EFTA00958747.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 04/14/2013 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:08:10 +0000 DEAR FRIEND Whether you loved her or loathe her or had no opinion of her at all, one thing beyond dispute is that Margaret Thatcher transformed Britain. Margaret Thatcher ruled the United Kingdom for 11 remarkable years, imposing her will on a fractious, rundown nation -- breaking the unions, triumphing in a far-off war, and selling off state industries at a record pace. Without a doubt she left behind a leaner government and more prosperous nation by the time a mutiny ousted her from No. 10 Downing Street. Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 — 8 April 2013) was a British politician who was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and the Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. She was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the loth century and is the only woman to have held the office. A Soviet journalist called her the "Iron Lady", a nickname that became associated as a grudging testament to her ferocious will, determination, uncompromising politics and leadership style. She was underestimated at first -- by her own party, by the media, later by foreign adversaries, but they all soon learned to respect her. As Prime Minister, she implemented policies that have come to be known as Thatcherism. Originally a research chemist before becoming a barrister, Thatcher was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Finchley in 1959. Edward Heath appointed her Secretary of State for Education and Science in his 1970 government. In 1975 Thatcher defeated Heath in the Conservative Party leadership election to become Leader of the Opposition and became the first woman to lead a major political party in the United Kingdom. She became Prime Minister after winning the 1979 general election. After moving into 10 Downing Street, Thatcher introduced a series of political and economic initiatives to reverse what she perceived to be Britain's precipitous national decline. Her political philosophy and economic policies emphasized deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labor markets, the privatization of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions. Thatcher's popularity during her first years in office waned amid recession and high unemployment, until economic recovery and the 1982 the relatively quick triumph of British forces in the Falklands War brought a resurgence of support, resulting in her re-election in 1983, tripling her majority in the House of Commons. She is perhaps best remembered for her hard-line position during the pivotal strike in 1984 and 1985 when she faced down coal miners in an ultimately successful bid to break the power of Britain's unions after a 51 week strike — with the miners returning to work with no concessions. It was a reshaping of the British economic and political landscape that endures to this day. It is for this that she is revered by free-market conservatives, who say the restructuring of the economy led to a boom that made London the rival of New York as a global financial centre. The left demonized her as an implacably hostile union buster, with stone-cold indifference to the poor. But her economic philosophy eventually crossed party lines: Tony Blair led a revamped Labour Party to victory by adopting some of her ideas. Thatcher was re-elected for a third term in 1987, but her Community Charge (popularly referred to as "poll tax") was widely unpopular and her views on the European Community were not shared by others in her Cabinet. She resigned as Prime Minister and party leader in November 1990, after Michael EFTA00958747 Heseltine launched a challenge to her leadership. After retiring from the Commons in 1992, she was given a life peerage as Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire, which entitled her to sit in the House of Lords. For admirers, Thatcher was a saviour who rescued Britain from ruin and laid the groundwork for an extraordinary economic renaissance. For critics, she was a heartless tyrant who ushered in an era of greed that kicked the weak out onto the streets and let the rich become filthy rich. "Let us not kid ourselves, she was a very divisivefigure," said Bernard Ingham, Thatcher's press secretary for her entire term. "She was a real toughie. She was a patriot with a great lovefor this country, and she raised the standing of Britain abroad." As the first — and still only -- female prime minister in Britain's history Thatcher often found feminists tiresome and was not above using her handbag as a prop to underline her swagger and power. A grocer's daughter, she rose to the top of Britain's snobbish hierarchy the hard way, and envisioned a classless society that rewarded hard work and determination. She formed a deep attachment to Ronald Reagan, whom she called "Ronnie" -- some spoke of it as a schoolgirl crush. Still, she would not back down when she disagreed with him on important matters, even though the United States was the richer and vastly stronger partner in the so-called "special relationship." Like Reagan, Thatcher seemed motivated by an unshakable belief that free markets would build a better country than reliance on a strong, central government. Another thing she shared with the American president: a tendency to reduce problems to their basics, choose a path, and follow it to the end, no matter what the opposition. She was at her brashest when Britain was challenged. When Argentina's military junta seized the remote Falklands Islands from Britain in 1982, she did not hesitate, even though her senior military advisers said it might not be feasible to reclaim the islands. She simply would not allow Britain to be pushed around, particularly by military dictators, said Ingham, who recalls the Falklands War as the tensest period of Thatcher's three terms in power. When diplomacy failed, she