High Cholesterol/Triglyceride/Blood Pressure Drug Pushers

I'm hardly surprised as to what companies will do for money. I guess this discussion was spawned by a commercial I saw last night about a drug that lowers cholesterol. I don't recall what the name was, but you coult go pick any one of the dozens that are out there.

These drug companies differ little from cigarette manufacturers. No...I'd say they're worse than cigarette makers. Not only do they tell you that you can't lower your cholesterol without the help of drugs (man made or natural), but IMHO they wage active campaigns against those who do show you how to get off of their drugs, such as the Atkins diet, or some other carb controlled diet (CCD). All for their own gain.

CCD's are proven to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, and I haven't met a doctor yet who will deny this. However, because Atkins is villified in the popular media, CCD's get a bad rap. Anecdotes are trotted out where certain people did stupid things, like eating nothing but bacon for a month, and then dying. There's the popular urban myth that Dr. Atkins died of a heart attack, also used to discredit CCD's. The reality is that he slipped and fell, hitting his head on something. He died during his subsequent stay at a hospital.

At any rate, I'm of the opinion that the cholesterol/blood pressure drug industry is behind the anti-CCD message. CCD's show you how to get these problems under control. The drug industry doesn't want you to get these propblems under control by yourself.

Started My New Job @ Intuit!

Well, I have to admit, it's been a while that I've worked for a company that has sufficient cash. Five years ago, it was a startup called OMM, Inc., which made MEMS based photonic switches. When I first joined OMM, there really was no spending limit...whatever you wanted, you got.

Intuit is not quite like OMM. However, after having worked at Sun, getting a good boxed lunch at the Intuit orientation was somewhat of a surprise. When I got to my office, it was packed full of techy gadgets that were par for the course, as well as some Intuit branded items.

Today will be my first day of real work, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm still in shock over having left Sun, and in a week or so it will really sink in that I'm now at Intuit. Having the latest popular strain of the flu certainly isn't helping anything, with the constant congestion and related headache, uneasy sleep, and just feeling lousy. On the bright side, Intuit has good coffee!

Clients Are The Real Cause Of Frivolous Lawsuits, Not Lawyers

There do seem to be a large number of unwarranted lawsuits out there...lawsuit lotto players, vindictive folks needing to satisfy their ego, and plenty of petty crap is brought to the legal system.

It never ceases to amaze me that people blame the lawyers for the plaintiffs. I guess it should be of no surprise that the lawyers catch all the blame. Simply look how the media reports occurances in lawsuits. Articles typically say "Lawyers for the plaintiff said ...," or something along those lines.

What they should say is "The Plaintiffs, via their lawyer, said ..." This whould be honest. The media is dishonest on many of it's reporting methods, so this is asking too much. Any time a journalist/reporter spins a story (as opposed to simply reporting the facts), he/she is doing us all a dis-service.

Without a plaintiff, a lawyer is going to sit at his desk and wait for the phone to ring. A lawyer without a client can't do much of anything, unless that lawyer is the plaintiff.

So, the next time you read an article/hear a report that seems to point that a lawyer is saying this or that, remember that a lawyer is only a hired gun. It's the client behind the lawyer who is using the lawyer as a mouthpiece. Aim your derision at the client, as he/she is the real source of your irritation.

Terri Schaivo:More Thoughts

So, the battle lines are drawn. Essentially, religious and traditional right wing groups stating that Terri must be allowed to live, and traditional left wing groups saying it's time for her to go.

The lifers are certainly the most vocal component in this debate. All I know about the deathers is that they're out there and they're pissing off the lifers, as the courts continuously rule in their favor.

There's the criminal law/constitutional law argument raised by the lifers: The lifers contend that even a criminal gets more due process than Terri, and criminals even get their own lawyer. That certainly is criminal law - the accused gets an opportunity to be heard, and gets competent representation. The US Constitution places limits on the government, more specifically the Federal government.

