Winners Never Cheat

Am I the only one who was a little confused by the editorial in Sunday's Post-Standard about the NCAA's investigation of and penalties for SU's basketball program (and the football program, if anyone cares)?

The very much rambling column by the editorial board declared that

NCAA standards are so exhaustive, schools maintain whole staffs of people to monitor and enforce them. Some rules are picayune; others are simply inane. But rules are rules, and SU admitted it violated at least some of them. Not all violations are equally severe, however. 

OK -- so, lots of rules are petty, or trivial, or silly, but some are serious and meaningful too. Either way, they are the rules that NCAA members need to meet. SU has a compliance office staffed by people who are supposed to know what the rules are; they have an athletic director who should be familiar with compliance, having worked at one of those schools the editors highlighted as having received similar penalties; and, of course, they also have a basketball coach who has been through this before.

The editorial continued with this:

We question whether the punishment in this case fits the crime. (After all, no state or federal laws were broken).  

So that's our ethical threshold now - no state or federal laws broken, so we're OK?  The rules are petty and ridiculous, so why follow them? And there are too many of them, how can we possibly keep track?

Failing drug tests. Cheating on class work. Accepting 'extra benefits' including, it's alleged, players being paid for or given academic credit for doing very little work at a local YMCA. A school provost and the Athletic Director and others doing everything possible to secure eligibility for a player who clearly was not meant for college absent his ability to play defense. Violations going back to before SU's National Championship in 2003, which against all odds was left standing unscathed.

These are the things in the NCAA's report, many of which the university admits to, had self-reported, and had gone so far as to self-impose a post-season ban in a year that the team would have needed a miracle to secure tourney eligibility, but a ban none-the-less.

In addition to the 'no laws were broken' viewpoint, we have the "everyone's doing it" defense, such as it is.

I can only imagine friends who have kids who participate in athletics in school telling them it would be OK for them to cheat since everyone does it. What's the lesson there?  And why would a parent work hard raising their children to be honest players, honest students, when coaches and athletic directors are going to bend the rules?

Well, you try to hard with your kids, because winners don't cheat and cheaters don't win, or at least they're not supposed to, and if they get caught they get punished. Remember last year's Cinderella Little League team, Jackie Robinson West? Or the Skaneateles football team under Tim Green? Isn't that what's supposed to happen? What about Lance Armstrong, who cheated for years, denied it vigorously, even going so far as to create a special website to debunk the charges, only to finally come clean. Isn't that what's supposed to happen?

SU has indicated they will appeal, and Boeheim is clearly planning on it, based on his comments at the Hardwood Club dinner this past Sunday night. It will be interesting to see play out is the appeal process:

• Will either SU or Boeheim seek to have the more than 100 vacated wins restored? 
• Do they focus on the twelve scholarships that were taken away? 
• Do they try and ditch the probation, which didn't include any tournament bans but require the school to follow the rules, even the picayune ones? 
• Does SU offer Daryl Gross as a sacrificial lamb?
• And how long will it take for any decisions to be made?

Earlier this year, Jim Boeheim  famously pointed out that he doesn't give a shit whether people think he runs a clean program. 

I'm not a Boeheim 'hater'. I'm disappointed in him, and I hope that he'll take some time, as he prepares a plan to save his legacy, to rethink that comment he made back in February. To think about how it impacts his kids, all the rest of the kids in our local schools, and all of the parents and fans and alumni and community organizations that rely on the SU basketball team to help get them through the long, cold winter.  

Tuesday's Number: $242,283

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were ten new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers, totaling $216,754.
• There were no satisfied judgments.
• And there were two health care related bankruptcies, for $25,529.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week: 

• Crouse had six, totaling $125,640
• St Josephs had three, totaling $31,635
• SUNY Upstate had two, totaling $74,827
• Community, part of Upstate, had none

There was one judgment for a surgical practice, for $10,181, which makes up the balance.

This year, I’m subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I’ve been tracking this for two and a half years.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

More Political Equality, Please.

In a recent post, I asked for More Term Limits, Please because I believe that we do not need 'politicians for life' but instead need to move to a place where public service focuses more on the service part and less on the living-a-life-paid-for-by-the-public part. 

This is not a Democrat or Republican thing with me: I'm equally opposed to entrenched Dems and Reps and Indies. For example, while some cheered the long service John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who spent almost 60 years in Washington (and who was replaced by his wife), I cheered his retirement.

Term limits have very little chance of happening in most places; here in NY, for example, I think the process would be that the ones who would be directly impacted by the limits would need to pass the same bill in two consecutive legislative sessions, just so we could get the initiative on the ballot, and then the voters would need to approve the initiative, and then of course we'd need a couple of Commissions, Committees, Authorities and Boards pulled together in order to determine how term limits can be implemented, and then... well, you get the drift. Our chances are slim, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for them.

In the meantime, we could also fight for some other changes (in addition to the ethics reforms put forth via sledgehammer by our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo) that would introduce more equality and representation for New Yorkers across the board, which (I naively thought) is the point of having the Legislature in the first place. 

Here are five ideas that come to mind:

1. Offices of members of the Legislature should all be the same size, regardless of how long the politician has been in office or what leadership position person holds. If we can have open offices in business, where the CEO sits in the cube farm along with everyone else, why must we reward politicians with progressively bigger offices and better artwork for no real reason? 

The people our legislators represent are the same; I'm no different than a person in Buffalo or Rochester or Binghamton or Watertown or Orange County or Staten Island, I'm simply a New Yorker who is supposed to have representation in Albany. Maybe if our representatives were all treated equally, they might have an equal chance to represent us.

2. Publish a legislator scorecard.  If you pay attention to the newsletters you get from your legislators, you'd think they go to Albany, vote on one or two things, and then come home to have pictures taken with veterans, children and seniors. What the heck are they doing down there? Are they submitting legislation? Are they trying to, but being blocked by their own party leaders? Are they recording votes on things, participating in debates and so on? We have no idea what they're really doing, because they show and tell us only what they want to.  

The Assembly and the Senate should be required to publish a scorecard for each legislator, reflecting all votes that were offered up and how each member voted (no more voice votes); what legislation they attempted to put on the floor and what happened with it; what bills they co-sponsored, amendments they submitted, etc.

