For those that didn't see it the other night, it seems that our esteemed Max Baucus played a significant role in the Obama administrations healthcare reform plan.
Not all of it was necessarily beneficial, however: there's reason to believe that Max was instrumental in killing the nomination of Tom Daschle, among other things.
For anyone interested in what the hell happened that got us the "reform" plan is encouraged to go have a look at it yourself (it's viewable online), and see what transpired. It'll take less than an hour of your time, and you'll see how our government really "works".
Showing posts with label gummit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gummit. Show all posts
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Bringin' home da pork
Seems our esteemed Denny Rehburg is tops (in a way) of "bringing home the bacon" to Montana.
According to this CNN Politics news story, Denny is Number 1 in the number of pork-barrel projects he directs back to Montana - at 88 of them.
Way to go, Denny! Woo-hoo!
If you're interested to see the full details of the "Pig Book" that reports on pork-barrel projects, you can find them HERE. I promise, you'll never look at a pig the same again...
UPDATE:
The site has a nifty "search by" feature that lets you hunt down what projects a Congressrodent has earmarked. Denny? Here's what he was involved in:
According to this CNN Politics news story, Denny is Number 1 in the number of pork-barrel projects he directs back to Montana - at 88 of them.
Way to go, Denny! Woo-hoo!
If you're interested to see the full details of the "Pig Book" that reports on pork-barrel projects, you can find them HERE. I promise, you'll never look at a pig the same again...
UPDATE:
The site has a nifty "search by" feature that lets you hunt down what projects a Congressrodent has earmarked. Denny? Here's what he was involved in:
 | |
| © Citizens Against Government Waste | 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1075, Washington, DC 20004 | 1-800-BE-ANGRY |
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Where the fuck is Max?
During the current recess for Congress (bearing an uncanny resemblance to recess for grade-schoolers), half of our Senatorial allotment is actually out among the public, actively soliciting input from the folks that voted him into office.
The other half -- HMFIC of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus -- has yet to turn up at any similar kind of venue. After all the sturm und drang of the healthcare reform process, a body might think he'd have some interest in knowing what his constituents have to say -- but it's tough to tell, since we haven't heard anything from or about him.
Thus, my question above...
The other half -- HMFIC of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus -- has yet to turn up at any similar kind of venue. After all the sturm und drang of the healthcare reform process, a body might think he'd have some interest in knowing what his constituents have to say -- but it's tough to tell, since we haven't heard anything from or about him.
Thus, my question above...
Monday, March 15, 2010
inCENSUSed
Got my 2010 Census form in today's mail. Thankfully for all concerned, it was the short form. Still, there were a few troubling things that I dealt with appropriately:
Oh, and here's something amusing: the FIRST question was the number of people in the place; question TWO was if there were any additional people not included in question one. WTF?
- They wanted my phone number: "We may call if we don't understand an answer". Tough shit; should've made the question clearer.
- Last and first names. Pbbbbbbbbbbbt! Don't need this to count me.
- My race. I'm not White (more of a pale tan), Black/African Am./Negro (um... aren't those all the same thing?), American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian Indian, Japanese, Native Hawaiian (last time I checked, even the original inhabitants were imported. No?), Chinese, Korean, Guamanian or Chamorro, Filipino, Vietnamese, Other Pacific Islander (to be specified), Other Asian (to be specified), or some other race. Screw it - I'm Human.
Oh, and here's something amusing: the FIRST question was the number of people in the place; question TWO was if there were any additional people not included in question one. WTF?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Shades of X-Files!
If it had been the Weekly World News or some similar source, I'd have treated the story like a Bigfoot sighting. But since it's on CNN, I'm willing to give it some credence.
A lot of states -- at the bequest of the federal government -- are doing involuntary DNA testing on newborn babies:
Yes, the good that comes from DNA testing (that it's mandatory concerns me) is significant. But I can easily envision a raft of bad uses that would far, far worse.
A lot of states -- at the bequest of the federal government -- are doing involuntary DNA testing on newborn babies:
Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.Okay, that's bad enough; but to further aggravate the situation, that DNA data (with the names attached) is being kept for extended periods of time and dispensed to third parties:
Now, I'm not one of those folks that think The Gummit is out to get me, or that I have to worry about black helicopters coming for me in the middle of the night. I do, however, have a mistrust of ANY governments ability to restrain itself. I worry that sooner or later, somewhere, somebody is going to say something along the lines of "Well, we've already got ______. Why don't we start doing _______ with it?"Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.
Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state. (To find out how long your baby's DNA is stored, see this state-by-state list).
Yes, the good that comes from DNA testing (that it's mandatory concerns me) is significant. But I can easily envision a raft of bad uses that would far, far worse.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Of, By, and For the people - RESOLVED
I got an email from a city official this morning, saying that he wanted to speak with me directly - either in person or by phone.
I called, and was advised that I was welcome to the GIS data, that I could select any or all of the list of GIS layers that I would be emailed, and an apology for the frustrations of the last couple of days.
I politely thanked him, and that was the end of the conversation.
Judging by the level of officialdom that I spoke with, I'm fairly confident that it will happen just that way.
UPDATE Friday, 29 Jan:
Received this email late this afternoon...
I called, and was advised that I was welcome to the GIS data, that I could select any or all of the list of GIS layers that I would be emailed, and an apology for the frustrations of the last couple of days.
I politely thanked him, and that was the end of the conversation.
Judging by the level of officialdom that I spoke with, I'm fairly confident that it will happen just that way.
UPDATE Friday, 29 Jan:
Received this email late this afternoon...
Dear Mr. Merriman,
As per your request, I am sending you an Excel spreadsheet that provides you with a list of the GIS related data that we have available. There are several tabs on the spreadsheet with different types of GIS information. Below is an overview of what is in each tab:
1) SDE_Data is the ArcSDE geodatabase (GDB) containing many of our primary base map data layers. This includes data imported from Yellowstone County and the State of Montana.
2) Geodatabases_MDB is a list of personal geodatabases which uses Microsoft Access format. Many of these are working or draft datasets, and may or may not have resulted in the output of a final version, but we keep them for reference.
3) PW_ROWAssets contains Public Works non-utility right-of-way assets such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, signs, streetlights, traffic signals, storm drains, etc. Storm drains are a work in progress and are not ready for export, except for a high level view. This data has been provided to consultants working with the City.
4) PW_Utilities is the utilities infrastructure. This is a work in progress, though the sanitary sewer data is mostly complete. The water system is nearing completion. In addition to underground pipe are manholes, pumping stations, reservoirs, physical plant sites, intake and discharge points, lift stations, pumps, electrical vaults, transformers, force mains, and a wide variety of other features.
As Assistant City Administrator McCandless explained to you, this is the first large scale request we have had for our GIS data. Please review the list of GIS data on the enclosed spreadsheet and hopefully this will help you to identify the GIS data that you are interested in obtaining from the City of Billings. We look forward to receiving your request and providing you with the information. Having said this, I must tell you that we have not fully reviewed the list to determine if any of the GIS data does NOT qualify as public record due to privacy, security, and public safety issues. We will be doing this review soon. We will be sure to prioritize the review of the data you request so that we can fulfill your request as quickly as we can.
Thank-you for your patience while we work through the process of providing you with the information that you are requesting.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Of, By, and For the people my ass!
Back on December 25th (yes, Christmas; I don't have family to spend holidays with so it's pretty much just another day for me) I fired off an email to the HMFIC of the GIS (Geographic Information Systems) for the city of Billings, inquiring about the availability of GIS data. I've gotten interested in what's possible with GIS, and was hoping to get a set of "real world" data that I could have a look at in different ways.
Well, a month later, I got an initial response back:
We'll see what kind of response(s) I get tomorrow...
Well, a month later, I got an initial response back:
David,To that, I responded with
I'm sorry for not responding sooner. The City's GIS data is not available for direct download, and at this time we do not have a publicly accessible web mapping service. Yellowstone County provides a public map service that makes available information about property, streets, administrative boundaries, and other layers, as well as imagery, topo maps, etc. The State of Montana also has a public state-wide map service which provides some of the same information as does the Yellowstone County map service. Both sites can be found using Google.
Yellowstone County: http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov/mapping/webgis.asp
State of Montana: http://gis.mt.gov/
I will be glad to answer any questions.
[name, rank, and serial number removed to protect the guilty]
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Merriman [mailto:dkmerriman@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 2:31 PM
To: XXXXX
Subject: City GIS data
Is the GIS data for the city available for download or otherwise available to the public? If so, how might I get a copy?
David Merriman
You said that it is not available for direct download; if I were toEither I'm on somebody's Watch List, the dingleberry doesn't want to be bothered, or he's so low on the food chain that he doesn't have the horsepower to make a decision. The following is his reply to my second email request, and MY response:
provide the media (cds/dvds), would it be possible to get a copy that
way?
