it's all one thing: percent of US households with incomes within 50% o...

This is so sad to realize what is happening to the middle class.

it's all one thing: percent of US households with incomes within 50% o...

Frank Schaeffer: Christian Terror in Norway: I Predicted Terror from the Religious Right in My New Book "Sex, Mom and God"

Frank Schaeffer: Christian Terror in Norway: I Predicted Terror from the Religious Right in My New Book "Sex, Mom and God"

Four Charged In Alleged $2.5 Million Reverse Mortgage Racket

These scammers are scum.

Four Charged In Alleged $2.5 Million Reverse Mortgage Racket:

For their victims, the phone call sounded like salvation. Seniors, living on a fixed income and having trouble with the bills, they were glad to hear someone offering them a reverse mortgage that would allow them to turn the equity in their house into cash. But the four mortgage professionals charged with perpetrating a $2.5 million reverse mortgage fraud scheme are anything but angels. Their aftermath has left those who signed up with them impoverished and close to foreclosure.

The Miami Herald reports that the way it allegedly worked is that the mortgage professionals would call up the seniors - they only called seniors - and pitch them a reverse mortgage insured as an FHA loan. After they agreed and filled out the paperwork, the four conspired to have the homes appraised at many multiples of their value. In one case, a $31,000 condo got a value of $275,000. They then got the inflated reverse mortgage approved and staged a fictitious short sale, diverting the difference between the reverse mortgage amount and the short sale into their personal accounts, without ever paying off the existing mortgage. Falsified documents were used to hide the scheme from the lender and from the government.

If convicted, the quartet faces a max sentence of 30 years each and fines up to $1 million.

'These are seniors who are on Medicare, limited incomes, desperate for help,' Tony West, U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Division told the Miami Herald. 'Money that should've gone to help seniors with modest incomes instead went to line the pockets of fraudsters.'

One of the signs of a scam is that they contacted you. Always be wary when someone calls up with a great 'opportunity.'

Reverse mortgage scam targeted seniors [Miami Herald] (Thanks to Shawna!)

Rand(y) Paul Exposes His Moral and Intellectual Hypocrisy

Why is it that people who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are so eager to tell working people how they should live? Go home, Rand(y), and tend to your patients. We don't need and and don't want you.

Read this excellent post: Rand Paul Exposes His Moral and Intellectual Hypocrisy | The Seminal

The Limits of Political Correctness

"Political correctness" is one of those terms we bandy around a lot, but the term probably means different things to different people. Right-wingers sometimes accuse us lefties of it when we try to be respectful of minority groups by calling them what they call themselves. To wit, we would probably use "Native Americans" instead of "Indians."

While watching Real Time with Bill Maher a week or two ago, Bill was using his usual "tea-bagger" term to describe those people who describe themselves as part of the "Tea Party" movement. A right-wing guest chastised Bill for using the "tea-bagger" term, saying he preferred to call them what they wanted to call themselves. I was angry that Bill did not use the moment to accuse his guest of "political correctness," since that was the behavior he was advocating. Nevertheless, Bill continues to use the "tea-bagger" term. My feeling is that since the "tea-baggers" are not a minority group, I'll call them what I please.

Political correctness in language is one thing, but it is working against us in politics. Few Republicans would describe themselves as moderate or liberal today. The far right has forced these folks to become either independents or moderate Democrats. Republicans tout the "conservative" label and criticize more moderate party members such as Charlie Crist in Florida, and ultimately force them from the party. My own Democratic Party is starting to do the same thing by forcing out more moderate Democrats who don't agree to push liberal issues.

I am probably to the left of most Democratic politicians, however, I am not an ideologue. I don't like ideologues, whether they are libertarian, conservative, liberal, or progressives like me. Above all, I am a pragmatist. I believe if something works and works well, their is little reason to change it, even if what works well is a Republican idea. I am alarmed at the liberals in the party who are going after Blanche Lincoln and others. What happens when we purge moderates from our party, as the Republicans have done? I think we'll force a third moderate party to be formed, which will ultimately attract most Americans. I prefer the Democrats remain the "big tent" party that some Republicans had once wanted for their party. Only then will our party be successful. Political correctness will result in failure.

