Is it just me, or does the big three media just not get that the middle is pissed off by obamacare. We don't want the right wing social conservative agenda. We just want them out of our lives.

I often wonder what the consensus truly is on healthcare. Who are you asking?

You definitely need to listen to this.

It has been reported that even the congressional staffers don't know what will happen to there own plans when obamacare fully kicks in.

Which is interesting, Jim, but it doesn't answer my question.

Apparently being a left wing conservative means never having to learn how to spell.

I'm visiting amigos in Mexico City this weekend. Quite a marvelous & enlightening experience. Last night I got into a fascinating discussion with about a dozen middle class Mexicans about the contrast between their country and mine, Canada. I said a few things here & there but mostly just listened.

The biggest problem with their country, they told me, was that very few people were working for the betterment of their nation. Instead, they were fighting to survive: earning sufficient money to feed their families, ensuring their day-to-day safety, etc. Sure, others in 1st World countries have similar challenges but generally nowhere near the same degree.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

It is interesting that googling for "healthcare poll" it seems to drop off in March, prior to the vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8627335.stm

Why do people on Freecycle ask for iPads, iPhones, four new tires, etc.? I wonder if any of these requests are ever granted.

Eyjafjallajokull:

http://davidthompson.typepad/davidthompson/2010/04/The-warm-earth.html

Oops, that's

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/04/the-warm-earth.html

A&F's worst-performing CEO gets paid millions not to fly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599198224700

This is the big international news from the weekend.

(No one hurt.)

Complaining about some CEO somewhere?

Think about this: the company charter specifies what is to be paid and for which duties and/or performance measurements. Said charter is the business of the shareholders of the company.

If you're not a shareholder, that's not you.

You may be urged to complain because you have serious issues with people who make more money than you do, or that you ever forsee yourself being able to get, by any means.

Yet what these people do is legal. L - E - G - A - L. That you have not put yourself in a similar position is simply your doing, not theirs.

I suggest that you do not want, really, to enable some agency to "go in there" and confiscate what is, to you at least, an obscene payback for blatant failure. If you do, you will simply enable the very same thing to happen to you!

It's just amazing how shortsighted and petty people can be. They'll enable all sorts of restrictions on amassing personal wealth to "get those rich people to pay" - and never, not once, realize they just made it harder on themselves!

I agree Raddy. But I think one reason they're so eager to punish those guys is they think that anyone who has a lot of money has more than they deserve, because they (wrongly) assume there's only so much money in the world... So on righteous planet, everyone would have the appropriate fraction.

If there was one thing that I could pass to a young person today, one single insight that could change their feelings about everything else, including sex and religion, it would be this: Wealth can be created.

I don't know the consensus, Patrick, not that you probably care for my opinion. I know very few people who are for it, but like most people I tend to hang with those like me, and I live in a conservative town. The people who like it seem to think it will lower costs. How they think forcing insurers to cover really expensive people is going to lower costs, I don't know. Most polls by "nonpartisan" groups show more people against than for. How truly nonpartisan those are, I do not know.

The problem is, Crid, people are going to keep believing money is limited as long as they see the economic gap widening.

No one would give a shit about CEO pay if their jobs could still get them what they did before.

Problem is, these days, they don't.

Stockholders love it when profits drop and CEO compensation increases. We love it! It proves that capitalism works because one guy was smart enough to take the profit out of the company that could have been reinvested or distributed to stockholders - for himself!

Love it!!

Anybody who doesn't love it? America-hater.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on the woman who sent the Russian orphan back like he was a defective crock-pot. (I guess you can tell what I think about it.) She couldn't even be bothered to buy a plane ticket and bring him herself. WTF?

Actually, my problems with the mother start earlier than that -- she changed the kid's name. He's seven years old! I'm trying to picture telling a seven-year-old kid that he not only has to adjust to a brand-new country, language, and home, but also to a brand new name. I wouldn't do that to a dog.

Gail, I think the mother of the Russian boy did not show him enough respect, but changing his name could have been a kindness, and it is certainly a kindness to do so for a dog. That old name could have been tied to bad memories of a harsh orphanage setting and lack of love. Changing his name gives him a chance to drop his old persona and life and live one of love and dignity. We all know that is not what happened, but I don't believe the mother had thought she would fail at mothering this child when she adopted him.
Oh and shelters and animal behaviorists do suggest changing a dogs name after adoption for the same reasons I listed above.

Gail, Tory Hansen (the mom who suffered from buyer's remorse) lives in my grandparents' town (Shelbyville, TN). It's been interesting to see all the media there, considering there are only about 40,000 people in the town. Up until now it was known as the Walking Horse capital of the U.S. (seriously, the kids used to get off from school when the horse show was going on because everyone's family was involved), but now I guess it'll be most famous for this.

