Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
No joke: UF officials remove zombie plan from site
No joke: UF officials remove zombie plan from site
Floridians will be the first to go
And if that wasn't enough Zombie tales for you
Zombie Tracker
Floridians will be the first to go
And if that wasn't enough Zombie tales for you
Zombie Tracker
Monday, October 12, 2009
Health Insurance Debate
An interesting article on Yahoo today.
What really gets me on the whole health care debate is it seem legislators are missing the obvious (how unusual). Instead of going after insurance providers maybe they should be looking at regulating service providers and providers of medical supplies.
Anyone who has to have glasses knows that you can different rates based on whether you claim you have insurance or not. And in my experience, you usually get medical supplies cheaper if you don't claim it on your insurance. Doesn't that seem to defeat the purpose of insurance?
Insurers' warning shot has Democrats scrambling
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more.
Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.
Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.
The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday's scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.
The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.
It's at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.
"We've got ourselves a real health care shooting war now," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant. "The industry has come to the conclusion that the way things are going in Congress, we'll have a ... formula that will be disastrous for their business, so they can't stand on the sidelines any longer."
Questions about the technical soundness of the industry analysis by the PricewaterhouseCoopers firm was a big part of the discussion Monday. The release of the study late Sunday on the eve of the federal Columbus Day holiday had Democrats crying foul.
"The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Democrats have reason to worry. Insurance industry opposition helped sink President Bill Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s by fanning fears that people with coverage would wind up paying more.
Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.
The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.
Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.
In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.
Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it's impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.
The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.
The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.
The study finds fault with what Baucus sees as one of the crowning achievements of his bill. Even with a tight budget, it would cover an estimated 94 percent of eligible Americans, up from about 83 percent now. The study — and the insurance industry — say that's not enough, particularly since senators have weakened the stiff fines Baucus originally proposed for ignoring a requirement to get coverage.
"You really have to have a coverage level in the high 90s to make this work," Ignagni said.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers study also assumes that proposed taxes on high-cost insurance, new levies on insurers and other health industry firms, and Medicare cuts will be directly passed on to privately insured policyholders.
Critics of the study said it tilted those assumptions too far toward a worst case, ignoring the bill's potential to curb costs.
For example, the tax on high-cost health insurance that Baucus is proposing could lead employers and individuals to switch to lower-cost plans and avoid the levy. If that happens, there would be no additional costs to pass on to consumers.
The study "assumed the tax would have no behavioral effect, contrary to every other tax in the history of civilization," said economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation.
Critics also said the study doesn't take into account proposed insurance exchanges, a new marketplace that would be designed to foster competition and presumably drive premiums down.
There's equally strong debate about the effects of $400 billion in proposed cuts in Medicare payments to insurers, hospitals and other service providers. The study assumes those costs would be shifted to people with private insurance, but the bill's supporters say the reductions are aimed at reducing wasteful spending that drives up costs.
____
Associated Press Writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
What really gets me on the whole health care debate is it seem legislators are missing the obvious (how unusual). Instead of going after insurance providers maybe they should be looking at regulating service providers and providers of medical supplies.
Anyone who has to have glasses knows that you can different rates based on whether you claim you have insurance or not. And in my experience, you usually get medical supplies cheaper if you don't claim it on your insurance. Doesn't that seem to defeat the purpose of insurance?
Insurers' warning shot has Democrats scrambling
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more.
Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.
Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.
The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday's scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.
The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.
It's at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.
"We've got ourselves a real health care shooting war now," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant. "The industry has come to the conclusion that the way things are going in Congress, we'll have a ... formula that will be disastrous for their business, so they can't stand on the sidelines any longer."
Questions about the technical soundness of the industry analysis by the PricewaterhouseCoopers firm was a big part of the discussion Monday. The release of the study late Sunday on the eve of the federal Columbus Day holiday had Democrats crying foul.
"The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Democrats have reason to worry. Insurance industry opposition helped sink President Bill Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s by fanning fears that people with coverage would wind up paying more.
Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.
The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.
Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.
In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.
Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it's impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.
The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.
The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.
