http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303209.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics
The following are not my words – excerpt from article linked above..
“The United States is one of the most vibrant religious countries on Earth precisely because of its religious freedom. When power and faith are entwined, faith loses. Power tends to obfuscate, corrupt and focus on temporal rather than eternal purposes.”
Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Carl Paladino etc
Paladino said:
... We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
I didn't march in the gay parade this year, gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children. Certainly not in our schools.
And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option"
whether or not someone is gay does not affect your straight childrens ability to fall in love and marry and raise a family - wth!
If you are speeaking out against something and using that issue to get elected you are NOT practicing live and let live. These attitudes only continue to create a hostile environment for gay people esp. youth. There are gay people across all cultures and since the beginning of time. Get over it.
A kid doesn't wake up one day and say hmmm..what choices can I make today that will ostracize me - make me a target for bullies and potentially get me kicked out of my own home and despised by my parents.
If your church doesn't want to allow gays to marry - fine....but don't use your religion to legislate laws that affect everyone - including people of other faiths and people of no faith.
If you really want to defend marriage then you should outlaw divorce and enforce severe penalties for adultery.
Gay people are not pedophiles, perverts or otherwise creepy - they are just like you and me!!!
... We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
I didn't march in the gay parade this year, gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children. Certainly not in our schools.
And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option"
whether or not someone is gay does not affect your straight childrens ability to fall in love and marry and raise a family - wth!
If you are speeaking out against something and using that issue to get elected you are NOT practicing live and let live. These attitudes only continue to create a hostile environment for gay people esp. youth. There are gay people across all cultures and since the beginning of time. Get over it.
A kid doesn't wake up one day and say hmmm..what choices can I make today that will ostracize me - make me a target for bullies and potentially get me kicked out of my own home and despised by my parents.
If your church doesn't want to allow gays to marry - fine....but don't use your religion to legislate laws that affect everyone - including people of other faiths and people of no faith.
If you really want to defend marriage then you should outlaw divorce and enforce severe penalties for adultery.
Gay people are not pedophiles, perverts or otherwise creepy - they are just like you and me!!!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
jamie
Today is the funeral.. I know I am supposed to believe she is in a better place - I am glad she is no longer suffering but it just sucks. Someone so young and awesome with a young family? Not fair! It's hard and I hate crying in front of people. I was reading a book called The Shack and I guess it is time to pick it back up. It really made me think about things in a different way. Peace to Jamies family.....
My unlce Les died from cancer not that long ago - I have a friend who thankfully just went into remission - TJ had cancer a couple years ago - many women at my work have battled breast cancer (makes me wonder if it is the environment). WTF - all this time, money and research and still no cure.
My unlce Les died from cancer not that long ago - I have a friend who thankfully just went into remission - TJ had cancer a couple years ago - many women at my work have battled breast cancer (makes me wonder if it is the environment). WTF - all this time, money and research and still no cure.
op ed - dems strugglin but Repubs wouldn't have done better
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Giving a DAMN
acts of violence and intimidation committed against a person simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, ethnicity or anything that someone labels another as "different." Perpetrators of hate rely on fear and intimidation to put down their victims. Sadly, these acts occur all the time here in the United States. In fact, one occurs approximately every hour of every single day. One out of six of these crimes is based on sexual orientation.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Crucial Conversations
I took a class and now I get a newsletter which often has good info and tips. Today's newsletter is good and comes just after I was treated rudely because of my feelings about off shore drilling - by someone who doesn't know me.
Dear Crucial Skills,
When I try to have crucial conversations about issues where there seems to be no middle ground (i.e., abortion, global warming, politics), people often respond with over-the-top, dismissive, and divisive statements. How can I effectively hold crucial conversations about high-stakes topics with those who engage in aggressive ways?
Signed,
Seeking Middle Ground
Dear Seeking,
Several years ago in London, I hailed a taxi for the 45-minute trip from Gatwick airport to my hotel. After I informed the driver of my destination, he turned back and said, "You have an American accent. Are you American?"
"Yes," I responded.
He then made a pretty bold generalization about the culture I came from.
It was late at night. I was a bit tired. I weighed my willingness to engage in an energetic conversation and as I considered ignoring the comment I thought, "I should be able to do this. I should be able to talk to someone with a strong opinion even if I don't fully agree."
As this challenge took shape in my mind, I found myself more interested in a dialogue. I had no intention of trying to change his mind, but I thought, "Here's a guy who wants to be heard. And if there's hope for the world it's only if people like him and me can disagree in a respectful way." With this moral mission in mind, I responded.
"Not too worried about your tip, I take it?" I said and smiled at his eyes in the mirror.
He broke into a broad grin, then continued, saying that he loved Americans, but again reiterated some strong generalizations.
His voice got louder and his face redder the more he spoke. I began to wonder if I should just nod and smile or if I should really engage. But I returned to my conviction that until we can find peaceful ways of disagreeing we have no hope of creating real peace in the world. At one point in what turned into a five-minute monologue I patted the back of his seat to interrupt him.
"Hey, my friend. May I ask you a question?"
He looked into the rear view mirror and paused. "Sure. This is your taxi at the moment."
"You know, I am from the U.S. and don't get as much contact as I'd like with people who have a whole different experience than I do. I am very interested in hearing your views. And I may agree with some of them but disagree with others. Are you interested in mine, too, or should I just hear you out?"
"Oh, no," he practically crooned. "I want a debate!"
"Okay, then how about this. You take the first five minutes and then I get the next five. At the end, I don't care if we both agree on everything or not, but I'm guessing we might both be a little smarter. How is that?"
He laughed heartily, turned to face me full on and said, "You are a strange man. But that is a deal."
I don't know that my taxi-driver friend ended up seeing the world any differently when we were done with that ride, but I did. Not that my opinions were profoundly altered, but they were tested in a way I was grateful for. Most importantly, I was encouraged to discover that dialogue was possible with someone who held strong views and who seemed initially uninterested in anything but a monologue.
This is what I've found to be helpful in such a controversial conversation:
1. Talk about how you'll talk. If you're having a one-sided conversation but would like a dialogue, and it's not going that way, stop the conversation and come to agreement about ground rules. You can do this in a very respectful way by letting the person know you are interested in their views and want to continue the conversation. Then ask for time boundaries, or lower volume, or whatever will help you engage in a healthier way.
2. Check your motives. Be sure your interest in the conversation is sincere. If you just want a chance to demonstrate the perfection of your own opinions, expect the same from the other person. Fair is fair. But if you want dialogue, be sure you are open to new information or perspectives. If you are sincerely interested in getting smarter not just looking smart, you'll behave in ways that will invite the same from the other person.
3. Encourage disagreement. We've learned a startling truth about dialogue. People are okay with you expressing even very strongly held views so long as you are equally genuine in your invitation of their disagreement. Before sharing your opinions, make a statement like, "You know, I've got a really strong opinion on this. I've thought a great deal about it and read pretty widely, and I'd like to tell you my view. But at the end, if you see holes in it, or if you have new information I don't have, I desperately hope you'll challenge me with it. I really want to learn from your view in any way I can." This sincere invitation takes the fighting wind out of others' sails. They realize they don't have to beat you over the head with their opinions because you're asking for them!
4. Never miss a chance to agree. Finally, don't go for efficiency. When we agree on 50 percent of a topic and disagree on 50 percent we tend to move quickly to the disagreements because those are what interest us most. And besides, life is short, so why not start with the fight, right? Wrong! If you want worthwhile dialogue, take the time to listen for points on which you agree. Point them out. Confirm them. Put them in the "Pool of Shared Meaning." Then—and only then—move to the areas of disagreement. When you do this you reaffirm that your goal is not to win, it's to learn.
I hope these modest ideas are useful to you as you engage with others. I truly believe the future of humanity lies in our capacity to develop mutual purpose and mutual respect across the planet—and that happens one crucial conversation at a time.
Thank you for your interest in advancing public discourse about our most crucial issues.
Warmly,
Joseph
Dear Crucial Skills,
When I try to have crucial conversations about issues where there seems to be no middle ground (i.e., abortion, global warming, politics), people often respond with over-the-top, dismissive, and divisive statements. How can I effectively hold crucial conversations about high-stakes topics with those who engage in aggressive ways?
Signed,
Seeking Middle Ground
Dear Seeking,
Several years ago in London, I hailed a taxi for the 45-minute trip from Gatwick airport to my hotel. After I informed the driver of my destination, he turned back and said, "You have an American accent. Are you American?"