The information should be published monthly and delivered to all district constituents, posted unfiltered on each member's web page, and available on the Senate and Assembly webpages.  And, the costs associated with accumulating the information, publishing and mailing the scorecard should bet assessed to each legislator equally. 

3. Ban handouts of taxpayer dollars during the eight weeks leading up to an election. Remember Governor Cuomo traipsing up, down, and across the state holding press conferences announcing funds that he was handing out for economic development last year? Or my favorite, the property tax rebates which were approved in 2013 but not issued until the fall of 2014, when every single member of the legislature was up for reelection? That should be illegal.

I'm not saying that the state can't do business year round, that would be silly. Rather, politicians should not be allowed to swoop in on a community in the two months before the general election with suitcases full of cash and Publishers Clearing House-style prize checks, with full press coverage, and buy votes. It's wrong. We know it's wrong, the pols know it's wrong, and so do the reporters who cover these self-serving announcements.

When the money is appropriated, the schedule of when it will be distributed must accompany the announcement of the funding.  And, when the money is handed out, it must come with the a reminder that it's taxpayer dollars that were previously appropriated, not a gift bestowed upon us by someone running for office.

And if Albany must send an attention-grabbing person along with the money, well, that person cannot be an elected official, but should be a representative of the agency from which the funding flows.

4. Each legislative committee should have a permanent, not-partisan staff, which provides information equally to both parties. The size of the staff should be equal the number of legislators on each committee; the staff members should be employees of the State not of the Legislature, but the Leg should be charged for all of labor and benefits costs. Where possible, we should use SUNY or CUNY resources in the data gathering and analysis.

How does this help push the equality agenda? It removes partisanship from the research and investigation of issues that the Committees work on, and it removes the ability of the Leadership to influence what research gets done and presented to the Committee members. The party in the majority may have have more seats on the Committee, but all members will get the same unbiased, fairly gathered, equally shared information to use in their decision-making.

5. Hold Lobbyist Speed Dating events.  Each member of the Leg sits at their own table in a convention center or someplace equally public, under nice bright lights. Registered lobbyists have five minutes with each member to push their issue and when the bell rings, they move to the next table, whether that's a person they wanted to lobby or not. I'm sure they'll find some way to spend the five minutes.

To make this more fun, the members of the Assembly and the Senate will be seated in alphabetical order, and intermingled so a Republican Senator could be stuck in a row of Assembly Democrats, or vice versa. The lobbyists will also enter the room alphabetically, but go all the way to the, so lobbyist Mr. Abbott would start his speed rounds with Member Zambrowski.

On the chance that there are too many lobbyists -- OK,that was silly of me -- knowing there are more lobbyists than can fit into each session, the ones who don't make it into the room during the initial session will be first on the list for the next session.

The sessions should be open to the public, and the lobbyists who register to 'date' will be billed to cover the costs of the venue. The sessions should be rotated around the state, and all members of the Legislature would be required to attend each one. This will add an economic boost to all regions of the state, as we'll be able to fill unused dates in our floundering convention centers, maybe book some hotel rooms, that kind of thing.

After each session, a listing of the lobbyists who attended and the members they spoke with will be published on each Member's Scorecard and website, and also on the Assembly and Senate webpages. 

So there you have it: five changes that level the playing field for our elected officials and the people who lobby them, share wealth across the state, and provide real transparency for voters. They use our tax dollars wisely, tap into existing state resources on multiple levels, provide accountability, and heck, they might even cause more people to engage in the process.  

Now, I just need to find some willing partners to share this information with their friends, and their legislators.  Are you in?

Wondering, on Wednesday (v23)

For your consideration:

Idaho Republican Vito Barbieri wondered (out loud, actually) if a woman could swallow something and have it end up in her vagina. His question was predicated on an explanation by a doctor that a person could swallow a pill that had a little camera in it and that camera could take images of the person's colon and voila, those pictures can be uploaded and viewed by a doctor many miles away.  Alas, that won't work with gynecological exams, because the swallow bone is not connected to the vessel bone. Read about it here.

Nevada Republican Michele Fiore believes that cancer is a fungus that can be washed out of the body. It's as simple as putting in a pic line, flushing it with baking soda, and voila, the fungus/cancer will be gone.

Mississippi Republican Gene Alday doesn't want to put any more money into public education because, first of all, no schools in trouble financially, and because, well, because those lazy black folks are just sitting around collecting welfare and not working, and educating their children would be pointless.

West Virginia Republican Brian Kurcaba thinks rape is bad, which is good, but he thinks what is beautiful is a child that could come from a rape.

I'm left wondering, on this Wednesday, whether my befuddled head-scratching over this stuff will leave me bald. 

Tuesday's Number: $1,065,607

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were 28 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $937,254.
• There were no satisfied judgments. 
• And there was one health care related bankruptcy, for $128,353.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

•  Crouse had four, totaling $21,610
• St Josephs had none
• SUNY Upstate had ten, totaling $178,824
• Community, part of Upstate, had none 

There was one other judgment, for $5,202 for a medical facilities, making up the balance.

This year, I’m subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I’ve been tracking this for two and a half years. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Alphabet Soup: CPAC and ABC

The annual "let's vote for someone with the last name of Paul" straw poll has been taken at CPAC and - surprise - Rand Paul won!

Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson and The Other Bush rounded out the top five; some more prominent Republicans, including Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal, failed to garner much support; some of them got less than His Hairness, Donald Trump.

The CPAC poll is generally inconsequential, as indicated by the showing of the Paul family when push comes to shove.  Ron Paul won CPAC in 2010 and 2011, and Rand has won the last three, but you don't see them still standing when the fat lady sings.  CPAC voters trend young, with 47% of them between 18 - 25 years old.  The other findings from the poll?  Marijuana yes (41%); immigration no; reform should be at least 'encouragement' to leave if not outright deportation (64% combined), and on that issue, most believe that Congressional 'spending power' should be used to defund and derail the President's executive action.  As with the poll, no surprises there.