DM
> David,Yes, the shithead actually CCed his email to me to the individuals mentioned, and yes, I actually included my City Council reps in MY reply, which I sent after business hours.
> Per your request for the City's GIS data: in that the City's GIS data
> are considered public records, in order for us to fulfill your
> request a Request For Public Records must first be filled out,
> specifying what data is being requested.
I must confess that I find this requirement to be somewhat at odds with
the policies in place for the State and Yellowstone county; both readily
offer GIS data for download (links to follow).
> The GIS data in its
> entirety could fill dozens of DVDs, and may be better copied to an
> external hard drive, to be provided by the requestor. In addition,
> the City will charge for whatever time is required to fulfill the
> request. The City of Billings GIS data is stored in multiple
> databases, and in literally hundreds or thousands of individual
> files. A request such as this could take many hours or days to
> fulfill, unless a more specific set of data is requested.
This seems rather farfetched, to me. The basic Yellowstone County
datasets offered by the county and state would each fit comfortably onto a single 700MB CD (see http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov/mapping/webgis.asp
and http://nris.mt.gov/gis/gisdatalib/gisDataList.aspx). Still, if the
City GIS Coordinator isn't sure of how much GIS data the City has
actually accumulated, an external drive could be provided.
I do have a problem with your statement that fulfilling a request such as
mine could take "many hours or days"; even the free GIS software for my
Linux system will cheerfully export GIS data and maps _in toto_. Surely,
the City finds it worthwhile to regularly review the GIS maps that are
available - why would it take "hours" to simply copy a map layer to an
external hard drive? As regards the "multiple databases" and "hundreds
or thousands of files", isn't that the whole POINT of having GIS
software, so that all those files can be accessed quickly and easily?
>
> Furthermore, certain data may be considered a matter of public safety
> under Montana Code Annotated, and pending an analysis by City staff
> may not be available to the general public.
I would certainly expect public safety data to be excluded from my
request. Still, absent any information from the City regarding what data
is available, I would have to phrase any request for GIS data as
broadly as possible. Even so, I would hope that the various datasets
(water supplies, sewage, storm drainage, etc) would be on individual GIS
map layers so as to allow City employees (or other users) to view only
those areas of interest.
>
> The Request For Public Records can be found on the City's website
> under the Clerk and Recorders page:
> http://ci.billings.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=104.
As an FYI, the Request form is now located at the URL:
http://ci.billings.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=962
While the City may not explicitly make the GIS data available via a web
site (or even page), I find it troubling that there doesn't seem to have
been any thought given to the idea that a mere citizen might want access
to the data that has already been paid for.
I would have HOPED that my initial request about the GIS data would have drawn a response along the lines of "Sure, we've got Water, Sewage,
Electric Distribution, Storm Drainage, Rights of Way, Property
Ownership, Physical Addresses, [further list of subjects]. We can't
release ______ and _____ for public safety reasons, but you're welcome to any of the others. Each dataset takes up ABOUT ________ bytes, and you'll have to bring your own storage medium for us to copy it to. Make an appointment, and we can copy it over for you in about _____ minutes, tops. This isn't any big deal, since we keep a copy of the files handy, so there won't be any charge."
Instead, what I got was an initial attempt to shuttle me off to something
completely different from what I inquired about. A followup got me the
message that I've responded to in this email.
Taking this (your second) response at face value, I am left with the
distinct impression that either you don't want to be bothered by an
actual Billings resident and threw out a bunch of word salad to try
and discourage me; or you actually don't have any idea of how much GIS
data the City has or what that data consists of.
Mr. XXXXX, I made an honest and polite request for assistance and
information. I would think that an open and honest governmental body -
one with an interest in actually serving the public - would have
responded much differently than you have. If you plan to continue with
the attitude that you have demonstrated to me thus far, I would suggest
that you get your job title changed from "GIS Coordinator" to "GIS
Obfuscator".
Since you have seen fit to CC your email to the City Attorney, Assistant
City Manager and City Manager (but, curiously, not the Director or
Assistant Directors of Public Works), I have taken the liberty of CCing
my response to my City Council members.
David Merriman
We'll see what kind of response(s) I get tomorrow...
