Friday, December 27, 2013

Surplus Of Doctors--I Want Some?

I have heard many reports of surplus doctors in Greece being recruited by Germany and other countries.

I don't know how the turn "surplus" is being used but I know if they are going to Germany or other countries--we should invite them here. We won't because while the American Medical Association wants surplus labor to do their drywall, lay their marble, and build their pools--they don't want competition so those same laborers can afford their care.

Loren M. Lambert © December 26, 2013

The Parable of the Mitt Romney, Book of Duke 10:25-37, King James Bible

Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man, a known liberal/progressive and Pres. Obama supporter, went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Now by chance a certain tea party member came down that road but fearing thieves went another way and never saw him the man.

Likewise a unemployed work was headed that way but ran out of gas money and did not reach the place where the liberal was.

And due to budget cuts, no police and other persons came down that road.

But then a certain drone, belonging to the Government as it journeyed overhead, flew over the man and a government official saw it in his monitor and reported it to his boss, Mr. Mitt Romney, where the Pres. Obama supporter lay. And when he heard it Mitt said, ‘this Obama supporter is too dependent on the government, he believes he is a victim, and he believes government has a responsibility to care for him, he needs to take personal responsibility and care for his own life, so don’t worry about him, let him lie. If someone comes upon him then hopefully they will take care of him.’ So he sent no one to him to bandage his wounds, give him medicine, convey him home, house him, or take care of him. So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”

And he said, “Mitt Romney because he showed him how to be independent and not rely on the nanny State.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - We're missing the point. I don't pretend to know what is in Mitt's heart and I could concede and agree that he may be one of the most generous people on earth. I could say the same about Pres. Obama and Mark you have no idea one way or another how "God" or any other supreme being however you view him or her judges either of these men. Furthermore, I agree with Mitt and you that government should be as limited as possible. However I do not agree with you and Mitt that government, especially our government, is inherently evil and has no role to play, in a balanced manner, when individuals, families, communities, states, or the nation is beset with unanticipated or overwhelming emergencies. I would also note that I favor approaches that do not create government agencies or bureaucracies and work within a modestly and sparsely regulated free enterprise system. Nevertheless, when certain industries, despite grave, systematic and deplorable inefficiencies or harmful consequences that put them on notice that they need to voluntarily reform their industry then fail to ameliorate the inefficiencies and damages their causing, government should and has every right to step into the breach. But I, like all Americans, have to compromise when I know my specific ideas will not win the day. I could overhaul health care in a less heavy-handed way than has been done but the reality is, obviously, I have no power but my vote. Given this, the most likely person to have made any change has been Pres. Obama who has in fact through the very shrewd, ingenious and competent efforts succeeded--however imperfect the end result has been. It is the best result that could possibly be achieved under current circumstances. You need not respond Mark because I could write your response for you. You have nothing new or insightful to add to the conversation except for the old, trite, ineffective platitudes of the past that you simply regurgitate and never address how anything you are saying can solve real problems suffered by real people.

Loren M. Lambert © September 17, 2013

Mccain Schools Hannity

Sean Hannity got schooled by the honorable John McCain (yes I believe he is an honorable man and very intelligent and his loss of the election had nothing to do with his competence and more to do with the historical climate at the time).

But to all my far right friends let's assume that Sean H. was right asserting tonight that Pres. Obama "let the Muslim brotherhood rise to power in Egypt" (which is pure unadulterated dead brine fly sludge), and tell me what should Pres. Obama have done?)

And you fact checkers, was Hitler really democratically elected (as claimed by a Hannity guest--my recollection is that his jack boots where already kicking the stuffing out of people and the Germans caved) and if he was, what went wrong and could the world have prevented it or contained it? (I think it could have been contained and this should have started when he commenced invading other countries and/or massacring Germany's citizens)

Then I go on a politics fast for 3 days so I can get my blood pressure down.

Loren M. Lambert © September 13, 2012

FSLA--Minimum Wage and Overtime

I have a pretty clear cut minimum-wage and overtime case. Opposing counsel took client's deposition today. At the end he announced that we could not win. I love it when opposing counsels so state. I have won many such cases and it makes the victories so much sweeter.

I have learned in my career that most disputes have their strengths and weaknesses on both sides and that unpredictable things happen in cases. Rare is the case I can be smug about winning and I think resolving disputes within reason is usually wise. But I suspect in this one I will have an opposing counsel and his client very surprised by the results.

I'll let you all know.