And there should be no surprise that CPAC was united in their disdain for Hilary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee, The One For Whom All Others Will Wait (and likely Step Aside)

Ugh.  I'm sorry if my friends on the left will be unhappy with me, but I have got to get this off my chest:  I'm for ABC: Anybody But Clinton.

The Dems need to get out of their own way, and make room for someone who can run on their own record, someone who is not bringing with them a few airports full of baggage. Someone who can find a path forward, not backward.  We do not need a grandmother-in-chief, or at least, we don't need this particular grandmother in chief.

To quote Hillary herself, "what difference at this point does it make?" A lot. Democrats are already bearing the burden of having Hillary at the top of the heap, even undeclared. Her book deal, and her being flat broke, and Benghazi hearings, and her speeches, and on and on. That's all in the past, but the past is where the Clintons live, and where the Republicans are happy to go.

We've seem what passes for leadership in the Republican majority Congress; they can't even figure out how to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which is being held up because they're mad at President Obama for taking executive action on immigration. The Republicans, the party of shutting down the government, the party of threatening our security, the guys who claimed credit for the years-long improvement in the economy, because 'people were looking forward to them being in charge' -- seems their hubris knows no bounds.

Neither, however, does Hilary Clinton's. She sits, and watches, and toys around with reporters on making 'announcements' , and makes a bunch of well-compensated speeches here and there, and occupies media time and space and everyone else waits. And waits. And waits.

This ain't no way to run a railroad, Dems.

It's March.

Someone in the party needs to sit her down and let her know she has to make a move, and she has to do it now. She needs to announce her intention to get out of the way, or she needs to announce that she's running, so that other Democrats (maybe some of these, (but not the first)) can get moving towards the challenge of 2016.

Even if that challenge is taking on Hillary Clinton.

More Term Limits, Please.

Governor Cuomo is using his executive budget-making powers to force the legislature into a corner on ethics reform. Among other things, according to his 30-day budget amendments, he would:

• eliminate the $172 per diem paid to each legislator when they're in Albany, and instead have them file expense reports just like state employees are required to do;
• disclose all outside income over $1,000; not allow any compensation in connection with a bill or resolution; not refer lobbyists to any business the lawmaker is affiliated with; require lawyers, real estate agents and some others to provide a description for and the source of compensation; disclose any compensation of over $5,000 from a client/customer, as well as disclosing who the client/customer is, the work performed, and whether the services were related to any pending legislation; 
• change the rules so that pensions can be forfeited by those folks who were elected before the pension forfeiture law was passed in 2011; and make it possible for prosecution of legislators for filing a false instrument (such as their disclosure statement), including a ban on holding office for five years or more;
• expand the disclosure requirements on communications made with a certain number of days of a general, special, or primary election.

These budget amendments are in addition to or add clarity to changes the Sonofa Gov outlined earlier in February. And, in theory, these changes are fine.  I'm all for disclosure, and I've long been a proponent of eliminating the per diem  After all, we pay these folks $79,000+ per year; do we also have to pay them for showing up?

I have a few issues, however, with his approach.  This is the same governor, after all, who set up a fake Moreland Commission on ethics, and shut it down as soon as it got close to his end of the hall.  He's ignoring existing ethics venues that are already in place, which he could easily work to strengthen rather than ignoring them.

Further, I have a strong distaste for politicians who link unrelated items together (ethics and the state budget?) and for those who think that they're more important than the process as a whole, which is exactly what Cuomo is doing. I mean, what's your tolerance for a CEO who threatens to shut down the whole shebang if he doesn't get his way?

And have we been shown, in any way at all, that ethics reform is more important than the business of New York?  I don't believe we have.

Not only that, but his changes don't get at the heart of the issue, which is this: entrenched politicians, the ones who are around year after year after decade after decade, are really the cause of the ethics problem. It's the power that goes with all of that time in office, the power which is so attractive to outside influencers, and so susceptible to outside influence. If you have no power, you're harder to bribe.

Someone like Shelly Silver, for example, with his decades-long career, his big staff, fancy office, ability to bring legislation to the floor (or keep it from the floor), the ability to 'motivate' other members of the legislature to go along, and in return get nice assignments, bigger lulus, and so on -- that's the guy you want to have your hooks in if you're unethical, or as some like to say, "playing by the rules."

How do we stop them? Term limits.

Itemizing campaign contributions is good, eliminating the per diem is good, forfeiting pensions is good, but those things won't stop the madness that is inherent with entrenched politicians.

These were not intended to be lifetime jobs; people who think they are, are the problem.  And when they've been there so long that even the strongest made-in-New-York shoe horn is not enough to shake them loose, we need more than Cuomo's suggested reforms.

We need term limits. We need level playing fields so that all of the people who are elected to serve have a chance to do that, on equal footing with their gentle brothers and sisters from districts across the state.  We can no longer continue to have the system turned on its head by people who are allowed to stick around forever, who accumulate and wield a ridiculous amount of power based simply on longevity.

As we learned in seventh or eight grade, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

More term limits, please.

Tuesday's Number: $229,279

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were 15 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $222,871. 
• There was one satisfied judgment, for $5,430.
• And there was one health care related bankruptcy, for $11,838.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week: 

• Crouse had four, totaling $21,610
• St Josephs had none
• SUNY Upstate had ten, totaling $178,824
• Community, part of Upstate, had none 

There were two filings, one judgment and one bankruptcy, for other medical facilities totaling $28,845.

This year, I’m subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I’ve been tracking this for two and a half years.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v22)

In no particular order, here's the stuff that has me wondering, on Wednesday. Would any of these have made your list?

On a scale of one to 100, what are the chances that people will be as unhappy with the weather this spring/summer/fall as they have been about it this winter? Can't you hear it already?  Too much rain, too much mud, too cold, (March and April); too much rain, too much mud, too much wind, too cloudy (May and June); too hot, too humid (July and August); too much rain, too hot, too cold, too cloudy (September and October) and then before you know it we'll be right back into winter and starting all over again.

I'm wondering what would happen if, every time someone mentioned that it was cold outside, I asked "How cold is it?"