Monday, January 11, 2010
2 plus 3 equals purple
Okay, sports fans, try this one on for size:
This is not an uncommon occurence, and I can easily imagine the city sending a nastygram to property owner, who does one of the following:
- The city of Billings has an ordinance (Sec. 22-406) that states that property owners are responsible for removing snow from their sidewalks within 24 hours of the end of the snowstorm.
- Said ordinance is "complaint-driven", meaning that one must call a specific number and provide the address of the guilty party.
- On such complaint, the city will mail the owner a notice that they have to remove the snow.
- If the property owner fails to do so, the city has the option of either removing it and billing the owner, or issuing the owner a fine up to $500.
- When we get a snowstorm, the city promptly dispatches the snowplows to deal with the major thoroughfares (i.e. "snow routes").
- The current procedure is for the snowplow drivers to redirect the snow onto the sidewalks so as to keep the roads clear.
This is not an uncommon occurence, and I can easily imagine the city sending a nastygram to property owner, who does one of the following:
- Re-shovels, then bills the city for the extra effort. When the city doesn't pay, take them to court.
- Ignores the city's notice, and gets fined or billed as appropriate. The aggravated property owner then rears back on their hind legs and sues the city.
- Tells the ordinance enforcement people what happened, and to get lost, followed by (2) above.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Nice, Max, real nice...
It certainly looks like our esteemed Senator Max Baucus has enjoyed his share of Holiday Cheer in this video from the Senate floor...
H/T to Good Sir Jimbo
H/T to Good Sir Jimbo
Monday, December 21, 2009
PISSED!
Now that the assclowns in the Senate have passed the so-called healthcare "reform" bill, I am so totally, thoroughly, unspeakably pissed at my local shitbird that I've called his office (Senator Jon Tester, Billings 252-0550) to try and let them know that I am MOST DEFINITELY upset.
The entire state of fucking NEBRASKA getting out of having to pay anything because their scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, asswipe Senator went for a fucking power-play in exchange for his vote? This doesn't stand any kind of test, never mind "smell".
It is my sincere and fond hope that every microcephalic, misanthropic, pusillanimous pinhead that voted for this offence against the very IDEA of "democracy" should be smitten with suppurating pustules, have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their crotches, be flogged repeatedly and have the wounds rubbed with salt -- and then be seriously abused.
The entire state of fucking NEBRASKA getting out of having to pay anything because their scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, asswipe Senator went for a fucking power-play in exchange for his vote? This doesn't stand any kind of test, never mind "smell".
It is my sincere and fond hope that every microcephalic, misanthropic, pusillanimous pinhead that voted for this offence against the very IDEA of "democracy" should be smitten with suppurating pustules, have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their crotches, be flogged repeatedly and have the wounds rubbed with salt -- and then be seriously abused.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Physician, heal thyself
One of the things that has been rattling around in my head is the prospect of savings in the healthcare field. I'm not a professional policy wonk, but I have had more than the usual amount of exposure to medical professionals, and how the healthcare field actually works. Here are a few of the things that I hope are addressed:
- Electronic records can and should be the norm. Electronic records allow for more efficient storage of greater amounts of information (not just patient notes, but digital X-rays, scans, etc.), provide greater assurance that the various bits of data will stay together (no more physically lost X-rays that wouldn't fit in the regular patient folder, for example), and make for easier transfer and sharing between various providers.
- Standardized documentation -- not so much for the actual medical documents (which seem to be pretty much geared toward the people that need them, anyway), but the support paperwork. I've seen, with my own two beady little eyes, the claim forms for three different insurance companies. All three of them asked for the exact same information, but used completely different forms to do it. This is a clear and compelling example of how and why electronic record-keeping would save money: using something called XML, insurance companies could have their own "unique" individual paperwork, but still make available a common base that would dramatically reduce the time and effort (and expense) of filing claims. It doesn't matter if you call a blank on a form "Home", "Residence", "Address" or whatever -- it's the place where I live, and I should have to provide it only ONCE for everybody treating me or paying for the care I receive.
- Defensive medicine is something that a lot of physicians feel the need to practice; it's the "policy" of ordering tests that aren't necessarily needed to establish a diagnosis, simply to ensure that they've covered ALL the bases in an effort to insulate themselves against a malpractice suit. This, of course, leads us to:
- Malpractice reform is something else that needs to be addressed. There are entirely too many people and lawyers willing to sue for any damn thing, and juries willing to slap heavy-duty lawsuit awards against doctors and other healthcare professionals for things that weren't the result of actual negligence. I mean, let's face it: no matter how much schooling they've had, or how long they've been in practice, doctors aren't immune to making mistakes. Sure, they should be making a hell of a lot fewer of them, but they aren't the life-giving Gods that people want to think they are (despite how some Doctors act). That being said...
