my backwater little blog?
So Greg, here is what I am going to do. I am going to post your arguments on my blog, unaltered and I am then going to post my rebuttals, compared in chronological sequence perhaps we can figure out if I indeed “bobbed and weaved and changed the subject.”
Some background for those of you coming into this late, I used to post ads on Craigslist in the politics sections advertising our meet and greats at the Vancouver Art Gallery. I stopped doing this however around January of this year because of the toxic environment I saw developing on the forum of certain elements against alternative ideas. Not wishing to offend or get embroiled it yet another debate on a public forum (I get into enough of those elsewhere) I decided to stop posting there. I still continued to read and would from time to time try to make contact with posters that seemed to be in line with our views or seemed to be looking for an alternative.
A couple of weeks ago a on-line publication called the West Coast Truth began advertising itself on Craigslist, nothing offensive or in your face, but they had the misfortune of having an ad for our latest documentary Zeitgeist: Moving Forward on their homepage. One or two posters began to pick on the publication, calling it an “organ” for the Zeitgeist Movement. This went on for awhile until I piped up and asked them what their beef was. And boy did they ever tell me!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
A funny thing happen on Craigslist
So in my travels I came across as I tend to do a post slagging a on-line publication called West Coast Truth all because it had the audacity of displaying a Z:MF banner on it's home page. Some unruly guy who turns out to be Greg Felton, author of the book "The Host and the Parasite" was busy trashing our movement with half-baked accusations and innuendo.
I debated with him for awhile and then he just began to bury the forum in "AVOID WCT AND THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT! THEY ARE CULTS!" type posts. At which point I have no choice but to back out, you can't argue with that.
Besides the forum seemed to be getting heated with some other people posting their views on Greg, and a few were pretty nasty. One stuck out and I thought I would reproduce it here. I thought it was funny, being on the receiving end of this it was pretty bang on. I am sure anyone else who has been on the receiving end of one of Greg Felton's tongue lashing would also find this funny.
Re:ZEITGEIST Hater
Dude I don't know what debate you were looking at but the debate I was reading had team Z waaay ahead of team Felton. Team F likes to throw down nasty but where is his backup? If this was a real debate team F would have been laughed out of here long ago.
Team F: Zeitgeist is crap. And your a (insert big word), (insert another big word), (insert one more big word here), child.
Team Z: I refute your allegations. According to (insert author's name here) in his work (insert book name here) your proposition is untenable. Furthermore according to (author name) in (book reference) what we suggest is very reasonable. Lastly consult this link for yet another rebuttal to your point (insert link here).
Team F: I refuse to entertain the twaddle of authors who are read by more people than my own books are. Make your own arguments and quit wasting my time so I can get to the part where I insult you some more and make up stuff about your position that you will not be able to refute because I will not allow you to quote anyone who is smarter and more respectable than me, which is pretty much everyone.
Team Z: I rest my case.
I debated with him for awhile and then he just began to bury the forum in "AVOID WCT AND THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT! THEY ARE CULTS!" type posts. At which point I have no choice but to back out, you can't argue with that.
Besides the forum seemed to be getting heated with some other people posting their views on Greg, and a few were pretty nasty. One stuck out and I thought I would reproduce it here. I thought it was funny, being on the receiving end of this it was pretty bang on. I am sure anyone else who has been on the receiving end of one of Greg Felton's tongue lashing would also find this funny.
Re:ZEITGEIST Hater
Dude I don't know what debate you were looking at but the debate I was reading had team Z waaay ahead of team Felton. Team F likes to throw down nasty but where is his backup? If this was a real debate team F would have been laughed out of here long ago.
Team F: Zeitgeist is crap. And your a (insert big word), (insert another big word), (insert one more big word here), child.
Team Z: I refute your allegations. According to (insert author's name here) in his work (insert book name here) your proposition is untenable. Furthermore according to (author name) in (book reference) what we suggest is very reasonable. Lastly consult this link for yet another rebuttal to your point (insert link here).
Team F: I refuse to entertain the twaddle of authors who are read by more people than my own books are. Make your own arguments and quit wasting my time so I can get to the part where I insult you some more and make up stuff about your position that you will not be able to refute because I will not allow you to quote anyone who is smarter and more respectable than me, which is pretty much everyone.
Team Z: I rest my case.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
CAPITALIST TEN COMMANDMENTS
1. Do unto others before they do it unto you. Beggar thy neighbor and trade their employments without offset, tariff, or compensation to secure a bountiful profit from the greater slave. Engage the most authoritarian of regimes and let no morality, nor powers of the vast majority, interfere with the greater profits to be had from preserving disparities and all the powers of predation enjoyed by the rich.
2. In all things, see that your capital-defined Efficiency shall remain the only god, and let no morality, freedom nor ecological concern interfere with your divine right to profit and enclose for your benefit.
3. Thou shalt make money and power thy only god and pursuit, and not suffer any foolish idleness opening one to other occupations or dangerous revelations.
4. To secure thy power, thou shalt not let the people own or control their central banks – despite constitutional purse powers to the contrary – for debt money is the central power and motive force before which all others pale and remain impotent.
5. Thou shalt own and control all media and news dissemination agencies. Let not any editor be elected lest the people influence what they see, hear and read. Let all books, media, and education grow our values exclusively. Let not any fairness doctrine nor any notion of labor-capital “factor” balance interfere with this, our grand design.
6. In all things, thou shalt make Growth and per-capita ruin thy only gods, and defeat Balance at every turn. Thou shalt see that humanity endlessly multiplies. Let no balance of population arise which might serve to pass on the same quantum of freedom, earthly space, natural right and pleasure even to thine own children – as this would destroy our precious and profitable Growth.
7. In all things, thou shalt resist Balance, and both factor and gender equity for I, your male SkyGod, have told you so.
8. Let no freely communal or cooperative emerge, nor non-profit venture succeed – for such competition is to be feared and prohibited. Privative everything and control the reigns of power so the vast majority own no debt-free estate or may access any means with which they might secure their domestic freedom, independence, and democracy.
9. Let Nature’s realm be conquered and set to your profit purposes. Patent and own nature’s pharmacopeia. Change the nature of animals and humans alike to serve your ends. Render off limits those fertile lands and plants by which the masses might enjoy leisure, acquire natural freedom, secure refuge from our Free Market, or stumble upon revelations of a non-egoic, cooperative, and spiritual nature.
10. Let enclosure reign, for the landless and dependent are fodder for thy greater objectives. Let our Interdependency forever be mediated by the rich and powerful, and secured in the name of an Efficiency serving our ends alone. Seek to destroy any remnants of natural freedom, commonwealth, and domestic independence. Let our Free Market of neo-slavery prevail and thy will profit beyond one’s wildest dreams.”
2. In all things, see that your capital-defined Efficiency shall remain the only god, and let no morality, freedom nor ecological concern interfere with your divine right to profit and enclose for your benefit.
3. Thou shalt make money and power thy only god and pursuit, and not suffer any foolish idleness opening one to other occupations or dangerous revelations.
4. To secure thy power, thou shalt not let the people own or control their central banks – despite constitutional purse powers to the contrary – for debt money is the central power and motive force before which all others pale and remain impotent.
5. Thou shalt own and control all media and news dissemination agencies. Let not any editor be elected lest the people influence what they see, hear and read. Let all books, media, and education grow our values exclusively. Let not any fairness doctrine nor any notion of labor-capital “factor” balance interfere with this, our grand design.
6. In all things, thou shalt make Growth and per-capita ruin thy only gods, and defeat Balance at every turn. Thou shalt see that humanity endlessly multiplies. Let no balance of population arise which might serve to pass on the same quantum of freedom, earthly space, natural right and pleasure even to thine own children – as this would destroy our precious and profitable Growth.
7. In all things, thou shalt resist Balance, and both factor and gender equity for I, your male SkyGod, have told you so.
8. Let no freely communal or cooperative emerge, nor non-profit venture succeed – for such competition is to be feared and prohibited. Privative everything and control the reigns of power so the vast majority own no debt-free estate or may access any means with which they might secure their domestic freedom, independence, and democracy.
9. Let Nature’s realm be conquered and set to your profit purposes. Patent and own nature’s pharmacopeia. Change the nature of animals and humans alike to serve your ends. Render off limits those fertile lands and plants by which the masses might enjoy leisure, acquire natural freedom, secure refuge from our Free Market, or stumble upon revelations of a non-egoic, cooperative, and spiritual nature.
10. Let enclosure reign, for the landless and dependent are fodder for thy greater objectives. Let our Interdependency forever be mediated by the rich and powerful, and secured in the name of an Efficiency serving our ends alone. Seek to destroy any remnants of natural freedom, commonwealth, and domestic independence. Let our Free Market of neo-slavery prevail and thy will profit beyond one’s wildest dreams.”
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Inevitability of Debt
Admiral Mullen said that the US national debt is the #1 security issue. In 2012 the US will be paying 600 billion dollars in interest alone.
What do you think will happen when the US tries to impose austerity measures on its citizens? What do you think will happen when the US tells China it can’t possibly pay what it owes? The problem is, those in charge are psychopaths, and they have their foot on the gas pedal. Historically speaking almost every country that was on the verge of default of debt will resort to war to make their economy better. Attack your creditor and you have a chance of canceling your debt or at least make it not worth their while to collect at the same time stimulating your economy be kicking it into war time production.
So is that the answer? More war?
When are we going to wake up as a species and realize the truth that is the brotherhood of man? We are all related. Bombing the Chinese or nuking the Iranians is just like killing your extended family. Why not try to find another way?
Obviously our economic system is broken and it has been broken for a long time, from about the beginning of the 1900’s. Just last century we fought two of the most brutal wars our species had ever experienced, which also happened to be the same century that our powers of innovation had begun to harness mechanical labour. Also at the same time the central banks became fully entrenched in the US thus consolidating their hold on the rest of the world. Is this a coincidence?
On the face of it you can say that we as a species just become more efficient at killing each other, but if you look at the technological innovation that allows for that efficiency you will see that it is the root cause of the pressure that lead up to both world wars by disrupting the balance that existed in our economies.
Mechanical labour improves productivity allowing companies to produce way more for way less, but also has the side effect of displacing human labour. So you are left with many products to sell but few people to sell them to. Initially you can raise wages and reduce hours allow your workers to become consumers, but eventually the profit motive wins out and to cut costs you cut people. This leads to unemployment and unrest and eventually leads to large standing inventories and stagnant sales.
A wartime economy allows a country to make full use of productive capacity of machines and the consumers become soldiers/government. Wartime economies encourage full employment as they try to gun down their opposition and this restores balance to society by providing jobs to the people and profits to the corporations and gives the country purpose. After the war, old patterns re-emerge with advancing technological innovation causing mass unemployment and profits through production stagnating. Now that we are in an era of globalization, we are hitting a wall, no new markets to exploit to continue this cycle, but yet technology advances on. Unemployment continues to increase and there are hints of yet another war on the horizon. We need to break the cycle.