Political correctness, when applied to "justice" issues, has its place. Their is nothing wrong with using the African American term to describe black Americans. I prefer that people call me gay instead of homosexual. That is about justice for minority groups. But imposing a litmus test on political issues by either party goes too far and will mean a further polarizing of our great nation. It's a shame.

Death at a Funeral

I saw this movie last weekend and loved it. I rarely enjoy mainstream comedies anymore, but this one gave me lots of laughs.

Hate or Civility?

Is it just me, or do the tea baggers sound like the same folks spreading all the lies about candidate Obama in 2008? I heard the same racism, sexism, homophobia, and fear-mongering over a year ago. Most voters heard it too, and that's one of the reasons the Republicans lost so significantly in 2008. The old hatreds, fears, and ignorance still grip a large minority of Americans, but most voters rose above it in 2008.

The tea baggers and far right have sure tried to turn the tide against health insurance reform. They did about everything except to set themselves on fire in the city streets. Every lie, distortion, and dirty trick was used. And to think that THEY are the ones who want to talk about a "back room" deal. The Republicans in the Senate are the ones that forced health care reform into any such deals by refusing to partner in reform. They were more interested in short-term political gains than in helping to solve one of the nation's most serious problems. Any "back room" deals fall on them. Perhaps it is their Waterloo.

These purveyors of ignorance, lies, and hate temporarily swayed some public opinion to their side. Extremists like to use the idea of the "big lie": a lie that you tell often enough that people start to believe it. However, people are getting more savvy about the facts. Maybe it's the Internet and hundreds of channels of television to chose from. Now that the details of the final health care legislation are getting news coverage, people are seeing how they will benefit. Opinion is moving back into the support column, according to opinion polls. As I see it, here's actual proof that education can overcome ignorance.

The so-called public debate was a shame really. There are many legitimate points of disagreement over this legislation. There could have been a real debate and intelligent discussion about real issues. Instead, we heard the rabble of ignorant voices, with the right wing talk jockeys fanning the flames of discontent.

There are many "true believers" who will never be persuaded on health care, who will never give an inch on civil rights, women's equality, gay rights, and...well, will never believe the truth about President Obama's birth, or anything written by so-called experts, as witnessed by the Texas textbook controversy. Calling someone an "Einstein" used to be a compliment. Have you noticed how people use it as a pejorative term these days: "What? Are you some kind of Einstein or something?" Ignorance is in fashion for some. And demagogues know how to use that ignorance to their advantage.

I expect that the Democrats will lose seats in both houses of Congress this November. Some of the losses may be because of health insurance reform, but I think that most will be lost because of continued high unemployment (if the numbers don't improve by then) and by the cyclical loss by the party in power in off-year elections. I would be greatly surprised to see huge swings that would cause the Republicans to win both houses of Congress. You see, I still have faith that many Americans do see through the crap and get down to the facts and what is true. I don't know if most of those Americans will actually vote this year, but I hope so. And to be fair, there are many people on the other side of issues who are intelligent and thoughtful. They just get drowned out by the crazies.

What bothers me most about these tea baggers is I think their political speech has reached a fever pitch. The level of diatribe teeters on the cusp of incitement to violence, and actual violence as we've seen lately. I am a staunch defender of free speech. I realize that the speech that needs the most protection is unpopular speech. However, we have also learned that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, to use an old metaphor, is incitement and not free speech. So, where do we draw the line? It's not easy, but there is a limit. I hope no one gets hurt in the process.

We all need to step back and take a personal inventory. How tolerant are we to others who hold different beliefs? I like to think that I can talk with most anyone. I don't drop friends who have different political or religious beliefs, although I've had friends drop me for those very reasons. I will defend my beliefs with others, but I try to do it in a tone of discussion and not yelling. In most cases, we have to agree to disagree. Politics alone should not be the determiner of who your friends are. There are other things such as a person's sense of humor, how people care about others, someone's honesty and loyalty, the similar pastimes we enjoy, etc. that should guide our friendships more than politics should.