Speaking of 'too much', for the past several weeks, it seems, NBC Nightly News has done at least some kind of story every day on Chris Kyle, he of American Sniper book and movie fame. They've talked about the movie, and they've replayed the interviews that Lester Holt did with Kyle before he was tragically shot and killed by another veteran at a shooting range in Texas, and they've been covering the trial of Kyle's killer as well. 

All along I had assumed that they were spending so much time on the story because the movie was produced by NBC Universal.  Turns out that's not the case; the movie is from Warner Brothers.  So I'm wondering, why are they devoting so much time to this? And why aren't they devoting as much time and attention to Chad Littlefield?  You may not recognize that name, because it's so rarely mentioned in the media reports, but he's the other man killed by the same gunman at the same Texas shooting range in the same incident. Doesn't his life, and death matter? Don't All Lives Matter? 

A little over a year ago, I did a post encouraging Republicans - begging them, truth be told -- to stop talking about rape, to just shut up about it, to stop making themselves look like complete idiots. It would appear, sadly, that my pleas fell on deaf ears.  

Meet Brian Greene, Republican from Utah. Greene chimed in on a bill under discussion that would "clarify the definition of consent" to make it clear that a person who was unconscious could not consent to a sexual encounter.  Greene offered up this inexplicable stream-of-consciousness babble:

It looks to me now like sex with an unconscious person is, by definition, rape. I hope this wouldn't happen, but this opens the door to it: an individual has sex with their wife while she is unconscious - or he, the only other way around, if that possible, I don't know. But a prosecutor could then charge that spouse with rape.  I'm not at all trying to justify sexual activity with an unconscious person - it's abhorrent to me, but do we as a legislative body want to make that rape in every instance?  

I'm wondering.... heck, I don't even know what I'm wondering on this one. 

Tuesday's Number: $539,695

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were 27 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $539,695. 
• There were no satisfied judgments.
• And there were no health care related bankruptcies.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

Crouse had ten, totaling $75,661
St Josephs had none
SUNY Upstate had eleven, totaling $400,428
Community, part of Upstate, had two, totaling $32,090

The were four other judgments to medical practices totaling $31,516. 

This year, when there are any, I’m subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I've been tracking this for two and a half years.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

When in the Majority: Express Disapproval

Congress has left town for their President's Day recess, without solving the problem of how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be funded.

You'll recall that the budget deal that was worked out last year funded the rest of the government through September but left out DHS, because the Republicans wanted to make a statement about their dissatisfaction with President Obama's executive action on immigration.

Orange John Boehner and Grumpy Old Mitch McConnell, or their minions, came up with this great plan to push the Dems against the wall and force them to vote separately on DHS, which the Rs would castrate with anti-immigration language.  Because castration, as we know, is something revered in Congress now.

So the budget passes and we go into January, with an end of February deadline looming on DHS funding, and what does the Republican controlled Congress do?

• Vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they did some 50 times while in the minority, with exactly equally dismal chances of happening. 
• Vote to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline, which "will help secure our energy independence" by taking crappy dirty Canadian tar sands, run them in pipes through the center of the country down to the Gulf of Mexico, where they will be refined and sent to Europe and China. The bill will almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama, the Boehner signing ceremony notwithstanding. 

With that auspicious start to basking in the overwhelming majority given by the 37% of people who weren't too fed up with the process and actually voted in the mid-terms, the Rs are off to the races. Except on the DHS funding.

Senator Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Republican, noted that

We need to resolve it. We need to fund DHS and also find a legislative mechanism to express our disapproval with the President's executive order. 

Here's a thought: do exactly what you say you need to do. Both houses need to work together  to pass a clean DHS funding bill; don't pull a Cruz and shut any part of the government down.

And  then, draft an immigration bill. Get your party together and come up with an immigration plan that the majority of you in both houses can support, and that will entice some Dems to participate with you. Allow reasonable debate and related amendments in both houses, and pass an immigration bill.

If you want to express legislative disapproval on the President's executive order, try and pass a bill that limits executive actions.

Or, if that's not 'disapproval' enough, or too risky, since it would limit your own guy should you ever find one who's electable, start every session (in both houses) with a vote on a statement of your disapproval.  Here's some draft language for you:

We, the minority-elected Republican majority in the [House] [Senate], hereby express our strongest disapproval of Executive Actions taken by President Obama and all of his predecessors on immigration, believing as we so strongly do that only we have the right and the duty to make laws on this issue.  So say we all. 

Read the darn thing into the Congressional Record, and then get to work.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v21)

Almost exactly a week ago I was in the middle of writing this post.  

I was talking about Shelly Silver stepping down as Speaker of the Assembly here in New York, but vowing to fight to keep his seat as a member of that august body in the face of federal corruption charges.  And I had touched on SU throwing in the towel in the face of their NCAA investigation, and giving up the right to have Coach Boeheim's unranked guys play in any games after the end of the ACC's regular season.  And thinking gee, what a great year to give up post-season play, since the team has struggled in so many games already, with more losses than we are accustomed to in these parts.

And I was just starting to focus in on Andrew Cuomo, our Sonofa Gov, and his threats to forgo an on-time budget deal if he doesn't get ethics reform.  And then, well, then My Sweet Baboo decided to take a knee and propose, and I never did get around to finishing the post.  (I said yes, by the way).

So now, as I'm listening to the SU/Boston College basketball game, and casting a loving and appreciative eye towards the ring on my finger, here's what has me scratching my head tonight. 

Anthem Blue Cross was hacked by someone (perhaps the Chinese) and information including names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, employment information - all the stuff you'd ever need to set up some big time fake identities - may have been compromised for as many as 80 million people. And we were told on the news that, almost immediately after the breach was announced, all kinds of people who roam the netherworld were offering to buy the Anthem data. 

I'm not caught up in this one, at least so far. I was tagged in the Target breach (I shop there maybe once a year) and on a site where I shop for a necessity that is not available locally. For both of those, my card number was compromised, but nothing like what was taken in the Anthem case. I was offered free credit monitoring, which is what Anthem is offering folks. But  I'm wondering, is a few months of credit monitoring enough for the folks caught up in this massive breach? And if you're a crook, wouldn't you already plan on waiting more than a couple years, so as to get past the common free monitoring periods? I guess I'm thinking if you're smart enough to hack and steal this info, you'd be smart enough to know when to use it.  