dispatched a military task force that accomplished her goal, despite the naysayers. She trusted her gut instinct, famously concluding early on that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev represented a clear break in the Soviet tradition of autocratic rulers. She pronounced that the West could "do business" with him, a position that influenced Reagan's vital dealings with Gorbachev in the twilight of the Soviet era. As prime minister, she sold off one state industry after another: British Telecom, British Gas, Rolls-Royce, British Airways, British Coal, British Steel, the water companies and the electricity distribution system among them. She was proud of her government's role in privatizing some public housing, turning tenants into homeowners. Thatcher survived an audacious 1984 assassination attempt by the Irish Republican Army that nearly succeeded. The IRA detonated a bomb in her hotel in Brighton during a party conference, killing and injuring senior government figures, but leaving the prime minister and her husband unharmed. She won a third term in another landslide in 1987, but may have become overconfident when she trampled over cautionary advice from her own ministers in 1989 and 1990 by imposing a hugely controversial "community charge" tax that was quickly dubbed a "poll tax" by opponents. It was designed to move Britain away from a property tax and instead imposed a flat rate tax on every adult except for retirees and people who were registered unemployed. That decision may have been a sign that hubris was undermining Thatcher's political acumen. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in London and other cities, leading to some of the worst riots in the British capital for more than a century. The shocking sight of Trafalgar Square turned into a smoldering battleground on March 31, 1990, helped convince many Conservative figures that Thatcher had stayed too long. With tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets in London and other cities, leading to some of the worst riots in the British capital for more than a century — For Conservatives in Parliament, her removal was a question of survival. They feared vengeful voters would turn them out of office at the next election, and for many that fear trumped any gratitude they might have felt for their longtime leader. Eight months after the riots, Thatcher was gone, struggling to hold back tears as she left EFTA00958748 Downing Street after being ousted by her own party. It was a bitter end for Thatcher's active political career -- her family said she felt a keen sense of betrayal even years later. In 1992, she was appointed in the House of Lords, taking the title Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. Thatcher wrote several bestselling memoirs after leaving office and was a frequent speaker on the international circuit before she suffered several small strokes that in 2002 led her to curtail her lucrative public speaking career. Denis Thatcher died the following year; they had been married more than a half century. Thatcher's later years were marred by her son Mark Thatcher's murky involvement in bankrolling a 2004 coup in Equatorial Guinea. He was fined and received a suspended sentence for his role in the tawdry affair. She suffered from dementia in her final years, and her public appearances became increasingly rare. British media reported that Thatcher had been staying at the Ritz -- where she died Monday -- because her Belgravia home did not have an elevator and she was having difficulty getting around. She is survived by her two children, Mark Thatcher and Carol Thatcher, and her two grandchildren. Having never met Margaret Thatcher personally, I only know from friends who did, she was disarmingly engaging at a dinner table and as Prime Minister she would do whatever was required to make sure that British companies prevailed over their foreign competitors, even if it meant a personal call or visit by the PM. Like Winston Churchill and FDR, Margaret Thatcher was a transitional world leader who operated heads and shoulders over her peers and her adversaries and if you can, I urge that you Google some of her legendary debates in the House of Commons, where she was a Woman among boys This week on PBS's Moyers & Company, Bill Moyers essay was — The United States of Inequality. The unprecedented level of economic inequality in America is undeniable. In an extended essay, Bill shared examples of the striking extremes of wealth and poverty across the country, including a video report on California's Silicon Valley. There, Facebook, Google, and Apple are minting millionaires, while the area's homeless — who've grown 20 percent in the last two years — are living in tent cities at their virtual doorsteps. "A petty, narcissistic, pridefully ignorant politics has come to dominate and paralyze our government,"says Bill, "while millions ofpeople keepfalling through the gaping hole that has turned us into the United States of Inequality." BILL MOVERS: No one stopped to point out that when the market goes up, it can mean companies have fired workers in order to increase investor profits. Sure enough, the latest figures show employment has barely risen and more rank-and-file Americans have gone missing from the job market altogether. The Commerce Department reports that personal income fell 3.6 percent in January — that's the sharpest one-month dive in twenty years. It sure seems like the Roaring 20s all over again -- people at the top living it up while those down below lose their livelihood. Which brings us to our nation's capital -- rich in alabaster symbols of representative government yet shamelessly cynical in writing laws and bending rules to favor the one percent. And that includes the tax code. So on Monday, when you send in your tax returns, think about this. Corporate profits are at record highs. But have those companies invested that in new jobs? No. Did they at least