- Physicians (as a community) need to be a HELL of a lot more open about their profession, and the people in it. By that, I mean that patients (consumers!) should be able to find out if a particular physician has a history of bad judgement, ineptitude, substance-abuse problems, or other factors a potential patient should be aware of. Similarly, it should be possible to get some idea of how experienced and proficient a physician is: if, for example, I'm looking at getting a knee replacement, I should be able to look up the names of doctors that do the procedure and see how many they've done, and how successful they were (including long-term results). Yes, some doctors take on "riskier" patients than others, and that can be noted and factored in; it doesn't change the underlying need for accountability and public awareness. I've heard of a lot of physicians saying that they can police their own; I say it's time they do just that -- police themselves, with the corresponding punishments and public accountability, just as the legal system provides.
- Individuals need to be a lot more active in their healthcare, too. As noted above, the title "Doctor" doesn't equate to "Divine Entity"; folks need to ask a lot more questions, insist on intelligible answers, and not give health care staff an automatic pass on things. By way of illustration, if I ever find myself in a hospital bed again, I fully plan to have a box of gloves and a big bottle of hand sanitizer next to my bed -- and if I don't SEE the staff cleaning their hands (THE most common means of infection transfer in hospitals), I'll insist they use one or the other before touching me so that I reduce my infection risks. Hell, be a pain in the ass, if that's what it takes -- it's your body, life, and health, isn't it?
- I'm going to suggest something that I think is new, here: a lower level of initial healthcare contact. By that, I mean we should maybe think of having an initial contact level of healthcare that serves as a "triage" point: let doctors and nurses in offices and emergency rooms deal with stuff that really needs people doing doctor stuff, and let this initial contact point serve to tell folks to put an icepack on their sprained wrist (minimal attention needed), they need to make an appointment with a doctor (more important, but not "critical"), or get them to an emergency room. Wouldn't it seem more efficient (and cheaper) to let an LVN/LPN wrap that sprained wrist or give a flu shot than the better-trained and more experienced RN or a doctor -- freeing them up to tend to stuff more appropriate to their knowledge and skills? I'd think that parking a mobile home outfitted as a first-care office in one corner of every schoolyard in the country would dramatically reduce the overloaded emergency rooms and doctors offices, and be cheaper to operate to boot.
- Insulate doctors (and other health care professionals) from the infrastructure. I can't imagine why a doctor (or nurse, or Physician's Assistant, or...) should even be allowed to have any financial interest in a drug company, medical technology company, or any other kind of product or enterprise that they have direct and immediate contact with. A doctor sending a patient to an MRI facility that he is a part owner of is inexcusable, just as it should be for them to prescribe a drug made by a company that they have stock in (or otherwise stand to receive any kind of tangible income or reward from). Granted that they may not be all THAT many doctors involved in such shenanigans, but I don't think there should be ANY. If doctors want to invest in such things, then it should be done as a "blind" trust -- the doctor(s) involved shouldn't have any idea of who, what, or where.
- Non-traditional medical "practices" should be subject to rigorous review and evaluation -- there has got to be a way to get rid of the pay-for-pills "pain management" offices, the whiplash-centric chiropractors, and the like. Not only do they give the rest of the medical profession a bad name, they directly and indirectly contribute to the associated costs the rest of us have to pay: increased insurance rates to cover inflated insurance claims, crimes associated with drugged "patients", waste and abuse of the medical infrastructure due to fraudulent claims, and more. I'm not suggesting doing away with pain management or chiropractic practices entirely -- only those that are patently engaged in fraud. If one office accounts for a statistically significant higher number of cases (lawsuits, crimes, etc.) than anyone else, it would seem pretty obvious that something untoward is going on.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Explanation, please?
I'm paying attention to all the fuss and furor over The One's health care reform program, and there are a few things that I'm not understanding. Now, I'm not a Republicrat or a Demolican, I'm not a spokesmodel for any interest group, nor a doctor, lawyer, or Indian Chief. I'm just a plain-old Mk I, Mod I human people. Perhaps some knowledgeable person could give me clear and definitive answers to a few things:
- A lot of what I'm hearing involves affordable health care -- so just what, exactly, does "affordable" mean? Is that going to be the same for me and the schmuck next door, or is it going to be dependent on income? If it's going to be income-dependent, doesn't that mean that some folks are essentially going to be underwriting (paying for) the care their less-fortunate brethren get?
