Thursday, May 30, 2013

Under the Capitol dome, where collegial relations are the foundation of building coalitions to pass laws, Bachmann had little clout

Rep. Bachmann will not run 

for reelection in 2014

 


On a hot July afternoon in 2010, in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) launched the House Tea Party Caucus with much fanfare and a little humility, declaring, “I am not the head of the tea party.”

It was a signature moment for the tea party and for Bachmann, who had parlayed her standing as one of the most identifiable faces of that anti-government movement to become one of the most recognizable political figures in American politics. And the new House caucus suggested that the movement’s fervor was about to bear legislative fruit.
 

Less than three years later, everything seems to have changed. Just before dawn on Wednesday, Bachmann, 57 — barely reelected in November and facing multiple investigations of her failed presidential campaign’s finances — announced that she will not seek reelection to her suburban Twin Cities district in 2014.

Bachmann joins the ranks of other once-high-profile tea party voices who have moved quietly to the political sidelines. Sarah Palin resigned as Alaska governor in 2009 and has focused on reality TV of late. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) and Allen B. West (R-Fla.), two of the most outspoken members of the 2010 class of House freshmen, lost their 2012 reelection bids and are working in media careers.

The biggest stars now reside in the Senate, where two first-termers, Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), have electrified the movement in recent months and established themselves as the leading disruptive forces to Democratic Majority Leader Harry M. Reid’s bid to move President Obama’s second-term agenda. Still, although the two senators are capable of blocking or slowing the Democratic agenda, they are in no position to implement or advance their conservative philosophy legislatively.

To many, Bachmann’s roughly five-year run — from obscure freshman to serious contender in the 2012 Iowa presidential caucuses to Wednesday’s retirement announcement — was a near-perfect reflection of the tea party’s greatest strengths and weaknesses.

In a nearly nine-minute video posted on Facebook and YouTube, she insisted that retirement does not mean she will stop fighting for conservative principles.

“Unfortunately, today I’m even more concerned about our country’s future than I have ever been in the past,” she said. “On so many issues, we’re clearly on the wrong track.”

In her career in elected office, she has been able to command attention and draw fans among conservative activists, tapping into online messaging that allowed her to raise nearly $30 million for her past two House races.

“Michele was the first to nationalize her House races via innovative online and social media techniques,” said Ed Brookover, a consultant to the Republican.

But under the Capitol dome, where collegial relations are the foundation of building coalitions to pass laws, Bachmann had little clout, a largely aloof figure with no legislative imprint even now in her seventh year in Congress. Her statements often put fellow Republicans on the defensive.
 

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

666 = Wells Fargo, the financial institution from Hell.


Wells Fargo Foreclosing on Florida Man Who Made Mortgage Payments Early



Posted on May 26, 2013
Screenshot via WFTV
Etienne Syldor.
Did you know you could make your mortgage payments early and still be foreclosed on? That’s exactly what happened to a Florida man who says he not only made his loan payments ahead of time, but even paid more than was required each month, and is still being foreclosed on by Wells Fargo.

According to Orlando station WFTV, Etienne Syldor was offered a loan modification by Wells Fargo last year. The bank told Syldor that as long as he made the payments during a four-month trial period, the modification would become permanent.

Still, despite court records that prove Syldor made his payments early, and even paid more than the amount he needed to, Wells Fargo stopped taking his payments and began the foreclosure process on his home.
The ridiculous reason Wells Fargo gave: because Syldor made his payments early, he didn’t follow the modification guidelines.

Wells Fargo representative Veronica Clemons said in a statement: “For some loans, completing trial payments is a significant step toward a permanent modification; however, in this instance, the loan was part of a mortgage-backed security and in a protected pool, with specific payment guidelines. We are working with Mr. Syldor to explain the guidelines and explore options that may help.”

WTF?!

Bank personnel should be bending over backward to help borrowers who go above and beyond to meet their mortgage payments each month. Instead, they’re “rewarding” him by trying to take his house away.
“When he came in and showed me all of the documents, it was just unbelievable,” LaMya Henry, Syldor’s attorney, told 
WFTV. “Who gets foreclosed on when they’ve made all payments on time?”

