Unwanted

The American justice system has its flaws. The rich get away with more than the poor because they can hire the best law firms. The use of precedent overwhelms the system and creates loopholes and unintended consequences. And, in today's mobile, online, instant news society, the law doesn't always keep up or make sense to the masses.

The goal of this system is to provide an unbiased result based on the facts of the case. The biggest benefit to it is that an (supposed to be) impartial judge or a jury of one's peers is used to arbitrate between the accused and the accuser. This is especially essential for instances where the hierarchical power system in place most everywhere (between employee and employer, between the government and the individual, etc.) would unnecessarily bias one side against the other.

However, there is one glaring area where an impartial system does not exist: the military.

In the military, everything is kept "in house." In many cases, your commanding officer (or that person's commanding officer) is used to administer justice. Even when something actually makes it to military court, many of the people involved may be the accuser's superior officers. Even if they are not, they have something to gain or lose based on what is accused and what the verdict is.

The military has a sexual assault problem. The rates for all types of sexual misconduct are much higher per capita in the military than in the private sector. Both men and women are attacked, as sexual assault is mostly about power and not about the act of sexual intercourse. So, the fact that women are in the military doesn't make sexual assault more prevalent -- it just means that women are now being attacked along with the men.

The problem, though, is that those who are attacked are forced to go through their own chain of command in order to report the assault. In some cases, this means going to either the person who is performing the assault or who is the direct commander of the person who is committing the act, or that person's immediate superior (if the commander in charge is the one performing the assault) in order to levy a charge of sexual assault. These individuals have direct and biased reasons not to send the assault charge up the chain command: first, a charge of sexual assault looks negatively on them as the leader of the person(s) in question and could negatively influence their ability to move up the chain of command; and, secondly, they may like the conduct, person, or performance of the accused more or less than the accuser.

There have been many reports of sexual assault and outright rape in the military over the last 20 years. No one branch has been spared the scandals of these allegations. There have been movies about it, including a recent documentary about the problem, The Invisible War. Even if you consider that movie biased against the military, the facts presented and the incredibly myopic way in which the military is shown to respond (for example, making it the assaulted person's fault for being assaulted, or the program to make sure you have a safe buddy to walk around base with at night, etc.) shows the military culture to be biased against women and "weak" men and stuck in a version of the past where these sorts of things just "didn't happen." (Of course, they did, but like the nostalgia films from the 1950s, the military's response just seems to gloss over and simplify how very real and present the problems actually are.)

While that movie was able to briefly change the way the military works, much more is needed. (The military took away the unit commander's decision whether to prosecute these cases.) When Congress confronted the military leadership and demanded answers, strongly considering changing things so that sexual assault would be prosecuted in civilian court systems, the military leadership determined that it would hurt morale, undermine the command structure, and somehow bring down the military as an institution to take away military prosecution of sexual assault. And Congress backed down.

My question is why? Many companies work on a similarly hierarchical command structure yet having a judicial system outside of that structure hasn't toppled those businesses when a sexual assault charge is levied. In no other stratosphere of life does having an independent and unbiased judicial system hurt the process -- and, as I argued at the beginning, it actually helps the process by trying to ensure as fair and balanced a process as possible. (Yes, we can argue all day about how actually fair and balanced the judicial system is, which is why I noted some of the problems with it, above. The fact is that it tries harder than most other judicial systems to be unbiased.)

The military is an insular system. They need that in order to do what they do. But when that insular system, in essence, rewards sexual assault predators with a system in which they can get away with the act more often than not, the system has to change. Taking sexual assault cases out of the system so that both the accused and accuser get a fair court hearing and verdict is paramount to this process.

As we consistently learn, whenever an institution is left to police itself, be it Congress, banks, brokerage firms, churches, or, now, the military, it fails because the participants are biased for a variety of reasons. It is time for the men and women of our armed forces to be safe and able to bring these charges to a fair, unbiased court system outside of their chain of command. The military has proven both unwilling to change and unable to cope with this problem, so the government should force the issue. Our servicemen and women deserve nothing less.