- There's also a lot of discussion on a "public option", where "public option" translates into government-funded. If the government DOES get involved, how much would that involvement include? Simple transfer of funds from collection to disbursement? Or would the government start mandating policies, procedures, and a whole raft of other dictates? If the government IS involved in the decision-making process, what would the limits of that involvement be?
- His Obamaness (and the Democratic party) are pitching a fit that there's a lot of astroturfing going on by opponents to Health Care Reform, and that everybody should be supporting the reform program -- except that all we have at this point are two completely different bills, one in each of the Senate and House, that aren't anywhere near ready for Presidential signature. With no single implementable bill available, we don't have any details or particulars to consider -- just a couple of incompatible vague suggestions. So just what the hell is it that we're supposed to be supporting?
- I haven't heard any clear, definitive explanation of how all this reform is supposed to be paid for. Sure, there're a few billion here and there that can be saved via pooled drug purchases, increased efficiencies in medical facilities and practises, and so on -- but those are minuscule compared to the projected costs of the entire reform program. So where is the money coming from? Somebody is going to have to pay for all this change -- so who is it?
- I find it telling that nobody is addressing the issue of the efficiency of any administration of this reform. Since the government doesn't have the most stellar record of efficiency, the ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstance, accountability, or restraining program growth, why in the world should any of us believe that government involvement is going to be beneficial to the process?
- Something else that I haven't heard any mention of is what specific goals are going to be set, who's going to set them, and how we're supposed to know when they're achieved. Is this whole thing going to be turned over to a bunch of social-reformers, professional (non-government) administrators, or someone else? What, if anything, is going to be done to keep any über-progressives from inflicting their wishes and opinions on those that don't agree with them? What reason do we have to believe that any policies that are proposed will have the greatest effect for the least cost, versus targeting anything or anyone the policy makers don't like?
- Who's going to be in charge of this operation? What are their responsibilities, and how are they going to be evaluated? Who's going to decide how much of what should be done? How are those decisions going to be reached, and what recourse is there for those adversely impacted by the decisions?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Debt Collectors and Telemarketers
Sen. Jon Tester
222 N 32nd Street, Suite 102
Billings, MT 59101
Senator Tester;
I have recently made the conversion from traditional telephone to 'digital' service through my cable company. In the process, I neglected to ensure that I retained my original telephone number; as a consequence, I have had the opportunity to discover a few things about some companies that do a majority of their business over the phone.
The types of companies that I'm referring to are debt collection outfits and telemarketers, and what I've discovered is that neither of them seems to pay the slightest bit of attention to those unlucky enough to become their targets.
The debt collection agencies are probably the worst: they seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that someone who has had a bill turned over to collection may also have lost their telephone service, too – and that the number may have been re-issued to someone else. I have gotten repeated phone calls from some agencies that have been annoying and persistent enough to provoke me into considerable ire (and profanity, I must confess).
While I have registered my (new) phone number with the national Do Not Call registry, it takes several weeks before that is (supposed) to become effective; in the mean time, I've been subjected to no small number of calls offering products I don't need or want, advised that I've won a variety of contests that I never entered, and enticed with a dizzying assortment of scams. The thing with the telemarketing calls is that many of them are robo-calls that tell me to press a number on my phone to stop receiving the calls – which don't stop, anyway.
Further exacerbating the situation is that the vast majority of these calls (of both types) have had names and/or numbers that didn't bear even the faintest connection to the actual caller.
After giving the matter some thought, I think that it would be entirely appropriate for the
government to address the issue. What I would like to see is the following suggestions be implemented as laws or regulations governing debt collection and telemarketing companies:
For telemarketers:
• Those called must be given an opportunity to decline, and be removed (permanently!)
from the contact list within 24 hours. Violations should result in a fine/penalty of $5,000
PER INCIDENT.
• The company contracting the telemarketing work (i.e., the one they're calling for) should
also be held liable for any violations made by the telemarketer. If I can learn that a
particular telemarketer has a reputation for bad behavior, I have to think that someone
hiring them can, too – and should be held accountable. I think applying the same perincident fee to them, too, would be appropriate.
