The history of sexual harassment goes way back. We could choose to go as far back as good ol’ Bill Cosby. But for the sake of space and just this article, we’ll start with a far more familiar name. Harvey Weinstein- the Hollywood giant and movie mogul who had used his position and influence to sexually harass women. Threatening them with loss of movie roles and damaged careers for years on end. Oh before that there was the issue with Uber that led to the axing of more than 20 workers. But Weinstein was the watershed moment. A trend was started; the hashtag #me too was used by various women to share their stories about facing sexual harassment at the workplace and in other places.

As expected, #metoo got really emotional. This is totally understandable. Women were able to air negative sexual experiences that they had kept bottled up for years. Some as far back as high school or early college. It was an awakening. It was like realizing you’d been sick for a decade without knowing it while all the symptoms were obvious and staring you in the face. Except that this had lasted way more than a decade and had become part of our culture.

The spreadsheet that spread misery

Then the spreadsheet showed up. Reportedly, it was just something created by a woman for her friends and co-workers to compare names of known sexual harassers. Then it somehow got out onto the internet. And any woman from anywhere could include the name of any man she wished to embarrass (or worse) under the cloak of anonymity. Needless to say, this was the first big flop of the #metoo movement. A vanguard for female liberation and the rejection of male domination was turned to a tool that could be used in bringing down random men whose crime could have either been direct rape or just asking for a female co-worker’s phone number.

Vitriol

Apart from the spreadsheet, #metoo was also marred by a lot of negativity. A lot of articles were published by obviously angry women (justifiably so) who however went extremely extreme in airing their views. There was an article that suggested that men be chased out of workplaces completely. There was another that espoused the view that it’s wrong for men to make comments (non-negative or non-sexual included) about the appearance of their female work counterparts or to pay them complements in any way.

The Aziz Ansari incident was the culmination of a series of pointers to how far off the track #metoo had gone. A celebrity comedian had sex with a young woman and he apparently did not pay attention to her body language which turned out to be emotionally negative for the woman in question. However, the point remains that the act was consensual and does not necessarily count as sexual harassment. But the movement chose to hold Ansari up to the same opprobrium that was accorded to Weinstein and the rest. We can only hope that #metoo gets brought back on track.…

Thomas Friedman had an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times. He finds the current Presidential campaign bizarre because of the different candidates trashing and disparaging things that make America great.

He points to three strengths of the United States: entrepreneurship, pluralism and the quality of our government institutions and then cites several examples of candidates trashing them.

Donald Trump is first up for his attack on pluralism.

Trump talks about making America great again as many candidates do on both sides (although that implies that we aren’t great anymore.) Yet Trump also is telling Hispanics and Muslims to get out or stay out or both. Our multicultural and diverse society is a key factor in what makes us great.

Friedman points out that Democrats haven’t wanted to control the border because they saw more potential votes coming and Republicans saw it as cheap labor coming, so both left the border porous. But contrary to the impression that Trump gives, they aren’t terrorists and criminals and rapists. A few perhaps, but they are the exception.

He is also using this as a wedge issue to make people fear about losing jobs and create divisions that give him an advantage when in fact many of the job loses are due to technology and not immigration.

Friedman asks where else in the world would you find Presidential elections where a black with a Muslim grandfather defeats a woman candidate and then runs against a Mormon.

Bernie Sanders for Trashing Banks

Friedman feels that Bernie Sanders is a good person and his complaints about the Wall Street excesses were a major factor in the 2008 economic disaster. However, he feels that Sanders is going way overboard in wanting to break up the largest banks. Friedman believes that because of Dodd-Frank we don’t have to worry too much about future problems. (That is what they always say until the next crisis)

He feels that Sanders should put more focus on ways to help entrepreneurs and start-up companies instead of putting so much focus on carving up big banks. His opinion is that these are the people who generate growth in the economy and create jobs and that is where energy should be focused.

Ted Cruz for Being Mean Spirited

Friedman compares Ted Cruz to Grover Norquist who is an anti-tax zealot who has said he wants to decrease the size of the federal government (probably state too) and make it small enough that you could drown it in a bathtub. Friedman very amusingly wonders (and hopes) that if Norquist succeeds in his wish and then slips and falls in that bathtub, would anyone be around at 911 to come to his aid?

Friedman’s take on Cruz is that he is full of hate and Friedman is offended by the way Cruz trashes the federal government. He has a good point in that as the world gets more complicated and interdependent, good national institutions will be ever more important. It will be difficult to compete globally without the sort of programs and projects that can only be done by the federal government. Others don’t have the resources to pull it off.

