The wind brings temperature change in double digits and the wind also dries the land.

January 3, 2014
1200 GMT
The Weather Channel Departure from Normal Low Temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit

Odd, isn't it? So much of the country is far colder while there are areas up to ten degrees warmer.

So, one would expect the lows to be very low based on what people are experiencing, but, a departure this profound in high temperatures? The departure from high temperatures in the areas where it is frigid maintain that level, but, the areas with warmer departures are still far higher.

Additionally, there is snow cover, but, not in all areas of the frigid map. Why is that important, because, the less snowfall in many areas of the country the greater the drought come Spring and Summer.

Then there is the amount of snowfall and the quality of the snow. Will the snow continue to exist throughout the winter or will it melt or partially melt and then return with the next storm?

How much of the snow becomes ice?

And dig this, the wind chill factor actually increases temperature in some areas of the country by single digits up to 39 degrees Fahrenheit.

The small map below is the current temperatures across the nation.

Where the wind chill increased normal temperatures that continues to be indicated in actual temperatures. Where the wind chill decreased normal temperatures the same exists in actual temperatures. What does that mean? It means the temperatures are weather dependent and episodic.

It is not a general cooling of the climate. The dominating factor is the wind and not normal storms. If the winds are coming from the Pacific the land is warmer. If the winds are coming off the Arctic Circle the land is colder. This is not a lasting cold. It is episodic. 





January 3, 2014
1330.18z
UNISYS Water Vapor Satellite of North and West Hemisphere (click here for 12 hour loop - thank you)

This should be a somewhat familiar dynamic to this hemisphere. The moisture delivering the snow is from equatorial water vapor to the point the ICZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone) is nearly absent of water vapor. Off the west coast is an Arctic Oscillation.

Idaho drought monitor map shows ‘Severe’ and ‘Extreme’ drought (click here)
The Idaho Drought Monitor Map shows around half of the state is under a “severe” or “extreme” drought.
About 5 percent of the state, in the southwest, is under the extreme drought, while another 40 percent is under the severe drought.
Much of the rest of the state is under a “moderate” drought (25 percent), or “abnormally dry” (8 percent), according to the map.
The top part of the state, which is significantly more narrow than the rest of the state, is not under any type of adverse weather. This is about 22 percent of the state.
This is worse than January 1, 2013, when 45 percent of the state was under no drought conditions.
The surrounding states, including Nevada, Washington, and Oregon, are also experiencing a lack of rain.
Source: theepochtimes.com
Publication date: 1/3/2014

January 1, 2013
By Tina Volpe
Posted by Life Channel
California has seen its share of drought, (click here) anyone who is a long-time resident can attest to water rationing and restrictions – and it appears it might be dealing with water shortages again in 2014.

Although winter is a strange time of year to announce a drought – with three-fourths of the country under ice and snow, but California has not had its usual rain or snowfall. A city like Santa Cruz usually gets at least 30 inches of rain every year, but this year – only about five inches fell – from July to June.

As of December 24th, 85 percent of the state was experiencing severe or extreme drought conditions. Reservoirs are at below normal levels, and people are starting to worry....

The US Drought Monitor 
December 31, 2013

Where are the temperatures higher due to wind and where is the drought?

At least one farmer is taking the recommendations about planting varieties of wheat with deep roots. Thank you Land Institute.

This picture is from the article about California in this entry. The pathway shows the droughted land, but, the wheat shows a crop of wheat. The plants have deep roots and are able to tap enough water to continue to grow. That is an amazing picture. The trees in the background have deep roots by the age of the trees alone. They are not young trees. So, there is a healthy water table underneath this crop, it is just finding the right wheat to plant. 

This picture makes an excellent argument to plant perennial grain crops. The roots should not be disturbed. This crop can be harvested. Wheat is a grass. In a similar species family as anyone's yard grass. Yard grass can 'go to seed' if it is not mowed regularly, right? That is what this is. That wheat can be harvested and the roots will continue to grown a wheat crop. It is important to monitor the 'yellowing' of any perennial crop as to the nutritional status of the crop. Liquid fertilizer can be added as necessary.

A broken axle is irrelevant until the investigation is complete. A broken axle could be a symptom and not a cause.

Regardless, the safety margin for any such disaster is not enough. Rail safety is lacking. The fact there are three derailments, at least one fatal is more than suspicious. I don't buy the fact three derailments are caused by increased use of rail services. That is an excuse. There is no excuse for this level of negligence or worse.

I'll talk about the Climate Crisis later. This reality of frigid temperatures and severe weather, even really bad snow storms, VALIDATES the FACT Earth is warming at an incredible rate and indeed it is important for the USA to find solutions to their Greenhouse Gas Pollution. Yes, even the boats stuck in the Antarctica Sea Ice is due to the Climate Crisis. As a matter of fact it was predictable they were going to stuck in that sea ice.

This topic is not one entry with a short paragraph.