"Yes," I responded.
He then made a pretty bold generalization about the culture I came from.
It was late at night. I was a bit tired. I weighed my willingness to engage in an energetic conversation and as I considered ignoring the comment I thought, "I should be able to do this. I should be able to talk to someone with a strong opinion even if I don't fully agree."
As this challenge took shape in my mind, I found myself more interested in a dialogue. I had no intention of trying to change his mind, but I thought, "Here's a guy who wants to be heard. And if there's hope for the world it's only if people like him and me can disagree in a respectful way." With this moral mission in mind, I responded.
"Not too worried about your tip, I take it?" I said and smiled at his eyes in the mirror.
He broke into a broad grin, then continued, saying that he loved Americans, but again reiterated some strong generalizations.
His voice got louder and his face redder the more he spoke. I began to wonder if I should just nod and smile or if I should really engage. But I returned to my conviction that until we can find peaceful ways of disagreeing we have no hope of creating real peace in the world. At one point in what turned into a five-minute monologue I patted the back of his seat to interrupt him.
"Hey, my friend. May I ask you a question?"
He looked into the rear view mirror and paused. "Sure. This is your taxi at the moment."
"You know, I am from the U.S. and don't get as much contact as I'd like with people who have a whole different experience than I do. I am very interested in hearing your views. And I may agree with some of them but disagree with others. Are you interested in mine, too, or should I just hear you out?"
"Oh, no," he practically crooned. "I want a debate!"
"Okay, then how about this. You take the first five minutes and then I get the next five. At the end, I don't care if we both agree on everything or not, but I'm guessing we might both be a little smarter. How is that?"
He laughed heartily, turned to face me full on and said, "You are a strange man. But that is a deal."
I don't know that my taxi-driver friend ended up seeing the world any differently when we were done with that ride, but I did. Not that my opinions were profoundly altered, but they were tested in a way I was grateful for. Most importantly, I was encouraged to discover that dialogue was possible with someone who held strong views and who seemed initially uninterested in anything but a monologue.
This is what I've found to be helpful in such a controversial conversation:
1. Talk about how you'll talk. If you're having a one-sided conversation but would like a dialogue, and it's not going that way, stop the conversation and come to agreement about ground rules. You can do this in a very respectful way by letting the person know you are interested in their views and want to continue the conversation. Then ask for time boundaries, or lower volume, or whatever will help you engage in a healthier way.
2. Check your motives. Be sure your interest in the conversation is sincere. If you just want a chance to demonstrate the perfection of your own opinions, expect the same from the other person. Fair is fair. But if you want dialogue, be sure you are open to new information or perspectives. If you are sincerely interested in getting smarter not just looking smart, you'll behave in ways that will invite the same from the other person.
3. Encourage disagreement. We've learned a startling truth about dialogue. People are okay with you expressing even very strongly held views so long as you are equally genuine in your invitation of their disagreement. Before sharing your opinions, make a statement like, "You know, I've got a really strong opinion on this. I've thought a great deal about it and read pretty widely, and I'd like to tell you my view. But at the end, if you see holes in it, or if you have new information I don't have, I desperately hope you'll challenge me with it. I really want to learn from your view in any way I can." This sincere invitation takes the fighting wind out of others' sails. They realize they don't have to beat you over the head with their opinions because you're asking for them!
4. Never miss a chance to agree. Finally, don't go for efficiency. When we agree on 50 percent of a topic and disagree on 50 percent we tend to move quickly to the disagreements because those are what interest us most. And besides, life is short, so why not start with the fight, right? Wrong! If you want worthwhile dialogue, take the time to listen for points on which you agree. Point them out. Confirm them. Put them in the "Pool of Shared Meaning." Then—and only then—move to the areas of disagreement. When you do this you reaffirm that your goal is not to win, it's to learn.
I hope these modest ideas are useful to you as you engage with others. I truly believe the future of humanity lies in our capacity to develop mutual purpose and mutual respect across the planet—and that happens one crucial conversation at a time.
Thank you for your interest in advancing public discourse about our most crucial issues.
Warmly,
Joseph
Thursday, June 17, 2010
HOOPS HOOPS HOOPS
What Every NBA Fan Needs to Know About Ricky Rubio (Plus #15 on the Community Draft Board)
by Stop-n-Pop on Jun 17, 2010 6:44 AM CDT 21 comments
With the lotto in the rear view mirror and the draft on the horizon, I figured it would be a good time to put out a little primer about the Wolves and Ricky Rubio so that excited Knicks fans have a place to go when the Daily News tells them that Donnie Walsh is really good friends with David Kahn...and you know what that means.
1- The Rubio Road to the NBA 100%, without-a-doubt goes through the Timberwolves. The Wolves own Rubio’s NBA rights and barring him completely stepping away from professional basketball for an entire year (following a 3 year period after the draft), he is Timberwolves property.
2- Rubio’s buyout from Barcalona is reported to be $1.4 million following the 2010-11 season. This is hardly unmanageable and even if it were, it is meaningless, as the NBA’s CBA clearly states that NBA franchises can only contribute $500,000 to the buyout of a foreign player. The cost associated for a buyout of any foreign player (not just Rubio) is $500k. No more, no less. This is not the case for EuroLeague teams like Barcelona, who footed the entire buyout bill for Rubio and his family during his latest transition.
3- Rubio’s buyout from Joventut was originally in the neighborhood of $8 million and was eventually lowered to $5 million. Were Rubio to have come to the Wolves, and were the Wolves able to have achieved the same $5 mil buyout, Rubio himself would have been on the hook for the additional $4.5 mil. This was simply cost prohibitive to Rubio (who was making only a couple hundred thousand Euros at the time) to come to the Wolves with the slotted 5th pick NBA rookie salary. Here is what we wrote at the time about the situation:
At first glance, the NBA’s rookie salary scale for the 5th pick seems somewhat reasonable: roughly $15.2 million over 4 years. However, this does not take into account three key items that turn $15 large into a number that doesn’t hold up well against the reported buyout number of $5.28 million. First, $8.42 million of the $15.2 million rookie scale is tied up in two years of player options. A good friend of mine works as an actuary for Mutual of Omaha and he finds it far-fetched that any loan guarantee would be written while taking into account a non-guaranteed payment option. In other words, Rubio is really only guaranteed about $6.78 million in pre-tax earnings over the course of two seasons. Secondly, at no point in any of the Rubio reporting have we ever learned anything about the payment structure of the buyout. Would it be a lump sum? Would it be over 2 years? Would it be over the length of the full 4-year rookie scale? Again, my actuary friend finds it implausible that this debt would be paid on anything other than a lump sum or a two year scale. Even if Rubio were able to secure an insurance policy that extends beyond his guaranteed years, he would face a high premium that may make it an unattractive option vis-a-vis the Barcelona contract. Third, Rubio would face a 35% federal income tax combined with state taxes in Minnesota and every state he plays in. To the best of my knowledge, his overall tax burden would be 42.85%. In other words, his pre-duty/pre-agent fee take home pay for the first two years of his rookie contract is roughly $3.87 mil. That’s $1.4 million in the hole if you add in the reported buyout. If he were able to secure a four year repayment plan, his post-tax take home pay would be roughly $8.69 million; $3.41 mil over the buyout over 4 years and $825k/year pre-agent/duty pay. The bottom line here is that it’s pretty hard to look at the non-endorsement money on the table in the NBA and have it compare favorably to what Rubio will earn in Europe over the next two years. At the end of the day, the Wolves could only contribute $500k while Barcelona ponied up over $5 million. Rubio likely chose the far safer, and more economically sound, option.
In other words, had Rubio come to the Wolves, he would have been paying to play in the NBA for the better part of his rookie contract. Paying to play for any team in the lotto, not just the 15-win Wolves, was not an attractive immediate option in 2009.