Now Comes the Hard Part

I had my last physio session with my therapist yesterday. While he recognizes that my back is still weak, he likes the direction it is going, he thinks I've got a lot better mobility and flexibility, and he thinks I'm on the right path. To that end, he gave me some suggestions and "graduated" me from the program.

My father in law has a device specifically made to help strengthen the back. He loaned it to me and I have been using it multiple times a day for the last two weeks.

* Not the exact model I am using, but a very close design

By doing a "reverse sit-up," I can stretch and strengthen the back in the specific area I had the herniated disc. In addition, I can use the handles to do a nice, deep push-up.

What I've been doing is, every time I go down to put wood on the fire, a set of 10 push-ups and a set of 10 back extensions. Since I feed the fire about once every 60-90 minutes, this means I get about 8-10 sets in each day with plenty of rest between. This has helped my arms, chest, and back to start feeling stronger as well as burning a few more calories than previously.

Next up is to add back in my stationary bicycle and work on my stamina, which is poor (to put it mildly). This will work the legs as well as being good cardio work. My initial goal is to get to riding for around 45-60 minutes (enough time to watch one DVRed show on TV). I was just reaching that point when I had the herniation and the subsequent issues with my back. All of my gains were lost (and then some) during my recuperation (since I couldn't do much lifting, twisting, or, well, walking during much of this time).

Once I reach that stage, I'm hopeful that my back extension and push-ups have made a nice difference to my upper body, I've lost some weight, and can start adding in some sit-ups and strengthening leg-work. Also, as we move from winter to spring, I hope my wife, our friend Dre, and I can start going back to the Nature Park and walking. Now, the two ladies walk me into the ground and I usually take a course that is half what they do, but my goal is to one day keep up with them. Plus, the Nature Park is a nice, quiet, natural setting, which is nice to visit.

I have also started using the food and exercise trackers on MyFitnessPal.com again. I have set up it to help me lose 40 lbs, so it is limited my caloric intake to 1500 calories a day (from the standard 2000). I may lower it when I see over the next two weeks how I normally eat (with all my health issues the last six months, my diet is all over the place; I need to get a new baseline with the exercise program to see if I can make the calorie intake more aggressive). I'd rather have a steady, sustained weight loss than crash and rebound. Right now, the caloric intake suggests 8 lbs a month loss, which seems fine (2 lbs a week). My wife uses this tracker and she managed to lose about 20 lbs with her exercise schedule (Zumba twice a week plus walking on treadmill or on streets every day). Losing the weight off the gut will help the back stay strong, as well as help my feet, knees, and other joints. My arthritis makes it difficult to be too aggressive with exercise, and I have to stay away from too much high-impact stuff.

Anyway, today is as good day as any to start really hitting it and moving forward, right? Last year was our year of no procrastination. We managed to get a lot done around the house, with paperwork, and similar. I'm carrying it over to this year and trying to keep the train moving forward.

More TV Woes

My wife wanted to buy her mother a Blu-Ray player that was both wi-fi capable and had a USB port, so she could share with her mother movies and other files from our very large collection. Seems simple enough, right?

Wrong.

My MIL has some very nice, but older, technology in her house. Also, her house is old enough not to be wired for internet. Hence the desire to have the player by wi-fi enabled. Her 36" CRT TV is a rugged, nice machine, but it is old enough not to have current, modern connectors. She doesn't have a receiver through which she runs everything.

Knowing/discovering all of these facts as we pursued this avenue, we stumbled on the need to get an HDMI to RCA converter in order to plug the Blu-ray machine into her TV. This is because we could not find a Blu-ray player that has RCA jacks AND wi-fi AND a USB port; if they have wi-fi, they pretty much all have only an HDMI port.

After our trying and not finding the device, or eschewing going to some places because we were sure they wouldn't have such a device, we headed to The Source, a primarily electronics seller in this city (kind of Radio Shack). There were two people working there, a male about early-20s, 5'6", with dark hair and a female about the same age and height and with blond hair.

I asked if they sold any HDMI to RCA cables. They both gave us very quizzical looks. The girl started to say, "I don't think they make those," while the male said no and started smiling and laughing and generally got "attitude" and, well, snotty. He asked if I was sure such a thing existed. Since I was sure (I had looked it up online and they are readily available for $40 and lower, depending on make/type) and was starting to dislike his attitude, I said, "I'm absolutely sure. So sure that I will bet you any sum of money you'd like to wager on it."