What do we do?
1. Let deflation take hold. Divide the fruits of technological productivity between workers and owners. We work less and earn less but things cost less, this is a natural evolution.
2. Repeal corporate personhood. Corporate structure is set up entirely to limit liability and the only good to a corporation is the good of profit.
3. Stop loans at interest or create the interest by allowing the government to spend money into the economy. By removing the onus of businesses having to create a profit to pay back loans and bonds the business can then focus on innovation and making quality products. As long as costs are covered and employees are deriving a livelihood that should be the sign of a successful business.
4. Provide the basics in abundance, thereby making it nonsensical to charge for it. Like the air we breathe and the water we drink, both are in abundance and we can have for free. We need to extend this to food and eventually to travel and shelter.
This will act as the template, a stepping stone, to the resource-based economy that the Venus Project proposes.
What do you think will happen when the US tries to impose austerity measures on its citizens? What do you think will happen when the US tells China it can’t possibly pay what it owes? The problem is, those in charge are psychopaths, and they have their foot on the gas pedal. Historically speaking almost every country that was on the verge of default of debt will resort to war to make their economy better. Attack your creditor and you have a chance of canceling your debt or at least make it not worth their while to collect at the same time stimulating your economy be kicking it into war time production.
So is that the answer? More war?
When are we going to wake up as a species and realize the truth that is the brotherhood of man? We are all related. Bombing the Chinese or nuking the Iranians is just like killing your extended family. Why not try to find another way?
Obviously our economic system is broken and it has been broken for a long time, from about the beginning of the 1900’s. Just last century we fought two of the most brutal wars our species had ever experienced, which also happened to be the same century that our powers of innovation had begun to harness mechanical labour. Also at the same time the central banks became fully entrenched in the US thus consolidating their hold on the rest of the world. Is this a coincidence?
On the face of it you can say that we as a species just become more efficient at killing each other, but if you look at the technological innovation that allows for that efficiency you will see that it is the root cause of the pressure that lead up to both world wars by disrupting the balance that existed in our economies.
Mechanical labour improves productivity allowing companies to produce way more for way less, but also has the side effect of displacing human labour. So you are left with many products to sell but few people to sell them to. Initially you can raise wages and reduce hours allow your workers to become consumers, but eventually the profit motive wins out and to cut costs you cut people. This leads to unemployment and unrest and eventually leads to large standing inventories and stagnant sales.
A wartime economy allows a country to make full use of productive capacity of machines and the consumers become soldiers/government. Wartime economies encourage full employment as they try to gun down their opposition and this restores balance to society by providing jobs to the people and profits to the corporations and gives the country purpose. After the war, old patterns re-emerge with advancing technological innovation causing mass unemployment and profits through production stagnating. Now that we are in an era of globalization, we are hitting a wall, no new markets to exploit to continue this cycle, but yet technology advances on. Unemployment continues to increase and there are hints of yet another war on the horizon. We need to break the cycle.
What do we do?
1. Let deflation take hold. Divide the fruits of technological productivity between workers and owners. We work less and earn less but things cost less, this is a natural evolution.
2. Repeal corporate personhood. Corporate structure is set up entirely to limit liability and the only good to a corporation is the good of profit.
3. Stop loans at interest or create the interest by allowing the government to spend money into the economy. By removing the onus of businesses having to create a profit to pay back loans and bonds the business can then focus on innovation and making quality products. As long as costs are covered and employees are deriving a livelihood that should be the sign of a successful business.
4. Provide the basics in abundance, thereby making it nonsensical to charge for it. Like the air we breathe and the water we drink, both are in abundance and we can have for free. We need to extend this to food and eventually to travel and shelter.
This will act as the template, a stepping stone, to the resource-based economy that the Venus Project proposes.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Why Money?
A brief history of money is as follows: before money most people lived in communal tribes where everything was shared and most labour was general and simple (i.e. hunter or gatherer), then came barter which allowed more specialization (i.e. farmer, rancher) but was incredibly ponderous as it fell on the people who had the surplus resource to find someone else who wanted that surplus resource but also had what you wanted. Then came the development of money that allowed for easy exchange and allowed for more specialization in labour (engineer, scientist, teacher, fashion designer).
Money is a step in a social financial evolution that has not yet culminated. Money is not the last step. Sharing, barter, money are each steps that have laid the ground work that has advanced our knowledge socially and technologically. However, money has runs it’s course and the next step in this on-going evolution is on the horizon, the abolishment of money replaced with access to the necessities for all the world’s people.
Money works best in an environment of scarcity and economic growth (expanding into new markets). There was nothing more efficient at allocating scarce resources than use of the price mechanism. The only problem is that the two key environmental factors that allow for the optimum use of money are no longer true, the factor of scarcity and the factor of economic growth.
Scarcity has been defeated through technological advances and globalization has allowed businesses to reach the saturation point of new markets. There are no more new horizons, economically speaking, that will allow for the growth that we’ve experienced perpetually for the past few centuries. Of course you may be thinking that how can I say we’ve defeated scarcity when some 3 billion people are underemployed and of those 2 billion people world-wide are underfed and of those 1 billion people are actually starving. So don’t we have scarcity? Yes we do. So what am I talking about? I am talking about the fact that we could solve this problem today if we wanted to. It is not that we don’t have the resources, we do. It is also not that we don’t have the labour; we have that in spades, 3 billion people’s worth. But do we have enough money? No we don’t.
Money is our bottleneck.
Money was the solution to allocating scarce resources because the system was designed to assume that all resources are scarce. Notice that resources that are not scarce have no price attached, like air, and until recently water. Money’s strength has now turned into a weakness by restraining productivity and causing inefficiency to maintain profit.
Profit is directly tied to scarcity and inefficiency. The more abundant something is and the more efficient it is at its function the less profit exists. In an economic system that has as its incentive profit will produce an inefficient system that thrives on scarcity. Solutions that offer anything contrary will be ignored, bought out, or suppressed.
How is that you say? Look at all the advancements we’ve gained through our current capitalistic system, cars, computers, NASA, cell phones. Granted in a system based on competition in growing markets, innovation and efficiency can gain you market share at the expense of your competitors. In the environment we see ourselves in today we have the corporate trans-nationals, cartels and monopolies that through lobbying local governments to prevent entry of new players into the markets through excessive regulation and are themselves not curtailed or limited by any one government, do not have to innovate their products anymore, generally speaking. What the transnational are doing, since new markets are becoming less common with globalization, is they are using any means necessary to cut costs to enhance their earnings per share and the primary way they do that is through technological automation which leads to a phenomenon called technological unemployment, the replacement of human labour with machine. Productivity as delivered by machine is constantly rising while human labour is falling off as rapidly. A good video that describes this is called Awakenings available on-line for free. Money ultimately means nothing, resources mean everything. We live in a unique time in which we can pull off that which would have been considered impossible just 20 years ago. Some still think it is impossible. I think that it is a failure in their imagination.
http://www.truththeory.org/awakening/
Monday, September 20, 2010
5 years is too long
I recently stumbled back onto my blog a few months ago, since then blogger had been snapped up by Google so my old login and password didn't work so I ported it over then promptly forgot my login information. So after some fits and starts I managed to hack my way back in, so here I am...
5 Years! So I guess I should fill you guys in on what has happened in the meantime. The girl I proposed to, she stuck around to marry this poor slub. And for that I am thankful, she is a great girl and I'm pleased to say that we are still together and she still mostly likes me. :) This happened on October of 2006. About a week earlier I had quit my job. So technically she did marry for love and not for the money.
I had no worries though, I got a call for an interview a few days in to our impromptu honeymoon. When we got back I put on my power suit and interviewed with prominent regional grocery retailer for an accountant position and I guess my confidence shone through because they offered me the position. I have been working there ever since.
Approximately a year later my first born arrived. She was a firecracker then and she is still a firecracker today. But I love her, she is so much like me.
Fast forward to this year, I had two major life altering events. In chronological order, I passed my accounting designation. A huge relief for me. I had been pursuing this designation since 2002. Now I get to do something else other than study. My wife says she has never known a non-studying me. She is scared of what I will become :).
Then midway through this year my son was born. He is a great lad, very easy going and easy smiling. I can tell he is going to be a ladies man.
Now that I'm back I can take up where I left off, although 5 years have left me a little less ranty and a little more conciliatory.
5 Years! So I guess I should fill you guys in on what has happened in the meantime. The girl I proposed to, she stuck around to marry this poor slub. And for that I am thankful, she is a great girl and I'm pleased to say that we are still together and she still mostly likes me. :) This happened on October of 2006. About a week earlier I had quit my job. So technically she did marry for love and not for the money.
I had no worries though, I got a call for an interview a few days in to our impromptu honeymoon. When we got back I put on my power suit and interviewed with prominent regional grocery retailer for an accountant position and I guess my confidence shone through because they offered me the position. I have been working there ever since.
Approximately a year later my first born arrived. She was a firecracker then and she is still a firecracker today. But I love her, she is so much like me.
Fast forward to this year, I had two major life altering events. In chronological order, I passed my accounting designation. A huge relief for me. I had been pursuing this designation since 2002. Now I get to do something else other than study. My wife says she has never known a non-studying me. She is scared of what I will become :).
Then midway through this year my son was born. He is a great lad, very easy going and easy smiling. I can tell he is going to be a ladies man.
Now that I'm back I can take up where I left off, although 5 years have left me a little less ranty and a little more conciliatory.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
She said Yes!
My days as a roving bachelor are now at an end. I proposed to Jane and she said yes!
In other news, we recently moved into our 3 bedroom townhouse! We are now officially homeowners! The place looks alittle empty, but we are still unpacking! :P
In other news, we recently moved into our 3 bedroom townhouse! We are now officially homeowners! The place looks alittle empty, but we are still unpacking! :P
Sunday, October 02, 2005
It's been awhile
I know I have been negligent in my duties to this blog. I'll try to rectify that. In the future I'll post shorter blogs about things that really stick in my craw so I'm not writing little mini-novels.
An Update: I am employed fulltime and have been since June 1st. Probably explains why my blog posts suddenly stopped around then. No time. I work as a junior accountant for a distributor of home and car electronics.
Jane and I just completed the final leg of our journey to buy a house. We take possession on Oct 29th. It is the biggest single thing I've ever bought (albeit with the help of somebody very special to me). It is perhaps the nicest place I will have ever lived in.
So those are the big events that have happened so far in the intervening months between my last post and this one. Look to the future for more of my posts!
An Update: I am employed fulltime and have been since June 1st. Probably explains why my blog posts suddenly stopped around then. No time. I work as a junior accountant for a distributor of home and car electronics.
