Dear Congress, Please Grow Up

Today on the news we were treated to several senior congressional spokesmen declaring a) their outrage over the AIG and other bonuses paid for by bailout money, and b) their anger at being blamed for passing the law that allows the bonus payments noting they they, the congress, was deceived and pressured to pass the law with the amendment.

Congress's argument is sophomoric to the point of being simply dumb. They argue that some 535 congressmen were unable to understand the language and consequence of the law they passed. Now, if that's true then we have 535 really inept congressmen. While, I'd certainly grant that some, perhaps many, of our congressmen are not "the brightest bulb in the socket," there re a number of very capable congressmen in the 111th congress. So to argue that Congress understand is simply outrageous.

There were a few congressmen that noted that the bill was so complex and they were under such pressure to pass it that they didn't have time to study it. If that's the case them I am apparently suppose to believe that our able congress thinks it's OK to pass enormously expensive bailout bills that they don't understand/haven't studied/didn't read/etc. Now if that's true then there is, in my opinion, something fundamentally wrong with the way congress is organized and managed. Since our elected congressmen are responsible for organizing and managing Congress it follows that they are at best inept and at worst incompetent. That line of argument is, in my opinion, every bit as outrageous as the first.

The problem with today's noise out of congress is that that no matter who did what to whom, no matter where the finger of blame is pointed, ultimately Congress passed the bill. Ultimately Congress is responsible for the bill. Pointing the finger elsewhere is simply childish and right now the US needs an adult Congress not business as usual.

Just some common sense.

Mr Dodd have you no shame!

So here's the latest on Sen Dodd's excuses for his misbehavior.

A defiant Sen. Chris Dodd defended his actions on bonuses for AIG executives Friday as news surfaced that a senior company executive was returning his $6 million bonus.

Sen. Chris Dodd admitted to CNN this week that he added bonus legislation to the stimulus bill.

Dodd said he was misled on the issue of bonuses for AIG executives. He claimed he would not have drafted key legislative changes allowing the bonuses to move forward if he knew the purpose of those changes.

Meanwhile, a senior AIG executive said through a company spokesman that he will return his $6 million bonus. The executive, Doug Poling, is returning the money "because it's the correct thing to do," said Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman.

Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said officials at the Treasury Department led him to believe that the changes added to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill shortly before its final passage were merely "technical and innocuous" in nature.

So Mr Dodd didn't do it, then he did it but the treasury made him do it (you'll understand my amazement at the notion that anyone can make the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee do anything), now he's angry and he's been mislead. And, of course, according to the mislead Mr Dobb the changes were "technical and innocuous," never mind the millions they cost the taxpayer.

This last is really priceless. Lets see, presumptively as chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr Dobb is suppose to be competent and, one supposes, has sufficient staff to ensure that he understands the bills he's responsible for. So when Mr Dobb says he was mislead one can only assume that he is either incompetnet or such a poor manager that his staff is out to lunch. In either case, Mr Dobb should be replaced at least as chairman of the Banking Committee where given the pending next round of banking bailouts I'm inclined to the common sense notion that the country really could use someone who knows what they are doing and is in control of their staff.

Of course, I suppose, it is possible that Mr Dobb was bought and paid for by the very industry he is suppose to help regulate on behalf of the people of the country.

So which seems most likely. Mr Dobb is incompitent, corrupt, or both? Hm. What does common sense suggest to you? Oh, and does "technical and innocuous" ryme with "porky little ammendments?"

C. Dodd - Perhaps it's time to hold people accountable

Senator C. Dodd has been in the news lately in the matter of the AIG bonuses. Herewith a chronology of events courtesy CNN and others:

• June 13, 2008 - From the Wall Street Journal to the Associated Press, the national media were reporting Friday that U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd received favorable mortgage rates from a highly controversial mortgage company (Countrywide Mortgages).
• Sept 23, 2008 - Sen. Dodd notes in Senate banking committee hearing 'Too much power to the Treasury'.
• March 17, 2009 - Christopher Dodd , Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and recipient of $280,000 in campaign contributions from AIG, adamantly denied that he had anything to do with the clause in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to go forward.
• March 18, 2009 - Hardball with Chris Matthews - Chris Dodd got over $100,000 from AIG. Barack Obama got over $100,000 from AIG. John McCain got almost $60,000 from AIG. Hillary Clinton running for the presidency got almost $40,000. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on Finance, got $25,000. Joe Biden, the VP, got $20,000.
• March 19, 2009 - Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored. AIG's derivatives branch is in Dodd's home state. Many of the bonuses in question were awarded to executives at that branch. But in the written statement, Dodd said he had no idea the legislation would impact the company.

