A Reason for Government

A post appeared on Facebook this morning; I re-posted it.  It's about registering your pet as an Emotional Support Companion animal so you can get into a housing rental with it.

I try to investigate certain types of Facebook posts before I Share them; like missing person's notifications.  I find many to be erroneous.  I often Share missing person's reports with a link to updates that show them found, etc.

So, this morning, I did a quick search about companion animals to verify whether or not such a designation as emotional support companion animal actually exists. It does.  And, like other companion animals, they can be registered and there are laws about how companion animals and their owners must be treated.  For example, I'm a librarian by profession.  I've worked mostly in public libraries for most of my career.  Pets are NOT allowed in libraries, for what most people would understand is a policy for obvious reasons.  In case you don't see the obvious reasons here are a couple:  You can't have animals running around pooping and peeing on the floor; you can't have animals running around biting people.  That's just a couple of reasons.  

If you work in public service and experience hundreds of individuals walking in off the streets daily and their behavior, you'd understand how many more reasons there might be.

Companion animals for the blind and physically disabled are allowed and they are usually easily recognizable from obvious needs of their owners.  However, I'm quite sure that, if the owners are unable or unwilling to control their animals, they can be asked to leave.  It's important to know laws that might affect you more than occasionally.

So, apparently, there are Emotional Support Companion Animals.  The first agency's site I found had substantial information about the criteria for the designation, the registration process, what such animals are exempt from, etc.

I posted the link to that site, then was asked a question by a Facebook friend and did a little more looking and discovered several other "agencies" and their sites. I'm now confused about the "official" capacity of these agencies.  I'm not going to bother looking into the all of this; it doesn't directly affect me.  What I do know is that laws can be federal or state or a mix.  I don't know what laws exist about companion animals; I'm not going to investigate but I am going to contact my state and federal reps and ask them to.

I did just a link that says that Emotional Support Companion Animals are protected by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) which is a federal law.

One of the functions of government, as I probably learned it and certainly think of it, is to protect and intervene for us and to control flim-flam, sham and dishonest enterprises that misrepresent themselves in order to scam us out of our money.  I don't know if the evidence of these multiple "agencies" to certify and register companion animals is about that or just no standards.  There are, if you are or aren't aware, multiple companies that can register a domain name (web site address) for you.  I initially thought there was one and I see no reason why I need any company to do it for me if I could get through the maze to the "agency" that maintains the database. I digress.

Another purpose of government, as I understand and wish it to be true, is setting standards.  If there are federal and/or state laws concerning companion animals, there have to be criteria (standards) so designating them.  Therefore, there have to be agencies, legally designated agencies to certify companion animals; otherwise everybody could and would just say their pet is a companion animal. By the way, setting standards, at all levels of government, has fallen by the wayside.

The following are links to the "agenies" in the U.S. that I've found, so far, that register/certify companion animals:

Service Dogs of America
NSAR - National Service Animal Registry

Blind, Deaf, Dumb, Ignorant and Stupid

Yesterday, I watched a video recording of the CSpan broadcast of Tuesday's Senate hearing on single-payer healthcare.  The purpose of the hearing, apparently, was to listen to reports of single-payer healthcare programs in other countries.  Senator Bernie Sanders, (D-VT), was chair and ranking member was, Sen. Richard Burr, (R-NC).  I admit, I'm quite ignorant about these protocols and, quite honestly, I'm quite tired and sick of them.

I found the speakers, who were from academia in the U.S. and administrators of programs in Taiwan, Denmark and Canada; two of whom are physicians.  I found their presentations interesting and informative, although their written remarks have to be downloaded and read to get the entire information.

What was most telling, appeared when the Q and A began and Sen. Burr and Sen. Enzi, (R-WY) asked their questions and made statements.  Neither listened even slightly to the responses they were given.  They are, clear from their behavior, so completely embroiled in their beliefs, that they are unable to hear, or see anything that doesn't conform to those beliefs.  I'm not sure how one gets past the closed minds of such people but they are not thinking in the least.  If such a person believes that a stop sign is round and purple and you tell them it's octagonal and red, you can stand them in front of it forever and they will refuse to see it.

What I doubt that the general public understands, is how statistics are used by a variety of people to make a point.  I know many people believe they are being lied to and stop listening which is a mistake.  Having worked for a significant manufacturer at one point in my career; and having assisted in producing presentation materials for the shareholders of that corporation, I can tell you that the statistics chosen, for any presentation are those that support the point of view of the speaker and they are only a tiny piece of the picture.  They are most often completely accurate but they are selected to create an impression that is often false in the omission of the rest of the facts.  They are not lies, except in those omissions.  Both sides of the argument in the hearing presented statistics that supported their stance; neither side listened to the other.