Loren M. Lambert © December 17, 2013

US Medical Care

Here's the problem with US Medical Care: Mt. West Anesthesia--one shot in the arm--$608 PPO Discount $521.07. What the !#$!#%!@!! You medical people out there tell me where all the money goes? (Don't get side tracked--only about .003 of all med expenses go to med mal coverage)

Loren M. Lambert © September 13, 2012

Dear Mitt Romney

Dear Mr. Romney, You don't criticize what a soldier does to defuse a volatile situation when he or she is out gunned and surrounded whether in a bunker or in an embassy.

Moreover, don't forget you heard it from me, but here's the deal on the middle east: there's not a single person in the united states government or out of it that can make it go the way we want it, but we can make  it worse by thinking that we can and that's the way we messed it up in the first place.
                                                                             
Loren M. Lambert © September 12, 2012

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Gym Membership--A Bargain Beyond Compare

I workout at the gym 6 times a week. My routine is warm up--weights or aerobic exercise or swim or walk in the pool (as fast as possible), then usually sauna and shower (about 60% if the time cold).

I have calculated that the energy I use to shower and in the sauna and the wear to the equipment costs the gym more than my membership.

Where else is there a better bargain except maybe hiking outdoors and then bathing in the creek?

Join a gym--and save money and save your life.

Loren M. Lambert © December 17, 2013

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

What Right Wing (Your Adjective Here) Mean When They Call Us Marxist--As Set Forth By Mr. John Doe

Let me summarize, if I understand you Mr.John Doe, a Marxist is someone who advocates the use of any means, especially including violent revolution, to bring about socialist dictatorship, with the following objectives and with the following proof the that the US is Marxist:

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
You believe Mr. John Doe that "eminent domain," the power that “takes” through judicial process and pays market value for land for public use is Marxist. You further believe that property taxes, "environmental" regulations that affect the use of private property, and that the seizure of property through forfeiture actions from Criminal syndicate or drug dealers who purchase property with money obtained through illegal means is Marxist.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
You believe Mr. John Doe that, “The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and various State income taxes, established a major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. You believe that “taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.”

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Mr. John Doe you believe that, “Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which you claim have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved.”

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I don’t see that this is much different than 1 above but apparently Mr. John Doe you believe that without justification and without due process the government is unlawfully seizing property through tax liens, forfeiture actions and unlawfully imprisoning terrorists and those who speak out or write against the "government."

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Mr. John Doe you believe that, “the Federal Reserve System politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting (whatever that means) in the United States.”

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
Mr. John Doe you believe that due to the U.S. and state gov’s “control” over communication, transportation, aviation, postal service, AMTRAK and CONRAIL, that -- outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises that we are a Marxist nation.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Mr. John Doe you believe that, “while the U.S. does not have vast ‘collective farms’ we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage alotments and land-use controls” and that our management of federal lands, like national forest, BLM and “the IRS control of business through corporate regulations,” that we are Marxist.

8. Equal obligation of all to work.
Mr. John Doe you believe that the US has established of “Industrial armies,” especially for agriculture through the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor and that the national debt and inflation caused by the “communal bank” has caused the need for a two "income" family and that the following is Marxist: woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution giving women the right to vote, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions (I guess this means all unions????), affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program, Executive order 11000, The Equal Rights Amendment which you believe means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Mr. John Doe you believe that through the “Planning Reorganization Act of 1949, zoning and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136, that these are Marxist and the Gov’ment is somehow bringing this coast to coast equalization into being.

10. Free education for all children in government schools.
Mr. John Doe you believe that the abolition of children's factory labor along with educating them in “'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system,” and the “Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education,"are Marxist.

Loren M. Lambert © September 12, 2012

Abortions

Wouldn't it be cool if able bodied men who strongly support a ban on all abortions could volunteer to have the fetus of a conception by rape transferred to their body in some violent forceful fashion where they could go through the pregnancy and then raise the child--how many would volunteer?

Loren M. Lambert © September 12, 2012

Monday, December 16, 2013

In His Memory

When humans are oppressed, we all loose. South Africa's 27 year imprisonment of Nelson Mandela was an affront to all.

In his memory we should work to find and gain the release from oppression the great minds around the world who sit in jails of impoverishment, bigotry, ignorance and concrete and steel. Right now, at this very moment, there are men and women possessing the keys to our better futures imploring us to free them.

Loren M. Lambert © December 8, 2013

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Right Wing Republicans

The only true principles of the current right wing Republicans is figuring out how to get the most money to the fewest people so they can pass it back and forth without having to dirty their hands by talking to someone outside their gated communities and the rest of the country can just go off themselves in some sludge filled cesspool.

