Sunday, October 30, 2011

Scummy bankers! How to make politicians more transparent.

Members of the Committee on Financial Services...Image via Wikipedia
I hadn't read this when it happened, when it was found out, when it went to trial, or even when Citigroup lost and was ordered to pay millions of dollars.  It's definitely worth a read.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html

The corner of Wall Street and Broadway, showin...Image via Wikipedia

Several years ago, citigroup has a collection or package of mortgages.  It knows that they'll probably fall through.  It goes through and picks out the ones that are most likely to bust, about 500 million dollars worth, and then sells them to hedge funds and investment groups.  It is so sure that they're going to bust that it then shorts them. 

Shorting goes something like this from my understanding: you think an investment will do well, so you buy it, and when it has done well, you sell it to make a profit.  You think an investment will do poorly, so you sell it, and when it does poorly, you buy it back to make a profit.  Apparently you can somehow sell these items that you don't own, and then buy them back again at the altered value.  Except you wouldn't get them back again, because you didn't own them. 

After Citigroup sold them, and no longer had them, then it shorted them (knowing that they were going to go bust).  Basically they made more money than they were worth by selling them, and then made more money by betting that they would bust. 

Corruption!!!!   I really like the article's explanation and advice (from Thomas L. Friedman) This is a quote from the article: "One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. Why are there 61 members on the House Committee on Financial Services? So many congressmen want to be in a position to sell votes to Wall Street.
We can’t afford this any longer. We need to focus on four reforms that don’t require new bureaucracies to implement. 1) If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up. We can’t risk another trillion-dollar bailout. 2) If your bank’s deposits are federally insured by U.S. taxpayers, you can’t do any proprietary trading with those deposits — period. 3) Derivatives have to be traded on transparent exchanges where we can see if another A.I.G. is building up enormous risk. 4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from. The public needs to know."

I really like number 1.  It's my idea as well from a previous blog.  "If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big, and needs to be broken up." 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 28, 2011

Rick Horowitz's views on "Birthers"

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is s...Image via Wikipedia
I haven't read anything quite so painful in a while.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-horowitz/rick-perry-gunslinger-mor_b_1035196.html  I was waiting for him to give it up and explain the sarcasm, because I honestly believe that around a fifth of adult readers won't 'get it' without some explanation. 

I agree with the sentiment, if not the methods.  On the other hand, it is kindof fun, and to some degree deserved.  An honest guy (who would never make
Texas Governor Rick PerryImage by eschipul via Flickr
it to high office) would denounce the discounted idea that a few still have about Obama's being foreign born.  An opposition politician won't embrace it since doing so would be negatively judged by many objective or moderate voters, but playing with the idea like it's still an open question is like... well, like what Rick Horowitz has posted. 

It is kindof fun... but that doesn't make it right.   
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

How much better is the $20,000 mattress you need to sleep?

IMG_3044Image by Neeta Lind via Flickr
I've been waiting for this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/your-money/mattress-not-usually-to-blame-in-sleep-problems-experts-say.html 

Finally found one.  Some official sounding stuff that matches my pre-existing beliefs.  :)  For all the people wanting a new mattress out there to solve your sleeping problems.  The expensive ones aren't really better than the cheap mattresses. 

mattressImage via Wikipedia

Do we really believe that thousands of years worth of our ancestors suffered a life time's worth of back troubles because the super expensive mattressses of today didn't exist?  We went out and bought an $800 dollar California King sized mattress, and it's nice, and I feel about the same as I did on the 9 plus year old queen sized one that we bought that was old and thing and squeeky. 


An example of a Trundle bed.Image via Wikipedia

There is no "science" of better sleep.  Well, not very good science anyway.  It's really the "science" called MARKETING, and we've all been had!  Almost as bad as "a diamond is forever" wedding rings in my opinion.  Lame!  (Don't worry, my wife never reads my blogs:) 

I love some of the articles I'm finding.  "When to buy a new mattress" courtesy of a company that sells mattresses.  You can also buy my free guide, "When to send money to Jeff" provided with no obligation and interest free. 

I think my favorite idea in the article is that "hey, there's nothing like a good placebo effect!" Yeah, if people want to convince themselves that they're sleeping better after paying thousands of dollars to someone else, then by all means, go for it.

