We're Paying Already

As the health care drum beats continue, one of the most prevalent complaints from Democrats is that we can't have public health insurance because it's too expensive. There's a problem there of course, and that's that we're already paying. It's not like all the uninsured people just die as soon as they get sick, they avail themselves of the finest healthcare in the world, and we all pay for it. The difference is that we don't see all the money in one place. It gets spread out in smaller amounts all over the place, so it seems like it's not there. But without a doubt it very truly is.

Of course the first way we pay for this is in higher health care costs. If everyone had a way to pay for the services they got, then across the board costs could be lower. Since many people don't have insurance but still get treatment, some of those costs are left in the laps of health care providers and they make it up by billing us all more - for everything.

Often the costs not borne by the provider themselves are passed on to Medicaid. While the federal government provides support for Medicaid it is largely a distributed program, with much of the burden falling on state governments. States in turn close that funding gap by raising our state income taxes, or increasing fees, or raising sales taxes. If you don't think you are already paying taxes for other people's health care - beyond what we all pay for Medicare - you're fairly naive. Health care expenses are a significant and ever escalating part of state budgets that we all subsidize currently.

You also pay for health care any time you buy anything or pay for pretty much any service. Since employer provided health insurance is the standard operating procedure in this country businesses must recover the cost of that outlay from their customers. Each time you buy pretty much anything some portion of your payment goes to cover the health insurance of the person that made the thing or provides the service. Wouldn't it just make more sense for each of us to deal with our own insurance rather than give our money to a business so they can pay an insurance premium for someone else? Beyond that, many employers have negotiated health insurance for retirees into labor contracts, both for union agreements and for people negotiating independently. So not only does part of your payment go to the insurance of the person that currently works on the product, but some of it goes to pay for the insurance of all the people that used to make the thing but have retired. With the aging of the population that sort of arrangement is a formula for disaster.

And then going back to the employer again, we pay for insurance through lower wages. If our employers didn't have to provide health insurance for us the money they pay for insurance could come to employees as wages. With the cost of insurance outpacing inflation I think it's fairly certain that cost of living raises have taken a hit to pay for accelerated insurance premiums (and that's without considering the shriking of scope of service many of us have seen from the employer provided health insurance as well).

• Lower Wages
• Higher Consumer Prices
• Higher Taxes and Government Fees
• Higher Healthcare costs

It very well may be too expensive, and we should do something about it, but it isn't any more expensive than the people are paying right now. We'd just be able to see it.

I Paid for Parking

Or, more accurately: I double paid for parking. At work. Yesterday was the first day of the new permits. I had a new hang tag but I had left it at home. Rather than chance it I decided to pay the $7 it would take to park in the garage. Chancing it seemed like long odds as while driving through the lot I saw at least 10 cars with last year's (excuse me: yesterday's) tag and a bright yellow ticket envelope.

I've forgotten my tag in the past once. I was coming back from a trip or something and had forgotten to hang it on the mirror - it was right there in the console; still got a ticket. I appealed it and they said "ok Mr. Boevers, just this once." I am taking them at their word.

Interestingly, they write your license number on the ticket. It would seem like doing the 20 second radio call to verify if in fact you are a permit parker would be the civilized thing to do. But they don't.

Also, interestingly, the citation isn't for parking without a permit, it is for parking without properly displaying your tag. So even if you are a permit parker you can get a ticket.

At this point I think I call douchebag.

I mean, you pay, and then you park. I'm sorry if I forgot to place my tag, but I did in fact already pay to park. Citing a permit parker because they didn't properly display their tag is a petty revenue grab. For shame.

I guess the argument is that you could loan your tag to someone else. Perhaps if you are worried about that you should issue decals instead of hang tags. Poof. Problem solved.

Really the whole thing is sorta douchey as you have to have a verified ID to get into the lots anyway. So in most cases, if you are in the lot, you have paid to park. Shouldn't even have to verify the hang tags. I'll give them this one though as it is possible to follow someone through the gate - or, at present one of the gates isn't actually long enough to keep out my truck, let alone most cars. Maybe they should fix that.

