Couldn't the process of medical check-ups be automated?
Think about what is done in your typical check-up:
- Your blood pressure is taken
- Your pulse is observed
- Your weight and height measured.
- The doctor looks in your ears, nose and throat.
- The doctor checks for swollen glands.
- Perhaps your temperature is taken.
- You tell him what is going on with you and he listens.
- If anything looks like it's a problem you schedule follow up tests or get referred to a specialist.
Couldn't most of this be automated? Blood pressure monitors are in many stores now.
What you would need is something like a glorified bathroom - perhaps connected with one of the new 'mini-clinics' that are sprouting up:
http://www.walmart.com/clinics?redirect_query=clinic
This bathroom/kiosk would have a blood pressure monitor, a scale, a camera or two (for ears, nose, throat exam maybe) and a few other automated devices. The user would pay a fee, (maybe $35 or so) and enter the room. A screen on the wall would have instructions on what to do. The process would go forward similar to a computer "wizard". At the end the data would be saved in some standard format accessible by the user on the web and available to the users doctor.
Some people (overly concerned with privacy perhaps issues perhaps) will probably not be interested in this.
Some sort of standard electronic medical records will need to be in place before this could really work.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Thoughts on the Chicago Olympic bid
Dear Lake Meadows Management,
I object to the "we back the bid" sign on the front of the 500 E. 33rd st. building.
I don't back the bid.
Many of us in the building do not back the bid
Yet the sign implies that we do.
I've had enough of my tax money being used to subsidize the elite and the rich - which is what this "bid" is proposing to do. It would also make considerable space and resources here on the south side off limits to regular people and instead the exclusive preserve of elite athletes and the rich insiders and celebrities close to them. The Pro-Olympic Flash presentation here: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/chicago-olympics-games-demonstration-protest-evaluation-committee.html
makes that abundantly clear. Statements like "through the broad plaza of their exclusive entrance the athletes will enter their own private world." make that clear. The entire Olympic Village will (of course) be off limits to regular Chicago residents. "Private Sky Terraces?" only for the athletes and the insiders. The "state of the art polyclinic?" that will not be for the health needs of south side residents. The "village center", which is the "great crossroads of our design?" It won't be a great crossroads that the residents of the south side can enjoy. The "promenade leading to the lakefront?". Like everything else, it will be for the exclusive use of the athletes and insiders. "The wide expanse of the village promenade will become a popular destination of it's own, putting athletes on a visual pedestal overlooking the lake". That pretty much sums this up. They are up on a pedestal and we pay for it.
No, I don't back the bid.
But the worst thing to me is yet to come: "their own private beach." Currently I am able to enjoy the lakefront unencumbered. I often ride my bike from here to 31'st st beach and then north to my office on the north side or south to promontory point or Hyde park. I won't be able to do that anymore. The plan will give much of space of the lakefront near here to exclusive use of the athletes and insiders. Us regular residents will be locked out.
I was watching the basketball game between Orlando and Cleveland the other night and the commentator mentioned that tthat Dwight Howard will be a "first team USA team player". Dwight Howard currently makes 17.5 million dollars a year (5 year contract at 87 million). My tax money will be going to further enrich Dwight Howard if this "bid" goes through. I don't think Dwight Howard needs my money. I think he has enough already.
I am every bit as opposed to my tax money going to bail out rich CEO's and Wall St. types but thats really another discussion. The common point is that somehow subsidizing (or bailing out) the super elite is often packaged as good or even necessary for the rest of us. I don't believe it. I don't believe it for one second. I think it's class warfare. Class war perpetrated by the elites on the rest of us.
Which gets us to the winners in this thing. Property owners (some of them anyway), people like Sam Zell and Oprah. The higher you go on the income/wealth/prestige scale the more likely you will be to come out a winner. The working poor are pretty much guaranteed to be losers. They stand to gain nothing, they won't be able to afford to see the events and they (like the rest of us) would be arrested if they tried to enter the Olympic Village. But their (sales) taxes will go to subsidize it.
Those of us who oppose this bid are not opposed to our city. We are not somehow "unpatriotic". Our attitude would be different if a) it did not need to be subsidized by tax money and b) it was not so narrowly focused on serving the needs of an elite group.
The Chicago Worlds Fair of 1893 comes to mind. Something like that would be great. No subsidy was necessary or asked for and the event was open to everyone. There was no private "olympic village", or "private beach" type things that were off limits.
I object to the "we back the bid" sign on the front of the 500 E. 33rd st. building.
I don't back the bid.
Many of us in the building do not back the bid
Yet the sign implies that we do.