4- David Kahn and the Wolves made Ricky Rubio a ton of money. This is the point that most often gets overlooked in the Rubio discussion. By becoming a 3rd party in the Rubio sweepstakes, the Wolves effectively provided the Rubios the leverage that lowered the insanely high Joventut buyout, allowed a European League team to pick up the tab (which, as we previously mentioned, was done in whole by Barcelona), allowed Rubio to get a raise, and, most importantly, lowered his future buyout amount to a number that is completely manageable under NBA rookie salary guidelines (after the $500k Wolves buyout, Rubio is only on the hook for $900,000). He also won a championship. The kicker here is that if Rubio comes to the NBA after 3 years (and not the 2 that some fans expect, and is the first year of a possible buyout), the Wolves do not have to pay him according to the NBA rookie salary scale. They can give him an even bigger deal…at the age of 22. This angle may really come into play if there is a lockout. If Rubio had gone in the first 3 picks, he may have been able to afford the jump to the NBA. When he slid, the Wolves provided him and his family with the best possible landing spot: on a team that had an additional pick to use on a point guard to bridge the gap and who could afford to wait until a lowered buyout and, possibly, a situation where Rubio could make more than what he could under the NBA’s rookie salary scale. Imagine if the Knicks got him with the 7th pick. What would the New York media do if Rubio couldn’t afford to come over to a slotted 7th pick rookie salary? How much more leverage would the Rubio’s have lost with the buyout with Joventut if it wasn’t a closer decision to head to the NBA like the Wolves provided with the 5th pick? I cannot say it enough: The Wolves (and David Kahn) allowed the Rubios to make a lot more money and they significantly improved his financial outlook.
Ricky Rubio unexpectedly landed in the Wolves’ lap and they’re not going to give him up for anything less than a serious haul. The Wolves have allowed Rubio to improve his financial (and professional playing) situation beyond what any other team in the league could have done short of going #1 to the Clippers. At the end of the day, by going #5 to the Wolves, Rubio was able to have his buyout taken care of in full by a superior team, get a raise, continue to develop on the best team in Europe, and eventually come to the NBA at or around the age of 22 without having to worry about going in the hole for his buyout. If his agent throws a hissy fit about his client not wanting to play in Minny in 1, 2, or 3 years, all Kahn has to do is smile and say "thank you very much, we can't wait until he wants to." By showing patience now, the Wolves have significantly increased their chances of appearing credible if they need to call a bluff down the line.
Plus, for those of you who haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Wolves and how they appear to be being put together, David Kahn is all-in on the kid. They are looking to build a running team with long athletes who can get out in transition and catch all of those ally-oops. They are looking for players who can hit open 3s from the corner. They are looking for guys who can be dominant pick-and-roll players. Does it surprise you that recent rumors would leave the team with a 2011 lineup of something like Rubio, Rudy Fernandez, Rudy Gay, Anthony Randloph, and Derrick Favors? They are all in on Rubio, they have helped him and his family out, and they are not letting him go for anything other than a MAJOR haul.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jun 17, 2010 6:44 AM CDT 21 comments
With the lotto in the rear view mirror and the draft on the horizon, I figured it would be a good time to put out a little primer about the Wolves and Ricky Rubio so that excited Knicks fans have a place to go when the Daily News tells them that Donnie Walsh is really good friends with David Kahn...and you know what that means.
1- The Rubio Road to the NBA 100%, without-a-doubt goes through the Timberwolves. The Wolves own Rubio’s NBA rights and barring him completely stepping away from professional basketball for an entire year (following a 3 year period after the draft), he is Timberwolves property.
2- Rubio’s buyout from Barcalona is reported to be $1.4 million following the 2010-11 season. This is hardly unmanageable and even if it were, it is meaningless, as the NBA’s CBA clearly states that NBA franchises can only contribute $500,000 to the buyout of a foreign player. The cost associated for a buyout of any foreign player (not just Rubio) is $500k. No more, no less. This is not the case for EuroLeague teams like Barcelona, who footed the entire buyout bill for Rubio and his family during his latest transition.
3- Rubio’s buyout from Joventut was originally in the neighborhood of $8 million and was eventually lowered to $5 million. Were Rubio to have come to the Wolves, and were the Wolves able to have achieved the same $5 mil buyout, Rubio himself would have been on the hook for the additional $4.5 mil. This was simply cost prohibitive to Rubio (who was making only a couple hundred thousand Euros at the time) to come to the Wolves with the slotted 5th pick NBA rookie salary. Here is what we wrote at the time about the situation:
At first glance, the NBA’s rookie salary scale for the 5th pick seems somewhat reasonable: roughly $15.2 million over 4 years. However, this does not take into account three key items that turn $15 large into a number that doesn’t hold up well against the reported buyout number of $5.28 million. First, $8.42 million of the $15.2 million rookie scale is tied up in two years of player options. A good friend of mine works as an actuary for Mutual of Omaha and he finds it far-fetched that any loan guarantee would be written while taking into account a non-guaranteed payment option. In other words, Rubio is really only guaranteed about $6.78 million in pre-tax earnings over the course of two seasons. Secondly, at no point in any of the Rubio reporting have we ever learned anything about the payment structure of the buyout. Would it be a lump sum? Would it be over 2 years? Would it be over the length of the full 4-year rookie scale? Again, my actuary friend finds it implausible that this debt would be paid on anything other than a lump sum or a two year scale. Even if Rubio were able to secure an insurance policy that extends beyond his guaranteed years, he would face a high premium that may make it an unattractive option vis-a-vis the Barcelona contract. Third, Rubio would face a 35% federal income tax combined with state taxes in Minnesota and every state he plays in. To the best of my knowledge, his overall tax burden would be 42.85%. In other words, his pre-duty/pre-agent fee take home pay for the first two years of his rookie contract is roughly $3.87 mil. That’s $1.4 million in the hole if you add in the reported buyout. If he were able to secure a four year repayment plan, his post-tax take home pay would be roughly $8.69 million; $3.41 mil over the buyout over 4 years and $825k/year pre-agent/duty pay. The bottom line here is that it’s pretty hard to look at the non-endorsement money on the table in the NBA and have it compare favorably to what Rubio will earn in Europe over the next two years. At the end of the day, the Wolves could only contribute $500k while Barcelona ponied up over $5 million. Rubio likely chose the far safer, and more economically sound, option.
In other words, had Rubio come to the Wolves, he would have been paying to play in the NBA for the better part of his rookie contract. Paying to play for any team in the lotto, not just the 15-win Wolves, was not an attractive immediate option in 2009.
4- David Kahn and the Wolves made Ricky Rubio a ton of money. This is the point that most often gets overlooked in the Rubio discussion. By becoming a 3rd party in the Rubio sweepstakes, the Wolves effectively provided the Rubios the leverage that lowered the insanely high Joventut buyout, allowed a European League team to pick up the tab (which, as we previously mentioned, was done in whole by Barcelona), allowed Rubio to get a raise, and, most importantly, lowered his future buyout amount to a number that is completely manageable under NBA rookie salary guidelines (after the $500k Wolves buyout, Rubio is only on the hook for $900,000). He also won a championship. The kicker here is that if Rubio comes to the NBA after 3 years (and not the 2 that some fans expect, and is the first year of a possible buyout), the Wolves do not have to pay him according to the NBA rookie salary scale. They can give him an even bigger deal…at the age of 22. This angle may really come into play if there is a lockout. If Rubio had gone in the first 3 picks, he may have been able to afford the jump to the NBA. When he slid, the Wolves provided him and his family with the best possible landing spot: on a team that had an additional pick to use on a point guard to bridge the gap and who could afford to wait until a lowered buyout and, possibly, a situation where Rubio could make more than what he could under the NBA’s rookie salary scale. Imagine if the Knicks got him with the 7th pick. What would the New York media do if Rubio couldn’t afford to come over to a slotted 7th pick rookie salary? How much more leverage would the Rubio’s have lost with the buyout with Joventut if it wasn’t a closer decision to head to the NBA like the Wolves provided with the 5th pick? I cannot say it enough: The Wolves (and David Kahn) allowed the Rubios to make a lot more money and they significantly improved his financial outlook.
Ricky Rubio unexpectedly landed in the Wolves’ lap and they’re not going to give him up for anything less than a serious haul. The Wolves have allowed Rubio to improve his financial (and professional playing) situation beyond what any other team in the league could have done short of going #1 to the Clippers. At the end of the day, by going #5 to the Wolves, Rubio was able to have his buyout taken care of in full by a superior team, get a raise, continue to develop on the best team in Europe, and eventually come to the NBA at or around the age of 22 without having to worry about going in the hole for his buyout. If his agent throws a hissy fit about his client not wanting to play in Minny in 1, 2, or 3 years, all Kahn has to do is smile and say "thank you very much, we can't wait until he wants to." By showing patience now, the Wolves have significantly increased their chances of appearing credible if they need to call a bluff down the line.
