POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.

First official trailer for Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock’s “Inception of documentaries,” POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.

The film, which explores the often invasive world of product placement, is set to open in theaters April 22.

Oh, Those Opulent O’s.

We’ve come to the end of a decade - yes, I start counting my decades by the ones and not the zeroes, which means that 1980 was the last year of the 70’s. I know it looks stupid on paper, but it is the proper way. My reference point would be the classic Onion Headline - “The Millennium Begins in 2001, Terrorists Note.”

In the grand tradition of rehashing old news and making sub-standard lists of events, arbitrary lists of the ‘best’ movies or music, reality television ‘stars’, or worst of all - consumer products - allow me the exercise of looking back with the rose colored glasses of time. I’d like to try to present the previous ten years as it might show up in a history book.

The Opulent O's

Previous eras of the American experience have been labeled, whether accurately or not, by the generations that followed. The eras of the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, or the Fabulous Fifties give an over reaching illusion of wealth and comfort afforded by all the citizenry. Careful study shows that there were major exceptions ranked by class status and race in each of these three examples, and the names themselves discount recessionary times, and any turmoil that existed. However, the tradition of remembrance for a grouping of ten years with a fantastical moniker has become an unfortunate reality of historical narrative when examining the history of America. The era that we are focusing on now is no exception -- the era which begins at the turn of the 21st Century to the new year of 2011 CE. This time has become known as the Opulent O’s.

To first explain the name of the era, the people of the time did not refer to the year in which they lived as the aughts, or oughts as proper English would dictate, or even the example of the generation that lived through the turn of the previous century, the 1900’s. The pronunciation of the year in which they lived predominantly was spoken as, “two thousand and...” followed by the number designate. Hence, why a few historians have refereed to the era as the ‘And’s’. The consensus by reputable sources and careful research has been to designate this time as the ‘Oh’s.’ The evidence in the historical record suggests that the people of the time would sometimes drop the ‘two thousand’ in speech and would simply state, “Oh six,” when giving a descriptor of a year; as an example.

The word Opulent has become to describe the era. The Latin derived definition in English are defined as 1. Having or indicating wealth, and also 2. Abundant or plentiful. Ignoring race or regional exceptions -- the word perfectly defines the era.

The primary fuel of the time was cheap and easily obtained petroleum drilled from the ground. The peak of use of gasoline and plastic derived from oil occurred in this era. The abundance of cheap oil and fuel allowed for cheap food sources. The importance of oil in the life cycle of plant to waste product must be studied to understand the mindset of the time. The availability and sheer amounts of cheap fuel created a cradle-to-grave manufacturing cycle from consumer goods to 4 ton single passenger vehicle with low fuel to kilometer use ratios -- which defines the zeitgeist. The most important aspect, in hindsight, to the lifestyle of the times was the amount of fuel used to create inexpensive food. The petroleum was used in the creation of fertilizer, and copious amounts were used in the entire process of seed to market, and market to aftermarket production.

Simplified, the oil or oil products would be used by the farmer from every aspect of his production -- from the multiple passes on a tractor (soil toiling, planting, chemical pesticide application, cultivation and a final till of the soil), to transport to industrial food processing off site (sometimes thousands of miles) from the farmland. Next, from the secondary processor which would create a chemical byproduct of the original agricultural product (Maize and soybeans being the most popular of the bases found in most supermarkets [see also ADM Corporation] would then transport and package the new product and ship by truck to market. Retail supermarkets [Safeway, Albertsons], “fast food” restaurants [McDonald’s, Chili’s] or superstore retail outlets [Costco, Wal-Mart] would then cater to the final end user, who more often than not, used a single passenger vehicle to transport the product home. Once the product was consumed, the end user simply disposed of the plastic packaging to preserve the food product, and the outer container -- typically another plastic or cardboard package which only served to encourage purchase. Once discarded the packaging materials were then transported by another gas powered truck or transport to take the used goods to be covered in a landfill. The concept of cradle to cradle manufacturing may have germinated in this era, but due to the nature and scale of the single-use economic cycle, it was counter productive or even suicidal for any industry to adopt a plan to reuse or recycle their resources or waste products.

