Unemployment: A paradox, and not EZ to deal with.

 A friend posted to Facebook that businesses are to blame for unemployment, saying there's plenty of work to be done, implying that it was only the greed of businesses that caused suffering. He went on to lay blame on the Conservative portion of our Congress.

Here's my reply to him:

Let me fully agree with you that our Congress, both houses, both parties, are not supporting and protecting our society and our freedoms. As a business owner, I agree with you that it is not easy to start a business. Raising capital is a huge challenge but the need for capital varies greatly based on the type of business--I have friends who are free-lance technical or "knowledge-based" workers in their own businesses who were able to start with near nothing, but, then, again, they did stay in school, off drugs, and out of jail; life skills that seem to elude a lot of people. Another huge challenge that many seem to not recognize is the near-crushing load of government regulations that a business owner must meet; our tax code(s) are indecipherable and a violation there carries the threat of government force or punishment for non-compliance, even though IRS "experts" often disagree on how a business should comply. Department of Labor rules often make it difficult to hire workers to meet a legitimate need unless you have the revenue flow to make them "full time" and eligible for vacation, holiday, and medical benefits. Sure, workers should have those things (and we do provide them)--but here's the catch: If you don't have the revenue to pay for those things you cannot provide them--and if you don't have the workers on board, you can't get the revenue. It's a deck that is severely stacked by our (I hope) well-meaning government against the startup and the small business, and that's one key fact that lets "big business" like WalMart overwhelm the mom and pop stores -- Walmart can afford to comply or to fight, Mom and Pop can't. Our small business (28 employees) keeps THREE of those 28 people busy 40-hours a week dealing solely with tax, licensing, and regulatory issues AND we hire consultants to help with state and Federal HR rules; a law firm to help with other compliance issues; and an accounting firm to deal with taxes. Complying with Federal rules consumes around 20% of our total revenue *not including* the local, state, and Federal taxes we actually remit to the government. Another point often missed is that no business ever pays any taxes--businesses simply collect the taxes and pass them along to the government(s). The businesses' customers (people) PAY all the taxes--unlike the government, businesses cannot just print money. As the government's powers all rightly derive only from the powers held in nature by the people, so all resources the government uses are taken from the people. In an orderly society we the people, through the actions of our elected representatives, choose to voluntarily allow the government to collect funds from us to be used for the greater good. Governments choose to use businesses as their proxy in tax collection so as to hide the true cost of government from its own people. We could carry this discussion on ad infinitum, but this is probably not the best venue for that. One final note: as a private citizen consumer, I'd MUCH rather have a self-checkout lane than have to deal with what many of the stores offer me in their "clerks." I go to Lowes because they offer self-checkout vs. the closer Home Depot because they don't offer a self-checkout lane.

Surely this is just a fluke...

Ms. Fluke's testimony regarding contraception coverage for students at a Catholic school (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf) 

Here is my analysis (Ms. Fluke's words in quotes): 

"I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ."

Consider that LSRJ is within a body that fundamentally disagrees with its goals, yet sponsors it, allows it to exist and to speak out.

"I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan."

They also do not require her to have sexual relations. In fact, as she is an unmarried person, I'd bet they discourage it. Contraception for sex isn't like clean air for breathing or clean water for drinking -- sex is (normally) 100% optional.

"Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions."

Gotta call B.S. here. Many (but not all) Catholic institutions respectfully disagree. The 'adjustment' simply said, 'You Catholic organizations don't have to pay for BC, your insurance companies will pay.' Right. Who is being mandated to pay the insurance company to pay for the BC? How stupid does our Government think we are?

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

OK. This has been widely misquoted as "over $3,000 per year." How long is law school? One major law school reports: 'Full-time students can graduate in three years by taking an average of 15 credit hours per semester.' http://www.indylaw.indiana.edu/adminssions/faq, accessed 10/3/2012.

So she's saying $1,000 per year. In a recent communication, a friend, Rich Glisson, says routine contraception can cost up to $65/month. That's $780.00 per year. $2.14 per day. I'll bet she spends more than that at Starbucks, despite "...suffering the burden..." of paying for her own contraceptives. Georgetown University's Website states that their law school education will cost about $50,000 per year (http://careerweb.georgetown.edu/7269.html, referenced 10/3/2012). An additional $780.00 is 1.56% of that cost. My point in other discussions, while somewhat diluted, stands. She has inflated the cost for impact, while apparently ignoring other voluntary costs.

"In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences."

Another BS call. I know of NO medical insurance program that systematically denies "this medication for other medical reasons." Some have denied "this medication" when it had no other medical reason. Occasionally, I'll agree, mistakes have been made. See next item.

"...exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body."

I say amen to this complaint. I don't like the bureaucrats determining my medical care, either, but so long as my insurance company (Humana) is paying part of the bill, that's the facts of life, for men, women, children, and sexually active law students. The medical institution, working with (or against) the bureaucrats, will make mistakes and that will negatively impact our health and health care. She relates some examples that are probably spot on. I'm fighting with Humana right now for a prescription that they don't want to pay for because their records show it was refilled when it was not. A doctor would just give me a new prescription. An insurance company cares more about the cost than my health.

Beyond this point, she moves from attempting a fact-based argument to a distressing emotional appeal. Her script is well-written. But, come on. Regardless of her protestations, she is attending an institution of her own choice. She does not like their rules. She knew them before she paid her first tuition installment. She belongs to an institution-sponsored organization that allows her to work for changes that run counter to the institution's dearly held beliefs within that very institution. Failing to win change, she could transfer to a different law school. She (not needing contraception for other medical reasons) could choose to be celibate. We do not need her, or anyone else, encouraging our over-reaching, over-controlling government to press their thumbs any harder on the citizens of this supposedly "free" land.

