Daniel P. Malito2013-05-23T13:51:08-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=daniel-p-malitoCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Daniel P. MalitoGood old fashioned elbow grease.Big Bro Before What You Know?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29170922013-03-21T10:26:05-04:002013-05-21T05:12:01-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/Last time I spoke about the way our society, by in large, is reactionary in its response to tragedy. We make laws during the "knee-jerk" period of hate and anger that comes after these horrible events occur, and we don't take the time to calm down and rationally think about what we are doing. When you make laws from blood lust and revenge, nothing good can happen.
Unfortunately, many of you took my column as an anti-gun piece. I assure you, that was not my intention. I am actually very liberal when it comes to freedoms, and I believe that the Constitution should be sacrosanct -- held in high esteem above all else. I also happen to believe in a laissez-faire attitude towards the populace in general, and to prove it I've compiled a list of the most egregious instances of government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong from the past 30 years or so.
The seat belt alarm
Any of you who have had the privilege to drive or ride in a car that was manufactured in the last ten years or so knows about the seat belt chime. When you start up the vehicle, a light appears on the dash that indicates the driver does not have his or her safety belt buckled. Along with this light, there is an alarm that rings. It usually comes in the form of a "dinging" sound, similar to the sound when keys are left in the ignition. This alarm rings until the driver buckles his or her belt. In some of the older model cars, this chime ceases after five minutes or so but on the newer vehicles the alarm will not stop ringing until the seatbelt is buckled. In addition, some of the newest cars have added this alarm to the passenger side safety belt as well. No one can argue that seat belts aren't one of the most important safety innovations in the last 100 years, but I shouldn't be forced to wear one if I don't want to.
As many of you know, I suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Thanks to the disease, I developed spinal compression fractures, and have lost almost three inches from my original height. I was always short, but now I am noticeably smaller than most. This doesn't present a problem until I get into my vehicle. When I start the car and I am forced to buckle up for a 30-second trip around the block, the seat belt acts like a guillotine and nearly decapitates me by the time I arrive. I either have to put my left arm over the belt, effectively defeating its purpose, or I must constantly pull the belt downward to prevent a red line from developing on my neck. On arrival, it's difficult to explain why I look like I have just been strangled.
Of course, I'm sure many of you right now are saying, "just put the stupid seat belt on." That might be a solution, except with my prosthetic shoulder, putting on the belt can range from annoying to fairly painful. Even so, the point of the matter is that if I buy a car and I want to drive without my seatbelt, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone but me, and if I'm stupid enough to do it all the time, then I deserve the consequences. It's not like drunk driving, where someone else will be hurt, it's just me, and that's it. I hate that I have to choose between a pain in my ears and a pain in my shoulder.
The bike helmet law
When I was young, my friends and I would ride our bikes for hours on end, sometimes not coming home until dusk. We rode everywhere, and some of the stunts we attempted while on our bikes were dangerous, I'll admit. Jumping off curbs and driveways was commonplace, and we frequently raced at speeds in excess of 20 mph. All the time we were doing this, though, none of us wore a helmet. In fact, our parents probably couldn't have bought one for us if they tried. The only bikers who wore helmets in those days were professional racers, and that was more of an aerodynamic thing than a safety precaution.
Well, I'm happy to report that I'm still alive, and none of my friends ever suffered from the lack of wearing a helmet. Now, again, I'm not saying that wearing a bike helmet isn't a smart idea - it is. It's just that being forced to wear one by our government is, yet again, an attempt by those in charge to legislate common sense. It doesn't work -- stupid people are always going to find a way to hurt themselves, whether it's covering themselves with meat and swimming with sharks or lighting themselves on fire and jumping into a tank of gasoline. If I, as an adult, don't want to wear a goofy looking bicycle helmet then so be it - I get to deal with the consequences. In this instance, yet again, it affects no one but me. Even in the case of my own children -- if I send them out without helmets, then I shouldn't be called a criminal; I should be called a bad parent. It's the height of irony to require bicycle helmets for children, yet we let them jump on trampolines and become cheerleaders all day long without forcing any protective gear at all. For some reason it seems congress has forgotten that there were generations of children before the current one that did survive well into adulthood.
Every single anti-obesity/healthy food law ever made
In modern times, it began in New Jersey back in 1992. The government told Jersey residents that they couldn't eat their eggs runny because they just might possibly maybe catch salmonella. The law mandated that eggs had to be cooked to 140 degrees, and that meant no more runny yolks -- one of the best things in the world to go with buttered toast. Of course, common sense eventually prevailed and the law was repealed, allowing millions of Jerseyans to go back to eating their favorite breakfast the way that they liked.
Manhattan's current mayor seems to have a penchant for attempting to curtail the eating habits of his constituents. Bloomberg is the poster-boy for ridiculous attempts to legislate healthy eating. He has attempted to and/or successfully banned salt, trans-fat, donations of food to the homeless, and most recently, sugary drinks over 16oz. A judge who had a modicum of common sense, thankfully, struck down his latest anti-soda crusade. Despite this, real soon all you will be able to eat once you cross the city line will be a celery sticks, sesame seeds, filtered water direct from Norwegian glaciers, and wheat grass flavored tofu (without salt). You heard it here first.
I hope I don't have to explain the ridiculousness of attempting to legislate healthy eating. If nothing else, let's consider the futility of enforcing this law inside private domiciles. It's a farce, people, and just another attempt at a nanny state. Yet again, if I want to hurt my own body eating delicious, greasy, salty, foods and wash them down with gallons upon gallons of sweet, bubbly, ambrosia, then I damn well should be able to. It only hurts me, and if I want to hurt myself, who the hell is the government to tell me I can't do what I want with my own body? In addition, if my kids can't have pizza and hot dogs, then what's the point of being a kid?
You can see that some in our government truly wish to legislate every single aspect of our lives. The sobering part is that it's all a game of numbers -- the more laws like these are put to the vote, the more chance some will slip through. One day soon, you may look up as you don your bulletproof vest and Kevlar helmet and realize that you forgot to fill your state-provided water bottle before leaving your foam-covered house to work your shift at the government food factory. The bottom line is you can't legislate intelligent choices -- someone can only make stupid decisions for so long until it finally catches up with them. I think I remember Darwin mentioning something about it...]]>Shooting Blanks for Revengetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26399092013-02-10T17:31:21-05:002013-04-12T05:12:01-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/new proposed method to control the sale of guns being trotted out for our approval. Unfortunately, we are once again being reactive instead of proactive, and while these new laws and edicts may silence some of the critics of our supposedly "too lenient" gun laws, it really does nothing at all to curtail the sale or use of illegal firearms.
One of the things we love to do in this country is wait until a tragedy happens and then make a slew of laws in the wake of that tragedy, purportedly to prevent such a crime from happening again. We did it after 9-11 with all the TSA security changes and the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. We did it after the kidnap and rape of Megan Kanka in 1996 with Megan's Law. And here we are in 2013, ready to do it again after the tragedy in Newtown. While some good comes of these laws, for sure, passing statutes right after tragedy is much like going food shopping when hungry -- you end up with a pantry full of junk food and a refrigerator full of baloney. All the instant gratification foods we love are right at our fingertips, but the chop-meat and Idaho potatoes we use to make a healthy meal fall by the wayside. It is exactly the same with these laws. Instead of taking the time to consider the facts and design an informed and effective statute, we rush to put anything on the books in order to sate the bloodlust of revenge that the American public so overwhelmingly displays (if you listen to the media, that is).
While some reactionary laws, like Megan's Law, can actually end up doing some good, gun laws made in the wake of tragedy have little chance of doing so, and there is one major reason why. Let me begin by telling you the story of how pain medicine prescription handling has changed in New York over the last 10 years.
Since I have suffered from severe Rheumatoid Arthritis from more than 25 years, there is little left for me in the realm of medicine to provide quality of life other than copious amounts of narcotics. My joints have been damaged beyond repair, and the cartilage in many of them is non-existent. In addition, I have four prosthetic replacements, with a fifth scheduled for sometime in the next year. You get the picture -- I suffer constant pain and narcotic medicine is my only recourse. Ten years ago, when I began taking the more potent pills, it was very easy to obtain these medicines at the pharmacy. My doctor could write me a script for as much medicine as I needed, with at least three refills so I did not have to return to him for months. Suddenly and without warning, New York State changed the law so that only a handful of approved diseases could use narcotic scripts with refills. So, from that point on, I had to see my doctor once a month. That meant more money and time spent to see a doctor for a disease that had not changed at all, but I did what I had to do. A year or so after that, I became stranded upstate in New York, and needed my doctor to call in my narcotic prescription to the local pharmacy, as he had done many times in the past. Much to my horror, I was informed that the law now stated that only a seven-day supply could be called in, and in addition, the doctor had to mail a written script to said pharmacy as soon as possible. Once again, law changes that made my life more difficult. Finally, years later, I was planning to go on vacation, and I needed my pain medication filled a week early. Well, as you can imagine, New York State had a problem with this, and I was unable to fill my current script before the 30-day limit was up. The only way I was able to receive pills for my upcoming vacation was to have my doctor increase the amount of medicine I took in order to be able to fill the script early. Once again, another bothersome law change. I think you get the picture at this point. (All of these law changes and stipulations can be read about here.) The law changes inconvenienced me, the legitimate user, and likely did not do much to stop the illegal abuser. People who abuse narcotic pain medicine don't generally obtain pills legally, and if they do, the doctor is sometimes in cahoots so pharmacy rules don't prevent the dispensation of the narcotics anyway.