However, this isn't a criminal case, as no crime has been committed. This is a case of guardianship and medical power of attorney, State issues as opposed to Federal issues. Under Florida law, it appears that in cases where there's a surviving spouse in a marriage, that spouse makes medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

This is also not a US Constitutional case, as the Federal Government isn't trying to do anything.

If the Schindler's lawyer really did try to advance on these grounds, he's most likely milking them for fees. If he's doing this for free, then the Schindlers certainly got their moneys worth.

Mr. Schiavo decided to have medical support removed from his wife. He's within his rights to do so as Terri's guardian. No court in the country is about to mess around with state law, definitely not the Florida courts, and its a stretch to think the Federal courts even have proper jurisdiction.

Going to the US Congress and Federal courts was a monumental waste of time. Neither has jurisdiction over the issue. The Schindlers should have gone to the Florida Legislature and had them pass a "Terri's Law" that states something like: Should the guardian spouse of the incapacitated spouse wish to remove support from the incapacitated spouse, the parents or siblings of the incapacitated spouse may assume legal guardianship over the incapacitated spouse, relieving the guardian spouse of any and all past, future and present financial obligations regarding the care of the incapacitated spouse.

Then there's the religious argument - Only God has the right to decide who lives or dies. What about the execution of criminals? If only God can decide who lives or dies, then it's clear that execution of criminals is wrong.

Then ther are biblical passages such as Romans 13:1,2
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

I'm not a Christian or biblical scholar. However, this quote from the Bible seems fairly clear. Here's the whole Chapter 13 of Romans for context.

So, even the Bible apparently requires submission to governing authorities, as they were established by God. The governing authorities say that Florida State Law applies, and thus the legal guardian has the authority to withdraw medical support.

Yes...this quote from Romans kills off my "we can't execute criminals" argument, but applying Romans to the execution of criminals but not to Terri is an inconsistent application. So...either we can't execute criminals and on the same grounds we must keep Terri alive, in each case ignoring the law and authorities, or, we can execute criminals and it is Mr. Schiavo's right as Terri's legal guardian to withhold medical treatment, allowing her to die, following the law and authorities.

How do I feel personally? Terri's parents want her to live, as she's their daughter. Hand over her care to them. What's the big fuss? Mr. Schiavo want his wife to rest in peace, and he has legal say-so over what happens. I don't know his reasons. Don't bother me unless you have facts.

Removing Incentive For Lawsuit Lotto: Punitive Damage Awards Should Go To The State

There are a whole class of plaintiffs who use the legal system to play "lawsuit lotto". This is an attempt to win a lawsuit in order to get a large punitive damage award.

In support of their efforts, there are legions of lawyers who are willing to take on their cases on a contingency fee basis. What is a "contingency fee basis": a lawyer takes on a case for free, on the basis that, should the plaintiff prevail, the lawyer collects a portion of the damage award (typically 30%, sometimes 50%) as a fee. The plaintiff pays nothing unless he/she prevails and collects from the defendant.

I'm not too crazy about contingency fee cases, as I've represented my clients on the defendants side. There's little motivation for a plaintiff to settle, or to settle for some amount less than what he/she wants...the lawsuit costs them nothing. However, I understand that contingency fee cases are are a necessary evil, as low-money defendants need their day in court, and lawyers are not cheap.

Back to damages.

There are two types of primary damage awards, compensatory and punitive. There are other damage awards types, but these are beyond the scope of this article.

Compensatory damages are for the purpose of making the plaintiff whole...putting him/her in a position as if the defendant had not committed the wrong. In personal injury, this could be payment of hospital bills, lost salary, repair of a car; in business litigation this could be lost profits; in contracts litigation this could be payment of another to fullfill contract obligations. Today, lawyers are trying to use compensatory damage measures in a punitive fashion, but this is a different topic for a different day.

Punitive damages exist for the purpose of punishing the defendant, not for enrichment of the plaintiff. As such, it's my proposal that all punitive damage awards should go to the State.