Since fuel and food were inexpensive, the lifestyle of the typical American of the Opulent O’s were filled with store bought conveniences and electronic trinkets designed for obsolescence which encouraged constant replacement. Leveraged credit based upon elevated housing prices allowed consumers buying power. It was not uncommon for an American to have bought a home past their means, and taken credit based on that home’s perceived market value, called a home equity loan. These funds were then used to purchase more consumer goods -- and often with a credit card [MasterCard, Visa]. The economy was primarily based on the spending habits of the consumer. Even after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush urged Americans to go to the malls, and purchase houses and cars to get the economy engine moving again. The government created an environment of low interest rates and extremely easy credit in order to facilitate the consumer’s appetite.

Two major military engagements were initiated in response to the sensational terrorist attacks in America, under the banner of a “War on Terrorism.” The engagements in Afghanistan were aided by the Allied Western NATO nations, and the second invasion of Iraq resulted in the replacement of the government there, and a permanent American presence. History has shown, both of these costly involvements were to secure the oil fields, and an attempt to stabilize the region [see also Iran v America 1970-2020] -- thus insuring the flow of inexpensive oil to American business interests. Specifically those partners in Europe and China. Like the citizenry, these foreign entanglements were funded largely by credit. The U.S. had gone from a creditor nation to a debtor nation in 1988, but accelerated during the Bush and Obama Administrations.

Despite the trillions of dollars expended, the price of oil rose as industrial engines of India and China grew their GDP by 20% per year. Oil Prices rose in late 2006 because of simple supply and demand, plus speculation in the commodity markets. Soon, inflation of consumer products, fuel prices, and food began to outpace the threshold of business and consumer expendable incomes. Quickly, the slowdown of consumer spending toppled the preposterous derivative financial products of the time, wiped out the housing speculation and subsequent consumer credit bubble, and exposed widespread institutional Ponzi schemes, not dissimilar to the domino effect experienced at the end of the Roaring 1920’s.

Amazingly, the Six Corporate media companies either were misinformed or incapable of reporting the trends that were creating the problems that led to disaster, and instead reported only soft news (entertainment and sporting events which fed to their other advertising sponsored media concerns), or blatantly perpetuated partisan arguments to fill a 24 hour news cycle with surprisingly low or useless content to their audiences. The news of the day, even as late as 2010, was that of recovery and consumer confidence -- despite under reported or manipulated unemployment figures and a withering manufacturing base. Despite the ineffectual news climate, the government and other influential sources were inserting the word “unsustainable” into the collective vocabulary. At the end of the decade, even to the most optimistic, it seemed that the party was coming to a close. The start of a ‘new normal’ was discussed and contemplated.

Notable Starts: Enhanced government security, social media on networked devices, portable networked computing in communication devices, alternative energy, commercial exploration of space, TEA Party [Taxed Enough Already Party]

Influential Americans: George W. Bush (43rd President), Barack H. Obama (44th President), Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Warren Buffet, Alan Greenspan, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerburg, Steve Jobs, Sarah Palin.

Human Achievements: Completion of the Human Genome Project, Large Hadron Collider (Switzerland), 2nd Hubble Space Telescope repair by Human Astronauts, extra solar system planetoids discovered, water found on Mars and the Moon.

Notable Disasters: Terrorist Attacks on September 11th, 2001, Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans and Mississippi, Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, Global Warming/Climate Change.

Documentary Review: The Spill

Expecting a play-by-play review of the Deep Water Horizon last night's FRONTLINE: The Spill | PBS [Watch streaming online] was instead a deep dive into the events and corporate culture that created the environment in which the Gulf Oil spill was just one of many disasters ready to pop.

Apparently, the investors and the Board of Directors were pence wise and pound foolish by cutting, across the board 25% of their operating cost. While this was great for pentioners depending on BP's stock dividends - the men on the ground and the antiquated equipment suffered. They suffered with safety failures that lead to death. Their systematic attitude that comes across is, "Why spend hard dollars on silly things like updating safety gear? It's not like there's been an accident!?"