For debt collectors:
• When advised that the person they're after no longer has a particular phone number, they
must immediately end the call, and make no further calls to that number until and unless
they have verified the number using something other than the most recent telephone
book/listing. Repeat calls should result in a fine or penalty of $10,000 PER INCIDENT.
• When a debt collector receives an account where the contact details are more than 6
months old, they must verify those details, as above, before making any calls. A
fine/penalty of $5,000 PER INCIDENT would be appropriate.
For both:
• When requested by a contact, representatives of the calling company must provide the
legal name (as in: the one printed on their paychecks!) of who they work for, vice who
they're calling on behalf of. Violations should be fined/penalized $50,000 PER
INCIDENT.
• Companies calling on behalf of someone other than themselves (such as telemarketers
and collection agencies) must provide their real names and contact phone numbers for
Caller ID. Failure to do so should cost them $50,000 PER INCIDENT.
• Allow those contacted to record and document such activities, and forward them to the
FCC for priority investigation. Current laws on the recording of telephone conversations
are a mish-mash of limitations imposed by different states; establish one overriding
exemption for those receiving interstate commercial calls.
Doubtless, representatives of both of these types of businesses will scream bloody murder at the idea; however, since they are patently unable or unwilling to effectively police themselves, then it must be done FOR them. Also, the dollar values I've proposed are meant to be high – the cost should be sufficient to ensure that non-compliance isn't even considered. If you wanted to double (or even treble) them, I certainly wouldn't object...
I would also suggest that funding to the FCC (or other agency, as appropriate) be increased
somewhat so that they would have the means to investigate such activities, and even take a proactive approach toward ensuring compliance.
I shall look forward to receiving any response you might care to make to this letter.
Respectfully,
David K. Merriman
222 N 32nd Street, Suite 102
Billings, MT 59101
Senator Tester;
I have recently made the conversion from traditional telephone to 'digital' service through my cable company. In the process, I neglected to ensure that I retained my original telephone number; as a consequence, I have had the opportunity to discover a few things about some companies that do a majority of their business over the phone.
The types of companies that I'm referring to are debt collection outfits and telemarketers, and what I've discovered is that neither of them seems to pay the slightest bit of attention to those unlucky enough to become their targets.
The debt collection agencies are probably the worst: they seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that someone who has had a bill turned over to collection may also have lost their telephone service, too – and that the number may have been re-issued to someone else. I have gotten repeated phone calls from some agencies that have been annoying and persistent enough to provoke me into considerable ire (and profanity, I must confess).
While I have registered my (new) phone number with the national Do Not Call registry, it takes several weeks before that is (supposed) to become effective; in the mean time, I've been subjected to no small number of calls offering products I don't need or want, advised that I've won a variety of contests that I never entered, and enticed with a dizzying assortment of scams. The thing with the telemarketing calls is that many of them are robo-calls that tell me to press a number on my phone to stop receiving the calls – which don't stop, anyway.
Further exacerbating the situation is that the vast majority of these calls (of both types) have had names and/or numbers that didn't bear even the faintest connection to the actual caller.
After giving the matter some thought, I think that it would be entirely appropriate for the
government to address the issue. What I would like to see is the following suggestions be implemented as laws or regulations governing debt collection and telemarketing companies:
For telemarketers:
• Those called must be given an opportunity to decline, and be removed (permanently!)
from the contact list within 24 hours. Violations should result in a fine/penalty of $5,000
PER INCIDENT.
• The company contracting the telemarketing work (i.e., the one they're calling for) should
also be held liable for any violations made by the telemarketer. If I can learn that a
particular telemarketer has a reputation for bad behavior, I have to think that someone
hiring them can, too – and should be held accountable. I think applying the same perincident fee to them, too, would be appropriate.
For debt collectors:
• When advised that the person they're after no longer has a particular phone number, they
must immediately end the call, and make no further calls to that number until and unless
they have verified the number using something other than the most recent telephone
book/listing. Repeat calls should result in a fine or penalty of $10,000 PER INCIDENT.
• When a debt collector receives an account where the contact details are more than 6
months old, they must verify those details, as above, before making any calls. A
fine/penalty of $5,000 PER INCIDENT would be appropriate.
For both:
• When requested by a contact, representatives of the calling company must provide the
legal name (as in: the one printed on their paychecks!) of who they work for, vice who
they're calling on behalf of. Violations should be fined/penalized $50,000 PER
INCIDENT.