The study finds fault with what Baucus sees as one of the crowning achievements of his bill. Even with a tight budget, it would cover an estimated 94 percent of eligible Americans, up from about 83 percent now. The study — and the insurance industry — say that's not enough, particularly since senators have weakened the stiff fines Baucus originally proposed for ignoring a requirement to get coverage.
"You really have to have a coverage level in the high 90s to make this work," Ignagni said.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers study also assumes that proposed taxes on high-cost insurance, new levies on insurers and other health industry firms, and Medicare cuts will be directly passed on to privately insured policyholders.
Critics of the study said it tilted those assumptions too far toward a worst case, ignoring the bill's potential to curb costs.
For example, the tax on high-cost health insurance that Baucus is proposing could lead employers and individuals to switch to lower-cost plans and avoid the levy. If that happens, there would be no additional costs to pass on to consumers.
The study "assumed the tax would have no behavioral effect, contrary to every other tax in the history of civilization," said economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation.
Critics also said the study doesn't take into account proposed insurance exchanges, a new marketplace that would be designed to foster competition and presumably drive premiums down.
There's equally strong debate about the effects of $400 billion in proposed cuts in Medicare payments to insurers, hospitals and other service providers. The study assumes those costs would be shifted to people with private insurance, but the bill's supporters say the reductions are aimed at reducing wasteful spending that drives up costs.
____
Associated Press Writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Torture- Verizon be thy Name
Verizon Customer Service
Those of you who have known me awhile have heard my issues with Verizon’s customer service. Beginning with phone service at my apartment through charging me for DSL service when I was apparently outside the service area (which explained why it worked only intermittently) to the current travails at my new house.
I won’t recap the circus of stupidity that I had to endure to get my service installed, but instead will jump to this month’s ongoing drama.
We had a brief thunderstorm Thursday night and it was enough to knock out Verizon service in our neighborhood. I got home from work Friday night excited about the opening of college football season, but no. Still no Verizon FIOS service (TV, internet nor phone). With nothing else to do I called customer service. After two dropped calls (which I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say was my cell phone) and over an hour on hold, I get an automated message saying service is out in our area and should be back by Saturday 8:30 pm.
Grumble, grumble, but Robely and I go out Saturday evening to catch some football action at the local watering hole. We return to the house after 9pm and I check everything. Still no FIOS service. I decide to call again. This time the wait is much shorter and I reach an agent.
Verizon Customer Service (VCS): Can I have your home phone number?
Me: I give my number
VCS: Can I reach you at this number if we get cut off?
Me: um, the phone isn’t working that is why I am calling
VCS: Oh, can I have email address to send you some troubleshooting tips then?
Me: Sure, but my internet is down as well
VCS: *click*
I look at my phone in disbelief, then like a masochist, redial the number. Again, a short wait and I reach a different agent. He asks the same questions and I give the same answers. I also vent a little frustration politely and recap my efforts thus far.
VCS: I see you experienced an outage in your area and the last agent left you out of the standard tech follow up. Let me get my manager.
He puts me on hold, and comes back off and on to let me know that he is still there and checking on things.
VCS: Mr. Customer, my manager approved sending a tech out to your house Monday morning between 8 and 10, is that ok?
My eyes pop in disbelief! Only two days to wait for a FIOS tech and on a holiday Monday? My good karma must be kicking in.
Me: sure thing, thank you for your help
VCS: You have a good weekend and thanks for choosing Verizon.
Labor Day Monday. We drag ourselves out of bed earlier than humanely necessary, sit in the living room and watch the front door like hawks. My wife is definitely in the stages of internet withdrawal. Her left hand is tattooing on the couch and her right hand is going in circles, her index finger pulsing.
11:30 comes and goes. I decide I need more torturing in my life. I get to an agent surprisingly quick yet again. And again I go through the spiel regarding my phone number and email address. This latest agent has a thick Spanish accent that makes it difficult for me to catch everything he is saying.
VCS: Mr. Customer? I need to contact the dispatch in your area. They are the ones that send out the techs. Please hold.
15 minutes go by……
VCS: Mr. Customer? They say there is an outage in your area and that it should be fixed by 10pm this evening, that is why they did not dispatch a tech to your house.