Plus, for those of you who haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Wolves and how they appear to be being put together, David Kahn is all-in on the kid. They are looking to build a running team with long athletes who can get out in transition and catch all of those ally-oops. They are looking for players who can hit open 3s from the corner. They are looking for guys who can be dominant pick-and-roll players. Does it surprise you that recent rumors would leave the team with a 2011 lineup of something like Rubio, Rudy Fernandez, Rudy Gay, Anthony Randloph, and Derrick Favors? They are all in on Rubio, they have helped him and his family out, and they are not letting him go for anything other than a MAJOR haul.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
can't believe
I haven't blogged since Sept. Facebook seems to be my tool now but I'm gonna try to get better about blogging again. Had a fun party on Fri for my dad - most karaoke I have ever sung all in one night. Sat I took my dad to a T-Wolves game and he actually got to see a win! Then today hung out at Jon's and ate leftovers. Carrie/Lonny and kids - Michele and Jim - me and Don - Heidi - dad and Ellie - Shelly and Jake and Jake's friend.
Sat I stopped at craft fair to see Jeromes and Christopher Straub - check out Fbook for the photo of the awesome purse Carrie bought me; designed by Christopher Straub!! SO ecited - and I bought Zach a pair of his handmade underwear for Christmas. And I sent him a friend request on FBook - I was thinking it was a business page but it was his and he was kind enough to accept it. He really is such a nice guy and a fun talented designer! Carrie and I also had our photo taken with Christopher. Christopher and carol Hannah were my faves on this season of Project Runway - there was another local guy (Ramon) who was also on P Run - he went home way to early.
Back to work tomorrow :( and it will be my first full week in about a month so probably will be feeling tired and crabby by Thur :) Fun Fri night headed our way - Pierogie night at LRH3's!!!
Sat I stopped at craft fair to see Jeromes and Christopher Straub - check out Fbook for the photo of the awesome purse Carrie bought me; designed by Christopher Straub!! SO ecited - and I bought Zach a pair of his handmade underwear for Christmas. And I sent him a friend request on FBook - I was thinking it was a business page but it was his and he was kind enough to accept it. He really is such a nice guy and a fun talented designer! Carrie and I also had our photo taken with Christopher. Christopher and carol Hannah were my faves on this season of Project Runway - there was another local guy (Ramon) who was also on P Run - he went home way to early.
Back to work tomorrow :( and it will be my first full week in about a month so probably will be feeling tired and crabby by Thur :) Fun Fri night headed our way - Pierogie night at LRH3's!!!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
One reason I like working at Land O'Lakes
Land O'Lakes International Development Division Begins Final Phase of Iraqi Women’s Dairy Development Program
Land O’Lakes International Development Division (IDD) announces the commencement of Phase Three of the Fallujah Widow’s Dairy Development Program in Iraq. The goal of the multi-phased program, which started in October 2008, is to create a sustainable source of income for dairy farmers in Fallujah, Iraq, by providing a market for their excess milk and enough dairy products to meet consumers’ demand. Phase Three of the program is to build a Modular Milk Collection plant that will provide training and employment opportunities for women, as well as introduce raw and value-added dairy products such as pasteurized milk in bulk, sachets and yogurt in different sized packaging.
“The dairy plant will have the capacity to collect and process 1,000 liters of milk per day,” said Zaheer Baber Land O’Lakes Regional Director for Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Eastern Europe. “The plant will be manufactured in India, assembled in Iraq, and will supply products to local restaurants and other institutions.”
The Fallujah Widow’s Dairy Development Program began Phase One in the fall of 2008. At that time, a report was issued to the United States Marines which outlined the current state of the dairy sector in Fallujah, Saqlawiyah and Ramadi sub-districts of the eastern Anbar Province. It also assessed the feasibility of establishing a dairy processing plant for the Fallujah Women’s Cultural Center (FWCC). In late 2008, the U.S. Marines bought 50 local mixed-breed cows, 44 of which were pregnant, and distributed them to widows and impoverished women throughout the region.
Under Phase Two of the program, which began in February 2009, Land O’Lakes dairy experts provided training in animal husbandry and milk production and collection to the women who received the cows. Improving the care of the cows, the quality and quantity of the milk produced and the collection system has increased the incomes of the women, which has also improved the economic situation of their families.
Phase Three is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2010. Upon successful completion of this phase, the U.S. Marines, Land O'Lakes and the local government will decide whether or not to develop more opportunities like this in other regions.
Prosperity Worldwide, a 501(c)(3) organization closely affiliated with Land O’Lakes IDD, is accepting donations for those who would like to contribute to the purchase of more cows for Iraqi women.
Visit prosperityworldwide.org for more details. For more on this IDD program, visit idd.landolakes.com.
About Land O’Lakes IDD
Land O’Lakes International Development division (www.idd.landolakes.com) has been making a difference in people’s lives and local economies since 1981. Land O’Lakes International Development has participated in more than 170 development projects in 70 nations, serving as an implementing partner in projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, among others. Through public and private partnerships, Land O’Lakes agricultural development promotes agricultural productivity and competitiveness; food processing, product development and quality assurance; enterprise, association and cooperative development; food security and livelihoods; and health and nutrition worldwide. Land O’Lakes International Development is grant-funded, non-profit division of Land O’Lakes, Inc., a national, farmer-owned food and agricultural cooperative with annual sales of approximately $12 billion. Land O’Lakes is a Fortune 250 company which does business in all 50 states and in more than 50 countries.
Land O’Lakes International Development Division (IDD) announces the commencement of Phase Three of the Fallujah Widow’s Dairy Development Program in Iraq. The goal of the multi-phased program, which started in October 2008, is to create a sustainable source of income for dairy farmers in Fallujah, Iraq, by providing a market for their excess milk and enough dairy products to meet consumers’ demand. Phase Three of the program is to build a Modular Milk Collection plant that will provide training and employment opportunities for women, as well as introduce raw and value-added dairy products such as pasteurized milk in bulk, sachets and yogurt in different sized packaging.
“The dairy plant will have the capacity to collect and process 1,000 liters of milk per day,” said Zaheer Baber Land O’Lakes Regional Director for Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Eastern Europe. “The plant will be manufactured in India, assembled in Iraq, and will supply products to local restaurants and other institutions.”
The Fallujah Widow’s Dairy Development Program began Phase One in the fall of 2008. At that time, a report was issued to the United States Marines which outlined the current state of the dairy sector in Fallujah, Saqlawiyah and Ramadi sub-districts of the eastern Anbar Province. It also assessed the feasibility of establishing a dairy processing plant for the Fallujah Women’s Cultural Center (FWCC). In late 2008, the U.S. Marines bought 50 local mixed-breed cows, 44 of which were pregnant, and distributed them to widows and impoverished women throughout the region.
Under Phase Two of the program, which began in February 2009, Land O’Lakes dairy experts provided training in animal husbandry and milk production and collection to the women who received the cows. Improving the care of the cows, the quality and quantity of the milk produced and the collection system has increased the incomes of the women, which has also improved the economic situation of their families.
Phase Three is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2010. Upon successful completion of this phase, the U.S. Marines, Land O'Lakes and the local government will decide whether or not to develop more opportunities like this in other regions.
Prosperity Worldwide, a 501(c)(3) organization closely affiliated with Land O’Lakes IDD, is accepting donations for those who would like to contribute to the purchase of more cows for Iraqi women.
Visit prosperityworldwide.org for more details. For more on this IDD program, visit idd.landolakes.com.
About Land O’Lakes IDD
Land O’Lakes International Development division (www.idd.landolakes.com) has been making a difference in people’s lives and local economies since 1981. Land O’Lakes International Development has participated in more than 170 development projects in 70 nations, serving as an implementing partner in projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, among others. Through public and private partnerships, Land O’Lakes agricultural development promotes agricultural productivity and competitiveness; food processing, product development and quality assurance; enterprise, association and cooperative development; food security and livelihoods; and health and nutrition worldwide. Land O’Lakes International Development is grant-funded, non-profit division of Land O’Lakes, Inc., a national, farmer-owned food and agricultural cooperative with annual sales of approximately $12 billion. Land O’Lakes is a Fortune 250 company which does business in all 50 states and in more than 50 countries.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Mondale and United Way
I was invited to a Community Builders breakfast for United Way. The first week of Oct is United Way week at LOL and they always have some kick-off events prior; one of them being this breakfast meeting with a guest speaker. Last year we had Frank V from Kare 11…this year it was Walter Mondale. It was so awesome! VP Mondale talked about the importance of giving in our community – how the economy has greatly increased the needs and also he did a little political Q&A. Community Builders are people who give a certain amount to UW and are considered leaders at their place of employment. I think it is funny I am in the mix because most people are Directors and above – there are some other manager types but I think I am the only real peon in the room.