Later today. It is already after 2 AM.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but, this study is about benefits offered before The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was instituted.

This paragraph is from CBS. It is very deceiving intending to bring political debate without complete facts.

AP January 2, 2014, 4: 05 PM
SALEM, Ore. -- A new study (click here) has found that people enrolled recently in Medicaid went to the emergency room 40 percent more frequently than others, often seeking help for conditions that could be treated less expensively in a doctor's office or an urgent care clinic....

The study was recently published in "Science," but, the Medicaid expansion occurred in 2008. It was offered in Oregon before The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was even law.

...The study by Sarah Taubman (click here) of the National Bureau of Economic Research and colleagues is the third in a series detailing results from an Oregon-based experiment begun in 2008, in which low-income adults were randomly given Medicaid coverage. The adults were later surveyed to gauge the effects of the coverage on their health and well-being.

Called the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, it was designed to shed light on the effects of guaranteeing Medicaid coverage for low-income, uninsured adults, an important topic in the United States since insurance for the poor is a big component of the 2010 Affordable Care Act....

There were federal monies involved to sponsor this study? This was suppose establish the effects of the law on a control population? Is that right? Because that is not what Oregon says.

The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (click here) is a landmark, randomized study of the effect of expanding public health insurance on the health care use, health outcomes, financial strain, and well-being of low-income adults. It represents the first use of a randomized controlled design to evaluate the impact of Medicaid in the United States. Although randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical and scientific studies, they are rarely possible in social policy research. In 2008, the state of Oregon drew names by lottery for its Medicaid program for low-income, uninsured adults, generating just such a randomized controlled design. This ongoing study represents a collaborative effort between researchers and the state of Oregon to use this opportunity to learn about the costs and benefits of this expansion of public health insurance.

"Probably of Hospital Admission"

Hm.

You know what this means to me? It means those of low income cannot necessarily discern whether they are sick enough to be hospitalized. That is all that means to me.

Use of health care
• Medicaid increased the likelihood of being admitted to the hospital by 30 percent, driven by hospital admissions not originating in the emergency department.
• The Poor have been sicker than the average American and until they receive quality care they remain under or uneducated to what appropriate health care provides to improve their health status.
• Medicaid increased the likelihood of using outpatient care by 35 percent, using prescription drugs by 15 percent, but did not seem to have an effect on use of emergency departments.
• Financial hardship
• Medicaid decreased the probability of having an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency by 25 percent – which also benefits health care providers since the vast majority of such debts are never paid.
• Self-reported health and well-being
• Medicaid increased the probability that people report themselves in good to excellent health (compared with fair or poor health) by 25 percent.
• Medicaid increased the probability of not screening positive for depression by 10 percent.

• Emergency department visits overall
• Medicaid increased the number of emergency department visits over the 18-month period by about 40 percent (0.41 visits, relative to a base of 1.02).
• This is the part the media is presenting as controversial adding to the cost of health care by the use of emergency rooms. The study was conducted 2 years after the Medicaid expansion lottery was conducted, so that places the information in 2010. Basically, the program is excellent. The visits were not frivolous and conducted by the patients on a whim, the visits were all purposeful. There were approximate 40% increase in emergency room use by Medicaid Expansion recipients. The demographics didn't change as to types of visits. However, the 40% also included, "We found no statistically significant increase in emergency department visits that did result in hospital admissions." That means the SAME STATISTICAL RESULT for hospital admissions were the same. That statistical result was 40% more. The reason there is a neutral calculation is because with 40% more visits it included the same number hospitalized.
• I didn't see any speculation by the study that explains why the ER was a venue of choice. Were there no Medicaid Primary Physicians in the patients of the lottery? Was this the community's habit? Was there misinformation given the recipients by a Social Worker. Was there NOT a Primary Physician assigned to them and if assigned to a Primary Physician did they not like that physician? There are many reasons why this would occur and it is missing from the study.
• Types of visits and subpopulations
• Medicaid coverage increases use of the emergency department across the broad range of types of visits and subgroups. Moreover, we did not find statistically significant decreases in emergency department use in any of the subpopulations we examine.
• Medicaid increased visits occurring during standard hours (weekdays 7am-8pm) and visits outside of standard hours (weekends and evenings). Both types of visits increased by over 40 percent (0.23 visits relative to a base of 0.57, and 0.21 visits relative to a base of 0.46, respectively.
• Medicaid increased use for visits classified as "non-emergent," "primary care treatable," and "emergent, preventable." We found no statistically significant change in the use of visits classified as "emergent, non-preventable."
• Medicaid increased outpatient emergency department visits (visits that did not result in a hospital admission). We found no statistically significant increase in emergency department visits that did result in hospital admissions.

I am really surprised at the level of malice by the Press with this population of Americans.

By Jordan Rau
May 10, 2013
A study of Oregonians (click here) who won Medicaid benefits in a 2008 state lottery has sparked an intense debate about the value of expanding health care to the poor -- and the value of health benefits in general.