The situation with gun control is very similar to the pain pill situation. Gun laws will only inconvenience those who are willing to legally obtain their firearms. According to statistics, anywhere from 6 percent -- 14 percent of criminals obtain their guns legally. Conservatively, let's say that means 80 percent of criminals get their guns from sources that don't run background checks or obey gun laws. Many guns are stolen in burglaries from users who have legitimately obtained them. What this ultimately means is that the large majority of guns are obtained illegally, so knee-jerk reactionary laws made in the wake of tragedy do nothing at all unless you plan to ban the sale of guns entirely. Now, I know many of you out there feel that there is no reason for citizens to own anything more than a hunting rifle, and I can see the logic in that. There really is no reason to duck hunt with an Uzi, and there is very little danger of Queen Elizabeth II sending her Redcoats over to the colonies to collect 237 years of back taxes. So gun ownership is a mixed bag, at best.
Let's face it though, changing the Constitution to remove the right to bear arms would be near-impossible with the way that our opposing political parties fight these days. To achieve a passing vote in two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and then to have it ratified by three-fourths of the states is a pipe-dream, plain and simple. So even if a state bans firearms totally, you can bet someone will challenge the law and the case will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, which I cannot see upholding the ban. So, it looks like guns are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. As with almost everything else, instead of reactionary laws, the best way to combat illegal gun use is with better education and increased vigilance. Either that, or stop making bullets.]]>Who Speaks for New York -- a Hurricane Sandy Discussiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20692872012-11-05T18:13:07-05:002013-01-05T05:12:01-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/for days. My brother and I bought and axe and began cutting and splitting the logs from fallen trees in our neighborhood just to keep warm. Thankfully we have a gas-fired water heater, but most in our town have no hot water or electricity. It's going on six days now that utilities have been unavailable, and while it was quaint for a day or two, we are now getting in to dangerous territory.
Those of you who are unaffected by this tragedy may see pictures on the news, but a few short clips don't do justice to the situation that is unfolding before us here in New York. It has both broken my heart and filled me with pride at the same time.
During any natural disaster or catastrophic event, you get to see both the best and worst of people without looking very far. The folks in Breezy Point and Long Beach, both part of the same barrier island chain, have lost absolutely everything. Breezy Point was not only flooded, but had to suffer the ironic indignity of watching a fire burn over 100 homes to the ground while surrounded by rising waters. It's hard to even comprehend the devastation without experiencing it yourself folks, let me tell you. To give you a better idea of just how bad things are in those areas, think about this: Most people in Long Beach not only lost their homes but their cars have been washed away or buried completely. Many residents have had to search for hours with very little chance of finding their vehicle. In Breezy Point even the houses that were spared destruction from the flood have had their possessions destroyed and contaminated by raw sewage due to the cesspool use there. If you haven't seen images of Breezy, I urge you to take a look. The first thought that came to my mine was the images of Berlin from WWII.
It's hard not to weep for those families. So, despite not having any electricity or heat ourselves, we gathered and donated of 20 bags of goods to the relief effort. We later found out that so many donations have been coming in that some of the drop-off locations have stopped accepting clothing (but they still need more). It warms the heart to see that level of help coming from people who are still reading by candlelight every night. It just goes to show that the good in people shines through, even in the worst of times.
Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is that during a natural disaster the worst in people can also easily be found. Here on Long Island, while electricity and hot water are important, the biggest issue we have here in the area is the shortage of fuel, mainly gasoline. Those of you who waited on the long gas lines in the 1970s can sympathize with what we are going through, but having only read about the Carter-era shortage, the events I witness on a daily basis at and around gas stations horrifies me.
First, let me assure you, finding a line of 250 or more cars waiting for gas at a station is no exaggeration. In fact, most of the cars begin lining up at 3 or 4 a.m. with just a promise of a tanker truck later that day. By the time 3 p.m. rolls around and the tanker truck finally arrives, there is at least a four hour wait to get to the pump, and some of those people wont' make it before the fuel runs out.
As you can imagine, this type of situation is a veritable powder keg for fights, riots, thefts, and other senseless acts that all require just a simple errant word or gesture to spark a full-fledged brawl. I have personally witness at least three altercations myself over gas. The first was when a 40-year-old man cold-cocked an elderly man who mistakenly cut the gas line. No words were spoken; the aggressor simply approached the elderly man and clocked him. This was in the early days of the shortage, so the police had not begun monitoring the gas lines yet. I didn't stick around to see the aftermath. The second time I was privy to one of these incidents was when I witnessed a woman with a handicapped placard simply drive up into the gas station, ahead of 200 or more cars, telling everyone "I'm handicapped I ain't waitin' on no line." Well, as you can imagine, disabled or not, the bevy of customers who had waited the entire day for fuel were not going to put up with that type of behavior. Fortunately, before anyone got physical, the owner came out and banned the woman from the station. Of course, everyone in earshot broke into applause. Lastly, just today when on my daily supply hunt (batteries, firestarter logs, ice -- whatever there is left), I watched as two officers subdued and cuffed a man who had apparently pulled a gun to secure a place at the front of the gas line. A gun! Imagine that. Over gasoline that should have been flowing fine.
As you can see, the events I witnessed represent the worst in humanity. I surmise that these types of scenes are playing out all over southern New York. It's a shame, truly, but people are panicked. This is for one reason and one alone -- the startling lack of information that New Yorkers are being provided. The government and utilities of New York State are disseminating almost no information to those of us who are in need of it most. I'm not sure if Governor Cuomo knows how infuriating it is to hear New Jersey governor Chris Christie on the radio for an hour or more every day, telling N.J. residents exactly what is going on and exactly what they need to do to receive help if they need it. All I've heard of Cuomo is two or three short statements, which vaguely insinuate that power companies will lose their license to operate if they don't perform adequately. Most of the information any of us here get is strictly by word of mouth and the Internet only (when there is cell phone power to be had). If it wasn't for Facebook, it would be hard to communicate at all with the displaced residents of Breezy Point and Long Beach.
In addition, In order to help deal with the gas shortage in New Jersey, governor Christie has instituted the even-odd gas fill up policy. In addition, he has invited companies like Wal-Mart to come and help as much as they can. Our Governor Cuomo tried to institute a free gas giveaway, but unsurprisingly it turned into a fiasco. Within mere hours, the officials were back on the radio begging people to stop coming to the distribution centers to get the free gas because of supply issues. Not to mention the near-riotous crowds. Somehow Albany severely underestimated the demand for fuel, and in addition, since most of the distribution centers were dreadfully understaffed, people were being assaulted and robbed, as I heard from friends and relatives who were there. In addition, the emergency vehicles that needed gas could not obtain it, despite the fact that no mention of the fact that the fuel was mainly for emergency vehicles was ever made in the first place. A truly epic fail, to use the modern vernacular.
Also, in New Jersey, governor Christie has put up a website where N.J. residents can see where the power companies are working, what they are doing, when the power is expected back, and where they plan to go next. The Long Island Power Authority website simply shows a map where outages have occurred, with a few sporadic crews working in non descript areas. The status on all of these outages is "assessing condition," and has been so since the power stopped flowing. It seems that once the electricity stopped, so did the information. What makes it even more disgraceful is that LIPA charges the fifth-highest rates for power in the entire country. The fifth-highest rates and it seems like none of it is going back into the system. In my town, no one has seen hide or hair of LIPA since the day of the hurricane, and no one can get a straight answer.
Governor Christie in New Jersey has already pledged to rebuild the Jersey Seaside, and has begun preliminary plans to do so. The folks here in Breezy Point and Long Beach who have lost their homes have been given a vague pledge by Governor Cuomo that 100 million dollars will be available for the rebuilding effort. That's it. FEMA has done more for these people than anyone else at this point.
I think the biggest issue is that while Michael Bloomberg does speak for the five boroughs, there is no one at all to speak for Long Island, Westchester, and the other non-city areas. We have no central point to get information in this most trying of times, and we all feel as if our local and state governments are letting us down. LIPA is apparently doing nothing at all to help keep their customers informed, but you can bet you get a phone call the day after you miss the deadline on your bill. This has to change before the next disaster hits or else we will be living this nightmare again and again. Albany, take a cue from New Jersey and start behaving like the people who need you most right now actually matter.]]>The Gravy Trainwrecktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17667132012-08-13T12:31:54-04:002012-10-13T05:12:11-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/almost 110 million citizens are now receiving some form of welfare benefits. Now, you may be saying, "well, of course, we are in a depression -- ahem -- recession." That may be true, but let's break the statistic down a bit further.
Now, it needs to be pointed out that this number does not include people who are only on Social Security, disability or otherwise. This number also does not include benefits from the Earned Income Tax credit, or from the subsidies from the proposed Obama health care law of 2014. Finally, this number does not include people who are only benefitting from Medicare. So, once you take these exceptions into account when realizing that the total population of the United States currently hovers around 300 million, you come to the conclusion that every third person you see on the street is receiving welfare in some form.