Me: Why didn’t they tell me that Saturday?
VCS: Let me contact the dispatch office, please hold…..There is an outage in your area. They will send a tech when it is repaired. It should be fixed by 10:30 tonight.
Me: *sigh* ok, thank you.
Day 5 without Verizon service is now here. Nothing was working when I left the house. I am now at the point of a) torturing myself through their customer service again; b) going through their billing customer service to cancel the service or c) calling the regional manager and try and get a better idea of what is going on.
Those of you who have known me awhile have heard my issues with Verizon’s customer service. Beginning with phone service at my apartment through charging me for DSL service when I was apparently outside the service area (which explained why it worked only intermittently) to the current travails at my new house.
I won’t recap the circus of stupidity that I had to endure to get my service installed, but instead will jump to this month’s ongoing drama.
We had a brief thunderstorm Thursday night and it was enough to knock out Verizon service in our neighborhood. I got home from work Friday night excited about the opening of college football season, but no. Still no Verizon FIOS service (TV, internet nor phone). With nothing else to do I called customer service. After two dropped calls (which I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say was my cell phone) and over an hour on hold, I get an automated message saying service is out in our area and should be back by Saturday 8:30 pm.
Grumble, grumble, but Robely and I go out Saturday evening to catch some football action at the local watering hole. We return to the house after 9pm and I check everything. Still no FIOS service. I decide to call again. This time the wait is much shorter and I reach an agent.
Verizon Customer Service (VCS): Can I have your home phone number?
Me: I give my number
VCS: Can I reach you at this number if we get cut off?
Me: um, the phone isn’t working that is why I am calling
VCS: Oh, can I have email address to send you some troubleshooting tips then?
Me: Sure, but my internet is down as well
VCS: *click*
I look at my phone in disbelief, then like a masochist, redial the number. Again, a short wait and I reach a different agent. He asks the same questions and I give the same answers. I also vent a little frustration politely and recap my efforts thus far.
VCS: I see you experienced an outage in your area and the last agent left you out of the standard tech follow up. Let me get my manager.
He puts me on hold, and comes back off and on to let me know that he is still there and checking on things.
VCS: Mr. Customer, my manager approved sending a tech out to your house Monday morning between 8 and 10, is that ok?
My eyes pop in disbelief! Only two days to wait for a FIOS tech and on a holiday Monday? My good karma must be kicking in.
Me: sure thing, thank you for your help
VCS: You have a good weekend and thanks for choosing Verizon.
Labor Day Monday. We drag ourselves out of bed earlier than humanely necessary, sit in the living room and watch the front door like hawks. My wife is definitely in the stages of internet withdrawal. Her left hand is tattooing on the couch and her right hand is going in circles, her index finger pulsing.
11:30 comes and goes. I decide I need more torturing in my life. I get to an agent surprisingly quick yet again. And again I go through the spiel regarding my phone number and email address. This latest agent has a thick Spanish accent that makes it difficult for me to catch everything he is saying.
VCS: Mr. Customer? I need to contact the dispatch in your area. They are the ones that send out the techs. Please hold.
15 minutes go by……
VCS: Mr. Customer? They say there is an outage in your area and that it should be fixed by 10pm this evening, that is why they did not dispatch a tech to your house.
Me: Why didn’t they tell me that Saturday?
VCS: Let me contact the dispatch office, please hold…..There is an outage in your area. They will send a tech when it is repaired. It should be fixed by 10:30 tonight.
Me: *sigh* ok, thank you.
Day 5 without Verizon service is now here. Nothing was working when I left the house. I am now at the point of a) torturing myself through their customer service again; b) going through their billing customer service to cancel the service or c) calling the regional manager and try and get a better idea of what is going on.
Monday, August 31, 2009
MechQwest wants you!
Come join me in saving the universe (through mindless clicking)!
BECOME A GEARS UNIVERSITY RECRUITER!
You already know MechQuest is great and getting better every week. Invite your friends and family to play too. If you give them your special recruitment link below (you can get the link in game too) to sign up then YOU will get a daily bonus equal to 10% of all the experience and credits they earn. Crazy right? It gets better… brace yourself. If your friend upgrades, then your character will receive 250 Nova Gems!