There are a number of benefits that could be gained by this:
1) Juries (who are human, after all) will not need to feel like they're simply giving money to a plaintiff that the plaintiff doesn't deserve;
2) The incentive to play "lawsuit lotto" will decrease, as the plaintiffs won't get to pocket punitive damages. Compensatory damages are measurable, for the most part, and thus a wronged plaintiff can be fairly compensated;
3) At least in the short term, the State will receive additional monies to its coffers;
4) Cases in which punitive damages are truly warranted - i.e. plaintiffs are not simply trying to get rich - will be litigated;
5) A whole class of plaintiffs can be removed from court dockets - law suit lotto plaintiffs - as well as their lawyers;
6) The effect upon society of lawsuit lotto can be reduced, reducing insurance rates and cost of doing business in the state. These directly affect the cost of goods and services; and
7) Remove the need for thousands of lawyers. BTW, these are the people who would be most adamantly against actual implementation of what I propose.

California has a ballot initiative system...anyone care to work on this with me?

Of Boys And Their Maturity

IMHO boys really get the short end of the stick when it comes to "maturity". In some sense it works to their advantage. When a boy acts up or misbehaves, you can usually get a comment or two about "Oh, he's just a boy...they mature much slower than girls...so they'll be that way for a while."

I'd argue that society measures boys "maturity" against girls. Moreover, for the most part the field of psycology is dominated by women and/or is dominated by feminist thought. My best friend is a shrink, so I'll run this by him. Back to the point.

Measuring the maturity of boys against girls is like measuring the the the taste of an apple against that of an orange, and then berating the apple for not tasting like an orange. It's also a measure of the tolerance of adults - you want a kid who will be quiet and not require your attention, so you can go back to what you were doing.

Sadly, to address this disparity in "maturity" (i.e. to get boys to act like girls) we're calling normal boy behavior Attention Deficit Disorder, and medicating them for it. The medication works wonders, no doubt. The boys settle down and listen. But at what cost? The first generation exposed to drugs such as ritalin is now reaching adulthood, so we have data.

Anyone who has an unbiased source of data on the effects, and side effects of Ritalin, and related drugs?

Enough of that tangent...

I'd contend that were the tables turned...were girls measured against boys, we'd be wondering what's wrong with the girls. They'd be considered too passive and lacking imagination. In school society would be getting on their case for not participating in physical activities, and mentally opting out of math and science. What would we medicate them with?

Of course, this isn't the case, as western culture is heavily dominated by a femnocentric influence. That's a subject for another blog entry by itself!

I also see the discussion of the maturity of boys as an excuse for their bad behavior, or more concisely, an excuse for not properly raising the boy. Yes...it's still primarily a woman's role to raise young children, but men who get involved find it quite rewarding. I'm hoping that as the word spreads, more dads will get involved.

That being said, a woman doesn't know how things work in a mans world, any more than a whiteperson understands how life is in black persons world. This is not a negative comment on women, because the reverse is true - men don't know how things work in a woman's word. A woman can't raise a boy to be a man any more than a man can raise a girl to be a woman. However, this article is about the maturity of boys. Get over it.

Interestingly, it's usually the women who say "Oh...he's just a boy, and everyone knows boys mature slower than girls", and likely a mother at that. In this regard, it's an excuse for bad behavior, and it's women who are far more likely to put up with it.

Sometimes, it is an excuse to prevent Dad from coming in and straightening the kid up, whether a scolding, physical removal from the situation, or some other action to show the boy that he did wrong. Moms are legendary for their willingness to put up with poor behavior of their sons. They rarely allow the same sort of thing from girls.

Does this mean boys are less mature than girls? No...it means boys are given more leeway than girls to act poorly at a young age...you can consider the message this sends to the boys and how this may shape future behaviors. I'm always amazed to see what types of behavior we put up with from young boys, but as a society we're mortified by the same behavior when they get older.

Leaving A Job You Like Sucks

Looks like my time at Sun Microsystems is up. I start at Intuit next week.

I really did enjoy working at Sun. The technology is great, the issues are interesting, and the people are terrific. At the end there are a few bumps, as management is upset that I'm leaving, but this is understandable.