One in three people. Wow. If this doesn't shock you, it should. We are spending more money than ever before on welfare in this country. Some of you might say that's a loaded statement because when you consider the dollar amounts of money spent on welfare it will always increase because of inflation and other economic factors. Because the dollar itself holds a different value today than it did 100 years ago, from now on, let's use percentages to compare the amounts spent on welfare. Come on with me and take a trip back in time to see just how much we spent at some of the worst times in this country's history. Keep in mind these are all numbers that I've discovered myself in my own research. Also keep in mind that I'm using the same source of data for all the years compared. I'm not pulling numbers for one year from one source and another year from another source, etc. This should help to make the data a bit more reliable.
Before we begin, let me give you a brief history of welfare in this country. While welfare in a form that we'd all recognize started in this country during and in response to the Great Depression, welfare did exist somewhat before then. Throughout the 1800s, there were many attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Many of these reforms tried to help the poor find work rather than simply handing them money. Social work consisting of teaching the poor morals and bestowing upon them a work ethic was even proposed in the late 1800s. The U.S. Congress did end up supporting some welfare programs for certain groups. There was Civil War Pension Program, passed in 1862, which provided aid to Civil War veterans and their families.
As I said, when the Great Depression hit and many families suffered, the government began a serious welfare program. At the height of the Great Depression (around 1933), almost one-quarter of the workforce was unemployed. These are numbers that are unheard of by today's standards. In order to help the millions of people who were out of work, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 as part of the "New Deal." The act established many programs that provided aid to different parts of the population. This act, amended in 1939, included Unemployment Compensation and AFDC, two programs that are still in effect today. As late as 1996, welfare programs were being created and changed to suit the times. Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gives the states lump sums to use for assistance of the poor as long as the states agree to encourage the poor to move from welfare to work. The program has generally been considered to be successful.
So, as you can see, welfare has been around for almost 100 years in its current form. So, let's compare some of the times in the last 100 years with today's welfare. By the published budget, federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $471 billion. The total spent overall was $38.33 billion. That means we spent approximately 12 percent of the U.S. budget on welfare programs in 2011. So let's compare.
Any talk of welfare numbers has to include the Great Depression -- the very event that welfare was created in its current form to help end. Well, let's take the year that many consider the height of that Great Depression. In 1933, the economy was at its worst and unemployment was at its highest with a rate of 24.9 percent. In 1933, the government spent $754 million on welfare programs. The total spent overall in 1933 was $12.62 million. That equates to 6 percent percent. In the height of the Great Depression, supposedly the country's greatest period of economic hardship, the total percent spent on welfare was half of what we spend today.
Okay, so maybe 1933 was a fluke. Let's take another year. In 1974, the U.S. was suffering from an economic downturn. Interest rates hit 11 percent, and people had memories of waiting on line for gas the year before. The unemployment rate was around 5 percent, and people were suffering. That year, the government spent $42.8 billion on welfare. The total spent overall was $453.2 billion. That equates to about 9 percent. More than the Great Depression, but still a far cry from the 12 percent we spend today.
Let's try one more period just to make sure. In 1958, America had an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent, but other countries in the world were hit much harder. This was the most significant economic downturn during the post-World War II boom. That year, the government spent $8 billion on welfare. The total spent overall was $134 billion. That equates to 5 percent. Close to the percentage of the Great Depression, but still not even close to the 12 percent we spend today.
So, here we are folks, in 2012. Right now we spend twice as much on welfare, proportionally, than during the Great Depression. What will the future hold? Well, if the trend continues, the welfare handouts in the country will eventually reach a point where they are unsustainable. Many believe we have already reached that point, and it may be true. I think we really need to look at the percentage numbers and not the actual dollars spent. Of course, I understand there are concerns such as what is considered welfare spending and what is not, but no one can refute the overall trend. I think it is time to make the hard choices and force this country to take its medicine. Each and every one of us is going to have to make sacrifices in order to get this economy back on track, and it begins with stopping this "Gravy Trainwreck" before it careens off the rails.]]>The Equality of Inequitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13587602012-04-20T12:41:08-04:002012-06-20T05:12:02-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
I cannot count the amount of times I have heard that statement from my parents after crying foul over one of life's inequities. Whether it was a rebuttal to "he got more than me!" or "he got picked first!" or even "how come I have to eat my vegetables and he doesn't?" the premise that life wasn't fair was constantly thrown in my face. Today, though, it seems that much of our population has either ignored or forgotten this most important of lessons. I suppose it isn't difficult when our very own president gets on television and tells people that every one should be equal and pay their fair share.
As I grew older, I heard "life isn't fair" less and less. It wasn't because our world was somehow becoming more equitable, though. It was because I stopped complaining about a fact of our society that I could do nothing about. I realized quite early on that complaining about life not being fair wasn't going to net me the big money and fabulous prizes that I was yearning for. The only shot I had at obtaining the things in this life that I wanted was to work for them, and the harder I worked, the more likely it was that I'd be able to afford those finer things. Still, I knew there would always be instances where no matter how hard I worked, I'd lose out. That was exactly what my parents prepared me for when they told me "life's not fair."
Unfortunately, there is a growing sect of our population that expects a fair share of the rewards for doing absolutely nothing. Nearlyhalf of the households in America now participate in some form of government assistance. Now, a percentage of these welfare recipients are probably deserving. No one is claiming that physically handicapped individuals or mentally ill persons do not deserve a helping hand. The citizens who are fully capable of working jobs but have decided, for one reason or another, to live off the system, are the ones making sure that no citizen of this country will ever pay their "fair" share. Just thirty years ago, the amount of the population on the take was less than one-third of the total citizenship of the U.S. -- and let's not beat around the bush, "on the take" is the most accurate way to describe what these people are doing. This administration knows that the more people they have suckling on the government teat, the more votes will inevitably go their way. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you don't reelect the people giving you free money, you might lose it. It's the unspoken bond between those who pay and those who are paid-off. As more and more people join the cadre of the handout-driven, more money will be needed to sustain the practice. Where does that money come from? Why those of us who are paying our "fair share," of course.
These welfare recipients are not fully to blame, though. It all stems from one of the biggest lies told since the beginning of time. Governments love to say "everyone is equal." Well, here's the man behind the curtain, folks -- we aren't all equal. In fact, we are far from it, thankfully. Long ago, though, a very smart politician figured out that if he equated the word "unequal" to the phrase "better than," he could drum up votes by claiming to fix something that never needed fixing in the first place. Folks, I'm here to tell you that we don't all need to be equal to have a profitable and worthwhile society. In fact, it's probably better for commerce if we aren't' all equal. "Gasp! Did he say we shouldn't be equal?" Yes, I did, and it's because most of the commerce that we all participate in each and every day continues only because inequities exist between you and the keeper of the shop you frequent. Now, mind you, that doesn't mean I'm "not as good as" those people, or that if I died, my friends and relatives would care less. It simply means that as of right now, people like the President and a company CEO play a more important role in the matrix of society. A society we've all agreed to live in, tacitly or otherwise. Unfortunately, as soon as people hear "not equal to," they automatically assume it means "not as important as" or "not as good as."
What we need to do is to stop telling everyone they are equal, and instead tell everyone that while every single citizen is as important as the next, there will always be inequalities in a consumer-driven society such as ours. If you all will remember back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, you might recall a country called the U.S.S.R. Well, that country prided itself on everyone being "equal," and in fact did its best to enforce a policy of wealth sharing. What ended up happening was that most of the populace had to wait in line for an entire day to obtain toilet paper and bread, while the people in charge lived in lavishness that hadn't been seen since the time of the Tzars. Mark my words people, if we keep pushing this policy of equality, one day you will look up and realize you have been waiting in line for an entire day just to get a jug of drinkable water.
Just in case you are reading this and thinking that I've been born with a silver spoon in my mouth and never had to deal with hardship, let me tell you a story. It's a tale of a nine-year-old boy who suddenly came down with a mysterious disease that took years to diagnose and has plagued the child for 25 years now. (He's me, in case you haven't guessed.) Joint replacements, heart attacks, diabetes and many other complications have been my bread and butter for longer than I can remember. It's made life exceptionally difficult, and I've had to overcome more in a year than most of you will experience in a lifetime. This is why it is especially apropos that I be the one to write this article.
So there you have it. Life isn't equal, and it will never be. If it were, then I'd be healthy and probably be composing this piece from my Ferrari-laden yacht with sixty supermodels as my crew. As you might imagine, I don't have those things, nor will I probably ever have them. What I do have, though, is an expert understanding of life's inequities, and an intimate knowledge of the ubiquitous fact that things usually don't go your way. It doesn't bring me down, though, and that's because I know everyone on this planet suffers from some form of inequality, and always will, despite what they are being told. In fact, that inequality is about the only thing we all share in equally.]]>Finding a Home for Orphan Diseasestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11812862012-01-23T15:37:27-05:002012-03-24T05:12:01-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/HuffPost, and other places such as CreakyJoints.org. Now, some might say I was cursed, but I learned to live with the disease and figured out how to make it work for me when I can. Of course, this is only possible because there is medications available which control my illness enough to allow me to live my life in a semi-normal fashion (most days). Sure, I have only found a few that actually work to lessen the symptoms of my illness, but they do exist.
