Safety ... and the appearance of safety

I'd love to be perfectly safe traveling. I'd enjoy knowing that, when I get on a plane, there's no chance it will explode. I'd treasure the knowledge that my family and friends are in no danger when flying the (formerly) friendly skies. However, we all know that there's no such thing as perfect safety, short of locking ourselves in a fireproof/bombproof/entryproof home with sufficient provisions to live out our lives; and life would be more than a little dull if we did.

While I'd of course prefer that every terrorist on the planet would suddenly spontaneously combust (but live long enough to suffer tremendously), I'm going to continue to feel relatively safe traveling, hoping that our goofy government finally (and soon!) sorts out all its apparently unrelated and uncorrelated watch lists, no fly lists and other "important" lists to keep the fanatic crazies off my plane. I appreciate TSA doing their jobs and scanning luggage, patting down passengers (ok, actually, I hate the patdowns, but I like the idea of my fellow passengers not hiding bombs under sweaters) to find the bombers before they can sit over the fuel tank. I love the bomb-sniffing dogs circling through the lines at the airport to sniff out explosives (besides helping with safety, they're adorable!). All of these precautions make sense, if carried out appropriately.

What I can't stand is the imposition of the mere illusion of safety. Los Angeles International Airport is a mess right now. They have security stopping cars on the approach, looking in trunks, and peering under the chassis with mirrors. I've been through this after 9/11. It's a farce. I once went through the checkpoint with a rolled up blanket in my trunk, along with a tent and other camping gear I'd been too lazy to take out the week before. All the security guard did was glance at it. Maybe he had secret x-ray vision and could truly tell that my stuff was benign, but I can tell you that I didn't feel any safer going in. All it did was snarl up traffic for 2 miles on all sides of the airport!

I often travel for business, and one out of every 7 or 8 times I go through security I get chosen for an extra search. I wouldn't mind this if a huge gaggle of suspicious-looking men with shifty eyes didn't waltz right through the line without so much as an extra wanding. I certainly understand the arguments against racial profiling, but given that no middle-aged white woman has yet bombed a plane, and all of the recent people who have attacked the US have been men of a certain age and "racial profile," doesn't it make sense to pick the people most likely to cause trouble? That's like a bar bouncer letting in the guys in gang colors and keeping out the 75 year old mom of the bartender just so the gangbangers and their ilk don't feel picked on. It just doesn't make any sense. Any troubleshooter knows that you use past experience as a base for future action. Otherwise, what's the point of an investigation after an event?

I don't mind inconvenience for the purpose of ensuring my safety and the safety of all who travel. But don't waste my time, or my patience, on silly rules and impositions that are nothing more than window dressing. You're bugging me with that crap!

Keep your grubby mitts off my money!

So Hillary has now pledged $100 billion of OUR TAX DOLLARS to some fund with a completely undefined purpose aside from the vague "helping developing countries with global warming." What?? Shouldn't they figure out what they need to do before committing money? And shouldn't she maybe see if this is something the American people favor, since it's our money?

Beyond all that, don't we have other important things to spend money on? Seriously, we're still in a recession (ask anyone who's still unemployed!), and have countless domestic problems, yet she thinks we should be wasting money on this? At a time when more and more former manmade-climate-change-fanatics are coming forward to admit that, well, there really is no proof of a connection between smog and climate change, maybe we should focus on fixing our problems here at home first. I'm all for cleaner air, but giving piles of my money to China and India isn't going to solve the problem.

Also, where is this cash going to come from? Do we just have $100 billion sitting around? Of course not. We'll borrow it from China, our biggest creditor. Then not only will we hand them cash to "prevent" climate change, but we'll hand them huge interest payments too. So it won't be $100 billion per year of tax money, it will be $100 billion plus somewhere around 8% interest (that's $8 billion per year additional).

How about using it to help homeless veterans? How about using it to end poverty? How about using it to make sure everyone has somewhere to live? How about using it to build more schools so kids aren't packed in 45 to a classroom? Or -- and here's a radical idea -- how about letting us keep more of our money so we can spend money to stimulate the economy?? But no. They want to just take it and use it as a giveaway for something that can't even be proven to be a problem anyway. Or maybe any warming of the globe is lethal? Like the warming that happened after the last ice age? How awful that was! I'd much prefer to live in an arctic zone....