Why am I leaving? Go do your homework as to how Sun is doing in it's core markets, and all the new areas it's trying to enter. Look at the stock price over the last 4-5 years.

You only have so much time on this mortal coil. What do you want to invest your life in?

In the end, I want to be a part of something that's growing.

My previous company, OMM was a microcosm of what I'm talking about. I was there for three years. During the times OMM was growing, there was a constant buzz of excitement, and you came to work with a passion to be part of something that was going places. The last year at OMM was increasingly difficult, in terms of morale. The issues and people were still great, but the company wasn't going anywhere, and although I still enjoyed going to work, at the end of the day there I had to ask myself "What am I doing"?

No, Sun is not going out of business. It has the money, client base, technology and brainpower to prevent that quite easily.

My hope is that Sun comes roaring back, but I'm not going to keep investing my time there. If I've learned anything about investing, it's that you can't stick with an investment based upon hope, as there are better things you could be doing with your resources.

So...farewell, Sun. You'll always have a place in my heart.

Terri Schaivo Update

Well...there's evidence starting to come out that Terri might not be in a Persistent Vegetative State. Apparently, Terri does respond in a psycologically meaningful way to stimuli.

If this is the case, then she should be kept alive, and allowed to be rehabilitated. My current understanding is that her husband blocked attempts at rehabilitation.

Oh Canada: Free Heroin For Addicts

The Canadians never cease to amaze me. From their total embrace of socialism and the welfare state to their hatred of the US.

I suppose Canada's decision to give free heroin to addicts shouldn't be surprising...but it is.

IMHO, this is really the epitome of the welfare state - you have a group of people, apparently unable to help themselves (or so we tell them). Out of self loathing we (society as a whole) provides these people with just enough of a resource (or resources) to sustain their condition. We don't let them fall to what we consider to be a lower rung of the ladder...this would be unthinkable, while at the same time we won't give them enough to rise above their condition.

Thus, we perpetuate the condition that causes our self loathing, and continue to provide enough to keep the "victims" in their welfare state.

In the context of Canada and heroin to addicts, this is clear. Their stated reasoning: Addicts will continue to use heroin no matter what, it's Canada's duty to ensure the addicts don't get HIV, Hepatitis, or any one of a litany of nasties. Oh yes...let's not forget...this is a way to keep junkies from having to resort to crime or prostitution to pay for their heroin.

Canada graciously allows the tax payers to foot the bill.

How did they set aside the fact that heroin ruins your life? The junkies have no intention on getting off of the stuff, and are apparently rather excited that they get free heroin.

From a strict dollars point of view, they're probably better off letting the junkies commit petty crimes, and buy the dope illegally. You can bet that the state buys heroin for 10x the price, and the doctors and nurses administering the program aren't free.

Maybe Canadians are like Europeans - they never saw a tax they didn't like.

Richard Reid: Shoe Bomb Terrorist Sentanced

Transcript posted on CNN:

Quote I liked: "See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down."

WTF is Congress Doing?

Congress must be bored. Steroids? Terri Schaivo?
I guess Iraq is OK, Sandy Berger has undone the damage he did, China is our friend and ally, and the economy is robust.

(A question for the future: Further questions - Where does the Federal Government get the power to establish a national police force, aka the FBI? If the FBI is not a branch of the military, then it's unclear where this comes from.)

What is the job of congress?

Well, according to the Constitution, the Congress is supposed to legislate; that is, pass laws.

Article 1, Section 8, lays out the powers of Congress (sections 9 and 10 seek to limit the powers granted). This section lays out a specific list of powers of Congress, and concludes with " To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Can anyone provide clues as to where steroids, baseball, or Terri Schaivo, fall under Congress' purvue?

From a distance, it looks like Congress (and the Federal Government) has been slowly increasing its own power, at the expense of the States, and the People. The Founding Fathers warned against a strong federal government, which is why they took such care in writing the Constitution. They understood that a central government would be useful to maintain relations between the states, and for the common defense, but outside of that, a central government could become a tyranny. No...the federal government isn't a tyranny today, but it is certainly grabbing more power as time goes on.

