Comment Moderation

..and why I use it

It's not just for comments anymore.

Over the last several weeks I noticed more and more commercial spam comments trying to get past me. Then I looked it up online.

There are hacker software packages available that contain software robots that enable them to scan blog sites and insert junk ad's into them. I've been seeing an ever increasing number of them not only here but elsewhere.

These do not contain just harmless and annoying spam, but several link to sites that can infect users computers with malware, spyware, viruses and trojans.

I urge anyone who comes across them on various other blog sites not to click on them. I will continue to delete the ever increasing number of them that I have been seeing come across my blog.

Of course there's the usual "anonymous" insults that serve to diminish the level I wish to keep my blog as well.

On this site you will see far fewer comments then you might expect, but when I look at any of the major media outlets.. quantity doesn't make for quality.

It just amazes me how the so-called "professional" newspapers, TV networks, and top websites allow for the kind of crap that contributes nothing and is allowed to propagate in their comment sections.

You have to go through a dozen comments to get to one that actually stays on topic and you can get something from.

Flaming is the norm.

I suppose they do it for profitability. The more hits the more they receive income.

It is my goal that each comment stays on topic and actually benefits the discussion.

Simply put, I'd rather have three good comments then three dozen to wade through that have little to do with the post. It further serves to wastes everyone's time and composure.

So I as much as I would have liked to kept the moderation off to enable people to interact with instantaneous responses to one another, I will continue to moderate. I ask for your patience and hope you understand.

I will release comments as fast as I can.

My Christmas Quandary

So here it is nearly the end of November and once again time to come up my annual Christmas list requests for the family.

???

I never thought the day would come, but here it is. What do I want?

Let's see I have..

A super mp3 disk playing stereo in the van.
Four TV's. Shortwave, police scanner, AM/FM portable radios.
A 700 watt theatre amp W/ 6 speakers and a sub woofer.
All the wireless and cell phones 5 people could use.
Two computers. One is 6 channel stereo W/built in TV
Nearly 40,000 mp3's.
Two HDD HiDef 162 channel digital recorders.
A midi keyboard and 5 Synthesizer Roland production unit.
Table saw, drill, press etc.
All sorts lawn tools.
4 drawers of jeans, tons of clothing, ties and a 2 suits.
Four watches
Three video cameras and a digital still camera.

So hell I guess I have everything I want. About the only thing I can think of is to win the Lottery.

But Alas, with all that money, I'm right back to..

What would I want?

??

Sunday Music Break

Wilshire Theater in Los Angeles, March 09


Sam's November 2009 Performance

College Prank

The Hey Teach Prank

Lunch In NYC

The thing about New York City is they probably have more performers per square block then any other city in the world.

One day you may find yourself stopping by the Trump Tower atrium for lunch. Then these seven people show up and...

This was shot by Improv Everywhere for the Today Show.

Did you spot an cameo appearance by Ann Curry?
(she was the really bad singer)
~

What Morality/Ethics?

Everyday we read the ethically devoid headlines. Just today, this story and hundreds upon hundreds more just like them..

NEW YORK — For Citibank credit card holders, there is one way to escape the bank's rate hikes currently under way: Meet a monthly spending requirement.

Those who meet the spending minimum – in some cases $750 a month – will be able to get a rebate on their total interest charges for that month. The rebate could cover some or all of the interest rate hike. Customers also need to make payments on time to qualify for the rebate

America has become bankrupt. Not in it's wealth, but her morals and ethics.

Granted there are a goodly number of brightly shining outstanding individuals. Not enough to secure our future I fear. At least not the ones who hold the reins of power to control the destiny of this nation at this time.

I'm speaking of..

Selfishly driven opportunists for self gain. Whether it be in business or social status/power. The game of one upmanship.

Investment brokers who lobbed five fee levels on pension plans. Wall street speculators that deal in derivatives (what a nice name for a con).

Mortgage brokers who bundled bad mortgages and sold them off before they exploded on the banks stuck with them like a game of musical chairs.

Money men weren't the only ones.

Politicians who are fully funded by special interests that no longer hold our best interests in their hearts.

They'd rather fight amongst their opponents and get reelected then to allow another in their place. If they have to drag down a Presidency, whether it be Bush then or Obama, or the entire country for that matter to do it, win at all costs!

To do that they need to drink at the plentiful money troughs of corporate America.