Jane and I just completed the final leg of our journey to buy a house. We take possession on Oct 29th. It is the biggest single thing I've ever bought (albeit with the help of somebody very special to me). It is perhaps the nicest place I will have ever lived in.
So those are the big events that have happened so far in the intervening months between my last post and this one. Look to the future for more of my posts!
James Mills
The above picture is of a man who I deem as Canada's biggest narcasistic asshole.
Above is a picture of a man who watched and stood idly by as a five year old child was starved to death by his own grandparents which the Catholic Children's Aid Society had deemed worthy enough to grant them foster care.
James Mills claims he did nothing because he was afraid that he would have been forced to leave the subsidized residence. I say that you now have more to fear from your fellow citizen, because although you will not go to jail due to some sweet deal you cut with the prosecution, you should be punished. You will be punished. Every canadian will know your face.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
More Shenanigans!
This isn’t the first time the religious idiots have sought to impede progress by imposing their “morals” on the general population. I read recently that an HPV vaccine (an STD that causes genital warts and raises the instance of reproductive cancer) that prevents 90% of all infections, is being fought by the religious right.
Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council says “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”
So what the religious right is saying to you is this…if you have premarital sex and offend our beliefs we want you to die horribly of cancer. Nice eh? So much for turning the other cheek. Who do these people think they are? Since when do they get a say in whether a life saving vaccine gets issued or not? If they are successful here then what is next? Fighting the release of the next AIDS vaccine because it will be potentially harmful because people, gays and straights, will see it as a license to engage in deliciously decadent premarital sex? Bridget Maher and the Family Research Council hate homosexuals (Bridget has a few anti-gay books out) and they’ve already demonstrated they hate sex, so you can bet your bottom dollar that they are going to fight other STD-related vaccines. Because they care about your soul. Riiight. What they really care about is keeping consequences associated with the one thing that should be free in life, your orgasm. They want a price to be paid for having sex, and will not be satisfied until no one is having it, except for holy procreation of course…and only procreation. No wonder Satan is winning, bible thumpers are a bunch of boring do-nothing, know-nothing stiffs (and the not the kind that you get in your pants.)
"Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher.
Yeah, tell it to your teenage kids.
If any of you remember what it was like being a teenager then you’ll also remember that abstinence was only practiced by those too ugly or too lame to get laid. Seriously, it isn’t an option. I’d rather my kids knew about sex ed (something the religious right has also seen fit to try to take out of the classroom) and knew about condoms and birth control so they could make an educated choice rather then coming to me and saying I’m going to be a grandpa and they haven’t even graduated high school yet. Or having to make the hard grown up choice as to whether to have an abortion all because I failed as a parent to tell them about BC (since the schools can’t do it).
If you think your kid is going to remain a virgin of his/her own free will then you are living in LaLa land. You are doing your child a disservice as a parent by preaching abstinence at them or handing them a bible pamphlet. Be a grown up and have a talk about the birds and the bees with your kids! Don’t leave it up to the religious right to make your decisions for you and your kids, they have a history of making the wrongs ones then not cleaning up their mess.
Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council says “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.”
So what the religious right is saying to you is this…if you have premarital sex and offend our beliefs we want you to die horribly of cancer. Nice eh? So much for turning the other cheek. Who do these people think they are? Since when do they get a say in whether a life saving vaccine gets issued or not? If they are successful here then what is next? Fighting the release of the next AIDS vaccine because it will be potentially harmful because people, gays and straights, will see it as a license to engage in deliciously decadent premarital sex? Bridget Maher and the Family Research Council hate homosexuals (Bridget has a few anti-gay books out) and they’ve already demonstrated they hate sex, so you can bet your bottom dollar that they are going to fight other STD-related vaccines. Because they care about your soul. Riiight. What they really care about is keeping consequences associated with the one thing that should be free in life, your orgasm. They want a price to be paid for having sex, and will not be satisfied until no one is having it, except for holy procreation of course…and only procreation. No wonder Satan is winning, bible thumpers are a bunch of boring do-nothing, know-nothing stiffs (and the not the kind that you get in your pants.)
"Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher.
Yeah, tell it to your teenage kids.
If any of you remember what it was like being a teenager then you’ll also remember that abstinence was only practiced by those too ugly or too lame to get laid. Seriously, it isn’t an option. I’d rather my kids knew about sex ed (something the religious right has also seen fit to try to take out of the classroom) and knew about condoms and birth control so they could make an educated choice rather then coming to me and saying I’m going to be a grandpa and they haven’t even graduated high school yet. Or having to make the hard grown up choice as to whether to have an abortion all because I failed as a parent to tell them about BC (since the schools can’t do it).
If you think your kid is going to remain a virgin of his/her own free will then you are living in LaLa land. You are doing your child a disservice as a parent by preaching abstinence at them or handing them a bible pamphlet. Be a grown up and have a talk about the birds and the bees with your kids! Don’t leave it up to the religious right to make your decisions for you and your kids, they have a history of making the wrongs ones then not cleaning up their mess.
The Religious Right and their Damnable Meddling.
So I got into it with a conservative on the message boards today about the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. The conservative was of the view that the research was not only unethical but unnecessary as well. He said that there were more viable applications for adult stem cell research (ASCR) than there were for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). He was right but for the wrong reasons.
I’ll provide some background on the controversy. ASC can be culled from an adult host without any harm. ESC can be harvested from embryos as their name suggests. Harvesting ESC from embryos destroys the embryo. Naturally ESCR has come under fire from anti-abortion advocates as they argue that these embryos, like the fetus are potential human beings and should be afforded the same rights as any human being. The reason ESC are sought after is because, unlike ASC, they have the capacity to differentiate into any and all tissue types. ASC are limited to a few different tissue types.
What the conservative failed to take into account when commenting on the apparent uselessness of ESCR is the fact that when Bush Jr. clamped down on research in 2001, he restricted an entire nation of scientists to only ten stem cell lines. The official political number was 60 cell lines, but in reality many of those cell lines were contaminated with animal cells (the use of mouse feeder cells to keep the stem cells going for example) and not appropriate for human research. Average wait times for access to the NIH maintained stem cells was 6-9 months. No wonder the research was at a standstill. So for the last 4 years a stem cell scientist had one of two options, wait patiently for the NIH to get back to him, or privately fund his own stem cell line (which was not prohibited). A third option has become available and more and more American scientists are taking advantage of it and that is to leave the country altogether and go to a country that has less or no restrictions. Some of the recent big breakthroughs for example have come from South Korea.
The folly of this sad tale is that the pro-birth regiments have politicized this science and would rather see people suffer and die than allow the march of progress. Scientists aren’t advocating that we rip the stem cells from young pregnant mother’s wombs, because if they were I would say HELL NO! I’m against that! But no, the scientists are just asking to allow people the choice of donating their extra embryos left over from IVF, embryos that will eventually have to be destroyed anyway (unless a bunch of pro-birth women are willing to line up and offer up their uteri).
The pro-birthers are dogged in their belief that an embryo is a person. Let time I checked an embryo has the potential to be a person, but we don’t grant rights to “virtual” people, or “almost” people. A clump of cells that have neither nerves, nor neurons doesn’t really qualify. Arguing on behalf of a fetus in the 2nd trimester I could see (if not necessarily agree with), but 100 cells? I shed more than a 100 cells each time I take a crap.
I’ll provide some background on the controversy. ASC can be culled from an adult host without any harm. ESC can be harvested from embryos as their name suggests. Harvesting ESC from embryos destroys the embryo. Naturally ESCR has come under fire from anti-abortion advocates as they argue that these embryos, like the fetus are potential human beings and should be afforded the same rights as any human being. The reason ESC are sought after is because, unlike ASC, they have the capacity to differentiate into any and all tissue types. ASC are limited to a few different tissue types.
What the conservative failed to take into account when commenting on the apparent uselessness of ESCR is the fact that when Bush Jr. clamped down on research in 2001, he restricted an entire nation of scientists to only ten stem cell lines. The official political number was 60 cell lines, but in reality many of those cell lines were contaminated with animal cells (the use of mouse feeder cells to keep the stem cells going for example) and not appropriate for human research. Average wait times for access to the NIH maintained stem cells was 6-9 months. No wonder the research was at a standstill. So for the last 4 years a stem cell scientist had one of two options, wait patiently for the NIH to get back to him, or privately fund his own stem cell line (which was not prohibited). A third option has become available and more and more American scientists are taking advantage of it and that is to leave the country altogether and go to a country that has less or no restrictions. Some of the recent big breakthroughs for example have come from South Korea.
The folly of this sad tale is that the pro-birth regiments have politicized this science and would rather see people suffer and die than allow the march of progress. Scientists aren’t advocating that we rip the stem cells from young pregnant mother’s wombs, because if they were I would say HELL NO! I’m against that! But no, the scientists are just asking to allow people the choice of donating their extra embryos left over from IVF, embryos that will eventually have to be destroyed anyway (unless a bunch of pro-birth women are willing to line up and offer up their uteri).
The pro-birthers are dogged in their belief that an embryo is a person. Let time I checked an embryo has the potential to be a person, but we don’t grant rights to “virtual” people, or “almost” people. A clump of cells that have neither nerves, nor neurons doesn’t really qualify. Arguing on behalf of a fetus in the 2nd trimester I could see (if not necessarily agree with), but 100 cells? I shed more than a 100 cells each time I take a crap.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
The Pink Menace
Love or hate it, it is all over the media.
The fair and balanced state of Texas has just recently banned the fostering of children by gay couples. The sunny positive state of Florida has strong anti-gay adoption laws. It is all done under the guise of protecting the children and defending the institution of marriage. Just what are we protecting them from?
Let’s address some of the misgivings of those that are opposed to homosexuals having any rights, be it for marriage or for establishing a semblance of a family through the fostering or adoption of children.
Gay marriage threatens the tradition of marriage.
How does gay couples getting married accomplish that exactly? To any who read this that are married, is your marriage going to be less of a marriage because Linda and Lisa decide they want to pursue a monogamous commitment to each other? Or that Jack and John want to hang up their dancing shoes because nothing else is more real to them than their relationship to one another? The fact that gay couples are getting married does not diminish the importance of your own marriage nor does it diminish the institution of marriage. People, gay or straight, are getting married for the same reasons, to demonstrate a commitment to each other that goes beyond words.
And as far as respect for the tradition of marriage goes, far more damage has been done to the institution by the heterosexuals it is purportedly supposed to serve. Anyone remember the 55 hr. marriage? Or how does the 50% divorce rate grab ya?