This article does illustrate for me something that really annoys me, and that's how companies can mold the truth and create their own with time.  Everyone knows the many benefits of coffee, wine, breast implants, fake bakes, etc.  Any negative consequences get brushed under the rug.  Why?  Nobody makes any money telling you not to participate, but lots of people make money when someone buys/invests in these items.  Cigarettes were the same way until the last 10 or 15 years or so.  The people that make money from selling these products pay money to researchers to find even the smallest benefits, and these are advertised relentlessly, while negative indicators get no real advertising dollars. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 24, 2011

Caring for a dying loved one.

Eye deathImage by doug88888 via Flickr
Two different areas come into play when talking about what to do for a dying loved one.  Hospice care and Palliative care. 

Hospice care is covered by Medicaid or Medicare, for patients with life expectancies of less than 6 months, who have decided not to attempt any further agressive or curative treatments.  This usually takes place when a patient and/or family decide that further treatment will not successfully cure the patient, or that the probability of success is too low and the price in pain, time, or cost is too high.  Generally at the rehabilitation center I work at, patients won't get therapy if they are on hospice care, although there are exceptions. 
Spending on U.S. healthcare as a percentage of...Image via Wikipedia

Palliative care is different in several respects.  First, there doesn't seem to be an explicit form of payment for palliative services, although I could be wrong.  It is usually found in large hospitals, and run by doctors, nurses, chaplains, social workers and others.  A patient doesn't need to have less than 6 months to live and can pursue any and all cures.  The service is dedicated to the patient, in helping inform them about their diagnoses, and presenting the full range of options to them, without the practitioners' emphasis on the most agressive treatment.  In palliative care there is an emphasis on putting quality into the final days, months, or years of life. 

Apparently palliative care could save the health care system... or really the taxpayers, 6 billion dollars a year if it was implemented all over the country. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020025644.htm

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 21, 2011

You must forget more to remember better!

The most important part of remembering is forgetting.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111018111938.htm  Not forgetting the things, but forgetting other background things that need not be remembered.  It makes sense.  The brain receives all sorts of information from all five senses, and it must "tune out" the majority of this information in order to focus on and remember the important things. 

Rodin's The Thinker at the Musée Rodin.Image via Wikipedia

Memory consolidationImage via Wikipedia
The idea of an inability to tune out less important information, or being unable to discriminate the important from the unimportant, is presented for multiple disorders, including autism and dementia.  For me, I think this happens when I try to remember where I put my keys.  I've put them in many different places, and which of these was the place that I most recently did so might be difficult to determine.
Happy Children Playing KidsImage by epSos.de via Flickr

On the other hand, other research says that the most important factor in forgetting is confusing, not decaying.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081212153204.htm  Basically, that similar memories confuse the brain into forgetting information more than the idea that a memory gets crowded out or overwritten by other memories.  This second article indicates that a better memory of something would be had by separating it from similar things in the brain. 
Healthy brain (bottom) versus brain of a donor...Image via Wikipedia

Loss of short term memory to some degree is normal for everyone, and especially of those that are elderly.  Loss of long term memory is not normal, and may indicate disease processes such as Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type, aka Alzheimer's disease.  Remembering where the car is parked is bad, waking up and forgetting where the bathroom in your house is will be really bad. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

250 years before Columbus came, Cahokia (in Illinois) was larger than London

Monk's Mound a Pre-Columbian Mississippian cul...Image via Wikipedia
I've always been interested in people (and peoples) that are different from what I know, and one of the more interesting, and frustrating groups is the Mississippians.  So frustrating that, oh, by the way there was this massive city (by most of the world's standards at the time) here in the United States, and no, we don't really know much about it. 

I figured I'd write about Cahokia after seeing this news article on Google News: http://www.reviewatlas.com/news/moncoll_news/x984143718/Archaeology-Day-field-trip-to-Cahokia-lecture-on-tap 

So just a little background on Cahokia.  It was inhabited from at least 1200 BC, although
Photo by Nathaniel Paluga of the reconstructed...Image via Wikipedia
most of the major settlement was from 600 AD through about 1400 AD.  Apparently the population peaked at between 8,000 and 40,000 people.  Big range there, shows how much we don't know.  That's the population range for the urban city.  There would have been a significant number of people that lived around there and farmed maize for the consumption of the people in the city. 