give their workers a bump in pay? Hardly. Surely they shelled out a little more in taxes to help refurbish the social structure — highways, bridges, schools, libraries, parks — where they do business! Guess again. Corporations are sitting on $1.7 trillion of cash. Look at this report just published by PIRG -- the Public Interest Research Group -- on how average citizens and small businesses have to make up the $90 billion giant companies save by shifting profits to offshore tax havens. Among the 83 publicly traded corporations named: Pfizer, which for the past five years reported no taxable income in the US, even as it made 40 percent of its sales here. EFTA00958749 Microsoft, which avoided $4.5 billion in taxes over three years by shifting its income to Puerto Rico. Citigroup, which maintains 20 subsidiaries in tax havens and has over 42 and a half billion dollars sitting off-shore. Taxes collected here at home? Zero. It's not only corporations stashing their swag abroad. The Center for Public Integrity in Washington and its International Consortium of Investigative Journalists recently got their hands on two and a half million files from offshore bank accounts and shell companies set up around the world by the wealthy. Among those documents are the names of 4,000 Americans who hid their money in secret tax havens. Here's how they do it: FEMALE VOICE: You can easily set up a secret company using one of hundreds of off-shore agents. Let's look at the British Virgin Islands, home to half a million offshore companies. That's about 4o percent of the offshore companies on the planet. You can buy a ready-made shell company or create your own secret company from scratch in about three days, for just over $1,00o. You may be asked to produce documents to establish your identity and they might check your name in a database, to see if you're a terrorist. But don't worry, while the system may catch the big fish, it still lets scores of fraudsters and criminals slip through the net. BILL MOVERS: So it shouldn't surprise us to learn that the United States collects less in taxes as a share of its economy than all but two other industrialized countries. Only Chile and Mexico collect less. Chile and Mexico. Right now a powerful group of CEO's, multi-millionaires and billionaires are calling on Congress to fix the debt. And their enablers in both parties are glad to oblige. Okay. But why not fix the debt by raising more taxes from those who can afford to pay? Close the loopholes. Shut down the tax havens. Cancel the Mitt Romney Clause Congress enacted, allowing big winners to pay a tax rate far less than their chauffeurs, nannies, and gardeners. Instead, as we speak, our political class in Washington is attempting to fix the debt by sequestration — Washington doublespeak for bleeding services for veterans and the elderly, the sick and poor, for kids in Head Start. Marching in lockstep beneath a banner that now stands for "Guardians of Privilege" -- GOP -- Republicans refuse to raise revenues, while Democrats have a president whose new budget contains gimmicks that could lead to cuts in Social Security. Social Security! The one universal safety net -- and a modest one at that — and yet the main source of purchasing power for millions of aging Americans. This, from a Democrat — the heir of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who pulled us to our feet when the Great Depression had America on its knees. FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: This Social Security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health. BILL MOYERS: But those were the days when our political system rallied to the defense of everyday Americans. Now a petty, narcissistic, pridefully ignorant politics has come to dominate and paralyze our government, while millions of people keep falling through the gaping hole that has turned us into the United States of Inequality. Warren Buffett, the savviest capitalist of them all, may have written this era's epitaph: "If there was a class war, my class won." I hate to be the person who is always yelling fire, but the rising inequality in America is a cancer eating our country. People will tell you that it doesn't matter, but they are usually so high up the ladder they can't even see those at the bottom. And many at the bottom are so brainwashed by ignorance push by messengers working for those at the top, who tell them that their sorry lot in life is a result of benefits given to minorities, immigrants taking their jobs and left-wing liberals pushing social policies that EFTA00958750 favor people who are not like them. As Deep Throat use to say, `follow the money." The top 1% controls almost 40$ of the wealth in America. The combined wealth of the Walton Family (WalMart) controls more wealth than the bottom 4o million Americans. Each Koch Brother (David & Charles), who control Koch Industries (the 2nd largest privately owned business in America) focusing in the Energy Sector, saw his investments grow by $6 billion in one year, which is three million dollars per hour based on a 4o-hour 'work' week. .And, US corporations have amassed $1.7 trillion in cash which much of it is held off-shore. Obviously the game is rigged in the favor of the Very Rich and Largest Corporations. In 2012 there were 12,389 lobbyist registered in Washington, DC dispensing $3.3 billion. In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. And almost none of them are workingfor you or me or the greater good of this country. One of the big uglys in America is that the United States is the world's leader in incarceration with 2.2 million people currently in the nation's prisons or jails -- a 500% increase over the past thirty years and more than 600% over the past 40 years. We lock up our citizens 5 to 8 times more than other industrialized nations (such as United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany) and up to 32 times higher than nations with the lowest