And who gave these people the right to write me a ticket in the first place?

I'm sure the phrase "quasi-pulic entity" figures into this mess, but really, can any private parking lot owner issue you a ticket? I thought that was a law enforcement thing stemming authority from the public? How did a college get this privilege? Anyone ever get a ticket at a library? Or at a hospital? Even at a government building? The only place I can recall getting a ticket are a public lot or street, or a university. Maybe we should be calling shenanigans too.

If you don't pay the ticket you get a boot. When I was working in Nevada I learned it is specifically against the law to withhold a person's property to compel them to pay a debt. Isn't booting your car, or keeping you penned behind a gate at least that? Kinda feels a little like theft. They are after all keeping your car. Isn't that stealing? If you're in your car and they don't let you leave isn't that unlawful imprisonment? (No, David, because you can get out of your car and walk away. Ok, but I would still argue theft.)

Normally if you park on someone's private property in violation of the rules they can 1. deal with it, or 2. have you towed. In all likelihood if they tow you and damage your car they are probably liable to some extent. Doesn't seem like they can whip out a ticket pad and cite you. Or if they tried, it sure doesn't seem like they could compel you to pay.

I bet at school students sign some sort of agreement with regard to campus facilities consenting to be fined. I don't recall doing so as a staff member or as faculty. I guess be entering the lot you tacitly agree to some kind of Parking EULA, but I don't recall seeing a sign.

Shenanigans I say. The people that work there work hard, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. The students who go there pay a lot of money, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. People visiting are potential employees and students or our neighbors in the community, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying that people that don't have permits should be able to use the permit lots whenever, but people who pay and don't have their tags deserve the benefit of the doubt - especially in the first few days. And nobody should ever have to double pay to avoid a ticket.

There Is No Spoon...

Myths about Canadian healthcare - Boing Boing: "At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent....

...Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source."

Cap And Trade

The House passed a bill limiting carbon emissions today. I have to admit I am not thrilled. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of changing global behavior with respect to carbon, but the whole cap-and-trade dimension gives me the willies. Truthfully I think I would rather see everyone get a new tax to pay and then have the government offer incentives in the form of deductions for people and companies that behave better. Seems less twitchy that way.

Creating a carbon market and letting the market solve the problem gives me the willies. It's a fair concept, divvy up a bunch of credits and then let people working cleanly sell their credits to people working dirty. But it just isn't going to work that way, is it? All of a sudden there will now be "carbon traders" and "carbon brokerages" and people that make their living off of the exchange of carbon credits that have nothing to do with the creation and release of carbon. Isn't that just more drag on the system? People leeching profit off of something that previously didn't support them?

Just the incarnation of the traders is a problem, and that assumes they act ethically - which we know, right now, today, without a possible doubt that they won't. Sure, vast majorities of people involved will do just what they are supposed to, but experience has shown us that it doesn't take too many greedy people to bring the whole system off kilter. Participants in all markets have been found to hoard resources to create artificial shortages to drive up rates. We've already seen it with oil and gas, Enron did a lovely job in that world with natural gas and electricity - they were trying to introduce the process to bandwidth, it's spilled over into corn through ethanol. Why oh why would we create another system through which we allow ourselves to be raped by businessmen.

Folks, it sucks already. Let's not make it worse.

I read that the EU implemented the cap and trade thing and then almost immediately regretted how they initially allocated credits. Plus, here's another chance for us to give away something to business so they can operate - like giving the spectrum to TV to being with. Is this something we should give away, or should all the companies have to buy carbon credits from the start. Or, should they even be allowed to buy the credits, maybe they should lease them.

Why not create x number of carbon credits per township and then give the exclusive rights to set prices and lease the credits to industry to school boards? Two birds with one stone?

If there's one thing I've learned over the last several years it's that as inept and corrupt as government is, it never seems to be nearly as corrupt and greedy as the private sector. Keeping the planet safe should be managed by people doing it for its own sake, not simply to make a profit.

Ok, I Give?