As Think Progress observed, this instance sadly fits into a broader pattern of past “shenanigans” by the big banks, some of which they were supposed to have ended as part of a multibillion dollar foreclosure settlement with the government last year.

Think Progress:
Banks have been accused of similar shenanigans in the past, as many have lost track of paperwork, illegally foreclosed on military members, and refused to work with borrowers who scrounge up money on modifications. Major banks have been widely reported to use a process known as “dual tracking” in which they work with a borrower on a modification while also pursuing foreclosure. Some instructed borrowers to stop making payments to help enter the modification process only to foreclose on them anyway.

But banks were ordered to end dual tracking and other abusive practices as part of the $25 billion fraud settlement. They dragged their feet on ending this practice as homeowners continued to face foreclosure. Banks were also ordered to modify mortgages as part of the settlement but some have been slow to dole out the relief.
Frustration about the weak agreement, coupled with the slow trickle of settlement money, sparked a protest at the Department of Justice on Monday, where activists and foreclosed homeowners marched and some were arrested.

Blogger's Note:  I am convinced that Wells Fargo doesn't just have a warm seat waiting in Hell; I think they have an entire wing.  The Wells Fargo Wing of Hell, an eternal molten pot just waiting for their sorry assess.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Disruptive Technologies

Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy

 
 
May 2013 | byJames Manyika, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Peter Bisson, and Alex Marrs



The relentless parade of new technologies is unfolding on many fronts. Almost every advance is billed as a breakthrough, and the list of “next big things” grows ever longer. Not every emerging technology will alter the business or social landscape—but some truly do have the potential to disrupt the status quo, alter the way people live and work, and rearrange value pools. It is therefore critical that business and policy leaders understand which technologies will matter to them and prepare accordingly.

Disruptive technologies

Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy, a report from the McKinsey Global Institute, cuts through the noise and identifies 12 technologies that could drive truly massive economic transformations and disruptions in the coming years. The report also looks at exactly how these technologies could change our world, as well as their benefits and challenges, and offers guidelines to help leaders from businesses and other institutions respond.
We estimate that, together, applications of the 12 technologies discussed in the report could have a potential economic impact between $14 trillion and $33 trillion a year in 2025. This estimate is neither predictive nor comprehensive. It is based on an in-depth analysis of key potential applications and the value they could create in a number of ways, including the consumer surplus that arises from better products, lower prices, a cleaner environment, and better health.

Some technologies detailed in the report have been gestating for years and thus will be familiar. Others are more surprising. Examples of the 12 disruptive technologies include:

Advanced robotics—that is, increasingly capable robots or robotic tools, with enhanced “senses,” dexterity, and intelligence—can take on tasks once thought too delicate or uneconomical to automate. These technologies can also generate significant societal benefits, including robotic surgical systems that make procedures less invasive, as well as robotic prosthetics and “exoskeletons” that restore functions of amputees and the elderly.

Next-generation genomics marries the science used for imaging nucleotide base pairs (the units that make up DNA) with rapidly advancing computational and analytic capabilities. As our understanding of the genomic makeup of humans increases, so does the ability to manipulate genes and improve health diagnostics and treatments. Next-generation genomics will offer similar advances in our understanding of plants and animals, potentially creating opportunities to improve the performance of agriculture and to create high-value substances—for instance, ethanol and biodiesel—from ordinary organisms, such as E. coli bacteria.

Energy-storage devices or physical systems store energy for later use. These technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries and fuel cells, already power electric and hybrid vehicles, along with billions of portable consumer electronics. Over the coming decade, advancing energy-storage technology could make electric vehicles cost competitive, bring electricity to remote areas of developing countries, and improve the efficiency of the utility grid.