Well, recently, I spoke with someone who opened my eyes to an entire class of diseases for which there are few to no medications available, and almost no plans to create any remedies in the near future. These ailments are called "rare" or "orphan" diseases.
The name sounds scary, I know. Who would want to suffer from a "rare" disease or an "orphan" illness? Fortunately, the actual definition is a bit less frightening (for the criteria that can be agreed upon). Most rare diseases are genetic, and are usually present throughout most of the patient's entire life. Many of these orphan diseases appear early in life, and about 30 percent of children with these types of diseases will die before they reach their fifth birthday. Beyond those two statistics, though, the definition gets a bit fuzzy.
There is no universally accepted cutoff number for the amount of affected individuals when classing a disease as "rare" or "orphan," and a disease that may be considered rare in one part of the world can be common in another area. This is why there is no single, accepted definition for this group of illnesses. Here in the United States, the Rare Disease Act of 2002 attempts to define a rare or orphan disease according to the prevalence of the condition. It specifies that "any disease or condition that affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States" constitutes a rare disease. On the other hand, the European Commission on Public Health defines rare diseases as "life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases which are of such low prevalence that special combined efforts are needed to address them." "Low prevalence" is defined as fewer than one in 2,000 people. Oddly, the U.S. definition does not include diseases that are not life-threatening, so again, it depends on where you live.
So here we are, with about 7,000 orphan genetic diseases affecting over 200 million people worldwide. Even though it sounds like a good portion of the population, the NIH only devotes a small portion of its yearly budget to the study of these rare diseases. Traditionally, the best hope to further the study and research of these types of illnesses has been parent groups and one-off grant projects. Now, though, there is a new effort that may be an invaluable aid to those who are afflicted with and those who study orphan diseases.
About a month ago, I had a chance to speak with Jimmy Lin. Jimmy is a computational geneticist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and more importantly, he is the founder of the Rare Genomics Institute. According to their website, the Rare Genomics Institute is a "nonprofit organization that facilitates the funding, access, and translation of whole genome sequencing technologies for people with rare or orphan genetic diseases." Quite a mouthful. In layman's terms, though, the Institute exists to help those afflicted with rare diseases sequence their DNA.
"How is sequencing the DNA of orphan diseases going to help those who are ill?" This was one of the first questions I asked Jimmy Lin when I spoke with him. He told me that there are researchers who want to work with the genomes of people who suffer from orphan diseases, but do not have the information necessary to do so. Both academic and clinical laboratories have shown interest in attempting to crack the codes of these ailments, but without the sequenced genomes being readily available, the research was always doomed before it began. Now, though, genome sequencing has reached a point where it is within reach of almost anyone who wishes to have it done.
Ten years ago, sequencing a human DNA genome would not only take years of work, but the cost would be astronomical. In addition, there were only a handful of laboratories that could even do such work. Today, in contrast, genome sequencing can be done much more quickly, and the cost is less than $10,000 US dollars. Because the price tag is so much less in today's world, a charity drive or one-off special event can usually raise enough money to provide for the sequencing of a rare disease genome. This is where Jimmy Lin's Rare Genomics Institute comes in. The RGI not only sequences the actual DNA of the patient, but they also help with community fundraising efforts as well as providing links between patients and experts in the requisite field of disease study.
So, as you can see, Jimmy Lin and his Rare Genomics Institute certainly have a noble goal in mind. I curse the bad days when my rheumatoid arthritis acts up, but I truly do not know what I would do if there were no treatment available for my illness. Fortunately, I do not have to deal with that nightmare, but as you can see, there are a significant number of people, many of whom are children, who have to deal with that exact problem. Traditionally, funds and grants are given much less for the study of orphan diseases, and even when they are, the amounts are so insignificant that the studies do not attract many of the more prominent genetic researchers. The Rare Genomics Institute hopes to change all that by making the genome sequences of these diseases readily available to well-known, successful, researchers, and they have already set up shop in places such as Yale, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Washington.
So this new year, as you jot down your resolutions for 2012, keep in mind just how lucky you are that you do not suffer from a disease that not only has no treatment, but probably has no name! Check out the Rare Genomics Institute, and help to spread the word about orphan and rare diseases. Who knows, you may be diagnosed with an illness one day that the RGI helped to name and treat.
For more on new research, click here.]]>Occupy Wall St. -- Harassing Everyone But the 1%tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10788212011-11-08T13:22:59-05:002012-01-08T05:12:01-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
The "Occupy" movement's creed, according to their website, is that they represent "the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." The website further claims that they are using the "Arab Spring" tactic in order to "achieve [their] ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants." The "Arab Spring" tactic refers to the wave of protests in the Arab world that began last December and resulted in the leaders of Egypt and eventually Libya being overthrown. Unfortunately, this mission statement has either been forgotten or deliberately ignored by the group, as there have been a number of incidents that prove this "non violent" protest that "maximizes the safety" of participants is neither non-violent nor safe to its own members.
This past week, one of the occupy Wall Street protesters threw a violent fit in a McDonalds restaurant when he was denied free food. Fisika Bezabeh, a 27-year-old man, ripped a credit card reader from the counter and threw it at the workers who were simply trying to prepare food and work their shifts at 2:30am. The downtown McDonalds, which has become one of the favorite bathroom spots for protesters, reported that police are still investigating the incident. As for the claim that the protest is safe for the individuals involved in the movement, there are at least three separate incidents that refute that claim. Again this past week, the New York Post captured a violent conflict between two of the protesters on video. A homeless man can be seen yelling a profanity-laden string of insults at "occupiers," and eventually begins to kick the tents of different protesters. Not backing down, some of the Zuccotti Park residents fight back, and violence erupts. In a much more serious and shocking affair, Tonye Iketubosin, a 26-year-old man from Crown Heights, has been linked to at least two incidents of sexual assault in the tent city. One of the cases even involves a minor! These are not the only reported sexual incidents inside the occupy camp, and the problem has gotten so bad that the leaders of the protest have erected "womens-only" tents to help prevent any further sexual assaults. I'm not even going to mention the extreme violence that has erupted at the "Occupy" protest in Oakland. Safe and violence-free? Doesn't sound like it.
Another serious issue down at Zucotti Park is the lack of proper sanitation. First, the abundance of rotting food and the pileup of trash in the park has attracted a slew of rats. In fact, Wayne Yon, an expert of city health regulations, called Zuccotti Park a "Walmart for rats." Yon said a lack of hot and cold water and the absence of enough lavatory facilities has resulted in at least 15 health code violations that would shut down any New York City restaurant. Because of this, the stench of urine and feces that those who work adjacent to the occupy camp must endure is overwhelming. Recently, the movement secured three porta-pottys because the defecation and urination on the street and doorsteps of local businesses was getting out of hand.
The logistical nightmare created by the occupation of downtown Manhattan will need to be dealt with very soon before the health risk alone becomes too much to overcome. Ultimately, though, these issues are all addressable. The Achilles heel of the movement runs much deeper. The Occupy Wall Street crowd claims they represent the 99% of the population who want the 1% to answer for their crimes. Well, there are members of this 99% who's lives have been made much more difficult by the protesters and their antics. In fact, these "99%-ers" are the people mainly being affected by the movement.
I have spoken with several people who work down on Wall Street, and the response I get when I ask about the Occupy crowd is always the same -- annoyance and disgust. A worker at a downtown bank responded "the Occupy Wall Street crowd is making everyone's life harder. It takes twenty extra minutes to get to and from work, and the stench makes my eyes water." Someone who works for the MTA downtown told me "the protesters are all filthy and disgusting, and the conditions are extremely unsanitary. The movement also delays all the foot and auto traffic in the area since the police have to monitor the traffic on certain roads." Also, not only are there protesters and workers in the area, but the Occupy crowd has become a sort of tourist attraction. You have visitors to the city who come to take pictures of the event.
What the Occupy Wall Street movement fails to understand is that 99% of the workers in the area are simply attempting to make a living wage -- the same people who the protesters claim they represent. Secretaries, security guards, back room analysts, number crunchers, and administrative assistants make up the bulk of the workforce around Wall Street. These people are not making the millions that the Occupy Crowd seems to take issue with. The CEOs and millionaires who are the object of the protester's attention rarely spend days downtown, and if they do, they take helicopters and ride in tinted-windowed cars and trucks. Most of them barely notice the protesters -- they are a minor inconvenience at best. In addition, all the police and safety workers who have to work overtime and wade through the urine and feces in order to prevent any further violence are all simply trying to eek out a living in this horrible economy. In reality, what Occupy is doing is making all of these simple, American worker's lives' more difficult. Is this what the protesters want?
