Saturday, July 7, 2012

Concrete Means For Ending IP Regime


Sash inquired as to my apparent change in policy on IP, in that recently I suggested people gain patents, in order to fight the evil regime.   I need to clear that up. What happened is last Fall the patent laws were changed, and new ideas on eliminating the IP regime have come up. My recommendations have not changed, there are now more options.

Last fall the USA went from the system Thomas Jefferson designed, where the inventor gets the patent, to the european system Jefferson abhorred, and that is first to file system.  In an effort to make things better, the state made things worse.

But therein is an opportunity for a business, which I will get to shortly.

After the economic collapse we are experiencing slow motion right now finishes, we’ll be at what Rawls calls an “original position” in which we can reorganize into a more just society.  I can’t wait!

A very high priority will be eliminating any and all Intellectual Property “rights,” one of the most wasteful systems and the number one inhibitor of innovation in our economy.  Not only is it a massive waste of money, it blocks untold invention that would benefit mankind.

Our economic destruction is proceeding too slowly for us to wait to get rid of the IP regime, we must do so now. The means to do so is at hand, and makes for an excellent business opportunity, in particular a service.


Under copyright law, someone who independently creates an original work similar to another author's original work is not liable for copyright infringement, since the independent creation is not a reproduction of the other author's work. Thus, as a defense a copyright defendant can try to show he never had access to the other's work.

Patents, however, are different. As long as someone is an actual inventor of an invention (he did not learn about it from someone else), and the invention was not publicly known, he can obtain a patent for it. Someone who previously invented the same thing and is using the idea in secret can actually be liable for infringing the patent granted to the second inventor. Also, if a later person independently invents the same idea that was previously patented by another, this is also no defense. Prior use, or independent invention, is not a general defense. There is currently only a very limited "prior user" right (or "first inventor defense"), available to those who commercially used a "business method" before someone else patented it.

The purpose of law is to bring order to circumstances.  Rules govern skiing, chess, banking, the diamond business and so on, all without state intervention.  The problem is once the state intervenes, the rules engender chaos., as we see with the whimsical system above. Patent Attorney Stephan Kinsella, an honest lawyer who seeks to end the regime, advises a possible amelioration:

One could envision a more general purpose patent pooling arrangement: either devoted to a given sector of technology, or open to all forms of technology. For example, let’s imagine I form the Patent Defense League, a nonprofit corporation that allows any individual or company to join, so long as they abide by certain rules. These could include: (1) the company can never  sue a fellow member of the PDL for patent infringement; and (2) the company has a contractual obligation to temporarily assign the patent to any other PDL member who needs it for defensive reasons. In this way, the PDL would effectively create a huge arsenal of patents any member could use defensively. The PDL could also accept patents assigned by its members, or could acquire some third party patents using member dues.

Now there is the business opportunity, a service.  But the Esquire Kinsella foresees problems:

1  Presumably the PDL would charge membership fees. Perhaps the fees would be discount for every patent the member can contribute, so that those contributing more have to pay less in terms of money. (I’m envisioning $50k or so for smaller companies, $100k for larger ones.)

2. But what incentive do members have to keep filing and acquiring additional patents, instead of halting patent acquisition effort and expenses and “free riding” on the other patents in the pool? If all the members stopped filing for patents, eventually the patent pool would shrink and be of less value. So incentives would have to be built into the structure of the pool so that member companies still file for and acquire patent applications. Presumably the right to sue non-PDL members would provide some incentive to keep acquiring patents.

There is an effort to do this already, but it suffers from a fatal flaw, they are trying only to curb one problem, not destroy the patent regime, which is the task at hand.
.
So the opportunity stands, and let me suggest answers to Kinsella’s objections:

1.  What would the expenses be to warrant the $50K or $100K fees?  Skip the “buying of patents” and what is left? You need a database and a set of skilled patent parsers who can research  a predator’s weakness, and then work-up the lawsuit in a template manner.  Since this work can all be done overseas, the fees could be quite low.  And I would arrange it so if evil company X is threatening our company Y, the Patent Regime Destruction Org (PRDO) would prep the paperwork and start with a lawsuit, having found that PRDO member Z has standing to counterattack evil company X.  It’s rope a dope, make all companies fear any patent lawsuit for the exposure of an attack from who-knows-where.  Use the system against itself.