Then they dress it up in a lot of holier-than-thou hypocrisy so they can sell it to the unblinking-night-of-mind-numb-zombie social conservatives.

Loren M. Lambert © September 7, 2012

I appreciated the thoughtfulness and authenticity of Pres. Obama's speech.

I blanch at both parties grandiose promises.

David Brooks commented that he was disappointed because there was no grand vision and it was too incremental.

Yet, the reality is, Pres. Obama has already laid the foundation, now he needs to perfect it. Attack health care costs, simplify the tax codes, keep the recovery on track and keep a cool head on foreign affairs.

Pres. Clinton clearly delineated the choice her between a man who knows how to create personal wealth by outsourcing and banking offshore and a President who knows how to create national wealth by investing in the well being of all Americans and bulking up our infrastructure.

Loren M. Lambert © September 6, 2012

Smoke and Mirrors

Oh the smoke and mirrors rhetoric of politicians everywhere. The Senator from Wyoming said to the presenters on the PBS News hour that if they gave a Blue Cross and Blue Shield Card to the all the people of Wyoming they'd cut cost blah, blah, blah--none of the commentators asked him how he proposed to do this. Come on!!

Then last Friday when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's stated on Friday morning that "he thinks the Fed can do more to bolster the economic recovery and help," the stock market shot up. I would guess that most of those that engaged in the market swing are conservatives and even if not, why do we all think that the fed can do anything and even if it can that it will be helpful over the long run? Lets face it, Republicans want the government to do something, but their to smug about who they want to do it for. (It's not the Middle class).

At least the Democrats have told you what they want to do whether you like it or not--oh, except for Jim Matheson, who does not support the health care reform but is mum on what he would replace it with or anything.

Loren M. Lambert © August 28, 2012

Monday, December 9, 2013

Employers Interference with Your Facebook/And Other Social Media Activities

Be aware that there are many things your employer cannot make you do regarding your social media activities like Facebook. If your employer does so they are violating the National Labor Relations Act. If they do this you need to complain to the National Labor Relations Board. The have an online complaint form that you can fill out.

If you’re an employer or a boss you should take heed to this and make sure you correct any of your employment policies.

An employer cannot prohibit you from discussing (on your own time not when you’re supposed to be working) terms and conditions of your employment with others, criticizing your employer’s labor policies, discussing your wages, criticizing your employer’s treatment of employees, or criticizing or discussing safety of the workplace. Nor can your employer make you provide them access to your social media, make you “friend” them or make you comply with policies that are vague and tend to “chill” your speech on the about protected subjects .

You are not protected for just griping, complaining, ranting or making maliciously false statements. (You might guess there is a fine line between these activities and the others).

Don’t mistake this for them finding out through other means what you’re posting on your social media and because of this just dislike you and decide not to hire or fire you.

Loren M. Lambert © August 26, 2012

Going Lawyer on You

I was hashing with one of my conservative acquaintances at the Gold's Gym dry sauna. He said that he thought that the "melting pot" was the greatest thing for the country and "multiculturalism" was leading to its downfall. He asked me if I thought multiculturalism was good or bad. I answered that it depends on what he means by "multiculturalism." He then stated, "Don't go lawyer on me."

Yet when I had him define what he meant by each term, we discovered that we had more that we agreed on than we had differences about. I, who think "multiculturalism" is a good thing could point out many things that have fallen under the term "melting pot" that where damaging and negative that he agreed with and he could point out some components of "multiculturalism" that I could agree were destructive and divisive. This is because the meanings that certain political and emotional terms take on often have no connection to what different groups of people associate them with or believe them to mean depending on what that groups experience was with the term.

Ask a native American what he or she thinks of America's "melting pot" and you may hear a very different sentiment than that of a protestant, Scottish immigrant--and for good reasons. Ask Arizonans living on the border with Mexico what they think of "multiculturalism" and they will have a different view of it than Professors at Harvard. (And I don't mean that Mexican culture has dimmed their view of the term but the clash of the "drug culture" on both sides and the chaos of our immigration policies have caused on both sides.

Politicians and the pseudo-entertainment journalists, especially in a election year want to emphasize the disagreements and ignore the common ground. They don't want us to discuss our consensus nor do the want us to understand the meanings of the polarizing terms they use because they want to use those terms to cause greater division. They want to whip us into fearing and loathing our opponents so that they can exploit it for votes.

Language matters. We sometimes think we know what others believe or are saying because of the labels they use and the labels we give them, but a closer look often reveals that we have more in common than our politicians and their talking heads want us to know.

So go lawyer on you neighbors, friends and loved ones. They'll thank you for it.