It rather reminds me of when young children get caught doing something they shouldn't. First you deny and lie. When that fails you blame someone else. Mr Dodd is a sterling example of what a senior US Senator should be - NOT.

So here's the short version Mr Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, took a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Mortgage, but hey, it's just business as usual, and the Senate does nothing by way of censure. Then a couple of months later Mr Dodd says the treasure has to much power. Then Mr Dodd denies that he was responsible for the amendment that allowed the outrageous AIG bonusus. Then he says he is but the treasury made him do it.

Common sense suggests that a Senator on the payrole of AIG having conducted himself in this fashion should be impeached. Failing that, he should be censured. He should certainly not be re-elected.

Just some common sense.

Mr Obama and the Financial Industry

Yesterday, Mr Obama was on the news. He was giving a speech in what appeared to be a town meeting like venue. During his speech he spoke to the need for the government to rescue banks. To make his point he noted that if the local bank failed, the FDIC would step in guarantee the deposits (this isn't strictly true but that's another issue) clean things up and sell the bank so that the depositors would not be especially bothered (that's also not true as anyone who has ever had money in a failed bank can testify, but that's also another issue). Mr Obama then went on to note that when a big bank such as Citi, Band of America, or Wells Fargo got in trouble it was a much different matter. He noted that such large institutions control some 70% of the US financial services market. Consequently, they are to big to be allowed to fail.

Mr Obama is both right and wrong in this matter in my opinion.

First, I'd note as someone that from time to time has studied these and other banks for a living, that they in fact control rather more than 70% of the US banking marketplace. Depending on what one considers they may represent up to 90%! Mr Obama significantly underestimated the market share of these institutions.

Second, I agree with Mr Obama. Any institution that controls even 10% of a nations banking market is, indeed, to big to fail.

Third, Mr Obama entirely missed the really important issue. Should any single financial entity be allowed to control so large a share of a countries financial markets that they are to large to fail? A close related question is, should decisions about a countries financial markets be in the hands of a small (in the US read less than a dozen) number of CEOs?

My answer to both questions is a resounding no. Further, I'd note that not so long ago in the US it was not legal for banks to be remotely as large as they have become in the last dozen years. Laws that were passed after the depression to avoid just such concentration of financial control were changed some years ago so that a handful of large banks, read CitiBank, Band of America, Wells Fargo, WAMU, and a handful of others could engage in nationwide banking. Subsequently, these large institutions went on a merger binge and became the superlarge institutions they are today. In addition, they became, as Mr Obama notes, 'to large to fail'.

In the US, banking is part of the free market. While that's not true in all democracies a free market banking system has in general worked reasonably well. We have banking crisis of one sort or another every dozen or so years generally driven by greed overcoming common sense and inadequate regulation. But we survive them and life goes on. But while banking is a free market activity, it is not 'free market' in the sense that say the local pizza shop is. Banking involves the nation's well being and is, quite appropriately, subject to significant state and federal regulation.

Perhaps it's time to restore appropriate banking regulation. To cause banks that are 'to large to fail' to be split up and required to do business in a marketplace where if they make bad decisions and fail 'we the people' in the form of the federal government spending tax dolars don't bail them out and don't pay bonuses to executives who are clearly incompetent.

Just a thought really. Just some common sense.

Medical cost part 2

My cold continued for some days and I finally decided to go see the doctor. It was, simply put, a classic example of why medical cost are high.

Part 1 - People involved 2 - 9AM call the doctor to schedule an appointment. Call Lahey. Get in call queue. Listen to advertisements for Lahey. Operator answers. Tell her I need to schedule appointment. Get sent to scheduling queue. Listen to more advertisements for Lahey. Doctor's scheduling nurse answers. Explain to her that I need to see doctor. She takes my name and callback number.

Part 2 - Total people involved so far 3 - Nurse calls back 2 hours later. My physician is not available so I agree to see someone else.

Part 3 - Total people involved so far 4 - Drive to Lahey. Park in their new 'pay to park' garage. Something about the notion is singularly offensive, but I've decided to put up with it. Go to doctor's office. Stand in line 15 minutes waiting for receptionist to deal with 3 people in front of me. By now I'm feeling very bad and wondering just how long I can stand up. Eventually see receptionist. Give her the copay. Wait in waiting room for 45 minutes after the scheduled apointment.