I have a problem with that paragraph. The idea that health care benefits are or are not valuable to a person's life is bizarre. Everyone deserves health care and if it lifts their depression that is valuable.

Mary Carson is, in a way, at the center of that debate. The 55-year-old Oregon woman was accepted into the Oregon Health Plan, the state Medicaid program, in 2011. She and her partner live with her three children. They earn about $1,000 a month by making and selling replicas of historic battle knives used in the Civil War and the two World Wars, doing odd jobs and providing respite care for people with cancer.

"It took me 6 months to change my level of co-operation with my doctor, and she said I was faster than many," Carson recently recounted in blog comments that recently drew media attention. "Most people got into the groove about their 2nd physical. Then we had year-to-year values for blood tests and weight and blood pressure. Those numbers getting better helped."

This population has been chronically neglected for decades, which raises the question, what kind of value is the American society looking for when approaching health care with this population? There won't be miracles. They aren't going to change overnight if they have a Medicaid card. Much of their health care will have to be learned. They are used to avoiding care except for serious problems. Having Medicaid opens the door of opportunity for removing that strategy. 

This population will have more visits after they have Medicaid, simply because they have neglected their health for a long time and are finally catching up. The hospitals will receive monies for their visits where they never received any before. The fact this population of Americans need to adjust to having health care insurance and the best approach to use it should be a surprise to no one.

The researchers in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at patients much like Carson. In results published last week, they found that those who gained Medicaid coverage used more health services than low-income residents who had not been accepted into the program. But the Medicaid enrollees did not show significantly better blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels than the other group, although they had lower rates of depression....

No clue. The folks without Medicaid AVOID health care because they can't afford it. Why spend monies on a physician visit if one cannot afford the medication?

The lack of improvement of blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar are all issues of DIET as well as medication. If a person has high blood pressure they need medication but they also have to improve their diet by minimizing salt content. If a person has high cholesterol they have to minimize fats in their diet. If a person's blood sugar doesn't change it is because they have to limit carbohydrates in their diet.

These folks receive Food Stamps/SNAP. Every dollar of food assistance has to go a long way from month to month. That does not lend itself to seek out high end grocery stores.

Additionally, those three medical conditions like , hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes requires weight loss and
exercise in order to improve outcomes. There is a chance that can happen with
those eligible to Medicaid, but, what do we know by the statements of this participant? These Americans are slow to change. Their 'range' of opportunity to change is limited, so they need strategies they have never been equipped with before. Does that mean they don't deserve health care because it doesn't carry the same value as other Americans? No, it means we have more work to do to bring them up to speed and seek the best strategy for their medical compliance.

A family of five living on $1000 per month is profound poverty and there are families in the USA living on less. So, when they are presented with changing their habits to improve their health and well being, it isn't easy. They have to change within a very tight budget. This population of Americans are difficult to change in their outcomes. It isn't because they don't want health care, it is because they are not equipped to carry out COMPLIANCE in the same why as other Americans with higher incomes. This population is a challenge, but, they are not a challenge we can or should ignore nor a challenge to far.

We live in the world's wealthiest nation. (click here) Yet 14.5 percent of U.S. households—nearly 49 million Americans, including 15.9 million children—struggle to put food on the table.

In the United States, hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food, but rather the continued prevalence of poverty. Both issues must be addressed in our continued efforts to help those Jesus called "the least of these" (Matthew 25:45)....

Who thought this nation would ever be looking at a poverty rate of 14.5 percent? Yet we are. As more and more Americans fall into poverty the demand for our attention as a nation is vital. No person is disposable simply because their socio-economic condition is lousy.

Who ever thought Bernie Madoff would ruin lives? Who ever thought Americans would lose their 401Ks. Who ever thought Americans would lose their homes because Wall Street was greedy and stupid and needed a bailout. Who ever thought Wall Street would take their monies and run without providing loans vital to businesses in the USA to return jobs to the people of the country?

Those forced into poverty after 2008 were not your usual worries. Those folks were usually the ones worrying about those in poverty and now the tables were turned and they were the needy.

That reality tells me every American needs to pay attention to those in need because tomorrow has proven to be unpredictable in ways no one could imagine. 

I have to laugh at Republicans. They say things like, "That is September 10th thinking," but, they never say, "That is Pre-2008 thinking."

There should be a clear understanding by every American that policies effecting the Poor are important, especially because of 2008.

There is no going back. We are not going to do that. We need to get on with this and begin the 'fit' we need to assist the most challenging health care issues including the lethargy of the Poor to grasp change and incorporate it into their lives.

There is a very big problem with Supreme Court violating the US Constitution to provide Special Status to religious health care organizations and the health insurance they provide to employees.

Merging Catholic and Non-Sectarian Hospitals: NYS Models for Addressing the Ethical Challenges (click here)

Lois Uttley, M.P.P., Sheila Reynertson, M.A., Ronnie Pawelko, J.D., Sylvia A. Law, J.D., Patricia Hasbrouck, M.B.A., and Kathryn Gottschalk, J.D.