Money has become this nation's God. The days of empathy, kindness and the kind of social sharing that Jimmy Stewart's character portrayed in yester years movies are behind us.

For many (not all) churches their entire structure is built first on the God of money and only the God they supposedly worship comes secondly.

For many of these they've come to rely on schools, daycare, federally funded social programs an a host of other non religious oriented operations to bolster their huge tax avoidance budgets.

Many of which are spending million$ on TV time and/or huge stadium like structures they call houses of worship.

It could be rightly said they need to bone up on how Jesus felt when he trashed one of them.

Or perhaps Moses when the peoples camped at the foot of the mountain while he was off getting the tablets containing the commandments heeded not his words.

Make no mistake about it. America has placed money before anything else. ANYTHING!

There's certainly nothing inherently evil about money.

I prefer to think of it this way. Money are credits issued in exchange for work performed or goods and services.

Have you or I exploited some else's labor? Have we acted responsibly, with integrity and honesty? Or did we hook em' for a couple of buck$

When we cunningly trick it out, unknowingly to the other, their labor in today's world we call that good business sense or cleverness. That's when it becomes evil.

I see nothing wrong with possessing wealth, but when someone like Nicholas Cage owns 22 cars, dozens of homes, castles, 4 yachts, a Caribbean island and a private jet and still coming up broke.. something has just got to be wrong.

No human can enjoy all those items. I used him as just one example of so many others like him.

One billionaire was asked when is enough, enough? He explained after the first couple of million it becomes a point game between multi millionaires. It gets you the bragging rights.

This folk song by The Kingston Trio says it so much better than I..


We'd all like to blame politicians, wall street and companies. But who are these?

US!

Each and every one has a hand in all of this. From the car salesman, the corporate manager, to a contractor, and anyone else that can deal honestly and chooses not to.

This is not just about integrity and moral ethics, but our nation's financial future. It reflects how we treat one another as well. How are we doing with that?

Have you contributed to the determent or to the resolution of this kind of moral and ethical behavior?

Mahatma Gandhi understood completely each person when all put into a group is like a mighty force for either good or evil whether it be a business, government or it's nation's peoples.

It starts today. Now. Before it's too late.

It starts with each individual. OR we can keep playing the blame game and saying everyone else does it so therefore... the hell with the next guy.

How you treat the least of these, so shall...
~

Mammogram Recommendations (Follow-up)

UPDATE- Clarification

Before You Continue Reading, Please Refer To My Post :

Mammogram Recommendations (& the comments)

I've been in a discussion (in the comments) as to the favorable or unfavorable financial motives behind these changes. Before the ink was yet cold now the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests.

WHAT!!

So the following applies to that as well.

My financial assumptions are of a two fold nature.

THE COST SAVINGS
The first being that the number of breast cancer cases found in the group of women aged 40 to 49 years old.

The number being tossed around is for every 1,800 screenings in this age group there is 1 case of cancer caught. The task force considers this an insignificant number. Not so if you are one of the 1,800!

One of the harsh facts are that 40% of the lives saved by mammographic screening are of women aged 40-49.

While one insurance company claims they will still pay for them, I say come back next year at the time and see if they still will? Currently Pa. requires insurance to pick up the coverage starting at 40 years of age. Will this also be revisited next year as well?

Do they already skirt the Pa. law?

Currently our insurance company claims if they find anything at all (calcifications) it is no longer a "wellness check". It now becomes "Diagnostic" and not longer covered till the deductibles are satisfied.

In our case $1,000 before the 80/20 kicks in. So we had to pay for both the initial mammogram AND the followup.

After visiting the Doc, the wife refused to have another scar and expensive biopsy for calcifications because of our internet research.

Instead we opted to delay the surgical biopsy for another 45 days to see if a digital mammogram would show they were still actually there.

After the 3rd digital mammogram, they could no longer be found! Just to be on the safe side he did yet a 4th in his office. THEY WERE GONE.. PERIOD!

How did the insurance company show us their appreciation for saving them the cost of surgery? NOTHING. We paid for all 4 out of them out pocket since we were still below the $1,000 deductible.

As you can see this whole task force thing has a lot of savings for insurance companies. Now imagine the extra reinforcement they have received based on this task force's recommendations!

THE PROFIT MOTIVE
The person I was commenting said, "I understand your point, but does it apply here? This panel recommended lesser care - that means fewer mammograms, fewer procedures, fewer everything."