Everyone in the United States has a right to speak out and make his or her voice heard. No one is denying them that right. Even so, I think it is time for the leaders to seriously question what it is their movement is actually accomplishing. The Occupy movement, which was started by Adbusters -- a Canadian anti-capitalist group, has lost their way. In addition, I wonder how many of the trust fund children and angry liberal college graduates (who thought they'd be making more than 30k a year) know exactly whom they are following. It's time to end this, the point has been made -- America needs change, we know. Stop shouting "tax the rich," and start practicing the phrase "would you like fries with that."]]>Explained: What Are Autoimmune Diseases?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9562602011-09-23T08:18:04-04:002011-11-23T05:12:02-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
What is autoimmune disease? If we break down the word, you can see that it starts with "aut," which comes from the ancient Greek word for "self." I would hope you know that "immune" refers to the body's immune system. So, autoimmune or "self-immune-system" diseases are those in which a patient's immune system is attacking itself. The body's mechanisms can no longer differentiate between foreign bodies and friendly bodies. Normally, the system's white blood cells help protect the body, but the immune response in autoimmune patients destroys normal body tissue and foreign tissue alike. Think of it as friendly fire on a very minute scale.
Your next question might be to ask why the body is attacking itself. The answer is simple: We don't know. There are theories that some bacteria or virii might trigger the autoimmune response in patients who are genetically predisposed, but nothing has been confirmed. The simple fact is that doctors and medical researchers have very few answers as to why the immune system is switched on full-time in autoimmune patients, nor do they have any idea how to switch off the specific mechanism causing the immune system anomaly.
Because drug companies have not been able to target the specific characteristic of the immune system that makes it attack friendly cells, the treatment for autoimmune illness until as of late has been to, in effect, beat down the entire immune system -- good and bad parts alike. It's sort of like using a sledgehammer to put in a thumbtack. Yes, the job will get done, but everything around the thumbtack will be destroyed in the process. Immuno-suppressant medications function in a very similar fashion, shutting off the entire immune system instead of just the broken parts. The patient does obtain relief from the symptoms of the disease but also becomes susceptible to any illness that comes along. Since the immune response is next to nothing, a common cold could mean a hospital trip.
Lately, though, there have been a slew of "bio-drugs," also called disease modifying agents, which target a very specific group of molecules in the body. These molecules are thought to be the cause of autoimmune disease, but there is no way to tell which one of the possible culprits is responsible for the autoimmune disease in the specific patient in question. Discovering this individual molecule type is a matter of trial and error. As of now, the only way to discover which possible molecule is causing a patient's arthritis is to wait and see if a certain bio-drug works for the patient. If the symptoms lessen, then it is assumed that the patient has the specific form of autoimmune disease that the drug is designed for. Talk about circular logic!
Part of the reason that so little is known about autoimmune disease is because until recently, there has not been much media time devoted to any of the illnesses. Within the last few months, though, that has changed. Two cases of autoimmune disease have unfortunately afflicted two very public sports stars. They are suffering from different afflictions, but both are classified as autoimmune diseases.
About a year ago, Phil Mickelson, one of the top professional golfers in the world, was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Psoriatic arthritis is a form of arthritis that affects some people who have psoriasis. Psoriasis is a condition which produces red, flaky patches of skin that eventually develop silvery scales. Skin lesions develop early in the disease, but joint pain and swelling can occur before any lesions appear at all. The arthritis can affect any part of the body, including the spine and the fingertips, and can be severe enough to seriously constrict movement -- not a good thing for a pro golfer. There is no cure, as with most autoimmune diseases, and treatment is to control the symptoms only.
Within the last month, another sports star has announced that they have been afflicted with an autoimmune disease. Venus Williams, one of the best tennis players in the world, revealed that she has been diagnosed with Sjogren's Syndrome. Sjogren's mainly affects the moisture glands of the eye and mouth. These glands are attacked by the body's own immune system, and because of this the mucus production is seriously curtailed. Sjogren's can occur in patients without any other autoimmune illness, but it is common for patients who have another autoimmune disease to develop Sjogren's. Besides the glands, other parts of the body can be affected as well. Pain and stiffness in the joints along with mild swelling can occur, as in Venus Williams' case.
To help spread information about autoimmune illnesses and to help protect yourself, it is smart to familiarize yourself with some of the facts of this genre of diseases. For instance, more women than men are affected by autoimmune disease -- the specific amount varies with the actual diagnosis. Many autoimmune diseases present gradually and are usually shrugged off as injury or a passing illness, such as the flu. Joint pain and stiffness are characteristic for a great many autoimmune diseases, and that including fingers, toes, feet, the spine and the collarbones. Fever and general fatigue are also prevalent in most of the autoimmune afflictions. If you suffer from any of these symptoms and they are as-yet-unexplained, it may be time to see a rheumatologist.
As you can see, autoimmune disease is more than just a minor annoyance. Now that two very public, very successful individuals have been diagnosed with autoimmune illnesses, hopefully more information about the entire class of diseases will trickle down to the public at large. Finding a cure begins with money, and to discover the reason the body is attacking itself we need as much exposure as possible. I, myself, have rheumatoid arthritis, so this is a subject that is close to my heart. Many of us have renewed hope that a cure or better treatments will be found now that autoimmune illness is in the media's crosshairs, at least for the time being. If you want more information you can check out CreakyJoints.org, OnCourseWithPhil.com, ArthritisFoundation.org and Sjogrens.org.]]>To Walk Or Not To Walk? Humanizing Medicare Cutstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9099552011-07-27T12:11:21-04:002011-09-26T05:12:02-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
Out national debt is somewhere in the neighborhood of fourteen trillion dollars, and it is only going to get larger as time goes on. It is important to come up with a sensible plan to start chipping away at this debt, but we cannot and must not cut the government provided medical services any more than they already have been. This issue is of personal importance to yours truly, and here's why: I am disabled, and I rely on Medicare and Social Security to keep my feet on the ground -- literally.
Most of the congressmen, pundits, and organizations out there who are championing cuts in Medicare have no visceral ties to the program and thus will not be greatly affected by any of the changes that have been made, much less any of the new cuts that are being proposed on a daily basis. To combat this, I'd like to take this opportunity to humanize the problem for those who have no stake in this fight.
I have Rheumatoid Arthritis. Many of you are probably saying to yourself "Arthritis? That's nothing." Wrong. Rheumatoid Arthritis is an auto-immune disease which affects millions. My body is quite literally eating my own joints, destroying them bit by bit as it would any perceived threat. Since I have been suffering from the disease since the age of nine, I have serious joint destruction and have had both hips replaced. I am 34 years old now, and again I am facing joint replacement. Both shoulders have to go within the year. In order to pay for this and more, my main source of medical insurance is Medicare. I rely on the service to provide me with a lifeline to the medicine and procedures I need in order to live any semblance of a normal life.
Now, service fee cuts have already been put into place with Obamacare, and further cuts that might be applied with one of the debt ceiling reduction plans. It is no secret that more and more doctors every day are refusing Medicare patients because the reimbursement does not even cover their basic costs. What would happen if my current doctors no longer accepted Medicare?
Well, the first and immediate result would be that I would no longer be able to see the doctors whom I have been with for many years. Even a simple office checkup costs in the neighborhood of $200 dollars. If I had to pay that out of pocket, that would add up to almost $2500 a year. Without a doubt, I would have to see one of the remaining doctors in the area who accepted Medicare. Since this doctor would likely be absorbing a slew of new patients at the time, the quality of care would be mediocre, at best.
The next proposed Medicare cut would raise the costs of premiums for the patient. Currently, I receive less than $800 dollars a month as a disability payment, of which close to $100 dollars is removed to pay for medical coverage. Even if we assume the premiums are doubled, that leaves me with less than $600 dollars a month to live on. In addition, the proposed part D changes would force the pharmaceutical companies to pay a rebate on drugs purchased by low-income individuals.
Forgetting for now that it is near-impossible to live on $600 dollars (I'm forced to live at home), let's examine exactly what I would be getting for the near-$200 premium paid every month. As you probably can imagine, I take a significant amount of medication. On top of Rheumatoid Arthritis, I suffer from Hypertension, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and I have lost partial sight in my right eye. All of this equates to around eight different medications per day. As you can imagine, the company that handles my Medicare Part D insurance has no love for me. I'm sure my face dons many a dartboard at their corporate offices. Granted, I am the type of patient that medical insurance companies hate -- a patient that they have to actually spend their money on. Because of their reluctance to pay, I have been through the medication appeal process more times than I can count. Currently, I am in the process of fighting a decision made by the company to cut a medication that I had been stable on for four years previous. They simply decided it was too expensive, and refused to cover it.
As you can see, the part D insurance company already views me as someone whom they will never be able to profit from. Now, if Washington gets to control the rebates paid on drugs, it virtually guarantees that the price of drugs will increase. The companies will have to build those rebates into their costs, and that will result in a higher overall end price. Now, I don't have to spell out to you what increasing drug costs will do for someone who already has to fight for every "high-priced" drug that I take. If you think fail-first policy is prevalent now, wait until drug costs increase across the board. I've already detailed how policies such as step therapy can hurt patients, and these new cuts will only lead to more draconian measures being put in place.