In New York, as elsewhere in the nation, community hospitals are exploring the potential for mergers, affiliations and other forms of business partnerships. The goal is to improve their bottom lines and position themselves to best advantage in a changing health care marketplace. Negotiating such partnerships can be challenging, especially when one of the partners is a Catholic-affiliated hospital or health system that restricts the provision of medical care deemed to violate Catholic teaching....

Miscarriage of Medicine: The Growth of Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Reproductive Health Care (click here)

Religious restrictions govern care at Catholic-sponsored facilities. At these hospitals, health professionals are prohibited from providing vital health services or honoring patients’ health care decisions when they conflict with Catholic teaching. Often at these facilities health professionals may not even provide their patients with counseling and referrals for services prohibited on religious grounds. As a result, when it comes to reproductive health care, hospitals operating under these religious rules can provide care that falls short of expected standards of care. Historically secular hospitals or hospitals founded by other religious faiths are often required to adopt some or all of the Catholic restrictions when they affiliate with or are acquired by Catholic hospitals....

The law of the land is the law of the land. Religion is a personal liberty, however, it ends when it endangers the lives of others and impinges on the liberty of other Americans. The US Constitution does not guarantee religious organizations exemption from laws. It provides for the freedom to practice religion. 

When religious organizations occupy critical hospital space for patients that is where ethnical standards have to come to bear as well as any prosecution when people are put in a threat to their life due to the oppressive religious standards that offend the best outcomes of medical/surgical practice.

When a Hindu dies in an American hospital there are cultural issues facing the pastoral care minister and he administers the "Waters of the Ganges" to benefit the soul. When a cultural practice of Jehovah Witnesses endanger the life of a child, the ethics of medicine is upheld by the courts because it is life saving. It is not the place of the Catholic Church to impose their cultural standards on those that do not practice them willingly.

So, as the Catholic Church finds itself in the place of power over life in American hospitals it needs to realize they cannot minister their doctrinal demands to everyone that does not consent to that oppressive culture.

It is no different in health care. The Obama Administration is wrong on all counts to favor religious doctrine over any law passed in the USA as part of our US Constitutional law. A religious organization's demands are on the individual and not the entire country. They obviously want to opt for that power, but, it should never happen. 

Those educated in the leadership of religion graduate with theological doctorates. They are not graduated with legal degrees to change the face of the US Constitution. I am sure there are lawyers within the practice of religion, but, the obvious divide of the practices of each are obvious. Lawyers that work within a religious organization is a specialty, not a general practitioner of the law.

When an individual seeks to satisfy their spiritual direction do they go to a lawyer? Of course, not. The division of the doctrinal authority is obvious. So, just because it is politically fashionable to bow to a religious demand on the laws of this country, doesn't mean it is constitutional. Just because the Robert's Court is an activist set of Justices doesn't mean they are correct. It only means they have power.

The USA demands a CLEAR division of church and state. Because a pure soul is demanded by an religious organization that does not mean it can bend the rules to their 'designer' doctrine regardless of their monetary size or number of members. If the Supreme Court caters to every religious organization in the country it will eliminate the USA's laws by allowing doctrine to supersede the authority of the US Constitution. This is ridiculous.

In practicing the Jewish faith there are a number of restrictions within the weekly time frame of their Sabbath/Shabat. If a Jewish person is a doctor and on call or a UPS driver, they have to carry out their jobs in order to survive in the USA. That means those individuals will be violating their religious demands to maintain their status in the society in a very necessary action that insures them employment or an income. 

Their religious demands are understood to be respected in the face of the demand on their lives. That is no different for any religious organization. If the laws of the land conflict with their doctrine, the understanding they had no choice is 'a matter of fact.' When my Father was required to work a double shift for his employer and missed Sunday mass, it was understood he did not have control over that and it was not viewed as a sinful act to remain at work to provide an income that supports his wife and children. 

This trend in catering to religious doctrine and/or dogma is not constitutional regardless of the Robert's Court entertaining it.

I would love to have the Hyde Amendment challenged again as to it's constitutionality in oppressing the rights of women. The Robert's Court would no doubt uphold it, but, as far as I am concerned it is wrongly decided. Once a citizen pays their taxes they lose control of those monies. The budget of the USA is decided by the legislature and it is there the power lies to distribute monies. If women's health organizations need funding to maintain the health of women that is all the legislature needs to know. It does not need to know if a religious practice is in practice of the clinics. The government has a responsibility to the 'good practice' of any health clinic so it does not endanger lives, but, as to apply religious doctrine to any US law or distribution of monies is outrageous.

A woman walking into an abortion clinic isn't asked if she is violating her religious practices. She is asked if she has allergies. The separation of doctrine is obvious.