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The bible would certainly imply this, but the debate that is raging in the US and Canada is not about religious marriage but rather secular marriage. I, for one, would not support forcing churches to carry out gay ceremonies or even forcing them to accept gay parishioners or clergy. Simply because why would you want to be part of a faith that says that something is wrong with you? So back to secular marriage, the reason why there is such a debate to begin with is because it is not defined in law that marriage is between “a man and a woman”, indeed it is a legal contract that can be entered into by consenting adults. Basically there is a fight going on in the US on a state-by-state basis that is trying to enshrine those words in the State Constitutions thereby barring any same sex unions.
Gay marriage is against the Bible.
Indeed the bible seems pretty clear on this. At least the Old Testament is. Jesus didn’t have very much to say on the subject. If you are a good Christian then you should abide by those rules. The dandy thing about the US is there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State, meaning that if you are going to establish laws then they have to be based on sound legal reasoning and not religious belief. Preventing gay marriage because it offends your religion is not reason enough to have a law against it. Another thing about the crafting of laws is that you can’t make a law that unfairly targets a person or an identifiable group of people; all laws should apply to everyone equally. I’ll speak more about this later.
Marriage is for procreation and gay people can’t procreate.
This is a popular legal argument to ban gay marriage. The only problem with this is that if you are going to use a “procreation test” for each marriage then sterile people couldn’t get married, neither could people past their child bearing years, nor the people that voluntarily decide not to have children. Gay couple’s have the same options as straight couples (all state laws aside) when it comes to adoption, or even in vitro fertilization.
Gay couples lead to gay kids.
This school of thought has been used to ban gay couples from adopting or fostering children. It is absurd on the face of it when you must recognize that gay people initially had to be born of straight parents. As for gay people molesting children, there is no more likelihood that a gay person will molest a child than would a straight person. Indeed, because homosexuality is a minority behaviour then the chances of finding a gay person who also molests children is smaller then finding a straight person who also molests children.
Homosexual activists are wrongly comparing their fight for civil rights to the struggle of blacks or women.
This statement is made in reference to the fact that laws cannot be crafted to target an identifiable group of persons. Both blacks and women are identifiable from birth, but gays, they argue, are not. This derives from the debate over whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Recent articles about gay men reacting to male pheromones much like straight women have surfaced in the media. Other articles refer to the relative sizes of the hippocampus in the brain of gay males being similar to the sizes of straight females.
All the science aside we could analyze the situation with common sense.
Why would anyone choose to adopt a lifestyle that would:
1. Get their ass kicked on a regular basis.
2. Make them hate themselves.
3. Get them cast out of their church and God’s love.
4. Get disowned by their family and friends.
5. See that they never have the same rights with their partner of 20 years that straight couples get after day 1 of marriage.
6. Have people constantly tell them that they’re going to hell.
7. Have the same people tell them that they’ll pray for their sins.
That’s just for starters. Basically it is your choice to become a pariah in your own society? Who would willingly choose that? Which leads me to another question.
When was the last time you choose to be straight? Do you wake up in the morning and think to yourself, “Yeah I’m really attracted to the opposite sex today! Yesterday was a fluke. I blame the beer.” Do you? I’ll tell you how often I think about it. Zero. Surprised? Don’t be. No one invests time in thinking about his or her orientation; it is just there, like the nose on your face.
Asking a gay person to be straight is like asking a straight person to be gay, you could force them to do it, but they wouldn’t like it and they wouldn’t be happy. You don’t have to like gay people or approve of their lifestyle but you should be big enough to treat them with the respect that any human being deserves. They should be able to get married and adopt or foster kids and have a chance at a family life that every straight person has a right to.
The fair and balanced state of Texas has just recently banned the fostering of children by gay couples. The sunny positive state of Florida has strong anti-gay adoption laws. It is all done under the guise of protecting the children and defending the institution of marriage. Just what are we protecting them from?
Let’s address some of the misgivings of those that are opposed to homosexuals having any rights, be it for marriage or for establishing a semblance of a family through the fostering or adoption of children.
Gay marriage threatens the tradition of marriage.
How does gay couples getting married accomplish that exactly? To any who read this that are married, is your marriage going to be less of a marriage because Linda and Lisa decide they want to pursue a monogamous commitment to each other? Or that Jack and John want to hang up their dancing shoes because nothing else is more real to them than their relationship to one another? The fact that gay couples are getting married does not diminish the importance of your own marriage nor does it diminish the institution of marriage. People, gay or straight, are getting married for the same reasons, to demonstrate a commitment to each other that goes beyond words.
And as far as respect for the tradition of marriage goes, far more damage has been done to the institution by the heterosexuals it is purportedly supposed to serve. Anyone remember the 55 hr. marriage? Or how does the 50% divorce rate grab ya?
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The bible would certainly imply this, but the debate that is raging in the US and Canada is not about religious marriage but rather secular marriage. I, for one, would not support forcing churches to carry out gay ceremonies or even forcing them to accept gay parishioners or clergy. Simply because why would you want to be part of a faith that says that something is wrong with you? So back to secular marriage, the reason why there is such a debate to begin with is because it is not defined in law that marriage is between “a man and a woman”, indeed it is a legal contract that can be entered into by consenting adults. Basically there is a fight going on in the US on a state-by-state basis that is trying to enshrine those words in the State Constitutions thereby barring any same sex unions.
Gay marriage is against the Bible.
Indeed the bible seems pretty clear on this. At least the Old Testament is. Jesus didn’t have very much to say on the subject. If you are a good Christian then you should abide by those rules. The dandy thing about the US is there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State, meaning that if you are going to establish laws then they have to be based on sound legal reasoning and not religious belief. Preventing gay marriage because it offends your religion is not reason enough to have a law against it. Another thing about the crafting of laws is that you can’t make a law that unfairly targets a person or an identifiable group of people; all laws should apply to everyone equally. I’ll speak more about this later.
Marriage is for procreation and gay people can’t procreate.
This is a popular legal argument to ban gay marriage. The only problem with this is that if you are going to use a “procreation test” for each marriage then sterile people couldn’t get married, neither could people past their child bearing years, nor the people that voluntarily decide not to have children. Gay couple’s have the same options as straight couples (all state laws aside) when it comes to adoption, or even in vitro fertilization.
Gay couples lead to gay kids.
This school of thought has been used to ban gay couples from adopting or fostering children. It is absurd on the face of it when you must recognize that gay people initially had to be born of straight parents. As for gay people molesting children, there is no more likelihood that a gay person will molest a child than would a straight person. Indeed, because homosexuality is a minority behaviour then the chances of finding a gay person who also molests children is smaller then finding a straight person who also molests children.
Homosexual activists are wrongly comparing their fight for civil rights to the struggle of blacks or women.
This statement is made in reference to the fact that laws cannot be crafted to target an identifiable group of persons. Both blacks and women are identifiable from birth, but gays, they argue, are not. This derives from the debate over whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Recent articles about gay men reacting to male pheromones much like straight women have surfaced in the media. Other articles refer to the relative sizes of the hippocampus in the brain of gay males being similar to the sizes of straight females.
All the science aside we could analyze the situation with common sense.
Why would anyone choose to adopt a lifestyle that would:
1. Get their ass kicked on a regular basis.
2. Make them hate themselves.
3. Get them cast out of their church and God’s love.
4. Get disowned by their family and friends.
5. See that they never have the same rights with their partner of 20 years that straight couples get after day 1 of marriage.
6. Have people constantly tell them that they’re going to hell.
7. Have the same people tell them that they’ll pray for their sins.
That’s just for starters. Basically it is your choice to become a pariah in your own society? Who would willingly choose that? Which leads me to another question.
When was the last time you choose to be straight? Do you wake up in the morning and think to yourself, “Yeah I’m really attracted to the opposite sex today! Yesterday was a fluke. I blame the beer.” Do you? I’ll tell you how often I think about it. Zero. Surprised? Don’t be. No one invests time in thinking about his or her orientation; it is just there, like the nose on your face.
Asking a gay person to be straight is like asking a straight person to be gay, you could force them to do it, but they wouldn’t like it and they wouldn’t be happy. You don’t have to like gay people or approve of their lifestyle but you should be big enough to treat them with the respect that any human being deserves. They should be able to get married and adopt or foster kids and have a chance at a family life that every straight person has a right to.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Electoral Reform in BC
Tomorrow (or today as it is late) BC will ponder not only what Premier to vote for but to vote on perhaps adopting a new voting system. Currently we have the first-past-the-post system, that is very "to the winner, the spoils" in nature. The new system on the table is called STV or Single Transferable Vote. In a nutshell, after redrawing some constituencies you will have a choice between several MLA's in your riding, and you can vote for only one, but the neat thing is you can rank the MLA's by preference, so if your 1st choice wins the minimum necessary votes to be elected then the excess votes are allocated to your second choice. In thery no vote goes to waste and the elected MLA's reflect more closely the popular vote. So if your party has 30% popularity among the people, you will most like get 30% of the MLA's.
I received an e-mail telling me that some economists do not think that STV is a good thing. The one thing that never fails to amuse me is that economists and accountants, as good as they are with numbers, money and statistical models on how to make money, they miss the human element in the equation. So I wrote a reply and decided to make it a blog article as well.
This is what the Vancouver Board of Trade had to say about STV.
Board recommends "No" vote on STV
May 12, 2005
Dear member,
On Election Day, May 17, you will be asked to vote in a referendum on a new electoral process called Single Transferable Vote (STV).
The Board of Trade has studied the implications of STV as a voting process, and while The Board does support electoral reform, it does not support STV for the following reasons:
1. If STV had been used to elect our MLAs, in the last 35 years there would have been only one majority government.
2. Minority governments tend to be short lived, which would mean more frequent elections, leading politicians to be shortsighted in an attempt to get re-elected.
3. Constant coalition governments could threaten sound economic policy in our province.
4. The number of constituencies in the province would be drastically reduced, and the size of rural ridings would be doubled, resulting in less effective local representation.
5. In large city ridings there would be numerous MLAs, and the number of names on election ballots would be enormous.
6. The most worrisome issue is that under a STV system, a party with minority representation can end up wielding most of the power.
For example, Germany, over the past six decades, has been governed by a series of coalition governments. Generally, neither of the two largest parties in Germany receives a majority of the votes, so they must attract a smaller party to achieve a majority in their federal assembly in order to form a government. In turn, that smaller party is in a position to dictate the terms of the alliance, thereby thwarting the democratic process.
The current situation in Ottawa, where the Liberals are negotiating agreements with a smaller party in order to maintain government, is a good illustration of what would happen under the STV system.
To keep our economy strong, British Columbia needs strong leadership, especially in government, where economic policy is formed. If B.C. moves to the STV voting process it will compromise the ability of the government, from any party, to effectively lead this province.
On May 17, The Board of Trade recommends a "No" vote to STV.
Sincerely,
Graeme Stamp
Chairman
http://www.boardoftrade.com/vbot_page.asp?pageid=1648
This is my reply to the fat cats who obviously didn't give this enough thought.