Why on Earth would NBC do that?

For the last couple of Penguins games the telecast has been on the Versus Network. Popular wisdom has been that their coverage has been well... meh, but they have done something that has gone over very well here in town. They had allowed the Penguins and the Arena to use the telecast on a giant screen in the parking lot. I happened to be downtown (dahntahn) one night this was going on and the local response was great. From the shots on television there appeared to be quite a number of people that could not get tickets to the game but still wanted to come down and be part of the action.

Overall very cool.

Apparently NBC deosn't think so. They have the next game - critical game six, with the cup on the line and they have decided they won't be allowing the use of the telecast in that way.

So my question is: Why on Earth would they do that?

Are they worried about their local ratings in Pittsburgh? Do they have to pay their on-air talent more for the additional airing? It can't be that advertisers are complaining. Seems like the people that go will watch whether they are at home on their sets or at the arena on theirs.

They've got maybe 20 hours to change their minds. I sure hope they do. This was something positive for the NHL and for Pittsburgh. Be a shame to shut it down, whatever the reason.

Why Texas, Why?

So I've been digging a little around the LD Licensing legislation in Texas. The latest, by the way, is that the bill was rejected in the other house and has been sent back for more work.

Some shallow Google work lead to this page and after reading it I put up a "but does anyone know why?" comment. That got this response:

The story goes (as reported by Deborah Frankhouser)

that Senator Kip Averitt received a complaint from presumably a donor type constituent who said a Lighting Designer was paid to do some work and ran off with his money. All of the sudden, this language appeared. It was clearly done with no knowledge or our industry or that even professional lighting designers exist. (regardless of their project types) Some disturbing rumors are that he was warned that the language would have unexpected implications and that this was ignored; but that is in fact rumor.

So next off I emailed the aforementioned Ms. Frankhouser and got this:

Thanks for your email. The history is as follows: There has been a long standing debate about the role of Engineers vs. Architects in Texas and subsequently several pieces of legislation have been written attempting to reconcile those differences. This bill, HB 2649 was originally written to establish the role of engineers particular to some issues regarding slabs.
It was written by Rep. Wayne Smith, and it did not contain any language regarding lighting. (For the record, it was endorsed by his fellow engineers and is considered to be a very appropriate piece of legislation.)

Senator Kip Averitt from Waco apparently received a complaint from presumably a donor type constituent who had a grievance with a lighting designer. The language defining lighting design and who could practice it was added into a revised Senate version. It was clearly done with no knowledge of our industry. There are rumors are that he was warned that the language would have unexpected implications and that this was ignored.

The threat it faces to theatrical lighting designers is that the language is extremely broad and does not exempt them. It is clear that they did not intend to include entertainment LD's in this, but from a lawyer's standpoint, there is no legal reason why they would be excluded with the current language.

This senator's issue is with those of us do Architectural Lighting Design (I do both, actually). It is obvious from all who have spoken with Averitt's office that they were completely unaware we made up any kind of professional group or that we have standards by which we are measured. We are not licensed, but depending on your preferences, you can be certified through the NCQLP (www.ncqlp.org), and/or become an IALD (www.iald.org) member which has a very strict code of business ethics and requires a committee review of projects for professional membership. Most of us also belong to the Illuminating Engineering Society, but there are no requirements for membership to the IESNA.

Historically, architectural lighting designers have fought licensing. This may have to be a debate we take up again, but for now, our goal is to get the language removed from the bill before it goes to Gov. Perry's desk. Because the bill originated in the House, the original writers have to approve this language before it can go forward, and we understand from Rep. Smith's office that they are working to remove it. It is a waiting game now, but we will know by tomorrow at the latest.

Also, anyone can get on our Yahoo site to follow the status.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NOHB2649/ The site contains excerpts from the bill as well as documentation published by the IALD, including legislative contact information. John Martin, Public Relations with the IALD and I are moderating the group and will be posting new information as it comes available. Anyone can post their ideas, opinions, or let us know what they have been told by the legislative offices. You can also just watch and select 'Daily Digest' in your settings so you don't get a lot of emails should we get busy. We have several out of state lighting designers on the site who are just interested in how this will unfold.