So, this entire religious catering is out of hand. It is dominating the laws of the USA that is unhelpful to people and serves to dilute the laws of this nation. There is no Personal Liberty impinged upon by any laws in the USA. We are a civil country that realizes diversity is a reality. It is completely wrong to move against that understanding and it removes the sovereign authority of the USA in it's governance.

Do Bishops Run Your Hospital? (click here)

The Catholic Church is making health care decisions for more and more Americans—whether they know it or not.

—By Stephanie Mencimer

One morning in November 2010, an ambulance brought a woman who was 15 weeks pregnant to the emergency room at Sierra Vista Regional Health Center, 70 miles outside Tucson, Arizona. She had been carrying twins and had miscarried one at home in the bathtub. The chances of the second fetus making it were "minuscule," Dr. Robert Holder, the OB-GYN on call that day, later recalled in an affidavit. He told the woman and her husband that trying to continue the pregnancy would put her at risk of severe bleeding and infection. In short, she needed an emergency abortion.

But there was a problem: Sierra Vista was in the midst of a trial merger with a Catholic hospital company, Carondelet Health Network, which required its doctors to abide by the church's ethical and religious directives. Hospital administrators told Holder that because the surviving fetus still had a heartbeat, he could not perform an abortion. Holder had to send the patient to a hospital in Tucson—a three-hour delay that he believed put her at risk for life-threatening complications.

The doctors at Sierra Vista aren't the only ones to struggle with submitting their medical decisions to a higher authority. A growing number of patients are finding their health care options governed by the church's guidelines as Catholic hospitals, long major players in the health care market, have been on a merger streak, acquiring everything from local hospital systems to medical practices, nursing homes, and health insurance plans....

Ken Langone should be fired. He has no ethics and has chosen to victimize Pope Francis.

The people of St. Patrick's can raise money on their own to pay for any repairs needed. Try a marathon BINGO. I am serious. The Catholic groups of many churches run fundraisers to build schools and new churches. So, those that seek to put pressure the only Pope in the world based in financial blackmail needs to face charges as well as resignation from their jobs and then go to a confessional and do their penance.

By Morgan Lee
Christian Post Reporter
January 1, 2013

...Home Depot founder (click here) and investor Ken Langone, who is currently leading the $180 million fundraising efforts to complete the renovations on St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, recently told CNBC that a potential million dollar donor has voiced apprehension about donating to the project after Pope Francis critiqued trickle-down economics in November as "naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."

"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," Pope Francis wrote....

One might notice New York City has a progressive Mayor now. Why? Because New Yorker's pay attention to the fact an entire generation of Americans gathered at Zuccotti Park. While the Right Wing of the USA continue to deny every aspect of the impoverished in the country by victimizing the Poor and denying unemployment benefits many in the rest of country paid attention to what occurred under Bush/Cheney. They abandoned the American economy to opt for the growth in China and they left out the Millenniums in any opportunity for a future in the USA.

Plutocrats like Ken Langone should be rallying around Pope Francis to change the face of opportunity in the USA and around the world, but, instead this self-centered money grubber has yet to seek to address the man in the mirror.

Many parents of Millenniums are aware of the gross unfairness passed down to their children and they don't like it. They want their children to share in the 'birth right' they enjoyed as they took on their lives as adults. The fact there is a growing Poor in the USA should be of concern to every American. It is an inconvenience to the wealthy to actually face the fact they maintained their million - billions due to a bailout of Wall Street in 2008. So, Mr. Ken Langone can put away his nasty attitude that clearly illustrates his love of money over the love of his brethren.


Home Depot is only a shade better in their treatment of their employees.

Home Depot has about 5000 employees and revenues of $10 plus billion.

They are not the same as Target or Walmart as far as their merchandise. Considering their employees actually have specialty skills they are grossly underpaid.

So, Mr. Ken Langone has a lot of soul searching to conduct to be a better example of a humanitarian and a businessman with a conscience before he even begins to look to any religious leader as a scapegoat for his greed.

Contraceptive health benefits have cooties.

...In reality, (click here) Justice Sotomayor only stayed the court of appeals' denial of Little Sisters' request for an injunction; in other words, her ruling only temporarily stops the government from enforcing the regulation against Little Sisters and its co-plaintiffs. How the case will ultimately turn out is far from clear.

But as Georgetown Law School's Marty Lederman points out in a new post at Balkanization, the hitch is not in the law, but in Little Sisters' case itself....

This has to be the most ridiculous lawsuit against the federal government I have ever heard of. None of these religious lawsuits belong in the courts. The only reason they are there is because the Robert's Court allows religious activism by the courts.

The law is clear here, there is a separation of church and state. The organizations across the board have to offer female needs in their health care plans and that includes contraception. 

These lawsuits treat the benefit of receiving contraception as a health care benefit as if it is an infectious disease to their souls. That is ridiculous. 

Religion in practice in the USA is about setting limits and challenging self-control. It is about being a devoted follower of the faith and the condition of the soul when one passes in death. The USA demands all entities in the USA be equal, including that of religious organizations. These organizations cannot be allowed special status to exemption of any laws as it would create a sought after class that would be warped into a parallel governing within the country.

