Thursday, June 28, 2012

NY and Chris Christie: FAIL

I'm generally a Chris Christie supporter, on most issues, typically financial, but he and the state of NY completely fail on this issue. Minor amounts of marijuana are a menace to society, HOW EXACTLY?
Some college kid gets high in his dorm room, some adult in their own house, gets high on pot.

SO WHAT?

You drink in your own house, don't you? Alcohol is a drug. What is the difference between alcohol and pot? Pot, easily the less dangerous of the two, is illegal. How does this make sense? How does it harm or injure me or society as a whole when someone else possess and uses some marijuana?!?!?! It doesn't. Period. Furthermore the proposed laws keep recreational users out of jail where they sometimes wind up and where they receive the criminal record that will lessen their job prospects. THIS IS BACKWARDS.

We should be keeping otherwise hardworking, law-abiding citizens IN SOCIETY, WORKING AND PRODUCING AND PAYING TAXES, not taking them OUT of society, COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS IN FEEDING AND CLOTHING PEOPLE WHO CAN FEED AND CLOTHE THEMSELVES. Have you seen the Federal and state budgets? Do you mean to tell me that we need to find ways to spend MORE MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!?!?!

Jesus, civil rights advocates have, FOR YEARS, been screaming to get small time drug users (not dealers) out of JAIL and into rehab, if necessary (and many of them can afford to pay for the program themselves), again, SAVING YOU MONEY.

Furthermore, any rejection of this idea, at both the Federal and State level is nothing more than the lawyers and the cops afraid that their respective businesses will take a hit when they can't bust people for harmlessly smoking a joint, and fighting the charge - essentially a lot stupid busy work. Because there simply is NO GOOD REASON that stands up to criticism as to why possession of a little weed should be CRIMINALIZED.

How many people die a year from Marijuana? 0.
How many people a year die of alcohol or tobacco? Just tobacco: 435,000

From cdc.gov:
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.1,2
And no, I don't smoke anything, personally I find it to be disgusting and unhealthy.

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Of Vice and Men - New York Weed Bill Dies & Chris Christie's Veto Threat
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

State of Medicine: DISMAL

This just in: YOUR HEALTH IS A FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRY. That means "health care" companies want you to pay in as much as possible to them, receive as little treatment and medicine as possible (keeping their expenses down) and die soon after getting sick. WAKE-UP.


Survey Results
June 2012
EXECUTIVE REPORT
ABOUT THE SURVEY
The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16, 227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
  • Doctors from 45 states responded, in addition to 130 who did not provide their geographical information.
  • Most are in solo or small group practice (81%) and office-based (89%) versus hospital-based (11%).
  • Most of the doctors are mid-career (77%) and have been in practice between 11 and 30 years.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:
  1. Almost unanimous that medicine is on the wrong track, and overwhelmingly blame the government;
  2. Government-imposed solutions (PPACA, electronic health information) destined to fail;
  3. Highest numbers ever opting out of Medicare or refuse Medicaid;
  4. Vacuum in leadership in medical profession, feel abandoned by AMA & organized medicine;
  5. Corporate medicine (including hospital and insurance companies) is intentionally trying to destroy private practice;
  6. Doctors are pessimistic - failing financially & assume things will worsen;
  7. See doctors and patients as the solution - not government;
  8. Believe direct payment by patients will restore accountability & patient control;
  9. Restored autonomy, elimination of government involvement, increased patient responsibility and free market reforms are solutions.
KEY FINDINGS
  • 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
  • 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
  • 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
  • 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
  • 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
  • 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
  • 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
  • 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
  • 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
  • 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
  • 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
  • 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
  • 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
  • 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
  • 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS & COMMENTS
Respondents were allowed to submit open-ended comments, and 178 did so. This discussion incorporates comments that are representative of those submitted.
 
1.Culture of Frustration
An overwhelming 9 out of 10 doctors say they think that the U.S. medical system is “on the wrong track,” and 8 out of 10 say that current changes make them think about quitting. Only 5% say that they are “re-energized” by the changes. These are all-time high numbers since the 1960’s. Said one doctor from Alaska: “I feel sorry for those who are valiantly trying to practice good medicine in such a dysfunctional system,” while others point out concerns about the coming crisis for the most sick and the poor as doctors bail out of the system.
Other representative comments include:
“I have been in practice for 28 years and medicine is now the worst for doctors it has ever been.” Orthopedist, TX
“I would not consider letting my teenagers become physicians. My husband is also a physician.” Anesthesiologist, WI
“Medicine is circling the drain. Heaven help us as we all age.” Sports Medicine, KS

2. Declining Patient-Doctor Relationship
Doctors lament the deteriorating patient-doctor relationship, once held sacred as the lynchpin of quality, compassionate medical care, with 85% saying that the relationship is declining, and only 10% say it is at least holding steady.
One respondent from Missouri writes: “Medicine is no longer about treating and taking care of patients. I spend more time telling patients about additional paperwork they need to fill out.”
Doctors largely blame their loss of control over their practices for that declining relationship, as 9 out of 10 say they have LESS autonomy than they expected to have when they started practicing. “Get back to the doctor patient relationship. Eliminate all the middle men parasites” (Family Practice, AZ)
Another threat to the relationship is the doctors’ inability to guarantee patient privacy in this era of electronic medical records (EMR).  Two out of 3 answer that electronic medical records (EMR) compromise medical privacy and confidentiality. “Electronic medical records should be trashed or at least not connected to outside electronic world to help avoid confidentiality abuse” writes a neurologist from Missouri. As might be expected, psychiatrists are the most vocal in their opposition;  one from Texas says "doctors have to fight for patients’ rights to control the flow of their health information in electronic health systems.” Another from Massachusetts sees no wiggle room: “EMR has no place in a psychiatric practice.”
Others point out how the electronic medical systems interfere with doctor-patient communication: “Patients are constantly complaining about my colleagues being too rushed, looking only at the EMR and ‘not caring’ about them,” writes an endocrinologist from Florida.
 