Anyway, my thoughts are that I agree with you. Who does that? Even if everything she said is true and the boy is a budding psychopath, whose first step is sending him back to Russia? There are some conflicting reports, but most of what I've read said that she did not avail herself of the resources that are provided to parents of adopted children. Social Services did a home visit in January, and Hansen "seemed enthusiastic" and everything seemed to be going well. Then, in late March, they couldn't get hold of her. Then they found out that her mother (she's not married, by the way, so no father for the boy) had flown with the boy to D.C. and then put him on a plane to Russia. The adoption agency said that she never came to them for help, which was available if she had asked. There are many, many people who specialize in adoption counseling and the like to help the families adjust to the new living situation. I would think it would be especially hard here, since the boy was older and came from an Eastern European orphanage, which are terrible on the whole. Why did she not tell anyone what had been going on (if, in fact, she is telling the truth)?

Regarding the name thing, I have heard of this with younger children, who would adjust more easily. A friend in high school had a sister named Jessica adopted from China, but she was very young when they changed her name. A seven-year-old would have a harder time adjusting to that, I would think. I say leave his name alone until he decides he wants to be called something else (as many have been known to do).

Oh and shelters and animal behaviorists do suggest changing a dogs name after adoption for the same reasons I listed above.

But it's easier for a younger dog, as it is for a younger kid. Especially a kid who's been in the eastern European system for so long (seven is a little old for an orphan, considering most parents want babies or younger children). I understand why you say it might be a kindness, but I think it could also have the opposite effect. Now he has no ties to his former life. Even if it was a shitty life, it's all that he has known thus far. And he's still going to be Russian no matter what his name is. He may very well have decided (hypothetically, of course, since this kid may not be exactly normal, but let's say he represents adopted foreign children for the moment) to call himself something different or give himself a nickname to make it easier on the kids at school.

I'm not saying either one of us is right or wrong here, but that the situation could be argued either way. Not all dog adopters are successful at changing a dog's name, but some are. And some don't want to change it. A key difference here is that it matters not to the dog what his name is. It's just a word that they know means "pay attention." The name is more important to the owners. I have a feeling that is the case with a lot of children that are adopted.

> people are going to keep believing money
> is limited as long as they see the
> economic gap widening.

I strongly disagree. People will keep believing that money is limited until someone insists that they stop being simplistic and cowardly.

The CHURCHES, ironically enough, ought to be leading the way on this. But of course, this hour finds them distracted with other chores.

She could have given an Americanized version of his name. Artyom could have become Arthur or Archie or something like that. Or even Bart. A whole new name... bad idea at his age.

Crid, as long as CEOs are getting huge bonuses while the workforce is being laid off, folks are going to have a problem with the bonuses. That's human nature, Crid, and you're not going to change it. We can't all be CEOs... we need people to actually make the stuff that the companies make and do the dirty work.

Companies are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place though. Exec compensation is out of control in the US, but the problem is, since all the other companies are doing it, companies have to do it too or they won't be able to hire any execs. But then they don't have enough money to keep their workers. Bit of a bind, really.

I feel for that mom. There is no way she went through the massive time and expense thinking this wasn't going to work. I believe she was scared for her life, and I believe russia did lie about the kid. What were her other options to get him away from her? Drop him off at an american orphanage? I would think a russian one would be preferable as it's familiar.

Some kids are psychopaths. If they weren't, we'd have no adult ones. There was a great article on Slate the other day about how adoption is presented as this fairy tale, and people are not prepared for the constant ongoing battle it can be. My older brother was tricked into knocking a woman up. She had previously tricked another man into getting her pregnant (she only targets rich men who live on the other side of the world and are in australia on vacation). Her first kid-a son-is a psychopath. He has tried to kill his younger sister (my niece) on many occasions, once by dropping really big stones on her head. Bro is trying to get custody to save her life, but internationally it's hard. If someone had adopted that boy? I would not blame them for shipping him back, not one bit. It would be a matter of survival. And so I don't blame the tennessee chic either.

Tell your borther to offer to keep paying the girls mothr child support if she agrees to the custody change.

Have him mention a dead kid will stop his monthly ayments and a wrongful death lawsuit will wipe out all her savings.

NumberSix said: "A seven-year-old would have a harder time adjusting to that, I would think. I say leave his name alone until he decides he wants to be called something else (as many have been known to do)"

I totally agree, NumberSix. A seven-year old is quite old enough to know what he wants to be called. If the name is difficult to pronounce, you call him something for short, something the kid likes. (How about "Art" or Arty"?) Apparently, the kid is back to his old name now, which tells me that maybe "Justin" wasn't his choice.