rates such as Nepal, Nigeria and India. These trends have resulted in prison overcrowding and state governments being overwhelmed by the burden of funding a rapidly expanding penal system, despite increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means of achieving public safety. By 2007, states spent more than $44 billion on incarceration and related expenses, a 127% from 1987, over the same period while spending on higher education rose just 21%. The US prison population rose by 700% from two to 2005 a rate far outpacing that of the general population and crime rates. • ➢ 1 in every 106 White males age 18 or older are incarcerated. • ➢ 1 in every 36 Hispanic males age 18 or older are incarcerated. • ➢ 1 in every 15 Black males age 18 or older are incarcerated. • ➢ The US imprisons the most women in the world. As you can see from the statistics above, African Americans in the US are six times as likely to be incarcerated as whites; Latinos over twice as likely. If the US enacted the reforms necessary to reduce its disproportionate minority confinement by just 50%, the incarceration rate would drop to approximately 491 and put the US fifth in the world instead of first. Men make up go percent of the prison and local jail population, and they have an imprisonment rate 14 times higher than the rate for women. And these men are overwhelmingly young: Incarceration rates are highest for those in their 20s and early 3os. Prisoners also tend to be less educated: The average state prisoner has a loth grade education, and about 70 percent have not completed high school. Incarceration rates are significantly higher for blacks and Latinos than for whites. In 2010, black men were incarcerated at a rate of 3,074 per 100,000 residents; Latinos were incarcerated at 1,258 per 100,000, and white men were incarcerated at 459 per 100,000. The International Centre for Prison Studies has produced a report tabulating the number of women in prisons around the world (2006). The following data is derived from that report and from international US Census figures with additional sources as noted (US Census Bureau, 2006). The US has 183,400 women in prison—at least 3 times more than any other nation. Apart from the US, the nations that incarcerate the most women are Russia (55,400), Thailand (28,450), India (13,350), Ukraine (11,830), and Brazil (11,000). In fact, the US incarcerates more women by over 6o,000 than EFTA00958751 the rest of these nations combined. The incarceration rate of women is higher in the US than other representative nations-123 per 100,000 of the US female population. Next is Thailand, 88; Russia, 73; England and Wales, 17; South Africa, 14; France, 6; and India, 3 (Office for National Statistics, 2006; Her Majesty's Prison Service, 2006). The US incarcerates the largest number of people in the world. Compared to the world's other most populous countries, the 2.2 million people currently incarcerated in the US is 153% higher than Russia, 505% higher than Brazil, 550% higher than India, and over 2,000% higher than Indonesia, Bangladesh, or Nigeria. Incarceration rates in the US are four to five times the world average. • ➢ 943 Rate in the United States. • ➢ 166 Average rate worldwide. • ➢ 135 Average rate among European Union member states96 Average rate of the Group of Seven: Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Canada (US excluded). • ➢ 152 Rate in Rwanda, where nearly 80% (53,000) of the prison inmates are being held for crimes relating to the 1994 genocide. • ➢ 133 Average rate in Iran and Iraq. • ➢ 100 Average rate of incarceration among nations noted by Amnesty International as having some of the most urgent human rights abuse issues (Uzbekistan, Iraq, Myanmar, and Sudan) (Human Rights Watch, 2006). • ➢ 823 Estimated rate in the feared GULAG of the Soviet Union in 1950 under Stalin. • ➢ The rate of incarceration of prisoners in China is one-fourth the rate for prisoners in state or federal facilities in the US. If the rest of the world followed the US lead on incarceration policies and practices, the total number incarcerated worldwide would increase five-fold from 9.2 million to 47.6 million. Some US states imprison six times as many people as do nations of comparable population. Current Prison Populations in Example States vs. Countries of Similar Size *2006 • ➢ New York: 92,769 - verses - Australia: 25,353 • ➢ Massachusetts: 22, 776 - verses - Hong Kong: 11,521 • ➢ Illinois: 64,735 - verses - Ecuador: 12,251 • ➢ Florida: 148,521 - verses - Sri Lanka: 23,163 • ➢ California: 246,317 - verses - Poland: 86,820 • ➢ Texas: 223,195 - verses - Malaysia: 35,644 The causes for the over-reliance on imprisonment in the US are multi-fold. Crime rates, occasional spikes in certain types of crime (both actual and perceived), media coverage of the worst cases, public perceptions, political opportunism, and misdirected laws, policies, and practices certainly play roles. The findings reported in this fact sheet suggest that it is time for a serious review of US incarceration policies and practices. Over a quarter of a century ago, NCCD president Milton Rector wrote, "The rate of imprisonment in the United States, which takes pride....in its protection of liberty and freedom, is considerably higher than the rate in any other industrialized nation. To ignore it is to condone thefragrant waste of money and lives and the crime-producing effects of needless imprisonment; to allow it to continue would be irresponsible support of....leaders....who perpetuate the myth that more imprisonment." EFTA00958752 With only 5% of the world's population the U.S. has 25% of the world's prison's population. And nearly half of all people in State prisons are locked up for nonviolent offences. Americans should ask themselves how did we become a police state Yes, I said it.... A POLICE STATE... I grew up thinking that only the Russians, Nazis and Fascists had police states. The worse thing about