Anyway – you know I think giving back through time or money or both is important so I encourage you to give to someone – you may not like United Way but please consider a gift of your time or money to something or someone.
Some local stats:
*Approx. 580k in Metro are living in or at the edge of poverty.
*nearly 435k households use a food shelf
* family of 4 needs 39k for basic needs including a 2br apt – yet half of the open jobs in MN pay 22k
*by 2030 nearly 50% of all elderly households will be one-person households, doubling the number of persons over 65 who live alone.
This statement from the UW brochure says it nicely “When a child succeeds in school, when families are financially stable and when people have good health, the benefits ripple across the entire community”
Anyway – you know I think giving back through time or money or both is important so I encourage you to give to someone – you may not like United Way but please consider a gift of your time or money to something or someone.
Some local stats:
*Approx. 580k in Metro are living in or at the edge of poverty.
*nearly 435k households use a food shelf
* family of 4 needs 39k for basic needs including a 2br apt – yet half of the open jobs in MN pay 22k
*by 2030 nearly 50% of all elderly households will be one-person households, doubling the number of persons over 65 who live alone.
This statement from the UW brochure says it nicely “When a child succeeds in school, when families are financially stable and when people have good health, the benefits ripple across the entire community”
Friday, September 4, 2009
The far right says Obama is bad for our kids
from Salon.com piece by Joan Walsh
One of the greatest things about electing Barack Obama as president, for me, was his appeal to young people, especially disaffected kids of every group, including (OK, maybe especially) young African-Americans. In a country where schools are overcrowded and underfunded (as liberals complain), while many families and communities can't or won't take their kids' education seriously enough (what conservatives and some liberals say), Obama has always been someone who's able to balance both critiques. And he speaks to young people with passion, conviction and humor (plus references to L'il Wayne that John McCain couldn't pull off) about taking responsibility for their own education.
So I was thrilled to hear he was going to deliver a back-to- school speech next week. I like seeing him play that paternal role, Father in Chief, not just for his own daughters, but for all of our children. All of our kids need to be reminded that education is a precious opportunity they must seize, whether they live behind the high gates of a tony private community or in a violence-plagued housing project. After all the fighting of the summer, finally something we can agree about, right?
Wrong. I never imagined the outbreak of right-wing crazy that Obama's gesture would provoke, and this time it's hard not to see racism behind the hysteria. The message is "Obama's coming for our children!" the standard cry against scary boogeymen in every culture. I mean, really, what besides Obama's race could make him so scary to these people? That he's a Marxist socialist fascist Nazi? I'd argue that the only reason those extreme epithets have taken hold goes back to reason No. 1: Our first black president is provoking some outsize and irrational reactions.
Especially since, as has now been well-documented, President George H.W. Bush addressed American students in 1991, and Ronald Reagan did so via C-SPAN in 1988. (Bush talked mainly about the importance of education, while Reagan hailed the benefits of low taxes and the line-item veto.) President George W. Bush appealed to "the children of the country" to back the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, to no public criticism. Admittedly, some Democrats accused his father of playing politics in '91, while Newt Gingrich ardently defended him. (Waiting for Gingrich to defend Obama. Still waiting.)
But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama's planned speech (which school principals are free to ignore if they so choose) to any of the other presidents' statements to students. The Florida Republican Party went into full-tilt crazy against Obama's plan to spread his "socialist ideology," claiming "schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president." State party chairman Jim Greer called Obama the "Pied Piper" -- you remember, the shady guy who lured kids away from home. Since Obama merely plans to tell students to stay in school and work hard -- an early draft of lesson materials that asked them to talk about ways they could help the president was scotched -- Politifact gave the Florida GOP its "Pants on Fire" designation.
But that's not stopping other blowhards of the Pants on Fire Party. Lunatics like Pamela Heller of Newsmax, radio host Brian Fischer and WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh are trying to organize parents to take their kids out of school for the day. Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he's "troubled" by Obama's speech. Crazy Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are raging against "indoctrination" while Townhall's Meredith Jessup is calling it "a massive abuse of government power."
And lest you dismiss these rantings as confined to the lunatic fringe and ratings-crazed talk-show hosts, the backlash has had an effect. First, after school administrators in mostly red states expressed concerns about exposing kids to the speech without knowing what's in it, the president's office said he'd make it available on Monday so they can read it in advance. OK, that's nice of the president, but is anybody else a little rattled that some right-wing bullies appointed the nation's unelected school administrators to vet our president's speech? And even that wasn't enough for administrators in six states: Districts in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia and Texas are telling reporters they won't show Obama's speech to students on Tuesday. (I'd urge parents of kids in those districts to protest by keeping their kids home, except liberals value education too much to do that.)
Where to start to explain this hysteria? Since the height of Sarah Palin's dishonest and divisive campaign last September, I've been alarmed by the unique way in which Obama's opponents paint him as "the other." For the life of me, I can't think of another American politician -- not even Hillary Clinton, although it's close -- who has spurred such visceral, irrational hatred. (Tell me if I've missed anyone in comments.) Sure, John Kerry was "French" and Michael Dukakis was Greek (and looked like a pinhead in that dumb helmet), but only Obama is a Marxist Communist who pals around with terrorists and wants to harm your children.
The hysteria Obama inspires in his far-right foes is primeval, primordial. From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth -- which lets them obsess about his origins in miscegenation -- to the paranoia that he's coming for the children, there's a deep strand of irrational paranoia that can't be anything other than racial. These people don't merely disagree with him, they distrust and dislike him viscerally. He's not merely wrong, he's scary; even terrifying.
I've said this before, to little result, but it's past time for mainstream, responsible Republicans to stand up against this latest irrational attack on the president. I've clashed with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough over the years, and I haven't been a guest on "Morning Joe" for many, many months, but he deserves credit for calling out the people on his side of the aisle for the bile they're spewing. “Seriously, why don’t we want the president of the United States, any president of the United States, delivering the message to kids: work hard, stay in school, succeed,” said Scarborough, adding, “Get your ratings if you want, you’re just screwing your political party.” Scarborough's right, it's turning the GOP into the lunatic fringe, but I think it's also hurting the president, and hurting the country.
One of the greatest things about electing Barack Obama as president, for me, was his appeal to young people, especially disaffected kids of every group, including (OK, maybe especially) young African-Americans. In a country where schools are overcrowded and underfunded (as liberals complain), while many families and communities can't or won't take their kids' education seriously enough (what conservatives and some liberals say), Obama has always been someone who's able to balance both critiques. And he speaks to young people with passion, conviction and humor (plus references to L'il Wayne that John McCain couldn't pull off) about taking responsibility for their own education.
So I was thrilled to hear he was going to deliver a back-to- school speech next week. I like seeing him play that paternal role, Father in Chief, not just for his own daughters, but for all of our children. All of our kids need to be reminded that education is a precious opportunity they must seize, whether they live behind the high gates of a tony private community or in a violence-plagued housing project. After all the fighting of the summer, finally something we can agree about, right?
Wrong. I never imagined the outbreak of right-wing crazy that Obama's gesture would provoke, and this time it's hard not to see racism behind the hysteria. The message is "Obama's coming for our children!" the standard cry against scary boogeymen in every culture. I mean, really, what besides Obama's race could make him so scary to these people? That he's a Marxist socialist fascist Nazi? I'd argue that the only reason those extreme epithets have taken hold goes back to reason No. 1: Our first black president is provoking some outsize and irrational reactions.
Especially since, as has now been well-documented, President George H.W. Bush addressed American students in 1991, and Ronald Reagan did so via C-SPAN in 1988. (Bush talked mainly about the importance of education, while Reagan hailed the benefits of low taxes and the line-item veto.) President George W. Bush appealed to "the children of the country" to back the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, to no public criticism. Admittedly, some Democrats accused his father of playing politics in '91, while Newt Gingrich ardently defended him. (Waiting for Gingrich to defend Obama. Still waiting.)
But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama's planned speech (which school principals are free to ignore if they so choose) to any of the other presidents' statements to students. The Florida Republican Party went into full-tilt crazy against Obama's plan to spread his "socialist ideology," claiming "schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president." State party chairman Jim Greer called Obama the "Pied Piper" -- you remember, the shady guy who lured kids away from home. Since Obama merely plans to tell students to stay in school and work hard -- an early draft of lesson materials that asked them to talk about ways they could help the president was scotched -- Politifact gave the Florida GOP its "Pants on Fire" designation.