Change starts with each of us. We can't control what the talk jockeys say on the radio or television, but we can refuse to listen to them. We should also evaluate those forces in our lives that are negative and get rid of them. If enough people did this, perhaps the harsh atmosphere of current public discourse could cool off a few degrees. Then we could once again be able to have national conversations instead of mud wrestling matches or fist fights. What future do you want for America? Hate or civility? The choice is yours to make. It starts with you and me.

Mocking Man with Parkinsons Over Health Care

This is a sad commentary of the times in which we live.

Using Formatting and Editing Restrictions in Micrsoft Word 2007

Although a variety of Web sites, including the Microsoft Office site, describe various aspects of using formatting and editing restrictions in Word 2007, I've been unable to discover a discussion of the precise task I was trying to accomplish.

Task:

Create a Word document that restricts users to edit only a portion of the document and to use only restricted styles.

What I wanted to do:

• I wanted a document so simple that users without a lot of Word experience could work with it.
• I wanted to create a Word 2007 document that another group would use as a template to create training guides.
• I didn't want them using or creating their own styles.
• I did not want them to manually edit the document's title page or headers and footers.
• I wanted them to be able to change the document title and subtitle.

What I wanted to avoid:

• I wanted to avoid use of section breaks, although it wasn't a requirement.
• I did not want to create a template file because most of the users would not have that degree of understanding of Word.

Here's how I did it:

1. Start with a blank document.
2. Set the margins and save it as a Word 2007 DOCX file.
3. Create the various styles for use in the document. Optionally, you can use Word's style organizer to copy styles from an existing document.
4. Add the template components, such as title page, copyright info., and copy and paste items such as special table formats, etc. that you want available to users.
5. On the title page, click where you want the document title to go.
6. From the Insert ribbon, click Quick Parts and Document Property Title to set the title.
7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 for the subtitle, which uses the Subject field.
   Note: You can access Document Properties via Office button>Prepare>Properties, where you can include initial vales, as shown below.

8. From the Developer tab, click Protect Document and then Restrict Formatting and Editing.
9. From the Restrict Formatting and Editing pane, click Settings.
   The Formatting Restrictions dialog box appears.

10. Click to insert a check mark beside Limit formatting to a selection of styles.
11. Select the styles to be allowed, and click OK.
12. Turn on the display of paragraphs marks in the document.
13. Select the region of the document you want users to be able to edit. Be sure to select the first and last paragraph marks you want users to edit.
14. Select the settings in the Restrict Formatting and Editing pane as shown.

15. Click Yes, Start Enforcing Protection.
    The Start Enforcing Protection dialog box appears.

16. Enter and reenter an optional password and click OK.
17. Save the document.

When users open the document, they will see the following options in the Restrict Formatting and Editing pane. Highlighting the regions they can edit is optional but may be helpful the first few times users are exposed to the document. If you open the Word Styles pane, you will see only the styles you selected for use. You will notice that most formatting functions on the Home ribbon are disabled as are the formatting keyboard shortcuts also.

Working with Conditional Text

Let’s say that you have a single document that you want to use to generate a PDF document for print and to create online Help. Although several software products claim this ability, only MadCap Flare 5 currently makes good on its claim, without rework.

Using conditional text allows you to create some information for the PDF document and for the online Help without having to have two versions of the starting document.

The concept of how to use conditional text sometimes confuses even the smartest of people. Here is a very simple explanation to help you. Think of conditional text (or graphics) as being a two-step process. Using this example of creating a PDF file and online Help, your first step would be to create two conditions: Print and Online. In Flare, you would simply label the parts of your original document that you wanted to be used in just Print or Online with these conditions. The parts that would be used in both the Print and Online versions would not have any conditions.

When you were ready to create the PDF and Help files, your second step would be to tell Flare what to do with the text or graphics labeled with these conditions. For example, you would tell Flare to exclude text marked with the Print condition from the online Help it will generate. Likewise, you would tell Flare to exclude text marked as Online from the PDF file it will generate.

That’s it. Creating your information once and using it in different ways is a much more efficient way to work. Have fun using conditional text.