The documentary uses Deep Water as the cherry pit on the moldy banana split that BP had created. I had the expectation of a play-by-play of a failed blow-out preventer, and instead the journalists got into the DNA of BP and the failure of a culture. I was pleasantly surprised, and then horrified by the misconduct of BP management and employees, let alone their complete disregard for overall safety of human life and consequences be damned... the plan was to just get the checkbook out after it happens... and then lowball it.

A dollar saved is a dollar on the balance sheet.

One of the episode’s strengths is footage found in BP’s own film library. In one sequence, newly-minted BP boss Hayward, speaking to business-school students, pretty much confesses to all of the company’s extant flaws and errors.

“He comes in and pledges that he’s going to correct all this,” Smith said. “He analyzed it correctly and had good intentions, and was by all accounts trying to do the right thing, but you essentially have a guy who’s trying to turn around the Titanic when it’s too late.”

Expecting to see Hayward come off as the media comic book villain - I was disappointed. They actually were able to show his, if not human, at least pragmatic sense of course correction. It's a study in his Public Relation's department that should show the failure of the image of the man -- that's a whole other doc, if you were to ask me.

I should also note that the documentary doesn't shy away from pointing out that the failure of the United States government to connect the dots also contributed to the Gulf spill.

Do give this a watch, it's worthy of your hour of attention.

The Week In Review - Sunday Comics

Here's the end of the week round up...
First, NPR - meet FOX. What did everyone expect to have happen?
The bed bug craze is getting kind of nuts... which is hilarious, until you see one.
Foreclosures continue to be about as controversial as the loans themselves.
Taliban 'leadership' are sitting down to 'talk'. Who the hell knows what that means?
Obama's thrown out Hope and Change and is changing lanes to spew Fear. I've been saying since he picked Biden as his Veep he was going to get his ass handed back to him in 2010.
Puppet masters...
Corporate influence in this campaign is a little more, er -transparent, perhaps - obvious this cycle?
And when Mr. Obama lashed out upon the Chamber of Commerce for spending against him- it rang a just a tad hollow and hypocritical. It was definitely not presidential.
Well gang, we made it through another week. Hope to see you again next week!

Well Duuuuhhhh!

In the 'Breaking News' section - I just got this bulletin...

Top Corporations Helping U.S. Chamber of Commerce Influence Campaigns

OMG Stop the Presses!

Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation's financial regulations.

Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed new rules to tighten security requirements on chemical facilities. [the shock!]

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation seeking to limit the ability of trial lawyers to sue businesses. [the horror!]

The SCOTUS Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission put the final period to the end of the sentence on which power indeed runs the Democracy - nay - the business climate that is the North American sphere of influence once called the United States of America.

These large donations -- none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber -- offer a glimpse of the chamber's money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall's Congressional elections. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't had their employees in Congress get rid of these 'transparency' rules of disclosure.

Okay - folks, here it is - there isn't a Democrat or Republican party. Okay. Really, get off your chairs. It's the Business Party. Has been for, oh, 200 some odd years now.

Let's stop pretending this is a news flash.

Ronald Responds to Non-Decomposing Food Items

McDonald's has replied to the incorruptible Happy Meal experiment. The tl;dr: Our burgers get mold too—under the right humidity conditions! The long answer:

(click to make bigger)

It's hard to believe that a burger sitting on a living room in New York for six months can get mummified, to which McDonald's has implied. Even with the A/C unit on, the humidity in NYC is extremely high, especially during the summer months. And note, the roaches didn't eat it either.

To be fair, the correct scientific test would have been to place other foodstuffs on a plate next to the burger. However, I if the other foodstuffs decompose faster than the McFood - wouldn't that be worse for the Mighty Ronald and his McDonaldland friends?

[via Gizmodo]

Race For The Cure

Thinking Pink Hasn't Helped Find Causes of Breast Cancer

With all the money spent on research, breast cancer experts are disappointed with lack of answers.