But that's not stopping other blowhards of the Pants on Fire Party. Lunatics like Pamela Heller of Newsmax, radio host Brian Fischer and WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh are trying to organize parents to take their kids out of school for the day. Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he's "troubled" by Obama's speech. Crazy Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are raging against "indoctrination" while Townhall's Meredith Jessup is calling it "a massive abuse of government power."
And lest you dismiss these rantings as confined to the lunatic fringe and ratings-crazed talk-show hosts, the backlash has had an effect. First, after school administrators in mostly red states expressed concerns about exposing kids to the speech without knowing what's in it, the president's office said he'd make it available on Monday so they can read it in advance. OK, that's nice of the president, but is anybody else a little rattled that some right-wing bullies appointed the nation's unelected school administrators to vet our president's speech? And even that wasn't enough for administrators in six states: Districts in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia and Texas are telling reporters they won't show Obama's speech to students on Tuesday. (I'd urge parents of kids in those districts to protest by keeping their kids home, except liberals value education too much to do that.)
Where to start to explain this hysteria? Since the height of Sarah Palin's dishonest and divisive campaign last September, I've been alarmed by the unique way in which Obama's opponents paint him as "the other." For the life of me, I can't think of another American politician -- not even Hillary Clinton, although it's close -- who has spurred such visceral, irrational hatred. (Tell me if I've missed anyone in comments.) Sure, John Kerry was "French" and Michael Dukakis was Greek (and looked like a pinhead in that dumb helmet), but only Obama is a Marxist Communist who pals around with terrorists and wants to harm your children.
The hysteria Obama inspires in his far-right foes is primeval, primordial. From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth -- which lets them obsess about his origins in miscegenation -- to the paranoia that he's coming for the children, there's a deep strand of irrational paranoia that can't be anything other than racial. These people don't merely disagree with him, they distrust and dislike him viscerally. He's not merely wrong, he's scary; even terrifying.
I've said this before, to little result, but it's past time for mainstream, responsible Republicans to stand up against this latest irrational attack on the president. I've clashed with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough over the years, and I haven't been a guest on "Morning Joe" for many, many months, but he deserves credit for calling out the people on his side of the aisle for the bile they're spewing. “Seriously, why don’t we want the president of the United States, any president of the United States, delivering the message to kids: work hard, stay in school, succeed,” said Scarborough, adding, “Get your ratings if you want, you’re just screwing your political party.” Scarborough's right, it's turning the GOP into the lunatic fringe, but I think it's also hurting the president, and hurting the country.
yes - more healthcare
Some of the things that makes me so mad about the healthcare debate - it isn’t a debate – it’s Cons lying to scare and intimidate people. It’s Dem’s being too chicken to push for real reform.
There are no death panels – end of life planning make sense – ever heard of a living will? Doctors should get paid to help people figure out what kind of treatment they desire as their life nears and end – especially if they have a terminal condition – and the time to discuss that is before it is needed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090303833.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009090303848
The fact is most Republicans I have heard don’t even care much about the bill if they even know what’s in it – what they care about is defeating it, purely due to partisanship – stomp out Obama at any cost – even at the cost of you and me.
Demint has called health care Obamas Waterloo. His goal is to derail the process no matter what.
DeMint was ranked by National Journal as the most conservative United States Senator in their March, 2007 conservative/liberal rankings,[3] and again in 2008.[4]
At $1.5 Million a Day, Health Sector Lobbying Far Outpaces Oil & GasBy Dan Eggen
But the biggest spenders in Washington were the drugmakers, hospitals and other health-care firms that are fighting to influence reform legislation being pushed by President Obama. The sector as a whole reported spending $133 million on lobbying from April to June, up slightly from its expenditures in the first quarter of the year. More than half the total was spent by the drug industry, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America trade group (PhRMA) and firms such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline.
Many firms have increased their lobbying compared to a year ago, in some cases dramatically, the data show. Pfizer nearly doubled its spending from the second quarter 2008, to $5.6 million, while Blue Cross/Blue Shield, PhRMA, Eli Lilly and others were also up significantly. One North Carolina firm, Talecris Biotherapeutics, increased its quarterly spending from just $20,000 last year to $1.64 million this time.
The health sector calculation does not include most major insurance companies, which have spent $81 million on lobbying so far this year and are counted by CRP as part of the financial sector. That means that added together, the health sector and insurance industry are spending well over $2 million a day on lobbying.
There are no death panels – end of life planning make sense – ever heard of a living will? Doctors should get paid to help people figure out what kind of treatment they desire as their life nears and end – especially if they have a terminal condition – and the time to discuss that is before it is needed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090303833.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009090303848
The fact is most Republicans I have heard don’t even care much about the bill if they even know what’s in it – what they care about is defeating it, purely due to partisanship – stomp out Obama at any cost – even at the cost of you and me.
Demint has called health care Obamas Waterloo. His goal is to derail the process no matter what.
DeMint was ranked by National Journal as the most conservative United States Senator in their March, 2007 conservative/liberal rankings,[3] and again in 2008.[4]
At $1.5 Million a Day, Health Sector Lobbying Far Outpaces Oil & GasBy Dan Eggen
But the biggest spenders in Washington were the drugmakers, hospitals and other health-care firms that are fighting to influence reform legislation being pushed by President Obama. The sector as a whole reported spending $133 million on lobbying from April to June, up slightly from its expenditures in the first quarter of the year. More than half the total was spent by the drug industry, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America trade group (PhRMA) and firms such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline.
Many firms have increased their lobbying compared to a year ago, in some cases dramatically, the data show. Pfizer nearly doubled its spending from the second quarter 2008, to $5.6 million, while Blue Cross/Blue Shield, PhRMA, Eli Lilly and others were also up significantly. One North Carolina firm, Talecris Biotherapeutics, increased its quarterly spending from just $20,000 last year to $1.64 million this time.
The health sector calculation does not include most major insurance companies, which have spent $81 million on lobbying so far this year and are counted by CRP as part of the financial sector. That means that added together, the health sector and insurance industry are spending well over $2 million a day on lobbying.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
8 Great things about reform
* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Friday, July 24, 2009
saintstweetup
Me and da boys had a great time at Sainte game. Joey, Adam and Niner put on a good spread b4 the game. Lisa had some great jalapeno and artichoke dip from Costco too! YUM. At the game was me - Joey - Steve and Scott - we sat by a bunch of teens from Columbia in town for soccer - we had a blast with them and the Saints won by like 10 - a good time was had by all.
more poli
Friday, Jul. 24, 2009
Inside Bush and Cheney's Final Days
By Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1912297,00.html
Palin Favorability Rating Dips As She Nears Exit, Poll Finds – granted it is a poll, but it does have some interesting comments and stats in the article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303799.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Inside Bush and Cheney's Final Days
By Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1912297,00.html
Palin Favorability Rating Dips As She Nears Exit, Poll Finds – granted it is a poll, but it does have some interesting comments and stats in the article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303799.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Thursday, July 23, 2009
link with lots of articles
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
tidbits 3
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/07/16/10245/mary_brainerd_the_ultimate_aim_better_health_and_more_accessible_affordable_health_care
health tidbits 2
You don't want universal health care?
By Michael Goldfarb
LONDON — In America, the health care debate is about to come to a boil. President Barack Obama has put pressure on both houses of Congress to pass versions of his flagship domestic legislative program prior to their August recess.
Good luck.
Opponents are filling the airwaves with the usual litany of lies, damned lies and statistics about socialized medicine and the twin nightmare of bureaucratically rationed health care and high taxes amongst allies like Britain, France and Germany.
So here is a brief overview of health care in some of Europe's biggest economies:
Britain's National Health Service is paid for out of a social security tax. Services are free at the point of provision. No co-pay, no reimbursement. The budget last year was 90 billion pounds (about $148 billion). That makes the average cost per person about 1,500 pounds ($2,463).
The NHS is big — huge, in fact. With 1.5 million employees it is one of the largest employers in the world. Only China's People's Liberation Army, India's state railways and good old Wal-Mart employ more folks. Sixty percent of the NHS budget goes toward salaries.
The French system is run on a compulsory purchase of insurance through the workplace. The insurance cost is based on how much a worker earns. Low-income workers pay nothing. The average contribution per person is about $4,000. The government sets fees for services and negotiates the price of drugs with pharmaceutical companies.