Loren M. Lambert © August 25, 2012

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

"If It's A Legitimate Shit"

"You see, men, when they get shit on, if it's a legitimate shit, have this special power in which the juices from their gastrointestinal tract, bile duct, salivary glands, anal cavity combine to create a wonderful bouquet of perfume so it doesn't really look or smell like they have been shit on, unless it’s a really bad and illegitimate shit, then they just stink and there's nothing anyone can do, not even Mitt Romney." Troy Akin, U.S. Senate Candidate

Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - Something that the fanatical and over zealously religious do not understand is the great, incredible, and body and mind altering process that pregnancy and conception can have on a women. I, obviously, am not a woman, but am smart enough to realize that this is the case and it is not appropriate (even though I have my own opinion thereon) for me to interject myself between a doctor and a woman determining when to carry a child to term. Moreover, what such people don't consider is that genetics do affect personality, mind and body. While God may not make mistakes, people do and those mistakes imposed upon the parents and are passed on to children. This is not to say we directly should practice eugenics but it is to say we don't allow rapists to practice eugenics indirectly by using force to impregnate a woman against her will. Lastly what such people do not consider is the huge legal apparatus and cost that setting up an abortion review and prosecution system would invariably necessitate. Let that battle rage over ideas and morals but leave the current legal practices alone.

Loren M. Lambert © August 21, 2012

Glen Beck is a Reactionary

On the Glen Beck radio show this morning, Mr. Beck was lamenting General Motor's decision to market through the United Kingdom's soccer team Manchester United to the tune of 22 million. Foul, he and his fawning boy toys cried, why are they taking jobs away from the US and investing in England! Isn't there some sports team here in the US worthy of it patronage?

Hmmm, I thought is there a disconnect here? Weren't they praising Mitt Romney for doing the same thing? The problems is they are not just ideologues, they are reactionaries. They remind me of divorcing parties who Will do any thing to hurt their estranged partner even if it shoots their own nose off despite their faces.

On a different note, did you know that churches in Massachusetts, during its colonial days banned Christmas because it was too pagan?

Loren M. Lambert © August 8, 2012

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Marriage's Full Measure


Listening to Jerry Rapier on the radio, (Plan-B Theater--Salt Lake City Utah) he indicated that gay partners want to experience the full meaning of marriage through legally sanctioned marriage. It is an interesting concept.

In the sixties the hippie generation rebelled against the government's institution of marriage claiming, like the tea partiers claim, that the government couldn't give them what they could already possessed and could take for themselves as a human right.

I know perhaps Jerry means they want the apparent prominence that a legally sanctioned, governmentally recognized marriage gives. Yet, really, how does the federal or state government create the "full meaning" of marriage. Don't two people do that? Isn't it something intrinsic within the marriage that is created by the couple?

I submit, that while the government may encircle a couple with legal protection by granting a marriage certificate and thereby requiring society to treat it as such, only a couple, by their effort, free from governmental intrusion, effuses a marriage with its full meaning.

Unfortunately, while multitudinous couples have marriage certificates, it's a much smaller number, that through their great love, dedication and devotion, hold out the ideal of marriage's full meaning for all to follow, with or without the government's certification.

Loren M. Lambert © August 2, 2012

"Chick-fil-a" Controversy

Let me take a stab at making enemies of both sides: on the "Chick-fil-a," controversy--I think that reasonable minds can differ and still have some valid points on both sides of this issue (I'm in favor of civil unions for all) and I do not agree with limiting the economic prospects with either groups because they are gay and vocal or they are traditional and proselyte. They only thing I do not agree with at all is giving anyone the slightest license in marginalizing, persecuting, or exercising any type of violence or hostility toward the gay population or the devout. Don't loose sight of the fact that sometimes its better to hear what people think to have the discussion, rather than force them to be silent and put up the false facade for the sake of business.

Loren M. Lambert © August 1, 2012

The Fabric of the Nation Is


Doug Wright lamented that something was ruining the very fabric of our Nation. My question is, if there is in fact a fabric of our nation, what would it be, a cotton, polyester, spandex, wool and silk blend? This is a weighty matter because, if it is being ruined, we will be more able to detect it if we in fact know what it is.

Loren M. Lambert © July 26, 2012

A Review of, "Federal Student Aid and the Law of Unintended Consequences," by Richard Vedder.


Hillsdale College, the privately funded bastion of conservative thought, printed in its, Imprimis, Richard Vedder’s article, “Federal Student Aid and the Law of Unintended Consequences.” He commences his opinion with his overall conclusion that “Federal student financial assistance programs are costly, inefficient, byzantine, and fail to serve their desired objectives.”