On the surface that would appear to be the case. But in the second fold of my argument is.. when insurance companies save money by reluctantly (if at all) paying for these 40-49 year olds the most likely outcome there will be less screening of the age group.

Now that's scary since 40% of the breast cancer deaths are in this age group alone!

That is 10,000's of future cancer treatments. Cancer centers, specialist and pharmaceuticals stand to make million$ in the future treatment thereof.

Would it have been a hellva' cheaper to catch these 1 in 1,800 women when a simple biopsy would have done the trick? Hell ya!

Is it short sighted on the insurance companies' parts. Hell yeah.

But now let's look at how long average executive stays with a company. It's usually 3 to 5 years. So a quick fix to make his insurance company a fast buck works. By the time the crap hits the fans, most likely the ones who are making today's' decisions will no longer be there.

A few years down the line everyone else in the business increases it cancer business many times over again.

My point is, these people in this "task group" come from the very universities and medical institutions that depend on hospital, insurance and pharmaceutical industries funding for their studies and research grants.

Some which make up over 30% of their budgets.

In that I see a huge incentive for them to be swayed.

Some may look at my statements as far too negative. Actually when it comes to money I consider myself a pragmatist.

Money is the God and the motivation for almost everything we do. So when there's money involved, I look behind the curtain.

I would love to just think this is a moral and ethical decision on their part. But with all the million$ at stake I just have to question the recommendations.

What I would favor is that the women who were concerned enough to have this done not be left to have to dip into the family's tight budget to have these mammograms performed.

Irregardless whether the outcome becomes "diagnostic" or not, both should be fully insured.

Over the long haul we'd be saving lives and tons of money.

But that's the long haul. We are a nation of short sight ness and quick profits to the determinant of or own future selves.

I fear this is one of those cases.

***

~

My Ole DJ Daz'

My Ole DJ Daz' (17 minutes)

Mammogram Recommendations

Why?

Because there are currently 10's of millions of women who are 40 to 50 years old and "were" receiving insurance coverage for their breast exams.

But now thanks to "The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's" recommendations, women 50 to 74 are likely to be the only group who now to receive insurance coverage.

Well there goes another couple of million dollar$ the insurance companies will likely no longer fork out money for.

According to the Task Force's site they are, "the leading independent panel of private-sector experts..". The list of who done its are on their site.

Now if I had an investigate team, I'd be real curious who were the good hearted folks that provided funding for their various endowments and research monies where they work?

Oh so little faith. Where's your trust LVCI?

Currently Pennsylvania law forces insurance companies to pay for mammograms for women 40 and older. Let's see if they stick to their guns in the coming days.

As for the various others states who do not.. good luck getting reimbursement from your medical insurance.

Who needs these so-called government run death panels when the private sector does it so much more efficiently already?

Pretty Soon This Is All You'll Have Left

Allentown-Obama-The Spin

Tales Of Fantasy

Since I'm positive the extreme opponents of the President on radio & TV are always looking dirt under every rock they will surely want to spend a few moments trashing on Obama during his visit to Allentown on December 4th.

I can hear them now [as the screen splits in two showing the Billy Joel video playing quietly in the background] ...

Hmm? Wonder if Barack is coming to see his fellow Chicago buddy, the Mayor.

We heard from undisclosed sources (little voices inside their head) that he and the Mayor haven't seen each other since the mayor left Chicago.

Anonymous sources (they're the favored sources for these guys) further stated, It was after a Rev. Wright's church service when the two last had dinner together at an ACORN fundraiser. The meal was preceded by a Christian prayer translated by an Arabic interpreter for the Islamic amongst those in attendance.

Perhaps the Mayor & he will have hold "beer summit" downtown similar to the one the President held with Professor Gates this past summer while he visits?

hmmm?

It is further rumored that later in the day the President and his wife are scheduled to take a stroll in the newly improved Rose Garden for photo ops.

Following this Michelle, the first lady, will plant several Riparian Buffer species alongside the newly blacktopped trail.

Their itinerary then will take them on a short hike through a newly carved Kimmet's Lock trail and into Bethlehem where they will enjoy a brief snack from a hot dog cart before touring the casino.

After a brief stop to pick up some tea partiers tea bags and assorted gifts for the kids at Chris Kindle Market the couple had been planning on leaving by rail to return to Washington.