Churches are provided a non-profit status in their taxation assessments because the USA allows non-profits to exist within it's borders. That does not mean churches are exempt from other laws that every other person, organization or corporation is required to abide within. This is some of the most egregious requests of the courts ever engaged. These suits are turning the USA into a confusing stack of court decided statues that muddle the reality of life in the USA.

Just because an organization is required to offer it's employees contraception doesn't mean those in the organization have to practice contraception. Using contraception is an individual choice. Allowing churches to refuse that decision by their employees within their health care insurance is a dictate. Dictates are not law in the USA. 

In allowing any religious organization exemption from USA law because they believe, in their magical thinking, they are contaminated by a law that benefits women, then the USA has regressed into a time when women were oppressed by their very status as a child bearer. Now if a church wants to oppress their own members into pregnant servitude, then there is no better example than the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church surveys their members globally they will find themselves outstanding in the number in poverty while having large families. Little Sisters of the Poor indeed.

The indulgence of the religious during the Bush/Cheney years served them well in politics, but, the exploitation of that political paradigm in the USA is hideous and causes hardship with a democracy where women seek careers and in instances are inhibited by their status as child bearer. Additionally, the USA bases it's economy in capitalism where by citizens work and carry their own responsibility. In order to survive in the USA any person requires employment or the benefit of unemployment, but, nowhere in the USA landscape is there Pregnancy and Child Rearing Pay.

The oppressive request of these religious organizations should never be honored by the courts of the USA. They are oppressive, victimizing and do not recognize the reality of living in the USA by their very members. The USA is a sovereign authority and the Catholic Church knows the oppression of other sovereign authority across this Earth. While the religious enjoy thinking about a spotless soul and attempting to achieve one that does not allow for a religious authority to dictate to the sovereignty of the USA. The USA allows for an understanding the individual is the most important aspect of it's democracy. The government does not dictate religious doctrine, it levies laws.

The USA has been an asset to every religious organization that has sought members into their faith. The right to practice religion in the USA is always a matter of individual freedom. That freedom/liberty will always exist in the USA. What is not part of that liberty is the right of an individual or any organization to dictate the outcomes of USA laws. No organization can impose designer laws of gods on the people of this nation. To that end these requests of our courts is hideous and setting up precedent that could offend the sovereignty of this nation. It is out of the question.

If the Catholic Church believes it can dictate the purpose of a woman's body in the USA, they are sadly mistaken. Individual liberty is at stake and in no way should any organization be allowed exemption from the law. The Robert's Court is making decisions to once again taint the political speech in this country. The Congress should be reviewing every decision of this court that continues to insult the Constitution of this country!

Any religious person will tell you the USA allows for the freedom of choice in all aspects of life. It is that challenge to a religious life any deity seeks a pure heart and mind. If a religious person is not allowed to assault that challenge there is no gain for their purity and the dictate has created a faux reality to redemption. The exemption from laws in the USA is an assault on the US Constitution as well as an assault on the soul.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I don't believe 2013 was a particularly good year. 

But, the funniest real life story I heard came from a taxi driver. 

Three young women needed a safe ride home at 3AM New Year's Day, so they called a cab. They all climbed in the back seat. Once they got settled one of the young women asked the other two if they had extra panties.

The two stated, "No." 

The first lady said, "No, you don't understand, are either of you wearing an extra panty?" 

The other two stated, "No." 

The first young lady said, "I don't think I am making myself clear. Are either of you wearing my panties?"

The other two said, "No, we don't have your panties, wearing them or otherwise."

The first young lady said, "Oh, dear. I must have lost them and there were a Christmas gift from my fiance' What am I going to tell him now."

The second young lady stated, "Ask him if he was wearing them?"

"Made in Japan"

Income inequality is not a populous issue. It has existed in countries where capitalism is the basis of it's economy.

This was in the Washington Post: 

Jarad Bernstein's graph of the year: Rising income inequality is no surprise after seeing this. (click here)

By WonkBorg
December 31, 2013
The figure shows the percent of time that the unemployment rate was “too high,” meaning that it was above the rate economists (and, importantly, the Fed) associate with full employment.  In the postwar decades, job markets were slack less than a third of the time.  Since then, they’ve been slack about two-thirds of the time, even if you leave out the great recession.  While there’s a lot that goes into rising income inequality, it is not a coincidence that low, middle, and high incomes grew together in periods when tight labor markets dominated, and vice versa.


Capitalism cares only about itself. It has no god. It has no president. It has no rules. It exists to satisfy it's own dynamics to wealth. 

What I find most interesting about the graph is the correlation it reveals about the 'greed' of outsourcing.

There was a time in the USA when cheap foreign products were considered of far less quality. The USA companies went looking for cheap labor.

In the late 1960s and 1970s it was Japan.

Korea was cheap labor in 70's and 80's. 

China was in 90's and now and India also.