Service is not free at the point of provision. But reimbursement for costs is swift and in the case of catastrophic illness all fees are waived. People are free to purchase supplementary insurance from private companies.
With a compulsory insurance plan, as in France, German care is universal and equitable. Germans pay approximately 14.3 percent of their earnings to buy this insurance. As in France, people are free to buy supplementary private health insurance.
Each system is unique (as are all the systems around Europe) but they have two things in common that make them different from the United States: Coverage is universal and the cost of care as a percentage of GDP is significantly less.
For Europeans — even those who would label themselves conservatives — American attitudes to setting up a universal health care system with strong state participation and management seem bizarre. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that in an emergency you will be taken care of and you won't be financially ruined has no price. Why resist it?
Beccy Ashton, policy adviser at health care think tank The King's Fund, worked for more than half a decade in the U.S. She explains the difference this way: "In Europe health care is regarded as a human right. In America, people think of it as a commodity that you buy."
If you look at how the Big Three's health systems came into being, you realize changing American attitudes may be difficult.
Britain and France created their systems out of the rubble of World War II. Pushed from below, the leaders of both nations sought to bring greater social equality to their societies. Social security systems were set up with equal access to health care given pride of place.
This wasn't done without facing down doctors and insurance companies, but politicians are never so bold as when the public will for something is clear. In 1945 in both Britain and France, there was no going back to the status quo before the war started.
Germany's system has the weight of history behind it. Its origins can be traced back to the first era of German unification when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the First Reich. In the 1880s he set up a system of compulsory health insurance by workers and employers and other forms of social security. He did not invent the system out of nothing. There had been a tradition among the German guilds going back to the Middle Ages of members making compulsory contributions to help their brothers in old age or if a colleague had to stop working because of injury.
Clearly, America at this moment in time has not recently experienced an epoch-shattering historical event like a World War and despite Obama's comparative popularity, he doesn't have the clout of an Iron Chancellor to simply decree what he wants and know that Congress will rubber stamp it.
Beccy Ashton points out, "The president must be aware of the fine line he has to walk. If he goes forward with a radical agenda, he knows you've lost before you've started."
So people in Europe continue to watch with bemusement as American legislators grapple with reforming a system that basically needs to be junked. Professionals like Ashton answer calls from reporters and try to refute right-wing misinformation that floats around the debate. Those damned lies and statistics.
The only statistics on health care systems that really matter are life expectancy and infant mortality. Both speak to accessability and affordability. If you want to know how the United States, the wealthiest nation on earth, stacks up, here you go:
In life expectancy, the United States ranks 38th or 45th depending on whether one uses the United Nation's statistics or those compiled by the CIA. (In both cases, life expectancy in Cuba is higher!)
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has many more infant deaths than its EU counterparts or its neighbor, Canada. While the United States has 6.26 deaths per live births, Canada had 5.04.
Britain, France and Germany? 4.85, 3.33 and 3.99, respectively
http://www.minnpost.com/globalpost/2009/07/22/10398/you_dont_want_universal_health_care
By Michael Goldfarb
LONDON — In America, the health care debate is about to come to a boil. President Barack Obama has put pressure on both houses of Congress to pass versions of his flagship domestic legislative program prior to their August recess.
Good luck.
Opponents are filling the airwaves with the usual litany of lies, damned lies and statistics about socialized medicine and the twin nightmare of bureaucratically rationed health care and high taxes amongst allies like Britain, France and Germany.
So here is a brief overview of health care in some of Europe's biggest economies:
Britain's National Health Service is paid for out of a social security tax. Services are free at the point of provision. No co-pay, no reimbursement. The budget last year was 90 billion pounds (about $148 billion). That makes the average cost per person about 1,500 pounds ($2,463).
The NHS is big — huge, in fact. With 1.5 million employees it is one of the largest employers in the world. Only China's People's Liberation Army, India's state railways and good old Wal-Mart employ more folks. Sixty percent of the NHS budget goes toward salaries.
The French system is run on a compulsory purchase of insurance through the workplace. The insurance cost is based on how much a worker earns. Low-income workers pay nothing. The average contribution per person is about $4,000. The government sets fees for services and negotiates the price of drugs with pharmaceutical companies.
Service is not free at the point of provision. But reimbursement for costs is swift and in the case of catastrophic illness all fees are waived. People are free to purchase supplementary insurance from private companies.
With a compulsory insurance plan, as in France, German care is universal and equitable. Germans pay approximately 14.3 percent of their earnings to buy this insurance. As in France, people are free to buy supplementary private health insurance.
Each system is unique (as are all the systems around Europe) but they have two things in common that make them different from the United States: Coverage is universal and the cost of care as a percentage of GDP is significantly less.
For Europeans — even those who would label themselves conservatives — American attitudes to setting up a universal health care system with strong state participation and management seem bizarre. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that in an emergency you will be taken care of and you won't be financially ruined has no price. Why resist it?
Beccy Ashton, policy adviser at health care think tank The King's Fund, worked for more than half a decade in the U.S. She explains the difference this way: "In Europe health care is regarded as a human right. In America, people think of it as a commodity that you buy."
If you look at how the Big Three's health systems came into being, you realize changing American attitudes may be difficult.
Britain and France created their systems out of the rubble of World War II. Pushed from below, the leaders of both nations sought to bring greater social equality to their societies. Social security systems were set up with equal access to health care given pride of place.
This wasn't done without facing down doctors and insurance companies, but politicians are never so bold as when the public will for something is clear. In 1945 in both Britain and France, there was no going back to the status quo before the war started.
Germany's system has the weight of history behind it. Its origins can be traced back to the first era of German unification when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the First Reich. In the 1880s he set up a system of compulsory health insurance by workers and employers and other forms of social security. He did not invent the system out of nothing. There had been a tradition among the German guilds going back to the Middle Ages of members making compulsory contributions to help their brothers in old age or if a colleague had to stop working because of injury.
Clearly, America at this moment in time has not recently experienced an epoch-shattering historical event like a World War and despite Obama's comparative popularity, he doesn't have the clout of an Iron Chancellor to simply decree what he wants and know that Congress will rubber stamp it.
Beccy Ashton points out, "The president must be aware of the fine line he has to walk. If he goes forward with a radical agenda, he knows you've lost before you've started."
So people in Europe continue to watch with bemusement as American legislators grapple with reforming a system that basically needs to be junked. Professionals like Ashton answer calls from reporters and try to refute right-wing misinformation that floats around the debate. Those damned lies and statistics.
The only statistics on health care systems that really matter are life expectancy and infant mortality. Both speak to accessability and affordability. If you want to know how the United States, the wealthiest nation on earth, stacks up, here you go:
In life expectancy, the United States ranks 38th or 45th depending on whether one uses the United Nation's statistics or those compiled by the CIA. (In both cases, life expectancy in Cuba is higher!)
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has many more infant deaths than its EU counterparts or its neighbor, Canada. While the United States has 6.26 deaths per live births, Canada had 5.04.
Britain, France and Germany? 4.85, 3.33 and 3.99, respectively
http://www.minnpost.com/globalpost/2009/07/22/10398/you_dont_want_universal_health_care
healthcare tidbits 1
U.S. PIRG offers 'human snapshot' of small businesses' health-insurance dilemma
By Casey Selix | Tuesday, July 21, 2009
When Tracy Singleton opened the Birchwood Café 14 years ago, she was able to offer health insurance to all full-time and part-time employees. Today, she can only afford to offer coverage to full-time workers at the organic eatery.
"Every year, the costs kept going up, going up, going up — double digits like 22 percent; 26 percent was the highest," Singleton said today at a press conference in front of her café in Minneapolis' Seward neighborhood. "What that means is that every year you have to spend a whole lot of time shopping around to find the most-affordable health care plan for my employees. And what that means is that I'm trying to mitigate the cost to them because I can only pay 50 percent. … To mitigate the cost to them means we have to lower the actual plan they're getting. So, they're getting these high-deductible plans with not very much benefit."
Singleton was among more than 300 small-business owners across the nation to participate in a report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The press conference announced findings in "The Small Business Dilemma: How Rising Health Care Costs are Tough on Small Business."
Effects of rising costs
Sure, 300-something is a small sampling, said John Stewart of U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. "Our goal wasn't to provide some scientific poll but to get a real human snapshot of what rising costs mean for small businesses."
Among the findings [full report here (PDF)]:
• 78 percent of the small businesses that do not offer coverage would like to do so, but 80 percent cite costs as the barrier.