this syndrome is that it is creating a growing underclass of dysfunctional uneducated untrained angry group of American who can't get jobs, live in everlasting poverty generation to generation, don't (and in many cases can't) vote, with no way out of the malaise of being members of a permanent underclass. As someone who has suffered two serious strokes and now take ii pills a day (prescription medication & supplements) and (before my strokes, I loathe even taking an aspirin), I found it interesting when I discovered that last year doctors wrote more than 4 billion prescriptions to treat everything from ADHD to anxiety, pain, depression to trouble with sleeping.... With this evidence, it is clear that we are now are living in a pill nation/society More than 15,600,000 Americans are taking pills, just for pain (Hydrocodone, Oxycodone & Fentanyl) are the most prescribed. Add to this, today 5 million Americans take a sleep-aid — Another i8 million take antidepressants — These drugs are leading to addiction and taking people into places they thought that they would never ever go — 2.1 million Americans are addicted to prescription meds — ERs treat more than 1.4 million Americans for prescription drug overdoses each year — More than 38,000 Americans die from prescription drug overdoses -- a increase of more than 5 times over the past decade — More than loo people die from drug overdoses every day in the United States. Hence this is an epidemic.... and its growing The most commonly misused drugs: • Anti-Anxiety • Sleeping Pills • Pain Relievers • Antidepressants Most people take medicines only for the reasons their doctors prescribe them. But an estimated 20 percent of people in the United States have used prescription drugs for non-medical reasons. This is prescription drug abuse. It is a serious and growing problem. "It's absolutely an epidemic." We are a country that turns to drugs for solutions more than any other industrialized wealthy countries in the world do. Something changed in the 199os when it became legal for drug manufactures to advertise creating a sense on the part of many patients that "oh I said that ad on television, I think that I should be on that medicine. Experts don't know exactly why this type of drug abuse is increasing. The availability of drugs is probably one reason. Doctors are prescribing more drugs for more health problems than ever before. Online pharmacies make it easy to get prescription drugs without a prescription, even for youngsters. As a result the demand for these advertised drugs skyrocketed. The prescription drug industry says that these ads only inform consumers of the help that is available to them. "All the research in the world doesn't do any good if the people who could benefitfrom it don't know about it" says john Castellani spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers. Some people like myself, can honestly say that meds have saved their/our lives. While many others are trying to kick their addiction to prescription meds so that they can resume their normal lives - "because life without the use of drugs is amazing" said one former addict. Almost all medicines have benefits and risks but the risks can often outweigh the benefits. So anyone who is addicted should try to get help and should talk with their doctor about alternative treatments.... Also it is important to understand that almost all of these medications can be dangerous, especially when combined to treat another problem or side affect. EFTA00958753 I took a random look at two of my prescription medications. The first was for the daily maintenance treatment of gout and discovered that the common side effects were: Severe skin reactions; Chills; Sleepiness; Yellowing of eyes or skin; Stomach discount or pain; Diarrhea; Baldness, Liver Inflammation; Nose Bleeding; Headache: Itching: Liver problems; A small hemorrhage; Burning pain, tingling, or numbness; Change in taste, Severe skin, itching with patches, Numbness or tingling in hands and feet; Changes in urination frequency or amount; Indigestion, Nausea, Vomiting. And these side effects were mild compared to my High Blood Pressure Medication: Shortness of breath; Fast or irregular breathing; Fever; Joint Pain: Fast pulse: Lightheadedness or fainting: swelling of face, Hives & Itching, Low blood pressure, Cough, Skin rash, Nausea, Change in taste, Headache; Unusual tiredness or weakness; Swelling of the extremities; Joint Pain; Muscle pain; Impotence; Burning pain, Decreased sexual desire; Rapid heart rate, Stomach discomfort of pain; Blurred vision; Confusion; Constipation; Depression; Dry mouth; Indigestion; Drowsiness; Hot sensation and redness of face; Difficulty falling asleep; Itching; Muscle cramps; Feeling of general discomfort; Nervousness; Dizziness upon standing; Dizziness when getting up; Inflammation of the sinuses; Sweating; Loss of consciousness (fainting); Urinary tract infection; Vomiting; Muscle weakness; Diarrhea; Flu-like symptoms; Dizziness. And these are just two of the five prescription medications that I take every day, (probably for the rest of my life), in addition to vitamins and supplements. Having been prescribed a Statin Medication last July, (while spending four days in the ICU at Cedar Sinai Hospital in Beverly Hills, CA), which produced severe side effects of extreme pain, nocturnal cramping, blurring my vision, asthenia, lowering my blood pressure and shutting down several important internal organs in affect slowly killing me.... I can attest that prescription drugs are no joke, even when prescribed by a physician. As such, the current epidemic of the abuse of prescription medications is as dangerous as heroin, if not more. This is especially true with children who might not be able to protest as vigorously as I was able to.... Today, we often use prescription medications to treat symptoms, such as depression, when psychiatric treatment might be better -- as at least it tries to solve