I've had enough of my tax money being used to subsidize the elite and the rich - which is what this "bid" is proposing to do. It would also make considerable space and resources here on the south side off limits to regular people and instead the exclusive preserve of elite athletes and the rich insiders and celebrities close to them. The Pro-Olympic Flash presentation here: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/chicago-olympics-games-demonstration-protest-evaluation-committee.html
makes that abundantly clear. Statements like "through the broad plaza of their exclusive entrance the athletes will enter their own private world." make that clear. The entire Olympic Village will (of course) be off limits to regular Chicago residents. "Private Sky Terraces?" only for the athletes and the insiders. The "state of the art polyclinic?" that will not be for the health needs of south side residents. The "village center", which is the "great crossroads of our design?" It won't be a great crossroads that the residents of the south side can enjoy. The "promenade leading to the lakefront?". Like everything else, it will be for the exclusive use of the athletes and insiders. "The wide expanse of the village promenade will become a popular destination of it's own, putting athletes on a visual pedestal overlooking the lake". That pretty much sums this up. They are up on a pedestal and we pay for it.
No, I don't back the bid.
But the worst thing to me is yet to come: "their own private beach." Currently I am able to enjoy the lakefront unencumbered. I often ride my bike from here to 31'st st beach and then north to my office on the north side or south to promontory point or Hyde park. I won't be able to do that anymore. The plan will give much of space of the lakefront near here to exclusive use of the athletes and insiders. Us regular residents will be locked out.
I was watching the basketball game between Orlando and Cleveland the other night and the commentator mentioned that tthat Dwight Howard will be a "first team USA team player". Dwight Howard currently makes 17.5 million dollars a year (5 year contract at 87 million). My tax money will be going to further enrich Dwight Howard if this "bid" goes through. I don't think Dwight Howard needs my money. I think he has enough already.
I am every bit as opposed to my tax money going to bail out rich CEO's and Wall St. types but thats really another discussion. The common point is that somehow subsidizing (or bailing out) the super elite is often packaged as good or even necessary for the rest of us. I don't believe it. I don't believe it for one second. I think it's class warfare. Class war perpetrated by the elites on the rest of us.
Which gets us to the winners in this thing. Property owners (some of them anyway), people like Sam Zell and Oprah. The higher you go on the income/wealth/prestige scale the more likely you will be to come out a winner. The working poor are pretty much guaranteed to be losers. They stand to gain nothing, they won't be able to afford to see the events and they (like the rest of us) would be arrested if they tried to enter the Olympic Village. But their (sales) taxes will go to subsidize it.
Those of us who oppose this bid are not opposed to our city. We are not somehow "unpatriotic". Our attitude would be different if a) it did not need to be subsidized by tax money and b) it was not so narrowly focused on serving the needs of an elite group.
The Chicago Worlds Fair of 1893 comes to mind. Something like that would be great. No subsidy was necessary or asked for and the event was open to everyone. There was no private "olympic village", or "private beach" type things that were off limits.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Idea: cooperative writing
This is probably not original but here it is:
Two (or more) people combine to create a written work. Maybe one has good general ideas but his skill in creating excitement or suspense is not so great. Maybe another can take a story line and bring it to life. Maybe they could get together and use some computer tool. A website maybe where they could cooperate.
Two (or more) people combine to create a written work. Maybe one has good general ideas but his skill in creating excitement or suspense is not so great. Maybe another can take a story line and bring it to life. Maybe they could get together and use some computer tool. A website maybe where they could cooperate.
Magic
An article on urban rivers talks about using "carefully positioned blocks of stone as a way to improve the River Quaggy in London in the area where it is constrained between buildings."
This sounds boring, pedestrian and hardly in keeping with an attempt to do something "magical" which is what they are trying to do with this river.
But Magic itself is built on boring blocks. To perform classical stage magic requires flawless execution of what are each in isolation boring steps. Lots of practice is required to get each step perfected.
Does knowing this about stage magic eliminate it's value? I don't think so.
Deeper levels of magic are revealed. Simple well executed things can produce magical results.
This sounds boring, pedestrian and hardly in keeping with an attempt to do something "magical" which is what they are trying to do with this river.
But Magic itself is built on boring blocks. To perform classical stage magic requires flawless execution of what are each in isolation boring steps. Lots of practice is required to get each step perfected.
Does knowing this about stage magic eliminate it's value? I don't think so.
Deeper levels of magic are revealed. Simple well executed things can produce magical results.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
This is what's wrong with America
The following story pretty much presents it in a nutshell.