• 55 percent of small businesses that offer coverage "do so to attract and retain good employees."
• 27 percent of those offering coverage do so "to increase worker productivity."
Despite reports of health-care industry lobbyists spending $1.4 million a day during the reform debate on Capitol Hill, most of the small businesses in this report think their voices aren't represented.
"The current voices that claim to speak for small businesses — big Washington lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business — just aren't getting the job done," Stewart said. "Only 24 percent of small-business owners felt that their interests were represented in the current health reform debate."
Others speakers at the press conference were state Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, and state Rep. David Bly, DFL-Northfield, co-authors of legislation to create the MN Health Plan. The bill, which seeks a single-payer system to cover all Minnesotans, has 30 co-authors in the Senate and 40 in the House, but hasn't made its way to the floor of either chamber yet.
"Simply put, it covers everyone and covers everything — cradle to grave," said Marty, who is running for governor in 2010. "When I say it covers everyone, that doesn't mean 94 percent [of people will be covered] like what's being talked about in Washington right now, but 100 percent. And it covers everything, including prescription drugs, including dental care, including chemical dependency and mental health."
Struggling to get insurance
Though Marty said he knows the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce will never endorse his plan, he hears a different story from at least one outstate chamber. "An executive I talked to at the Grand Rapids chamber said he thinks a lot of their members would be very supportive of this (MN Health Plan) because while the state association represents insurance companies, the members are people who are struggling to get insurance. … So, I think a lot of members of chambers are to the point now where they desperately need some way to take care of their employees."
"Many small-business people are spending lots of money on health care that doesn't bring them anything," Bly said. "They put a lot of money into trying to keep insurance and increases keep going up and up and up, and yet they're not buying any real health care."
Papa John Kolstad, a musician and owner of Mill City Music who has run for public office on a single-payer platform, told the small assembly that Minnesota could see job creation if the Marty-Bly bill were passed.
"This would be the biggest magnet to Minnesota for jobs to be created," said Kolstad, a member of Metro Independent Business Alliance. "It would draw businesses from all over the country ... that would take the Minnesota economy back to the Minnesota miracle again. This is proven by many studies; it's not just an idle assertion. So, if they can't do it for the right reasons, which would be the humanitarian reasons, they should do it for the business reasons."
Casey Selix, a news editor and staff writer for MinnPost, can be reached at cselix[at]minnpost.com.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/07/21/10391/us_pirg_offers_human_snapshot_of_small_businesses_health-insurance_dilemma
By Casey Selix | Tuesday, July 21, 2009
When Tracy Singleton opened the Birchwood Café 14 years ago, she was able to offer health insurance to all full-time and part-time employees. Today, she can only afford to offer coverage to full-time workers at the organic eatery.
"Every year, the costs kept going up, going up, going up — double digits like 22 percent; 26 percent was the highest," Singleton said today at a press conference in front of her café in Minneapolis' Seward neighborhood. "What that means is that every year you have to spend a whole lot of time shopping around to find the most-affordable health care plan for my employees. And what that means is that I'm trying to mitigate the cost to them because I can only pay 50 percent. … To mitigate the cost to them means we have to lower the actual plan they're getting. So, they're getting these high-deductible plans with not very much benefit."
Singleton was among more than 300 small-business owners across the nation to participate in a report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The press conference announced findings in "The Small Business Dilemma: How Rising Health Care Costs are Tough on Small Business."
Effects of rising costs
Sure, 300-something is a small sampling, said John Stewart of U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. "Our goal wasn't to provide some scientific poll but to get a real human snapshot of what rising costs mean for small businesses."
Among the findings [full report here (PDF)]:
• 78 percent of the small businesses that do not offer coverage would like to do so, but 80 percent cite costs as the barrier.
• 55 percent of small businesses that offer coverage "do so to attract and retain good employees."
• 27 percent of those offering coverage do so "to increase worker productivity."
Despite reports of health-care industry lobbyists spending $1.4 million a day during the reform debate on Capitol Hill, most of the small businesses in this report think their voices aren't represented.
"The current voices that claim to speak for small businesses — big Washington lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business — just aren't getting the job done," Stewart said. "Only 24 percent of small-business owners felt that their interests were represented in the current health reform debate."
Others speakers at the press conference were state Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, and state Rep. David Bly, DFL-Northfield, co-authors of legislation to create the MN Health Plan. The bill, which seeks a single-payer system to cover all Minnesotans, has 30 co-authors in the Senate and 40 in the House, but hasn't made its way to the floor of either chamber yet.
"Simply put, it covers everyone and covers everything — cradle to grave," said Marty, who is running for governor in 2010. "When I say it covers everyone, that doesn't mean 94 percent [of people will be covered] like what's being talked about in Washington right now, but 100 percent. And it covers everything, including prescription drugs, including dental care, including chemical dependency and mental health."
Struggling to get insurance
Though Marty said he knows the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce will never endorse his plan, he hears a different story from at least one outstate chamber. "An executive I talked to at the Grand Rapids chamber said he thinks a lot of their members would be very supportive of this (MN Health Plan) because while the state association represents insurance companies, the members are people who are struggling to get insurance. … So, I think a lot of members of chambers are to the point now where they desperately need some way to take care of their employees."
"Many small-business people are spending lots of money on health care that doesn't bring them anything," Bly said. "They put a lot of money into trying to keep insurance and increases keep going up and up and up, and yet they're not buying any real health care."
Papa John Kolstad, a musician and owner of Mill City Music who has run for public office on a single-payer platform, told the small assembly that Minnesota could see job creation if the Marty-Bly bill were passed.
"This would be the biggest magnet to Minnesota for jobs to be created," said Kolstad, a member of Metro Independent Business Alliance. "It would draw businesses from all over the country ... that would take the Minnesota economy back to the Minnesota miracle again. This is proven by many studies; it's not just an idle assertion. So, if they can't do it for the right reasons, which would be the humanitarian reasons, they should do it for the business reasons."
Casey Selix, a news editor and staff writer for MinnPost, can be reached at cselix[at]minnpost.com.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/07/21/10391/us_pirg_offers_human_snapshot_of_small_businesses_health-insurance_dilemma
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
insurance
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-tue-problem-insurance-0721jul21,0,5666288.column?page=1
patient gets surgery pre-authorized and insurance still denies payment – says pre-auth doesn’t guarantee payment! WTF!!! They went to the newspaper and suddenly insurance was willing to pay.
SPIN
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072101677.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
you must be insured
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/21/ST2009072103763.html?sid=ST2009072103763
This healthcare stuff is so irritating – it needs major overhaul but I don’t even think this admin is getting it right – not to my ideas anyway. I am so sick of all the con crap being put out by insurance companies – sick of Dems that take money from insurance whiel on the very committees working on reform. Conflicts????? Insurance company profits need to be removed from the equation.
Decisions in healthcare are made every day based on money and profits, not the health of people - so don’t tell me socialized medicine would be worse. I don’t decide my care or drugs and neither does my doctor – the insurance companies do….and they base it on how much money they can make.
For every person from another country (found by insurance companies or cons) that says gov’t healthcare sucks - I can find you one that loves it. I talked with 2 Canadians who were cutting their vacation a little short to go home for a health issue – they had some care here to stabilize and didn’t even have to pay for that.
Watch Michael Moores movie - you don't have to like him and yes he has an agenda but there is info and examples there that people should see.
patient gets surgery pre-authorized and insurance still denies payment – says pre-auth doesn’t guarantee payment! WTF!!! They went to the newspaper and suddenly insurance was willing to pay.
SPIN
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072101677.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
you must be insured
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/21/ST2009072103763.html?sid=ST2009072103763
This healthcare stuff is so irritating – it needs major overhaul but I don’t even think this admin is getting it right – not to my ideas anyway. I am so sick of all the con crap being put out by insurance companies – sick of Dems that take money from insurance whiel on the very committees working on reform. Conflicts????? Insurance company profits need to be removed from the equation.
Decisions in healthcare are made every day based on money and profits, not the health of people - so don’t tell me socialized medicine would be worse. I don’t decide my care or drugs and neither does my doctor – the insurance companies do….and they base it on how much money they can make.
For every person from another country (found by insurance companies or cons) that says gov’t healthcare sucks - I can find you one that loves it. I talked with 2 Canadians who were cutting their vacation a little short to go home for a health issue – they had some care here to stabilize and didn’t even have to pay for that.
Watch Michael Moores movie - you don't have to like him and yes he has an agenda but there is info and examples there that people should see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
