To me comments such as these, as well as those from listeners who indicate that we had provided them with new insights and perspectives on a particular story is immensely rewarding.  However, and at the end of the day, it is ultimately the subject matter and the expertise of the guests themselves that make for great radio.

I can think of no better way in which this latter point was demonstrated than when criminal profiler Pat Brown, who in providing a preliminary assessment of the Lululemon yoga store killing, opined that the victim’s co-worker was the likely perpetrator of the crime.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

It was a bold assertion, but one which Brown made with a level of certainty that reflected her years of experience and expertise.  It also turned out that she was 100 percent right as Brittany Norwood, who was convicted of murdering Jayna Murray, was just yesterday sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

While I will leave it to the traditional media such as newspapers to provide you with the overview of the case details, what makes the timing of this story so interesting is that I had just recently received what I can only describe as being an e-mail with an unctuous undertone from a fellow BTR host with whom I have never been previously in contact, questioning Brown’s competency as a profiler.

In a manner reminiscent of an Eddie Haskell compliment, while assuring me that he believed my show was first rate, he nonetheless wanted to let me know that his open criticism of Brown by way of a critique he wrote in a recent episode’s comment section in which Pat was a guest, in no way reflected on my creditability.

The "well intentioned" BTR host even questioned Grace's creditability for having Brown on her show as a regular

Now you have to understand, I have never been one to show reluctance with regard to entering the fray of even the most controversial topics of the day.  This has resulted in what has been an at times interesting dialogue with readers and listeners such as when one White House insider suggested that I was a “crazy ignoramus” for suggesting that a show in which the host asks the guest to provide the questions he or she will be asking is not a show to which I would want to listen.

So when this particular host suggested that he was giving me much needed advice with only my best interests at heart concerning the shortcomings with Browns profiling abilities I was, suffice to say, cynical.  Similar to someone answering a question that hasn’t been asked, I was immediately suspicious of this individual’s motivation for criticizing someone who according to my research has been forthright and well prepared for each of her appearances on my show.

Of course, and as guest Libby Gill once stated if you are going to be on Jon’s show you better have done your homework and know about what you are talking, because he will have done his own homework, and is not reluctant to raise a point of contention should it be warranted.

So why . . . why did this host feel compelled to expend the effort to reach out to me through multiple channels just to call into question Brown’s credentials?

At this point I do not have the answers but I will tell you this, my only response to the young fellow who so “genuinely” has my best interests at heart, is one word . . . Lululemon!

30

from the Douglas Mental Health University Institute website

Between misdiagnosis and the cover your behind policies that saw the Gatineau hospital repeatedly fail to respond to communication requests, and a total lack of follow through relative to forwarding medical records, the mental health care system in Quebec is in complete and total disarray.  In fact the system is so poorly run that it prompted one of my partner’s former CLSCI counselors to lament that “Jennifer deserved better.”

Sadly this isn’t the worst of it, as my partner’s primary doctor was, during their counseling sessions, more interested in talking about his Medicus investment group as opposed to actually treating her, eventually persuading her into investing $1,200 and attending an investment group meeting with the cautionary words that she should not let the other doctor’s know that she is his patient.

Of course, when the wheels inevitably fell off with Jennifer spiraling into an uncontrolled nosedive of Bipolar addiction complete with questioning her worth and existence – a situation made more traumatic given that she was 3 months pregnant, his response when I called him to express my concerns was to say “I expected this,” and “tell her I will see her at her next appointment in May” (which was weeks away).

Even after Jennifer, like Maggie Trudeau who also has Bipolar Disorder, voluntarily committed herself to the hospital’s psych ward for what turned out to be a six week stay, the doctor was so clued out that the only call I received from him was to tell me that he had yet another envelope of information on the Medicus investment group that was ready to be picked up at his office.  Then when I had informed him of Jennifer being hospitalized, there was little if any reaction (although when Jennifer went to see him after she was released, besides suggesting to her that she leave me, he expressed annoyance at the fact that I hadn’t picked up the envelope).  By the way, the above is just one of the many examples of how the health care professionals involved in treating Jennifer play patients off against their families in an effort to gain absolute and unchallenged control.

The Quebec Mental Health Care system is based on intimidation and control

While we are in the process of filing an official complaint against the health care professionals involved, as well as filing a lawsuit for malpractice, what prompted our coming forward publicly is that we shudder to think of how many lives these people are ruining, and as result want to let those battling a mental illness know that they are not alone in their feelings of both dismay and betrayal and that they do in fact have options.