They should at least be honest about it and just demand our paychecks go directly to the government. Get rid of the pretense, will ya? Until then, keep your hands off the money I work so hard to earn!

Seriously?

You couldn't be bothered to send me flowers ONCE the 6 months we dated, but think that sending them to me after I break up with you will change my mind??

They are NOT the same thing!

I'm working on a complicated proceeding for Widget Co., and it involves attempting settlement of a case we filed with our Federal regulator. Part of the settlement process (we're just getting started) involves emailing with all parties (they're called "intervenors" and it's all of them against us) to hammer out certain logistical issues before we start discussing the actual meat of the case.

After emailing the intervenors Widget Co.'s position on an issue (a position that they were NOT happy to hear), I waited for a reply. What I got was a reply to all.

Instead of the intervenors emailing just each other, they hit reply to all and forgot to remove Widget Co.'s attorneys and business people from their list. Duh. All sorts of nasty sniping went back and forth, all aimed at yours truly. They called me a creep! Actually, that was directed at all of us here, but ... really?? Emails landed in my inbox in at the rate of 1 a minute, discussing the strategy of how to respond to what I had stated. I vacillated between being really annoyed and really amused. Finally, I couldn't take it anymore and let them know that we were still on their distribution list.

Ladies and gentlement who represent the intervenors: Please turn in your State Bar cards and your Attorney-at-Law business cards. "Reply" does not equal "Reply to All." You are too dumb to practice law.

Sneaky, sneaky....

Over the weekend, while visiting friends in my home state, I got a new cell phone. It was time. Mine only stayed charged for a day or so, and it had always had charging issues (the cord had to be in juuuuuust right for it to charge -- bump it, and it would fail). I spent about 40 minutes at the Verizon store looking at the different phones, and finally picked the one I liked the best. It had a $50 mail-in rebate as part of the offer. Checking out took for freakin' ever! The mouth-breather who was helping me moved like a snail (he also never -- not once -- closed his mouth -- I guess thought he'd suffocate). I wasn't even in a particular hurry, but he was so absurdly slow I almost pounded him!

Then I got home and got my rebate email. The instructions were to mail the signed and dated rebate form to Verizon, along with my proof of purchase, and I'd get a rebate in about a month. What I almost didn't notice -- what they are counting on people NOT to notice -- is that, unless you affirmatively check and change your address, the rebate goes to the Verizon store! Now, Verizon bills come to my house, so I'm pretty sure Verizon has my address. In fact, the store clerk even verified my address!

There is no non-nefarious reason for substituting the store's address for mine. Very, very, sneaky! I know that the phone companies do the "rebate" thing rather than just give a discount because they are counting on a large percentage of the population losing their paperwork or just forgetting. That's sneaky enough, but come on!! Seriously? Sending the rebate to yourself? That's just evil.

I blame the "Can you hear me now?" guy. Personally.

You can't pass a law you don't understand....

One would think that would be the rule, right? If you're a congressperson and haven't read -- or don't understand -- a particular bill, you can't vote on it. Makes sense, right? Too bad that's not the way it works.

Here's one lovely example from Overlawyered.com: http://overlawyered.com/2009/07/medicare-qui-tam-a-health-care-bill-surprise/.

Apparently, just before President Obama's much beloved universal health care bill was shipped off the the House Ways and Means Committee, a "special" provision was discovered. One that would allow anyone to sue on behalf of the government to recover money from a third party that caused medicare to spend money.

What does that mean? Let's assume you're a driver. You're already having a crappy day, and you crash into another driver who cuts you off in traffic because he's texting and changing the radio station while steering with his knee. Maybe it's legally your fault, maybe not, but there's no debating that you are the proximal cause of the injury. Now, say the injured driver has government healthcare, and that government healthcare pays $20,000 to fix that driver's broken leg. Now, some enterprising lawyer can sue you to recover what medicare spent. Where does the money go? Some to reimburse medicare. But much of it would remain in the pocket of that lawyer.

