I have been told in the past that my nose has the sensitivity of a pregnant woman. I'm not sure how true that is -- I only know that I have strong responses to various smells -- for example, I am allergic to the scent of most colognes and perfumes.
I returned from vacation today. In our bathroom at work, the cans of "Ooooff" (scented stink masker) have been replaced with three small sticks of something that looks like incense sticking up out of a small vase. Now, the place I work has an international staff. Sometimes I have trouble sitting at my desk through the aromas of some of the food which is microwaved here. I try to keep an open mind and a closed nose. But when that food gets recycled, three little sticks are about as useful as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After lunch, like our own weapons of mass destruction, and without the "Ooooff," those scents will begin to stockpile.
I assume it is a measure of the economy; after all, other aspects of our office have been reduced to essential services. The quelling of gastrointestinal gasses may also have been deemed non-essential (but I would have loved to have been at the meeting where this was discussed). "Be grateful you have a job," friends tell me -- but my cubicle is closest to both the kitchen and the bathroom door. Like so many other cost measures in our office (doing away with the water cooler, coffee machine, etc.), this one is likely to produce a shift in cost -- from the employer to the employee. Pretty soon, we may all have our own cans of "Ooooff" in our desks. And in turn, from the office buying one can to each employee having their own, "Ooooff" should make out well, which in turn might just help the economy. I love how our managers think all these things through.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Mind Behind the Climate Hoax
Not so long ago, a friend of mine posted a sampling of Congressional quotes regarding climate change on Facebook. I found it a little disturbing, at first, to think that so many of the people who run our country could remain what could only be called willfully ignorant. For example, Jim Inhofe, Sen. Oklahoma, called climate change, "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." To call climate change a “hoax” would involve taking on the findings of scientists from around the globe – and what would be the purpose of such a hoax? Who could possibly profit from the joke? But that’s the subject for another blog – today I wanted to look at the mind that would think that science would perpetrate such a hoax.
Oddly, during the ascendance of the moral majority (and before the crash and burn inability of most of the purveyors to live up to their own touted standards), the catch-phrase “moral relativism” was applied to liberals, journalists and Hollywood. Hollywood and the liberal media, it was espoused, do not adhere to a system of standards (such as the bible) but simply do what “feels good.” It was better to have a system of standards, even if one failed to live up to them, than to simply do what seemed best in a given moment.
So what are the standards behind denying climate change? That is a question which stuck with me as I rode the Seven train back into Queens the other day. The quotes I’d read bothered me. There was something so ingenuine about such statements – how could anyone possible hold them as true? The first impulse is to attack the speaker rather than the thought spoken, to call them stooges for the fossil fuel corporations or ignorant f*^ks, but that is a simple way to solve one’s personal mental dilemma and a surefire way defuse any possibility of dialogue. Then I saw an ad for ambulance chasers on the subway wall. Ah, these men were lawyers and therein lies the rub.
As the train ascended into the afternoon sky, it occurred to me that one of the strengths of the justice system perhaps was also the link to a different kind of moral relativism. A lawyer is bound to defend his client, right or wrong, guilty or innocent. A good lawyer will discard every shred of doubt as to the credibility of her client and pursue, not justice, but an end – acquittal, a settlement, a verdict, whatever the case demands. While the law is held as the standard, lawyers quickly learn that the law can be bent, interpreted, refuted, overturned, repealed, reversed and called unconstitutional. There is no such thing, truly, as “justice.” There is only the verdict. And the fee one is paid by a client for a favorable verdict.
Lawyers comprise a large percentage of the people who then go on to Congress, ostensibly to “create” the law. What will become law is simply what is ultimately decided by a collection of lawyers who are operating, at this point, without a judge. There is no one to hold them accountable, no one to strike down arguments as “specious” or “lacking merit.” It is an odd position. One has spent their life advocating for one client or another, defending rapists or corporations, prosecuting drug addicts and accountants, sifting through piles of paperwork to find the one precedent that will find the key, not to justice, but to victory. And taking fees that are linked both to the time spent on the case and, in many cases, an actual percentage of the payout.