“A new approach to mental health care and services in Quebec? People suffering from a mental health problem will have to access care and services via the “accueil psychosocial” of his/her CLSC or through 1st line general practitioners.”

Despite the benefits of the purported new approach to health care and services in Quebec via the “accueil psychosocial” of a patient’s CLSCI, I will be posting a series of articles in which I will refer to my exhaustive compilation of notes and supporting documentation to provide you with an insiders look at a broken system that does more harm than good, and what you need to do to take control of your or your family member’s treatment.

30

Ener1 is now Ener-NONE!

1. Ener1 is a story about the public’s continuing love affair with fossil fuels.

The failure of ener1 should not come as a surprise to anyone. In fact earlier this year I wrote a 2-Part story titled “With the failure of the electric car concept in America what impact will this have on the lithium ion battery global supply chain?” that provides an in-depth look at the sector.

What is interesting is that this recent failure has little to do with failed policy per say, and more to do with the public’s unwillingness to end its longtime love affair with fossil fuel.

Reference Links: 1 (http://wp.me/p4HrB-2Xa) and 2 (http://wp.me/p4HrB-2XM).

The question is simply this . . . how can we turn our own unwillingness to move away from fossil fuels into a shortcoming on the part of any political party? It’s like ignoring our parents warning not to put our hands on a hot stove and then getting mad at them when we don’t listen and get burned.

2. The elephant in the room, which is the securities fraud class action suit against Ener1.

The peril of people focusing on Ener1 as a convenient political bat with which they can bash each other, is that this little tidbit of information is being overlooked completely . . .

http://investment-losses.com/securities-under-investigation/ener1-inc-hev/

What does this all mean?

Stop using stories such as the Ener1 bankruptcy as a self-serving political battering ram in an election year, in which each party points the accusatory finger of incompetence at each other, which misses the real point and accomplishes nothing.

Your thoughts are of course welcome as always.

30

Specifically, and referencing my August 21st, 2010 post below, credit card debt is at a staggering level in which low income earners are the biggest users.

Here is an excerpt from my article that speaks to this directly;

“What is even more interesting given Dixon’s observation that “without an adequate income, low earners continue to turn to credit cards without the means to pay off their balances,” thereby creating what she referred to as “a vicious cycle” that prevents them from ever getting ahead, is the fact that banks continue to issue credit cards under these circumstances. Perhaps the banks need to check themselves into rehab as well, as a means of breaking their addiction to the money earned off the backs of consumer debt.”

In short this is not a unilateral or one way play, but instead is a dance between wanton consumerism which leads to spending beyond one’s means and, the greed of financial institutions to capitalize through charging high rates to low income earners. The addict and pusher relationship comes to mind here.

Or to put it another way, the rich stick it to the poor by capitalizing on what I refer to as the working poor (including middle class) propensity to spend beyond their means. And no, the majority of people who use credit cards are not using it to pay the hydro or put food on the table either . . .

It may be no shock that 94% of Canadians would feel better if they had a nest egg. But did you know that nearly 40% of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque? As Scotiabank’s Saving Ambassador, award-winning television broadcaster Valerie Pringle is traveling across Canada to talk to Canadians about ‘saving’.

With catchy tag-lines such as “you’re richer than you think” Scotia Bank is now leveraging Canadian television news personality Valerie Pringle to tell us that we are also “dumber than we know.” (Note: see Larry Winget video at the end of this post.)

Okay, so maybe we are not so dumb, as Pringle even states in her video interview (click image above to view), that this program is “not here to judge,” but to help Canadians achieve “financial health.” But the real question is simply this, how did we get into poor financial health in the first place?

Perhaps one hint can be found in a December 31st, 2004 article by Susan C. Walker in FoxNews.com which was ominously titled “U.S. Consumer Credit Card Debt May Crash Economy.”

Referencing sources such as the New York Times, Walker indicated that the use of credit had taken off dramatically in the United States since 1990, with the number of people holding credit cards growing by 75% or from 82 million in 1990 to 144 million in 2003. But here is the real shocking statistic . . . the amount people charged during that same period grew approximately 350 percent, from $338 billion to $1.5 trillion.

And that’s only credit cards continued Walker, revealing that the average U.S. household owes mortgage debt, student loans and automobile loans, in addition to credit card debt. Hmmm . . . but to whom is this money owed?

The Canadian data paints an equally bleak picture.