The potential benefits of the technologies discussed in the report are tremendous—but so are the challenges of preparing for their impact. If business and government leaders wait until these technologies are exerting their full influence on the economy, it will be too late to capture the benefits or react to the consequences. While the appropriate responses will vary by stakeholder and technology, we find that certain guiding principles can help businesses and governments as they plan for the effects of disruptive technologies.
  • Business leaders should keep their organizational strategies updated in the face of continually evolving technologies, ensure that their organizations continue to look ahead, and use technologies to improve internal performance. Disruptive technologies can change the game for businesses, creating entirely new products and services, as well as shifting pools of value between producers or from producers to consumers. Organizations will often need to use business-model innovations to capture some of that value. Leaders need to plan for a range of scenarios, abandoning assumptions about where competition and risk could come from, and not be afraid to look beyond long-established models. Organizations will also need to keep their employees’ skills up-to-date and balance the potential benefits of emerging technologies with the risks they sometimes pose.
  • Policy makers can use advanced technology to address their own operational challenges (for example, by deploying the Internet of Things to improve infrastructure management). The nature of work will continue to change, and that will require strong education and retraining programs. To address challenges that the new technologies themselves will bring, policy makers can use some of those very technologies—for example, by creating new educational and training systems with the mobile Internet, which can also help address an ever-increasing productivity imperative to deliver public services more efficiently and effectively. To develop a more nuanced and useful view of technology’s impact, governments may also want to consider new metrics that capture more than GDP effects. This approach can help policy makers balance the need to encourage growth with their responsibility to look out for the public welfare as new technologies reshape economies and lives.

About the authors

James Manyika and Richard Dobbs are directors of the McKinsey Global Institute, where Michael Chui is a principal; Jacques Bughin is a director in McKinsey’s Brussels office; Peter Bisson is a director in the Stamford office.

Download


Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Everything You Think You Know About Addiction Is Wrong

David Sheff’s previous best-selling book, Beautiful Boy, told the story of his son Nic’s addiction to drugs. Now, Sheff’s newest book, Clean, goes beyond the story of one family to tackle nothing less than the entire subject of addiction in the U.S.—cause, prevention, treatment—with a goal, he says, of “ending America’s greatest tragedy.”

Simply put, Sheff is out to convince many more of us that, as he writes, “using drugs is not about willpower or character. Most problematic drug use is related to stress, trauma, genetic predisposition, mild or serious mental illness, use at an early age, or some combination of those.” So how do we move away from the stigma of addiction, and from the idea that if addicts just tried hard enough, or were made of stronger stuff, they could conquer their addiction?

“Before I was immersed in this world I had many of the same prejudices, especially about addiction,” said Sheff in an interview with TakePart. “We know that no one forces someone to take drugs…my son was lying to me, breaking into our house, doing unconscionable things. It appears to be a choice, and we judge it and people who become addicted.”

But Sheff’s deep immersion in the scientific research around addiction completely changed his point of view. “I came to understand that there is no argument about the fact that addiction is a brain disease,” he says plainly. “So when you understand that these people aren’t making a choice—no one chooses to be ill—obviously it is a choice at first, but most people do that and go forward with their lives and use moderately, but certain people are addicted. So people have this illness; and when you understand that, all of a sudden the blaming stops and you shift so that these people are seen as sick. So instead of anger and blame we can feel compassion. That to me is huge.”


It’s also the first step toward a genuine cure and an end to this epidemic, he believes. (And if you doubt it is an epidemic, here are a few shocking facts: More than 20 million Americans are addicted to drugs [that includes alcohol]; drugs kill more people than any other non-natural cause; and one in 12 of us over the age of 12 is addicted to drugs. Sheff says the total cost of drug abuse in the U.S. is more than $400 billion a year.)  Explains Sheff, “If we stopped looking at people as criminals or degenerate or weak-willed, and we started looking at them as ill, we would treat them and treat them early. When you have cancer or diabetes, the sooner you can catch it, the better.”

We’ve had plenty of chances to “win the war on drugs,” but we’ve screwed it up pretty much every time. The current thinking on addiction wasn’t always the way Americans thought, either, notes Sheff. “About a hundred years ago, it was the culture in America to treat addicts in the healthcare system. It was terrible in terms of treatment, but still, people were sent to medical care because there was an assumption that these people were sick.” With the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act 1914, addiction got taken out of the hands of doctors, Sheff explains, and “put into the hands of the police and the justice system. Since then, we’ve had a war on drugs and treated addiction as a criminal problem and people get thrown in jail.”