- Powerful insiders rigging the game for their own benefit - making fools out of those of us who do actual work.
- Powerful insiders who are not held accountable for their actions.
Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant
Short Freddie Mac stay made him at least $320,000
By Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac
Tribune reporters
3:18 PM CDT, March 26, 2009
Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.
As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.
Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess.
Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.
In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.
He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.
The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.
During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.
Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.
Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government's guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating.
Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation's residential mortgages.
Because of Freddie Mac's federal charter, the board in Emanuel's day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.
In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free's appointment was good for four months, and Ickes' only three months.
Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no "meaningful role" in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.
John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm's directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn't help, he added.
"You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time," Coffee said. "That's why [they] get the stock upfront."
Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale.
Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama's vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them. At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board "are unnecessary and don't have long enough terms to make a difference."
Former President George W. Bush voluntarily stopped making such appointments following Falcon's assessment of their uselessness.
In an interview, Falcon said the Freddie Mac board did most of its work in committees. Yet proxy statements that detailed committee assignments showed none for Emanuel, Free or Ickes during the time they served in 2000 or 2001. Most other directors carried two committee assignments each.
Contrary to the proxy statements, Feinberg said she believed that Emanuel served on board committees that oversaw Freddie Mac's investment strategies and mortgage purchase activities. But Feinberg acknowledged she had no official documents to back up that assertion.
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid.
One of Emanuel's fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power.
He was respected on the board for his understanding of "the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels," Hartigan recalled. "I wouldn't say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid."
By the time Emanuel joined Freddie Mac, the company had begun to loosen lending standards and buy riskier sub-prime loans. It was a practice that later blew up and contributed to the current foreclosure crisis.
In his investigation, Falcon concluded that the board of directors on which Emanuel sat was so pliant that Freddie Mac's managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac's industry reputation as "Steady Freddie," a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac's stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.
Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.
During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.
Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said Emanuel "can't remember the meeting or topic" but might have been in attendance when Delk outlined his plans. Feinberg downplayed the significance of the fundraiser thrown for Emanuel, which brought in $7,000, stressing that it was but one of many hosted by Delk. The event stood out in at least one respect, however.
The Freddie Mac-linked events were mostly for Republicans, and only a handful benefited Democrats like Emanuel. "Rahm was a good friend of mine. He was on Freddie Mac's board. He was very much supportive of housing," said Delk, who resigned under pressure in 2004.
Then-Freddie Mac CEO Leland Brendsel also hosted a fundraising lunch for Emanuel's 2002 campaign that netted $9,500 from top company executives. Brendsel was later ousted in the accounting scandal.
Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.
Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.
Feinberg said Emanuel recused himself "from deliberations related to Freddie Mac to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, impropriety or a conflict of interest."
bsecter@tribune.com
azajac@tribune.com
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
chicagotribune.com
- Powerful insiders rigging the game for their own benefit - making fools out of those of us who do actual work.
- Powerful insiders who are not held accountable for their actions.
Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant
Short Freddie Mac stay made him at least $320,000
By Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac
Tribune reporters
3:18 PM CDT, March 26, 2009
Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.
As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.
Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess.
Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.
In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.
He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.
The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.
During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.
Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.
Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government's guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating.
Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation's residential mortgages.
Because of Freddie Mac's federal charter, the board in Emanuel's day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.
In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free's appointment was good for four months, and Ickes' only three months.
Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no "meaningful role" in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.
John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm's directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn't help, he added.
"You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time," Coffee said. "That's why [they] get the stock upfront."
Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale.
Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama's vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them. At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board "are unnecessary and don't have long enough terms to make a difference."
Former President George W. Bush voluntarily stopped making such appointments following Falcon's assessment of their uselessness.
In an interview, Falcon said the Freddie Mac board did most of its work in committees. Yet proxy statements that detailed committee assignments showed none for Emanuel, Free or Ickes during the time they served in 2000 or 2001. Most other directors carried two committee assignments each.
Contrary to the proxy statements, Feinberg said she believed that Emanuel served on board committees that oversaw Freddie Mac's investment strategies and mortgage purchase activities. But Feinberg acknowledged she had no official documents to back up that assertion.
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid.
One of Emanuel's fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power.
He was respected on the board for his understanding of "the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels," Hartigan recalled. "I wouldn't say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid."
By the time Emanuel joined Freddie Mac, the company had begun to loosen lending standards and buy riskier sub-prime loans. It was a practice that later blew up and contributed to the current foreclosure crisis.
In his investigation, Falcon concluded that the board of directors on which Emanuel sat was so pliant that Freddie Mac's managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac's industry reputation as "Steady Freddie," a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac's stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.
Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.
During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.
Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said Emanuel "can't remember the meeting or topic" but might have been in attendance when Delk outlined his plans. Feinberg downplayed the significance of the fundraiser thrown for Emanuel, which brought in $7,000, stressing that it was but one of many hosted by Delk. The event stood out in at least one respect, however.
The Freddie Mac-linked events were mostly for Republicans, and only a handful benefited Democrats like Emanuel. "Rahm was a good friend of mine. He was on Freddie Mac's board. He was very much supportive of housing," said Delk, who resigned under pressure in 2004.
Then-Freddie Mac CEO Leland Brendsel also hosted a fundraising lunch for Emanuel's 2002 campaign that netted $9,500 from top company executives. Brendsel was later ousted in the accounting scandal.
Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.
Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.
Feinberg said Emanuel recused himself "from deliberations related to Freddie Mac to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, impropriety or a conflict of interest."
bsecter@tribune.com
azajac@tribune.com
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
chicagotribune.com
More signs of cultural decline in America
I know, they are all around. Here's the latest:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26852192/vp/29975490#29975490
where a cool young hipster mocks the latest robotics advance from Japan which he calls "completely impractical, totally useless" and implicitly mocks it as ridiculous looking.
It's a robot which walks (Asimo) and is controlled by the brain waves of a person sitting in a chair. One does not need to be much of a technophile to see the possibilities. Think people who are paralyzed. It really does not take much creativity to imagine all sorts of important things coming out of this research.
But to the Geist all that matters is that it looks really geeky and on a superficial level that makes it easy fodder for mocking.
You can just imagine the Geist switching verbal gears to talk about something really important such as some athlete "making history" by scoring a lot of points (or something like that). You can imagine him being serious.
If we go back to 1900 or so we see an utterly different America one in thrall of progress and technology, a nation that elevated men like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell to status levels not approached by any athlete of the time. That was a reflection of what was considered important vs. what was basically seen as play.
Oh boy have the roles reversed in 100 years!
Recall that those two were basically nerds first, businessmen later. Point is they were not famous because of the money they made but famous for the things they created. We cannot really compare a Bill Gates with those two. Gates is a businessman. He is famous for making a titanic amount of money. Gates has invented nothing. He has taken things invented by others (for example a "windowed" graphical user interface - which was invented by Xerox at PARC) and "mass produced" them. Gates is more like Henry Ford.
The fact is that culturally we have no one like Edison or Bell today. America is a different kind of country now and no longer elevates such people to the kind of status that they once had.
How many Americans have heard of Tim Berners-Lee.
Another nation (an empire really) was a rival to America then and in some ways was culturally similar to the America of today. The Spanish empire was not embracing the new technology of the time but living in a past of "honor" and "chivalry" and had elaborate codes of behavior to reinforce class divisions. Basically they (the upper class anyway) were into riding horses, fencing and looking good while America was into building and inventing.
We know which direction each went.
Now China awards their top undergraduate geeks with $250,000 grants and top PHD's of course get even more. They deliberately make them into stars. America heaps such large rewards exclusively on athletes and movie stars. No mere student at an American university will even approach the status, money and perks heaped on the athletic class. No mere "inventor" in America can approach the status level of a Paris Hilton.
But in 1900 it was the Spanish who thought the first prototype airplanes being built in America (and France) looked oh-so-rediculous.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26852192/vp/29975490#29975490
where a cool young hipster mocks the latest robotics advance from Japan which he calls "completely impractical, totally useless" and implicitly mocks it as ridiculous looking.
It's a robot which walks (Asimo) and is controlled by the brain waves of a person sitting in a chair. One does not need to be much of a technophile to see the possibilities. Think people who are paralyzed. It really does not take much creativity to imagine all sorts of important things coming out of this research.
But to the Geist all that matters is that it looks really geeky and on a superficial level that makes it easy fodder for mocking.
You can just imagine the Geist switching verbal gears to talk about something really important such as some athlete "making history" by scoring a lot of points (or something like that). You can imagine him being serious.
If we go back to 1900 or so we see an utterly different America one in thrall of progress and technology, a nation that elevated men like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell to status levels not approached by any athlete of the time. That was a reflection of what was considered important vs. what was basically seen as play.
Oh boy have the roles reversed in 100 years!
Recall that those two were basically nerds first, businessmen later. Point is they were not famous because of the money they made but famous for the things they created. We cannot really compare a Bill Gates with those two. Gates is a businessman. He is famous for making a titanic amount of money. Gates has invented nothing. He has taken things invented by others (for example a "windowed" graphical user interface - which was invented by Xerox at PARC) and "mass produced" them. Gates is more like Henry Ford.