If for some reason the link doesn't work, anyone can email me for an invitation.

and then this:

Our effort to gather folks has been very successful and there is a conference meeting scheduled between Rep Smith's office, Senator Averitt's office and possibly the governor's office. They will be discussing altering or removing the language.

I have spoken with the public relations rep for the IALD, John Martin, and he feels it is very important at this point to back off and let them try to get it fixed. Rep. Smith DID NOT write the language pertaining to the lighting, but because he authored the original bill, his office has been overwhelmed with calls and some of them have apparently become rude. John is worried this will have a backlash on our efforts.

which suggests the legislators have gotten the message and are working on cleaning things up.

I also queried a consultant friend who works in that part of the country and got this:

The story from the legislators who proposed this is that they were trying to deal with substandard design work foisted on residential hurricane recovery projects... It is really the Architectural Lighting professionals (i.e. non licensed) who will be affected by the current language.

Apparently the backlash from the Architectural and Theatrical lighting design world has caught the legislature by surprise and word is that there will be some considerable re-writing in conference before this will reach the Governor for signature. Even Disney Theatrical is apparently upset and is threatening to pull their tours from the state.

Mostly this is all rumors so far. The first I or everyone else I know that heard of this was yesterday afternoon as the vote was underway in the Texas Senate.

and then this:

Update is that State Senator Kip Averitt of Waco added the LD amendment at midnight before the vote. Apparently he has a problem of some sort with "Lighting Designers" (the architectural kind.) He/his office appears to be intractable.

The legislation is likely to go through since it is very important to Sen. Smith of Houston who is trying to protect storm victims.

So there you go, a consumer protection law intended to protect hurricane victims potentially derails several other industries as collateral damage. Only in America.

Does sound like they understand what they did now though. Guess we'll have to watch and see what they do to make it right.

Rare Glimmer of Truth

AIG - Unforgiven

So I've been thinking about the bonuses again. A long drive listening to the news all day I think I know more about the subject then I could have ever wanted to know. Sadly it seems like they really do have to make the payments, and the more I think about it, the tax ideas being floated to recover the money seem like the very definition of ex post facto.

So in hindsight I still like the audit idea.

There's this line at the end of "Unforgiven" that comes to mind. A fairly hasty Google search turns up this site and the quote:

MUNNY

                   I'm comin' outta here... an' any
                fucker I see out there, I'm gonna
                kill him... an' any fucker takes a
                shot at me, I ain't just gonna
                kill him, but I'm gonna kill his
                wife an' all his friends an' burn
                his fucking house, hear?

The real solution here is for the government to persuade the execs that its in their best interest to just decide not to take the money. It makes sense, without the bailout they'd get nothing. Now they have salary and jobs. Right minded people ought to figure out they don't need a bonus - and turning it down doesn't violate the existing contracts.

Perhaps after a personal call from the President of the United States might drive home the point.

And if not, well we ought to arrange the most invasive, annoying, awful, embarrassing investigation that the Federal, State, County and Local Governments can come up with. Think of it as a bureaucratic stimulus package - create some investigator jobs. National, State, and Local IRS, reassess their house, send the building inspector to their home and business along with OSHA and the heath department, have immigration set up outside their homes, maybe send DCFS out to interview their friends, all the way down to sending the ASPCA to check on their pets. Go back too. If in 2007 for doing absolutely nothing I had to pay fees and penalties on an auto registration in CT for six months of 1996 I think we can come up with SOMETHING on these greedy bastards.

Maybe it starts like this:

I have this vision in my head, of Joe Biden, in a cowboy hat, at the podium in the White House Press Room:

I'm gonna be watching... an' any fucker that takes that bonus, I'm gonna audit them... an' any fucker that keeps that bonus, I ain't just gonna audit him, but I'm gonna audit his wife an' all his friends an' seize his fucking house, hear?