Seems like a pretty good racket.

What's worse, is that with all their money, all the pink things all around - The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation finds that they need to sue other organizations using, "For the Cure," (to the story) and the Pink Ribbon. To be sure, they're suing a meat producer in that case... but they don't stop there. They sue, or threaten lawsuits over ANYONE using the terms 'for the cure' or use pink in their work.

"It is startling to us that Komen thinks they own pink," says Mary Ann Tighe, who tangled with the breast-cancer charity over the color for her "Kites for a Cure" lung-cancer fund-raiser. "We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied to no purpose."

Trademark battles often garner huge amounts of legal wrangling - and for good cause - fonts, logo designs and other branding minutia can be the life or death of a major brand. But in non-profits? Apparently their branding is just as important - and important enough to use donated funds to spend on lawyers and to keep Timmy from getting a new lung -- instead, say, look for that 'cure'?

After a little more digging I found Dr. Samantha King's book "Pink Ribbon Inc: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy.' It's an exposé of the pervasive corporate branding opportunity that the pink ribbon affords.

Corporations love breast cancer because breast cancer is "safe", carrying none of what marketers euphemistically call the "lifestyle issues" of serious diseases -

Lung cancer will kill triple the number of people that breast cancer does. Ovarian, cervical and prostate cancer will kill about 20,000 more individuals than breast cancer. And alcoholism, addiction and depression will this year continue to kill not just via the overt channels of overdose and suicide, but in their brutal toll on overall health. ~Mary Elizabeth Williams

It just seems that that icky old AIDS, lung cancer, or even heart disease don't look good on packages of Ice Cream. Heart disease, which just so happens, kills six times more women than breast cancer... See, it's not as marketable since those other diseases are seen to be self-inflicted.

So it's sexy, and I mean, beyond the breast part.

It's 'not anyone's fault' for getting breast cancer -- not like lung cancer you damned smokers! You and your 15 minute breaks every ten minutes! Meh!!

And Pink has meshed very nicely with the corporate world’s discovery during the mid-1980s of cause-related marketing. Research had proved that, given the same cost and quality, more than half of consumers would switch from a particular store or brand to one associated with a good cause. Simple as that.

Consider Campbell’s soup, for example. In 2006, Advertising Age reported on a Campbell’s soup cause-related marketing success story – “turning its iconic soup can on its ear by replacing the traditional red-and-white with pink-and-white, and adding a pink ribbon for Breast Cancer Awareness Month”. The result? Campbell’s sales for their pink-clad varieties doubled that month, and even motivated store managers to display the soups outside the soup aisle. Campbell donated 3.5 cents per pink can to its breast cancer charity in exchange for its doubled order. But the financial payoff was huge for the company, even after the breast cancer donation was deducted.

Who needs a cure? We've got an engine for sales.

And, after how many marches, and 20 years of who-knows-how-much pink soup, shoes, signs, ribbons and tubs of KFC -- where's the cure?

In the spirit of complaining, but then offering a solution, I'm sharing Samantha King's thoughts from her book, Pink Ribbons Inc: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy. She suggests that when buying pink endorsed products to ask...

1. How much money actually goes to the cause? If very little. it’s best to give directly to organizations whose work you support rather than filtering it through a large corporation.

2. Where will the money end up? Information about this is usually hard to find and often vague; if you can’t tell, don’t buy the product.

3. What types of programs will benefit? If we want to see real innovation in the breast cancer research agenda, we should target our generosity to those organizations that focus on the causes of the disease and how to prevent them.

Hey, I'm all for saving boobs -- but suing anyone for using a slogan or pink, with dollars better spent in the laboratory, and corporate tag-alongs coming round for the boost in sales - not necessarily a boost in Cure -- well, that's enough to start asking questions about, isn't it?

