Being indebted the new way of controlling the people?

I was reading an article at The Atlantic, titled the Student loans are the New Indentured Servitude, and it made me think back to the movie Sick-o in which Michael Moore is interviewing a lord who is retired from the house of lords in which he says to some effect, that the best way to keep people under control is to keep them in debt. It seems that it is the same reason that a lot of women stay in abusive relationships, they don’t have economic freedom to make decisions.

So that bring me to my thoughts on this article.

How many Medical Bankruptcies in the land of the swiss?

This wee bit of information is really good, it fits with the theme during this time of year, a little scary! Watch both videos…

http://consumerist.com/5390189/al-franken-how-many-medical-bankruptcies-are-there-in-switzerland

 

Lions, tigers and Unintended consequences, oh my! Still needs some work.

 

-X

Astroturfing

These five companies participate in the movement to setup up “grassroots” groups through their million dollar donations. Sounds like a shadow banking operation. The consumerist.org has a great bit on this here.

Source: http://www.freepress.net/astroturf

Processed food: a silent assassin?

 

By Sophie Clayton

Processed food has long been identified as the villain in our diets. The quick and easy alternative to slogging over a hot stove messing about with 'fresh' ingredients. When you're home late from the office, or the kids are screaming and need their face-holes filled ASAP, it is all to easy to reach for the tin of hot dogs at the back of the cupboard, or even cram the whole family in the car and drive to the nearest Wendy's or Maccy's.

Despite the nation's love (or perhaps lust) affair with processed food, we are all aware of the 'dangers' that accompany it. But can processed food really be considered a 'silent assassin'?

Processed food can be defined as food that has been altered from its natural state in order to increase shelf-life, for example. The methods used include canning, freezing, refrigeration, dehydration and aseptic processing. Whereas some processed food such as frozen vegetables and milk can be considered 'safe' or even healthy processed food, the processing methods can create some pretty unhealthy stuff. It is argued, among the anti-processed food mob, that foods such as canned food (containing lots of sodium), high-calorie snacks (like fries and cheese-based snacks) and sugary breakfast cereal can contribute to high-blood pressure and heart disease.

Processed meats are among the worst of these food sorts, and eating them can apparently increase your chances of colo-rectal, kidney and stomach cancer. Meats found in fast food burgers and hot dogs tend to be the most highly processed of all foods. According to Steven Gortmaker, professor of society, human development, and health at the Harvard School of Public Health, data from 2005 shows that every day, seven percent of the US population visits a McDonald's, and 20-25 percent eat fast food of some kind.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) processed foods are to blame for the sharp increase in obesity cases (and chronic disease) seen in the US and across the globe. Also, according to associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard David Ludwig, processed food is also responsible for the increase in diabetes among Americans.

It is without doubt that processed food, when eaten to excess, is harmful and may even contribute to things like heart disease. And it is also true that fast food restaurants are a huge contributor to the nation's, and indeed the world's, processed food in take. However, this is when consumed in excess. If people are irresponsible enough to eat a hot dog three times a day, or go to the drive-through every time they're peckish, then of course they will cause grave damage to their health. However, food alone cannot be an 'assassin'. Far too many people could be accused of 'self-assassination', as they refuse to consume processed stuffs in moderation.

Judge Overturns Bank Of America-SEC Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses

 

STEPHEN BERNARD | 09/14/09 07:11 PM |

FILE - In this Jan. 22, 2008 file photo, a Bank of America logo is shown in Concord, N.C. A federal judge on Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, rejected a $33 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bank of America Corp. over bonuses paid by Merrill Lynch.(AP Photo/Chuck Burton, file)

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Monday rejected a $33 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bank of America Corp., saying the SEC's accusations of inadequate disclosure by the bank over bonuses paid at Merrill Lynch must now go to trial.

Separately, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office is preparing to file charges within the next couple of weeks against several high-ranking executives at Bank of America, claiming they failed to disclose details about the bank's acquisition of Merrill Lynch, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

The ruling in the SEC case comes one month after the agency and Bank of America thought they had put a thorny issue behind them, and leaves the SEC with the task of mounting a case against BofA over one of the most sensitive issues of the financial crisis – executive pay on Wall Street.

The SEC announced last month that it had settled its civil charges against BofA, which agreed to buy the New York investment bank last year, without the bank admitting or denying guilt in the case. BofA has said it didn't violate disclosure rules.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff held up his approval of the settlement, however, and ordered the SEC last month to explain why it didn't pursue charges against specific executives at Bank of America over the accusations.

Rakoff, in his ruling, found that the settlement "suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the SEC gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger, the bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth."