YOUR RECRUITMENT LINKhttp://www.mechquest.com/mq-landing.asp?referral=4099482
BECOME A GEARS UNIVERSITY RECRUITER!
You already know MechQuest is great and getting better every week. Invite your friends and family to play too. If you give them your special recruitment link below (you can get the link in game too) to sign up then YOU will get a daily bonus equal to 10% of all the experience and credits they earn. Crazy right? It gets better… brace yourself. If your friend upgrades, then your character will receive 250 Nova Gems!
YOUR RECRUITMENT LINKhttp://www.mechquest.com/mq-landing.asp?referral=4099482
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
At least our government did not fund this study
Science ponders 'zombie attack'
By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News
If zombies actually existed, an attack by them would lead to the collapse of civilisation unless dealt with quickly and aggressively.
That is the conclusion of a mathematical exercise carried out by researchers in Canada.
They say only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures.
The scientific paper is published in a book - Infectious Diseases Modelling Research Progress.
In books, films, video games and folklore, zombies are undead creatures, able to turn the living into other zombies with a bite.
But there is a serious side to the work.
In some respects, a zombie "plague" resembles a lethal rapidly-spreading infection. The researchers say the exercise could help scientists model the spread of unfamiliar diseases through human populations.
“ My understanding of zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever ” Professor Neil Ferguson
In their study, the researchers from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University (also in Ottawa) posed a question: If there was to be a battle between zombies and the living, who would win?
Professor Robert Smith? (the question mark is part of his surname and not a typographical mistake) and colleagues wrote: "We model a zombie attack using biological assumptions based on popular zombie movies.
"We introduce a basic model for zombie infection and illustrate the outcome with numerical solutions."
On his university web page, the mathematics professor at Ottawa University says the question mark distinguishes him from Robert Smith, lead singer of rock band The Cure.
To give the living a fighting chance, the researchers chose "classic" slow-moving zombies as our opponents rather than the nimble, intelligent creatures portrayed in some recent films.
"While we are trying to be as broad as possible in modelling zombies - especially as there are many variables - we have decided not to consider these individuals," the researchers said.
Back for good?
Even so, their analysis revealed that a strategy of capturing or curing the zombies would only put off the inevitable.
In their scientific paper, the authors conclude that humanity's only hope is to "hit them [the undead] hard and hit them often".
They added: "It's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble."
According to the researchers, the key difference between the zombies and the spread of real infections is that "zombies can come back to life".
Professor Neil Ferguson, who is one of the UK government's chief advisors on controlling the spread of swine flu, said the study did have parallels with some infectious diseases.
"None of them actually cause large-scale death or disease, but certainly there are some fungal infections which are difficult to eradicate," said Professor Ferguson, from Imperial College London.
"There are some viral infections - simple diseases like chicken pox has survived in very small communities. When you get it when you are very young, the virus stays with you and can re-occur as shingles, triggering a new chicken pox epidemic."
Professor Smith? told BBC News: "When you try to model an unfamiliar disease, you try to find out what's happening, try to approximate it. You then refine it, go back and try again."
"We refined the model again and again to say... here's how you would tackle an unfamiliar disease."
Professor Ferguson joked: "The paper considers something that many of us have worried about - particularly in our younger days - of what would be a feasible way of tackling an outbreak of a rapidly spreading zombie infection.
"My understanding of zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever. So perhaps they are being a little over-pessimistic when they conclude that zombies might take over a city in three or four days," he said.
By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News
If zombies actually existed, an attack by them would lead to the collapse of civilisation unless dealt with quickly and aggressively.
That is the conclusion of a mathematical exercise carried out by researchers in Canada.
They say only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures.
The scientific paper is published in a book - Infectious Diseases Modelling Research Progress.
In books, films, video games and folklore, zombies are undead creatures, able to turn the living into other zombies with a bite.
But there is a serious side to the work.
In some respects, a zombie "plague" resembles a lethal rapidly-spreading infection. The researchers say the exercise could help scientists model the spread of unfamiliar diseases through human populations.