Even better, other language in the bill would allow the lawyer to sue based on "any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means." That means if you own a restaurant, and have served food -- some of it high calorie, artery clogging, yummy food -- you can be sued because statistical evidence shows that medicare has to pay for health issues related to fatty foods.

Did the legislators who are pushing this bill know that such language was in there?? I don't know what I hope the answer is. If "yes," then they really want to make sure everyone gets sued for everything they do (or statistically may have done). If "no" then they are clearly voting on bills they don't read, and don't understand.

And people wonder why lawyers are considered bottom-feeders and this country's government is a laughingstock elsewhere.... Please, let's dissolve our government and start over.

You're Lucky I Like My Car....

What is it about summertime that brings out the highway hemorrhoids? I'm talking, of course, about tailgaters! Yesterday, I drove down to Long Beach, about a 40 mile drive from my happy chunk of suburbia, and I had someone attached to my bumper the entire way. Not the same somebody -- just always somebody.

Why would someone want to drive this close to my car? What if I hit the brakes? What if I have to swerve to avoid something in the road? What if I throw a bag of dog poop out towards his moon roof? (Ahhh, if only my aim were that good....)

I'm trying to figure out how to invent the following device: When the driver sees a hemorrhoid on her ass as she's driving, she can push a button, which will pop open the trunk slightly. Out of the trunk comes a large hand that goes in the tailgater's driver side window and smacks him upside his annoying head.

If you are an inventor, and know how this can be accomplished, please call me on the Bat Phone.

No wonder you're not an attorney....

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know I'm an attorney, and have been for the past 10 years. I also enjoy watching law-related shows, like Law and Order and Judge Judy. Yes, Judge Judy -- I love that crabby lady! I wish all judges would tell stupid litigants (and stupid lawyers) when they're being especially stupid. I love how she occasionally even corrects people's grammar, although they often don't recognize that she's doing it. One thing I WISH she would do, though, is correct stupid pronunciations.

Here are two of my least favorite law-related mispronunciations: "affidavid" and "promissary note." No, you idiots. There's no such thing as an "affidavid." If you can believe it, I actually hear attorneys saying this at times!! Look it up. It's an "affidaviT"!! And there's no such thing as a "promissary note." It's a "promissOry note." If you can't pronounce it, you shouldn't sign it. Dufuses.

Oh, and while we're at it, the "District Attorney" does not defend you for free. She prosecutes you! The poor overworked "Public Defender" is the one who defends you.

Gah!

Silliness

I'm very happy to help those with some sort of disability live a more "normal" life. For example, I'm happy to see that seeing eye dogs are allowed in stores, that many companies offer TTY numbers for the hearing impaired to use, and that most buildings are required to be wheelchair accessible.

What bugs me, though, is PC "accommodation." If you are going to do it, do it right; don't just do it to look like you care because it's the "politically correct" thing to do. For example, the Fail blog (failblog.org) has this example of a not-so-useful wheelchair ramp:



But such silliness could never happen here, right? Right? Oh, wait. It has. Here at Widget Co, our office doors have braille on them, right below the office number. Nice. Useful. Helpful if you're blind. But Furminator's office door has fake braille on it. Yes, that's what I said: Fake braille. It's literally a bunch of dots painted below her office number. Why bother? Who the hell is supposed to "read" this?


Thanks for caring, Widget Co!

Big Freakin' Brother!

Grrrrrr. Widget Co has done something to our Internet capabilities, and I can no longer comment on some of my favorite blogs. I can't figure out the rhyme or reason why I can comment on some but not others (sometimes even both on Blogger). So if BikerPuppy comments on your blog occasionally, rest assured I'm still reading and enjoying -- I've just been unjustly silenced. Alissa and Amazon Barbie, yours come immediately to mind.

Damn Big Brother! Sometimes I feel like I work in Communist China.

Don't infer it if I don't imply it!

I was reading a news article this morning and made the mistake of simultaneously drinking a soda. I was forced -- yes, forced -- to spray copious quantities of Diet Coke out my nose when I came across my least favorite grammar error. I will have to paraphrase, because when I read it, and after I wiped the still-bubbling liquid off my keyboard, I closed the browser, threw my laptop against the wall, and promptly tried to forget what article I was reading. Aaaaaaauuuuugggghhhhh!