Whereas a patent attorney may need to charge fees of $50 or $100K, some kid working off his kitchen table may be happy to do so for  $12 an hour, with a crew in India working at $6 an hour.  Stranger things have happened.  The Nazi regime was fatally wounded by some guy working off his kitchen table in Portugal.   

2. As to Kinsella’s 2nd concern, I’ve been teaching for some 25 years and bashing IPR for about 20.  In almost every class I find someone with a patent.  None have ever made any money.  Most have their name on the patent, but the ownership is with the company for whom they were working.  Almost everyone is quite clear that any patent they were involved in would be of no financial benefit to themselves. But it sure is cool to have ones name on a patent, a sort of feather in ones cap, and certainly a gem on a resume.  Indeed, Kinsella holds patents.

People submit all sorts of creative works to all sorts of contests, and that seems to be largely why individuals seek patents, a sort of laureate on par with a blue ribbon at a poetry contest.  So i don't think patents would stop once people became members of the PRDO.

Indeed, PRDO ought to crowd out those “patent submission” scams and offer help for people to submit for patents if they will contribute the patent to PRDO.

So to answer Sash directly, I have not changed my mind, I’ve added to the arsenal. My advice stands, avoid IPR, as a tactic, let the designer own it.  But if you desire to help destroy an evil system, then patent your ideas and turn the patent over to PRDO (or whatever the name is of the company that gets started.)

Kinsella schooled me as to my own efforts regarding freeing my copyright works.  As to my own books, he says “actually, you don't copyright it. you automatically get a copyright in anything you write. no notice or registration is needed. "

I shared with Kinsella:

Mark Helprin says he is a writer and copyrights allow him to pass something on to his daughters (monopoly income residuals).  I market, print and sell my books.  I told my daughters if they want to make money off my books when I am dead they need to market, print and sell my books, like anyone else.  There is nothing wrong with working for a living.

And Kinsella answered my dread of my children’s avarice with this “You might consider making a donation to the upcoming Free Culture Trust, in your will http://questioncopyright.org/free_culture_thing 

I will research that suggestion and report on it later.

The main task is the elimination of patent, copyright and trademarks.  In addition to just playing the system, there are now some possibilities afoot to positively eliminate it.  So there may be some instances when pursuing a patent is beneficial if the intent is to gum up other patentholders in their effort to restrain innovation.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Friday, July 6, 2012

Coca Cola & Genocide

When the stated goals are genocide, the means are genocidal, and the results are genocide, at what point do we say, "What a minute, that is genocide."

Darwin specifically taught, later in his career, in order to clear up any doubt, that the negro and aborigine were marked for, well you read it....

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.


That is some seriously loose talk.  Is that permission to "hurry the inevitable?"  I met people who believe it does.  A Coca Cola insider tells us:

Putman, whose positions at Coca-Cola included U.S. head of marketing for carbonated drinks, said in the interview that among his achievements was tailoring the company’s national advertising campaigns to specific groups. The approach helped Coca-Cola intensify marketing to target audiences such as African Americans and Hispanics.

I don't drink coca cola products because they are nasty. Beer is my soft drink, and I raised my daughters to drink beer and wine as a beverage. OK, mostly clean water and juices, but we did not do soft drinks and I never minded if they drank alcohol, like the Italians. Anyway, I digress.

Are americans with some african ancestry targets for genocide?  Clearly.  What to do about it?  Well, shun companies that target americans with some african ancestry.  That is necessary.  That is sufficient. If we just stop targeting americans with some african ancestry, they will do just fine, like anyone else.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Thursday, July 5, 2012

Then Do you Agree with This?