“ My understanding of zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever ” Professor Neil Ferguson
In their study, the researchers from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University (also in Ottawa) posed a question: If there was to be a battle between zombies and the living, who would win?
Professor Robert Smith? (the question mark is part of his surname and not a typographical mistake) and colleagues wrote: "We model a zombie attack using biological assumptions based on popular zombie movies.
"We introduce a basic model for zombie infection and illustrate the outcome with numerical solutions."
On his university web page, the mathematics professor at Ottawa University says the question mark distinguishes him from Robert Smith, lead singer of rock band The Cure.
To give the living a fighting chance, the researchers chose "classic" slow-moving zombies as our opponents rather than the nimble, intelligent creatures portrayed in some recent films.
"While we are trying to be as broad as possible in modelling zombies - especially as there are many variables - we have decided not to consider these individuals," the researchers said.
Back for good?
Even so, their analysis revealed that a strategy of capturing or curing the zombies would only put off the inevitable.
In their scientific paper, the authors conclude that humanity's only hope is to "hit them [the undead] hard and hit them often".
They added: "It's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble."
According to the researchers, the key difference between the zombies and the spread of real infections is that "zombies can come back to life".
Professor Neil Ferguson, who is one of the UK government's chief advisors on controlling the spread of swine flu, said the study did have parallels with some infectious diseases.
"None of them actually cause large-scale death or disease, but certainly there are some fungal infections which are difficult to eradicate," said Professor Ferguson, from Imperial College London.
"There are some viral infections - simple diseases like chicken pox has survived in very small communities. When you get it when you are very young, the virus stays with you and can re-occur as shingles, triggering a new chicken pox epidemic."
Professor Smith? told BBC News: "When you try to model an unfamiliar disease, you try to find out what's happening, try to approximate it. You then refine it, go back and try again."
"We refined the model again and again to say... here's how you would tackle an unfamiliar disease."
Professor Ferguson joked: "The paper considers something that many of us have worried about - particularly in our younger days - of what would be a feasible way of tackling an outbreak of a rapidly spreading zombie infection.
"My understanding of zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever. So perhaps they are being a little over-pessimistic when they conclude that zombies might take over a city in three or four days," he said.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Another lazy Sunday
It has been awhile since I have done a real post here. I find that Facebook, with it multiple mini-games, sucks up a lot o my computer time. So much so, that I usually forget what I got on the computer to by the time I finish checking the status of my games.
But this weekend gave me pause and I found myself reflecting on an action I took this weekend.
See, recently a friend of mine came down with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A very nasty disorder (which eerily enough had an outbreak coinciding with a swine flu outbreak in the seventies). This friend (let's call him Q) isn't really a close friend, more like a person I game with once or twice a year, but I guess I feel sort of kinship with him in some way.
So Q was in the hospital for two months and has just recently been allowed home. I offered to take him to Madness in Plano Saturday night for gaming. He lives about 1/2 hour away from me and another 1/2 hour away from the store. And it was on the drive there that I questioned what I was doing.
I don't consider myself a real selfish person, nor a saint that usually would go out of my way to this extent (barring emergencey situations). So this is why I really had to think about the 'why' of what I was doing. I guess it is a growing sense of empathy and reliance on that old golden rule.
I think about when I was single, with no family here and if something like this happened to me. Having a bout with bronchitis was bad enough and without my saintly wife to assist in my recovery, I would have been lost.
When we bought our new house in May, I also forced myself to examine my actions. My wife seemed to care less and it was me driving the hunt and relocation. I told my aunt that I was trying to leave some ghosts (some of my same reasons for moving to Texas). Rather than deal with problems in the house and faulkts in my relationship, I decided it was easier to move. But also, I saw myself trying to become more active in the community and the new neighborhood provides more of an opportunity for that. But of course, here it is 2.5 months later and the same relationship problems exist we have a different set of house problems and I have not worked on any community issues, aside from reading the newsletters.
So, perhaps it was an attempt to assuage my conscience that prompted me to assist Q in his social life. Or a response to the impotency I feel in helping my family members back East who are suffering the loss of my uncle and aunt, these past months.