Under the January 13th, 2010 headline “Canadians’ credit card debt jumps $2 billion,” Melanie Dixon writes that the “working poor are being plunged even deeper into debt by the credit cards they’re turning to in order to pay for the necessities of life.” Of course according to Dixon, it is the “low-income earners” that are the most “lucrative type of cardholders for credit card companies.” Talk about a feudal system capitalizing on the plight of the unwashed masses.

Herein of course lies the rub (and the irony) as they say regarding the Scotiabank infomercials. Specifically, and like the proverbial drug pusher, banks have played a seductive role in our becoming financial addicts through easy access to credit and questionable loan practices. But why?

As Walker also so adeptly pointed out in the December article, with “pretax profits for the credit card companies” having grown 360 percent between 1990 to 2003, and fee revenues an equally astounding 250 percent, do you think they (being the U.S. credit card companies or the banks behind them) want to “close that spigot voluntarily?”

Now without a doubt, the Canadian banking system is one of the best in the world. So while we were willing partners in this tango of fiscal irresponsibility, by employing the services of a well-known TV personality as a Saving Ambassador, the campaign is tantamount to the local drug pusher driving the addict to rehab.

Especially when the banks response to the recent data which show that Canadians with bills “more than 90 days overdue have increased by 53 per cent between September 2008 and September 2009, to $3.6 billion,” is to substantially increase interest rates for those who don’t pay in a timely manner.

What is even more interesting given Dixon’s observation that “without an adequate income, low earners continue to turn to credit cards without the means to pay off their balances,” thereby creating what she referred to as “a vicious cycle” that prevents them from ever getting ahead, is the fact that banks continue to issue credit cards under these circumstances. Perhaps the banks need to check themselves into rehab as well, as a means of breaking their addiction to the money earned off the backs of consumer debt.

Maybe a tangible goodwill gesture on the part of the bank would be to return a small portion of their staggering credit card profits to their Canadian cardholders as a way to jump start the process?! Now that would be news!

Larry Winget’s Big Spender – Why Are You So Mean

Use the following link to tune in to the on-demand PI Window on Business broadcast “The Failings of Institutional Advisers and How You Can Grab The Bull by the Horns!” featuring Larry Winget and Cenk Uygur

30

My response when asked what I thought upon hearing the news that Kodak was filing for bankruptcy

The Brownie: The Camera That Built Kodak

Talk about becoming a victim of your past success, the Rochester icon dined very well off of the profits of its traditional film business for far too many years while ignoring the internal voices of key personnel as they sounded the alarm of pending change.

From a business standpoint, Kodak was swept aside by the tide of what is commonly referred to as discontinuous innovation or disruptive technology,which is an innovation that creates an entirely new market while displacing an existing market.  In the case of Kodak we are talking about digital imaging replacing film.

What is ironic about the Kodak saga is that despite the fact that the company was originally founded in 1889, in the end their demise is similar to what happens with new organizations who, having achieved a high level of success with a single client, fail to gain meaningful traction or scalability in their attempts to replicate their success with the market as a whole.  The parallel is that success whether spanning a few short years or decades can demotivate  rather than motivate companies to evolve and therefore adapt to the inevitable changes of a market that is always looking for better, faster and cheaper products and services.  Like a 40 year old still living at home with his parents, success is like a fall-back safety net that makes it easier to accept the status quo as opposed to really laying it on the line and going for broke.

The only real difference between a relatively young start-up who has experienced success with a single client, and an established company with broad market acceptance such as a Kodak, is that with the former they are trying to figure out a way to expand their success to a larger customer base, as opposed to the latter in which there is an earnest effort to avoid change.

So here is the question, does success pose a greater risk than failure?

Something to think about as we ponder the bygone era of the Brownie.

30

I am of course talking about Fox News’ Megyn Kelly who in criticizing the recent Newsweek cover story which asked “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb,” questioned the credentials of its author Andrew Sullivan. Specifically Kelly, on a Fox broadcast, openly asked “why Newsweek had not put what she called an “actual journalist” on the cover, instead of Sullivan.”

Funny thing, and has it relates to questions of professional journalism, I cannot help but wonder if this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

After all wasn’t it Kelly who appeared in the December GQ magazine modelling black lingerie, prompting one newspaper to report that she “looked like a sex kitten as she posed for the revealing shoot.”

Megyn Kelly: Fox or Almost Naked News?