Catholic institutions should not be forced to pay for contraception (which they believe to be wrong) any more than Jewish or Islamic organizations should be forced to provide pork at their school cafeterias. Note that I am not Catholic, Jewish, nor Islamic; just a believer in and lover of freedom.

Clear margins

Clear margins. The growth was a carcinoma, but there is no sign that it had spread. No medications nor radiation. I'm to go back in three months for further "all over" visual inspection, then twice a year after that. I guess forever. I had the stitches out last Monday, and the incision is nearly healed -- still itches a bit. I've been swimming again since Thursday. That, I had really missed. I guess I'm the King of Denial, but I never imagined that I'd have to deal with cancer, even a minor one like this skin cancer. I do recognize my own mortality. I don't think I'm afraid of death. Pain, on the other hand scares the hell out of me.

Negative

On Friday, July 20, 2012, I received results from the pathology exam of the growth removed from my back. The edge analysis was negative. This means that the minor surgery has apparently removed all of the cancer. This is good news and should be a relief. Now I'm just waiting to feel relieved.

Surviving

As of today, and for the time being, I am a cancer survivor. Perhaps on the lower rungs of that ladder. Yesterday, my dermatologist removed the offending growth from my back, just below my right shoulder blade. The incision is four inches long and has two layers of stitches. Properly anesthetized, the actual minor surgery was not painful. This morning, with the meds worn off, the site hurts a bit. I have to return on August 1st to have the stitches out. The doctor said they would be doing an "edge analysis" of the removed growth to ensure they took enough to "get it all." He said he would define this removal as an "early detection" and I should have no further problem with this particular growth. The literature they gave me quotes an "85% cure rate with early detection." Time will tell.

Whether 'tis EZier in the mind to suffer...

Squamous cell carcinoma. A type of skin cancer. It is known to spread faster than basal cell carcinoma and can spread to other parts of the body to include internal organs.

I've read that a diagnosis of cancer changes your life. Everything. The way you think, what you choose to believe, what you choose to do, how you feel. I received my diagnosis today by telephone. Other than that it was a very normal day -- I met with clients and with employees, visited with family. So far all I feel is very tired, weary.

The fact that I'm 1,500 miles from home and here to attend the funeral of my sister-in-law whom we lost last Monday to cancer may contribute to my feeling of weariness.

At my ripe old age, I have often wondered what it would be that would end my life. I've actually had a low-grade morbid curiosity about that since I was a child. This may be it--the wondering may be over.

But probably not. I'm scheduled for minor surgery to have the cancerous spot on my back removed in less than a week from now. The literature tells me that, caught early, this cancer is generally treatable, and often does not return, but that I am now and for the rest of my life more prone to skin cancer than if I'd never had it. I am to be vigilant. Right now, I'm just tired.

Public and private transportation. Anything but EZ.

We need a flash of genius that shows us how to bring the flexibility, convenience, and economics of our system of personal cars and public roads/streets to sustainable and public transit. Until that world-changing "flash," perhaps we are best off pursuing the gradual market-led move to smaller and more eco-friendly personal transportation devices, such as BMW’s new concept vehicles as presented in their sponsorship of the Dwell.com article Urban Planning 101 (Yeung, 2011). "Solutions" that are not supportive of people's schedules and transportation needs and/or are not economically sustainable will most likely NOT have a lasting positive impact. In the meantime, we need to begin shaping our living and working spaces into more pedestrian, local, and human-scale directions. I can tell you that I am happier living 1 1/2 miles from work and shopping than I was before at 15 miles out. But here's a puzzler: In a city (San Antonio, Texas) that is, at least verbally, pushing public transportation, and has a huge active and retired military population, with Ft. Sam being one of our cities largest employers, and DoD supportive of mass transit solutions, why is it that our public transportation does not really support Ft. Sam nor the newly-named San Antonio Military Medical Center campuses? I think our city is all sound and no fury when it comes to public transportation, and that most projects are designed more for the profit or ego of a few insiders than for the benefit of our citizens. Millions of dollars on a trolley system that will basically serve downtown tourists or require locals to drive in from other parts of even the inner city and pay to park so they can ride across the city center? With bus routes that don't even conveniently serve the trolley terminals? Please...who looks at these things? The truth is that successful public transit around the world understands and leverages multi-modal systems and ties them together. Nearly every city in Europe has train links from their airport to downtown. Their trains link to bus terminals. The bus terminals link to the subway/metro systems. The metro systems serve neighborhoods with bike racks and other conveniences, and, farther out, park-and-ride systems for personal cars. All of the major terminals are designed to facilitate taxis and fares are reasonable. When have you ever heard anyone in San Antonio’s mobility mavens even mention tying the various modes into one usable system? Does no one understand that the linkages and convenient terminals of the various modes is what makes it all work? Why was our airport completely redone with a new terminal and no provision for a rail link to downtown and our two major medical centers? Meanwhile, London, UK, after an initial peak in public transit use, is dying as a result of their stick and no carrot approach to private cars in the heart of the city. Rather than incentivize ridership and making it more usable and attractive, their approach was to simply discourage private vehicle use through fee-based taxes. It has done that, and without making their public transit more attractive, there are now fewer British people using the city center daily. Small businesses are closing and jobs are lost, and soon London will be Detroit without the good music. Let us not forget in our march for sustainable cities and transportation that these things exist solely to serve our needs, and when the systems fail to serve us and improve our daily lives, we are doing it wrong. As wrong as a new 12-lane freeway to nowhere.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Yeung, B. (2011). Urban Planning 101. Retrieved November 16, 2011, from dwell.com, Sustainable Mobility, Digital Editioin 2011: http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416198154&o=ext&WT.mc_id=PUB_WWW_Free_USA_110911_DwellBMW11