In contrast to what we see around us, as well as within ourselves, stands St. Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of the Common Good, a vision of a society where the good of each member is bound to the good of the whole in the service of God.
To this end, we advocate:
--Personalism, a philosophy which regards the freedom and dignity of each person as the basis, focus and goal of all metaphysics and morals. In following such wisdom, we move away from a self-centered individualism toward the good of the other. This is to be done by taking personal responsibility for changing conditions, rather than looking to the state or other institutions to provide impersonal "charity." We pray for a Church renewed by this philosophy and for a time when all those who feel excluded from participation are welcomed with love, drawn by the gentle personalism Peter Maurin taught.
--A decentralized society, in contrast to the present bigness of government, industry, education, health care and agriculture. We encourage efforts such as family farms, rural and urban land trusts, worker ownership and management of small factories, homesteading projects, food, housing and other cooperatives--any effort in which money can once more become merely a medium of exchange, and human beings are no longer commodities.
--A "green revolution," so that it is possible to rediscover the proper meaning of our labor and our true bonds with the land; a distributist communitarianism, self-sufficient through farming, crafting and appropriate technology; a radically new society where people will rely on the fruits of their own toil and labor; associations of mutuality, and a sense of fairness to resolve conflicts.

It all comes from the anarchist group Catholic Workers.  I will address some of these points....


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Can You Agree With These Premises?


-In economics, private and state capitalism bring about an unjust distribution of wealth, for the profit motive guides decisions. Those in power live off the sweat of others' brows, while those without power are robbed of a just return for their work. Usury (the charging of interest above administrative costs) is a major contributor to the wrongdoing intrinsic to this system. We note, especially, how the world debt crisis leads poor countries into greater deprivation and a dependency from which there is no foreseeable escape. Here at home, the number of hungry and homeless and unemployed people rises in the midst of increasing affluence.
--In labor, human need is no longer the reason for human work. Instead, the unbridled expansion of technology, necessary to capitalism and viewed as "progress," holds sway. Jobs are concentrated in productivity and administration for a "high-tech," war-related, consumer society of disposable goods, so that laborers are trapped in work that does not contribute to human welfare. Furthermore, as jobs become more specialized, many people are excluded from meaningful work or are alienated from the products of their labor. Even in farming, agribusiness has replaced agriculture, and, in all areas, moral restraints are run over roughshod, and a disregard for the laws of nature now threatens the very planet.
--In politics, the state functions to control and regulate life. Its power has burgeoned hand in hand with growth in technology, so that military, scientific and corporate interests get the highest priority when concrete political policies are formulated. Because of the sheer size of institutions, we tend towards government by bureaucracy--that is, government by nobody. Bureaucracy, in all areas of life, is not only impersonal, but also makes accountability, and, therefore, an effective political forum for redressing grievances, next to impossible.
--In morals, relations between people are corrupted by distorted images of the human person. Class, race and gender often determine personal worth and position within society, leading to structures that foster oppression. Capitalism further divides society by pitting owners against workers in perpetual conflict over wealth and its control. Those who do not "produce" are abandoned, and left, at best, to be "processed" through institutions. Spiritual destitution is rampant, manifested in isolation, madness, promiscuity and violence.
--The arms race stands as a clear sign of the direction and spirit of our age. It has extended the domain of destruction and the fear of annihilation, and denies the basic right to life. There is a direct connection between the arms race and destitution. "The arms race is an utterly treacherous trap, and one which injures the poor to an intolerable degree."


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Gott mit uns

Every German soldier in World War Two had belt buckle that said Gott mit uns, or God is with us. This must have been quite a comfort to all those whose last vision as they died at German hands was Gott mit uns, with a swastika.
Gott mit uns
As these things go, it was a motto for the Germans for many centuries, and the Russians as well.  As they often fought, they slaughtered each other with the assurance that God was with them.

The Catholic bishops are asking for money this weekend for vocations to the military chaplains.


"Freedom always comes at a high price. It requires a generous heart, ready for sacrifice. . . We cannot excuse ourselves from our own personal responsibility for freedom.  There is no such thing as freedom without sacrifice."   -Pope John Paul II


I doubt the pope said that, or if he did, that he meant it in relation to war.  I asked the people who made the website to cite the source, no word back yet.