Additional Source; Daily Mail Online article “Hello boys! Newsreader Megyn Kelly goes from Fox to foxy as she strips off for magazine shoot“

30

So when I received an e-mail from eCampus News Assistant Editor Denny Carter informing me of two fast breaking stories and suggesting that we might want to be the first to hit the virtual airwaves with his publication’s take on what they mean to those involved with the Higher Education sector it was an easy decision to move our first show up from the originally planned January 31st broadcast date to Thursday the 24th. I think once you hear the stories about which we will be talking, you will be glad that we did.

In the first half of the show, we will discuss Mitt Romney’s praise of a controversial for-profit college in Orlando (Full Sail University), which makes for anything but clear sailing ahead for the presidential candidate based on accusations that a number of these types of institutions have defrauded students.

Then in the second half of the show we will talk about Apple’s pending announcement regarding their new platform for creating interactive digital textbooks, also referred to as being “GarageBand for eBooks.”

All in all it will be a great 45 minutes, so make certain to mark January 24th at 12:30 PM EST on your calendars and use the following link to tune in to both the LIVE and on-demand broadcasts @ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jon-hansen/2012/01/24/higher-ed-this-month-with-denny-carter

30

Before I get into the merits of blogger Andrew Breitbart’s purported misuse of the contents of the video I think it is important to address the issue of censorship as this would appear to be an extreme and quite frankly ineffective knee-jerk reaction to the incident.

While it would be easy to of course stand up on the First Amendment right to free speech pedestal,  there is a far more insidiously dangerous aspect to this move on the part of the University that transcends personal rights.   I am of course talking about the inherent limitation censorship would impose in terms of an inability to disseminate ideas beyond the classroom where in the real-world they can be examined and discussed from an everyday practical standpoint.  Specifically a point of juxtaposition between theory and actual application.

By partitioning the two worlds you ultimately lose the ability engage interested stakeholders in a meaningful dialogue that serves as a filter to qualify the merits of an idea or concept.   Or to put it another way, what may make sense in the classroom does not necessarily translate to a meaningful revelation for everyday life.  This I believe is an important process because it removes the risk of intellectual vacuums and the resulting disconnect with the interests and demands of the outside world.

While I will acknowledge that idea viability in the real-world may not be a usual consideration for some, I would contend that intellectual musings are an exercise in futility if there is not an opportunity for practical application with eventual benefits to society as a whole.

Anyone who recalls the Bill Cosby routine will appreciate the above statement.

For those who may not remember the Cosby musings, the comedian related a story from his college days when he was dating a girl who was a philosophy major.

In his own unique way, Cosby wryly observed that while his girlfriend’s philosophy class debated the deep issues on subjects such as “why is there air?” he could not understand why such a question posed so great of a challenge. As an athletics major he knew the answer to why there is air . . . to blow up basketballs, footballs, volleyballs . . .

Of course the proponents of censorship by way of limiting or restricting a student’s ability to record a lecture offer as justification the belief that unencumbered by a fear of public disclosure there is a greater possibility for a more open and truthful exchange in the classroom.  In essence, and similar to the doctor-patient (or lawyer-client) privilege edict, University officials feel that their’s is an appropriate measure to protect rather than stifle free speech.  Nothing of course could be further from the truth.  In fact, such a move not only limits free speech, it can also lead to an unchallenged absolution of questionable ideas that can pollute rather than enrich young minds.

The alternative, at least as far as I am concerned, is to foster an atmosphere of open exchanges based on the premise that when one takes a position – whether in line with popular consensus or not, they should not be selective in terms of who does or does not hear it.  The fact that the University would seem to be suggesting that people become more reclusive in expressing their true feelings outside of the safe confines of a limited audience would draw into question the merits of the conversation in the first place.

Instead, and rather than avoiding a potential combatant – in this case blogger Breitbart, they should challenge his take on the lecture and resulting exchange within the classroom with fact, in much the same way I just the other day called out Steve Albin on Facebook who, in championing a partisan position, clearly disclosed selective elements of an article regarding the President’s travel schedule.

At the end of the day, and in a Jack Webb manner of speaking, the focus should be on ascertaining the facts and how they either support or discredit (if discredit is the right word), Breitbart’s position.

The added benefit is that incorporating an external debate into the classroom discussion actually makes the dialogue more meaningful, while simultaneously demonstrating how one addresses what some would consider to be a self-serving, out of context commentary that is let’s face it, something with which we all have to deal on a regular basis.

What are your thoughts . . . should classroom discussions be limited to only those who are present?

30

Note: the following is another guest post was written by James Lander, a writer for the couponing site, Couponing.com; they provide a variety of coupons and offer couponing tips and techniques.