I've worked retail. Was pretty good at it, actually. And, when you run across a customer who is asking for specific things and is showing intelligence, confidence, and competence about what he/she wants, you should trust that customer and work with him/her to your mutual benefit. This guy didn't understand that concept. Instead, he started talking very negatively about the ramifications of doing this conversion, how the picture would be "horrible," and how we really should get a new TV. To which my wife replied, "Are you going to buy us a new TV?" She was getting steamed at this yokel, basically, laughing at us.

I was getting irritated too. This guy, at various parts of our conversation, laughed openly at us, ducked his head and continued laughing, and generally was unpleasant. He spoke so negatively about the device we wanted to purchase, and then had the gall to say, "I'm not trying to be negative about it or stop you from buying it, but it's not going to work for you." Really? Are you sure. Because I've seen the reviews of these devices online and, for the most part, people are pretty pleased with being able to buy a $100 Blu-ray and a $10 connector, rather than spending $800 on a new TV, $100 on a new Blu-ray, and $20 on the HDMI cord required.

His attitude toward us was getting to us both, but I started to step forward when my wife grabbed my arm and said she wanted to go. She was done talking to this ass-hat and didn't want me getting into it with him. Over my shoulder as we left, I made some disparaging comment about the store and that guy (to which I heard a, "What... what did he just say?" from the male to the female employee).

The somewhat ironic conclusion to this story is that we went home, looked online at the plethora of such converters and cables, and tried to decide which would work best for us. My wife found that The Source store we had visited had one such converter in stock and for sale (albeit, it was for HDMI to Composite, not HDMI to RCA which is what we specifically asked for). Had the ass-hat male employee bothered to look, he would have found that. He would have then known:

1. Such a thing does exist.
2. Not to be a jerk to us, because we actually knew what we were talking about.
3. To check his computer for relevant other devices and discover if The Source carried the specific item we needed and could order it in for us.

Instead, this employee felt entitled to laugh at us to our face, sardonically suggest we buy a new TV, and felt it was appropo to show gross negativity toward what his customer needed. Out of the half-dozen or so better ways he could have expressed his negatively that would have been helpful and left us with options, he instead convinced us never to shop there again.

In the end, we're probably going to chip in and help my MIL buy a new TV sooner, rather than later. Once she has a new TV, she'll have the ports she needs and we can consider getting her a Blu-ray.

Oscars, 2014

The Academy Awards were on last night, and I watched pretty much all of it. And it was boring. Very, very boring. I have fairly specific desires for what I want to watch during the Oscar telecast; last night's show wasn't it.