And speaking of breach,  Brian Williams has been suspended by NBC without pay for six months, which amounts to about a $5 million hit in income and what is likely a lifetime ban as a newsman.  There's been a lot of analysis on why this might have happened (all the while the investigation is continuing, supposedly now expanded to include his expense accounts, as if an RPG hit might materialize there).  Lots of people are talking about what makes people embellish their records, inflate their value, exaggerate what happened to them, and why they would 'violate our trust' like this.  

But lots of people aren't talking about why, for example, NBC didn't appear to think much about trustworthiness when it hired the daughters of former Presidents Bush II and Clinton, as if they were real reporters? Chelsea Clinton did 'Making a Difference' stories and was reportedly paid some $650,000 for her troubles. Jenna Bush I think has become the official Bush Family Reporter, having done interviews with her dad, grandfather grandmother, mother, dog, childhood dolls... OK, maybe not the dog but you get the drift. 

What Williams did was wrong - but the network is not as trustworthy as they'd have us believe. 

Finally, the Supreme Court refused to stay an Alabama law allowing gay marriages.  This was an odd decision, in many people's eyes, because SCOTUS is going to decide on marriage equality before the end of the term. Clarence Thomas was up in arms about this one, as was Antonin Scalia.   

So: was a line crossed here by the Court? Was this a breach of protocol, or just a breach of Thomas's sensibilities? Can we no longer trust the Supreme Court? Has anyone really trusted them lately?

And now I'm left wondering, on this Wednesday, if that's really the crux of the issue: is the breach of trust really a big issue, if there's so little trust to start with? 

We Not Playing: The Poetry of Kanye West

The Grammys

If they want real artists to keep

coming back
they need to stop playing

with us.
We ain't gonna play
with them
no more.

Because what happens
is when you keep on
diminishing
art

and not respecting
the craft

and
smacking people
in
the face...

you're
disrespectful

to inspiration. And
we
as
musicians
have to inspire
people

who go to work every day...

Like no,
we not playing
with them no more.

Tuesday's Number: $462,451

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were 30 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $525,597. 
• There were seven satisfied judgments, totaling $89,986. 
• And there were three health care related bankruptcies, for $26,840.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week: 

• Crouse had 17, totaling $19,236
• St Joe's had three, totaling $38,278
• SUNY Upstate had 17, totaling $390,270
• Community, a part of SUNY Upstate, had none 

The remaining $14,667 in new judgments were for a surgical center and a physical therapy group.  

This year, I’m subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I've been tracking this for two and a half years. That explains the very low number for Crouse this week; all of the satisfied judgments were credited against their new judgment total. 

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

The Irony Board: Personal Freedoms

Gee, the Republicans are running into a bit of backlash on their whole "people have the right not to vaccinate their kids" talking points. That whole personal freedom thing is a little more complicated that they thought, it seems.

For a while now, the R's have inserted little lines into their state party platforms, like this excerpt from the Texas GOP platform in 2014:

All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children,without penalty for refusing a vaccine.  We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that wold contain personal records of citizens without their consent. 

Obviously, personal freedoms, particularly personal medical freedoms, are very important in Texas and in many other red states.

The same folks who believe that people have the right to vax or not vax don't seem to have any problem with kids who are not vaccinated hanging out with other kids in school, day care centers, playgrounds, Chuck E Cheeses, bounce houses and birthday parties and all the rest, even if the personal choice of a parent can in fact jeopardize other people's children. And when there is no way of knowing whether the kids present have been vaccinated or not.

And there's no legitimate reason for the government to jeopardize anyone's right to participate in society, to go freely about their lives as a citizen, exercising their personal freedoms, right?

So where on the personal freedom continuum, do some of these typically Republican-supported ideas, regulations, and strongly held beliefs fall?

• Limiting the right of a person to vote, by reducing hours at urban polling stations, or requiring government-issued ID to allow a person to vote, but not automatically issuing said government ID (and vehemently opposing a national ID card), or not allowing a person to leave a voting line once they're in it, or other foolish steps that have been taken under the guise of preventing virtually non-existent in-person voting fraud in America? (Joe Biden would have said 'literally non-existent' and he wouldn't have been far off.)
• Forcing women to undergo invasive medical procedures like trans-vaginal ultrasounds? 
• Keeping people on life support against the wishes of the patient and family?
• Extending benefits to one class of Americans that you would refuse to pass to another class of Americans because they exercised their own personal freedom of speech?
• Declaring that judicial candidates must have a 'biblical' world-view but also insisting that certain religions assimilate or referring to them as a 'cancer' ? 

Chris Christie, who put a healthy, symptom-free Ebola worker in a plastic bubble in New Jersey, until she could leave the state (and go into forced quarantine in Maine), apparently doesn't see the irony between that action and his statements in England about 'personal choice' when it comes to vaccines.  But if he was right on Ebola, can he also be right on vaccinations?

Well, of course, silly! As the blustery,belligerent Governor of New Jersey, he has the right to protect the people of his state.

And as a blustery, belligerent potential presidential candidate, he has to protect the state of the people on the Right. 

Tuesday's Number: $12,976

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance. 

• This week, there were two new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $12,976.
• There were no satisfied judgments.
• And there were no health care related bankruptcies. 

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week: 

• Crouse had both of the judgments this week.  

This year, I’m subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I've been tracking this for two and a half years.

The paper publishes only those accounts of $5,000 or more.

A Time for Re-Education

If you've been paying even a little attention to the news over the past year or so, whether you're a parent of a school-aged child or not, you're likely familiar with at least some of the topics below :

• Common Core and Race to the Top (and before that, No Child Left Behind)
• Teacher evaluations, teacher effectiveness, teacher tenure
• Discipline, school violence, restorative justice
• Standardized testing, teaching to the test, treating all kids the same
• Property taxes, state aid, and education funding 
• Charter schools
• Drop out and graduation rates 
• Parent/guardian involvement

There are defenders and detractors for each of these, all of whom would tell you that they have the best interests of the students in their hearts and minds -- and most of them probably honestly think that they do. The problem is that, while the adults go back and forth on these issues, sometimes changing their minds with each shift in political winds (and money), millions of students are being impacted.