Friedman points out that the Russians would give a lot to have our Justice Department and the Chinese would really like to have our Environmental Protection Agency.

As he says to sum up the article, our motto is E Pluribus Unum which translated means Out of Many, One.…

Blue Cross Blue Shield should be making tons of money. Every year I have been with them they have raised their rates far more than inflation. When I ask and complain about it, they say, “Oh, the cost of medical care has gone up.” Maybe they are looking at different statistics than I am, but what I read says that the rate of increase for medical care has slowed considerably although still faster than inflation.

In 2015, the costs for HMOs increased by 7 per cent and for other medical insurance it increased by 9 per cent. The inflation rate in the general economy was 0.1% for 2015. So why are medical costs going up so much faster? A key reason is the aging population. It is well know that for most people most of the medical expenses occur later in life and we have the massive Baby Boom generation which is now getting to be later in life which is skewing the numbers.

Then there are advances in medical techniques, medical diagnostics, medical machinery, medical treatments and new drugs. These new methods and technologies seem to rarely be less expensive. So as you substitute these newer more expensive techniques and machines and drugs it tends to add up.

OK, so why if the medical costs increased by 9%, why is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland raising their prices by more than that? They claim that they had over $100 million in losses because they guessed wrong as to the patient mix that they covered. They expected more young healthy people to sign up because of Obamacare. They claim they got more older and sicker people than they expected.

An article in the Baltimore Sun said that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland was raising rates by up to 26%. Bullshit. They raised my wife’s and my policy by 34%. That is almost 4 times the rate of inflation for medical costs. So maybe that is an aberration you might say? Bullshit again. They have raised my rates by 18%, 14%, 7% (OK, that one wasn’t too bad), 8%, 31%, 26%. 11%, 16%, 18%,, 10%, 48%, 5%, and finally the 34%. Does that look anything like what we have experienced in terms of inflation? Are they incompetent or are they just gouging everyone.

If you want to make a difference, call your congressman or woman and ask that there be true competition in health care insurance. Tell them to repeal the McCarran – Ferguson Act. It bans interstate competition in healthcare insurance. It basically creates state monopolies in health insurance and is a key reason that rates are so high. There needs to be competition. The insurance lobby is too strong. You would think that Democrats would want to repeal the law because it would help out the people. You would think the Republicans would want to repeal the law because they say they believe in market forces and competition. They don’t, probably because the insurance industry is a large donor to political campaigns.…

Well the Republicans are busted when it comes to Planned Parenthood. So is David Daleiden, the guy who created the videos that created such an uproar. In this case for real, since he has been indicted. His organization the Center for Medical Progress has some splainin to do as they say as well.

Lt Gov. Requests Criminal Investigation

The Republican lieutenant governor Dan Patrick of Texas asked the attorney general to open up a criminal investigation of Planned Parenthood. What an interesting twist when the grand jury found Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong but instead indicted the accusers. Reuters says that this is partly due to an aggressive legal strategy by Planned Parenthood.

Accusers Indicted Instead

David Daleiden and his cohort Sandra Merritt made a video when they went into Planned Parenthood and spoke to some of the people there. They accused Planned Parenthood of the illegal purchase and sale of human organs. However, the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood and indicted Daleiden of the same thing he accused Planned Parenthood of. They also indicted Daleiden and Merritt of using fake driver’s licenses.

Daleiden is accused of breaking the law about purchase and sale of human organs, not because he actually did it, but because he talked about it and tried to purchase organs from Planned Parenthood. The way the law is written, this is illegal as well.

Cooperative but Aggressive Legal Strategy

Planned Parenthood’s local lawyer, Josh Schaffer, cooperated fully from the start, providing everything asked for and more and giving the prosecutors tours of the facility that had been accused of wrong doing.

Daleiden should be busted for libel and distorting the truth as well. According to Planned Parenthood, they commissioned an outside independent study that found that the videos Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress were deceptively edited to distort the truth.

Daleiden is striking out all over. Planned Parenthood has been cleared of doing anything wrong or illegal in 12 states.

Schaffer said he requested Daleiden and Merritt be charged but he didn’t have to be aggressive about it because it was pretty evident what they had done.

He’s Innocent

Of course, that is what Daleiden’s lawyer says. He claims that it is an incorrect reading of Texas law and his client should never have been charged. Daleiden claims he used investigative journalism techniques and that he can’t divulge sources.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out, but for now, Daleiden looks to be busted.…