Cuomo's office is likely to file civil charges against the executives over their role in failing to alert shareholders to mounting losses and accelerated bonus payments at Merrill, said the person, who requested anonymity because no charges have been filed yet.

The AG's office has also questioned whether Bank of America failed to tell shareholders about its consideration of backing out of the deal and mounting write-downs at one of Merrill's mortgage lending subsidiaries.

Story continues below

Both the attorney general's office and Rakoff have questioned whether the bank knowingly hid details about the acquisition from shareholders ahead of a vote to approve the deal.

After receiving additional statements from the SEC and BofA last week, Rakoff ruled Monday that the proposed settlement "cannot remotely be called fair," and ordered that the case go to trial beginning Feb. 1.

"We disagree with today's ruling," Bank of America said in a statement, adding that the bank would consider its legal options in the coming days. The SEC said in a statement the agency believes the proposed settlement "properly balanced all of the relevant considerations."

Bank of America agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch in a hurried deal exactly one year ago today at the height of the financial crisis, just as Lehman Brothers was preparing to file for bankruptcy. It was later revealed that Merrill, with the knowledge of Bank of America executives, paid Merrill employees $3.6 billion in bonuses just before the deal closed on Jan. 1.

Merrill wound up paying the bonuses for 2008 despite losing $27.6 billion that year, a record for the firm. Those losses affected the bottom line at Bank of America, one of the largest recipients of U.S. government bailout funds.

In seeking approval to buy Merrill Lynch, Bank of America told investors that Merrill would not pay year-end bonuses without Bank of America's consent. But in its complaint filed Aug. 3 in federal court in Manhattan, the SEC said BofA had already authorized Merrill to pay up to $5.8 billion in bonuses and didn't share that information with shareholders. That rendered a statement Bank of America mailed to shareholders of both companies "materially false and misleading," the SEC said.

"BofA is in serious, serious trouble now," said Anthony Sabino, professor of law and business at St. John's University in New York, saying the bank is at war on two fronts. "One, Judge Rakoff, by refusing to countenance the settlement, is forcing the SEC to go back and demand more details and more money. The other battleground is with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo."

Rakoff's move was unprecedented. While judges have on occasion sent back proposed settlements to the SEC, ordering them to be renegotiated, experts said, throwing an accord out entirely breaks legal ground.

"I've never seen this," said James Cox, a Duke University law professor and securities law expert. "To me, it's long overdue," he added, saying that the SEC and the Justice Department have tended to accept settlements from companies "without drilling down to find out who the culpable parties were."

Bank of America, among the banks hardest hit by loan losses and the recession, received $45 billion, including $20 billion in January, and guarantees to protect it against losses on hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to help it absorb mounting losses at Merrill.

BofA's stock has underperformed the market since it announced the deal to acquire Merrill. It has lost about half its value during the past year.

The SEC could seek to renegotiate the deal with Bank of America, though it may be difficult to find revised terms that would satisfy Rakoff if bank executives weren't individually charged.

The imminent move by Cuomo against executives intensifies the pressure on the bank.

"It's truly a come-to-Jesus moment for Bank of America and its relationship with its various officers," Duke's Cox said. "They need to hang up a scalp or two."

__

AP Business Writers Ieva M. Augstums in Charlotte, N.C., Marcy Gordon in Washington and Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/judge-overturns-bank-of-a_n_285947.html

How much is your time worth?

By Sarah Dobbs |19 August 2009 |Categories: Wired Blog, Culture

You probably know your hourly rate at work, but what about the rest of your time, the time spent not doing work: shopping, queueing, waiting on the phone, eating lunch, watching TV, drinking in the pub? Paul McCrudden decided his every minute was worth money, and set out to reclaim it from every company he spent time with over a six-week period this summer.
Between June 15 and July 31, McCrudden used Daytum to record how he spent his time. Then he wrote letters and invoices to all the brands he’d encountered, arguing that they should pay him because his patronage is valuable to them:

“My time on this planet is valuable to me. But more importantly, my time is valuable to you. In our attention economy, my presence in your café helps your company in a number of ways. For example, it attracts other customers to you because they see that your brand is popular – especially so with an ABC1 male (or however you’d define me these days.) And it means I’m not spending time with your competitors. My attention and time in your café ultimately helps your bottom line and market position.”