So what is the mind that thinks climate change is a hoax? It is the mind that has no standard except the verdict. What is science but one side of a case? What is the other side? The scientists are out to get us. In every case, there are plaintiffs and defendants. If one side argues the climate is changing, there’s got to be another side. I won’t even go as far as to say there’s money to be made in defending the other side – though it too is surely a truth. So what is the rationale for attacking science? Can we attack science with science? The numbers are not in our favor. So we must attack the motives of those who are speaking – which Aristotle pointed out so long ago was a logical fallacy. Ah, but that was a different kind of democracy. No, I can’t say they are evil men, they are simply doing what they’ve spent a lifetime learning to do. The problem with Congress is this: we have trained our lawyers too well
Oddly, during the ascendance of the moral majority (and before the crash and burn inability of most of the purveyors to live up to their own touted standards), the catch-phrase “moral relativism” was applied to liberals, journalists and Hollywood. Hollywood and the liberal media, it was espoused, do not adhere to a system of standards (such as the bible) but simply do what “feels good.” It was better to have a system of standards, even if one failed to live up to them, than to simply do what seemed best in a given moment.
So what are the standards behind denying climate change? That is a question which stuck with me as I rode the Seven train back into Queens the other day. The quotes I’d read bothered me. There was something so ingenuine about such statements – how could anyone possible hold them as true? The first impulse is to attack the speaker rather than the thought spoken, to call them stooges for the fossil fuel corporations or ignorant f*^ks, but that is a simple way to solve one’s personal mental dilemma and a surefire way defuse any possibility of dialogue. Then I saw an ad for ambulance chasers on the subway wall. Ah, these men were lawyers and therein lies the rub.
As the train ascended into the afternoon sky, it occurred to me that one of the strengths of the justice system perhaps was also the link to a different kind of moral relativism. A lawyer is bound to defend his client, right or wrong, guilty or innocent. A good lawyer will discard every shred of doubt as to the credibility of her client and pursue, not justice, but an end – acquittal, a settlement, a verdict, whatever the case demands. While the law is held as the standard, lawyers quickly learn that the law can be bent, interpreted, refuted, overturned, repealed, reversed and called unconstitutional. There is no such thing, truly, as “justice.” There is only the verdict. And the fee one is paid by a client for a favorable verdict.
Lawyers comprise a large percentage of the people who then go on to Congress, ostensibly to “create” the law. What will become law is simply what is ultimately decided by a collection of lawyers who are operating, at this point, without a judge. There is no one to hold them accountable, no one to strike down arguments as “specious” or “lacking merit.” It is an odd position. One has spent their life advocating for one client or another, defending rapists or corporations, prosecuting drug addicts and accountants, sifting through piles of paperwork to find the one precedent that will find the key, not to justice, but to victory. And taking fees that are linked both to the time spent on the case and, in many cases, an actual percentage of the payout.
So what is the mind that thinks climate change is a hoax? It is the mind that has no standard except the verdict. What is science but one side of a case? What is the other side? The scientists are out to get us. In every case, there are plaintiffs and defendants. If one side argues the climate is changing, there’s got to be another side. I won’t even go as far as to say there’s money to be made in defending the other side – though it too is surely a truth. So what is the rationale for attacking science? Can we attack science with science? The numbers are not in our favor. So we must attack the motives of those who are speaking – which Aristotle pointed out so long ago was a logical fallacy. Ah, but that was a different kind of democracy. No, I can’t say they are evil men, they are simply doing what they’ve spent a lifetime learning to do. The problem with Congress is this: we have trained our lawyers too well
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Are You Insured?
Taking the Seven train into the city this morning, I looked up at a billboard. It was touting healthcare that had been serving customers for 75 years (somehow they didn't put up the McDonald's "over x billion served" figures). Since I was standing, I was more or less eye-level with the fine print. It stated that the ad only referred to two plans, one an HMO, with something of a further disclaimer that Blue Cross and Blue Shield was (voila, not an insurance company but) an association of associated plans.
By now the train had left the green swath that Corona Park makes toward Flushing Bay, with the lithe vista of suspension bridges in the background, and was traveling over the tin and brick structures of Corona itself. I found myself wondering -- what is the legal advantage of taking a large corporation and fragmenting it over many smaller structures? Does it reduce liability? It didn't seem likely as, reported on "60 Minutes" some time ago, health insurance companies are only liable, in a lawsuit, for the amounts they would have been required to pay under the terms of the insurance. Does it help to hide the actual profits?
The buildings on the street caught my eye. We were approaching Woodside and there was a new condominium with a large "For Sale" banner. Every unit of a condominium would be insured -- required by the mortgage. In fact, every building, as far as the eye could see, was surely insured; some of the large apartment complexes were doubly insured -- the owner would have insured them against fire and other calamities and the renters would frequently have renters insurance. Inside each unit would be people who had insurance to cover their health and life. The cars driving on the street were required to be insured. The heavy machinery working on BQE had insurance, as did the workers. As far as my eye could see, I couldn't imagine a single item that was not insured -- businesses, highways, railroads, buildings, cars. More than Microsoft, insurance had entered every inch of the fabric of our lives.