Before I summarize the factual and philosophical underpinnings of his opinion, which for the most part I agree with, I want to set forth my own philosophy regarding education and my own experiences with student aid. From my studies, travel abroad, military experience and educational experience both here in the US and in Spain, I generally think that education is the bedrock of our democracy and vital to our nation security and economy. Education is or should be a door that is readily accessible to all of a nations citizens regardless of economic, political or social status. It is the great equalizer and ultimate meritocracy. The only impediment to accessing education should be if one does not possess the academic ability nor the aspirational desire or discipline to acquire those skills necessary to succeed in a university or college environment.

As for my own anecdotal experience, I never received any federal aid for college or law school and finished my education with a very modest private loan that I paid off in 3 years after law school. While in school, I knew many that had federal loans that used them to enhance their social status by buying stereo systems, fast cars, living in expensive apartments or ill planing their work load. It also appeared to me that eligibility for federal loans favored those students who married early, procreated quickly and accumulated debts and were therefore needy and deserving of a federally guaranteed loan. I was single, childless, debt free and therefore did not merit a loan. This left me thinking that no aid should go to any students except those with physical or mental handicaps and that any governmental involvement should be made just to lower the cost for all students.

Mr. Vedder states the following: “the relationship between educational spending and economic growth in negative, or at best, non-existent. In the past four decades in which the proportion of adults with 4 year college degrees tripled, income equality has declined. If financial institutions can lend to students for car loans they can do so for education. Pell grants that were designed to assist the poor, have become middle class entitlements. Student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt. Medium age of those having student debt is 33, with approximatly 40 % of the debt is held by people 40 years of age or older.”

He then set forth eight things he finds wrong with federal college aid.

(1) Interest rates are set by politicians and not the market. This causes distortions in the market. Below market interest rates (championed by both Mitt Romney and Pres. Obama), distort the market by causing too much money to be borrowed for education. (Supply and demand–when money is too artificially available or plentiful, or stated another way, too much money is chasing a product of limited quantity or chasing a highly sought after and over-priced/valued product; i.e., “.coms” and the housing bubbles, in such situations the price/value of the product is artificially inflated and therefore over it is over-priced for the value derived therefrom. In fact we made be currently riding an education bubble.)

(2) Markets self adjust by players within the market “who have skin in the game” and therefore suffer consequences when loans are not paid and therefore they either decline to loan or charge higher interests rates when there are greater risks or less likelihood of a pay off–this has the effect of naturally curbing bad decision making by the barrower and the lender. In higher educational institutions, this bad decision making occurs when colleges enroll students that use federal loans to pursue low-paying careers or obsolete careers. Then when the student graduates, they may have greater periods of unemployment or even upon obtaining work in her chosen field is unable to pay the loan because the top wages in that chosen field are so low the student cannot pay the loans off. Furthermore, the institution that provided the education has no accountability because if the student defaults, its already been paid in full and the gravy train proceeds despite how many of its graduates fail financially (if failure is measured by the inability to pay off school loans). The result is that the US tax payer ends up being on the hook and being held accountable.

(3) When a third party pays for a commodity that another person, who is the actual costumer or consumer, acquires or receives the benefit from, the price artificially escalates because the actual customer has no incentive to minimize the cost/expense. This is what happened to health care; i.e., once insurance companies started paying the bill, doctors raised their prices and customers didn’t bother shopping for less expensive alternatives. Consequently, doctors had no incentive to compete but an incentive to race each other to increase their prices. The same is occurring in higher education.

(4) The federal government now has a monopoly in providing student loans–which lends itself to all the negatives of a monopoly–no incentive cut costs and innovate to be more efficient.

(5) Fed loans intrude on privacy because they require extensive personal information from the students.

(6) The number of students graduating in specific disciplines is far greater than the number of jobs therein,

(7) Easy money lends itself to the temptation of using it for non-education related expenses (just like people took out 2nd and 3rd mortgages on their homes to pay for expenses beyond their means), and

(8) The Pell grants are awarded in a manner that incentivizes the borrowers to be less adept and/or less industrious because the circumstances make them more eligible for grants so the are ipso facto rewarded by getting more grants.

While the extent of these adverse consequences are debatable, I do think Mr. Vedder is correct except on a few points. First, education, in and of itself, like exercise, ads value to the educated and to society at large. While it should be tethered to practical outcomes like finding a specific job in a specific occupation, its greatest achievement is providing graduates with a foundation that equips them with the flexibility to advance and progress in multiple careers, as needed, in a changing job market. Study after study has shown that college graduates enjoy healthier and more satisfying lives. The fact is, we would be a “richer” society if all of our workforce had a college education no matter what they did to make a living.