Whatever the reason, Q seemed to have a good time, as did I, and I hope to make the effort again soon.
But this weekend gave me pause and I found myself reflecting on an action I took this weekend.
See, recently a friend of mine came down with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A very nasty disorder (which eerily enough had an outbreak coinciding with a swine flu outbreak in the seventies). This friend (let's call him Q) isn't really a close friend, more like a person I game with once or twice a year, but I guess I feel sort of kinship with him in some way.
So Q was in the hospital for two months and has just recently been allowed home. I offered to take him to Madness in Plano Saturday night for gaming. He lives about 1/2 hour away from me and another 1/2 hour away from the store. And it was on the drive there that I questioned what I was doing.
I don't consider myself a real selfish person, nor a saint that usually would go out of my way to this extent (barring emergencey situations). So this is why I really had to think about the 'why' of what I was doing. I guess it is a growing sense of empathy and reliance on that old golden rule.
I think about when I was single, with no family here and if something like this happened to me. Having a bout with bronchitis was bad enough and without my saintly wife to assist in my recovery, I would have been lost.
When we bought our new house in May, I also forced myself to examine my actions. My wife seemed to care less and it was me driving the hunt and relocation. I told my aunt that I was trying to leave some ghosts (some of my same reasons for moving to Texas). Rather than deal with problems in the house and faulkts in my relationship, I decided it was easier to move. But also, I saw myself trying to become more active in the community and the new neighborhood provides more of an opportunity for that. But of course, here it is 2.5 months later and the same relationship problems exist we have a different set of house problems and I have not worked on any community issues, aside from reading the newsletters.
So, perhaps it was an attempt to assuage my conscience that prompted me to assist Q in his social life. Or a response to the impotency I feel in helping my family members back East who are suffering the loss of my uncle and aunt, these past months.
Whatever the reason, Q seemed to have a good time, as did I, and I hope to make the effort again soon.
Friday, April 17, 2009
WTF?
My wife thinks its funny that I could be affected by this, as I threatened we were moving when the Democrats took over in the last election....
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AIG in bed with Congress
I love hearing the supposed moral outrage from our Congressman about the recent AIG bonuses.
The truth is that with the passage of the stimulus bill, they actually approved the bonus payout.
I heard a brief tidbit on NPR this morning, but the only news article I have been able to find is from FOX news.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble to Undo Protections They Approved
Though Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd is among those leading the charge on retrieving AIG bonuses, an amendment he added to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month created a roadblock to getting that money back.
Congressional lawmakers are scrambling to think up creative ways to recover at least some of the $165 million in bonuses that bailed-out American International Group is paying executives -- but they could be their own worst enemy.
Though Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is among those leading the charge on retrieving the bonuses, an amendment he added to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month created a roadblock to getting that money back.
The amendment, meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, also included an exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009."
This would seem to exempt the AIG bonuses that lawmakers and President Obama are looking to recover. Incidentally, Dodd is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, with $103,100, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Dodd amendment creates a "prohibition on what the president is now talking about," said Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House minority whip. He also accused the administration of being in "disarray."
However, Dodd told FOX News late Tuesday that the exemption was not part of his original
amendment and was only added during negotiations after the fact.
"When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language," he said.
"I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it," he said, referring to the exemption. "When it came back, it did."
But the so-called Dodd amendment wasn't the only missed opportunity to deal with executive bonuses. In addition, lawmakers dropped an amendment during negotiations on the stimulus last month that would have mandated companies paying bonuses over $100,000 face either a 35 percent excise tax on the money or return the cash. The amendment was drafted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Snowe's staff estimates this would have recovered about $58 million from AIG -- an aide could not say why the provision was dropped last month. (Szostak said Dodd supported that amendment.)
Now Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money.
Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money.
"Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada
Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses.
He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.
Baucus is seeking to find out exactly who received bonuses and, if some are not U.S. citizens, whether Congress can construct a law to tax the bonuses of the foreign nationals.
"If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. "So let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses, be warned. If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you."