As for the kid being a "bad kid", an older kid who has been in those terrible orphanages is going to have problems adjusting. If you take on the kid, you are accepting that fact and the responsibility of dealing with it. NumberSix's info that the mother had previously reported a good experience leads me to think the kid wasn't a total psychopath or anything.

NumberSix -- do you know whether the town is generally on the mom's side or not? If it's a small place, they must all know her and have seen the kid.

To me, the name change says the woman didn't want to love and help a child. She wanted a made-to-order kid named "Justin". Sending him back alone with a note instead of buying a plane ticket for herself (at that time of year, a coach ticket to Russia isn't insanely expensive) tells me she regarded him the same way she would regard a crock-pot -- if it isn't perfect, ship it back to Amazon.com.

> That's human nature, Crid, and you're
> not going to change it.

We don't have to change it, we just have to show people that human nature isn't always their friend.

What were her other options to get him away from her?

How about telling someone that he was a problem? Two months before she shipped him back to Russia, she had told the social worker that everything was fine. There are adoption counselors and other people who specialize in those cases that could have given her options. I think part of the reason she did it the way she did was embarrassment. I mean, who wants to admit that she picked a bad kid or that she wasn't as equipped to handle the kid as she thought? I do understand that, but how can you say that she had no other options? And if what she said about him was true, she had no qualms about sending her mother with a budding psychopath/arsonist on a plane to D.C.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to realize that the child you've adopted is not the way you thought he'd be. I read that Slate article, too, and I do agree that adoption is looked at as the end of a process rather than the middle. But there are resources for people. You can't argue that she didn't know about them, because she had to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get the kid, and after she did there were social workers visiting her home. Why not talk to someone first? Call the social worker and say that the kid is threatening you and you're afraid of what he might do so someone could take the necessary steps to help the situation, either by setting up counseling or just getting the kid out of there for a while. As I said before, whose first step is putting the kid on a plane to Russia? I think it would go a long way in helping the situation if she could explain that she panicked (which is, I suspect, part of what happened here) and should have taken other measures before sending him away.

Gail, from what I've heard my grandparents tell me, the town is as divided on the subject as the rest of the country. It seems no one really knows this woman well, even my grandfather, who knows everyone, though he does know some of her other family. On the one hand, people realize it would be terrifying to live in a house where the child you've adopted is threatening you and setting things on fire (if this is true), but on the other hand, they seem to feel that her course of action was not right. The sheriff is trying to investigate, but lawyers have told him that Hansen won't talk unless she is charged with something, which seems unlikely. It's probable that there were no laws broken in Tennessee, and certainly no federal laws. But Shelbyville seems to think, on the whole, that Hansen was wrong, even though they feel for her.

Crid, the fact is while you can make more wealth, the amount of money a company has to work with at any given time is finite. And if they chose to layoff a bunch of workers and give huge bonuses to their CEOs, well, folks are going to think they are assholes. And if this happens in a large scale across the country, folks are going to get pissed.

In your magical fairyland, we'd all be CEOs. Regular work would get done by what, elves?

Human nature? You're talking about the kind that cripples the achiever, that murders the intelligent, exactly as mobs have for millennia.

This kind is never our friend.

Why is anything Crid's "magical fairyland"?

You're making that up yourself. What reality is, is that market communication makes it possible for small numbers of people to get big dollars by having millions of other people send them one or two. That's not evil, nor is it magic other than to the ignoramus.

Two or three hundred years ago, there was an entertainer as skilled as Madonna - who only performed for a few people. There was no way for that person to sell performances for a pittance to millions, to make a fortune herself. There are also artists today whose skill is not sought by the public, or who refuse to merchandise to the masses. They are poor because of the market. It doesn't want them. Boo, hoo!

I'm not going to make things up for you, but if you seek to interfere with the market, you're not going to do anything but change it to a form that the skilled will again turn to their advantage, while you, the unskilled, fume at the success of others.

Hey, let's change the rules for sports and make the racial makeup match the team's host city. Let's make NASCAR race Prius vs. Insight.

Changing the rules does not change who wins.

NumberSix -- I agree the woman could have and should have tried adoption counseling. It's very odd that the woman didn't even mention it to the social worker if there really was a problem.

There could be a set of circumstances out there that would make me feel sympathetic to this woman -- e.g., a good faith effort with counselors, attempts to get help for the kid, friends and neighbors backing up her statements that the kid tried to hurt her, etc. I can see how maybe there might be a kid out there so all-out Damien devil-child evil that you couldn't help him and would need to get rid of him. But nothing I've heard has convinced me that was the situation here.