On the other hand, I have always believed that every effort should be made to make college as inexpensive as possible–for all students, but not necessarily through federal grants and loans. Moreover, I am not so sure that the Federal or State Government, however well intentioned, are in a position to achieve this goal without actually having the opposite effect.

What do you think?

Loren M. Lambert © July 18, 2012

Answering the Question: Is Random Charity Enough?


A couple days ago, regarding the three men that were taking turns standing at the southbound exit ramp pan-handling, I asked:

How much money is any of those specific individuals getting through other means?

How much money are all three of those individuals obtaining from panhandling?

How needy are such individuals compared to others, or in other words what are their specific needs compared to other people who can or cannot access places in the public to beg and how are those needs being met by charity?

The answers: we don't know, we don't know, and we don't know, and we usually never find out.

These questions highlight the dilemma that while charity is generally an indispensable human virtue and while faith-based organizations often appropriately answer and address these issues, not everyone belongs to a faith-based or other charitable organization. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is we have no idea how efficient, effective, and comprehensive acts of random charity are in supporting the homeless and the needy.

For these reasons it appears that these problems can only be addressed by governments. This is because, it is within the realms of possibility that one of the three panhandlers was well to do, one of the three was struggling but perfectly capable of earning a living but choosing to be a panhandler, and that the last was incapable of making a living (or currently unable or dealing with an emergency) and was wholly reliant and in great need of the handouts.

As a general principle, it would therefore seem that it is optimal that those receiving and in need of charity do so through some entity that can assess the individual’s needs and the form and amounts that charity should encompass. Hence, in a society where there are sufficient entities or individuals to perform this role whether private, faith-based or governmental that random acts of charity are counterproductive and as indicated in your comments, do not resolve or adequately address the problem.

In a society in which there are not such entities then only those panhandlers with sufficient abilities, skill and marketing could address their needs so long as there were enough willing to give. In other words, panhandlers that were able to go into the public and effectively market their needs would tend to gain more. Those individuals that were to ill to function, and did not have other support, would in essence starve or die from exposure or their illnesses.

A further problem that I have witnessed is that the severely mentally ill or those disabled by degenerative brain disorders, often alienate, antagonize, and sometimes even terrorize or victimize their friends and family members. It is this population that is most difficult to address. While it would be optimal if the basic needs of all such individuals were addressed when they could not be by the individuals themselves by private and faith-based organizations, that simply has not been the case either in the past are presently.

Moreover, although it is virtuous that individuals do often and without prejudgment provide, “true charity [that] doesn't ask any questions,” as Mel Hensen indicated, I wonder if such random acts often benefit more the giver than those receiving the charitable gifts and may sometimes allow us to hide from or miss the greater needs of others who do not engage in panhandling. It is those rare individuals who do not judge, criticize, condemn or seek to convert the needy but who take the time to learn their circumstances and their needs who are the true champions of our society. And unfortunately because there are not enough of them and because we are currently too imperfect, random acts of charity and even private acts are currently insufficient to address this problem.

Loren M. Lambert © July 13, 2012

Is Charity Enough


Today while negotiating the 7200 South freeway underpass, there were three men that were taking turns standing at the southbound exit ramp soliciting charity. I have this question to all of you who think charity is sufficient to take care of the needs of such individuals. How much money is any of those specific individuals getting through other means? How much money are all three of those individuals obtaining from panhandling? How needy are such individuals compared to others, or in other words what are their specific needs compared to other people who can or cannot access places in the public to beg and how are those needs being met by charity?

I asked this question, not because I do not believe that charity is the best way, nor that certain faith-based organizations do not appropriately answer and address these issues, but because not everyone belongs to a faith-based organization. The fact of the matter is we have no idea how efficient, effective, and comprehensive charity driven support of the homeless and the needy is.

This creates many challenges that so far have only been able to be addressed by governments.

Loren M. Lambert © July 12, 2012

Charity is The Gift That Gives Twice But Not To The Mentally Afflicted

Almost 50% of Social Security Disability payments are to those suffering from mental health conditions or organic brain disorders. Just 150 years ago people with such maladies were in the west, despite many a Christian nation (enforced by the State), mistreated, starved and murdered.

History indicates that many religions were and are slow to come out of the dark ages regarding mental health conditions or organic brain disorders.