Book of the Day

The truth comes out: Things do not go better with Coke
The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink
By Blanding, Michael

Review by Henry L. Carrigan Jr

In one of the world's most famous television commercials, hundreds of teenagers of diverse backgrounds dance and sway on a sunny hillside as they belt out a ballad about teaching the world to sing in peace and harmony. Each young person is holding a bottle of Coke, the "real thing," promising in his or her earnest way that if only everyone in the world would drink Coke, violence would cease and peace would prevail. Ever since 1886, when John Pemberton stumbled upon the secret formula for the soft drink that would become known as Coca-Cola, the company that eventually grew out of his success has obscured the shady medicinal origins of the drink and zealously designed ads that focus not on its ingredients but on what the customer thinks it represents. Coke has spent billions of dollars to present an image of wholesomeness and harmony cherished by millions of people around the world.

Yet, as award-winning magazine writer Michael Blanding points out in his provocative and far-reaching investigative book, The Coke Machine, all is not well in the House of Coke. The pristine images of peace and harmony promoted by the company have been shattered by accusations that the company has depleted water supplies in India, made schoolchildren fat in the U.S., supported murder as it sought to destroy unions in Guatemala and deceived consumers around the world by marketing tap water as purified water under its Dasani brand. For example, in the Kerala region in India, Coke not only used up fresh water supplies in its production process, it also produced solid waste that it distributed to local farmers as fertilizer. When the fields treated by this fertilizer began to lie fallow, and when farm animals that drank water polluted by this waste began to die, Indian scientists discovered that Coke's solid waste contained four times the tolerable limit of cadmium, which can cause prostate and kidney cancer.

In shocking detail, Blanding uncovers Coke's numerous transgressions against humanity and nature. Although many groups have protested Coke's presence in their countries and various legal actions have been brought against Coke, the company has managed to slither out of the grip of any legal injunctions. It's very unlikely that Coke will ever change its practices until its bottom line is threatened by binding legal consequences and there is a sustained public campaign that threatens its brand images. Blanding's thoroughly detailed, stimulating and challenging study will have many readers saying, "Give me a Pepsi."

I got one better: How about, "No thanks! Water, please."

You vs. Corporations

Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

Barry Ritholz would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics... So I cut'n'pasted it here for you.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.

Consider:

• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.

How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm – yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).

What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?

In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.

There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content – YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren’s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.

But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.

Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO (see pic). And you are losing . . .
This short commentary was conceived not to be an exhaustive research, but rather, to stimulate debate. There are many more examples and discussions we can have about this, and I hope readers do so in comments.

But my bottom line is this: If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world at all . . .

To wit, all I can add to this is that I have cut'n'pasted this for Blasphemes readers - and this:

There is only one party - the business party. It's you vs the corporate interest groups. Once you are wise to the fact that they're ALL the problem, otherwise you're just perpetuating this useless left right paradigm that keeps people blinded to the facts of what's really going on around the world. Terrible things. In American's name, with America's tax dollars.

And please click on some ads!

You're Going To Die In A Fire!

An ominous theme has emerged from the wreckage of a deadly pipeline explosion in California... There are thousands of pipes just waiting to EXPLODE under YOUR house... RIGHT NOW!!! AHH! We're all going to DIE! We're going to DIE IN A FIRE!?!! OH NOOSS!!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

And now, we can blame the corporations that are supposed to be maintaining these things - and they obviously haven't and have been giving all those fat profits to their share holders - the capitalist pigdogs -- now we've all got pipe BOMBS under OUR NEIGHBORHOODS! Just waiting to go off - who knows when!? WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE and INSPECT these un-funded pipe bombs... or we're going to DIE!!! AAahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

At least the minor oil spills in Illinois and Michigan aren't getting any coverage.

Lowered Expectations

It's all about expectation management, you see. If you make your kid think he can be president, he will grow up disappointed. Tell him he's headed for a life as an office drone and at least he'll be mentally prepared.

For a mere $2,500, daddy's little office drone gets all of this:

Furniture features:

* Flat desk area
* Left and Right built-in mouse pads
* Bench seat that fits two children and offers storage inside for supplies
* Two locking cabinet doors
* Computer wiring stores safely inside ventilated cabinet.
* Locking castors keep unit from rolling during use.