A point-by-point rebuttal:
1.A minority government in itself is not a negative point.
2.What the Vancouver Board of Trade fail to take under consideration is that if the system changes so do the underlying motivations of the politicians. This is a necessary adjustment.
Minority governments are short-lived today because the current system encourages a majority "winner-takes-all" government. There was a real benefit in trying to bring down a minority government because there was a real chance that the usurper's party could win a majority status. With STV the risks outweigh the benefits, as there is less of a guarantee that the usurper could get anything more than a minority him/herself. STV would offer more consistent minority governments and the politicians would have to adjust or suffer the consequences.
3. And a majority government couldn’t do the same? Look to the NDP years under Glen Clark.
4. How so? The constituency maps will be redrawn and a certain amount of amalgamation will occur, but the total number of seats available across the new constituencies will equal the number of seats across the old.
5. Define enormous. 100? 1000? Currently their are 79 constituencies for 79 seats. Under STV there could be as few as 18 constituencies. On average that is 4 seats per constituency. Let’s say that urban centers are actually allocated double that, so you’ve got eight MLA’s positions to fill. Let’s assume 3 people run per position that is 24 persons to decide from. Big, but not unmanageable. This is probably the only real negative I can see about STV and it is weak.
6. Isn’t that what happens with majority governments elected by a minority of the popular vote? 1996 the NDP were elected by 40% of the popular vote to get a majority government. Under STV a party with minority representation can hold some influence as a swing voter, but that is hardly the unequaled power of the current systems majority governments.
--"For example, Germany, over the past six decades it
has been governed by a series of coalition governments. Generally, neither of the two largest parties in Germany receives a majority of the votes, so they must
attract a smaller party to achieve a majority in their federal assembly in order to form a government. In turn, that smaller party is in a position to dictate the terms of the alliance, thereby thwarting the
democratic process."--
The democratic process is about everyone having an equal voice and making decision based on committee, not making decisions based on the whim of the ruling party. What the Germans have is what I like to call a “government that listens”, if only because it is forced to. Using their example, Germany has been doing well with minority governments for decades and I don't see their economy suffering because of it. Also I'd like to add, if parties co-operated more across the aisle there would not be a need to form coalitions where one small party weilds influence out of proportion to it's size. Less selfishness, less agenda setting, more stable governments.
--"The current situation in Ottawa, where the Liberals
are negotiating agreements with a smaller party in
order to maintain government, is a good illustration of what would happen under the STV system."--
Again comparing the federal situation in Ottawa under the first-past-the-post system and drawing the conclusion that the same will happen in BC under the STV system is erroneous as the selective pressures that drive both of these systems are very different.
--"To keep our economy strong, British Columbia needs
strong leadership,..."--
There is nothing to say that a minority government cannot provide strong leadership. In the end all the parties want generally the same thing, a strong and productive BC. Since when has it been to a leader’s detriment to hear out the opposition and seriously consider what they have to say? Can no good ideas arise from the opposition? An STV fueled minority government would be less adversarial and more advisor-arial.
I received an e-mail telling me that some economists do not think that STV is a good thing. The one thing that never fails to amuse me is that economists and accountants, as good as they are with numbers, money and statistical models on how to make money, they miss the human element in the equation. So I wrote a reply and decided to make it a blog article as well.
This is what the Vancouver Board of Trade had to say about STV.
Board recommends "No" vote on STV
May 12, 2005
Dear member,
On Election Day, May 17, you will be asked to vote in a referendum on a new electoral process called Single Transferable Vote (STV).
The Board of Trade has studied the implications of STV as a voting process, and while The Board does support electoral reform, it does not support STV for the following reasons:
1. If STV had been used to elect our MLAs, in the last 35 years there would have been only one majority government.
2. Minority governments tend to be short lived, which would mean more frequent elections, leading politicians to be shortsighted in an attempt to get re-elected.
3. Constant coalition governments could threaten sound economic policy in our province.
4. The number of constituencies in the province would be drastically reduced, and the size of rural ridings would be doubled, resulting in less effective local representation.
5. In large city ridings there would be numerous MLAs, and the number of names on election ballots would be enormous.
6. The most worrisome issue is that under a STV system, a party with minority representation can end up wielding most of the power.
For example, Germany, over the past six decades, has been governed by a series of coalition governments. Generally, neither of the two largest parties in Germany receives a majority of the votes, so they must attract a smaller party to achieve a majority in their federal assembly in order to form a government. In turn, that smaller party is in a position to dictate the terms of the alliance, thereby thwarting the democratic process.
The current situation in Ottawa, where the Liberals are negotiating agreements with a smaller party in order to maintain government, is a good illustration of what would happen under the STV system.
To keep our economy strong, British Columbia needs strong leadership, especially in government, where economic policy is formed. If B.C. moves to the STV voting process it will compromise the ability of the government, from any party, to effectively lead this province.
On May 17, The Board of Trade recommends a "No" vote to STV.
Sincerely,
Graeme Stamp
Chairman
http://www.boardoftrade.com/vbot_page.asp?pageid=1648
This is my reply to the fat cats who obviously didn't give this enough thought.
A point-by-point rebuttal:
1.A minority government in itself is not a negative point.
2.What the Vancouver Board of Trade fail to take under consideration is that if the system changes so do the underlying motivations of the politicians. This is a necessary adjustment.
Minority governments are short-lived today because the current system encourages a majority "winner-takes-all" government. There was a real benefit in trying to bring down a minority government because there was a real chance that the usurper's party could win a majority status. With STV the risks outweigh the benefits, as there is less of a guarantee that the usurper could get anything more than a minority him/herself. STV would offer more consistent minority governments and the politicians would have to adjust or suffer the consequences.
3. And a majority government couldn’t do the same? Look to the NDP years under Glen Clark.
4. How so? The constituency maps will be redrawn and a certain amount of amalgamation will occur, but the total number of seats available across the new constituencies will equal the number of seats across the old.
5. Define enormous. 100? 1000? Currently their are 79 constituencies for 79 seats. Under STV there could be as few as 18 constituencies. On average that is 4 seats per constituency. Let’s say that urban centers are actually allocated double that, so you’ve got eight MLA’s positions to fill. Let’s assume 3 people run per position that is 24 persons to decide from. Big, but not unmanageable. This is probably the only real negative I can see about STV and it is weak.
6. Isn’t that what happens with majority governments elected by a minority of the popular vote? 1996 the NDP were elected by 40% of the popular vote to get a majority government. Under STV a party with minority representation can hold some influence as a swing voter, but that is hardly the unequaled power of the current systems majority governments.
--"For example, Germany, over the past six decades it
has been governed by a series of coalition governments. Generally, neither of the two largest parties in Germany receives a majority of the votes, so they must
attract a smaller party to achieve a majority in their federal assembly in order to form a government. In turn, that smaller party is in a position to dictate the terms of the alliance, thereby thwarting the
democratic process."--
The democratic process is about everyone having an equal voice and making decision based on committee, not making decisions based on the whim of the ruling party. What the Germans have is what I like to call a “government that listens”, if only because it is forced to. Using their example, Germany has been doing well with minority governments for decades and I don't see their economy suffering because of it. Also I'd like to add, if parties co-operated more across the aisle there would not be a need to form coalitions where one small party weilds influence out of proportion to it's size. Less selfishness, less agenda setting, more stable governments.
--"The current situation in Ottawa, where the Liberals
are negotiating agreements with a smaller party in
order to maintain government, is a good illustration of what would happen under the STV system."--
Again comparing the federal situation in Ottawa under the first-past-the-post system and drawing the conclusion that the same will happen in BC under the STV system is erroneous as the selective pressures that drive both of these systems are very different.
--"To keep our economy strong, British Columbia needs
strong leadership,..."--
There is nothing to say that a minority government cannot provide strong leadership. In the end all the parties want generally the same thing, a strong and productive BC. Since when has it been to a leader’s detriment to hear out the opposition and seriously consider what they have to say? Can no good ideas arise from the opposition? An STV fueled minority government would be less adversarial and more advisor-arial.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Outsourcing
From an MIS point of view you only outsource your low-skilled, low-tech jobs. This is done because of the idea that there is someone out there that can do what you are doing in-house a lot cheaper and more efficiently that you can yourself. It is a golden rule never to outsource your company’s core competencies, because in theory that is what makes your company unique and viable as a going concern. It is the area that you are supposed to be an expert in. If you could outsource your core competencies then you obviously aren’t much of a company with much to offer.
I don’t have a problem with outsourcing in general. It isn’t a bad idea as long as you outsource within your borders. Outsourcing overseas to markets like India and China does nothing but discriminate against local workers. I read the other day in the Globe and Mail that Dell just outsourced 2000 jobs to India. Great for Dell, great for the shareholders, greater still for management whose strike price for their options have finally been reached allowing them to cash in on thousands if not millions of dollars. It is, however, a shitty deal for the 2000 low-end, low-tech workers that have just lost their jobs and benefits because some CEO wants a fat Christmas bonus.
I’ve done some research on the positives of outsourcing and most sources cite that because corporations are allowed to “offshore” the low end jobs they can preserve and create more higher skilled higher paying jobs. The statistics seem to support this on its face. However, higher skilled, higher paying jobs means the workforce has to be even more educated to qualify for a position.
You see it more often today that even for a menial skilled job in a corporate office like for example a mailroom clerk (something that they have not found a way to outsource…yet) needs a university degree to even be considered for the position. Since when do you need a Bachelors in Physics to sort mail? The bar has been raised, so much so that corporate jobs are increasingly becoming beyond the reach of the average person.
Corporations don’t want to invest any time in their employees anymore. They only want to hire those that can hit the ground running. For example, I have a university degree and a good portion of my professional designation completed but I only qualify for an entry-level position. I have plenty of education but so does everyone else. I lack experience and that is what is hurting me. But at least I qualify for a job. Those that don’t have the education either because they couldn’t afford it or it wasn’t their forte are condemned to McJob’s (or the lucky few who get factory work, provided the plant isn’t “relocated” to Mexico to cut expenses).
The root of the problem is twofold. One is the inequality of the international labour laws and the economic conditions in foreign countries. A corporation can get away with paying an Indian worker 5$ US a day, because to the Indian worker it seems like a decent wage considering the economic realities of his country. A Chinese worker that has little say about his pay because the local labour laws are light years behind that of Canada or the US.
The second problem is the genius that decided to try to align the interests of management with the interests of the shareholders by making management’s wealth and rewards tied to the fortunes of the company by offering them option packages. All this does is force management to look for ways to make their company look pretty in the financial statements, so when they are released it misleads investors into thinking that they are an attractive investment and boost the share price by investing in herds. Management looks for short term boosts so they can cash out and to hell with the long-term. Who suffers in the short-term? The non-management employees, that’s who. Who is left holding the bag? The shareholders.