Dodd pushed the idea of taxing the bonuses Monday night. But on Tuesday, while he said lawmakers would continue to pursue this avenue, he added: "I don't know whether or not as a practical matter it will produce the kind of results we're looking for. We're all searching for a way to get this money back and one way or another we're going to figure out how to do it."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., expressed skepticism about a potential legislative remedy to claw back the bonuses.
"There is some question legally if we can affect these bonuses," Hoyer said. He indicated that he would prefer if AIG would decide on its own to return the money.
Hoyer borrowed a line from attorney Joseph Welch who chastised Sen. Joseph McCarthy during a famous exchange at a 1954 Senate hearing.
"Have they no shame or responsibility to the taxpayer?" Hoyer asked. "Have they no sense of decency?"
FOX News also has learned that Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is introducing a separate bill Wednesday that would give the Justice and Treasury departments the ability to ask courts to "undo" bonus contracts for firms that received bailout funds -- in the same way bankruptcy courts overhaul contracts for companies facing bankruptcy.
FOX News' Trish Turner and Chad Pergram and FOX Business Network's Rich Edson contributed to this report.
The truth is that with the passage of the stimulus bill, they actually approved the bonus payout.
I heard a brief tidbit on NPR this morning, but the only news article I have been able to find is from FOX news.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble to Undo Protections They Approved
Though Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd is among those leading the charge on retrieving AIG bonuses, an amendment he added to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month created a roadblock to getting that money back.
Congressional lawmakers are scrambling to think up creative ways to recover at least some of the $165 million in bonuses that bailed-out American International Group is paying executives -- but they could be their own worst enemy.
Though Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is among those leading the charge on retrieving the bonuses, an amendment he added to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month created a roadblock to getting that money back.
The amendment, meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, also included an exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009."
This would seem to exempt the AIG bonuses that lawmakers and President Obama are looking to recover. Incidentally, Dodd is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, with $103,100, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Dodd amendment creates a "prohibition on what the president is now talking about," said Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House minority whip. He also accused the administration of being in "disarray."
However, Dodd told FOX News late Tuesday that the exemption was not part of his original
amendment and was only added during negotiations after the fact.
"When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language," he said.
"I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it," he said, referring to the exemption. "When it came back, it did."
But the so-called Dodd amendment wasn't the only missed opportunity to deal with executive bonuses. In addition, lawmakers dropped an amendment during negotiations on the stimulus last month that would have mandated companies paying bonuses over $100,000 face either a 35 percent excise tax on the money or return the cash. The amendment was drafted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Snowe's staff estimates this would have recovered about $58 million from AIG -- an aide could not say why the provision was dropped last month. (Szostak said Dodd supported that amendment.)
Now Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money.
Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money.
"Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada
Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses.
He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.
Baucus is seeking to find out exactly who received bonuses and, if some are not U.S. citizens, whether Congress can construct a law to tax the bonuses of the foreign nationals.
"If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday. "So let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses, be warned. If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you."
Dodd pushed the idea of taxing the bonuses Monday night. But on Tuesday, while he said lawmakers would continue to pursue this avenue, he added: "I don't know whether or not as a practical matter it will produce the kind of results we're looking for. We're all searching for a way to get this money back and one way or another we're going to figure out how to do it."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., expressed skepticism about a potential legislative remedy to claw back the bonuses.
"There is some question legally if we can affect these bonuses," Hoyer said. He indicated that he would prefer if AIG would decide on its own to return the money.
Hoyer borrowed a line from attorney Joseph Welch who chastised Sen. Joseph McCarthy during a famous exchange at a 1954 Senate hearing.
"Have they no shame or responsibility to the taxpayer?" Hoyer asked. "Have they no sense of decency?"
FOX News also has learned that Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is introducing a separate bill Wednesday that would give the Justice and Treasury departments the ability to ask courts to "undo" bonus contracts for firms that received bailout funds -- in the same way bankruptcy courts overhaul contracts for companies facing bankruptcy.
FOX News' Trish Turner and Chad Pergram and FOX Business Network's Rich Edson contributed to this report.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Change in Washington?-PSSHAW
When the bailout talks for the auto industry were going on a couple of months ago, one of the ladies I work with was ranting about how we should not pay our taxes. Afterall, ultimately, we are the ones paying for it.