Part 4 - Total people involved 5 - Nurse eventually comes out and shows me to examining room. Leaves.

Part 5 - Total people involved 6 - Second nurse comes in. Takes my tempature and blood oxygen. Surprisingly, doesn't take my blood presure. Nurse leaves.

Part 6 - Total people involved 7 - About 10 minutes later doctor comes in and examines me. Perscribes different antiboitic.

Part 7 - Total people involved 11 - Drive to pharmacy. Stand in line. Get to head of line. Turns out it's the wrong line. Redirected to different line. Stand in line and turn in perscription. Clerk hands perscritption to one of pharmist. Pharmist fills perscription and puts perscription in tray. Third clerk picks up perscription. Pay for perscription. It is now 4PM.

So lets recap. In order to schedule an apointment, be seen, and get a simple perscription filled it takes 7 hours and involves 11 people! It set me to thinking about the way things worked 20 years ago when I saw a private practice physician. I'd call his office, speak to his nurse, and get scheduled. At the apointed hour I'd go to his office and be shown to an examination room. I'd see the doctor. He write a perscription. I'd take it to a small pharmacy (since driven out of business by a large chain pharmacy) give the perscription to the pharmacist. The pharmacist would fill it. I'd pay and leave. People involved 4. Lesson - complicated systems are both inconvient and expensive.

Shamrock Financial and Deceptive Promotions

Yesterday we received a letter about the “Economic Stimulus Act 2008.” The letter had an official government look about it. So much so that my wife showed it to me asking if I knew about the program. Here's a direct quote from the letter.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 has allowed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to temporarily broaden lending policies to assist mortgage holders and promote economic stimulus.

Status:

Our records indicate that you have not yet called to confirm eligibility for your property at ... . It is important that you contact us toll-free 1-888-477-4438 within 3 days of receiving this notice.

The letter sounded and rather looked like a government letter. However down at the bottom of the page in rather smaller type was the following:

This offer is being made by Shamrock Financial Corporation who is not affiliated with your current lender. It is not an agency of the government nor is it affiliated or associated with HUD/FHA. This is not a government form. This is not a commitment to make a loan. ...

So what I have from Shamrock is a) deceptive but b) legal. Should it be legal?

A bit of checking finds that Shamrock is one of those credit vultures that solicit the unwary with doubtful credit offers managing, but only just, to stay within the letter of the law.

The letter got me to wondering. Why is it that companies like Shamrock that are arguably part of the problem can continue with business as usual why the country deals with the aftermath of their previous dealings? Isn't it time that we put back the stricter regulations that helped protect consumers from such companies? Of course that would be common sense, a rather uncommon quality in government.

Stem cell research

Mr Obama is about to reverse some of Mr Bush's stem cell research funding rules. With this in the works there was a news item featuring an interview with Michael Fox. Mr Fox spoke to his hope that stem cell research could lead to treatments of Parkinson's, a devastating disease that Mr Fox has.

There was a quality to Mr Fox's remarks that struck me. He expresses what might well be reasonably characterized as a religious hope in stem cell treatments. Now, Parkinson's is a terrible disease. It is easy to understand that anyone with the disease will look to any hope for treatment. Moreover, there are some positive indications that stem cell treatments may be beneficial for Parkinson's. But what of this almost religious faith in science and technology?

During my life there have been many technologies that were going to fundamentally change life and society. Things like gene therapy, artificial intelligence, several revolutionary drugs, and others come to mind. Each in their time were widely regarded as the solution to some problem. Each failed!

My point here is that science and technology are more often than not like that. Progress is made most often not by great leaps. Rather progress is often made by failures where each failure eliminates one wrong path. It is only what is left after all the failures, only the things that worked, that provide progress.

Will stem cell research provide a treatment for Parkinson's? I don't know. I'm hopeful. Parkinson's is a devastating disease. My father suffered from it and I painfully remember how it affected all the family. But, for all of that I would caution everyone that science and technology are far more often wrong than right. Science and technology are most often about what is left after all the failures not about magic bullets.

That said, my heart goes out to Mr Fox and all other Parkinson's sufferers. I to hope that stem cell research provides a treatment.