It is directly from the CEO playbook, a new CEO gets hired the first thing he/she does is looks for ways to cut expenses. The easiest expense to cut? Employees. Fire a few people and make the remaining people work harder and outsource “unnecessary” positions to countries you’ve never heard of. The result, expenses are down, profits are up, and the debt/equity ratio looks pretty. All this translates into the CEO appearing like he/she is earning their keep, stock rise, CEO cashes out, company enters into a crisis, CEO gets fired and the process starts all over again.
It is in management’s best interest to behave like this because there are no repercussions for this behaviour. CEO’s often sign on with a company with a handsome bonus and a clause in their contracts referred to as a “poison pill” or “golden parachute” which basically states no matter how badly they fuck the company and it’s shareholders, the company must pay a king’s ransom to fire them. It was originally conceived as a defense against hostile takeovers (which usually resulted in management getting fired en masse), but lately CEO’s have been employing it as a carte blanche to do what they will in the company. Seriously, when you are making tens of millions in one year after you exercise your options and have a poison pill clause, so what if you get fired the very next year? You just move on to your next executive position.
So what can be done to level the playing field? CEO’s should be paid a salary (and they should also be barred from sitting on their friends Board of Directors, but that is another mess), no options that are tied to the stock price. Pay a bonus instead. No more poison pills written into starting contracts. If they want some protection have vested clauses instead (clauses that become active after a period of time, to reflect their performance and dedication to the company).
About outsourcing to other countries…this is a tricky one. You could legislate that all outsourcing has to be down within the country, but then corporations would pick up and flee the country. Or you could legislate that the only countries that can be outsourced to are countries that meet a certain standard for economic robustness and labour protection, and ban imports from countries and corporations that maintain offices there that don’t meet these requirements. The only problem is the corporate lobbies own the political parties, which is why outsourcing became an option in the first place.
I remember when I was taking a course in Cost Accounting. They focused heavily on ethics as well as the technical aspects of accounting. One such question was if a machine came out that could replace an entire department how would I handle the transition of the employees in that department as the ranking cost accountant. I answered that if the time frame was long enough I would gradually phase in the new machine as people retired or moved to new jobs. If the time frame were tight I would try to place what individuals I could in other departments and offer to re-train the rest for some other position. Being an ethics question I was told that there was no “right or wrong”, but my answer was optimistic and somewhat naïve. I guess I’m in the wrong profession as my answer wasn’t really cost effective.
Corporations have to realize that they have a social responsibility to their employees and to their country of residence. They can’t be allowed to callously take away thousands of families means to support themselves and write theses people off. They may create more choices for people with high-level skills but those people are in a minority, the reality is they are taking choices away from poor and undereducated to have a chance at a decent standard of living.
I don’t have a problem with outsourcing in general. It isn’t a bad idea as long as you outsource within your borders. Outsourcing overseas to markets like India and China does nothing but discriminate against local workers. I read the other day in the Globe and Mail that Dell just outsourced 2000 jobs to India. Great for Dell, great for the shareholders, greater still for management whose strike price for their options have finally been reached allowing them to cash in on thousands if not millions of dollars. It is, however, a shitty deal for the 2000 low-end, low-tech workers that have just lost their jobs and benefits because some CEO wants a fat Christmas bonus.
I’ve done some research on the positives of outsourcing and most sources cite that because corporations are allowed to “offshore” the low end jobs they can preserve and create more higher skilled higher paying jobs. The statistics seem to support this on its face. However, higher skilled, higher paying jobs means the workforce has to be even more educated to qualify for a position.
You see it more often today that even for a menial skilled job in a corporate office like for example a mailroom clerk (something that they have not found a way to outsource…yet) needs a university degree to even be considered for the position. Since when do you need a Bachelors in Physics to sort mail? The bar has been raised, so much so that corporate jobs are increasingly becoming beyond the reach of the average person.
Corporations don’t want to invest any time in their employees anymore. They only want to hire those that can hit the ground running. For example, I have a university degree and a good portion of my professional designation completed but I only qualify for an entry-level position. I have plenty of education but so does everyone else. I lack experience and that is what is hurting me. But at least I qualify for a job. Those that don’t have the education either because they couldn’t afford it or it wasn’t their forte are condemned to McJob’s (or the lucky few who get factory work, provided the plant isn’t “relocated” to Mexico to cut expenses).
The root of the problem is twofold. One is the inequality of the international labour laws and the economic conditions in foreign countries. A corporation can get away with paying an Indian worker 5$ US a day, because to the Indian worker it seems like a decent wage considering the economic realities of his country. A Chinese worker that has little say about his pay because the local labour laws are light years behind that of Canada or the US.
The second problem is the genius that decided to try to align the interests of management with the interests of the shareholders by making management’s wealth and rewards tied to the fortunes of the company by offering them option packages. All this does is force management to look for ways to make their company look pretty in the financial statements, so when they are released it misleads investors into thinking that they are an attractive investment and boost the share price by investing in herds. Management looks for short term boosts so they can cash out and to hell with the long-term. Who suffers in the short-term? The non-management employees, that’s who. Who is left holding the bag? The shareholders.
It is directly from the CEO playbook, a new CEO gets hired the first thing he/she does is looks for ways to cut expenses. The easiest expense to cut? Employees. Fire a few people and make the remaining people work harder and outsource “unnecessary” positions to countries you’ve never heard of. The result, expenses are down, profits are up, and the debt/equity ratio looks pretty. All this translates into the CEO appearing like he/she is earning their keep, stock rise, CEO cashes out, company enters into a crisis, CEO gets fired and the process starts all over again.
It is in management’s best interest to behave like this because there are no repercussions for this behaviour. CEO’s often sign on with a company with a handsome bonus and a clause in their contracts referred to as a “poison pill” or “golden parachute” which basically states no matter how badly they fuck the company and it’s shareholders, the company must pay a king’s ransom to fire them. It was originally conceived as a defense against hostile takeovers (which usually resulted in management getting fired en masse), but lately CEO’s have been employing it as a carte blanche to do what they will in the company. Seriously, when you are making tens of millions in one year after you exercise your options and have a poison pill clause, so what if you get fired the very next year? You just move on to your next executive position.
So what can be done to level the playing field? CEO’s should be paid a salary (and they should also be barred from sitting on their friends Board of Directors, but that is another mess), no options that are tied to the stock price. Pay a bonus instead. No more poison pills written into starting contracts. If they want some protection have vested clauses instead (clauses that become active after a period of time, to reflect their performance and dedication to the company).
About outsourcing to other countries…this is a tricky one. You could legislate that all outsourcing has to be down within the country, but then corporations would pick up and flee the country. Or you could legislate that the only countries that can be outsourced to are countries that meet a certain standard for economic robustness and labour protection, and ban imports from countries and corporations that maintain offices there that don’t meet these requirements. The only problem is the corporate lobbies own the political parties, which is why outsourcing became an option in the first place.
I remember when I was taking a course in Cost Accounting. They focused heavily on ethics as well as the technical aspects of accounting. One such question was if a machine came out that could replace an entire department how would I handle the transition of the employees in that department as the ranking cost accountant. I answered that if the time frame was long enough I would gradually phase in the new machine as people retired or moved to new jobs. If the time frame were tight I would try to place what individuals I could in other departments and offer to re-train the rest for some other position. Being an ethics question I was told that there was no “right or wrong”, but my answer was optimistic and somewhat naïve. I guess I’m in the wrong profession as my answer wasn’t really cost effective.
Corporations have to realize that they have a social responsibility to their employees and to their country of residence. They can’t be allowed to callously take away thousands of families means to support themselves and write theses people off. They may create more choices for people with high-level skills but those people are in a minority, the reality is they are taking choices away from poor and undereducated to have a chance at a decent standard of living.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Terri Schiavo
Terri Schiavo died on March 31st, 2005. Up till the moment of her death and beyond the controversy has been fiery and pointed from both sides. I got into it when I forum I belonged to began discussing it. I did some background research and this is what I've come up with.
Points for Keeping Terri Schiavo Alive refuted:
She was making progress in her therapy before it was cut off in 1993.
At the time when Michael sued for malpractice it could very well be that he thought (and the doctors thought) that there might be a chance of recovery for Terri. It wasn't so much that she was making progress, but that there was hope that she would make progress (literally at the time, it was too soon to tell). At the time of the malpractice trial all therapies had not yet been exhausted.
Michael received the settlement in January of 1993 and Terri didn't get put in a nursing home until March of 1994, she was treated aggressively for almost 3 years. Keep in mind Michael also was by that time a respiratory therapist and male nurse who could be considered an expert on rehabilitative therapies. Also keep in mind he didn't file with the courts to remove the feeding tube until May of 1998.
It was an evolving situation, so the fact that the therapy was discontinued around when the judgment was receive was a coincidence brought on by the slowness of the legal system. It wouldn't be the first time a judgment was won but the party it was supposed to benefit either didn't need it anymore or had passed on.
The actual award was to be applied primarily to her treatment and then secondarily to her maintenance. Another thing to consider, these experimental therapies were not cheap. Michael could have continued on longer, but the 750,000$ would have been exhausted in no time at all and no money would've been left for her continuing care. So when you say that for 12 years she was refused treatment, it could be very well that they couldn't afford it without jeopardizing her living annuity. Doctors are no doubt happy to accept money for experimental treatments that probably won’t work (like Dr. Hammesfahr and Dr. Maxfield for example). Michael Schiavo had consulted with enough experts by that time and had been told the same thing; there was nothing more they could do for Terri.
If progress was being shown in Terri's medical records and these therapies were making progress then that alone would've been grounds for keeping her alive and appointing guardianship to the parents. This was not the case, as most experts agreed with Michael, including the court appointed physician. I cannot stress enough that this court case was the most thoroughly and exhaustively examined case in recent history.
She was refused all treatment options for 12 years.
Again, “refused” (and “withheld”) is a hostile word employed by those that wish to demonize Michael Schiavo. He had run out of treatment options, this is what the qualified expert’s at the time were telling him; there was nothing more to be done. Incidentally the “experts” that believed Terri was not in a PVS and could be treated didn’t turn up until the case went to court in 1998. Where were these experts before?
The only witnesses to her making the statement that she did not wish to be artificially kept alive were Schiavo, and two of Schiavo relatives.
Granted that looks somewhat suspect, but equally suspect are the family and friends on Terri’s side of the camp saying that she made comments (in relation to a similar case) that being taken off life support was morally wrong. You can’t paste Schiavo without pasting the Schindler’s.
Michael just wanted to kill her off to inherit the money.
Michael Schiavo had no ulterior motive in getting the courts to decide to discontinue life support. Money wasn't a motive (there wasn't more than 50,000$ left in Terri's trust), Michael had even drafted a contract that would sign over any remaining money to charity if the parents would abstain from legal action. The parent's refused.