AIG

Maybe instead of "bonuses" AIG ought to just call the money something else. Balloon payments? How about "severance pay"?

The previous administration always made much hay over just calling something a name it wasn't. I bet people wouldn't be as upset about "commissions" as they are about "bonuses." AIG ought to take a hint from the Bushies.

Also I guess they could write off the money to advertising. With all the press they're getting over "bonusgate" (I typed it here first people) they can probably lay off any TV advertising for 18 months.

You can probably tell that I think that the last thing these folks deserve are bonuses. Tonight on NPR someone pointed out that if the company had gone out of business the execs would be getting nothing, but because that would take the rest of the economy with it we the taxpayers pony up the bailout money, and then ipso facto since the company isn't bankrupt they have to make the payments.

Makes sense to me... unfortunately.

There's another answer though. Some of the higher up execs have decided they wouldn't take the bonus. Some have even said they won't draw salary for the year. How about an executive order stating that any employee of any company receiving bailout money that takes a bonus is guaranteed to have this year and the past seven years' taxes audited by the IRS.

You can take the money, but then the tax man is a-coming.

Might be just the incentive needed to get these schmucks to do the right thing.

Just a thought.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Stop AIG Bonus Scandal Send Execs to Madoff's Cellblock (ritawatson.com)
• AIG still paying bonuses. Oh wells. (dailykos.com)
• Basket Case Insurer Gets $170 Billion from Taxpayers, Still Pays Huge Bonuses (boingboing.net)
• AIG To Use Bailout Cash To Pay $165 Million In Bonuses. Yes, Seriously [Confederacy Of Dunces] (consumerist.com)
• AIG Will Still Pay Out $160 Million in Bonuses (crooksandliars.com)

Ashton Gets it Right?

Just watched the season finale of Real Time with Bill Maher which was really, really good. Good because he came up with the real question Americans answer with "Yes We CAN!" (Do you think we could fry that?) Good because in conclusion he says America is a lot like Jessica Simpson, yes she is often embarrassing, but just look (sic) at that rack!

Also, apparently his staff looked up something I've been wondering about for a little while and confirmed for me that the US is the first democracy in history to peacefully elect a minority candidate. In his words "Take that Canada!" (Upon further consideration I believe that men have always been a minority, so perhaps the first democracy to peacefully elect a member of a racial minority would be more accurate if somewhat less of a sound bite.)

But the true as the ringing of a bell moment came from one Ashton Kutcher - regrettably, since I would like to ridicule him, he seems to have his head screwed on properly. In a discussion of whether or not we should bail out the big three automakers Ashton positted that perhaps that bailout should not come from the public sector but rather from provately held money. The idea was that we shouldn't bail out the big three, but rather that the big three ought to turn their tin cup in the direction of big oil.

What a scary vertical integration that would be, but man if it doesn't make sense. Nobody needs GM, Ford, and Chrysler as much as Standard, Exxon, and Chevron. Gauranteeing continued production of automobiles is simply good business for them. Also, taking a custodial role in the domestic automotive industry might put them in a position to drag out any development of more efficient engines, something on the order of "federal CAFE standards and nothing more - and don't hurry."

If anyone has the discretionary money to take on the project on their own it's big oil. Gee golly I am glad Ashton Kutcher doesn't speak for them.

Slightly More Polite - Not Much More Useful

I'd read a while back on Consumerist that large companies are watching twitter for their name and then occasionally doing something about it. So I put a link to the "Dorks" post below on my twitter stream along with "Comcast could not be less helpful."

This morning this comment appeared with the post:

Hello David,

I apologize for any frustrations we caused. Please let me know if you are still experiencing problems with your guide channel. I'd be happy to assist in getting this matter resolved. Please email us at We_Can_Help@cable.comcast.com.