Things have dramatically improved but Christian good will and charity has not managed to correct this disconnect. Most health and disability insurance either excludes such maladies from coverage or drastically limit the coverage and many still find themselves excluded from support from religious based communities and from many community services.

This is one of the reasons good old human charity sometimes lags behind scientifically based pragmatism. Until the gap is breached, that perfect world has just not materialized where charity is extended in a uniform, comprehensive and all encompassing way to this population.

Not to despair. Let's all keep working on it.

In the meantime, to reduce the expense and lighten the burden of those most affected by such problems, we need to maintain if not extend our very minimal social and mutually beneficial protective net--it does not just benefit the afflicted but us, by ameliorating the harm that those so afflicted can cause themselves and others when unable to access health care.

Loren M. Lambert © July 12, 2012

Friday, November 22, 2013

The Great Disconnect of The Rank-And-File Conservative Base

While listening to one of the conservative talk hunks the other day a caller made the following statement, “I am not going to vote for Pres. Obama this time because he did nothing to save my home.” She indicated she had lost her home in foreclosure. She didn’t indicate why nor how Pres. Obama should have saved her home or what were her economic circumstances when she purchased the home and under what conditions.

I have gone on record indicating that in the long run, the US economic system would’ve been more healthy if no government intervention would have been undertaken. However in the short run the economic misery and ruin would have been overwhelming for many, many Americans. This seems to be what most of the conservative base argues should have happened. However, it doesn’t appear to me that any of them would have appreciated what the consequences would have been nor would they have praised Pres. Obama for letting the market make it adjustments.

It is therefore incongruous and considerably hypocritical for thousands of members of the conservative base who I hear complain about what Pres. Obama should have done to rescue them from their financial woes. Isn’t it a tenant of conservative ideology that the government should not intervene and allow the market to make adjustments?

Moreover, I am also puzzled by many of my conservative friends who have had enormous government backed student loans, have taken out bankruptcy, have benefitted from unemployment, have benefitted from food programs, have benefitted from Medicare and Medicaid, have defaulted on their home mortgages and felt the government should have helped them, have benefitted from the Veterans Administration governmental benefits, have received workers compensation, and have benefitted from numerous other “progressive,” and “liberal,” policies.

Let me also go on record and state that I worked and paid for almost the majority of my college and law school education (including a small private loan that I paid off with interest) and that I have never had to access any governmental welfare programs. This is partly due to sheer luck or happenstance and partly due to living within my means and being responsible. I also received some minimal financial support from my family.

Why do so many in the conservative base access, rely upon and benefit from progressive and liberal policies, and yet think that the government should rescue them from bad and often profligate economic decisions and yet claim to be conservatives?

Loren M. Lambert © July 1, 2012

The Conservative Paradigm And Its Ultimate Consequence

As I understand the conservative antipathy regarding governmental programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care reform, unemployment benefits, food stamps etc., it is that: (1) Government should not have the power to create such programs and fund them, and (2), aside from the fact that this is a power that should not be given to a government, the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from creating and then funding such programs. Is this correct? Furthermore, I think most political persuasions can agree that charity is a good thing for many reasons on many different levels. But let’s get beyond that and discuss more fundamental issues.

In a society in which governments either do not have, nor exercise a right or power to establish such economic safety nets, conservatives appear to believe that charity would be sufficient to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries? If this is correct, then I can understand their position, though I do not agree with it. If it is not correct, are those consequences (suffering and death by members of our community) something that conservatives would find acceptable to live with and witness?

Personally I do believe that, 1) governments should have the power to create and implement very basic societal safety nets, 2) the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from doing so, 3) I do not believe that voluntary charity (in a large society) will ever be sufficient (no matter how minimal government was structured to stay out of the lives of its citizens), nor well organized enough to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries, and 4) I am philosophically opposed to living in a large society in which members of that society die or succumb to illness due to malnutrition, starvation or the inability to access medical care–especially when they are required, when physically and mentally able to do so, to contribute to the accumulation of value and wealth within that society.

There is nothing abhorrent about this philosophy nor is it inconsistent nor incompatible with patriotic, Christian, Democratic, and civilized teachings and ideologies.

Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - Fighting aside, none of the far right wing conservatives have addressed my question. (PS. The LDS Church does some very admirable work, but it doesn't always get it right--as is the same for many other religious organizations, but the simple fact is that Americas not quite ready for your suggestion D.M.M. They are not fully invested in the Temple thing along with a few other big money projects. Keep trying though, who knows. I recommend we all sit done with Bruce Hafen and D. Oaks--they might surprise you all on some of the middle of the road opinions on some subjects--not all)

Loren M. Lambert © June 30, 2012

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate and Much of Health Care Reform

Well it is official. Conservatives’ claims that Pres. Obama has acted unconstitutionally have turned out once again to be bogus and without any thread of substance. Pres. Obama was right on health care and you all were wrong.