As I noted last fall, the students are the canvas on which all of the rest of us paint. 

Some of them really want to learn, really want to get an education, really want to have a career or go to college (or both), really want to be successful. At the same time, there's another portion of the student population that cares much less about those things, and may be only going through the motions, passively waiting to age out, or actively seeking to get thrown out. 

If you plot the students that thrive and the ones who truly don't want to be in school on a bell curve, they're likely going to be the top and bottom five-to-fifteen percent.  And in between them are the 70-90% for whom our educational process can be a deal maker or a deal breaker. The ones who could go either way.

The ones for whom caring, engaged parents/guardians, good teachers, a strong curriculum focused on concepts and practical applications of them, options for different learners instead of cookie-cutter programs, safe and well-designed classrooms and facilities, and fair educational funding, can truly change their lives for the better. The same students, when faced with the opposite of those things, can just as easily go the other way.

Most teachers, administrators, Boards of Education, and yes, even bureaucrats and politicians, know that not all students learn the same way, have the same aspirations, take tests equally well, come from equal socioeconomic backgrounds, or attend schools that offer equal opportunities.  And yet, it seems that what we hear about is exactly that, the cookie cutter approach that does treat all kids the same, setting many of them up for failure.

Locally, we face the challenges listed at the top of this post, as well as others. Many are common to other large urban districts, such as poverty, crime, school violence, higher than acceptable dropout rates and lower than acceptable graduation rates.  But there's more:

• The local teachers union has zero confidence in the superintendent, and demonstrated this very publicly by walking out of a school board meeting last year. City officials, on the other hand, tend to support the superintendent. And there's been some flux on the Board of Education as well. 
• The Syracuse City School District (SCSD) has been accused of institutional racism, with African American students suspended at rates much higher than their overall representation in the district. 
• About half of all properties in the city are tax exempt, and we've got a huge inventory of abandoned properties, seriously limiting property tax collection.
• Programs have been introduced to encourage teachers and other 'role model' professions to live in the city, but those programs, not surprisingly, face an uphill battle in the current environment.

Frustration is running high on all sides. And for those of us not in the official stakeholder buckets outlined a couple of paragraphs above, but who are interested in the future of our city and our schools, it's hard to discern if there is a 'right side' to these issues.

I'm not affiliated with the SCSD, not a teacher, not a politician, and don't have kids. I'm just a long-time city resident working with some others to get a better understanding of community sentiment around the SCSD, and perceptions around the key challenges the district faces and where to look for solutions.

A confidential survey has been created, and we are looking for feedback from parents, community members, district employees, students and former students -- all local residents are encouraged to participate, including those who live in any of the suburban school districts.

You can access the survey here.

For readers outside the immediate Syracuse/Onondaga County area, I'm very interested in the state of education where you are. What challenges are your schools facing? What successes can you share?  What are your opinions on the issues outlined at the beginning of this post? Has your district solved any of them?What scares you or encourages you?

Educate us. Re-educate us. 

Wondering, on Wednesday (v20)

Be honest -- how many of you really thought that 60 million people would be 'devastated' by the "Blizzard of 2015" also known as Winter Storm Juno, or as I've heard if referred to, the Fizzle of  '15?  I get that there are lots of cities in the path of these storms, but I personally am getting tired of all of the hype.  The news readers, the 'official' weather reporters and the photogenic people who read the weather ad nauseum during all of the new shows, shouting from the rooftops about the potential carnage aiming straight for New York City, and then? Nothing.

The blizzard was so bad in Manhattan, the street sweepers were out.

And did you see that there was a $200M negative impact from governmental and weather forecaster intervention  - closed roads, travel bans, company closings, many of which turned out to be for naught? Not sure about you, but to me it seems 'weather reporting' is getting way out of hand.

What's also getting out of hand is the hype about Super Bowl commercials - and the fact that they don't even wait to put them on TV during the game any more.  Over $4M per 30-second spot, and some of them have already aired on You Tube or news shows or TV shows.

Today we had the almost certainly fake 'controversy' about a Go Daddy ad where a woman makes a website and sells a puppy online.  Animal rights activists got involved, some 40,000 signatures were added to a petition and the Big Daddy of Go Daddy has had a change of heart and says they're not going to show the ad... except on the national news, and the entertainment shows, and who knows where else. I don't think they ever necessarily planned on running the ad; and, not for nothing, it seems a little odd that they're going to be ready in really only hours with a new $4M replacement. You tell me: real issue, or pure PR stunt?

And speaking of pure PR stunts, I offer this:

You can absolutely say that I'm seriously interested. 

Those were the words of Sarah Palin, she of the 'servant's heart' who was recently photographed with a sign telling Michael Moore exactly how she felt about him.  Although it wasn't her sign, she apparently doesn't know that f-bombing someone is not really 'presidential'.  Those were the words of the one who, over the weekend, rambled her way almost unintelligibly through a speech in Iowa, offering up stuff like this:

And GOP leaders, by the way, ya know the man can only ride you when your back is bent. So strengthen it then the man can’t ride ya and America won’t be taken for a ride because so much is at stake and we can’t afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than maybe the next standing of theirs in the next election.

Even conservatives were confused; even the Republicans must have some other woman who can run in 2016?

And there's also this:

A lot of people think I have fun with (talking about running for president) and I enjoy the process, but the country is in very serious trouble so I am considering it seriously. 

Those were the words of His Hairness, Donald Trump. Who has threatened us many times before that he was going to run for office. And has, of course, bailed, leaving his poor fans starved for more.  Which, of course, he'll give us the next time he pretends to run, when he'll remind us that, had he really put up a fight, he would have won.

I'm wondering, this Wednesday, if the Republicans will ever stop humoring these two?

10 Questions for NY Legislators

If you are an Albany pol, regardless of party, how would you answer these simple true/false questions?

1. Sheldon Silver should resign, now.  
2. If you were Sheldon Silver, you would resign. 
3. What Sheldon Silver has been charged with are really crimes.
4. You have done the same things that Sheldon Silver is accused of doing. 
5. If offered the role of one of the "Three Amigos" you would turn it down.
6. Three men in a room is the wrong way to govern New York. 
7. It's OK that a State Legislator makes more than a teacher. 
8. State legislators should be subject to term limits.
9. You will not run again. 
10. You answered the above questions honestly.