I live my life on a day-to-day basis. The drugs I take and the quality of care I receive are directly responsible for the quality of life that I enjoy. If I was forced to see a doctor who ran a Medicare patient mill and was made to take drugs that were not specifically prescribed, there is no question at all as to the end result. Within a year, I would be bed-ridden with occasional trips in my wheelchair. No exaggeration here, readers. I have been given the gift of a semi-normal life based solely on my medical care, and Medicare (in its current form) is almost wholly responsible for that quality of life. Many of you tend to forget that it's not just the elderly who use Medicare/Medicaid. Besides, there are many other areas of the budget can and should be cut first before we put a thirty-five year old like me into a wheelchair for life. Leave Medicare alone, and let people like me enjoy a piece of the life most of you take for granted every day.]]>Foreign Aid and Domestic First-Aidtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8906262011-07-06T11:36:43-04:002011-09-05T05:12:01-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/deficit, and the impending government shutdown due to the debt ceiling not being raised. States are having their budgets slashed left and right, and countries like Greece have actually turned to violence due to the draconian measures taken to save the state from disillusion. What it all comes down to is money, and the fact that everyone needs more of it. Right now, our government still spends money like it is going out of style, though. If we can't stop them, we should at least be aware of what some of the money is being spent on, and try to stop the hemorrhaging.
For those of you who do not know what the debt ceiling is, let me explain it. The "debt ceiling," set by congress, is basically just the amount of money that the U.S. Government is allowed to owe at any one time. This debt includes public debt (treasury bonds), and money borrowed against trust funds used for Medicare and Social Security. The first limit was set in 1917 at 11.5 billion, which at that time was considered more than enough. Now, the debt ceiling is set at $14.29 trillion, and as of May 16, we hit that threshold.
You may say "so what? Why should I care?" Well, it might not affect you now, but it will, and soon. Come August 2, the United States Government will no longer be able to honor all of its debts. If this actually happened, it would be a tragedy of immense proportions, and might even lead to the collapse of the United States. Fortunately, and you can quote me on this, the debt ceiling will be raised, and the U.S. will never default on any of its debts. Why do I say this? Because of one reason and one alone -- our credit rating. Now, I hate to simplify the problem to such a degree, but ultimately, it's the crux of the issue. The U.S., like any other borrower in the world, has a level of risk assigned to them that alerts lenders to the chance they are taking when dolling out funds. The U.S. currently has the top credit rating, AAA. This is because the United States has never welched on a debt, and probably won't anytime soon. If we lost our top credit rating, overnight, interest rates for entities lending to the U.S. would skyrocket, and that's if we would be able to borrow money at all. You can see the potential for a domino effect if the government you and I rely on can no longer fund day-to-day operations.
So, congress is going to increase the debt ceiling like they have 74 times in the past, and we will continue to accrue debt. The debate currently underway in the congress is simply a dog and pony show with a bit of posturing thrown in. Everyone knows the ceiling will be raised. The question we really need to be asking is how we are going to start recouping some of the funds that we owe. Every bit helps, and while there are many ideas on the table, there is one area that no one seems to be talking about -- foreign aid.
While the exact numbers are not known, it is believed that the United States spends about $37 billion dollars a year on other countries. While this number seems like nothing compared to $14 trillion, and it isn't, it is the most logical place to start the spending cuts. Logical and practical.
As of 2010, there are more than fifteen foreign countries that receive aid from Uncle Sam. Two of those countries, Israel and Egypt, receive the lion's share of the money that taxpayers contribute. Other recipients include Pakistan, Russia, Ethiopia, West Bank/Gaza, Colombia, Kenya, Indonesia, Yemen, and Jordan. I hope, after listing the countries that rely on the hard-earned and wantonly-spent money we hand them, you understand why foreign aid is a logical and appropriate place to start the budget slashing. Several of the countries on that list not only hate America and Americans, but also actively participate in the effort to destroy our way of life.
Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who attempted to ignite a bomb that was built into his shoe on United Airlines flight 63 in 2001, trained in Pakistan for a time. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called "Underwear Bomber" who attempted to blow-up Northwest Airlines flight 253 above Detroit, was trained in Yemen for a time. Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad, was in and out of Pakistan throughout his whole life. Afghanistan has the Taliban. According to reports, Al Qaeda is making money by helping Colombian rebels to smuggle drugs through Africa into Europe. There is a known Somali Al Qaeda branch in Ethiopia, and I don't really need to detail the whole West Bank / Gaza for you. Are you beginning to see a pattern?
As anyone with eyes can see, many of the countries we provide aid to have proven to be havens for anti-American organizations, or at the very least, encourage anti-American sentiment. Sure, there is an argument to be made for not condemning an entire country by the actions of some of their citizens, but I say that is simply a crutch used by administrations that don't want to take a hardline stance. Why is it wrong for us to insist that in order for countries to receive aid, they must prove they are taking an active part in working against our supposedly common enemies? You have to prove you deserve unemployment insurance before you can receive checks. You have to prove you are financially insolvent before receiving welfare. Why don't foreign governments have to prove that they aren't going to take our money and build a nice, shiny, new, terrorist training camp, and then laugh all the way home? In addition, when we find that time and again a country that is receiving aid does nothing to help our cause but pay lip service, why do we not cut off or lessen the aid they receive? It costs these countries nothing to tell us what we want to hear, but it may cost us lives to listen. Words are nice and cheap, but actions, well, they cost money and make enemies. Unfortunately, insincerity by foreign governments who receive aid seems to be the norm. We even caught Pakistan red-handed when they lied to us about Al Qaeda's presence in their country.
It paints a humiliating picture, does it not? So, among all this talk of reforming Medicare and cutting government services to those who need it, why is no one even considering cutting foreign aid? People in this country are starving, people here need jobs, and people here could benefit from homes and schools being built or rebuilt. I'm not naïve enough to think that these foreign aid payments don't come with, well, let's call them "unpublished accords," but we should still levy consequences when the recipients do not hold up their end of the bargain. Somewhere along the line, it became the American way to give blindly and un-American to give and expect basic concessions in return - like not colluding with our enemies. Before we throw our elderly out of the hospitals and on to the street, let's see if we can't stop funding a terrorist training camp or two.]]>No One Left to Speak Uptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8797842011-06-20T12:01:13-04:002011-08-20T05:12:01-04:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
Right now, one in six Americans receives some form of government assistance. That's almost 17% of the entire population that's getting a monthly check from the current administration. This figure includes Medicare, four of the government's seventy welfare programs, and unemployment insurance. I'm sure that you have all heard time and again about how we cannot keep spending at this rate and have these programs survive. I'm sure you have also heard time and again how these programs are not even proven to help the recipients become self-sufficient. I'm sure you have even heard many say that the government assistance programs of today are not representative of the spirit in which the entire welfare system was created. These claims are all true, at least as far as I can figure it, but there is a much greater tragedy that is being perpetrated on the unsuspecting public -- they are being paid off to keep their mouths shut.
Let me give you an example to make the entire issue a bit easier to understand. Say your boss comes in to your office one day and tells you that he has decided to give you a bonus of $500 dollars every paycheck. The money seems to have come with no strings attached, so like most of us would, you take it. Two weeks later, when you are out to dinner with your family, you see your boss eating dinner with a woman who is not his wife. Since he is married to the company owner's daughter, this would mean certain unemployment if he were to be discovered. You weigh the options, and then you remember that he is paying you a bonus of $500 dollars with each paycheck, and you "have a family to support." Reluctant to lose the income, you decide it's best to keep your mouth shut, and "let karma sort it out."
The example above clearly illustrates the dangers of accepting government assistance lightly, and shows just how it can lead to voters giving their tacit approval to the administration's actions -- be they constructive or destructive. Unfortunately, the government makes it so easy these days to find some reason to accept money for simply existing, that even citizens who are generally honest find that they are succumbing to these handouts. This ease of suckling on the government teat has resulted in one-third of all wages in America being paid from Uncle Sam's wallet.
So, here we are in a position where one out of six of us are cashing a monthly check with the U.S. Government as the payer. Many of us now rely on that money as part of our regular income, and are understandably reluctant to give it up. We use excuses such as "Well, everyone else is getting it, why shouldn't I?" or "I paid in to the system, I'm just getting back what I put in!" or even "Hey, it's free money! The government will never collapse anyway." While telling ourselves lies is a crime worthy of punishment, it's the not telling that is the most egregious outrage of this entire farce. You see, most of us who are intelligent enough to brush our teeth know not to bite the hand that feeds us. So, we sit in our vacation homes, ride in our speedboats, and tan on our beaches, and leave the speaking up to "somebody else."
Far be it from me to lecture you all on moral hazard, though. Folks, even I am guilty of speaking the words "My vote doesn't matter anyway so why waste the effort?" Why do I do it? Does it have anything to do with the fact that I am on disability? If I were honest with myself I'd have to say that it probably does. I plan to end my payments as soon as my income reaches the maximum monthly limit, sure, and I am truly disabled, yes, but even those like me who legitimately need help are not immune to the phenomenon. I'd love to say that I ran out and joined the latest Tea Party protest or joined the NEA in one of their marches, but I did not. I, like those I described above, rely on the help I get from the government, and I did not want to rock the boat.