That's the way I feel, too, Gail. When the first anybody heard about a problem was that the child was already on a plane back to Russia, then it's hard for me to be sympathetic. Even if she needed him away from her immediately, there were other options than sending him back to Russia. I'm not sure what kinds of resources are actually available in Bedford County, but Nashville is less than an hour and a half away. The fact that she bought plane tickets, sent her mother with him to D.C., arranged for someone to escort him once he arrived in Russia, and had a carefully written note to explain things just seems too methodical for her to have been as desperate as she claims. Or if she really was that desperate, her reactions were not at all normal.

I know this is not scientific at all, but the fact that my grandparents didn't know anything about her rings a few bells for me. They are all up in everyone's business, and definitely would have been if they'd known what was going on with the child. It seems as though nobody knew what was going on with her, and that's hard to pull off in that town.

While I don't agree that CEO/COO/C?O pay should be set by the government, I also don't think it should be outside of reality.

The CostCo model has some reality to it. It is limited to XXX% of the highest paid employee. Bonuses are paid on performance.

What you have now is an executive class that makes a huge income regardless of how the company does. That is not reality. That is the executives make money even if the company is about to go under. That needs to be stopped.

> In your magical fairyland, we'd all be CEOs.
> Regular work would get done by what, elves?

Quite the opposite. On Planet Cridmo, everyone works like Hell to create value and wealth piles up all over the place, which makes everyone deliriously happy.

(That's basically the history of the United States of America for the last hundred-plus years.)

(I'm not kidding. If your soul still has darkness, don't blame markets, m'kay? Get over yourself.)

> executives make money even if the company
> is about to go under. That needs to be stopped.

Do not buy stock in these firms. Don't buy their product. Poof! It's over.

What, you mean pay attention to what the company does?

That's almost like work or somethin'

What you have now is an executive class that makes a huge income regardless of how the company does. That is not reality. That is the executives make money even if the company is about to go under. That needs to be stopped. -- Jim

This inspired me to look...at my former employer the CEO's pay is set by the board. The board is made up of other CEO's. So it seems there really is a CEO class.

> So it seems there really is a CEO class.

So don't patronize that class... Maybe be the'll go away.

"There are adoption counselors and other people who specialize in those cases that could have given her options"

Again, what? She keeps him, or he's in the US foster care system, or he's back to Russia. I don't think I'd need someone to spell that out for me either. I don't know why she would have said everything was fine until she tipped-probably because that's what most of us do when we have problems. Should she have, with a kids life? No. But I can't damn her for it. Unless I knew more about her than I do, I can't believe she was just trying to return a very expensive and difficult to get crockpot.

My mom's from a little town in tenn. There are 2 groups-those there forever and all up in each other's business, and the newcomers, who may have lived there 50 years but aren't "from round here" so are uknown. Which group was she in?

She keeps him, or he's in the US foster care system, or he's back to Russia.

I was talking about counseling or increased visits with social workers, something that a representative from the adoption agency said that they provide. And if she needed the boy away from her immediately, she could have called someone who would have helped her. She dealt with people who place children for a living, so someone would have had some kind of temporary solution. It's not like it would have been the first time it had ever happened. And even if you're right and there was no better solution, she would have at least asked for help. She would have done something that said "I'm at my wit's end with this boy, please someone help me out here." I, too, get that she was probably trying to cover her feelings by pretending everything was fine when the social worker visited. But that doesn't excuse the fact that she didn't tell anyone she was having problems with the boy. You aren't abandoned six months into an adoption. People are checking up on you and the child to make sure that everything's okay. But guess what? People can't know that everything's not okay unless you tell them. Pretending that everything was great to a social worker in January and putting the boy on a plane to Russia in March is awful.

Unless I knew more about her than I do, I can't believe she was just trying to return a very expensive and difficult to get crockpot.

Not my line and not the way I feel. I don't think she was being flighty about the whole thing. I think she was embarrassed, panicked, and in over her head. I feel the need to reiterate that there was no father in the picture, just Hansen and her mother, and I'm not sure how much the mother was involved. I haven't heard anything except that she flew with the boy to D.C.

Which group was she in?

Neither, as far as I can ascertain. Shelbyville's a bit different from some other small towns here, because people do move there from all over for the horses. But I think had lived there for a while. People knew her, but they didn't really know her. The only thing most people could say was that she was a nurse and she'd adopted a boy from Russia.

My problem with what she did was that, even though I think she was panicked, her actions come off as methodical. It takes time and rational thought to buy international plane tickets, let the airline know that the boy would be traveling alone from D.C., and to have someone pick him up in Russia. Even the note she wrote sounded rational. I would rather have seen her sound hysterical and exhausted, because that would have spoken to real panic.

The Census. It scares me.