Thanks.

Tuesday's Number: $449,029

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I’ve been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

• This week, there were 26 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $449,029. 
• There were no satisfied judgments. 
• And there were no health care related bankruptcies.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

• Crouse had two, totaling $15,536 
• St Joe’s also had two, for $22,862 
• SUNY Upstate had 22, totaling $410,631 
• Community General, a part of Upstate, also had none.

This year, I am subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I've been tracking this for two and a half years.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

First They Came for the Muslims

Most of us have heard  some version of the "First They Came" quote, one of which is below.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

There's some disagreement over who wrote it, or what the original version was; it's generally attributed to Martin Neimoller, a German pastor and lecturer, although it supposedly could have been written by some counter-culture types who figured no one would pay attention if they put it out on their own, so they tagged Neimoller with credit.  

Regardless of the true origin, the meaning is clear, as is the evergreen and challenging nature of it.  Watch:

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Muslim.

Seem relevant? It should; all you have to do is watch the news coming out of France on anti-Muslim attacks since the terrorist acts on Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery store; or Germany, where there are regular anti-Muslim rallies; or read any number of articles right here at home, or listen to our politicians:

• John Bennett of Oklahoma, who professes to have read the Koran and has determined that Islam is a "cancer that needs to be cut out of our nation" among other things.
• Bobby Jindal, Catholic convert from Hinduism, Louisiana Governor and possible presidential candidate, on the need for Muslims to assimilate, and stop with their Sharia law stuff and those unnamed 'no-go' zones where women are afraid to go without veils.
• Jack Whitley, a Republican party hack from Minnesota, who pronounced last November that we should "frag" Muslims when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca - I mean we know they're going to be there, right? 

Or, read your state's political party platform, such as the one from Texas which specifically calls out Sharia Law as something from which protection is needed; even in the face of cases where American people and companies have benefited from our courts taking such laws into consideration.

Some of us at least appear to have difficulty differentiating between a faith and terrorists. For some people, it's a definitive choice; hatred for others who are not like us is not unheard of. For others, though, it's possibly a lack of understanding or it's perhaps because they've never thought about it.  That's the way it is for us in majority America when it comes to race and racism (it doesn't exist, right?) and religion (mine is good and yours is OK as long as it's a lot like mine or at least resembles mine a little) and free speech (as long as it's not critical of anything I believe in or even remotely critical of America. If you need examples, look no further than 'American Sniper' discussions).

What would happen, I wonder,  if this were the next verse we wrote today:

Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, 

for I was not a Catholic.

Catholics? Why would anyone come for the Catholics? 

Catholic priests abused children, tens of thousands of children around the world; the true number terrorized by these men of the cloth may never be known.  The Catholic church at different times feigned ignorance of the abuse, then denied it ever happened. They failed to protect the children from the abusers, and instead focused on protecting the Church and her leaders; they moved abusers from parish to parish, expanding the problem instead of limiting it. Had church officials been school teachers or doctors or bus drivers or coaches or politicians or people from any other walk of life, they would surely have ended up in jail. Permanently in jail.

These men were terrorists, plain and simple. They were priests, yes, and they were Catholics, yes, but they individually were terrorists.  They did not represent the entire Catholic clergy, and their behavior is not presumed to be representative of all Catholics.  In fact, the opposite is true.  

The presumption (from people who were not victimized by these men) has always been that these individual priests were monsters, and that maybe some of the leaders of the church were complicit in the cover up, and that maybe some did not do enough to take care of the victims. There are still Catholics who believe this never even happened.

But has there been a call to round up all Catholics, to ban all Catholics, to evict all Catholics, to bomb and shoot at Catholic churches, to burn down Catholic houses of worship? Any calls to 'frag them' on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday? Of course not.

It would be wrong to brand an entire faith and all her followers as terrorists, simply based on the bad acts of a small minority of them, wouldn't it? 

Well, sure, that would be wrong.

Unless of course they're not done taking care of the Muslims.

Obviously it's Bad

Mike Groll/AP Photo

Andrew Cuomo's comment on the arrest of Sheldon Silver on multiple federal corruption charges:

Obviously it's bad for the Speaker, but it's also a bad reflection on government and it adds to the negativity. And it adds to the cynicism and it adds to the 'they're all the same'.

Yes, Governor, obviously it's bad.

It's bad that you had an ethics commission and shut it down when it got too close to you.

It's bad that you think you can do whatever you want to get what you consider reform, as you and your buddies sit in The Room and make your deals.

It's bad that just yesterday, you were giddy and giggling as you delivered your Opportunities Agenda and told us about you and The Honorable Shelly Silver and The Honorable Dean Skelos traveling as the Three Amigos, in your ridiculous and more than slightly insulting sombreros.

You're right. It's a bad reflection on government, and your behavior just yesterday, when everyone knew that Preet Bharara was likely to indict Smelly Shelly, only adds to the thinking that you are all the same.

Kudos to Bharara and his gang; let them continue the investigations that we New Yorkers deserve, that you did everything possible to shut down.

Obviously it's bad. But it's obviously good for us, and for the state of New York, if we get rid of the people who think they're above the rules.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v19)

A world of wonder out there, don't you think?

A person who had a relative killed by an enemy sniper in World War II announced that he was taught that snipers were cowards. And was promptly told to shove pretty much everything up pretty much everywhere, because implying that sniping (an invading, he added) were less than noble pursuits means that he's un-American.  Going out on a limb here but I suspect anyone who lost a loved one in this manner would consider the perpetrator to be a coward, including any of the people who are so enraged about the tweet sniped around the world.

And I wonder, why is it that so many of the people who are so enraged about the exercise of free speech by the author of the tweet can't express their rage without telling him to shut the blank up and advise that "until he has gone to war" he cannot comment on anything related a movie about a soldier, or about this soldier, or about war? Ou est Charlie?