The emphasis on stopping the supply of drugs in the U.S. is misguided and naïve, too. “It completely denies what addiction is,” he explains. “In the book I tell the story of Luke who, when he was deprived of Ecstasy and pills, would go into the garage and huff—breathe gasoline to get high. You can deprive him of heroin, and he’ll use prescription pills. The reality of addiction is that people on drugs will get them.”  If nothing else, we’d do well to start thinking about addiction as related to problems in people’s lives. Some people are better built to withstand life’s trials; others aren’t, and may be more vulnerable to the lure of drugs and drink. “If you take a person who’s on a relatively okay course with relationships, a job to sustain them or school, but because they transgress—they try some pot or pills or drink, which happens to many, many people—the people who do this are suddenly thrown into a situation” where they’re being punished, Sheff says. “This adds to their stress immeasurably. Maybe the kid gets kicked out of school and maybe thrown into the criminal justice system. I can’t even describe the exponential levels of stress they feel, which leads to more addiction.”

Which is not to say some kind of “war” on drugs couldn’t be useful—just that focusing on the stemming the tide of incoming drugs isn’t the best place to put our money and effort. “One of the things changing that’s huge is the founding of an organization [for addiction] that is equivalent to the American Cancer Society,” tentatively now called the American Addiction Society, says Sheff. “The American Cancer Society has done more to change how we think about cancer, how we treat cancer, and the dangers of smoking. For the first time there will be an organization uniting people around the country.” The Affordable Care Act should also make a difference, now that health insurance companies are required to cover treatment for mental health issues and addiction.

If you’re interested in learning more about the American Addiction Society—also called Brian’s Wish to End Addiction, after the son of the founder who was lost to drugs through suicide—Sheff suggests signing up to get more information from the group; they’ll soon be launching a campaign to stop prescription drug misuse (Sheff says the number-one accidental killer is overdose on prescription meds). The Clinton Foundation has also just launched a campaign to end prescription drug abuse in adults 18 to 25.

Sheff says that most cities and towns have something going on to end addiction at the local level. “In every community there are people who are just fed up with the number of people who are dying; these organizations are often started by people whose kids did die,” he says, noting that St. Louis is focused on the heroin problem there, while north of San Francisco, where Sheff lives, community groups want to end prescription drug abuse. He cautions against assuming that drug programs that are already in place at many schools are enough, though. “DARE [short for Drug Abuse Resistance Education, a ubiquitous anti-drug education program] has been proven not to lower drug use among kids, but it actually increases use,” he says, adding that Drugfree.org and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have information on drug prevention programs that have been proved to reduce drug use. “People can also petition the Obama Administration to end the war on drugs and allot money that’s being misspent on this war to research and treatment,” he adds.

Sheff sees addiction as similar to another epidemic that started about 30 years ago. “I live in San Francisco and I was there in the early ’80s when AIDS was sweeping the city,” he remembers. “There was the stigma that it was a gay disease, and people didn’t want to talk about it. Activism completely changed the way that disease was viewed in our community. We viewed it as a plague that hit and there was tons of money raised and now it is looked at as a condition with which people live.” Sheff also remembers the most powerful call to action for these AIDS activists: Silence equals death. “It is,” he says, “the same with addiction.”

Friday, May 10, 2013

Heritage immigration study co-author penned articles for ‘nationalist’ website

Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine, the co-author of a study claiming the immigration reform bill pending in the Senate would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion, wrote two articles in 2010 for a website founded by Richard Spencer, a self-described "nationalist" who writes frequently about race and against "the abstract notion of human equality."

Richwine's two stories for Spencer's website, AlternativeRight.com, dealt with crime rates among Hispanics in the United States. AlternativeRight.com describes itself as "dedicated to heretical perspectives on society and culture—popular, high, and otherwise—particularly those informed by radical, traditionalist, and nationalist outlooks."

Richwine's articles on AlternativeRight.com were posted within the first few weeks of the site's launch and were the last he wrote for the site.  The website has published several controversial pieces about nationalism and race since Spencer founded it three years ago. Spencer is now the chairman of the Montana-based National Policy Institute, an organization that describes itself as a think tank for "White Americans."