3. Ethics vs. Money
Doctors say that they are frequently caught in a bind of choosing between practicing at the highest ethical level that puts their patients first and the relentless pressure to ratchet down costs. They say the difficulty is exacerbated by government regulations and insurance company contracts that micromanage their medical decisions.  Six out of 10 say it is getting harder to adhere to the Hippocratic ethic of medicine, while only 2% say it is getting easier.
One-third report it is about the same, but cross-tabs of results show that many of those are doctors who are in independent, direct practices with no insurance contracts and no participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, where they have no third-party interference nipping at their heels.
Doctors also believe that cost-cutting tactics imposed by government are unlikely to do so, and even if they do accomplish some short term savings, will do so at the long-term cost of quality of care. Seven out of 10 say “Pay-For-Performance will NOT reduce costs, and 2 out of 3 say it will NOT improve quality of care.
The use of so-called “physician extenders” may cut costs, but doctors say again, that patients will suffer the consequences. Two out of 3 say that giving nurses more responsibilities will worsen the quality of care.

4.Too Many Hands in the Cookie Jar While Doctors Squeak By
One of the most dominant themes in the open-ended comments was the negative impact of third-parties contracts, whether with and with the government or insurance companies. Doctors believe that too many people are skimming their cut of health care dollar without providing any useful service or actual medical care, while paying doctors less and less. And they say that the impact on patient care is devastating.
Writes one from Pennsylvania: “[Insurance] overanalyzing physician decisions with non-qualified RNs is tedious and delays really necessary treatment.” And from an orthopedist in Minnesota: “Doctors have lost control and are being told what to do by hospitals, insurance companies and the government who only care about money – not patients.”
These concerns are reflected in doctor’s financial circumstances. Two out of 3 say they are either just squeaking by or are losing money, and 51% expect that to worsen in the next 5 years.
Doctors describe the “hassle factor” and see it as an intentional tactic by insurance companies and the government to squeeze more money out by delaying payment to the doctors:
“…using hassle factor tactics is actually part of their business plan. (hassle ---> frustration ---> patient drops complaint & pays more - and during the period in question, the money in play earns interest for the insurance company)” - Geriatrician, NY
Lawyers are tied for third place with third-party payers in the rankings of who is most to blame for the current problems in medicine, and tort reform was a close fourth for what would most improve medicine. “Ban ambulance chasing lawyers from advertising and encouraging lawsuits with no risk to plaintiffs,” writes one doctor.

5. The Endangered Species & The Corporatization of Medicine
“Medicine has become big business and doctors have become workers who are exploited by big business.” (Psychiatrist, CT)
Doctors say private practice is looking like an endangered species, to be run out of business by the increasing power of corporate medicine. Ninety-five percent say medicine is becoming too controlled by large corporations, including giant hospital systems, large hospital-controlled groups and what they view as collusion of corporate medicine and insurance. “What a mess…hospitals that have become corporate and want ALL of the money they can get from EVERY patient at EVERY encounter” writes a family practitioner in Florida.
Traditionally lone wolves, doctors in solo- or small-group private practice feel mounting pressure to join large groups or hospital systems because of economics and the preferred deals they can negotiate with insurance companies. Others are looking to “share the pain” of the regulatory and administrative burdens. A California general surgeon says “I was in solo private practice for 20 years before reluctantly taking a salaried job at our county hospital.”
They also point out that doctors previously ran the hospitals, but that now the corporate-system hospitals pull the strings, all to the detriment of patients. “The power of hospitals is huge and has destroyed physician's autonomy and his ability to demand improvements in health care,” write a general surgeon in North Carolina. And from a family practitioner: “When the airlines were taken over by business instead of being run by pilots, the industry went to hell. Same thing has happened to ‘healthcare’-- doctors used to run hospitals and their practices. Now they are ‘providers.’
A good number are responding by bailing out of private practice and the accompanying hassles of running their own business in exchange for the security of mid-level salaried positions as employees of those systems: “As a solo doc, I am being forced out of my practice by the bureaucracy…Those that suffer will be the patients” (Ophthalmologist, PA)
One doctor sums it up with his apology: “I sold my soul to a hospital. Sorry!”

6. Leadership Vacuum & the Faltering AMA
Doctors have very little expectation of any support or solutions from organized medicine and their professional associations. More than half (57%) gave the American Medical Association a failing grade – an F – for the job it has done representing them and their concerns. A “D” was awarded by 17%, and only 3% deemed their work to be worth an A. “The AMA sold out,” says a pain management specialist in Missouri, and others made veiled references to reports of the AMA’s “deal” for their support of the Affordable Care Act:
“There should be much less cronyism and favoritism between medical organizations and government. The PPACA is a monstrous bill designed to give government COMPLETE control over our lives…” (Endocrinologist, FL)
National specialty groups and state/local medical societies fared a little better, earning ranking of “C.”
But the doctors did single out a few groups for high marks – most of them engaged in political advocacy, such as the Christian Medical Association, Physicians for a National Health Plan, Docs 4 Patient Care, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the Doctor Patient Medical Association.
While the public positions of most professional associations are largely unpopular with the doctors, many are afraid to speak out. One out of 3 says they are hesitant to voice their opinions about health care politics, policy or legislation because of reaction from their patients, colleagues or administrators.
 
7. Separation of Medicine and State
Hands-down, doctors blame government involvement in medicine for the current problems in medicine, and are not shy to say they want it out. Two out 3 doctors ranks government involvement as the top reason, one-half rank health plans/insurance as the top reason (see #8 below), and third-party payers and lawyers are tied for the third highest ranking at 40%.
The reasons cited range from the deluge of regulatory compliance that siphons time away from patient care, to de facto rationing achieved through complex payment schemes, to cushy relationships that favor corporations and special interests in medicine:
“Unfortunately as regulations have increased there has been a direct impact on the cost of care increasing.” (Anesthesiologist, KY)
“American healthcare is finished. The damage done by government/corporate control is irreversible…Only the powerful will have decent medical care (government employees)
Neurologist, FL
“Government gets away with rationing by making doctors the scapegoats when someone alleges that an ACO made a profit by skimping on care.” (Internal medicine, NH)
They say that the government second guesses them and treats them like cogs in a machine. “I did not go to school for 25+ years to be computer programmer for Federal Govt.” writes a Florida ophthalmologist.
Doctors say that a key government provision in the Affordable Care Act – the huge expansion of Medicaid enrollees – is likely to backfire, as almost half (49%) say they will stop accepting Medicaid payments.
Medicare draws even more complaints. Three-quarters (74%) say they will stop accepting new Medicare patients or leave it completely. Another 27% say they will start restricting services to their current Medicare patients. “I wish I could opt out completely,” writes one. Another: “Will stop as soon as I can afford to.”