Another interesting aspect of the hearing was the presence of the speaker, Sally Pipes, who has written a number of books against single-payer healthcare.  You will find little about her qualifications to address the topic.  I have not yet found anything about her education.  She has headed a variety of organizations and, apparently can write (I have read nothing that she's written and have no interest in doing so) and has gained the attention of people in power who have used her organizational and spokesperson skills.  She has suffered a family medical tragedy that is clearly the impetus and basis for her activities and opinions.  I found her to be an unconscious zealot with little background on which to base informed opinions.  Her opinions have, in my mind, no validity or importance whatsoever.

I stopped watching the recording of the broadcast after about 10 minutes of the Q and A which made it obvious that our government is mostly disinterested in facts and problem-solving and is mostly interested in promoting entrenched beliefs and in denying We The People solutions that will enhance and improve our daily lives.

I am truly disgusted and divorce myself from considering anyone in D.C. to be working for my best interests.  I wish almost everyone there would just go home and shut up.

Wealth Redistribution

I'm getting things ready to send to my accountant to have my taxes done.

Unhappily, I lost my house last year, opted for deed in lieu of foreclosure at the advise of my lawyers and my accountant though they both told me I would pay a tax penalty because my loss is considered a capital gain by the IRS.

The bank received my deed and full payment of the balance of my mortgage because I had paid PMI (personal mortgage insurance) as required by my state.  In effect, I paid to insure the bank against the possibility that I might default on my payments; they get paid.  Why they aren't responsible for their own insurance -- well, think about it....

So, I'm feeling very nervous and vulnerable since I'm guessing that I can't pay the capital gains.   I'm also feeling very angry and hateful toward the banks and impotent to do anything about it.  Thinking about how the owners, stockholders, executives of financials institutions have most of the rest of us by the balls, so to speak, I decided to do a little calculating of revenge.  Here's my thinking:

Total U.S. wealth, as of 2009, was 55,000 billion dollars.  Think about that.

$55,000,000,000,000,000 -- I think

The top 1% owns about 34.5% of that wealth, or -- $18,700,000,000,000 -- $18,700 billion

The population of the U.S., as of 2010 was about 318,000,000.  315,000,000 less the top 1%.

What would it be like if, in the interest of moving the economy and narrowing the gap between the top 1% and the rest of the population, we executed a wealth redistribution program.  We certainly wouldn't take the entirety of the 1%'s wealth away from them.  That would hardly be decent.  What if we took just 10% of their wealth away from them and redistributed it equally among the rest of the population. What would that look like?

10% of 18,700,000,000,000 is 1,870,000,000,000.  A pittance.

Distribute that among the 315,000,000, the rest of the population, minus the 1% and each person would get, roughly, $5,937.    A down payment of a new car; a vacation, whatever.

Just another indication of how enormous the gap is between the top 1% and the rest of us.

Workin' For A Livin'

It's just my opinion but   I really don't believe that anyone can become a billionaire except through inheritance, accident or deceit.

Think about it, if you go to work for somebody every day, put away 10-25% of what you make, invest which is really just gambling that you pick a winner, you will not, even at the end of your life have even one million, let alone a billion dollars.

Now think about advertising.  The key word in business, industry and advertising is spin.  I've known and worked for a few spin doctors.  They think nothing about what spin actually is.  Spin is just lying.

A man has a house to sell.  Buyers come by to see it.  They ask questions:  

"Is the foundation sound?"

He doesn't know but he says, "Yes, I just had it inspected."  (a lie)

"Is the plumbing up to date?"

He replaced visible iron pipes with copper but not those hidden in the walls and he's put temporary sealant on a couple of valve leaks, "yes", he says and shows them the receipts for the copper pipes.

"Is the well water good?"  

"Yes", he says but he just the day before 'shocked' the well by pouring a gallon of bleach in because the water has been iffy since he owned the house.

Do you think he's justified in lying about these things because it would cost him too much to fix them and few people would buy the house if he was honest about them?  Do you think he's in a fix and the only way out is to lie?

Then, you can expect just about anyone else to do the same to you.

Corporations spend millions of dollars learning the weaknesses of consumers in order to make claims, design products and create dependencies so they can continue to sell products that nobody needs.

Now they have gained the power to influence OUR government over the interests of all of the rest of us.

That's the reason regulations are needed.  If you believe that businessmen are honest as saints and will do right by their customers, you are a fool.  If you believe that people who are taken advantage of by the deceit of others deserve what they get, then you will be sure to be screwed by somebody because deceit means that you don't know that you're being screwed.

Dhu!