Computer equipment features:

* Think Centre PC
* Internal DVD-ROM
* 1GB RAM (minimum)
* 160GB Hard Drive (minimum)
* 10/100 Ethernet
* Microsoft® Windows
* Sound Card and 2 External Speakers
* Surge protector
* 19" Widescreen Flat Panel LCD Monitor
* Custom Little Tikes Learning keyboard and Tiny Mouse (colors are subject to change without notice)

Computer Warranty: 1-year parts and labor.
Pre-loaded educational software:

* Millie's Math House®
* Sammy's Science House®
* Bailey's Book House®
* Trudy's Time and Place®
* Thinkin' Things®

[Young Explorer via Dvice] Maybe your kid's friends can come over to recreate the entire experience. The loner fat kid with the wolf shirt can be the IT guy. The popular girl in the neighborhood can either be the receptionist or the pharmaceutical rep, the idiot can be the boss, and so forth.

Taking the Ball, Going Home

Anecdotal, I'm sure, but I've had a lot of physician friends - and friends who know physicians who are not only pissed - but they're making plans to leave the field of medicine.

That's right. They're taking their ball and going home. Or just aren't going to participate.

To fuel that fire, here's a letter I got from a reader...

March 23, 2010

My Dear Patient,

As you must know, Congress has just passed extensive legislation governing health care delivery and insurance systems. Whether you agree with what it does or not, we are all now subject to this law and its sweeping changes.

I have always conducted my medical practice with my patient’s best interests as my first priority. Although not legally obliged to do so, I have routinely provided you with a receipt that has all the codes necessary to bill your own health insurance company for any reimbursement to which you are entitled. Until now, that insurance company was a free enterprise despite the fact that it was heavily regulated by state and federal laws. Now the situation is quite different. Through the new law’s mandates, regulatory powers and reform, health insurance is and will be largely a government activity which will have an ever larger jurisdiction over how doctors practice, make clinical judgments and are paid.

The new law provides for about 150 new government agencies, many of which are designed to be ‘oversight’ bureaucracies which will have the right to decide what medical care is legal to provide through insurance. Among other things, they will have the right to review my medical care of you and read your medical record. Now, as soon as you submit our economic transaction to your insurance company for reimbursement, you have involved me in these regulations and put me in the jurisdiction of government for my activities, decisions and behavior as your doctor.

No one can have two masters. Either I can serve you as my patient or I can serve the government. Either I can continue to make your welfare and health my only concern, including the protection of your privacy and medical records, or I can abide by ever-increasing amounts of government regulations and dictates to my decisions. I can’t do both. I choose to continue to follow my conscience and practice medicine to serve you.

For this reason, I am responding to the situation created by this new law by exercising my right not to participate in any health insurance program. I will still provide you with the same medical services that I always have, but the interaction will be exclusively and privately between you and me. This means that I will provide you only with a receipt for the services you have paid for, but without the additional information that is required to submit your receipt for reimbursement to your health insurance company. That is the only way I can make sure there will be no conflict between following the law and serving you. Because the law is now in effect, so must these changes be to my practice.

Sincerely,

Linda Johnston, MD

So, you may have 'won', my Democrat friends... just like when you won your 'O.J.' prize.

Do You Read Corporate Fonts?

I've often thought that corporate logos and brand names ought to be considered a second language. They will be the hieroglyphics of the 20th and 21st century English Language period of Earth's history.

I can imagine that if a brand goes out of business, the meaning of their font also dies with it in less than a generation. We're going to need some kind of Rosetta stone for those poor archeologists trying to sift through all the garbage we've been leaving for them.

The answers are in white text. Highlight to see the answers.

1. ABC 2. Budweiser 3. Coca Cola 4. Disney 5. Enron 6. Ford 7. GE 8. Honda 9. IBM 10. Johnson and Johnson 11. Kellogs 12. Eli Lilly 13. McDonalds 14. New York Times 15. Target 16. Paramount 17. Quicktime 18. Ray Ban 19. Superman 20. Texaco 21. United 22/23. Volkswagon 22. Xerox 23. Yahoo 24. Zenith