Surprisingly, it’s not just the lower payments that send them running, as 52% report that they would or might be willing to treat some of those patients for free. “I  want to focus on what is best for my patients and not what a government official deems cost effective...I would be willing to do charity care weekly for the poor and underinsured if there was tort reform,” writes a family practitioner in Washington state.
Not surprisingly, 71% of the doctors say that reducing government regulations and mandates is “most important” to improve medicine right now. (Second highest is “increased patient responsibility.” See # 9 below).
“Only the free market will fix this mess. We need to eliminate government and government-protected corporate greed from medical care.” (OB/GYN, TX)
“Less government will mean better and less expensive medical care. Government is the problem. Are there any long term Government run programs that aren't riddled with inefficiency and corruption?”(General Surgeon, IL)
“The federal government needs to get the HELL out of the practice of medicine. Here's the bottom line: you cannot give away free medical care. Until they stop entitlements, this whole system is doomed, unfair, and chaotic.”(Internal Medicine, WA)
“Government at any level should have no role in medicine except medical licensing and business licenses. Period!” (Orthopedist, MN)

8. Insurance vs. Medical Care
Doctors clearly understand what Washington does not – that a piece of paper that says you are “covered” by insurance, or “enrolled” in Medicare or Medicaid does not translate to actual medical care when doctors can’t afford to see patients at the lowball payments, and patients have to jump through bureaucratic hoops. “The major problem is the politicians equating health ‘insurance’ with ‘health care,’” writes a family practitioner.
About three out of 4 (72%) say the ACA individual insurance mandate is unlikely or will not improve access to actual medical care.
And they report that insurance companies are often barriers to reforms that would give patients tools to find and negotiate for more affordable care. Fifty-nine percent would post prices or consider posting them, but 40% report that their insurance contracts gag them from disclosing prices.
But the crucial issue for the doctors is that third-party payment by insurance companies instead of direct payment from payments not only increases the costs care by adding compliance costs for them, but also hands over power to the insurance companies to ‘call the shots’ and micro-manage treatment through the power of the purse. “I spend 6-8 hours weekly trying to get insurance companies to cover most of the cost of medications that my patients need,” writes one psychiatrist.
Other comments:
“Decrease power of insurance companies to dictate health care.” (General Surgeon, MN)
“[We] take time away from patient care to do coding for the benefit of insurers. (Neurologist, MO)

9. Patient, Heal Thyself
Doctors say that many problems in health care could be fixed if patients would get more involved, take more responsibility for their health, and pay for their care themselves instead of asking doctors and other medical professionals to file the insurance claims and wait for payments. “More patient involvement” was ranked as a “most important” factor by 68%, just behind reducing government regulations and mandates.
“Patients would be more thoughtful consumers if they had more ‘skin’ in paying for health care. This is why lots of patients who never took generics are now taking them.” (OB/GYN, OH)
“Patients need to take responsibility for their own good health. They should not believe that they can live any lifestyle they desire and have others pay for their health misfortunes that result from this lifestyle.”
(Anesthesiologist, TX)
“The best chance for controlling cost is limiting government interference and increasing patient responsibility for cost. If the patient pays at time of service and files an insurance claim on their own, it reduces the likelihood of superfluous utilization, AND reduces insurance company denials since the patient is following up on their own claim. Also, removing insurance purchasing from employers makes insurers responsible to policy holder, not employers.” (General Surgeon, GA)

10. Physician 2.0: Back to the Future
Many doctors seem to have reached a tipping point and are ready to rally against forces they see as threats to medicine. “I think that the doctors need to stand up and fight with a united front instead of taking these changes lying down,” writes a podiatrist in Florida.
One of the ways of fighting back gaining traction is to change the very structure of their practices. Even though private practice is under tremendous pressures, doctors believe a return to direct practices as a way to restore ethical, affordable medicine, and to put patients’ back in the driver’s seat along with their doctors.
A cardiothoracic surgeon in Florida spells it out:
“The most important thing would be to eliminate third party payments. Patients and physicians should decide what tests need to be done and what treatment will be administered. The patient should pay the physician for service. Whether they then get reimbursed is between the patient and the third party payer. This would put patients and physicians in charge.” (Cardiothoracic Surgeon, IA)
Doctors want patients to value their services as they would any others. Explains one:“People pay for car repairs before they get their car without problems. If people paid for their care they would get better care.” And another: “Women spend hundreds on hair treatments and give a tip on a regular basis.”
It’s clear that doctors are ready to team up with patients to create a new/old paradigm. “Physician 2.0” is a reinvention of the old time country doc, and those who have already shifted into it express the most satisfaction with medicine. Four percent of the survey respondents report they have already moved to direct practices:
“I am opted out [of Medicare & Medicaid] and cash based for 12 years now as an internal medicine practice. I have never been busier, deliver a high quality consultative product, am financially secure, and cannot wait to go to work every day..” (Internal Medicine, MN)
“I opted out of all insurance 6 years ago and really enjoy practicing medicine again. I have found that many people that do not have insurance are quite happy to pay a reasonable fee for their care.”(Family Practice, SC)
Based on this survey, more are expected to follow in their footsteps.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

New Mentoring Program: Don't Worry, Your Son is Excluded



Global mentoring program launched

Updated: June 21, 2012, 2:12 PM ET
espnW.com

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and ESPN president John Skipper on Thursday announced a new collaboration between the State Department and espnW called the Global Sports Mentoring Program.
The program is part of the State Department's larger Empowering Women and Girls Through Sports initiative, which is pushing to get more women and girls involved in sports to "experience the benefits of participation: improved health, greater self-esteem, and greater academic success."
"Our goal is to identify women worldwide who are emerging leaders in sports: coaches, managers, administrators, sports journalists, marketers, and then match them with American women who are the top leaders in these fields," Clinton said during Thursday's news conference. "Through mentoring and networking we want to support the rise of women sports leaders abroad, who, in turn, can help nurture the next generation of girl and women athletes."
The announcement coincides with Saturday's 40th anniversary of Title IX, the landmark legislation that bans sex discrimination in schools, whether it be in athletics or academics.
"It is a great honor for us at ESPN to work with [Secretary Clinton] and to work with the State Department in this important program to empower girls and young women," Skipper said. "We at ESPN have long believed in the power of sports to improve lives. As Secretary Clinton pointed out, it is incontrovertible that young women who play sports have a greater chance of success in all facets of life."