Interestingly, the guardian ad litem that was appointed to make the determination as to whether the feeding tube could be removed in 1998, Mr. Richard Pearse, he had concluded that the parents of Terri were in a conflict of interest as well for wanting Michael to divorce Terri so they could have legal guardianship over her (and thus have inheritance rights if she died).
Even more interestingly, the relationship between Michael Schiavo and the Schindler’s didn’t sour until after the malpractice award was paid and the Schindler’s wanted Schiavo to split his “loss of consortium” award with them (300,000$ that was Michael’s free and clear this being separate of Terri’s 750,000$ trust which Michael could not touch). Michael refused and the fight was on.
Michael wanted to kill her off to cover up abuse.
The alleged abuse, there exist no documentation of the physical injuries that would indicate that she suffered anything more than what would normally be suffered from bulimia, a fall, then CPR.
The problem with this allegation mostly lies in the fact that the Schindler’s decided to make this accusation in an emergency motion in Nov. 2002. The bone scan that they introduced was taken in 1991. Many medical professionals had a chance to look at Terri and draw that conclusion both before her cardiac infarction and after it. It was reasonable to the courts to accept that most of the damage to her structure was caused by bulimia, the fall, and subsequent CPR. Quite frankly, if she didn’t have a heart attack and the oxygen deprivation was from strangulation, then where were the bruises on her neck? These would’ve been quite prominent and documented by the hospital staff.
Terri Schiavo could swallow saliva on her own, so she could have learned to handle oral intake of food.
Saliva handling is handled as a reflex by the brainstem (necessarily so or we would aspirate saliva into our lungs as we slept, saliva production is also greatly reduced upon sleeping to the reflex doesn’t have to deal with a large amount of it, this is contrary to the situation we deal with in a food/drink scenario). Voluntary swallowing is needed for drinking and solids. The entire process of swallowing food is about 1/3 voluntary and 2/3 involuntary (peristalsis of the food down the esophagus is involuntary), but it is the voluntary portion that is required to get the bollus moving.
Richard Pearse, the Guardian Ad Litem, recommended that Terri remain on life support and was dismissed for it because Michael didn’t get the answer he wanted.
Michael, because of a recommendation by said guardian ad litem, could not make the decision because of a conflict of interest, but this same guardian ad litem also stated that the Schindler’s were in conflict as well as they wanted guardianship and encouraged Michael to divorce Terri and move on with his life. So what he did was personally petition the court to decide if indeed Terri Schiavo would want to be sustained artificially. The courts were designated to be a neutral surrogate. If the courts came back in the Schindler’s favour then the courts would have decided that Terri did indeed wish to live sustained artificially.
Richard Pearse’s reasoning that because a person has been on life support for X number of years is in it self a reason to continue it is flawed. It disregards the circumstances surrounding the reason for putting someone on life support in the first place. Most of the time one is place on life support with the hopes that with the aid, one will get better. That she has been on life support for 8 years is hardly a reason to keep her on it.
Richard Pearse was dismissed from his role as Guardian Ad Litem for reasons of bias and inaccuracy. He did not include in his report Michael’s formal repudiation of his rights to the financial estate of Terri upon her death, thus undermining the main reason why he made a recommendation to deny Michael the right to remove the feeding tube. Rightly so, his recommendation in light of those facts was taken with a grain of salt. Michael’s only authority (or choice) in the matter was to give up his ability to make a choice. Michael and the Schindler’s were having their ability to make a choice taken away from them. That is what happens when you let a court arbitrate a decision. It would’ve been legally binding independent of Michael’s wants and desires. If Michael had a reversal of opinion, it would’ve made the courts decision no less binding.
Richard Pearse’s view has since changed on the subject.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/06/news_pf/Columns/An_insider_shifts_his.shtml
The doctors for Schindler’s Camp said that Terri was not in a PVS and could be treated successfully.
The judge had trouble with Dr. Hammesfahr and Dr. Maxfield’s credibility was that both doctors presented their cases full of anecdotal evidence and although Hammesfahr testified that he had treated scores of patients worse off than Terri he offered no names, no studies, no empirical results.
Dr. Maxfield wasn’t even a neurologist. He offered no studies that hyperbaric oxygenation would even affect this kind of brain damage. Considering that the procedure has been around for years, there should have been something.
Instead both Schindler experts discussed extensively the merits of stem cell therapies, although neither is an expert in such research. This is why the judge found both of their opinions to be lacking in credibility.
More on this here:
http://www.casewatch.org/civil/schiavo.shtml
Michael Schiavo is an adulterous cheating husband.
It is true that Michael Schiavo took up with another woman and had children with her while still married to Terri. Probably not the most stellar of conduct, however it is not like he could have normal relations with Terri nor could Terri bear his children. In short it wasn’t a normal relationship so his actions should not be viewed in the same light, as they would be if Terri were an aware human being. Michael very much indeed wanted to get on with his life, but he also wanted to fulfill his wife’s dying wish. It would’ve been the easy way out to abandon her to her parents (indeed her parents encouraged him to do just that), but he stuck it out till the end.
She was never given a PET or an MRI to determine the extent of her brain damage.
A high quality CAT scan and X-Rays are just as useful in diagnosing the brain condition. It was decided that these could substitute for an MRI as the added benefit from an MRI would not outweigh the unnecessary risk of invasive brain surgery necessary to remove the implants.
An Excerpt from Robert Cranford’s e-mail:
“An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri's brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG's were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty, along with the credible testimony of the three neurologists at the longest evidentiary hearing in American law, whose opinions were strongly affirmed by the trial court judge and three appeal court judges. Please see Judge Greer's opinions on the credibility of the experts testifying on behalf of the Schindler family.”
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
Sarah Mele, speech pathologist, swears a nine-page affidavit that with therapy Terri could speak.
Honestly, is Sarah Mele a neurosurgeon? Did she not take into account that Terri’s cerebral cortex was clearly missing and replaced by cerebra-spinal fluid? Any neurosurgeon worth his/her salt will tell you that cognitive coherent speech without a CC is impossible.
What about Kate Adamson, she was diagnosed as PVS and made a full recovery.
Kate Adamson had a double stroke in her brainstem. Her cerebral cortex was intact (thus her ability to think). Terri’s cerebral cortex was missing. These are two different and incompatible situations.
What about the misdiagnosis Dr. Robert Cranford made about Robert Wendland and others?
Individual doctors make mistakes, but in an interview with Ragged Edge Magazine, Cranford referred to Wendland as “minimally conscious”.
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/wendland012201.htm
Wendland never had his tube removed; he died of pneumonia after the antibiotics weren’t working.
As evidenced by communication from Cranford himself, he never diagnosed Wendland as a PVS. Indeed he never misdiagnosed any patient.
An excerpt from an e-mail detailing his actual position:
“As for the National Review Online article, I stand by my record. The record is very clear that I did not testify that Robert Wendland was in a PVS, and the same applies for the case of Michael Martin in Michigan. Both these patients were clearly not PVS”
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
Did Judge Greer defy the law in making his decisions in the case?
It is any US citizens’ right to refuse medical treatment or care that will unnecessarily prolong their life to their discomfort. The above statute is to protect those incapacitated from being deprived of food and water against their will. The whole point of appointing the court to act as a surrogate was to determine to the best of anyone’s ability what Terri’s wishes were. The courts decided after extensive, adversarial approach to analyzing the evidence. Essentially Florida Statute 765.102(3) trumps 744.3215 (Rights of Persons Determined to be Incapacitated that requires that incapacitated people cannot be deprived of food and water against their will).
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes states:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
Definition of a "life-prolonging procedure":
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes
"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain."
Judge Greer’s decisions were repeatedly reviewed and upheld by the second district, with one exception, the Second District court of appeals believed that he erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on new medical evidence. The Schindler appeals never made it to the Florida Supreme Court as they supported every decision made by the Second District and therefore Judge Greer. If Judge Greer were in violation of any statute, state or federal, the higher courts would have censured him. No law applies if it runs contrary to the patient’s wishes. That is what the first trial was about, to ascertain Terri’s wishes.
In Conclusion:
I believe that the media has skewed much of what Michael Schiavo has done in a negative light, evidenced by the fact that it is much easier to find right to live material on the web than it is to find right to die material, and much easier to find material that paints an awful (and unfair) picture of Michael, Judge Greer and the doctors and lawyers that represent him. In addition I do not think a grand miscarriage of justice has taken place only people’s perception of that justice (which is heavily coloured by religious beliefs).
The courts themselves have said that Terri could not have had a more supportive husband than she had in Michael. It would’ve have been the easiest thing in the world to walk away from Terri. No one would’ve blamed him, least of all the Schindler’s. The only reason he would’ve fought so hard was he was fighting for something he believed Terri would’ve wanted.
If anyone has some specific questions (or accusations), feel free to ask in the comments or e-mail me as I’m pretty well versed in the workings of the case. I couldn’t present the entirety of my research here (because it is pretty long and involved).
Some additional links (used in my research):
General info about the case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
Legal references for the case and chronology
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
A commentary from the other side
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041226-123251-5015r.htm
The Richard Pearse report (PDF)
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/122998%20Schiavo%20Richard%20Pearse%20GAL%20report.pdf
The Wolfson Report (PDF)
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
Wolfson’s Comments
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/04/Columns/A_wise_voice_pierces_.shtml
Points for Keeping Terri Schiavo Alive refuted:
She was making progress in her therapy before it was cut off in 1993.
At the time when Michael sued for malpractice it could very well be that he thought (and the doctors thought) that there might be a chance of recovery for Terri. It wasn't so much that she was making progress, but that there was hope that she would make progress (literally at the time, it was too soon to tell). At the time of the malpractice trial all therapies had not yet been exhausted.
Michael received the settlement in January of 1993 and Terri didn't get put in a nursing home until March of 1994, she was treated aggressively for almost 3 years. Keep in mind Michael also was by that time a respiratory therapist and male nurse who could be considered an expert on rehabilitative therapies. Also keep in mind he didn't file with the courts to remove the feeding tube until May of 1998.
It was an evolving situation, so the fact that the therapy was discontinued around when the judgment was receive was a coincidence brought on by the slowness of the legal system. It wouldn't be the first time a judgment was won but the party it was supposed to benefit either didn't need it anymore or had passed on.
The actual award was to be applied primarily to her treatment and then secondarily to her maintenance. Another thing to consider, these experimental therapies were not cheap. Michael could have continued on longer, but the 750,000$ would have been exhausted in no time at all and no money would've been left for her continuing care. So when you say that for 12 years she was refused treatment, it could be very well that they couldn't afford it without jeopardizing her living annuity. Doctors are no doubt happy to accept money for experimental treatments that probably won’t work (like Dr. Hammesfahr and Dr. Maxfield for example). Michael Schiavo had consulted with enough experts by that time and had been told the same thing; there was nothing more they could do for Terri.