Mark my words, there is going to be a lot of whining, teeth grinding and hair fires in the next couple of months. Heck, a few conservatives heads may even explode if they try to hard to get their minds around this. But most, most will just retire to their sanctimonious islands of intellectual desolation's and take a dip in their lagoons of small mindedness.

By the way, this is a sign of a judiciary acting independently, as it should, deferring to the legislative branch. So don't despair too much conservatives, the ballot box awaits you.

Loren M. Lambert © June 28, 2012

Thursday, November 14, 2013

What did President Obama do during his four years, and is it any different than what he said he would do--whether you agree with it or not?

1) End the Iraq war, 2) Capture or Kill Osama Bin Ladin, 3) End don't ask don't tell, 4) Dramatically reform health insurance scope of coverage, 5) Avert a complete collapse of the US banking system, 6) Rescue the US Auto Industry, 7) Elevate US standing in the world, String several coherent sentences together, 9) Ad more cheese to your pizza, 10) All of the above.

Loren M. Lambert © June 27, 2012

Is President Obama to Blame for:

1) The Housing crisis? 2) The economy? 3) Cost of healthcare? 4) The Climate? 5) Iran, 6) The Deficit, 7) Skin Cancer or All of the above? And if so, what should be done, if anything, to fix them?

Loren M. Lambert © June 26, 2012

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Native Americans

Program on NPR about claiming Native American ancestry or heritage. Interesting phenomenon is that many native Americans do not have a culture of proselytizing their religion or seeking to convert or induct members into their tribes. One of the commentators mentioned how unseemly western religions are for doing this.

Yet it's all about balance. If you were a minority and a non-member among a large society of Native Americans and felt excluded, you would find this approach to be elitist. Currently with our demographics this isn't a concern.

On the other hand, it is human to proselytize. We think our tastes, whether its music, food, style or entertainment choices are the end all and be all of fine living. When we abandon this desire to make all men in our own image, we will cease to by human.

Conversely, it is also good that there are cultures and groups that stand as unambitious refuges for those that are confident in their unique isolation from pop culture.

Loren M. Lambert © June 7, 2012

The Man Who Possesses a Set of the Largest Lungs and Biggest Heart takes on Big Tobacco.

Lance Armstrong, cyclist phenom, is taking on big tobacco in California, a state where it is the cheapest place in the US to get hooked into tobacco addiction. He is urging Californians to impose a $1 tax on cigarettes. I agree and disagree with one of the greatest athletes of all time and one who has done great good in the world. ( This was written before the revelations about his doping - yet I still think he has done a lot of good).

I do not agree that taxing legal behavior no matter how disagreeable to some segments of out society is appropriate, whether it's smoking, drinking soda pop, drinking alcohol or using a condom. Moreover, we should not become silent partners with the tobacco industry to take advantage of the addictions of the weak, unwise or naive to fund our schools and other pet projects.

I do believe that it is absolutely justified to "tax" products like tobacco and alcohol that cause known and predictable harm and that the money collected be used to pay for the costs from damages resulting from those products.

Tobacco has almost no redeeming qualities or value as a legal product. Yet, because of the entrenched political and economic power of the drug pushers/dealers who market it (yes they are drug dealers and pushers--just legal ones) and since its harm is largely restricted to ravishing the health of those who use it, we tolerate it as a society. Nevertheless, its cost in healthcare expenses and disability payments to treat and care for its many addicts are born by all of us.

Therefore, taxes are justified and should be imposed to pay for all of these costs so that the price it bears on the Market is equal to the harm it causes which is in fact its true cost. All I ask is that its users and dealers pay for that expense.

Loren M. Lambert © June 3, 2012

Supreme Court Statement

In B.R. v. West, 2012 UT 11 (February 28, 2012), the Utah Supreme Court made this Statement except for that in brackets which I have inserted, ""Healthcare providers preform a societal function of undoubted social utility. But they are not entitled to an elevated status in tort law that would categorically immunize them from liability when their negligent prescriptions cause physical injury to non patients [and of course patients]." I think this is true and legislation should not be passed that gives and profession or group "elevated status." Any tort reform should apply to all lawsuits. Our laws are riddled with laws that elevate the status of both government and some industries and their agents. This thereby reduces the liberty and freedom of those not so "elevated" but in fact, diminishes justice for all others.

Loren M. Lambert © June 3, 2012