Let's take this one step further. By the year 2000, job creation in the USA flat lined.

Companies outsourced for profits, but, it also rid them of unions. It was the union that protected the income of the Middle Class. 

When compared to the outsourced jobs and the income inequality graph, the picture becomes more and more clear. 


This isn't rocket science. If there are less union jobs, there is less pay to the majority of Americans. The majority Middle Class supports the product base of Wall Street. There is no way the 1% or the 0.1% can sustain an economy alone. So while CEOs cash in on get rich quick schemes that sends American jobs overseas; they are also destroying their products markets. China has been producing American goods for three decades, yet the quality of life of their population is still impoverished. That is because the Chinese also suffer from poverty wages and unable to achieve upward mobility.

That is not exactly the most interesting part:

The job creation rate reflects a flat economic growth extending back to January 2001.

The Great Recession was a V-shaped recession that recovered jobs at the same rate as Bush job creation rate before the Great Recession. Even with all the government spending under Bush he could not move the economy. The degree of outsourcing was so intense that Bush concentrated on construction and military for his economic growth. The construction was draconian both in government treasuries and the environment. It was a supply side economy whereby China built huge cranes in most global ports and out produced other countries. The growth of China under the Bush economy was enormous, yet the people of China reaped little of Wall Streets profits. The Chinese government focused it's new wealth on building the strength of it's government and national accomplishments.

The fact the US construction business could not be effectively outsourced except for any raw materials it used, was the reason the housing market became so huge. When the collapse occurred in 2008, the dependency of the USA on construction jobs to the Middle Class collapsed as well and there became female heads of households because the construction business was gone and the men had nowhere to go to be employed. The jobs were gone.

A better way to look at it, is that the USA job market began to be specialized in jobs that Wall Street could not outsource. There was little diversity to sustain any downturn in 2008.

Wall Street got greedy and the SUSTAINABILITY of companies shrank. As the continued collapse of the American job force, Middle Class and unions declined there were more and more mergers and acquisitions which only served to make the job market shrink, too.

The reason there is a 1% and a 0.1% is because capitalism has no morals, has no conscience, has no rules and seeks only to satisfy it's own dynamics to wealth. The more contraction of the 'production base' of any product, the less competition, the less the quality forced by that competition, the less monies in the hands of consumers and the reduction of product base. 

Local economies build jobs, competition, security and self-interest. The American people need to recover their economy because Wall Street is unable to do it. If Americans are to rebuild their economy, income inequality has to be resolved and poverty minimized to an all time low. Once the USA economy has regained it's integrity, the larger global economy will improve as well.

The countries of China, Brazil, Russia and India have to develop their Middle Class for improvement in trade between nations. There cannot be a Wealthy Country that all others feed off. IT DOES NOT WORK.

The Christian Fundamentalists using religion for political volley suffer a serious flaw.

Generally speaking, a woman can always have another baby.

However, a baby cannot have another natural mother.

I doubt sincerely Pope Francis would regard the death of a woman lightly, if pregnant and there was a choice between fetus or mother and the woman's life were put last. Pope Francis is a scholar and not a stupid man mired is ideology. He appreciates life, but, not at the expense of another.

Where the decision in a religious context falls is also where the person has their soul in the grace of god. The child is not more innocent or virtuous than the mother.

Original sin (click here) is a condition, not something that people do: It's the normal spiritual and psychological condition of human beings, not their bad thoughts and actions. Even a newborn baby who hasn't done anything at all is damaged by original sin.

Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. It is an important doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. The concept of Original Sin was explained in depth by St Augustine and formalised as part of Roman Catholic doctrine by the Councils of Trent in the 16th Century.

Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it's also the 'condemnation' that goes with that fault.

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act

Interesting title for a law regarding women's health, isn't it? In the USA the 'knee jerk' reaction is to believe this deprives the rights of women and sides with the fetus. Right? At first glace, the immediate USA reaction is "Oh, no another oppressive abortion law."

This is the title of the Irish abortion law that protects women's lives. Women are no longer chattel of the government required to breed before any other priority in her life.

Savita Halappanavar and her husband Praveen photographed at their home in Galway.

Galway is a seaside province in Ireland. Nice couple. They were married and were building a life together when she died because an abortion was not performed.

She never asked for an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy and denied becoming desperate and seeking to end the pregnancy. This is not it at all. She was having a miscarriage and during that miscarriage she asked for an abortion. She was denied.

A report into the death of Savita Halappanavar (click here) and related issues has found a failure to provide the most basic elements of care in her case.

The pregnant 31-year-old died in an Irish hospital in October last year.

She had asked for a termination after being told she was having a miscarriage, but staff refused. Days later, she died from infection.

A 257-page report by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) was issued on Wednesday.

It found there were many missed opportunities, that if acted on might have changed the outcome for her.

The report was conducted after the HIQA was asked by the Republic of Ireland's Health Service Executive to investigate the safety, quality and standards of services provided at University Hospital Galway....