So what was the point of this association of associations? Is it simply like saying "we are not a whole pizza pie, we are a collection of eight slices?" It's certainly an alternate way of looking at things. The train continued and I found myself staggered by the amount of money that must flow into insurance coffers. Connecticut General, for example, offers insurance "products" that include life, health and retirement; but they've built property and business casualty "slices" and "divested" them to places like Bermuda (where it would be my best guess, they are still owned by some of the parents or partners at CG). In fact, the wording on the website states that "The divestiture enables CIGNA to focus its resources on its global health, life and pension businesses." However, the very next sentence on their website is that "CIGNA launches TimesSquare Capital Management, Inc. as the company's independent, dedicated asset-management operation." I guess they don't want to get too focused.
The train had passed through the railyards of Long Island City and was sloping toward the dark interiors of the tunnel. I found myself wondering at the resistance that the insurance companies had shown to the new healthcare initiative. Oddly, I thought, if the majority of those getting coverage would be the 48 million uninsured we hear about everyday. If one of the provisions of the plan is that corporations will be required to provide insurance for their employees, there's not much competition for the insurance companies. Is it simply the unknown? The long dark tunnel from which we can no longer see the vista, no longer be quite certain where we are? Is it the fear that the tunnel may leak, may cause us to lose our time, lose our way? Or is it simply that the competition might force them to rein in their profits?
As long as no one can see the larger picture -- the large parent companies that sell the emperor's new protection products, in various pieces, from anything that might befall -- we will never see how much money is at stake, or even how much of it flows into the pockets of Congress. My guess is that if insurance covers everything as far as the eye can see, they've got Washington covered as well.
By now the train had left the green swath that Corona Park makes toward Flushing Bay, with the lithe vista of suspension bridges in the background, and was traveling over the tin and brick structures of Corona itself. I found myself wondering -- what is the legal advantage of taking a large corporation and fragmenting it over many smaller structures? Does it reduce liability? It didn't seem likely as, reported on "60 Minutes" some time ago, health insurance companies are only liable, in a lawsuit, for the amounts they would have been required to pay under the terms of the insurance. Does it help to hide the actual profits?
The buildings on the street caught my eye. We were approaching Woodside and there was a new condominium with a large "For Sale" banner. Every unit of a condominium would be insured -- required by the mortgage. In fact, every building, as far as the eye could see, was surely insured; some of the large apartment complexes were doubly insured -- the owner would have insured them against fire and other calamities and the renters would frequently have renters insurance. Inside each unit would be people who had insurance to cover their health and life. The cars driving on the street were required to be insured. The heavy machinery working on BQE had insurance, as did the workers. As far as my eye could see, I couldn't imagine a single item that was not insured -- businesses, highways, railroads, buildings, cars. More than Microsoft, insurance had entered every inch of the fabric of our lives.
So what was the point of this association of associations? Is it simply like saying "we are not a whole pizza pie, we are a collection of eight slices?" It's certainly an alternate way of looking at things. The train continued and I found myself staggered by the amount of money that must flow into insurance coffers. Connecticut General, for example, offers insurance "products" that include life, health and retirement; but they've built property and business casualty "slices" and "divested" them to places like Bermuda (where it would be my best guess, they are still owned by some of the parents or partners at CG). In fact, the wording on the website states that "The divestiture enables CIGNA to focus its resources on its global health, life and pension businesses." However, the very next sentence on their website is that "CIGNA launches TimesSquare Capital Management, Inc. as the company's independent, dedicated asset-management operation." I guess they don't want to get too focused.
The train had passed through the railyards of Long Island City and was sloping toward the dark interiors of the tunnel. I found myself wondering at the resistance that the insurance companies had shown to the new healthcare initiative. Oddly, I thought, if the majority of those getting coverage would be the 48 million uninsured we hear about everyday. If one of the provisions of the plan is that corporations will be required to provide insurance for their employees, there's not much competition for the insurance companies. Is it simply the unknown? The long dark tunnel from which we can no longer see the vista, no longer be quite certain where we are? Is it the fear that the tunnel may leak, may cause us to lose our time, lose our way? Or is it simply that the competition might force them to rein in their profits?
As long as no one can see the larger picture -- the large parent companies that sell the emperor's new protection products, in various pieces, from anything that might befall -- we will never see how much money is at stake, or even how much of it flows into the pockets of Congress. My guess is that if insurance covers everything as far as the eye can see, they've got Washington covered as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)