Regards,
-snip-
Comcast Customer Connect
National Customer Operations

Which is unexpected and kinda useful. I emailed them a link back to the "Life's Little Annoyances" post, and then I got this:

Good Afternoon David,

I apologize for any issues you have experienced while using our DVR and On Screen Guide. We receive this information from a third party. The programming times, lineup and detail can change without notification or enough time to update our guide. You are correct; ‘booting’ the box will not correct this issue. We are continually working with our third party and our own teams to prevent these types of experiences from happening. I will share your feedback, blog and experience with additional members of our team for further review. If you have any further questions, or if I may offer any additional help, please feel free to contact me at anytime.

-snip-
Comcast Corporate Office
Comcast Customer Connect

Which is cool because they cop to the fact that the earlier advice about unplugging will have no effect. It does sound a little grade school when they say this is a problem with a third party, but I guess the we'll look into it tone is alright. Although I think I would feel much better about it if along with the I apologize and it's not our fault they also said please accept this $10 credit toward next month's service as a token of goodwill.

A man can dream can't he?

Dorks

David sends this to Comcast:

The cable guide shows SpikeTV latenight as "shop at home" when in fact it isn''t that but two star trek shows and seven days.  Can''t set the DVR for that though.  Would be nice if the guide actually showed what was on.

Comcast sends this to David:

I understand that you are currently having issues with your Guide on your cable box. I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused you.  
If you have not tried to reset your cable converter please do so at this time to see if this will assist in resolving your issue. To reset your  cable converter, turn the cable box off then unplug the converter from  the electrical outlet. Let sit for 10 seconds, then plug it back in.  

A more direct example of their total disregard for customer satisfaction I cannot think of. Dorks.

Life's Little Annoyances

I have a DVR from Comcast. I also enjoy Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The show used to be on during the day on SpikeTV and somewhere back in the day I added it to the list of series subscriptions to record. Very briefly after that the show disappeared from my drive and from the daily SpikeTV schedule. Or so I thought.

Turns out that at 2am when the guide I get from Comcast says "shop at home" there's something completely different on: DS9! And here's a situation that the DVR is born to serve, show on in the middle of the night. But, it won't record it because the guide says something else:


Interestingly SpikeTV doesn't appear to be confused:

and, even more interestingly, Comcast doesn't appear to be totally clueless either:


So isn't this swell, I have to be the dweeb to call Comcast and complain because my box won't let me DVR my Cardasians and Bajorans. What do you want to bet the guy asks "Sir, is this the box in your mother's basement?"

Score Another One For the Democrafts

Oh wait, that didn't come out right. But I was sure they were running things now, no more Bush/Cheney crap.

Today our legislators passed immunity from prosecution for all of the telcos that let the government tap US citizens without warrants. That just about rubber stamps Cheney's "the President can do whatever he wants" theory.

Early during the day I read a piece of speculation that the President will pre-emptively pardon everyone involved in any of the interagations or decisions revolving on the United States using torture.

We're not much of a nation for consequences any more are we? You ever get the feeling there are two sets of rules?

Quest communications deserves some kind of medal. I don't know who would give it, but they really do deserve it. When the government came calling, Quest wouldn't give them access without a warrant. What do you want to bet that whatever they might have had in government contracts in the past Quest will find themselves without them now.

Congress immunizes illegal searches.
The President pardons torturers (I bet).
The Fed bails out greedy businesses.

Doesn't sound like of the people by the people for the people.

The people have to remove their shoes at the airport - like that adds 1% to our safety.
The people are paying $4/gal and more for gas.
The people have to wonder who might be listening on their phone.
The people have to worry about extraordinary rendition and waterboarding.

Sounds more like of the police by the corporations for the wealthy.

Maybe it is time for some kind of Libertarian Revolution - the reformation of the American Dream.

I watched Weeds tonight. Part of this week's episode had the uncle looking through the grandmother's house for her hidden cash. She'd survived the Holocaust and was saving money for bribes for when the government turned on her again. That should sound foolish. I'm not sure it does.

Well, maybe something cool will happen tomorrow and I will forget to think about how disappointed I am in our government again.

Don't Be Stupid

George Carlin has this routine, I think it's about kids and bicycle helmets, where at one point he declares that it's all about evolution: "the kid that swallows the most marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."