The website goes on:


There are few who comprehend the ideals of sacrifice and selfless service that form the bedrock of priestly ministry better than those in the United States Military, for whom service and sacrifice are a way of life. Nearly ten percent of men ordained priests in the United States every year have prior military service, and another ten percent grew up in military households. The life as a priest chaplain, ministering to the spiritual and sacramental needs of those in the United States Armed Forces is a natural vocation for a man of prior military experience, and one that the Church and the military desperately need answered. 


Really? So 90% of the non-veteran priests do not quite "get it?"  Being a soldier is a superior path to priesthood?  Certainly St. Ignatius was at one time was a soldier, but he repented of that to follow Jesus.


Today the Catholic heirarchy takes great pains to promote and recruit from the military.  One new Catholic college is putting heavy emphasis on Marines making the school a better place.  I thought the marines were Naval ground assault forces, not Catholic school pacifiers.


David was not allowed to build the Temple, because he was a soldier, with blood on his hands.  Reading the Bible, it seems if you do want to build God's Temple, avoid war at all costs. And if not, get married, because God might allow your children to build the temple.


The Bishops are finishing their fortnight for freedom, a two-week push to get an exemption to Obamacare.  Their Catholic supreme court justice threw the vote and it is over.  The push centers on 4th of july, an event inspired by resistance to authority.


The US military is actively involved in resistance to authority around the world.  It overthrows authority around the world. Catholic politicians call for murder, not a matter of prudential judgement.  They find no challenge.


How is it different when Americans do it?  Well, God is on our side.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


If You Abhor IPR, You Must Secure Your Own

People ask me why I copyright my work if I do not believe in that system (I deplore the system.)   For the simple reason, if I do not someone else might.  And if no one does, my estate may get the rights, which means my wicked, capitalist children might get the rights.  Or even worse, one of my many ex-wives, somehow!

To destroy the IPR system, we must enter it and infect it with freedom and bring it down.  Gain all IPR all the time and then open source your IPR, trademarks, patents and copyrights.  Or else...

Fritz Eichenberg used to make his art work available free to any Catholic Worker publication when he was alive. Since he has passed on, his artistic estate is being managed by an intellectual property firm named VAGA: Visual Artists and Galleries Association, Inc. They do not share Eichenberg's philosophy and will charge you an arm and a leg to reproduce his work if you decide to contact them — even for nonprofit, non-commercial use. It's sad, really, and we would hope that some generous benefactor would buy the rights to Eichenberg's Catholic Worker pieces and donate them to the Catholic Worker Archives so that they might be publicly and freely available for non-commercial use as he had intended. 

Far from protecting his rights, VAGA is suppressing Fritz's art. As Dorothy Day said, "Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy rotten system"

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Why Gold May Jump

From the Cobden Center:

In an Amphora Report last month, The Canary in the Gold Mine, I made the case that a key reason why gold has not been acting like a safe-haven asset in recent months is because banks are so capital impaired that they are scrambling to reduce their holdings of risky assets in favour of so-called ‘zero- risk-weighted’ assets, against which they needn’t set aside any regulatory capital. As it stands, gold has a 50% risk-weighting. But some government bonds, including US Treasuries, German Bunds and British gilts, are zero-risk-weighted.
However, in the report, I speculated that perhaps that would change in future, and that:
…if it happens, it will be an important step toward the re-monetisation of gold. Gold would be able to compete on a level playing field with government bonds. While the playing field could be levelled in this way, there would be a gross mismatch on the pitch. On the one hand, you have unbacked government bonds, issued by overindebted governments, yielding less than zero in inflation- adjusted terms. On the other, you have gold, the historical preserver of purchasing power par excellence. [1]
Well, on 4th June the Federal Reserve, OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) collectively circulated a memo asking for comment on their proposed changes to the regulatory capital risk- weighting framework. Section 11, ‘Other Assets’, specifies that a “zero risk weight” is to be applied to “gold bullion held in the banking organization’s own vaults, or held in another depository institution’s vaults on an allocated basis… [2]
Whoa. There you have it. As it stands now it would appear that, in the near future, banks will not have their regulatory capital ratio

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Retiring Overseas?