the root problems, instead of minimizing symptoms. Today's pill culture is killing tens of thousands of Americans and maybe hundreds of thousands when medication mishaps by physicians, hospitals and patients themselves are included. Add to this, is the fact that this culture has bled into our teenager's generation. There are no quick fixes with health and although prescription medications are mind-mindbogglingly important and necessary for many of us, their misuse can be as much of a curse as their value. And if four billion prescriptions in one year isn't a signal that prescription medications are being misused.... Then nothing is And one of the way to fix this epidemic is to stop the advertising of pharmaceuticals as deodorants or hair products — and through stringent regulatory controls and with stiff penalties. We have a prescription drug epidemic in America which needs to seriously be addressed. ****** Being a loyal NBC viewer I often start my day around 6am with local news on the LA NBC station as background, which then morphs into The Today Show and at loam the Kathy Lee & Hoda Show.... Again, all of this is background to my responding to emails, reviewing documents, writing my Weekend Readings and speaking with business associates around the world. On Friday while I was going through my normal business activities, Kathy Lee and Hoda did a segment on a new euphemism for the female orgasm — "Going to Poughkeepsie." Growing up in Mount Vernon, New York, I remember Poughkeepsie being the last commuter stop of the Metro North/New York Central's Hudson Line from Grand Central Station in Manhattan. As a teenager in the 196os, it was the city where guys could meet coeds from Vassar College. See segment: As a man who loves women and doesn't read COSMO to broaden my understanding I did a bit of research on "Going to Poughkeepsie". In-addition to my limited knowledge above, I discovered that EFTA00958754 the word Poughkeepsie comes from the Delaware Indian word meaning "safe and pleasant harbor" and that one of the city's main thoroughfares is Hooker Avenue. Nevertheless, we have to now ask if the new phrase for discovering the elusive female pleasure spot is, "Finding the Poughkeepsie Gypsy". The fact that there are many slang words for the male orgasm but very few for the female version may have given Kathy Lee and Hoda the need to create a new term. "Poughkeepsie is not just a city," Kathy Lee cooed. "It's a state of mind." Now Smile ****** We should ask ourselves why are we taking North Korean leader Kim Jong-un seriously. The U.S. military recently announced that North Korea has the capability of launching a nuclear weapon atop a missile and that the young, untested, unstable, paranoid and trigger-happy young North Korean leader is as labile to use it against the United States, feeding an American media frenzy looking for any stories to replace the absence of Lindsey Lohan and the Kardashians in their headlines. Making matters worse, someone in Washington thought that it would be a great idea to respond by staging military exercises with thousands of troops, huge artillery ensembles, stealth bombers and dozens of naval support vessels right across the border from North Korea — further inflaming an already ridiculous situation. With all of these moving pieces in an inflamed atmosphere, couldn't the paranoid regime in the North confuse our harmless show of force "exercises" with an initiated first strike — causing a full-fledged war? Obviously, an intelligent, rational, and balanced American president would realize -- even if he had only an introductory course in abnormal psychology -- that we should stop these military maneuvers, now, immediately, and without equivocation. And it is no less important to expose the complicity of the U.S. media in its obsessive preoccupation with North Korea's paranoia and militarism, while dismissively failing to mention that we are, in fact, provoking this pre-psychotic mental case into acting out. If Barrack Obama wants to be seen as a rational, intelligent, and insightful American president, he should immediately cease and desist from rattling the cage of the extant mental case which is North Korea. Yes, North Korea has a nuclear weapon and yes, it marches to a different drummer, but it is truly akin to the story, "The Mouse That Roared". And amping-up hysteria against North Korea's ridiculousness could easily lead us down the slippery-slope of WMD's and another Operation — — Liberation. Finally, we have to ask why a 28 year old Korean who is a fan of Dennis Rodman, NBA and American rap music is threatening to launch a missile against us, especially since it would be the end of North Korea and its existing leadership. And when we figure this out, we should change our activities that contribute to this hostility in North Korea, the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. ****** A recent column of Malcolm Berko regarding Social Security as an "entitlement" explains well what an entitlement is. I have reprinted this in total. You have probably heard the rants and shouts about reducing "entitlements", this column will clarify this issue. Taking Stock Dear Mr. Berko: I have been a widower for four years and helped raise six children, each of whom is mostly self- sufficient. My wife and I were very active in raising our children. I began taking Social Security at 70. I really don't need this entitlement. Starting in 1968, I had a good job for 4o years. We lived within our means. We saved money. My wife worked part time as a legal secretary for 3o years. We did well with investments. The checks have come in handy for a new air conditioner, a large screen TV, airfare and gifts for my children and grandchildren, and I hope to help some of them with their college costs. I could spend less and bragged about this to my pastor (shouldn't have). Now he's nicely suggesting that I give up this entitlement so the government can give it to people