The fact is that culturally we have no one like Edison or Bell today. America is a different kind of country now and no longer elevates such people to the kind of status that they once had.
How many Americans have heard of Tim Berners-Lee.
Another nation (an empire really) was a rival to America then and in some ways was culturally similar to the America of today. The Spanish empire was not embracing the new technology of the time but living in a past of "honor" and "chivalry" and had elaborate codes of behavior to reinforce class divisions. Basically they (the upper class anyway) were into riding horses, fencing and looking good while America was into building and inventing.
We know which direction each went.
Now China awards their top undergraduate geeks with $250,000 grants and top PHD's of course get even more. They deliberately make them into stars. America heaps such large rewards exclusively on athletes and movie stars. No mere student at an American university will even approach the status, money and perks heaped on the athletic class. No mere "inventor" in America can approach the status level of a Paris Hilton.
But in 1900 it was the Spanish who thought the first prototype airplanes being built in America (and France) looked oh-so-rediculous.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Some ideas
- Allow people to "invest" in other individuals and the investors return would come from the tax revenues paid by the recipient of the investment. For example: Person X, pays 5000 which is applied to Person Y's college expenses. In return some % of persons Y's federal (or state) taxes go to person X for a set number of years. So Person Y does not pay back person X directly, the federal (or state) govt does. But the government would come out ahead if the total taxes paid by person Y are increased enough by the investment to more than offset the payback to person X. Everybody wins. The only serious downside to this idea is a privacy issue. If person X is paid directly from person Y's taxes, person X has a good idea of what person Y is making. This may seem in a way like indentured servitude, but it is really not. Person X has no control of person Y at all, just a stake in his taxes. Person Y is free to do whatever he chooses, free to take any job he wants. Of course person X has a stake in person Y's success so he is an "interested party" so to speak. That makes the situation interesting. You would probably want to make a prohibition against investing in close family members. Perhaps a website could be set up to match up investors and those looking for capitol in this way.
- Pneumatic tubes to deliver the mail in dense urban areas. This was actually done in New York and several other cities around the turn of the 20th century but was abandoned due to motorcar (later auto) delivery of the mail. Now cities are choked full of to much traffic and energy is a huge issue. Key question(s): 1) how much energy does such a system use vs delivery by truck and 2) can such a system handle high volumes. In Chicago there was a whole series of underground tunnels that delivered various kinds of freight until the depression. Part of the rationale for both systems was to alleviate congestion. Why did these systems fall into disuse and why were they replaced. The easy answer is the automobile but I think the real answer is slightly more subtle. Usage of both systems fell sharply during the depression and then after the depression a deliberate decision was made to favor the auto industry which received all sorts of tax breaks and incentives and this may have sealed the fate of competitor systems. Even deeper, the U.S. and to some extent the rest of the developed world has moved in the direction of mass market capitalism as the vehicle for prosperity and progress. Coherent systems - perhaps "centrally planned" in some way fell out of favor. Post WW II progress stemmed from mass production of autos, mass production of TV's, mass production of washing machines and so forth. Europe joined that party. But is the mass production regime the best regime for all sectors of society in the 21'st century? In the realm of transport doesn't it lead to less efficient use of energy and space?
- Pneumatic tubes to deliver the mail in dense urban areas. This was actually done in New York and several other cities around the turn of the 20th century but was abandoned due to motorcar (later auto) delivery of the mail. Now cities are choked full of to much traffic and energy is a huge issue. Key question(s): 1) how much energy does such a system use vs delivery by truck and 2) can such a system handle high volumes. In Chicago there was a whole series of underground tunnels that delivered various kinds of freight until the depression. Part of the rationale for both systems was to alleviate congestion. Why did these systems fall into disuse and why were they replaced. The easy answer is the automobile but I think the real answer is slightly more subtle. Usage of both systems fell sharply during the depression and then after the depression a deliberate decision was made to favor the auto industry which received all sorts of tax breaks and incentives and this may have sealed the fate of competitor systems. Even deeper, the U.S. and to some extent the rest of the developed world has moved in the direction of mass market capitalism as the vehicle for prosperity and progress. Coherent systems - perhaps "centrally planned" in some way fell out of favor. Post WW II progress stemmed from mass production of autos, mass production of TV's, mass production of washing machines and so forth. Europe joined that party. But is the mass production regime the best regime for all sectors of society in the 21'st century? In the realm of transport doesn't it lead to less efficient use of energy and space?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)