What got me so upset, you ask (yes, I know you're asking)? The gist of it was as follows: "I don't mean to infer that I don't care." What?????? What ??????? W H A T ? ? ? ? ?

Grammar 101 here. I can IMPLY that I don't care. I can IMPLY that the writer is stupid. I can IMPLY that I wished that the author of that sentence would have been fired before the puddle on my floor dried. Thus, I will have "stated indirectly" the preceding points. You, then, can INFER that I don't care. You can INFER that I think the writer is stupid, and you can INFER my hatred of the author. Thus, you will have "drawn a conclusion" from what I said.

Ack! This kind of error akin to those of people who can't tell the difference between "affect" and "effect," or "continual" and "continuous." Did these people not go to elementary school? (Or did they just have my high school "Honors" English teacher teaching them basic grammar?) These words are not fungible. They are not synonyms. There is a reason they are not the same word. Stop using them as if they were. Otherwise, you can infer from my upraised hand that I'm going to slap you.

Note to self: Future post on Ms. Batson, teacher of Honors English at Start High School, who regularly said: "Class, the bell already rung. Sit down." "Rung" was pronounced "wung." She also taught Animal Farm out of the Cliff Notes. I'm pretty sure she taught Honors English because they figured our class would be less damaged by her incompetence.

Health, doctors and medicine

Last Thursday, I went home from work with a migraine. A bad one. Friday, I went to the Emergency Room because the migraine was much worse, and I lost the vision in my right eye. About 45 minutes after arrival, I was hooked up to an IV and drugged up with morphine. The headache started to ease. About 2 hours later, I went home, groggy, headachey, and getting my vision back. I slept a while, and then the itching kicked in. I'm assuming that not everyone gets this reaction to morphine -- given the number of people addicted to it and Oxycontin and all the other heroine-related drugs. 26 hours of almost unbearable (but better than the full migraine) itching later, I was feeling better. Headache almost gone, itching gone, mood improved.

I get it. I have a chronic migraine condition -- 8-15 migraines a month. I know some of my triggers and avoid them. Others are a mystery to me. I just have to live with it. What I shouldn't have to live with is stupid doctors.

The ER doctor did what she was supposed to do. She took the edge off the headache and sent me home. My frustration is with my regular doctor and the various "specialists" I've seen. Migraines are not new. Their cause is not well-known, but there are lots of aggressive treatments being tried by different doctors throughout the world. Not mine. Mine want to give me some abortive drugs (stop it when it starts) and send me on my way with a pat on the head. Um, how about trying to PREVENT the damn things?? I've seen 3 neurologists and several GPs, none of whom has been willing to work with me to find the cause. My acupuncturist has done more to help prevent them than the guys with the fancy degrees!!

So, doctors suck. If you've had any sort of ongoing or chronic condition, you know what I'm talking about. They don't get it, and they aren't really concerned about getting it. My worst doctor experience was when a neurologist sent me to a neurosurgeon because he had discovered I had a brain tumor. The neurologist was an ass, and refused to give me info about the tumor, saying that the neurosurgeon would do that. Of course, I had to wait two weeks for that appointment. The neurosurgeon said, "You have an acoustic neuroma brain tumor. You can have it removed by surgery or radiation. Which do you prefer?" Ummm, let me see.... Having my head cut open sounds gross. Having my head irradiated sounds gross. Yeah, thanks for helping me make the choice. What a dufus. As if he had been asking "Coffee or tea, which do you prefer?" Fortunately, the internet has vast resources, and I was able to find lots of info and support groups to help me decide. Doctors suck.

Know who else sucks? People who pretend to have "migraines." Seriously. I have a coworker who walks around wearing sunglasses, going out to lunch with friends, and joking around the law cafe, having a "migraine" that is preventing her from working. Gah! Migraines aren't just crappy headaches. They are a debilitating condition with a headache like you've never experienced, nausea, and a whole host of other symptoms. You don't walk around and joke and laugh. Wearing sunglasses doesn't cut it. Stop using them as an excuse to leave early. Stop using them as an excuse to get out of work. Stop using them as an excuse to be a goof off. You're making it harder for the rest of us who are actually suffering with the disease.

Ok, off my pain-induced soap-box. I hate doctors.