• Opening. I like the opening song and dance number. Either that or some sort of funny and interesting monologue. Whatever it is showcases sort of the theme and general direction of the show. Ellen's opening was brief, which is always nice, but also boring and not very funny, which is unlike her. And, not surprisingly, the show itself was sort of boring and not very funny.
• Tributes. Unless there is a reason for it (i.e., a significant-year anniversary or the passing of a legend), I don't want to see tributes. Last night's show had a ham-fisted tribute to animation and one to movie heroes that both felt tacked on and without focus. Why were they added? Taking both together, that was at least 10 minutes that could have been cut from the show.
• Presenters. I hate them. The host should present most of the awards (up to all but the Big 4). This gives the host a chance to actually do something during the telecast beyond introducing someone who is going to flub his/her lines, not be able to read the teleprompter, say something uncomfortable or that can easily be misconstrued, and/or butcher someone's name. The transition time from the host to the presenter and back again could be spent just having the host present that award. All those small minutes saved would add up to somewhere around 30 minutes of time saved on the far end, I'm guessing.
• Presentations. I like having the previous winner of X presenting the current night's award for Y, however, I want the presentation to mean something. In Oscars past, we have had affectionate presentations to each award nominee. I liked this. Keep to about 1 minute per, show clips in the background (or overlay it for the TV audience), and have a professional help the presenter with the writing so it is short, sweet, genuine, but to the point. Last night, they each came out, barely said anything, had the pre-recorded list, and then presented the winner -- boring.
• Death. Last night's In Memoriam was really done well... one of the best of recent memory, until they had Bette Midler come out and sing after the presentation was over. Either have her sing during or don't have any singing at all... there's another 5 minutes you can save. Also, remember that we are trying to celebrate the life of those who died; their accomplishments in their chosen field, how well they were known and liked in the industry, and their impact on film in general. This should be a happy, but solemn, moment.
• Pace. The big categories everyone wants to see are Song, Screenwriting (?), Supporting Actor and Actress, Lead Actor and Actress, Director, and Best Picture. Since, generally, the Oscars telecast is about 3:30-4 hours long, that means you should have one of those awards presented every 25-30 minutes of the telecast. Don't suddenly cram a bunch of the biggest awards into the last 30 minutes.
• Clapping. Start each telecast with a statement to the audience to hold all applause until the END of the presentation. Often, the clapping drowns out what the presenter or pre-recorded piece is saying, or it shows obvious favoritism (one person gets hoots, hollers, and a lot of clapping; the next gets a polite smattering of applause). Also, if it is a live presentation, the clapping often causes the presenter to pause, adding to the overall time of the show. Just wait until they are done, clap the same amount for everyone, and then allow specific applause for the winner.
• Closing. Have some sort of closing presentation, not too long (maybe 4 minutes) that wraps up and ends the show. Doesn't need to be another song and dance, but something that sums it all up and eases you back out of the show. The way last night just sort of had Ellen come on stage and say good night was a bit terse. People who get into it are still amped up over the show and need something to ease them down and out.

It's Not What You Say, But What You Don't Say...

My wife and I like pulled beef/pork sandwiches and we use our slow cooker to make the BBQ sauce and cooked meat. Because we've had some issues cooking this meal since we got our new slow cooker, she decided to get a mix from the same company as our slow cooker (Crock Pot).

The Ingredients list is simple:

• 3 lbs pork
• 1/2 cup ketchup
• 1/2 cup brown sugar
• 1/3 cup cider vinegar
• 1 pkg. Crock Pot Pulled Pork BBQ Seasoning
• 1 cup water

The Preparation section is even easier (I will type everything exactly):

1. PLACE pork in slow cooker.
2. MIX seasoning packet with ketchup, brown sugar, and vinegar until blended. Pour over pork.
3. COVER & COOK 8 hrs. on LOW or 4 hrs. on HIGH. REMOVE pork from slow cooker. Shred, using two forks. Return meat to slow cooker. Mix with sauce and heat before serving.

That's it. Notice anything? That's right, that 1 cup of water listed in the ingredients is not used anywhere in the preparation. Why is it needed? After some discussion, we decided the water was designed to keep the meat moist during cooking. We feel that step one should read, "PLACE pork and water in slow cooker." We can make a case for it being added to the sauce in part two of step 3, so we're not certain of our choice. It's what we're going with. 

This error leads us to another error by omission that has been frustrating us: everything we have been cooking in our new slow cooker has been either overcooked or done way sooner than the estimated times on recipes. My wife did some research and discovered a couple of interesting things, which our slow cooker instructions and manuals don't mention.

1. Modern, recently-made (last 5 years or so) slow cookers are set to higher temperatures than older models. If you had an older model and purchased a new one, you may notice that your recipes are finishing sooner or are overcooked when cooked in the new cooker. This may be why. No one seems to know quite why manufacturers decided to make this unspecified and unneeded change.
2. Slow cookers are designed to be used at a minimum of about 2/3 full. If you are, say, two people who just want enough for dinner and some leftovers, and you purchased a larger slow cooker, you may find your food overdone because it gets too hot during cooking because it is only 1/3 or maybe 1/2 full.

In both cases, why not clearly mention it? It makes a pretty big difference; my wife and I have wasted a number of meals because we couldn't figure out what we were doing wrong. We had a solid, older model that made good food and we could use without issue and we were throwing out dry, almost inedible food with the new, larger one. Knowing either piece of info would have made a huge difference; knowing both is causing us to rethink our purchase and considering downgrading to a smaller slow cooker.