Medical Care and Computers

As part of the stimulus package there is going to be spending to computerize medical records. The argument here is that it will help control cost and can lead to better care. While both things might turn out to be true, I had an experience with computerized medicine today that gives pause.

I've had a cold or possibly flu for the last couple of weeks. It finally lead to sinus and chest infection as such things occasionally do. So I called my doctor to see what might be done. Now my doctor works at Lahey Clinic, one of the countries best medical facilities. Lahey has extensively computerized their service delivery. So here's what computerized medical care was like for me today.

9:30 am - Called number purported to be the doctors office. Turns out it's a general number. Nice lady answers and after a brief explanation routes the call to the general medicine center.

9:30 - 9:35 am - Listen to promotional messages extolling Lahey clinic as a great medical center. Decide no one is going to answer or the call may have got lost in the phone system. Hang up.

10:00 am - Call a different number. Turns out to be even worse. Get transferred to a wrong number.

10:03 am - Call original number again. Get transferred again. Wait while listening to Lahey ads for 8 minutes.

10:11 am - Phone is answered. Explain to nice lady what the issue is. She's very sympathetic and promptly transfers me to the doctor's triage facility.

10:11 am - 10:15 am - Talk to pleasant nurse who says she'll see if the doctor will send a prescription or wants to see me. Promises to call back.

10:30 am - Nurse calls back. Doctor will issue prescription. Oh by the way, we do it electronically now it should take about 90 minutes.

1:00 pm - Call pharmacy to be sure they have the prescription and it's ready. Now I'm feeling rather poorly and am anxious for treatment. No prescription.

1:45 pm - Call pharmacy again. Ditto. On a positive note, the pharmacy answers their phone relatively promptly - AFTER I go through 3 levels of their IVR system.

2:30 pm - Call pharmacy again. Ditto. Now I'm feeling really bad.

2:30 pm - Call Lahey again. On hold for 10 minutes. Give up. Call back and plead with operator to connect me to a real live human as I'm not getting through and am now really feeling bad. Get transfered to call queue. Wait 5 minutes more. Nice lady answers phone and says the doctor has to sign the prescription electronically before it can be sent. Plead with nice lady to interveen to expedite as I'm starting to feel very bad. She says she'll phone it in.

3:00 pm - Call pharmacy. I'm becoming friends with the lady who answers their phone. Perscription is ready. Drive to pharmacy, pick up prescription, drive home.

3:40 pm - Take pills!

Time to fill simple perscription - 6+ hours. Number of people involved at Lahey - 4 phone operators, 1 triage nurse, 1 physicians assistant, and (I'm only guessing here) the doctor. Number of people involved at pharmacy - 3 including the 1 pharmacist that actually filled the prescription. Perscription cost - $3.45. God knows what the total cost of the adventure was.

I wonder why our medical system is needlessly expensive? I would note that Lahey's computerized system was in this instance part of the problem. It wasn't until a real person interveened at Lahey that the perscription was issued. One hopes Mr Obama's folks have better luck.

The Supreme Court, Mr Obama, and justice

In today's news the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali al-Marri to the president's authority to detain people without charges, granting an Obama administration request to end the high court case when Mr al-Marri was transfered to a civil jail under civil indictment.

It is a small item in a way but consider the following. Mr al-Marri is accused of being an al-Quaida sleeper agent. He has been held without charge in a military prison for 5 1/2 years! At the time of his arrest he was a legal resident of the US. Mr Obama did not renounce the use of preventive detention and choose not to take a position in the case.

I am not in any way soft on terriorism or terriorist. Indeed, I would not hesitate to be on Mr al-Marri's jurry or to report a guilty verdic consistent with the evidence that lead to his death.

Still, I am troubled by the notion that the US government can arrest someone and hold them without trial for 5 1/2 hears. This goes straight to the issue of protections afforded to US citizens (it appears that al-Marri is not a citizen, only a legal resident) under the consititution and law. It speaks to the issue can a visitor to the US be held indefinitely in controvention of laws that would not allow a US citizen to be held? It would seem that the Supreme Court and our new President would prefer not to answer that question. That's more than a little shameful.

Freedom of speech and highschool

There was a news item today about a high school newspaper having published an article at least one parent objected to, said article dealing with sex acts on high school property.