A 19 year old girl crossing the border into Ireland yesterday, the purpose of the visit is to study in a Summer program on James Joyce,  emailed me her experience:

i made it to ireland but the travelling was very rough. ... on top of that, apparently there are some irish who really really do not like americans. the customs agent went on a rant about how a US immigration officer would treat an irish man trying to go into the US to study. and then he started giving me a spiel about how they treat Mexicans going into the US. Then I said it was completely beside the point and he said i need to put more thought into my travelling arrangements. Finally I showed him my return ticket and got through, but after a day of sick travel i was rather pissed off.


What the customs agent did not realize is all Americans are treated like "Mexicans" even when travelling from Chicago to New York, on a plane.  The Irish customs agent is comparing how civilized Europeans treat each other and how Americans treat each other, and expecting us to be civilized.

That is not to say Americans like it.  Why, now that the state treats whites too like it used to treat just Mexicans and Americans with some African ancestry, whole resistance movements have risen up, like the tea party.

In any event, what goes around comes around.  USA policy may be a wonderful benefit to banks and warmongers, but it is harsh on people overseas.  And regimes see how the USA regime treat Americans, and they get the bright idea they can be as abusive as USA.  It is called policy-laundering.

The USA social security scheme and medicare are quite generous for people who elect to retire overseas.  But expensive. And who is easiest to abuse when it comes to cutting back, but those living overseas? The British are feeling this overseas.

And if you don't get trapped in political cutbacks, then you have the enmity of say Greeks who live in poverty while they serve you on their sunny Isles as you collect your pension.  Not a good situation.

About twenty years ago I mentioned unfunded pension liabilities in a class, and an older gentlemen who was starting up a business came to me and said he had started 30 years earlier in the HR department of (I think he said Xerox) working on the pension plans.  Early on he realized the actuarial tables were deeply flawed, and there was no way Xerox(?) would fund those pensions.  His boss agreed, but orders were orders.  This fellow saved and lived as though he had no pension coming, and he was not disappointed.

If you think you can escape what is coming by retiring overseas, it may be that overseas is the last place an American wants to be, dependent on the State.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Banks Cash In On Anti-terror Rules

Sometimes I exchange CAD money I make in Canada into US$.  Over the years I've watched USA banks get more and more restrictive.  Now they no longer just exchange cash, you must deposit it into your account and then they will convert it it to US$ for you to withdraw.  The paperwork is tedious and time consuming. This is to keep a paper trail so the banks can "fight terrorism."

Here is the xe exchange rate -



750.00 CAD=737.287 USD
Canadian DollarUS Dollar
1 CAD = 0.983049 USD1 USD = 1.01724 CAD
Convert againUSD/CAD thumbnailView ChartMid-market rates: 2012-07-02 19:34 UTC

My bank gave me .9269. or $695.19.  Nearly $40 in fees to fight terror.  the banks do not care if tedious rules and regs are made for you and me, they just add fees to jack up income to cover their time spent.  We just lose more and more.  And the terrorists keep winning.

The world has always been a dangerous place. Once upon a time we knew how to behave.  Not any more.  I'll spend money I make in Canada in Canada from now on, it's not worth it to bring it home.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


FDA Goes After Supplements


Karen Costner likes supplements, but not the FDA.

I'll add two elements to her argument...

1. False sense of security exists because people believe the FDA now inspects it all.  Because of this false sense, the scammers can thrive.. They would not thrive in a free market.  So if not to protect the public, what is the point of the FDA?

2.  The point of regulations is to promote Earl Butz "get big or get out" mandate.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Blame The Catholics

S: If it weren't for the Irish Catholics, we would not have any cops.

R: If it weren't for the Irish Catholics, we wouldn't need any cops.

So goes the old joke.

If we look at who fronts the financial services for the powers that be, and see Jews overwhelmingly represented, when we look at law enforcement (the arm of the state as defined as a monopoly on violence) and we see Catholics overwhelmingly represent.  We are a big number to begin with, but we are five of the supreme court justices, countless generals, cops and prosecutors.  Legislators and governors abound.

The bishops have spent 100 years trying to get what we call Obamacare passed.  Now they've got it, but it is not quite what they hoped for.  One thing the bishops can count on from all of these Catholics in the commanding heights of law enforcement when it comes to doing the right thing is absolutely nothing.  In spite of having several leading law schools, the catholics are not contributing much in the way of the rule of law, but plenty in the way of violence.