Have you figured out yet, based on the news stories coming ahead of the State of the Union (SOTU) address and since then, who's in the running for 2016?  The Dems have Hillary Clinton, of course, and Mitt Romney. And now Joe Biden is likely in as well, or at least talking like he's literally thinking about it. I don't know about you, but I'm wondering what those primary debates are going to look like?

And of course there was the SOTU itself.  President Obama talked about free community college, and a middle class economy, and taxing the rich, and trade and some other stuff.  And, oh yeah -- seems he won a couple of elections too? How long before the Republicans get over that slap in the face, I wonder?

And speaking of getting over things, how long before folks of Hispanic heritage get over the portrayal of the 'Three Amigos'  that our Sonofa Governor plopped into his 'Opportunities Agenda' speech this afternoon? Other than Cuomo himself, did anyone laugh?

Tuesday's Number: $173,856

Tuesday is the day my local paper, the Syracuse Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

Since mid-2012, I've been tracking health care related filings. I include anything that is clearly a debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

·         This week, there were fourteen new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers totaling $190,022.

·         There were two satisfied judgments, for $16,166.

·         And there were no health care related bankruptcies.

I also track filings for each of the four Syracuse hospitals. Here’s the breakdown for this week:

·         Crouse had five, totaling $40,847

·         St Joe’s had one, for $20,815

·         SUNY Upstate had nine, totaling $122,970

·         Community General, a part of Upstate, also had none.

There was one judgment filed by a surgery center which account for the remaining $10,776.

This year, I am subtracting the satisfied judgments from the overall totals and from the individual hospital totals; the likelihood is that they've already been incorporated into the numbers at some point now, since I’ve been tracking this for two and a half years.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

Are We Really Charlie Hebdo?

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, publishes cartoons that are so inflammatory that most American news outlets won't show them. Wouldn't even think about showing them. Would be fined if they did show them.

Even the relatively modest cover of the post-attack edition, which showed the prophet Muhammad with a tear on his cheek, holding a sign noting 'Je Suis Charlie' (I am Charlie) and the headline above saying 'All is Forgiven', was not shown by many media outlets; reporters held the magazine, rolled up so that we could see the bright green background of the cover and know that it was the one we had seen published on social media, but that was it. 

from Time.com

Shortly after the attack in Paris, Time magazine published a few of the covers, including the one pictured to the right, described as follows:

In this cover, the newspaper called itself an irresponsible newspaper, and likening itself to a Neanderthal, claiming that the invention of humor is the process of adding fuel to the fire.

Frankly, that's how many have viewed the whole situation, as being all about adding fuel to the fire. Many Muslims are deeply offended by some of the cartoons, because they believe the prophet should not be depicted in human form at all, much less (for example) on his knees, genital exposed with a gold star on his anus, beneath a headline proclaiming 'A star is born'.

Christians would be just as mightily offended had Jesus been portrayed in that manner, or if they had seen the cover depicting the Holy Trinity engaged in anal sex, or if, similar to the one about the Koran, there had been a cartoon stating that said the Bible was 'shit'.

Most people, regardless of their faith or personal beliefs, would be offended, and I dare say hesitant to rally and march in support of a magazine that published these cartoons. We are, after all, the country that fined CBS for showing a 'wardrobe malfunction'; we are the country that didn't allow the 'seven dirty words' to be broadcast (but has no problem with lingering, loving shots of two of them, tits and ass, on cheerleaders, fashion models or sitcom stars).

We are the country that has determined that money is speech; how comfortable that seems, compared to even the mildest of Hebdo covers.

Tom Toles, a political cartoonist at the Washington Post, noted in an interview with Buffalo's WIVB that he wouldn't have drawn the cartoons published in Charlie Hebdo, that he has his own standards.  He also noted, rightly, that freedom of the press includes both the right to publish, and not publish, certain material.

And he pointed out that

If someone is telling you, you can't do something or you are at risk if you do, it often makes you more determined to stay with it than to turn around and run away. 

Toles is right: often it does make you more determined. More determined to offend, in the case of Charlie Hebdo. And more determined, for many of us, to thank our lucky stars that we are not forced to defend this particular kind of speech in our own back yard.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v18)

Tonight on the way home, we caught part of a semi-local radio talk show host putting an idea out for his listeners. The host does a local show in Rochester in the morning and an afternoon show here in Syracuse; for a time on his show he would do a Bible verse of the day, and he regularly complains about Andy Cuomo and President Obama and sometimes against Republicans as well. He likes guns and soldiers and veterans and hates commies and liberals (and on rare occasions, he might admit there's a difference between them).

Having set the stage, here's what he offered today, in the shadow of the attacks in Paris and lone wolf terrorists or radicalized jihadists who turn on the rest of us:

We should stop allowing unskilled Muslims in the country. 

He asked us not to yell at him, not to call him a racist or anything like that. It's OK, he went on, to accept Pakistani doctors, and all the engineers and scientists and all the smart Muslims but we need to keep the unskilled ones out.  They come here, you see, and don't work or are under-employed and mostly they're just sitting around trying to figure out how to get in on their share of welfare money.

There are some that work out, he said, but even those shopkeepers, the ones who run the corner stores, they're spending time and energy trying to figure out how they can get their fare share of welfare money, even if they have to cheat to get it. They should probably go, too.

I didn't listen to what came next - I admit to having difficulty listening to him at all most days, and today was no exception. But it did get me wondering, on this Wednesday, if he was simply trying to provoke a reaction, or if he had the courage to take his idea all the way to the only possible conclusion:

We should not allow any unskilled people in our country. Don't let the come here from other countries, regardless of ethnicity, and don't allow the ones who are already here, even if they are our children, to remain.

See, that's really what we need to do! We should only have productive people in America. We don't need to have 47% of the people here on the dole, we need to have 100% of the people we allow to stay making positive contributions, just like the Pakistani doctors and, even, the Indian hoteliers.

I clearly didn't take this idea far enough back in 2013 when I thought I had everything figured out, after spending a more than a little too much time reading social media comments.

As I said, I didn't stick around to hear if the host took it all the way and included all unskilled residents, citizens or otherwise, or if he left it at just unskilled Muslims.  I have my guess, but I'll leave you wondering with me on that one.