The funny part is, whichever political party is in power uses the federal government to grab power, while the party out of power screams to the heavens "State's Rights".

When the Democrats get back into power, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll continue the federal government power grab.

Mortgages: Some Thoughts

It never ceases to amaze me that people think a mortgage is so great. The only plus to this form of debt is that it allows people to purchase property who otherwise would have to save up for most of their lives to afford the same property, only to see the price go up.

What is a "mortgage"? Well, the latin roots, "mort" and "gage", roughly mean "death" and "pledge". So a mortgage is a death pledge...interesting. One could view this in a number of ways: 1) you pay until you die, or 2) you probably won't be able to pay it off before you die, so you pledge the asset itself as collateral.

"But it's a great tax shelter" I'm told. Yes...it does reduce your income tax liability, by about $0.30 on every dollar you pay in mortgage interest income. You still pay through for the privilege of borrowing the money, and your creditors double their money. The government simply gives you a discount so you don't mind getting into all that debt...it's amazing you can't do this with credit card debt (but I think you will be able to some day).

You're better off paying the mortgage off as soon as you can, even with a low interest rate. Yes...you'll have to pay more income tax, but you'll own your property and have more money in your pocket.

Terri Schaivo and People Deciding On When It's Time To Die

I'm fairly conficted on this, but given the facts of the case I think I'm on the side of allowing her to die.

I can sympathize with her parents, holding onto hope that Terri might recover, in spite of the fact that no one has ever recovered from a persistent vegetative state. Had Terri been in this state for a few months, or even less than 3-5 years, I'd be more firmly on the side of the parents.

However, it's been 15 years.

It's doubtful that Terri is doing a whole lot of suffering...she's in a persistent vegetative state.

What is a Persistent Vegetative State: "A condition in which the patient is unable to speak or follow simple commands and does not respond in any psychologically meaningful way. The transition from coma to a vegetative condition reflects changes from a period of no response to the internal or external environment (other than reflexively) to a state of wakefulness but with no indication of awareness."

So...Terri doesn't respond to anything in a meaningful way. Does this mean she's physically unable? I don't think so...from what I've seen, it looks like she's able to move...I don't think she's paralyzed. It sounds like she's mentally gone - a vegetable.

If Terri is in there and lucid - and this is what we must assume - how long do we wait for her to give a sign? How long do we subject her to the solitary confinement of her mind? "Normal" people go insane after a few months of solitary confinement.

She didn't leave any sort of instruction, so all we have are other people to make the decision. Her parents want to keep Terri's body alive, her husband doesn't.

There are allegations of wrong doing against the husband, but there's not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges. Given the publicity level of the case, the length of time, and the dogged persistence of most investigators and district attorneys, my guess is that they all tried to somehow connect Terri's husband to her condition. Their inability to do so speaks volumes.

So...who's connection are we going to value? That of her parents, or that of her husband?

Her husband wants the feeding tube removed, allowing Terri to die, to put an end to her imprisonment. For a spouse to see their husband or wife die is terrible. To see them suffer is just as terrible. People will say he's doing it for money, and/or to cover up a crime.

Her parents want the feeding tube in place, hoping that she'll eventually give a sign that Terri is in there. Terri is their daughter. To those with children, probably the most terrible thing that can happen ever happen is to see your child's funeral. To see them suffer is just as terrible. People will say Terri's parents are wracked with pangs of guilt over allowing their child to die, being selfish in keeping her alive to avoid that guilt.

At what point does is the suffering so great, that the loved ones would rather attend the funeral than go about their lives knowing the suffering that their child or spouse is going through? At what point will they simply want closure? How long should one hold out hope against all odds?