The Church/King - Church/State pas de deux has gone on since Pilate interviewed Jesus.  The Church has never quite got it right, and has not now.  It is coming apart right now.  Pope John Paul II had to order priests worldwide to stay out of state offices.  A pope cannot tell catholics to do so, but popes have certainly noted a preference for those who start their own businesses.

Perhaps catholics ought to begin to take their faith as seriously as say, orthodox Jews, and withdraw their consent to be governed by the state, and certainly refuse to serve the state.




Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Monday, July 2, 2012

First Eliminate the Paid Fire Fighters

The "blame the black guy" health care bill has created a precedent wherein congress has passed a law that can tax you to pay for a private company's services.  That is now the law.  White folk countrywide who otherwise do not know how to serve customers will now flock to congress to get congress to make customers for them too.  There is no rational limit to this premise.  After the election, the law will not be overturned, no matter who wins.  People will blame Obama.

But the economic destruction of USA will speed up, because there is no way this can be affordable, and it also forbids innovation and price reduction.  So the time to look at rebuilding society from the ashes is now, and a good learning experience would be for cities to eliminate all paid firefighters.

There is probably no group of city workers more loved than firefighters, which is a tribute to social conditioning.  So if we can prove we do not need paid fire fighters, then what city services do we need?  Of course, none, and people will know we can do quite well without city governments when we have no city governments.

Someone joked the USA is the only place in the world where if your house is on fire a truckload of millionaires will show up and put it out.  Witty.  But that is city firefighters, they who retire with pensions and bennies which constitute millionaire-grade personal wealth.  It is the city firefighters who are paid.  70% of the firefighters in USA are volunteer, which means they are not paid.  They are every bit as well trained and equipped as any paid fire-fighter, they just volunteer to help their neighbors.  Glad to do it without pay.

Last Saturday night I had a conversation with a volunteer firefighter from connecticut, a strapping young man with shoulder length hair.  He added a few points I had not considered.  First he brought me up short on the question of why firefighters are paid.  I was wandering in the labor theory argument when he cut me off with "cities pay firefighters because they have money."
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Now, for me, this economic reality I always such a challenge.  I know it is true, I know it is almost always a factor in economic calculation, but it is so hard for me to grasp and hold it.  First off, it is a repugnant concept, spending for the sake of spending, and second off,  I am from a field were to survive you must cut costs.

But the fact is the volunteer fire fighter is right.  Cities have a captive audience, which they tax.  Now they have money.  What to spend it on?  How about art, playgrounds, firefighters, whatever.  Nothing necessary. It does not matter what they spend it on, it just matters that they collect and spend it, and keep some for themselves.  Since cities have money, they spend it. The money comes from force and fraud, you will be crushed if you do not pay the taxes, the money is not spent as you think it is.  It does not cost that much to suppress fires in a city, we just spend that much.

It does not cost that much to produce new drugs, we just spend that much.

It does not cost that much to defend America, we just spend that much.

See how it goes?

Then there was another interesting observation.  In his small town when the alarm goes out thirty guys with axes and gear show up.  Fires are put out quickly. Then it is Miller time.  In cities Firefighters are paid.  Maybe twelve people show up, no more.  How come? Because lavishing so much money on so few, and having a public union to keep people from fighting fires, the result is city fires have less crews fighting them than town fires.  Since cities pay firefighters, they cannot afford better coverage. This would make an interesting study.  Come up with a gauge that reads how many BTUs a fire is giving off when the first firefighters arrive, and how long it ties to end the fire.  Then compare paid firefighters to volunteer firefighters.  I bet we'd find that volunteer fire fighters put out fires faster than the paid fire fighters.  But "unfair!" you say, there are more volunteer fire fighters attacking a fire.  Exactly!

He had another sidelight.  In his town they got rid of the police department.  Now no town in USA is allowed to have no cops, so towns must contract with county or state police to be the state presence of the monopoly on violence which defines the state, if they do not have their own cops.