Upon learning about the lack of rail service they opted instead to return via Air Force 1 which they arrived on in Newark.
~

Nothing Comes W/O A Little Price

Several months ago drug pushers manufactures shook the hand of Obama and kissed him on the cheek (mafia style) by agreeing to cut prescription medications by $8 billion after healthcare reform in the spirit of true patriotism.

Now one things for sure. Whether it's your sleazy local neighborhood pill pusher or the national drug companies, neither is to be trusted.

While it's still iffy if big med inc. will come through on the deal, it is certain of one thing. These guys will give you a rectal exam and it doesn't come on the cheap.

It seems over 2009 they raised wholesale prices by 9% which in effect raised the costs for Americans by $10 billion beforehand!

It all kind of makes reminds me of these two..
Kind of looks like a Pharmaceutical CEO doesn't it?

See:

Drug Makers Raise Prices in Face of Health Care Reform

~

Contract With America 2.0

On Friday, Nov. 13, 2009 Newt said..


Think we've been there done that. So lets take a look at the "Contract With" America 1.0 (1994) and see how that worked out in the House Of Representatives?

On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on 8 reform bills:
* Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress (Rejected)

* Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse (Rejected)

* Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third

* Limit the terms of all committee chairs (Rejected)

* Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee (Rejected)

* Require committee meetings to be open to the public (Passed with lots of restrictions)

* Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase (Rejected)

* Implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget (Rejected)

On the second 100 days promised to bring to the floor 10 bills that:
* Would bring an amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget. (The statute was ruled unconstitutional)

* The Taking Back Our Streets Act (Passed)

* Cut spending for welfare programs by means of discouraging illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. This would be achieved by prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age, denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, and enacting a two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility (The Act was vetoed by President Clinton, but the alternative Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which offered many of the same policies was enacted 8/22/96.)

* An act to create a $500-per-child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty (Passed)

* An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary (Passed)

* An act to institute "Loser pays, limits on punitive damages and weakening of product liability laws to prevent what the bill considered frivolous litigation. (vetoed by President Clinton). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by Clinton.)

* The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act: When it finally made it to the House Floor it came as four bills. (3 out of 4 Passed)

* An amendment to the Constitution that would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress (Rejected)

* Family Reinforcement Act (Passed)

* Raise the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance. (adjusted & Passed)
We all know there is no such thing as a simple yes or no was applied to these bills. Extensive amendments to them doesn't allow a simple thumbs up or down on them. I've done my best to scour through them and gave them a positive thumbs up, even when what remained is only a portion of the proposed bills after the dust settled.

So with that in mind I give 8 out of the 18 as bearing fruit even though the bills became somewhat watered down in committee before hitting the floor for final vote. That's a 45% success rate.

So depending whether you think 45% is a pretty good score for Congress, that would decide just how successful these "Contracts With America" work out in your opinion.

Yes I did vote hard and heavy that year in favor of the Republicans expecting big changes. Especially when it came to the three budget items, "Tort Reform" (got completely watered down after Clinton's veto of it) and term limits.

Since these items were most important to me and they failed I consider the "Contract With America" thing not so hot and quite disappointing.

Despite that I must admit it is a fantastic campaigning tool and could work again for the Republicans.

It would be well advised that the Democrats come up with something 'like-in-kind', lest be left out in the cold.

But as for me.. as a result of not getting those bills passed, don't look for too much enthusiasm on my part with this new "Contract With America 2.0".

~

Times Are Tough

"Dear God, this year please send clothes for all those poor ladies on Grandpa's computer,

Amen."

Congress Bought & Paid For?

According to this New York Times article, a Swiss biotech company wrote speeches (at least in part) that some 42 house members delivered on the floor concerning healthcare.

Seems like the only time we get bipartisan support in Congress is when it comes to money. These prepared speeches (by the biotech company) were delivered by nearly as many Democrats as there were Republicans.

You know it's just amazing how the rest of the civilized world can provide healthcare for it's citizens and not screw the whole thing up.

I knew America lost her edge in manufacturing and banking because of special interests. I just had not idea how badly corrupted our Congress has become.

So far the House version isn't tainted too badly. But I am keeping a close eye on the Senate and what they amend.

While I favor healthcare reform..

NO REFORM is better then BAD REFORM

Civilization is the process in which one gradually increases the number of people included in the term 'we' or 'us' and at the same time decreases those labeled 'you' or 'them' until that category has no one left in it.
~Howard Winters~
(archaeologist)

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
~Thomas Jefferson~
~