McCrudden charged his time at a rate of £102 per hour, but offered companies a 75 per cent discount on that rate (“as I appreciate that my time is not spent in the same way as it is with my employer”). He invoiced 50 companies, asking Transport for London for £531.25, Sainsbury’s for £97.95 and the Killers for £178.50, for his attendance at their Hyde Park Concert.
Amazingly, Pret A Manger responded by not only paying his invoice, but also adding £22 to cover the price of his lunches, a nominal amount to cover interest, and even an extra £1 to cover the inconvenience of having to walk to the post box. Other companies to respond include Boots, whose customer care department said they thought their Advantage Card points were enough of a reward for their customers’ time, and Cranberry, whose managing director sent McCrudden an invoice of his own to cover the time spent reading his letter and website.
You can read more about this experiment at McCrudden’s website. In total, McCrudden is seeking £6,250 to cover his wasted time, though it doesn’t seem likely he’ll actually receive anywhere near that much.
(P.S. It’s taken me about an hour to read his site and write this blog post. Should I send McCrudden a bill for my time? But then he might send me an invoice for the time taken to read my email and process my invoice, and the cycle of madness would never end. Er, Paul, you can consider this a freebie.)

Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-08/19/how-much-is-your-time-worth.aspx

A Healthy Debate about Healthcare.. it can be done

OMG, a discussion about healthcare that didn’t devolve into a screaming match. I am really impressed with Mr. Franken on this one and he really deserves some kudos as does his audience. It was on the verge of turning into a circus. There must be something in the water in MN.

Why can’t discussions like this be the norm? Why does it have to be a shout down at all the town halls? This should be held up as an example to what can be done. Sadly, no news channel is carrying this story yet. If they finally get around to carrying it, it’ll be a blurb at the bottom of the hour, right before they continue talking about Michael Jackson or Chris Brown.

While coverage of the health care reform debate has focused on yelling, booing and fistfights, not all engagements between lawmakers and constituents turn hostile. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) discussed his beliefs and goals about health care reform at the Minnesota State Fair Wednesday with a group of constituents, and calmed down some who were upset, giving clear, honest answers to thought-out, sincere questions. "I thank you for your passion," he says to a vocal member of the crowd, "we need that, and we need to have these conversations." And then, remarkably, she calms down, and everyone discusses the matter in a reasonable and cool-headed manner. "We all want reform, the question is how do we do it," Franken said. A mixed bag of opponents and supporters gathered around as the senator explained his perspective, how he will vote, and how he believes the legislation will benefit the people of Minnesota and the nation.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/franken-calms-down-health_n_277687.html

The title of this video is a bit grandiose… can’t have it all. Though I have to wonder who the guy holding the camera is… the circumstances seem a little staged. Probably about as staged as all the other town hall meetings have been. Actually, thinking about it, it’s pretty clever on Mr. Franken’s part. An impromptu town hall meeting. Guerilla Town Hall Meetings…

Intelligent Video About Healthcare

This video shows the result of people being scared out of they’re wits. Through a very effective fear mongering and misinformation campaign. I’m saddened at how much this “debate” has devolved. It has devolved into something completely unrecognizable from what it was just a month ago. I pray that the President does not do away with the public option. The fact that the insurance industry is scared shitless of this, tells me that it has the potential to make a difference , and probably for the good.

Sure the British or Canadian setup may not be the systems we want to emulate, due to the fact that they have to wait a long time for doctors and specialized surgeries. Those are not the only system(s) in the world; we have a multitude from a variety, French, Swiss, Norwegian, Japanese, and German all have public health care. We have the luxury of cherry picking what has worked and what has not and tweaking it to work for our society.

Can there be any room for a centrist at a health care reform town hall meeting

This is a thought that has just popped into my head, the death panel argument really holds no water. Because the insurance companies don’t want any competition in that area, except that the industry calls them underwriters. Think about it for a moment.

Take a look at this wikipedia article, it has some interesting links at the bottom of the page. Yea it's wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:

Publicly-funded health care

Barney Frank Calls out Healthcare Ding-Dongs

Here is Barney Frank calling out a right-wing ding-dong and it's great... this is what all politicians should do..

The people in the town hall sound like talking head pundits. I don't always agree with Mr. Frank, but it's nice to see a politician having a back bone and standing up for the facts.

 

Loyalty to a Company

I was reading a Question of the day on Tom's Hardware, and I thought this was a brilliant way to define my loyalty to a particular brand or company:

I'm as loyal to them as they are to me. Which explained happily by their PR dept in a press release carefully worded by a team of lawyers and summed up by me. " As a non stockholder, any perceived notion that we owe you anything by being our customer/fan/stockholder/employee/enthusiasts/etc is nil, despite our ads/claims which we consider to be more of a artistic form of expression rather than a statement of fact. Please vacate the premises immediately, stragglers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Thank you, and we look forward to doing business with you again. "

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-hardware-news-reviews,7320.html