Now, while I'm well past high school, I do, in fact, still remember how sexually charged high school was, and, oh by the way, I went to an all boys high school. During that time I spent considerable time chasing after and occasionally succeeding in finding a willing partner. Said partner and I enjoying each other in whatever location offered even a small measure of privacy. The point here being that I am keenly aware that high school students engage in sex.

With that out of the way, consider the following question - should a high school paper publish material some parents regard as offensive? That is offensive enough to make issue of it.

Interestingly, although somewhat depressingly, the high school student interviewed, said student being on the school newspaper, regarded it as a second amendment issue saying, "It's a free speech issue. As a journalist I can write anything I want."

Work with me here. This is from a high school student and self professed journalist. I'm inclined to the view that high school isn't what it once was. Even so, should a high school student reasonably believe that he is a) a journalist (he's not, he's a high school student whose only claim to journalism is that he belongs to the high school newspaper club), and b)he has an unabridged right to write and publish whatever he wants? I think not.

There is an old saw to the effect that the first amendment does not give one the right to scream fire in a crowded theater. That is, free speech is not an unabridged right. A self professed journalist, even if he is a high school student, should know this.

But what of the content per se? Is it appropriate for a high school publication to publish material at least some parents regard as lewd? Now, I don't know about this particular high school newspaper, but most are funded by city funds. That is by tax money given to schools for some several purposes including various clubs including, in particular, high school newspapers. Given that the publication is tax supported should it have a right to publish anything it wants? I think not.

Clearly such things as hate speech should be restricted. But what about value related speech? Whose values? Therein lies the devil. Should the standards we apply to commercial speech be applied to high school newspapers? Who decides when material is of such a nature that it has no redeming social value?

While I don't have a clear opinion here, I do believe that the high school student is wrong. You can't scream fire in a crowded theater.

Gay rights and prop 8

It seems that the fine folks in California passed a resolution, Proposition 8, that defines marriage in California as one man and one woman. Some 400+ same-sex marriage supporters rallied adn demonstrated in San Diego on the eve of oral arguments before the state Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

This is one of those issues like abortion or assisted suicide that stirs passions on both sides of the issue. And like all such issues, much of the passion distorts the issue and ultimately delays resolution to the benefit of all involved, whatever their position. In such cases it is often useful to examine the issue through questions.

Is marriage a religious or civil matter? In much of the world today, the civil and religious elements of marriage are completely intertwined. For those that regard marriage as a religious matter and gay marriage as an affront to their understanding of religion, same sex marriage is an understandably serious affront. While I understand such outrage, and while, it seems, the people of California through Proposition 8 recognize its validity, I do not believe that it need be so.

What if, we separate the religious and civil elements of marriage? In this matter it is worth noting that in a surprisingly large number of countries in the world, the dual nature of marriage is recognized. If you want to be married, you MUST have a civil ceremony. If you'd like to have a religious ceremony, that's fine but it caries no civil consequence. In these countries, marriage is a civil contract that is, by custom, recognized by many with a religious ceremony. In these countries, since marriage is a civil act there can be no underlying religious issues. Problem solved. In this matter, it is worth noting, that only in the relative recent history of marriage, has it been a religious act! Further, that through much of history it did not involve one man and one woman, polygamy harems and the like having a well established history often rooted in our fundamental religious texts.

This matter of separation of the religious and civil elements of marriage is interesting from other perspectives. Consider the question, what civil elements of marriage are not available to any person or persons (where more than 2 people can be involved)? I had occasion to consider this issue for myself some years ago when I was involved without marriage with the woman I eventually married. It turns out that most, though not all, civil elements of marriage are available to anyone via contract! Medical issues are not a problem at all, though one should expect to have to press the issue. Inheritance is similarly not an issue. Surprisingly, financial responsibility for children, either issue of the union or adopted, isn't much of a problem. The two issues where things get sticky are medical insurance provided by an employer and taxes.

Think about that for a bit. In the United States today, one can achieve all the civil benefits of marriage to one or more people independent of gender via civil contract with the exception of employer issued medical insurance and taxes!

So is the issue of "gay marriage" really about medical insurance and taxes? If one listens to the arguments for gay marriage it is very clear that it is not. Most of the arguments from the gay rights community at their most fundamental go to respect. Two men who have been in a 17 year relationship are simply saying that they want the rest of society to recognize their commitment and love for one another. It's really that simple. I for one could not deny such recognition, nor do I regard those who would as kind or loving.