Brandon Jacobs: Guerilla NFL Running Back and Dad

File under all men, especially athletes, are philandering monsters:

Brandon Jacobs bonds with fan

Updated: June 21, 2012, 2:58 PM ET
By Ohm Youngmisuk | ESPNNewYork.com

Brandon Jacobs made good on a promise to repay a young fan who emptied out his piggy bank in an effort to keep the running back with the New York Giants.
According to The Sacramento Bee, Jacobs, a free-agent signee of the San Francisco 49ers, took 6-year-old Joseph Armento and his 4-year-old brother to Jump On In bounce house in Boonton, N.J., on Wednesday as a gesture of gratitude for Armento's desire to keep the running back with the Giants.
After the boys' mother, Julie, explained to Joseph why Jacobs signed with the 49ers, Joseph recently sent $3.36 to Jacobs with the hope of keeping him in Giants blue.
Jacobs was so touched by the gesture that he vowed to take Joseph to Chuck E. Cheese with his son, Brayden, when he returned to New Jersey to gather some of his belongings.
"He told me he really wanted to get out there with the kids," Julie Armento told The Bee. "He really wanted to enjoy it, and he did. It was amazing."
Jacobs played alongside the three boys for a couple of hours.
"It was just us in the whole place, and we were just going room to room -- just bouncing and flipping all over the place, hitting each other with balls, sweating, our shirts filthy," Jacobs told The Bee. "We were just dirty, stinky boys, you know?"
Jacobs was released by the Giants on March 9 after the two sides could not agree on terms of a restructured contract. He signed with the 49ers as a free agent after spending seven seasons with the Giants and winning two Super Bowls.
Joseph Armento did not get his wish of keeping his favorite running back in blue, but Jacobs gave one of his biggest fans a signed Giants helmet and memories he won't soon forget.
In turn, Jacobs said Armento's loyalty has motivated him.
"I'm at a point in my career when people have stopped believing in me and not believing that I can still play," Jacobs said. "But that's not the case. Joe believes in me, gave me a lot of confidence and a lot of want-to. And I'm ready to go. I can't wait until the season starts."
Jacobs also gave Armento a $5 bill to refill his piggy bank.
"He had some interest in there just for being a good kid," Jacobs said. "He's worth a lot more than that $5 bill I gave him."

Monday, June 18, 2012

Boston Globe: Thinking About... Dads?

On Father's day, the Boston Globe prints an article, on mobile, the leading article, about.....
Moms and spanking? Examine the link. Community/moms? And this is published on Father's day?
And the lead sentence suggests the author has been asking only MEN why they spank their children. Why do men spank.... in the community/mom's section? On Father's day? Then he aludes to the fact that if you do spank, someone can get your name and call social services and then the parent could lose their children to gestapo-style state workers who will label you a violent savage and steal your children. THAT PART IS TRUE. And should've been followed up on, but alas, was not. As for spanking, if you don't give your kids at least a few light taps (and most likely ONLY a few) to get their attention when they are deliberately ignoring you as a moody 3 and 4 year-old, then you're going to be brandishing fists with them at the age of 13 - that is from my grandfather, age 90, 1 of 10 children, father of 3 and grandfather to 6. He has successfully forecasted such events in my extended family for going on 4 decades.

http://www.boston.com/community/moms/articles/2012/06/17/what_if_spanking_works/


Exclusive Magazine Preview

What if spanking works?

Studies show that most parents don’t want to hit their kids — and that some 90 percent do it anyway. Why even the most modern moms and dads can’t stop asking themselves the most controversial question in parenting.


(Henrik Sorensen/getty images)
By James H. Burnett III June 17, 2012


IT DIDN’T TAKE LONG for me to realize that asking a man why he spanks his children is like asking him when he stopped beating his wife.

I’d been trying to interview parents about spanking for weeks when I finally got the name of one mother who, as a friend we shared put it, had more opinions on the matter than Jimmy Durante had jokes. I gave the woman a call one day and began to explain what I was working on — that’s when she slammed down the phone.
A few moments later, she called back to apologize. “I’m at work — that is not a conversation to have around other people,” she hoarsely whispered. “I know you say a mutual friend told you to call me. But for all I know, you could be Social Services or something.” She insisted that I not call her again.
Things continued more or less like that with more than a dozen other people — uncomfortable silences, hang-ups, an astounding number of variations on “Thanks, but no, thanks” — until I reached Kevin Cargill, a 35-year-old real estate professional in Boston.
“I can’t lie, my wife and I do spank our daughters, and I’m not ashamed of it,” Cargill tells me with a nervous chuckle. He says spanking has sometimes been the only way to get through to his girls, who are now 12 and 13. “But at the same time, I can’t say that around everyone. It’s a serious thing, man. And there are people out there who’ll think you’re a beast if you admit to spanking.”
Countless debates at the edges of playgrounds may roil over how much screen time is too much and the right age to stop breast-feeding, but there’s no more radioactive topic in parenting today than corporal punishment. This despite the fact that it was almost universally accepted just a generation ago. These days, a mother in a mall parking lot who merely raises a hand above her youngster’s backside — the disciplinary equivalent of a poker player’s bluff — is sure to generate dirty looks and tsk-tsking from complete strangers. And if she dares follow through on the threat, she stands to lose friends and the respect of her colleagues and may even find herself the target of a state investigation.
Spanking your kids isn’t illegal in Massachusetts, or anywhere else in the United States, but that mother’s worry that I was an investigator was no idle concern. This was a lesson Don Cobble, former pastor of a Woburn church, learned the hard way.
In 1997, Cobble was investigated by the Massachusetts Department of Social Services over allegations that his discipline of his 9-year-old son had veered into abuse — a fine line made finer by the fact that Cobble used the strap of his leather belt. Two years later, the state’s highest court cleared Cobble’s name, but the damage to his reputation was long done. “Ours was not a huge community, so news spreads and friends quickly became former friends,” he says. “I guess what bothered me most was how many people turned on me, as though I was less than human after they found out.”Continued...

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Action Film in Colorado: Your Rights Ignored, Trampled

What in the HELL is this filth!?!?!?  The local law enforcement down in Colorado saw, in their infinite wisdom, to barricade an intersection and start pointing shotguns at people, including handcuffing innocent people after removing them from their vehicles!?!?!?!