Although he has met the cops, he could could not recall if they were state or county since he saw them so rarely, but he told a story.  The outside cop working evenings made his first task to meet the volunteer firefighters.  How come?  In case of trouble, the cop needed back-up.  The volunteer fire fighters being local, most likely knew everyone.  he recalled how once an outraged dad was threatening a cop for hauling his drunk-driver son away.  Police back-up was scarce, so the deputy called the volunteer firefighters.  Within minutes a dozen men with axes were on the scene, who in turned calmed down the outraged father.  No swat teams, no killings.  Only a drunk driver went to jail.

None of these make for ideal circumstances, but they are better ways.  People should not see the end of this country as we experience it and have fear.  What we are losing we don't need anyway.  We can test out living in freedom by eliminating paid city firefighters.  Then we will all see that one of our cherished conceits was all a sham anyway.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Sunday, July 1, 2012

Health Care My Mother

 I warned my mother not to go into the "old folks home" and argued with my siblings and took what actions I could to forbid it, but ultimately it was her choice. After she went in, my efforts switched to making it as comfortable as possible for her.  She was in probably the best "retirement home" in Seattle, but it does not matter.  You cannot make a fundamentally flawed idea good.

The first couple of years were as advertised, but lonely for my mom inasmuch as once esconsced, the most vociferous of her children urging her commitment to the home began to find less opportunity to visit.  Further, all old folks all the time can be pretty dreadful, even if you are one yourself.

What few sociology courses I took for my masters degree detailed how intergenerational interaction is crucial to raising the well-rounded person, and elders live longer and better if they are in inter-generational settings. We deny our young the opportunity to be all they can be if we ship our elders off to concentration centers, and we deny our elders the best situation at the same time.  We may have the power to violate these human standards, but not the right.

The facilities were superb and the staff the best in the business.  I am not being coy when I say the orderlies who actually do the heavy lifting etc are interesting people from far off lands. What I liked is they seemed genuinely to respect and care for my mother, something I doubt would be much present among my countrymen doing the work.

After a couple of years her health deteriorated and I came back from a trip to find she had been committed to the hospital part of the home, which is often a one way trip.  I was astonished at how far she had declined in what was less than a week.  She was in and out of consciousness and the first thing she said when she did recognize me was "thirsty..."  My mom was fading fast. Much worse off than when she was brought in.  She had no appetite, extensive bruising, and of course thirsty.

I spent a lot of time the next few days finding out what happened, but the problem is what with the state rules on medical records, one cannot know what is going on with mom. Now let me pause and note, that even in the very best of facilities, there is only so many people to deal with so much need.  If no one cares about the old folk, then neither can the staff, much.  Once I had showed up, and begin making firm inquiries and attending to my mother myself (she was always thirsty) the staff responded with far more attention.  I and a brother formed a sort of tag team.

My mom began to rally, and I took a few moments when she was clear and rational to make an end run around the system and have my mom get her medical records in front of her for me to read.  There was terror in the management's eyes, but resolve in mine.  They had to give in (although I was reported to my siblings.)

I can see why it is in the state's best interest to keep anyone from seeing your medical records.  It has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with complacency and complicity.  My mother was being loaded up with Aricept, a taxpayer-funded anti-alzheimers drug.

Now this was curious.  My mother worked in the medical labs at the University of Washington for years, doing science.  So in the mid-1970s a call for volunteers for a cohort study of alzheimers was made, my mom signed up.  Twice a year she would meet the doctors who put her and her cohort through tests to look for alzheimers symptoms.  To the day she died, never a symptom.

So I inquired as to how come she was being given Aricept when she did not have Alzheimers.  "O, we do not know if anyone has alzheimers truly until after they are dead and we can autopsy the brain to find the disease."  Very good.  But if she had no symptoms of Alzheimers, why was she being given a drug to treat the symptoms of Alzheimers? "O, alzheimers shows a collection of symptoms that can be different from person to person, so we never really know."  OK, but if for forty years she has been examined by the leading alzheimers doctors in the world and never showed any symptoms of alzheimers, why was this being prescribed?  This was a trickier question for them.  The Aricept dosing stopped immediately.  My mother recovered her appetite quickly.  She was strong enough to get her own water.  The bruises went away.  The side effects of Aricept are lack of appetite and widespread bruising. If you do not eat and are denied water, you slip into a painful unconsciousness.