There is, of course, a flip side. Do those who oppose "same sex marriage" really believe that people in a committed relationship should be denied medical insurance and tax benefits? When I listen to those opposed to "same sex marriage" I don't hear about insurance and taxes. Rather I hear talk about religion, morality, and children. People seem to be saying that their fundamental religious belief is that marriage is about one man, one woman, and raising children. Indeed, for most of us it is about just that simple truth! I for one can not deny that truth, nor do I regard those in a very vocal minority, here I note without prejudice that gay activist are in fact a minority and are in fact often vocal, who would force their own values on the majority as either kind or loving.

I regard both sides in this argument as wrong in that they fail to recognize that the debate is often about two very different things. It is simply not possible to have a conversation and resolve such issues when the parties are not even talking about the same thing.

So here's a common sense solution that should satisfy people of good will on both sides.

First, let's stop talking about marriage.

Second, if you want the civil benefits that now accrue to marriage, go down to the civil authority, fill out the necessary forms, and sign ... gender need not be an issue since it's about taxes and such.

Third, if you want to hold a religious ceremony do so. It IS your special day and you should celebrate it.

Finally, if you're on the religious right quit going out of your way to antagonize people who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to each other. There's little enough love as there is. Celebrate it wherever you find it. If you're a gay rights activist quit going out of your way to offend people of faith. Understand that they ARE the majority! They clearly don't want to call it marriage but, I believe, most would gladly support your civil rights and while they struggle with your choices are ultimately willing to accept them.

In short, I propose that we all grow up and get religion out of, if not marriage, then insurance and taxes. But hey, that's just a common sense POV.

Occassionally common sense actually shows up.

I quote from CNN Ed Rollins, who was political director for President Reagan and is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.

(CNN) -- The cold winds of March have obviously affected the intelligence and thought processes of people who need to get their thinking straight.

The idiotic debate raging in Washington this week around Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the nearly defunct Republican Party, and Rush Limbaugh, a conservative icon for the past 35 years, is beyond foolish.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Republicans are not relevant. We just lost two back-to-back elections (2006 and 2008), and obviously, what we are selling, the voters aren't buying. In the midst of the most severe economic crisis in my lifetime, we have a president who is taking the country on a dramatic sea change. This is what he said he would do and he is doing it. And where are Republicans? Right now we don't have the alternative ideas, a message or, more important, the messenger.

Ed is spot on in my view. That, however, raises the question of why the Washington political class nattered away for over a week and just doesn't seem to let it go?

More from the "You couldn't make it up" file

It seems that one Rodney Parham, a McDonald's employee, has had his worker's compensation claim denied. Here are the facts, most of which are visible on the McDonalds security video.

In August 2008 one Perry Kennon, 27, was beating a woman in the McDonald's where Mr Parham worked. Parham broke up the asualt and forced the attacker Kennon outside. Kennon then shot Mr Parham three times. Mr Parham then walks back inside the McDonnalds and collapses. After three surgeries, $300,000 in medical bills and six months recovery Mr Parham filed a workers compensation claim for his injuries. Claims specialist Misty Thompson with insurance company Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing responded, denying Haskett's claim, noting "We've denied this claim in its entirety, it's our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course of his employment," a portion of the statement reads.

So lets see, Mr Parham saves a woman from a beating inside McDonalds. Now I'm not sure of the law here but it does seem likely that the woman might well have held McDonalds liable for her injuries, possibly serious given that her assailiant subsequently shot Mr Parham three times, arguing that McDonalds had a duty to act to insure her safety in the store. So Mr Parham, for whatever his reasons, interveened and drove the attacker outside where he was shot three times. Rather than regarding Mr Parham as the hero he is, McDonalds through their insurer denies Mr Parham's injury claim on the argument that it wasn't his job to intervene thus his injuries fall outside worker's compensation insurance!

Stunning!

It leads one to wonder. Suppose there had been a robery and Mr Parham was shot trying to save another employee or patron. Since that's not his job, presumably according to McDonalds and their insurer that responsability falls to the police, he could be denied worker's compensation. Suppose there had been a fire and Mr Parham was injured trying to put it out before others were injured or the business destroyed. Since he's not a fireman presumably his injuries would fall outside worker's compensation.

It troubles me that in more and more areas of contemporary American life, businesses shirk what is by any common sense standard their responsability. They deny financial liability and often moral responsability for their own actions.

Shame on you McDonalds.