Calm down boys. You ain't Tommy Lee Jones, jumping out of helicopter's while slinging rope around the bad guys with sword drawn. First off, this is a small town bank robbery - meaning, in all likelihood, little money was stolen. Secondly, waving guns around IS AN INVITATION FOR OTHERS TO PANIC AND DO SOMETHING DRASTIC. Like what? Run, for one. Scream at you, QUICKLY REACH FOR I.D., and the like. When you've done nothing, the appearance of weapons is confusing and stimulates a broad variety of reactions, few of them good. Further some citizens may have outstanding tickets, warrants from another state for petty crime, or late child support payments. That would be typical. These otherwise law-abiding citizens may think this tremendous conflagration is meant for them and they may, in their stricken panic, flee or attack. They would then be tackled or shot by the surrounding officers (shot by these trigger-happy, Special Forces wanna-be's, most likely), causing a diversion and ALLOWING THE REAL VILLAIN TO ESCAPE.

That is why you do not INDISCRIMINATELY STORM A BUSY INTERSECTION WITH GUNS. You ascertain a physical description of the suspect and create a checkpoint. At worst, you stop the cars and look into them ONLY TO IDENTIFY PERSONS WHO FIT YOUR DESCRIPTION. Observe any suspects. Are they panicky? Nervous? ARMED? CARRYING LOTS OF CASH?!?!?! They just robbed a bank, dipshits. Its not like they're a soccer mom in a minivan. What are cops taught at the academy anyway? I could get a band of rogue thugs to arm themselves and assault an intersection of confused, unarmed civilians. Do Police use discretion and common sense?

Not in Aurora, Colorado, they don't.

Clusterfuck from top to bottom and more rights violated than I can count.

STOP WATCHING ACTION FILMS, COLORADO P.D..

Also? When Tommy Lee Jones has Harrison Ford trapped in a car-filled tunnel in the movie "The Fugitive," he keeps everyone in their cars and shines a light in them, looking for his suspect. No civilians are removed or handcuffed. Not even in the movies. Morons.


June 5, 2012

Yeah, but They Caught the Bank Robber...

People stopped at an intersection in Aurora, Colorado, on June 2 suddenly found themselves staring at cocked and loaded guns held by police, were dragged out of their cars, handcuffed, with police demanding to search their vehicles, and then detained as criminals for two hours. In other words, they were arrested mass style because police "had a tip" that a bank robber was stopped at the light.
According to news reports:
Responding officers barricaded the area, trapping about 25 cars near the intersection. Then police went car by car and pulled out each occupant at gunpoint and handcuffed them.
What really is disconcerting is the lack of protest from the drivers to people making comments on the articles. The cops got a suspect, so everything was justified. Yet, when a cop points a gun at you, he is ready to blow you away, and if a child or even an adult had made a "suspicious" move, that person would have been shot to death and no doubt people would have found a way to justify that, too. Welcome to Amerika.

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Agree with Mish: Bankrupting Taxpayers is No Talent

Below is a post from Mike "Mish" Shedlock. Mish is known for his outspoken criticism of Unions and raising taxes. And Mish is spot on. Facts are facts. Unions were brought in when labor laws in this country were weak or else non-existant. Look, the free market works, WHEN IT IS ALLOWED TO WORK. If a CEO wants to pay himself 16 million a year, first off, the shareholders should have him drawn and quartered, and second, another company can (and should) pay their CEO much less, and pass the savings on to get better employees, or else lower the cost of their products and over time the second company will pummel the first company as they will have a competitive advantage. There is no cheating the free market.
Below, the issue is one of unions that contain workers who work for the state, that is, the public. If unions, by threat of strike, are able to drive up their wages, is that good? 
 Good for whom? Its great for workers who are getting paid more for the same job. Its good if there is serious inflation and workers need the money to keep up with it. Its bad for the people paying the workers wages: and that would be the private sector. The private sector actually CREATES jobs as the private sector must sell something for which there is demand for. The public sector spends money that it collects FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. So if the public sector spends more money, it must take more from the private sector, thus HURTING job creation and private sector growth. OR ELSE, the state must borrow more money - money that must be paid back AT INTEREST.


Posted: 06 Jun 2012 02:33 AM PDT
Congratulations to Wisconsin governor Scott Walker who became the first governor in US history to win a recall vote.

The New York Times reports Walker Survives Wisconsin Recall Vote
Gov. Scott Walker, whose decision to cut collective bargaining rights for most public workers set off a firestorm in a state usually known for its political civility, easily held on to his job on Tuesday, becoming the first governor in the country to survive a recall election and dealing a painful blow to Democrats and labor unions.

Mr. Walker soundly defeated Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, the Democrats’ nominee in the recall attempt, with most precincts across the state reporting results. The victory by Mr. Walker, a Republican who was forced into an election to save his job less than two years into his first term, ensures that Republicans largely retain control of this state’s capital, and his fast-rising political profile is likely to soar still higher among conservatives.

The result raised broader questions about the strength of labor groups, who had called hundreds of thousands of voters and knocked on thousands of doors. The outcome also seemed likely to embolden leaders in other states who have considered limits to unions as a way to solve budget problems, but had watched the backlash against Mr. Walker with worry.

Voters went to the polls in droves, and some polling places needed extra ballots brought in as long lines of people waited. One polling location was so swamped, state officials said, that it found itself using photocopied ballots, which later had to be hand-counted. The final flurry of television advertising — with Mr. Walker outspending Mr. Barrett seven to one — seemed to have little impact on the outcome. Nearly 9 in 10 people said they had made up their minds before May, according to exit poll interviews.
Liberal fools and union sympathizers in Madison, Milwaukee, and the extreme Northwestern part of the state voted for the recall, but overall the county vote was 60-12 in favor of Walker.



For an interactive map of percentages, please see Wisconsin Recall Election Results

Public unions survive by coercion, threats, bribes, and vote buying. Cities and states are broke as a result. Even FDR agrees.

Message From FDR

Inquiring minds are reading snips from a Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
For more on public union slavery, coercion, bribery, and scapegoating please see ...


Finally, actual Wisconsin results prove Union-Busting is a "Godsend"; Elimination of Collective Bargaining is the Single Best Thing one Can do for School Kids

It's time to implement national right-to-work laws and put an end to public union collective bargaining nationally.

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Citizens Have.... Rights?

To defend their property and person from illegal intrusion from.... anyone?  Really? You mean, AS THE FOUNDING FATHER INTENDED WHEN THEY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION!?!?!?!?

Imagine that.

And No. Police Officers are not above the law.

EVER.