who need it. And I am almost EFTA00958755 embarrassed that I get $2,200 every month. • aware that Congress wants to reduce this entitlement and that there will be a means test to qualify. I would like to hear your thoughts. -SG, Oklahoma City. Berkos reply: Stop referring to Social Security as an "entitlement". SS is not an "entitlement. Every time you or your spouse earned a paycheck, the employer sent Social Security 6.2 percent of it to an account under your or her name. And each time you or your spouse earned a paycheck, the employer also sent SS a matching amount to your account. That's 12.4 percent per paycheck. And your spouse never received a shilling of it. You earned it, you paid for it. It's your money. It's not an entitlement. The word "entitlements" is government speak for the federal programs from which lots of folks receive support that they don't pay for. However Congress is ill-advised to call Social Security an entitlement. Calling SS an entitlement is purposefully disparaging and places it on the same common field as food stamps, job training, free cellphones, etc. And as congress continues to call SS an entitlement, folks like you, who have 4o years of contributions, will begin to believe it's an entitlement, making it easier for Congress to take it away from you. Assume your average annual income between 1968 and 2008 was $35,000 a year, In those 40 years, you and your employer probably contributed $5,250 annually to your Social Security account. That's $210,000. If these contributions were compounded at 4 percent annually for 4o years, your security account would be $625,000. Do you consider this an entitlement? I don't. It belongs to you. Some of it is even taxed. Entitlements are not taxed. Take your checks as long as the Social Security Administration sends it to you. If you kick the bucket at age 83, then what hasn't been paid to you accrues to SS. Be mindful that the average life expectancy in the U.S. is 79 years, so most retirees collect benefits for less than 15 years. And there's a lot left over. During the past 5o years. More than 100 million workers have been putting billions in to the system. I've tried to find out how much all employees and employers have contributed to the social Security trust fund since 1963. The Coir•onal Budget Office can't tell me. But an educated guess places the number between $53 trillion trillion. And if a half-trillion a year has been paid out each year during the past 5o years (extremely high). Then $18 trillion to $23 trillion a year is missing. Ask your congressperson where the money is, because $18 trillion or $23 trillion is a lot of money. With immense pressure from both the White House and parents and family members of the children and adults who were killed in the Newtown massacre last December, this week the US Senate agreed to hold a debate on Gun Control, with the proviso that it would be restricted to limited background checks and not include on banning assault weapons, military ammunition and any type of sales restrictions other than gun shows and the Internet. This is an outrage, especially since this is a constant center-right debate as there is no left in the debate, as everyone on the left is so afraid to say which should be said, "that the 2nd Amendment protecting our liberty"is BS. As former Reagan Budget Director David Stockmen said on Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO this week, "since 1787 the world has moved along and we are up against a 21St Century State equipped with drones, hundreds of satellites in the sky watching everything we do and why would you believe that an 18th Century Citizens Militia equipped with the equivalent of muskets has anything to do with liberty. It doesn't. The only way that we can protect liberty is with the ballot box and the real shieldfor liberty in America is the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom to organize. Freedom to assembly. That's how we get liberty, and not with guns." Bill Costas who was also on the show's panel alongside Stockman added, "with all of these paranoid types who think that there're gonna come a day when the government has just gone too far from them, and as true EFTA00958756 patriots they are going to have to organize some sort of adhoc militia.... Here's my question, who is the Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee of this militia... how do the coalesce... how they decide who to shoot.... Who do we trust?" They were discussing the Public Safety Second Amendment BM, sponsored by US Senators, Joe Manchin ( ) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) and announced this week — "I encourage all West Virginians, gun owners, NRA members and all Americans interested in fixing our culture of mass violence to read this bill," Manchin said. 'This bill simply prevents criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from purchasing guns while protecting our Second Amendment rights. This bipartisan, commonsense compromise closes the existing background check system's loopholes by including all advertised commercial sales. It also protects gun sellers' and gun owners' rights." In a press release, Manchin stated the bill will not infringe upon anyone's Second Amendment rights or take away anyone's guns. He also said the bill will not ban any particular type of firearm or ban the use of any kind of bullet, clip or magazine. Manchin said the bill will not create a national registry and in fact, explicitly prohibits it. WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO • The bill will not take away anyone's guns. • The bill will not ban any type of firearm. • The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine. • The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry. • The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. • Allows the transport of guns across state lines without registration or notice, including temporary overnight lodging, stopping for food or