If progress was being shown in Terri's medical records and these therapies were making progress then that alone would've been grounds for keeping her alive and appointing guardianship to the parents. This was not the case, as most experts agreed with Michael, including the court appointed physician. I cannot stress enough that this court case was the most thoroughly and exhaustively examined case in recent history.
She was refused all treatment options for 12 years.
Again, “refused” (and “withheld”) is a hostile word employed by those that wish to demonize Michael Schiavo. He had run out of treatment options, this is what the qualified expert’s at the time were telling him; there was nothing more to be done. Incidentally the “experts” that believed Terri was not in a PVS and could be treated didn’t turn up until the case went to court in 1998. Where were these experts before?
The only witnesses to her making the statement that she did not wish to be artificially kept alive were Schiavo, and two of Schiavo relatives.
Granted that looks somewhat suspect, but equally suspect are the family and friends on Terri’s side of the camp saying that she made comments (in relation to a similar case) that being taken off life support was morally wrong. You can’t paste Schiavo without pasting the Schindler’s.
Michael just wanted to kill her off to inherit the money.
Michael Schiavo had no ulterior motive in getting the courts to decide to discontinue life support. Money wasn't a motive (there wasn't more than 50,000$ left in Terri's trust), Michael had even drafted a contract that would sign over any remaining money to charity if the parents would abstain from legal action. The parent's refused.
Interestingly, the guardian ad litem that was appointed to make the determination as to whether the feeding tube could be removed in 1998, Mr. Richard Pearse, he had concluded that the parents of Terri were in a conflict of interest as well for wanting Michael to divorce Terri so they could have legal guardianship over her (and thus have inheritance rights if she died).
Even more interestingly, the relationship between Michael Schiavo and the Schindler’s didn’t sour until after the malpractice award was paid and the Schindler’s wanted Schiavo to split his “loss of consortium” award with them (300,000$ that was Michael’s free and clear this being separate of Terri’s 750,000$ trust which Michael could not touch). Michael refused and the fight was on.
Michael wanted to kill her off to cover up abuse.
The alleged abuse, there exist no documentation of the physical injuries that would indicate that she suffered anything more than what would normally be suffered from bulimia, a fall, then CPR.
The problem with this allegation mostly lies in the fact that the Schindler’s decided to make this accusation in an emergency motion in Nov. 2002. The bone scan that they introduced was taken in 1991. Many medical professionals had a chance to look at Terri and draw that conclusion both before her cardiac infarction and after it. It was reasonable to the courts to accept that most of the damage to her structure was caused by bulimia, the fall, and subsequent CPR. Quite frankly, if she didn’t have a heart attack and the oxygen deprivation was from strangulation, then where were the bruises on her neck? These would’ve been quite prominent and documented by the hospital staff.
Terri Schiavo could swallow saliva on her own, so she could have learned to handle oral intake of food.
Saliva handling is handled as a reflex by the brainstem (necessarily so or we would aspirate saliva into our lungs as we slept, saliva production is also greatly reduced upon sleeping to the reflex doesn’t have to deal with a large amount of it, this is contrary to the situation we deal with in a food/drink scenario). Voluntary swallowing is needed for drinking and solids. The entire process of swallowing food is about 1/3 voluntary and 2/3 involuntary (peristalsis of the food down the esophagus is involuntary), but it is the voluntary portion that is required to get the bollus moving.
Richard Pearse, the Guardian Ad Litem, recommended that Terri remain on life support and was dismissed for it because Michael didn’t get the answer he wanted.
Michael, because of a recommendation by said guardian ad litem, could not make the decision because of a conflict of interest, but this same guardian ad litem also stated that the Schindler’s were in conflict as well as they wanted guardianship and encouraged Michael to divorce Terri and move on with his life. So what he did was personally petition the court to decide if indeed Terri Schiavo would want to be sustained artificially. The courts were designated to be a neutral surrogate. If the courts came back in the Schindler’s favour then the courts would have decided that Terri did indeed wish to live sustained artificially.
Richard Pearse’s reasoning that because a person has been on life support for X number of years is in it self a reason to continue it is flawed. It disregards the circumstances surrounding the reason for putting someone on life support in the first place. Most of the time one is place on life support with the hopes that with the aid, one will get better. That she has been on life support for 8 years is hardly a reason to keep her on it.
Richard Pearse was dismissed from his role as Guardian Ad Litem for reasons of bias and inaccuracy. He did not include in his report Michael’s formal repudiation of his rights to the financial estate of Terri upon her death, thus undermining the main reason why he made a recommendation to deny Michael the right to remove the feeding tube. Rightly so, his recommendation in light of those facts was taken with a grain of salt. Michael’s only authority (or choice) in the matter was to give up his ability to make a choice. Michael and the Schindler’s were having their ability to make a choice taken away from them. That is what happens when you let a court arbitrate a decision. It would’ve been legally binding independent of Michael’s wants and desires. If Michael had a reversal of opinion, it would’ve made the courts decision no less binding.
Richard Pearse’s view has since changed on the subject.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/06/news_pf/Columns/An_insider_shifts_his.shtml
The doctors for Schindler’s Camp said that Terri was not in a PVS and could be treated successfully.
The judge had trouble with Dr. Hammesfahr and Dr. Maxfield’s credibility was that both doctors presented their cases full of anecdotal evidence and although Hammesfahr testified that he had treated scores of patients worse off than Terri he offered no names, no studies, no empirical results.
Dr. Maxfield wasn’t even a neurologist. He offered no studies that hyperbaric oxygenation would even affect this kind of brain damage. Considering that the procedure has been around for years, there should have been something.
Instead both Schindler experts discussed extensively the merits of stem cell therapies, although neither is an expert in such research. This is why the judge found both of their opinions to be lacking in credibility.
http://www.casewatch.org/civil/schiavo.shtml
Michael Schiavo is an adulterous cheating husband.
It is true that Michael Schiavo took up with another woman and had children with her while still married to Terri. Probably not the most stellar of conduct, however it is not like he could have normal relations with Terri nor could Terri bear his children. In short it wasn’t a normal relationship so his actions should not be viewed in the same light, as they would be if Terri were an aware human being. Michael very much indeed wanted to get on with his life, but he also wanted to fulfill his wife’s dying wish. It would’ve been the easy way out to abandon her to her parents (indeed her parents encouraged him to do just that), but he stuck it out till the end.
She was never given a PET or an MRI to determine the extent of her brain damage.
A high quality CAT scan and X-Rays are just as useful in diagnosing the brain condition. It was decided that these could substitute for an MRI as the added benefit from an MRI would not outweigh the unnecessary risk of invasive brain surgery necessary to remove the implants.
An Excerpt from Robert Cranford’s e-mail:
“An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri's brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG's were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty, along with the credible testimony of the three neurologists at the longest evidentiary hearing in American law, whose opinions were strongly affirmed by the trial court judge and three appeal court judges. Please see Judge Greer's opinions on the credibility of the experts testifying on behalf of the Schindler family.”
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
Sarah Mele, speech pathologist, swears a nine-page affidavit that with therapy Terri could speak.
Honestly, is Sarah Mele a neurosurgeon? Did she not take into account that Terri’s cerebral cortex was clearly missing and replaced by cerebra-spinal fluid? Any neurosurgeon worth his/her salt will tell you that cognitive coherent speech without a CC is impossible.
What about Kate Adamson, she was diagnosed as PVS and made a full recovery.
Kate Adamson had a double stroke in her brainstem. Her cerebral cortex was intact (thus her ability to think). Terri’s cerebral cortex was missing. These are two different and incompatible situations.
What about the misdiagnosis Dr. Robert Cranford made about Robert Wendland and others?
Individual doctors make mistakes, but in an interview with Ragged Edge Magazine, Cranford referred to Wendland as “minimally conscious”.
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/wendland012201.htm
Wendland never had his tube removed; he died of pneumonia after the antibiotics weren’t working.
As evidenced by communication from Cranford himself, he never diagnosed Wendland as a PVS. Indeed he never misdiagnosed any patient.
An excerpt from an e-mail detailing his actual position:
“As for the National Review Online article, I stand by my record. The record is very clear that I did not testify that Robert Wendland was in a PVS, and the same applies for the case of Michael Martin in Michigan. Both these patients were clearly not PVS”
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
Did Judge Greer defy the law in making his decisions in the case?
It is any US citizens’ right to refuse medical treatment or care that will unnecessarily prolong their life to their discomfort. The above statute is to protect those incapacitated from being deprived of food and water against their will. The whole point of appointing the court to act as a surrogate was to determine to the best of anyone’s ability what Terri’s wishes were. The courts decided after extensive, adversarial approach to analyzing the evidence. Essentially Florida Statute 765.102(3) trumps 744.3215 (Rights of Persons Determined to be Incapacitated that requires that incapacitated people cannot be deprived of food and water against their will).
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes states:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
Definition of a "life-prolonging procedure":
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes
"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain."
Judge Greer’s decisions were repeatedly reviewed and upheld by the second district, with one exception, the Second District court of appeals believed that he erred in denying a motion for a new trial based on new medical evidence. The Schindler appeals never made it to the Florida Supreme Court as they supported every decision made by the Second District and therefore Judge Greer. If Judge Greer were in violation of any statute, state or federal, the higher courts would have censured him. No law applies if it runs contrary to the patient’s wishes. That is what the first trial was about, to ascertain Terri’s wishes.
In Conclusion:
I believe that the media has skewed much of what Michael Schiavo has done in a negative light, evidenced by the fact that it is much easier to find right to live material on the web than it is to find right to die material, and much easier to find material that paints an awful (and unfair) picture of Michael, Judge Greer and the doctors and lawyers that represent him. In addition I do not think a grand miscarriage of justice has taken place only people’s perception of that justice (which is heavily coloured by religious beliefs).
The courts themselves have said that Terri could not have had a more supportive husband than she had in Michael. It would’ve have been the easiest thing in the world to walk away from Terri. No one would’ve blamed him, least of all the Schindler’s. The only reason he would’ve fought so hard was he was fighting for something he believed Terri would’ve wanted.
If anyone has some specific questions (or accusations), feel free to ask in the comments or e-mail me as I’m pretty well versed in the workings of the case. I couldn’t present the entirety of my research here (because it is pretty long and involved).
Some additional links (used in my research):
General info about the case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
Legal references for the case and chronology
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
A commentary from the other side
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041226-123251-5015r.htm
The Richard Pearse report (PDF)
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/122998%20Schiavo%20Richard%20Pearse%20GAL%20report.pdf
The Wolfson Report (PDF)
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
Wolfson’s Comments
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/04/Columns/A_wise_voice_pierces_.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)