If you are a cop and don't like this, THEN GET A DIFFERENT JOB.


   It's about damn time.
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.
Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.
The solution this is simple: Don't undertake unlawful intrusions.

The issue arises because of a case in Indiana where the State Supreme Court held that you had no right to resist unlawful entry by the police.

That's patent nonsense.  An unlawful act by the police is exactly the same, in terms of the law, as that of an armed criminal.
Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling.
“There are bad legislators,” Young said. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
That's exactly correct.

Unfortunately "authority" positions tend to attract sociopaths.  This is a fact; the person who is mentally unstable and seeking to show how "macho" he is will be attracted to a position that gives him a badge, a gun, and the "right" to abuse both.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that in virtually no case are police officers held personally to account for violations of citizen rights.  The usual "recourse" is to sue, but then you're suing yourself if you live in the jurisdiction, as your taxes will pay the judgment!

This is a crock, yet it is rare that the pigs (not police officers) involved in such illegal acts are personally charged and imprisoned for the same offense an ordinary citizen would face if he or she engaged in identical conduct.  This is even true in "relatively mild" cases where disparate treatment is common; there is an officer here in our county who was caught twice operating under the influence.  He was finally arrested after he crashed -- his previous DUI was "overlooked" and in addition he was investigated for aggravated assault with a firearm also involving the use of alcohol off-duty.  

You or I would have been arrested and prosecuted for both of those previous events.  He wasn't.
Never mind that suing is difficult when you're dead, as was discovered in Louisiana after Katrina.
That, incidentally, was one of the rare incidents in which actual criminal sanction was (finally) handed out, with the pigs involved being prosecuted for not only killing an unarmed man but also planting a gun on him in an attempt to justify their act of murder.

Let me be clear: There's a hell of a difference between a pig and a police officer.  A police officer acts within The Constitution and The Law.  He obtains a warrant before he performs a search.  He confines the use of "no-notice, no-knock" warrants to legitimate circumstances where imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to uninvolved and innocent parties exist, rather than using them as a "show of force."  He takes responsibility for his or her errors, including "accidentally" raiding the wrong house and understands that if he does that he's in the wrong and runs the risk of being shot as he's unlawfully entering private property -- he is in fact an armed felon committing a breaking and entering!  This in turn drives said officer to be damned sure he's raiding the right address and to restrict said "raids" to those circumstances where they are utterly unavoidable -- and that's very, very rare.

I fully support police officers and the rule of law.

I spit on the shoes of pigs and their testosterone-laden Rambo re-enactments along with the "special treatment" that is so-often handed out when they violate the rights of citizens or simply break the law.

I'd love to believe in the rule of law providing sufficient recourse against unlawful acts by the cops but the fact of the matter is that it isn't and never can be, because if you're dead suing is cold comfort for your next-of-kin and the officers involved are almost never held to personal criminal account when they storm the wrong address in search of drugs (for which shutting off the water and power and demanding the occupants come out with their hands up is more than sufficient to prevent destruction of evidence) or otherwise abuse their badge and hardware in their testosterone-loaded fantasy re-enactments of Rambo.

We don't demand that you stand back and then sue if someone breaks into your house and rapes your wife.  You have a well-recognized unalienable right to end that assault via the use of force right there, right now.

The same right exists when the bad actor who is assaulting you illegally is using the emblem and weapons of government as a means of enabling his felonious conduct.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Wanted: Husband

Not a new one. The one she already had.

Posted on Craigslist's "Rants and Rave's:"

i want my husband back


Date: 2012-05-30, 11:12PM EDT
Reply to: 9ctpt-3048060727@pers.craigslist.org

I suppose I just need to rant. I'm severely saddened by my husband leaving me. I still look at old photos and things that bring back memories. I cuddle every night with the teddy bear he got me. I messed up bad. I was rude, uncaring, unloving, and I went off the handle often. Not to say I wasn't good often too (making dinner, cleaning the house, dates, etc..), but slowly the good faded. I was a monster. I wish I had a time machine to show him how I really feel about him. Show him how much I truely love him. I miss our life together. He left me on chrismas eve. And trust me, he is NOT coming back. What to do?

Friday, May 25, 2012

This is How It. Is. Done.

They announce a big investigation. It takes years. Its quietly closed. No one goes to jail. The criminals abscond with their millions. EFF YOU.

Lying about the value of something when you are a financial business is a big deal: its called FRAUD.

And they all WALKED.

This is done by OUR GOVERNMENT WORKING ON BEHALF OF "THE PEOPLE." THE LAW IS A JOKE AND SO IS THIS COUNTRY.

A COUNTRY OF NO LAWS IS NOT A COUNTRY.


Friday, May 18, 2012

Gee, You Mean The People Have Rights?

Understand this: Being a cop sucks. People watch you constantly, criminals want to kill you and everyone's ready to judge you. Furthermore, think of what its like for someone to tape you while you do your job. Yeah. And capture every mistake you make. 

That said, tough crap, police departments of this country. The only recourse the people have against the cops becoming dictatorial is the court system and the courts will only believe one thing: physical evidence. Cops carry batons and guns for protection.


WE CARRY VIDEO CAMERAS FOR THE SAME REASON.


Police Efforts to Ban Citizen Taping Beaten Back by Department of Justice

Jason Mick (Blog) - May 17, 2012 1:11 PM

Feds back ACLU in arguing that taping is necessary to prevent police brutality; some cops disagree

Depending on their perspective, U.S. citizens may feel as if they have wandered into one of the "police states" that litter cautionary literary tales like 1984.  Today in the U.S. police officers can arrest you for dancing or break down your door and arrest you and your family at gunpoint for whatever malicious wrongs your neighborhood cybersquatter has committed.  And then there's the growing levels of domestic surveillance -- warrantless wiretaps, cell phone data grabbing, GPS tracking, "national security letters", and more.  Audits have revealed that these Orwellian privileges can be and often are abused.

The Obama administration has drawn some flak for supporting some of these intrusions -- such as warrantless wiretaps and warrantless GPS tracking -- in the name of "fighting terrorism (the Obama administration was admonished by the Supreme Court on the latter issue).  Still, for supporting such zealous federal surveillance provisions, the Obama administration did take a rather progressive stand on Monday, looking to stomp out local and state officials efforts to ban civilians from taping on duty law enforcement officers.