PS-How about we boycot McDonalds and see if they can bring themselves to treat Mr Parham like the exceptional employee he is and, oh by the way, pay his altogether justified worker's compensation claim.

What's really wrong with politics?

There was a news item in CNN's Cafferty's blog that got me to thinking about what's really wrong with political parties. Briefly, the item noted that there was something of a controversy involving assertions by Mr Obama's White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who calls Limbaugh the “voice and intellectual force and energy” behind the GOP and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says he’s “a national spokesperson for conservative views.” This after the radio host recently repeated his claim that he wants President Obama to fail. Moving right along, RNC chairman Michael Steele first said that Mr. Limbaugh was an "entertainer" whose comments are "ugly." Mr Limbaugh, as is his wont and right, made an issue in his radio show and accused Mr Steele of supporting President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and suggested that Steele was being used by the "liberal media." After which, Mr Steele promptly backpedaled and apologized.

It's hard to know where to begin with this bit of nonsense.

Just for fun, lets start with Mr. Limbaugh. You remember him. He wants Mr. Obama to fail while the country is in the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Mr Limbaugh's notion of being a stand up American and mine are rather different. Of course Mr Limbauch still has a job. I'm looking for one as is my oldest son, nevermind my daughter who is woried about here job. Now none of us are Republicans or Democrats. We are, however, keenly interested in seeing the US economy moving again and hopefully recovering the 60% losses to our retirement funds and don't much care what the underlying politics are. Mr Limbaugh, on the other hand, seems to have drunk way to much of his own coolaid (true believers are a lot like that) and thinks politics transcends what's good for the country.

Moving right along there's Mr. Obama's White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who sees in Mr Limbaugh the "intelectual" center of the Republican party. This is another well balanced view and clearly represents "change" - NOT. Now, Mr Emanuel is plenty smart enough to realize that while Mr Limbaugh may well represent the extreme right wing of the Republican party, he doesn't speak for the party as a whole. The card Mr Emanuel plays is from that deck the country elected Mr. Obama to dispose of - the politics of division and name calling.

While I'm inclined to think that Mr Emanuel isn't nearly as crazy as Mr Limbaugh, I'm also inclined to think that his offense is worse. While Mr Limbaugh gets paid to generate ratings from a far right radio audiance Mr Emanuel is actually charged with helping to govern the country in a time of serious crisis. Shame on you Mr Emanuel!

So here's a thought, Mr Emanuel. We no longer need the politics of division and extremes. Rather we need the politics of the center where people of good will work to help resolve the countries very serious problems and people like Mr Limbaugh, or for that matter Nancy Pelosi (a bastion of reasonableness - NOT) are ignored into the oblivion they so rightly deserve.

Oh, and Mr Limbaugh, why don't you and Al Sharpton find something to do that actually contributes to the solution. Failing that, just go away.

Route 650, Stimulus Math, and Sustainability

There was a CNN news item today that got me to thinking about the stimulus package. Briefly the article reported on the first infrastructure repair projected as part of the $787 billion stimulus bill. The project involves repairs to Maryland Route 650. Apparently the road has not been repaired for some years and is heavily traveled. The firm that won the repair contract, America Infrastructure, will apparently hire some 60 people to do the work. It should take some 6 months and America Infrastructure hopes that it will be possible to retain those workers as they bid on additional projects. Said projects being part of some $27 billion in recently released stimulus infrastructure projects.

All of this seems fairly reasonable. However, consider the following. The US has a total population of something less than 300 million living in something around 100 million households according to the US Census Bureau. When you do the math, the stimulus bill is almost $3000 per person or $8000 per household! That's a LOT of money particularly in view of America Infrastructure's "hopes" that it will be possible to retain 60 highway workers after completion of the Route 650 project, said "hopes" being contingent on winning additional contracts.

In a fundamental way that's one of the valid criticisms of the stimulus bill. Mind you, I'm not sure it's a correct criticism, only that it makes sense. As a country, we're going to spend a lot of money doing some things that will provide work to a few people for a short time. What we need though is to do things that will provide work for a lot of people for the rest of their working life. Now while the Route 650 project will doubtless improve Route 650 how do we engage sustained maintenance of all the other Route whatevers that need maintenance.

It seems to me just common sense that we also need to change how we pay for and maintain infrastructure so that infrastructure related jobs outlive the stimulus bill. That in turn brings to mind issues surrounding the Highway Trust Fund, but that's a topic for another day.