Something tells me that most of the people discussed in this article aren't Carlin fans...

News - Investigative Report: Nail gun safety under fire as injuries soar - sacbee.com: "As the tool's popularity surged during the building boom of the 2000s, a Sacramento Bee investigation found, nail gun injuries also took off despite decades of warnings from researchers and doctors that the guns are dangerous, especially in the automatic mode known as 'contact trip.'"

They make contract trip sound like fully automatic, like you pull the trigger and fire an entire clip of nails. Although I've seen it happen due to fasteners getting jammed together in the gun; regardless of how the trigger is configured the gun is only designed to fire one fastener at a time.

I have the utmost sympathy for people with injuries, but after a read of the article I didn't really see anything that was more attributable to the trigger mechanism that it would be to laziness or foolhardiness. And, as the article itself says, often even when the triggers are configured in that awful pull the trigger hit the safety release the trigger per fire mode, people on the job often alter the tools to fire more freely anyway - just like they take the guards off of saws, or weld without gloves, or, or, or.

The strangest assertion in the article is that the vendors want the guns to free fire because they sell more nails that way. I guess maybe you fire a few more nails that way, but thats not about the tool or the trigger, that's about being a noob. People just learning to use air tools like to fire a lot of fasteners. After a while you realize that's stupid and you use as many nails as you need, regardless of how they fire. I am not sure that altering the way the tool works to offset injuries by people that might maybe should not be using the tool unsupervised is the best idea.

They say "suchandsuch was injured while carrying the gun by the trigger and then contacting his leg." Don't do that. It's a trigger, not a handle.

"suchandsuch left the tool on contact fire and hanging at chest level over the scaffolding and then bumped into it." Don't do that, you could get hurt.

"suchandsuch was injured wile trying to fire a fastener through a metal fitting." I cannot tell you how many times I have been tempted to do this and haven't. Know why? Because it is stupid and you could get hurt. Don't do that, wrong tool for the job.

Unfortunately I think they're more right here than wrong, it's just that the wrong people are taking the rap. The guns are too dangerous I guess, but it's the fault of the users and the supervisors not the manufacturers. When Joe Weekend Warrior decides to use a nail gun instead of a hammer and nails or a screwgun he is assuming a larger risk, and one he may not be trained to handle. When Attila the Site Manager makes his guys go faster or use the wrong tool, that's on him, not on Senco.

But changing Joe or Attila will be operationally more difficult than forcing the manufacturers to alter their designs. So, I guess we have more convoluted safeties to look forward to. Bummer that.

Daily Show Fix

Thanks boingboing.

Lethal Force

Lately I've been thinking a little bit about the use of lethal force. The thought process starts with the use of "contractors" in Iraq. For quite a while I haven't understood why in the midst of this invasion and occupation we've chosen to fill any roles at all with non-military personnel. All the happy go lucky TV shows about WWII always show security, construction, transportation, and hospitality being carried out by military outfits. Really the only thing I can think of that wasn't that way would be entertainment - the USO. This I guess was part of the big Rumsfeld reorganization of the Pentagon, taking anything not central to the mission and outsourcing it.

In principle I guess I can get behind a lot of that. Maybe it makes sense to use FedEx to deliver mail or some such thing - at least TO the warzone, if not IN the warzone. But I start to have difficulty when we get to "security contractors."

Really it seems like when you put a gun in a contractors hands you've broken a covenant of some type. I have real difficulty believing that any independent body like that ought to have the authority to take a life. At least when we talk about capital punishment, the authority to terminate a life comes from the people. That kind of responsibility should not be something that can be "outsourced." If there are people in a foriegn country that in the course of their work may be called upon to kill another human being - that person ought to be a direct government employee, not an independent agent. I do not believe any government has the authority to vest another organization with the right to kill.

The action of taking a life is special enough to require civilian oversight and popular authorization. If we're going to be killing people it ought not be as part of the use of anyone's discretionary budget. The question ought to come before the Congress, specifically. And the people pulling the trigger ought to be directly answerable to the military chain of command and everything that comes with it. This sort of thing wouldn't guarantee that poor decisions aren't made, certainly there are problems with governmental "deciders" as well as commercial ones, but I think this falls under the notion of "the merest appearance of impropriety."