• Companies calling on behalf of someone other than themselves (such as telemarketers
and collection agencies) must provide their real names and contact phone numbers for
Caller ID. Failure to do so should cost them $50,000 PER INCIDENT.
• Allow those contacted to record and document such activities, and forward them to the
FCC for priority investigation. Current laws on the recording of telephone conversations
are a mish-mash of limitations imposed by different states; establish one overriding
exemption for those receiving interstate commercial calls.
Doubtless, representatives of both of these types of businesses will scream bloody murder at the idea; however, since they are patently unable or unwilling to effectively police themselves, then it must be done FOR them. Also, the dollar values I've proposed are meant to be high – the cost should be sufficient to ensure that non-compliance isn't even considered. If you wanted to double (or even treble) them, I certainly wouldn't object...
I would also suggest that funding to the FCC (or other agency, as appropriate) be increased
somewhat so that they would have the means to investigate such activities, and even take a proactive approach toward ensuring compliance.
I shall look forward to receiving any response you might care to make to this letter.
Respectfully,
David K. Merriman
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
You know that statistic that 90% of the weapons in Mexico's drug wars are from the U.S.?
Well, it turns out that maybe that was just a wee bit over-stated.
In fact, the truth of the matter is almost exactly the reverse: 83% of the weapons seized in Mexico can't be traced back to the U.S:
Well, it turns out that maybe that was just a wee bit over-stated.
In fact, the truth of the matter is almost exactly the reverse: 83% of the weapons seized in Mexico can't be traced back to the U.S:
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
Where ARE they coming from?
-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
Whoops.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Over-stimulation
Does anybody out there really think Microsoft needs any economic stimulus? If so, you'll be happy to know that the Beast of Redmond is going to be receiving roughly 18 MILLION dollars to connect a couple sections of their 'campus' via a bridge -- coming to be known as the Bridge to Microsoft.
Just. Fucking. Lovely.
Just. Fucking. Lovely.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Stupid is as Stupid does...
Here's one for you:
A Colonial "theme" park has a couple of people that operate the mules that pull a barge along a closed-off two mile stretch of canal. The canal doesn't get anywhere even close to anything even vaguely sensitive like a nuke power plant, military base, or anything like that.
So what does the TSA demand? Biometric ID for the muleskinners, under the claim that everybody with any kind of Coast Guard license (the 'skinners have to have one because of the boat) has to have the background check necessary to get the I.D.
Now, you tell me -- does THIS look all that dangerous?
Best line of the article? Has to be this:
A Colonial "theme" park has a couple of people that operate the mules that pull a barge along a closed-off two mile stretch of canal. The canal doesn't get anywhere even close to anything even vaguely sensitive like a nuke power plant, military base, or anything like that.
So what does the TSA demand? Biometric ID for the muleskinners, under the claim that everybody with any kind of Coast Guard license (the 'skinners have to have one because of the boat) has to have the background check necessary to get the I.D.
Now, you tell me -- does THIS look all that dangerous?
Best line of the article? Has to be this:
... the mules could be considered weapons of mass destruction only if they were aimed at something resembling food.Ya gotta love it...
Klewless
See, this is why I named my blog the way I did...
Got a call a little bit ago from the moorons at the Census. Seems that me simply claiming (by writing in BIG RED LETTERS on the front of it) religious exemption from answering their questions wasn't enough. They "had" to call, and explicityly ask me each and every farookin' question on the survey, and then take my verbal response (which was probably politer and less profane that I should have made it).
So, after verifying the basics that I'd filled in on the front of the damn thing, we had to go through the rest of it. After the first time I responded with "I decline to answer that question on religous grounds.", it was sufficient for me to simply reply "Decline" to the rest of them -- all eleventy hundred of them (or so it seemed).
And then the dipshits wonder why Government is held in such low regard...
Got a call a little bit ago from the moorons at the Census. Seems that me simply claiming (by writing in BIG RED LETTERS on the front of it) religious exemption from answering their questions wasn't enough. They "had" to call, and explicityly ask me each and every farookin' question on the survey, and then take my verbal response (which was probably politer and less profane that I should have made it).
So, after verifying the basics that I'd filled in on the front of the damn thing, we had to go through the rest of it. After the first time I responded with "I decline to answer that question on religous grounds.", it was sufficient for me to simply reply "Decline" to the rest of them -- all eleventy hundred of them (or so it seemed).
And then the dipshits wonder why Government is held in such low regard...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