I. Department of Justice -- Citizens Have a Right, Responsibility to Tape Cops

The issue of citizens taping the police is a thorny one -- particularly if you're a cop.  While some police officers support the practice, others claim it prevents their law enforcement abilities.  Whether or not the latter claim is true, it's clear that video tapes of U.S. cops brutalizing civilians [example] -- at times beating them to death [example] -- have placed some cops in a load of trouble when the videos found their way to YouTube or other popular sites.

Many police fraternities and police departments have fought to ban the "right to tape".  They argue that they don't need citizens to fight police brutality -- that they'll manage their own affairs internally.  Some departments have gone as far as to invading the homes of citizens who taped them operating on the street or imprisoning citizens who record them.



Police attacking
Some police argue that citizens taping them prevents them from doing their job.
[Image Source: Occupy News Network]

The Baltimore Police Department (BPD) was one of the departments that fought to silence members of the public, seizing their cameras and trying to prosecute them.  But a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) forced the department to rethink its procedures -- and pay a steep settlement to a citizen whose camera was seized.

While the BPD sent a letter to its officers "clarifying" that civilians had the right to tape, the Obama administration felt that effort was insufficient.  On Monday, U.S. Department of Justice Special Litigation Section chief Jonathan Smith wrote an admonishing letter [PDF] to the department.

In it he recalls how citizen taping helped bring justice in one famous incident of police brutality.  He comments, "A private individual awakened by sirens recorded police officers assaulting King from the balcony of his apartment.  This videotape provided key evidence of officer misconduct and led to widespread reform."

He adds "given the numerous publicized reports over the past several years alleging that BPD officers violated individuals’ First Amendment rights."

Bans on taping also violating the Fourth and Fourteenth amendment, according to Mr. Smith.

He concludes that the department needs to clarify the importance and right to civilian taping, which he argues is necessary to "engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety.

II. Letter to Attorney General May Have Spurred Response

The letter comes in the wake of a letter from several journalistic and civil rights organizations to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, pressing him to crack down on local efforts to ban taping.




U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was encouraged to defend the right to tape in a recent letter.
[Image Source: DOJ]

The groups write:


The First Amendment has come under assault on the streets of America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement began, police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists simply for attempting to document political protests in public spaces. While individual cases may not fall under the Justice Department’s jurisdiction, the undersigned groups see this suppression of speech as a national problem that deserves your full attention.

The alarming number of arrests is an unfortunate and unwarranted byproduct of otherwise positive changes. A new type of activism is taking hold around the world and here in the U.S.: People with smartphones, cameras and Internet connections have been empowered with the means to report on public events. These developments have also created an urgent need for organizations such as ours to defend this new breed of activists and journalists and protect their right to record.

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement has been fought by numerous state and local governments and become a crucial censorship and civil liberties battlefield in the tech industry.

III. Court of Appeals Forbid Chicago From Suing ACLU or Banning Taping 

More pressure also came earlier this month when the U.S. 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Chicago banned the city from suing the American Civil Liberties Union from audio taping officers on the job.  No, you didn't read that wrong -- in an ironic twist Chicago tried the bold move of turning the tables and suing the ACLU over taping.

In its ruling, the court wrote, "The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests."

The victory came by a narrow 2-to-1 margin.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner -- the lone appellate justice who voted to dismiss the ACLU's countersuit -- acknowledged that taping was "more accurate" than relying on recalled conversations, which are often ruled unreliable evidence in court.  But he argued allowing civilians to maintain accountability via taping violates officers’ rights to privacy and could hurt officers’ ability to "perform their duties".  He writes, "These are significant social costs for weighting them less heavily than the social value of recorded eavesdropping."

Police Brutality Police Brutality
Chicago Judge Richard Posner argues that taping cops brutalizing citizens prevents the officers from "doing their job" and invades their privacy.
[Image Sources: Unknown (left); Shepard Fairey (right)]

In response to Judge Posner's minority criticism, the ACLU argues that the only "duties" taping prevents would be orders to brutalize citizens.  The Illinois branch's legal director, Harvey Grossman comments on the victory, "In order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents -- especially the police."

Much like the controversy over corporate intrusions of individual home networks and data mining, the debate over bans and prosecution for civilians who tape cops is unlikely to go away.  It is an issue that divides cities, courts, local officials, and even the police officers themselves.  But much like the issue of corporate surveillance, the Obama administration appears to be increasingly throwing its weight behind a pro-civil liberty stance on this issue, even as it pushes what some would call an anti-civil liberty stance on federal surveillance.

Other appeals courts have issued similar rulings defending the "right to tape".

IV. Both Baltimore and Chicago Have a History of Police Brutality

To put this debate in context, it is important to note that both the Chicago Police Department and the Baltimore Police Department have a reputation for police brutality.

The BPD is under scrutiny for spending $10.4M USD in the past three years ($3.5M USD annually) to defend its officers against allegations of brutality and wrongdoing.  This week the latest in a string of internal affairs investigations of the department led to the suspension and criminal arrest of a BPD officer.

Chicago also has spent millions to defend allegedly crooked cops, keeping them on its payroll.  Citizens of Chicago were protesting in the streets this week in the streets over alleged police brutality.  While not all locals are fans of the protests, some argue it is necessary.  An anonymous resident told Fox News Chicago, "I'm glad they got a march because the police are crazy out here.  They come out here roughing us up ... sending innocent people to jail."

Chicago PD
Chicago has nearly 700 active cops with 10 or more reports of brutality or misconduct filed against them. [Image Source: NBC]

The Chicago PD has faced 441 citizen lawsuits and paid out $45M USD in damages over the past three years.  The city has successfully fought to prevent the release of the names of 662 cops who each had 10 or more complaints of misconduct or brutality filed against them.  Most of these cops remain active and prowling the streets.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Banking Misfits Strike Again: No Surprise

To some extent, this man is spot on - Banks will take risk. So what? Its what they do. JP Morgan lost money on a bad bet. Again, so what? Its the free market. They lose money and that is THEIR PROBLEM. Involving the government is going to result in one thing: private industry trying to bribe to government to set laws and regulations that only help them create a monopoly or pseudo-monopoly in their industry (see Healthcare). Here's the real kicker being missed here: currently, all TBTF banks are BACKED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, WHICH IS BACKED BY THE U.S. TREASURY. That's ME. AND. YOU.

UN-AC-CEPTABLE. Period.