The use of security contractors is I believe the only thing that keeps the motor on the current war going. We don't have the personnel we'd need to keep it in the military and the cause isn't united enough to support a draft - at least not for long. By going the route of private contractors the administration has given itself the ability to wage a war not supported by the nation.

I know people will say "if the Congress doesn't want the war they can defund it" but we all know that while that simple it isn't really that simple. Politics makes for some strange decisions sometimes. As bad as it is I guess our representatives currently value their gigs more than the lives of the soldiers in the field, believing that ending the conflict would also likely be professional suicide. At some point I guess it might get bad enough that the calculus there could change, or maybe enough regular people would really be touched by the war to have some kind of general strike - a protest that would really sting. But really, the structure in place allowed the powers that be to work us into a crack from which we can't extricate ourselves without more personal pain then we're seeing on TV.

We owe it to ourselves to make sure we're not made to make these choices again. At the first opportunity we should make it illegal for the United States to hire private military replacements. That way, in the future if we're all in we're all in. We won't have the opportunity to turn our very real pain into financial pain, and deferred financial pain at that.

Killing people just ought not be so easy.

Do The Right Thing

Not too long ago I heard on the radio about a mother raising money for her son's legal defense. The son had been in the military and is up on some kind of charges for behavior stemming from something I am sure someone is calling a massacre.

Then, more recently I heard about an insurance company that was habitually refusing to cover their clients health problems based on the condition being pre-existing in nature. The insurance company is the Veterans' Administration and the pre-existing condition is post-traumatic stress disorder; you know, the one that they used to call shellshock.

Just the other day I heard that a company was denying retirees a benefit because their time in the company was structured so as to expire just short of vesting. The company is the Army and the benefit is the GI Tuition program. Seems many, many soldiers tours are just a hair too short to qualify.

Really, I guess it's possible that these guys are really in the wrong and they shot up a bunch of civilians without cause. I guess it's possible that all of these stressed out soldiers did have some previously existing underlying susceptibility to stress. I guess it's possible that the normal standing procedure is for a tour to end short of vesting in many programs. I guess it's possible.

I don't think it should matter.

Seems to me that if someone enlists (or is drafted, gulp) into our military and they see combat (and yes I am sure THAT definition could become very convoluted) then we pretty much have to write their ticket. Nobody should have to take up a collection for an attorney, US Soldiers ought to have the very best representation provided to the at no cost. We shouldn't be putzing around with pre-existing conditions. All conditions re-set when you push an individual in front of gunfire; US Soldiers ought to have federally funded health insurance for life and the insurance should be good, and simple. Do we really need to be nickel and diming over the GI Bill? Isn't there someplace we can look up that says that the investment is worth more than the fight? Besides, we very nearly got these people killed. Sending them to school seems like the very, very least we can do.

Maybe this sort of thing is ok during peacetime. Maybe in that case we can afford to make sure every letter of the regulations is followed. But it just seems that once combat is involved that a paycheck is no longer sufficient. For going into harms way these people deserve our respect and indulgence. We should take care of them. They took care of us.

To Pissed To Post

Doesn't happen much, but a film I saw tonight made me so livid I had to stop watching and I can't get my shit together enough to write about it. I am not usually way way out of the loop, but I think this time the media machine got me and I was TOTALLY CLUELESS:

Did you know that several years ago GM, Honda, & Toyota all had production, plug-in, totally electric cars for sale in the US? 70 mile range on a charge. I am not talking about concept cars at shows, I am talking about production cars at dealers.

What was I doing that week? RRR THIS MAKES ME SO ANGRY!!!!

Here, you be pissed too: Sony Pictures Classics Presents: Who Killed the Electric Car?

Insurance Just Sucks

Dvorak Uncensored » US private insurance less effective than American Medicare: "Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times has a great article about the supposed benefits of the private health insurance industry."