After this week I am strongly inclined to agree and apparently so do some of Obama's prospective appointees.
Do you think if all the taxpayers who are fed up with what the banks are doing with the bailout money (or even not doing) refused to pay their federal taxes Congress would notice?
This week just furthered my convictions that politicians in this country are the biggest crooks in the land. Now if I could only get my employer to stop my federal withholding, maybe me and the wife could move to the Caribbean
After this week I am strongly inclined to agree and apparently so do some of Obama's prospective appointees.
Do you think if all the taxpayers who are fed up with what the banks are doing with the bailout money (or even not doing) refused to pay their federal taxes Congress would notice?
This week just furthered my convictions that politicians in this country are the biggest crooks in the land. Now if I could only get my employer to stop my federal withholding, maybe me and the wife could move to the Caribbean
Friday, January 30, 2009
Hoax or does TXDOT know something?
Zombies in Austin?
Austin road sign warns motorists of zombies
12:50 PM CST on Thursday, January 29, 2009
BY DAN X. McGRAW / The Dallas Morning News
An Austin road sign meant to warn motorists about road conditions instead read: "The end is near! Caution! Zombies ahead!"
Vandals broke off a lock on the sign in central Austin early Monday and then hacked into the computer to change the words, said Sara Hartley, a city spokeswoman.
When they were done, the sign read: “The end is near! Caution! Zombies ahead! Run for cold climate!”
Before leaving, the vandals reset the password so the city could not easily change the sign. The sign's humorous warning stayed up for several hours before the manufacturer of the computer could reset the password.
Austin officials aren’t taking the spoof lightly, noting it is a criminal act.
“The sign’s content was humorous, but the act of changing it wasn’t,” Hartley said.
Austin police are investigating the situation, and the vandals could face a Class C misdemeanor charge of tampering with a road sign, Hartley said.
It is the first time Hartley said she has had heard of the stunt.
Austin road sign warns motorists of zombies
12:50 PM CST on Thursday, January 29, 2009
BY DAN X. McGRAW / The Dallas Morning News
An Austin road sign meant to warn motorists about road conditions instead read: "The end is near! Caution! Zombies ahead!"
Vandals broke off a lock on the sign in central Austin early Monday and then hacked into the computer to change the words, said Sara Hartley, a city spokeswoman.
When they were done, the sign read: “The end is near! Caution! Zombies ahead! Run for cold climate!”
Before leaving, the vandals reset the password so the city could not easily change the sign. The sign's humorous warning stayed up for several hours before the manufacturer of the computer could reset the password.
Austin officials aren’t taking the spoof lightly, noting it is a criminal act.
“The sign’s content was humorous, but the act of changing it wasn’t,” Hartley said.
Austin police are investigating the situation, and the vandals could face a Class C misdemeanor charge of tampering with a road sign, Hartley said.
It is the first time Hartley said she has had heard of the stunt.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
2008 Gaming
Happy New Year!
The end of 2008 saw us ringing in the New Year once again at Baker's. There was plenty of food, booze and, of course, gaming.
2008 saw me play 140 unique games with 274 total plays
The games I played the most:
My best winning percentages (of more than one play):
2009 started off with us playing werewolf after midnight and finishing the festivities with Saboteur. Looking forward to another great year of gaming
The end of 2008 saw us ringing in the New Year once again at Baker's. There was plenty of food, booze and, of course, gaming.
2008 saw me play 140 unique games with 274 total plays
The games I played the most:
| 22 | Race for the Galaxy |
| 19 | Blood Bowl |
| 8 | Pandemic |
| 6 | Metropolys |
| 6 | Hero: Immortal King |
| 6 | Imperial |
My best winning percentages (of more than one play):
| Winning Percentage | Total | |
| Games | ||
| 100.00% | 3 | 2nd de Mayo |
| 100.00% | 2 | Memoir 44 |
| 100.00% | 2 | Terakh |
| 100.00% | 2 | For Sale |
| 100.00% | 2 | Industria |
2009 started off with us playing werewolf after midnight and finishing the festivities with Saboteur. Looking forward to another great year of gaming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