The thirsty part is just from lack of giving water.  Withholding water is specifically called for in the legally approved "care"protocols.  I fast and know that after day three hunger goes away so to die of hunger is not really painful, but it can take a month.  But to die of thirst is quite horrible and only takes a few days.  Withholding water is a critical part of euthanasia, and in practice it takes about a day and a half to finish off someone who is very ill.  In the UK it kills about 130.000 people a year.

You do realize that if I had not asked that 2nd and 3rd question, the Aricept would have continued.   And no doubt it does, all over the country, right now, for people who have no Alzheimers.

And of course, while all this is going on, we taxpayers pay for state workers who show up and "inspect" the records and patients to assure nothing untoward is going on.  Inspectors inspect what the state calls "health care" and finds nothing amiss in that regard.

For the years afterwards, my mother and I would have long conversation on many topics, she filling me in on strategies for dealing with and economic crisis and depression, meaning of life and suffering, and tales of long ago. I found her counsel terribly useful.  She also developed some insights that were astonishingly clever. My mother changed more in those last few years than in her previous entire lifetime.  It was fascinating to watch.  I won't criticize my mom, but I'll just share a quick clip from a man whose work she previously found delightful.


When she was on the receiving end, she had reason to rethink some of her tastes. Her generation loved the plays that supported this man's views.

If anyone is going into such care, and again no one has the right to require or volunteer for such "care," just make sure lots of family is around with lots of attention to signal this parent is not here to be killed.

No doubt plenty of people will find this offensive.  But I find euthanasia offensive, and the truth ought never be offensive and euthanasia ought always be.  To say there are some circumstances when it is necessary to place a person in such intensive care is a false dilemma.  First hard cases make bad law. Second, there is nothing wrong with an elder, or anyone, dying at home, as part of life.

But there is a business opportunity, the point of this blog, coming up.  But first, let's note we are all (except me, because I am exempt) now in the system for which my mom volunteered. The republicans will never repeal this law, any more than Obama would ever end the wars. Let's look at the first line in the Obamacare act, which the Bishops generally support. The first sentence is a lie.


This Act puts individuals, families and small business owners in control of their health care.

You have no control when anything is mandated. We are born with control over our health care, which is diet and exercise.  But the act is using health care to mean medicine, and on two levels this is a lie:  one is you cannot pick what medicine you want from whom you want, nor have USA citizens been able to do so for about a century, since the state has taken over the definition of medicine.  Second, what the state now calls medicine is no such thing. Aricept is good medicine to the state.  The state gradually eroded peoples control over healthcare, and the act ended it.  I find the farther from state control, the better the medicine, and happily I can still go overseas if I want good medicine.

So what is the business business opportunity?  Most wealth in the United States is concentrated in the hands of women, because they outlive their husbands.  As women age, and they live in larger houses, someone should set up a website to match elderly women with young families.  The young families move into the home of the elderly women, and for free rent integrate the elderly women into the family life.  Mom lives better longer, the kids get intergenerational benefits, and the young family is motivated to keep mom as hale as long as possible to keep the benefit of the arrangement in place.  It is also a sort of benign redistribution of wealth as the equity in mom's house is in effect to some degree transferred to the young couple who is saving money while living free with mom.

The Catholic bishops are worried about their "rights" and missing the point that what they support is not medicine.  But as the Vatican keeps telling US Catholics, "You are on your own."  And helpfully they list small business on par with hospitals and schools in doing good in society.  So solve this crisis with a small business matching mom and young families.

I was the last person to talk to my mom, and the last person to see her alive.  She was scheduled to be moved the next day to the brand new retirement home highrise with a view of the bay, something she was promised when she signed up, a fabulous state of the art facility.  I was flying to Hawaii the next day.  We chatted about her big move and how in the morning we'd both be in paradise.

When I landed at Kona I got a call from my sister mom had died.  Funny, that last conversation.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.