Both sides need to ask: Would you want to live or die if you were in a similar situation? Imagine being trapped in your own body...no...in your mind...with no ability to interact with the outside world. You can't blink, move a finger, eye, or anything else on your own volition. Maybe you can see and hear, maybe you can feel pain and hunger...maybe not.

Do you want to live this way? Do you want your child or spouse to live this way? Do you feel its up to a person other than yourself to decide?

ACLU Report: U.S. Drug Laws Harm Women(?!)

What the HELL is going on?

ACLU Report: U.S. Drug Laws Harm Women

So...women are getting caught in drug stings. Maybe they shouldn't get involved in drugs in the first place?

The ACLU will be trotting out the anecdotal evidence, and based upon that, decry the system. "Jailing women involved in drugs will harm the children!" will be the mantra. And to what end? Give women blanket immunity unless they're caught with drugs in their possession AND intent to deal?

If she knows her significant other is a dope dealer, should she have immunity from reporting him (i.e. be immuny from criminal accomplice/conspiracy laws) to the police, as her primary source of support will be taken away? The fact that this question can even be raised is either funny as hell, or sad beyond belief.

Illegal Immigration: WTF is wrong with politicians

It's amazing how fast we can be sold down the river.

In a few short years, illegal immigration is politically a non-issue. The Republicans want cheap labor, and Democrats want...what? I don't even know what the Dems want, but they seem to be advocating illegal immigration.

Party politics? Many traditionally Democratic constituencies have roots to Mexico, but legal Mexican immigrants don't want the illegals here. La Raza? They have a stated purpose to retake part of the US for Mexico...but are they *that* strong a voice in the Democratic party?

What about the will of the American people? I've never met *anyone* who says illegal immigration should be ignored or accepted, and in fact most Americans (even legal immigrants) want illegal immigration to end.

The anti-Anti-Illegal Immigration crowd has a loud voice, but small numbers, which means that American citizens can do something about this.

Support and use websites that advocate against illegal immigration:

www.numbersusa.com
www.save187.com

Research local ordinances that fly in the face of immigration law - the Los Angeles Safe Harbor laws come to mind. I'm willing to give it a shot. Anyone care to help? Once these laws are found, what can we do about them?

What's with companies being required to "Give Back"?

It's interesting that, in addition to all the benefits business give to society, they're further ordered now to "give back". Don't get me wrong - companies that do this are to be commended for sharing the wealth. I guess it's the segment of society that sees it as a business' duty to give back, is where I take issue.

What do businesses do for us? They provide jobs - pay money to workers who then turn around and purchase goods and services and pay taxes. They pay taxes. They provide goods and services. They innovate and provide a standard of living we take for granted.

They get tax breaks and perks from the government. Given what they provide, it seems like these perks are warranted. I'd be interested to discuss this with someone who disagrees to give me some perspective.

IMHO, the "requirement" to give back stems from current popular morality rooted in social subjectivism, that truth and morality are matters of social convention. The will of the majority determines what's true and what's right. Social subjectivism's basic moral tenet is: Don't place the company, the company's independent judgment, the company's values, the company's selfish concerns, above those of the society or the "common good." Rather, the company should subordinate the company's own views and interests to the beliefs, needs, and desires of the "whole"--of which the company is merely a "part." On this view, being moral consists in pursuing not the company's well-being and profitability, but the "greater" well-being and happiness of society or the collective. The company is not an end in itself, but a means to the ends of society; thus, the company should sacrafice for society's "greater good." To do otherwise--to pursue the compoany's goals in disregard of the "collective will"--is to be immoral.

You don't need all their junk.

Everyone is trying to improve themselves in some way.

For me, it's been fitness.

For years I couldn't figure out why I couldn't get the right program down - weight lifting, bike, treadmill, combination, etc.

I recently realized that you need to not use those external tools, until you're able to utilize what you have. Lay off the weights...get off the bike, treadmill, whatever. Calesthenics, requiring no gear, is free, and can be done anywhere, uses more musculature, burns more energy, is cardio and strength building. Jog...get outside. Just move yourself.

It's amazing that we're so convinced that some product will solve our problem.