Richwine's articles for AlternativeRight.com, "Model Minority?," published on March 3, 2010, and "More on Hispanics and Crime," published the next day, push back on an American Conservative essay that argued that some conservatives have over-hyped the crime rate among Hispanics. (Richwine's article was cross-posted on the website of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington where Richwine was previously a fellow.)

"A proper analysis of the data indicates that Hispanics have a substantially higher crime rate than whites," Richwine wrote in the first piece, which he backed up with federal prison data showing the incarceration rates of whites and Hispanics.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on Richwine's 2009 Harvard University dissertation, which examined whether the United States should exclude immigrants with low IQs and argued that "the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population."

The Heritage Foundation Thursday distanced itself from Richwine's dissertation in response to the Washington Post story.

"The Harvard paper is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings do not reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation or the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to U.S. taxpayers, as race and ethnicity are not part of Heritage immigration policy recommendations," Heritage spokesman Mike Gonzalez said in a statement.

Emails and phone calls to the Heritage Foundation from Yahoo News were not immediately returned Thursday.

Richwine's study on the cost of the immigration bill, co-written with Heritage Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector, was lauded by some who oppose the ongoing effort in Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration system. But it was also criticized by economists on both the left and right.  In an interview Thursday with Yahoo News, Spencer defended Richwine's work and outlined his own philosophy of "nationalism."

Spencer said he does not believe in the "superiority" of whites over other races, but he takes no issue with conducting data-based research about whether certain races, in general, have higher IQs or stronger economies.

"I would, without question, characterize myself and most things I do as nationalism—and I think that word is misused," Spencer said "People might think of that as simply xenophobia or irrational cheerleading for your country or something. But nationalism is a much more serious thing.

"It's a belief that you are part of an extended family," he said. "You believe that you are part of something bigger than yourself, it's an extended family, and you want to pursue the future health of this extended family. That is nationalism properly defined."

He added: "Race is real. Race has consequences in the real world. Loving your race is healthy and normal. So if that is the definition of racism—which I would think of as nationalism, or you could say racialism—then yes, that is what I believe," he said. "I think white people should love their history and love their ancestors. Operating on some kind of infantile, abstract notion of human equality is actually a very unusual and unhealthy way to view the world."

Spencer pointed out that Richwine's article was one of the first published for the site when it launched three years ago, before some of the publication's more controversial articles were written.

"That was very early on in AltRight, and maybe we became a little too out there," Spencer said. "He does more mainstream stuff, so whether he supports other things that have been published in AltRight, I don't know the answer to that."

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

The Fantasy Gap


Study shows rise in teenage narcissism and sense of entitlement


By Tia Ghose, Published: May 6

Teenagers today show a greater desire for nice things than young people once did, but they don’t want to work hard for the money to buy such goods, new research suggests.

The findings, published last week in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, may resonate with adults who say that kids these days feel more entitled than those of the past.

“Compared to previous generations, recent high-school graduates are more likely to want lots of money and nice things but less likely to say they’re willing to work hard to earn them,” said study author Jean Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University, in a statement. “That type of ‘fantasy gap’ is consistent with other studies showing a generational increase in narcissism and entitlement.”

Past studies by Twenge and her colleagues have shown a generational divide in the value of work:

Younger generations value leisure time more than their elders.

Other research shows that millennials are more cynical and wary of institutions, but they are not more self-centered and they are just as happy.

The study drew its results from a national survey from 1976 to 2007 that asked 355,000 high school seniors about the value they placed on material wealth, as well as their willingness to work for it.
Just 48 percent of students polled from 1976 to 1978 said it was very important to have a lot of money, compared with 62 percent of those who were teenagers between 2005 and 2007.

More than two-thirds of students in the 2005-2007 group said it was very important to own a home, compared with just over half in the earliest years of the survey.

Yet their work ethic didn’t jibe with their emphasis on material wealth. About 39 percent of the more recent graduates said they didn’t want to work hard, compared with just 25 percent of the oldest cohort.