buying fuel, going to the doctor's office, etc. • The bill does not even specify what types of guns it's referring to, it simply refers to "firearms". The bill actually spends allot more time talking about protecting the rights of gun owners. It allows anyone to loan, give or sell guns to family, friends, co-workers and neighbors, without any notice, registration or background checks.. In fact, it prohibits gun stores to even keep background checks on their employees. We have to start calling the NRA for what it is. A lobbying group for gun and ammunition manufacturing, and not the protector of country's 2nd Amendment Rights. Just like there is a pharmaceutical lobby, a tobacco lobby, a insurance lobby, a food & beverage lobby and the NRA's main objective is to make sure that the manufacturers who they really represent, sell as many guns and bullets as possible. Because a majority of NRA members are for background checks and only want responsible gun owners to own guns. As Bill Maher said referring to the left as well, "we have to end thisfetish and love of guns." "Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head and went on television with her husband saying that we still are strong supporters of the 2"d Amendment". My belief is that like automobiles, anyone who wants to own a gun should go through a background check and have their guns registered. And private citizens definitely don't need Bushmasters, other than renting and using them at official gun ranges. And instead of imposing 15 year prison sentences on people who unlawfully use background information or keep files/databases, we should impose similar sentences on people who use firearms in crimes or to intimidate others. Isn't this what OJ Simpson was convicted for in Nevada and is still in jail today? If it is good enough for OJ, it should be good enough for everyone else. We are living in a gun crazy culture, which has led to the death of more than 10,000 Americas killed by firearms each year, and if we truly want to stop this insanity, we will have to vastly restrict gun availability and separate the 2nd Amendment from lobbyists, who "real" sole goal is to increase profits for arms manufacturers. And to EFTA00958757 call the Public Safety Second Amendment BM a sensible compromise, is a disgrace and another example that the American political system is not working for the greater good of its people. THIS WEEKEND's READINGS This week in The Washington Post, former Gen. David Petraeus, who retired from the Army in 2011 after commanding U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and later the director of the CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 and Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and most recently the author of "Healing the Wounded Giant," on U.S. defense spending wrote the following op-ed — An American Future Filled With Promise. What is unusual is that as politicians in Washington focus on reining in America's worrisome deficit, they tend to have attitudes of doom and gloom. They convey fears of shortchanging future generations, overtaxing workers, depriving the needy, killing the fragile economic recovery and failing to make crucial investments. This narrative contains elements of truth. But the authors say that this is too pessimistic and as such contributes to our psychological and political paralysis, reinforcing convictions held by members of both parties that they must not yield on core principles, lest the country's future be compromised. Contrary to this they now believe that there is a more positive and more accurate reality that the United States could be on the threshold of a period of remarkable progress, based on these unique opportunities, (finally some good news) including: • An energy revolution. We are the world's largest producer of natural gas, with a roo-year supply, and we are on track to become among the largest producers of crude oil. • A manufacturing revolution. We are rapidly developing robotics and 3-D printing, areas in which the United States is among the world's leaders. • A revolution in life sciences. Genetics and stem-cell technology offer great potential in fields such as agriculture and pharmaceuticals and fundamentally new approaches in medicine. • The IT revolution and the transition to cloud computing, in which we are also leading. They believe that with all of these advantages, together with our North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners, the energy-rich and economically dynamic Canada and Mexico, we could be on the threshold of the New North American Decades. And the prospect is that North America — not China, Japan, Europe or India — will pull the world out of the global economic slowdown. But we will do so only if government gets the basics right. Obviously huge debt is incompatible with long-term growth. Yet sequestration's arbitrary cuts — particularly to certain defense and domestic programs that provide the foundation and seed for future growth — make it far from optimal as a deficit-cutting action. As such they say that our priority should be to reduce, in a rational manner, the ratio of debt to gross domestic product, which is about 75 percent. — We need to get the debt curve to begin declining to, say, 72 percent of GDP over the next 10 years. The objective should be to do this while avoiding measures that would choke off the still-modest recovery. Sequestration-scale cuts done wisely can achieve this goal. — The key is to achieve a virtuous cycle in which economic growth yields greater revenue and government spending declines relative to the size of the economy. They suggest that, for the good of the nation, each party agrees to achieve equal amounts of something neither wants to do: Republicans should produce, say, $500 billion in additional revenue over 10 years, and Democrats should identify $5oo billion worth of reforms to entitlement programs over the same period. Sequestration would be re