This week, though, I reached my limit. The debacle with Congressmen Weiner was hard to avoid, it was all over every TV, PC, and BlackBerry in existence. I've known for a while that our government is on a slow downward spiral and it needs a serious kick in the teeth to get it back on track. Whatever your politics, there cannot be many of you out there who believe that everything is just peachy with the current state of affairs. It's just there is a large minority of you who have, in essence, been paid to shut up, sit down, and go away. Well, it's time to say no more. If America fails, then it's no one's fault but our own, and it would be a shame to see this grand experiment in democracy go the way of the Dodo.
So get up, go on the internet, call your local political office, write a blog, speak at a town meeting, or just talk to your friends and family and make them aware of what's going on and how you think it should be changed. Don't let this administration pay you off any more like some dirty mistress who is being bribed to stay in the dark -- anonymous and silent. Yes, you may not get as many benefits, and yes, you may have to actually get up and work a bit more, but we must. I can't promise you that it will be easy or fun, but I can promise you that in the long run we will all come out ahead. For if we stay quiet and watch the band play on as we all go down, I promise you there will be no happy ending. There will just be the end.]]>Declare an Emergency on Internet Carnage Desensitizationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8531082011-05-10T15:39:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
Just a few days ago, I was strolling the Internet, looking for interesting articles to read as I often do, and I came across an all-too-familiar sight. It was a video that depicted two teenage boys fighting. These videos are a dime a dozen, but what set this one apart was the fact that the father of one of the young men was present at the dust-up, and this parent was instigating and exacerbating the horrible behavior unfolding before his eyes. The 16-year-old boy's father was, in essence, calling shots for his son during the fight. Fortunately, once the video went viral, the parent was charged with several crimes, including child abuse. As I see it, though, charging this man with a crime is only mitigating the symptom, not the cause. After all, we are all responsible for creating the society that rewards this type of behavior and we all consume media that may be of questionable origin.
Of course, we all publicly disapprove of violence, debauchery and humiliating others, but privately, many of us find this type of media stimulating and help perpetuate its popularity. In fact, many of us who have witnessed these types of events in person do little to stop them from occurring, and some of us even take an active role in instigating the fracas. Who doesn't want to be the author of the next video that goes viral, right? It could end up on any number of TV shows and news segments and help bring about the 15 minutes of "world fame" that Andy Warhol spoke of almost half a century ago. If he only knew how prophetic his statement was. With the advent of YouTube, there are millions of us who now have an utterly useless claim to fame that began with the click of a play button. Despite its uselessness, though, many of us fight for it. Of course, some of these individuals do not ask for their fame, and the consequences of unwanted Internet scrutiny can range from annoying to deadly.
Many of us have heard about Tyler Clementi. Tyler jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge after a sexual encounter he had with another male student was recorded by his roommate and disseminated on the Internet. Any of us would be embarrassed to have our sexual escapades broadcast to millions of our peers, but imagine how much worse it would be if you were a gay teen and had not yet revealed to the world that you were a homosexual. Tyler was thrust into the spotlight, the world instantly knew his deepest secret. This proved too hard a burden for a young man who was just beginning to discover his own sexuality, and the grief, shock and utter humiliation he felt led him to believe that his only recourse was death at his own hands. The two students who were responsible for filming Tyler and then posting it on the college network were both charged with crimes, but only one of the students ended up being indicted. While I am relieved that the state saw fit to charge Tyler's roommate with a serious crime, there is a larger issue to be considered: why this person felt it was acceptable to commit this heinous invasion of privacy.
Another case that comes to mind is the suicide of Megan Meier. Megan committed suicide by hanging herself after a supposed Internet friend turned vicious and began to insult and harass her online. Weeks after her death, police determined that it was not a fellow student who made Megan's life a living hell, but the adult mother of a local girl. A mother who had a daughter of her own not only thought it acceptable to harass a child, but reveled in Megan's torture. While the suicide of a fragile teenager and the loss of another teen's mother to prison is a tragedy in itself, there is a much larger picture to consider. Yet again, an individual who normally should have had compassion for their target displayed a total lack of a moral compass when it came time to make the right decision.
Why do incidents like the ones I mentioned above happen with more and more frequency each passing year? Why are people so quick to use their cell phone cameras to shoot video that completely humiliates another human being, and then post that video for all to see? Why do teenagers and adults now resort to violence without even considering other options? Well, I attribute this degradation of society's moral fabric to a phenomenon I have dubbed "Internet Carnage Desensitization."
Internet carnage desensitization is just a succinct phrase to describe the process by which we are becoming gradually less aware of the consequences of harmful actions we commit against others, as well as our decreased hesitation to commit such acts. There are many theories that claim the Internet is desensitizing us to sex and violence, but I think it goes deeper than that. When you constantly see people use cell phone cameras to catch fellow humans in compromising positions, it becomes more acceptable and less offensive, bit by bit. You may not even be consciously aware that you are growing more comfortable to it with each video or image you view. I have caught myself pulling out my phone in order to snap a picture of someone with their pants down, only to scold myself -- not only for almost taking the picture, but for wanting to humiliate someone who has done nothing to me whatsoever. Unfortunately, many of our fine citizens do not have the willpower or moral standards that I do, so we are fighting a losing battle. When you can turn on the television and see commercials that depict young girls using their cameras to catch morbidly obese men in skimpy bathing suits, you know it has become part of popular culture.
Well, I am declaring an emergency. We need to stop this behavior and turn the tide before we are unable to regain control of this runaway train. When our parents grew up, people were courteous and respectful, even to a fault. Now, courtesy and manners are the exception to the rule, and harmful voyeurism is the order of the day. It's time to put a stop to this trend before we birth a generation of peeping toms and "Best Internet Video" becomes a category at the Oscars.]]>The Scarlet e-Lettertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8417772011-04-03T03:42:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/authored a video that she then posted on the Internet. This video was what can only be called a diatribe against Asian students who annoyed Ms. Wallace by talking loudly on cellular phones in the school library. As is the fashion of the day, the video went "viral," and now Ms. Wallace is the at the center of a controversy involving free speech, racism and the college administration's responsibility to provide a safe environment for students. I'm not going to discuss whether Ms. Wallace was right or wrong in doing what she did, because I think we are missing a much bigger, more alarming, issue.
With the dawn of the Internet age came information sharing on a global scale and the creation of a much smaller world society. Unfortunately, as with most advancements, along with the benefits came a darker, more sinister side. You frequently hear it said that once something hits the net, it's "out there forever." This is true without a doubt, and therein lies a hidden danger. The permanence of media on the web means that an entire generation of young people no longer has the luxury of making the same youthful mistakes that generations of youth before them made and recovered from. Our society is, quite literally, destroying childhood for the youth of today. One of the major factors contributing to this trend is the ease of producing and disseminating homemade video.
Nowhere has the insta-video craze taken hold more than among our children. Every 12-year-old with a cellphone now has the ability to upload and instantly distribute any movie shot by their own hand, and they frequently exercise their ability to do so. What they do not do, though, is take the time to consider the consequences of their actions, mainly because they are still children.
Before the Internet existed, children and young adults could take solace in the fact that their youthful indiscretions would be considered as just that -- mistakes made by a mind not fully formed. These mistakes made during childhood and the teenage years that follow would not cling to them into adulthood. Even the legal system realizes that a 17-year-old mind does not weigh the consequences of decisions in the same way that an adult mind does. More and more these days, though, these acts are documented by or result in the production of media that ends up dispersed throughout the information superhighway. The consequences of this "scarlet e-letter" can last well into adulthood.
The fact that we are requiring that our children be responsible for their actions at a younger age is tragic, but it is indicative of a larger issue that is much more alarming. Everywhere I look nowadays, I see an ever-increasing amount of propaganda telling our children that they should be acting just like their adult counterparts. Most of this media is racy and provocative, and to a child, "being an adult" almost always equates to one facet of adulthood alone -- sex. By now, most of you know that children are becoming sexually active at earlier ages. You may be thinking that it doesn't affect you, but it would be naïve to think that your neighborhood was immune to the trend. I had my bubble burst when I talked with a friend who works as a teacher's aide in a local middle school. When I spoke with her, she shocked me with her description of what went on under the roof of a building supposedly dedicated to education. Sufficed to say, mathematics was not the preferred subject. She caught students red-handed with their parts entwined frequently, and the rest of the student body talked about sex as if it was just as normal as attending a baseball game or playing video games. I've never thought of myself as a prude, but I didn't become sexually active until well into high school -- as did most of my friends.
Of course, the subject of consequences arises with any discussion of sexuality among our youth. Any human being can perform the act of intercourse, but understanding the ramifications of the act requires a mind much more developed than one of a 12- or 13-year-old. Psychological consequences aside, just the simple physical results of sex are lost upon a couple of that young age. Sure, they vaguely understand that "babies come from sex," but none of it registers when things get hot and heavy. Even adults sometimes have trouble heeding the potential results of capricious sex. Undoubtedly, this is why we see another "pregnancy pact" story on the news every year.
Some of the factors that have contributed to this tremendous problem are obvious. In fact, only this past month, the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch once again added fuel to the fire. The clothing items available for this coming summer include a padded bikini top for seven- to 14-year-olds. This is the same company that marketed thongs for a similar age group that had words like "wink, wink" and "eye candy" printed on them. Let's put aside the fact that a seven-year-old has nothing to push up or show off with a thong, and simply ask what is the desired result of these items? It seems to me that there is no other purpose but to sexualize children at a wholly inappropriate young age -- children who are being bombarded with media that adds to the likelihood that they will be forced to make adult decisions well before they are ready.