These are private people making big money. For whom? For you and me? NO. For themselves. If they win big, they should keep it all. If they lose? THEN THEY SHOULD LOSE IT ALL. CAR, HOUSE, KIDS, I DON'T CARE. Its not my fault or yours,

WE DON'T BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

So currently, SUCK IT, Mr. Scaramucci. These banks are backed by the U.S. taxpayer, so YES, we DO have a say in what they do, risk-wise. We are their CREDITOR. And taking CASINO BETS in wildly complex credit instruments that results in open-ended losses that run into the billions IS OUR BUSINESS.


Monday, May 07, 2012

WSJ: NAILED IT

Young men are lazy and unambitious.

Yeah... but the feedback loop is the catch. And women hold the key.

Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.

"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"
For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
WHY GROW UP? Men in their 20s now have an array of toys and distractions at their disposal, from videogames and sports bars to 'lad' magazines like Maxim, which makes Playboy look like Camus.
Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.
So where did these pre-adults come from? You might assume that their appearance is a result of spoiled 24-year-olds trying to prolong the campus drinking and hook-up scene while exploiting the largesse of mom and dad. But the causes run deeper than that. Beginning in the 1980s, the economic advantage of higher education—the "college premium"—began to increase dramatically. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of younger adults enrolled in college or graduate school more than doubled. In the "knowledge economy," good jobs go to those with degrees. And degrees take years.

Another factor in the lengthening of the road to adulthood is our increasingly labyrinthine labor market. The past decades' economic expansion and the digital revolution have transformed the high-end labor market into a fierce competition for the most stimulating, creative and glamorous jobs. Fields that attract ambitious young men and women often require years of moving between school and internships, between internships and jobs, laterally and horizontally between jobs, and between cities in the U.S. and abroad. The knowledge economy gives the educated young an unprecedented opportunity to think about work in personal terms. They are looking not just for jobs but for "careers," work in which they can exercise their talents and express their deepest passions. They expect their careers to give shape to their identity. For today's pre-adults, "what you do" is almost synonymous with "who you are," and starting a family is seldom part of the picture.
Pre-adulthood can be compared to adolescence, an idea invented in the mid-20th century as American teenagers were herded away from the fields and the workplace and into that new institution, the high school. For a long time, the poor and recent immigrants were not part of adolescent life; they went straight to work, since their families couldn't afford the lost labor and income. But the country had grown rich enough to carve out space and time to create a more highly educated citizenry and work force. Teenagers quickly became a marketing and cultural phenomenon. They also earned their own psychological profile. One of the most influential of the psychologists of adolescence was Erik Erikson, who described the stage as a "moratorium," a limbo between childhood and adulthood characterized by role confusion, emotional turmoil and identity conflict.

Like adolescents in the 20th century, today's pre-adults have been wait-listed for adulthood. Marketers and culture creators help to promote pre-adulthood as a lifestyle. And like adolescence, pre-adulthood is a class-based social phenomenon, reserved for the relatively well-to-do. Those who don't get a four-year college degree are not in a position to compete for the more satisfying jobs of the knowledge economy.

But pre-adults differ in one major respect from adolescents. They write their own biographies, and they do it from scratch. Sociologists use the term "life script" to describe a particular society's ordering of life's large events and stages. Though such scripts vary across cultures, the archetypal plot is deeply rooted in our biological nature. The invention of adolescence did not change the large Roman numerals of the American script. Adults continued to be those who took over the primary tasks of the economy and culture. For women, the central task usually involved the day-to-day rearing of the next generation; for men, it involved protecting and providing for their wives and children. If you followed the script, you became an adult, a temporary custodian of the social order until your own old age and demise.

Tony Manero (John Travolta) has an unfulfilling job at a hardware store. He really lives for weekend nights ("Watch the hair!") at the disco.
Unlike adolescents, however, pre-adults don't know what is supposed to come next. For them, marriage and parenthood come in many forms, or can be skipped altogether. In 1970, just 16% of Americans ages 25 to 29 had never been married; today that's true of an astonishing 55% of the age group. In the U.S., the mean age at first marriage has been climbing toward 30 (a point past which it has already gone in much of Europe). It is no wonder that so many young Americans suffer through a "quarter-life crisis," a period of depression and worry over their future.

Given the rigors of contemporary career-building, pre-adults who do marry and start families do so later than ever before in human history. Husbands, wives and children are a drag on the footloose life required for the early career track and identity search. Pre-adulthood has also confounded the primordial search for a mate. It has delayed a stable sense of identity, dramatically expanded the pool of possible spouses, mystified courtship routines and helped to throw into doubt the very meaning of marriage. In 1970, to cite just one of many numbers proving the point, nearly seven in 10 25-year-olds were married; by 2000, only one-third had reached that milestone.

American men have been struggling with finding an acceptable adult identity since at least the mid-19th century. We often hear about the miseries of women confined to the domestic sphere once men began to work in offices and factories away from home. But it seems that men didn't much like the arrangement either. They balked at the stuffy propriety of the bourgeois parlor, as they did later at the banal activities of the suburban living room. They turned to hobbies and adventures, like hunting and fishing. At midcentury, fathers who at first had refused to put down the money to buy those newfangled televisions changed their minds when the networks began broadcasting boxing matches and baseball games. The arrival of Playboy in the 1950s seemed like the ultimate protest against male domestication; think of the refusal implied by the magazine's title alone.
In his disregard for domestic life, the playboy was prologue for today's pre-adult male. Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad, however, our boy rebel is a creature of the animal house. In the 1990s, Maxim, the rude, lewd and hugely popular "lad" magazine arrived from England. Its philosophy and tone were so juvenile, so entirely undomesticated, that it made Playboy look like Camus.
At the same time, young men were tuning in to cable channels like Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network and Spike, whose shows reflected the adolescent male preferences of its targeted male audiences. They watched movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks. Americans had always struck foreigners as youthful, even childlike, in their energy and optimism. But this was too much.

What explains this puerile shallowness? I see it as an expression of our cultural uncertainty about the social role of men. It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.
Today's pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn't say. He has to compete in a fierce job market, but he can't act too bossy or self-confident. He should be sensitive but not paternalistic, smart but not cocky. To deepen his predicament, because he is single, his advisers and confidants are generally undomesticated guys just like him.
Single men have never been civilization's most responsible actors; they continue to be more troubled and less successful than men who deliberately choose to become husbands and fathers. So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with "Star Wars" posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn't be surprised.

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do.
They might as well just have another beer.