So, now there is a new law to protect women. The politicians are playing with the words,, "...clinical guidelines...". They are attempting to manipulate the new law, hence placing women back into the danger zone.

...Reilly insisted that abortions can be carried out without the guidelines being in place....(click here)

Health Minister Reilly is correct. There is no other issue regarding women receiving abortions. There isn't. Once it is legal everything is then up to the woman's physician. There is a reason why physicians get the big bucks and this is one of them. After a decade of school and internships, they practice. End of discussion.

This new law might need the support of peers from countries where women are esteemed and not government chattel as in the USA, to end the silly debate about physician competency in carrying out abortions.

Demanding a woman carry a pregnancy either unwanted or a danger to the woman's health is about as oppressive as it comes. A woman's life is more important than the fetus she is carrying. There are cases where accidental death allows the fetus to continue life and that can respected for the spouse or father. But, in all other instances a woman's life is more important than the unborn. 

The law does not dictate religious practices, but, it does subscribe to the fact regardless of a religious preference once the woman's life is in danger she is given priority. I mean to have a society value a woman's life any other way is hideous, oppressive and ridiculous. Without the woman alive and healthy, there won't a baby. Any other argument is simply stupid.

A woman alive means she can again carry a pregnancy when she believes she is ready to take responsibility for another life.

DECEMBER 1, 2013
Guttmacher Institute

BACKGROUND: In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that:

- even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the woman;

- “health” in this context includes physical and mental health;

- only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and

_ states may not require additional physicians to confirm the attending physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk in cases of medical emergency.


Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception; contain an unacceptably narrow health exception; or do not permit a physician to determine viability in each individual case, but rather rely on a rigid construct based on specific weeks of gestation or trimester....

Think about how completely moronic that demand is of a government. Physicians don't practice based on rigid construction. If they did people would die. Every person is as different as their fingerprints and DNA. While the practice of medicine or surgery is guided by GENERAL understandings of anatomy and physiology there is no guarantee that a patient will react to treatment or surgery as expected. 

Genetic variability demands a thinking person with an understanding of the human body to perform any medical procedure, surgery or prescription. That means with an undetermined outcome a physician has to be free to treat the person as circumstances arise. Now, giving penicillin to a person known to have a severe allergy is not what I refer to, that is negligence. But, in the average practice a physician needs the freedom to treat the individual, NOT THE TEXTBOOK.

In all abortion decisions, the viable fetus needs to be put SECOND to that of the life of the mother, including her mental health.

Update on what is being stated about the oil train derailment.

The oil train hit a train carrying grain. The impact didn't cause the explosion, metal against metal caused the explosion. And the issue is open as to why the oil train jumped off the tracks. I am sure it wasn't to make popcorn with the grain destroyed. 

UPDATED: Dec 31, 2013, 6:51am CST

...No injuries were reported.

The train pulling oil cars hit a train carrying grain, (click here) NBC News reported, causing an explosion. Flames shot 100 feet in the air. Bloomberg said that 21 cars of the train were ablaze Monday night.

Bloomberg reported that by early Tuesday morning, the blaze was small and controllable, with a decision still to made on whether to let the fire burn itself out.

The oil was coming from the Bakken shale in North Dakota. BNSF Executive Chairman Matthew Rose told the DBJ Monday morning that the railway company is hauling roughly 750,000 barrels of oil a day from the Bakken and the Permian Basin in Texas. Rose talked to the DBJ before the derailment....

These numbers are fudged. The Permian Basin is in Texas so it would not be found in North Dakota unless the Permian oil was heading to Canada. To the best of my knowledge domestic American oil is not exported. So, the issue that this was 750,000 gallons of oil from the Bakken formation and the Premian Basin is simply playing with everyone's heads. Somehow, that much oil is suppose to impress the public for some reason.

The Bakken formation doesn't produce as much oil as the Permian Basin. Currently, Permian oil is about 1 million barrels a day. I am not sure how much oil the Permian has, but, at 1 million barrels a day, I can't imagine it will hold up very long.

The questions are: How many barrels a day are needed to satisfy American needs for continued carbon fuels and how much oil is being pumped out of the ground in the USA that is surplus to the demand. Domestic demand. I don't see that American domestic oil should be pumped out until the wells are dry to export it. This country has enough energy demands to keep all the oil men in Texas and Oklahoma wealthy enough.

There is really no reason for American public lands to be drilled and/or fracked if the current supply is enough for the nation's needs. There are generations still young in the USA, so some of this petroleum rightfully belongs to them.

I'll do a little more research about the supply and demand of American domestic oil and gas. But, the three train crashes which took lives in Canada need to be investigated. Three is six months is more than suspicious considering the industry is attempting to bend the arm of the US State Department and the Executive Branch after one set of documents were a conflict of interest when Secretary Clinton was in office. 

There is something here and no one should rest until it is fully known. There was no 750,000 gallons on that train.

Have a better new year.