It's a sobering thought to consider that childhood may be no more. It may sound alarmist, but if nothing is done, it will happen. We need to figure out how to teach a generation of children -- the first generation to never know life without the Internet -- to understand that there are new rules for making mistakes and for being young. Yes, there is a danger that in doing so, we will bring about the very event that we fear, but we have to make sure that there is a happy medium, or we risk ending up with a generation of maladjusted adults. Youthful indiscretions can now follow children for the rest of their lives. We must figure out a way to allow kids to be kids despite that fact.]]>The Dangers of 'Nerfing' the World for Our Kidstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8376852011-03-22T15:48:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
I can say with almost 100-percent assuredness that all of us have been privy to at least one event similar to those above. You may have thought it innocuous at the time, but each of those examples is indicative of a much larger issue. For the better part of 20 years, many of us have been participating in the "Nerfing" of our world. Our attempts to file-down the "sharp corners" of all aspects of everyday life has produced a "made-for-TV" quasi-existence that our children are experiencing in greater numbers every year.
Those of you who are old enough, try to remember the late 1970s and early 1980s. See if you can recall buying bottled water in cases. You can't, and that's because other than mineral beverages such as Pellegrino, there weren't many choices for bottled water. In fact, I remember a time when if you requested water at the local movie theater, they would force you to pay for a glass full of ice that you had to fill up at the public drinking fountain. Oh, the horror!
Bottled water is one of the biggest farces perpetrated on the American public in a very long time. We pay through the nose everyday for something that comes straight to our homes and is ostensibly free. If you have never quenched your thirst at the end of a garden hose, you haven't lived. The ultimate irony of the entire sham is that some of these bottled water companies get their water by turning on the tap at the factory.
Before I was old enough to go to the movies, though, I frequently engaged in behavior that would make most germ-conscious parents of today run away screaming bloody murder. They might even rush me off to the emergency room for good measure to administer a dose of antibiotics.
As a child, I vividly remember digging up mud-covered stink bugs the size of hockey pucks and letting them crawl all over my hands. Sound dirty? Well, during the summer months I upped the ante. While at the beach, not only did we dig up filthy sand crabs by the bucket-load, but during the medical waste dumping scandal it was commonplace to scoop up a syringe cover or used Band-Aid along with the little beetle-like critters. As you may have guessed, I'm still alive. Shocking, I know, given that we didn't have hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of the deadly whatever virus, but I'm hardly the exception to the rule.
Those of you who are parents should know that children are born without germ immunities that adults take for granted. It seems like common sense that in order to provide a child with a healthy set of these immunities, he or she must be exposed to the common bugs found in our world. You can argue that there are much more powerful germs now, but I would counter with an argument that all this hand sanitizer and antibiotic overuse use has aided in creating the mega-germs we now fear. Not to mention, if these germs are so hearty, is something that costs 59 cents at the checkout counter going to kill it? Superbugs are on the rise, and it's no coincidence.
You may be telling yourself that, as a child, I was just lucky and dodged a serious bullet. Well, all I can say is that the things I swallowed as a child could fill any parent's book of nightmares. For some reason, I had an obsession with putting shiny items in my mouth. Inevitably, some of those sparkly trinkets were swallowed. I distinctly remember swallowing a nickel, a paperclip, several thousand pencil erasers, and a pen cap or two. I might be a walking junk-drawer who jangles as he steps, but I'm still breathing. Oh, and, I ate so many peanut butter and marshmallow fluff sandwiches as a kid that there was an entire school year where I was unable to open my mouth fully.
Today, not only are children barred from having the childhood classic for lunch, but most kids are not even permitted to bring food to school that may have been in the same room as any form of peanuts. Yes, the peanut allergy is one of the most violent allergic reactions in existence, no one is claiming otherwise. To make an entire class suffer because one child might have a peanut allergy, though, is unconscionable! It wasn't that way years ago. My elementary school was pro-peanut, and would serve you peanut butter and jelly on saltine crackers if you forgot your lunch! Talk about living on the edge! Can you imagine if a school today deigned to even think about serving peanut butter? They would haul the principal out of his office at the front of a torch-bearing mob and string him up right there on the school playground shouting: "hey-ho, the peanut lover has to go!"
Here's the bottom line: humans have been around for millions of years. I can almost guarantee you that after a big mammoth hunt Ook the cavemen wasn't rushing to be the first in line to clean his hands. We have to take a collective step back and stop trying to protect our children from every little hiccup that comes along. Getting the Chicken Pox, having a runny nose, and making mud pies are a part of any healthy childhood. Short of wrapping your offspring in cellophane and foam rubber, there is no way to prevent every single misfortune that may come along. The only thing we will succeed in doing is making sure the common cold becomes a killer. ]]>The Customer Is Always on Holdtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8351252011-03-16T14:14:00-04:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Daniel P. Malitohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-p-malito/
Of course, the reality of the situation is far from the technological utopia we all got sold on. Those ivory tower eggheads continue to fix things that are not broken, and we end up paying the price. When a human being answered the phone after calling a customer support line, what part was so unbearable that we had to relegate the task to an automaton? And now any corporation worth its salt has a robotic phone answering system. This is supposedly to weed out the callers who really don't need to speak to a human being. Unfortunately, I missed the memo that listed the sect of consumers who were no longer deemed worthy of human contact. Apparently, there are a growing number of us who fall into that particular category of which I am now a proud member. Robot-kind has seen fit to revoke my live-human conversation privileges. It all happened so fast.
The Monday began like any other, and I decided to order a product on the Internet with overnight shipping. Allowing for 24 hours of processing, I figured my package would arrive no later than Wednesday of the same week. When Tuesday morning came and went with no package shipping information, I decided to phone the company, and inquire as to my purchase. That's when I had the great honor to speak to "Alice," who was supremely enthusiastic about helping me with any issue I might be having. How lucky was I?
"Alice" asked me to tell her what my issue was. I said "online order," figuring that was descriptive enough to route my call to the proper department. Alice responded, "I think you said 'place an order.' Is that correct?" Of course, it wasn't correct, and I figured even a cyborg might make a mistake or two, so I told her again what I needed. "No, I need order information." Alice responded, sounding much more confident this time, "I think you said 'store locations.' Is that correct?" It was at this point I began to lose confidence in Alice's ability to converse at the level needed to satisfy my concerns. So, quaint as it was to speak to a robot, I decided it was time to let a good, old human being take over. "Agent," I said, knowing from past experience that the word "agent" is the key to fast-tracking calls to an operator who breathes oxygen.
Alice seemed agreeable, but she had a request: "In order to get you to the right person who can help you, I need you to tell me what type of issue you are having." OK, I thought, this time I would keep it short and sweet. "Orders," I said. Alice responded: "OK, you said 'offers.' Please hang on while I get someone!" After a short time contemplating the benefits of automation in our modern world, I was greeted by a human voice. Barely keeping my joy under wraps, I told the person on the other end of the phone that my order had not yet shipped, and he told me to hang on while he transfers me to the correct department. After holding for over ten minutes, I heard a female voice say "Hi, this is Alice!"
Although the names were changed to protect the innocent (or guilty), the story above is similar to experiences I have had on more than one occasion when contacting companies I conduct business with. When exactly did businesses forget that the customer is doing them a favor? We should be "always right," not kept at arm's length at all costs. I cannot count the number of times that I have been told to expect a call back from a supervisor or manager, only to call back hours later when no call comes. Even as recently as 15 years ago, stores that treated you well and remembered your name would be the places that got your business -- even if it cost a bit more. Treating the customer with respect and deference was a source of pride for the owners and customer service representatives, and it was the odd employee who acted otherwise. Today, the tables have been turned completely. Now, when we recall business dealings, we remark on the occasions that we have been given outstanding service because it so rarely happens. When did this become acceptable, and why have we let it continue? The power ultimately lies with us, the consumer. Unfortunately, most corporations realize that today's society determines value, in large part, by whether or not someone has the latest gadget or wears the latest fashion. Somewhere along the line in the last two decades, business leaders figured out that they could treat the consumer like trash because, like a "bad boy" date, we want what they have all the more.
I'm not naïve enough to think that consumers will read this and begin a groundswell movement that results in up-ending the way the game is currently played. At least we can be aware of what they are doing to us, though. Credit card companies charging 28 percent interest, banks lending money to anyone with a dollar in their pocket, people buying new cell phones every year -- these practices have led us to the brink of disaster. If you can believe it, I'm a capitalist at heart. I see nothing wrong with making a decent living; I just don't think it has to be done at the expense of societal and personal wellbeing.
So, in the future, if you end up speaking to a robot on the other end of the line, throw a wrench into the proverbial works. When the automaton asks you a question, speak gibberish in return. My favorites are "supercalifragilisticex" and "eep-opp-ork." You get the idea. Eventually, Johnny 5 will apologize and transfer you to a live human being. Now, understanding the human being -- well, that's another column entirely.
]]>