Not only do the mounds represent an amazing amound of work, but apparently the whole area used to have small hills, which were leveled by removing the high ground and filling in the low ground for a large plaza.  This was originally thought to be flat because of the river, but nope.  It was the people that did it. 

There are some burials that appear to be sacrificial, and some violent, including people that were buried alive, mostly around 1000 AD. 
Artist's Reconstruction of Monk's Mound at Cah...Image via Wikipedia

Many of the mounds that were in present day St. Louis were destroyed and their contents used for building projects and fill.  On top of Monk's mound, which is the largest of the mounds, there used to be a 5,000 square foot structure on top. 


The Cahokians used copper at least for ceremonial purposes, and traded a lot with other groups across North America.  We have no idea what the Cahokians called themselves.  The name Cahokia comes from a small nearby group of Native Americans living in the area when the mounds were first known to white people. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 17, 2011

How many kings are you descended from?

Mormon GenealogyImage by More Good Foundation via Flickr
I finally got into my genealogy, and quickly found my way back 72 generations into the BC period.  At first I was excited as I found names I recognized further back in history.  After a while though I seriously doubt the credibility of the record.  I'm sure the people that collected the genealogy were sincere enough, but I just don't think biblical figures, or their cousins, travelled to England, or Germany, and founded royal lineages. 

Among royalty a long time ago, it was a big deal who your ancestors were, and really what evidence do you have to show to prove that such and such long dead person was or wasn't your ancestor.  I'm sure to a certain extent the record is correct, but I think once you get into royalty, all bets are off.  A nonfamous person with nonfamous parents has nothing to lose or gain when registering the names and info of their parents.  Royals had a lot to lose by admitting to non royal ancestors, and a lot to gain by claiming other royals and the most famous historical figures. 


Genesis genealogyImage via Wikipedia

So I may be related to Charlemagne, Edward I Longshanks, and Charles Martel "The Hammer," just like probably the majority of people of European descent.  King Lear and old King Cole are questionable.  Are they really even historical?  But Attila the Hun?  Anna the cousin of the Virgin Mary?  Julius Caesar?  Joseph of Arimathea?  The whole of the Old Testament major players through Anna who showed up in Cornwall? 



Joseph of ArimatheaImage via Wikipedia

What seems really obvious to me is that when you're looking at your ancestors, they're pretty much innumerable.  2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great greats, 32 great great greats, etc.  After 10 generations you've got 1024 different people.  That's 1024 different last names (probably less because some of those people will be related to each other) that you can say "oh we might be related, because I have that same last name in my ancestry!"  I'm probably related to more than half of my graduating class in high school, although I moved there from across the country, and know of no actual relations to any of them.  Well before you get to 72 generations (like from 8 to 20) you start running into this thing where there weren't really that many people around in a community or country, so you end up having ancestors among almost all the recorded people, and those that weren't recorded just become dead ends.  Probably there will be a bunch of people where one person had multiple children, and some generations later, two of their descendants married each other, so the tree connects to itself.
Julius Caesar, accepting the surrender of Verc...Image via Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_descent  This site mentions a study that theorizes that more than half of all English people are descendants of William the Conqueror. 

Genealogy Center at the Allen County Public Li...Image by amyc500 (FamilyTrees) via Flickr

The largest web site of free genealogy is https://www.familysearch.org/ from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I'm guessing it's also the largest site to find genealogy as well. 

The biggest question about the genealogy of royalty as far as I'm concerned is also very basic.  As Americans, most of us believe that "all men were created equal," and if that's the case, who cares about it anyway.  I'm more interested in learning about the real people, that lived and loved and died, who worked and played and made hard decisions that affected their (my) family.  I see the generations and there's always the couple that started on another continent and came to these United States, and I want to hear their stories. 
18th-century depiction of King Lear mourning o...Image via Wikipedia
If any of my siblings are reading this and want to see the actual lineage, name by name, then I'll give you a hint.  It's up Nana Chris's lines.  For everybody that doesn't have any history of genealogy work to speak of, then good luck.  If you work at it, usually after a few generations you'll find yourself running into the lineages of others that have already done a lot of work on extending their lines, and it's like "free ancestors" for you!  Depending on your culture, you may be able to go back thousands of years, or as few as three or four generations before running into major barriers.  Good Luck!
Enhanced by Zemanta