Money has been around for a very long time. In the beginning of recorded time, people used to barter for their needs. If you were a fisherman and needed bread to go with your supper, you would trade your catch with the bakery. The obvious problem is, and was, when the baker didn’t like fish.

Those who lived long ago came up with a solution to this problem…money! They determined that they needed to have something that would be accepted in trade for the items they needed. In the earliest cultures they often used seashells or beads. There were times when tea or furs or meat were used.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, in around 700 BC there was a group of seafaring people known as Lydians. They developed the first coins to increase their ability to trade. This tradition was handed down from one civilization to another. People liked coins because they were easy to transport, they lasted a long time and they had some precious metal in them. Paper money was introduced as a means of exchange by the Chinese beginning in the T’ang Dynasty in the 7^th century. According to the Oracle Think Quest, paper money caused uncontrolled inflation and in 1455 the Chinese stopped using it. It was a long time before European countries started using paper money.

The Gold Standard was introduced in the mid-1700s in England. This meant that a certain amount of gold was tied to the value of each paper currency. The United States officially adopted the gold standard in 1900 with the Gold Standard Act, although a de facto gold standard had existed since the early 1800s. One of the best things about the Gold Standard was that it was an effective way to control inflation because it prevented the federal government from printing money without having the necessary gold reserves to guarantee the dollar’s value. It also increased confidence in the value of a country’s money since that money was tied to a tangible commodity.

The Gold Standard’s greatest strength, however, is also its greatest drawback. By restricting the government’s ability to print money, the Gold Standard makes temporary large expenditures (such as wars) nearly impossible. After breaking down during both World Wars, the Gold Standard was abandoned following WWII in favor of the “Bretton Woods System,” or a system in which the United States adopted the Gold Standard and other countries tied the values of their currencies to the US Dollar. President Nixon ended this system in 1971, and today most countries allow the value of their currencies to “float,” or be determined on the global currency exchange market. While this system also has its drawbacks – most notably in allowing nations to accumulate crippling debt – it allows nations a great deal of monetary flexibility.

Money has undergone significant changes since its origins in ancient times, but none is more striking than the rise of electronic money transfers. Today, nearly all government transactions and a significant portion of consumer transactions are carried out via electronic transfers. Consumers now rarely need to use paper money and can instead use credit or debit cards for the majority of their purchases. The Internet has allowed shoppers to buy anything – from computers to groceries – from the comfort of their own homes.

What does it mean to live within your means? Quite simply it means spending less than you are making. Some might question how you can accomplish such a thing, especially given our current economic state; but it’s important for ensuring future financial security. There are quite a few good answers to these queries.

First let’s take a look at some of the reason why it is desirable to not spend more than you make. Perhaps the biggest reason, a life free from the stress associated with living paycheck to paycheck. Having a little money put away that you can rely on if something unexpected happens can make all the difference. Another thing to consider is how good it would feel if someone very close to you needed financial help and you were able to provide that. Life becomes much more meaningful.

How can you get to the point where you are living within your means, or even below? As stated in the title there are “simple” ways to live within your means. Let’s discuss a few of these.

• Don’t eat out as much. In our fast paced world we have become “need it now” types of people. We don’t want to go home and prepare something or plan ahead to fix something. It is so much easier and faster to let someone else do it for us. You can get cheaper, more nutritious, better tasting meals eating at home.

• Buy store brands when you shop. The quality is not noticeably different for most products. Yes, understandably there are those things that you can’t disassociate yourself from – sure, Kraft Mac & Cheese just tastes better; that’s fine. Buying store brand items whenever possible allows for those splurges. Consider buying store brand paper towels, frozen foods or canned items.

Eating in is the new eating out?

• Stop trying to impress others. Whether it is name brand clothes or a shiny, new car. Clothes are meant to cover your body. And like shopping for store brand groceries, the same goes for clothes. Splurge on jeans that know will last a long time, but save on socks or t-shirts. Finding the balance is the most important thing.

• Buy used or rent. This goes for books, movies, tools etc. You can buy used books for a fraction of the cost of new. If you look at second hand stores or around the Internet, you can find an unlimited assortment of used books. Better yet, you can borrow it from a library for free. The same is true of movies. Check out eBay or Craiglist before making purchases, you might get lucky!

• Finally, don’t use your credit cards! When you are using plastic it doesn’t seem like real money.

When you use cash you can see your money going out of your hand and you are a lot more cautious about what the money is being spent on.

By using some of these little tips you will be able to live on the money you are making and slowly get ahead of the game. Not much can compare to the serenity of being able to pay your bills and still have money left over.