Where is the editing? Why omit this information? Is no one reading or reviewing these items?

Addendum (2/21/2014)

Here is the response I got back from the company. Doesn't exactly instill confidence that they will fix the issue in subsequent runs of the ingredient package:

Dear John, 

Thank you for taking the time to contact B&G Foods Inc. We’re sorry to hear about confusion regarding the directions on our Crock Pot BBQ Pulled Pork Seasoning Mix. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. 

After placing the pork in you slow cooker, mix the entire seasoning packet with water, ketchup, brown sugar and vinegar until blended. Pour over pork.

 B&G Foods Inc.Corporate Consumer Affairs/2

Musically Speaking

I will start with a caveat: I don't really know music. I don't know a treble from a clef. I do know what I like and I do know what "sounds right" and what doesn't to my ear. This post is about the difference I hear in two performers I know.

We have a friend, TL, who is a professional musician and singer, as well as a music teacher. She is respected and asked to adjudicate musical performances all over this area. She performs publicly. I happen to really like her voice. When she performs, she often teams with a male friend of hers I'll call C. He is similarly a singer, a teacher, and a respected adjudicator. Both have performed all over the province, and he has performed nationwide. They both enjoy performing and they seem to have fun together on stage.

When I watch and listen to them sing, I come away with the same feeling every time: no matter how "into it" he is, no matter what he sings, I simply don't feel the passion from him that I do from her. He is, I believe, technically proficient; his pitch and tone and the sounds he makes are all true and perfect, but there isn't any heart behind it. Don't get me wrong, I think -- no, I know -- he enjoys what he sings, and with whom he is singing it. But enjoying it and filling the song with emotion and passion are two very different things, at least in my mind.

C's voice is like a bell while TL's is like a guitar. C's voice is clear and precise and perfect, but it can only do that one thing, make that one note. No matter if you use it in a rock song, a ballad, a jazz hit, or a choir, it remains exactly the same; reliable, and perfect, but without any added depth. Its use may be better suited to some genres than others, but it is always clear and precise no matter how you use it. TL's guitar, on the other hand, can hit many notes. She can use her guitar in rock, jazz, country, folk, or even classical songs. Her guitar just has more depth, more use, and more utility than does C's.

On the other hand, I don't think C's unwavering perfection and lack of depth is a bad thing, per se. It is my belief that C's perfection allows TL to do more, take more chances, fail and succeed more often because she can rely on his steady, perfect, metronome-like ability to know the words and stay on pitch and tempo. He's like the flagpole and she's like the flag; she can tie on, raise or lower, whip around, and even rip off and fly free because she knows the flagpole will always be there, doing its job.

Take the song 'Hallelujah.' This song, written and first performed by Leonard Cohen is, frankly, all about the life and the passion you can infuse into it. The best versions of the song are not those sung with technical brilliance, but those sung by people who have had hard lives and can put those troubles and tribulations into the words and the music. While those that are sung with perfection are still nice to listen to, I often come away with an empty feeling. Yet when Cohen, or John Cale, or Jeff Buckley sang it, they infused the drugs, the hard traveling, the divorces, and the impoverished times into those words. You can feel the difference. Cohen's voice cracking and breaking when he sings it, the tiredness and perseverance in Cale's rendition, the alcohol/drugs and hard traveling in Buckley's version -- it all adds to the overall performances and depth of the song.

C recently sang Hallelujah and it was ... fine. He was technically proficient, he hit all the notes, he was in time with the music, and sang all of the words, but it didn't have the heart or the soul that the song requires to be great. It just sounded flat to me, even though it was well done. He was that perfect bell in a song that needed some dirty guitar work.

Now, C has improved in his performance and his range since I've been watching the two perform. However, he remains the bell to TL's guitar. Recently, in their last two performances, they have performed some Elvis Presley hits. When TL performs them, she rocks out; she sways her hips, she changes inflection based on what she is singing, she nods her head, and she goes through more range with her voice, from low to high. She doesn't mimic The King, but she pays homage to him sometimes and other times she goes off on her own in whatever way her voice wants to. She makes it hers. When C sings those hits, it is obvious he is having fun doing it, but his voice remains the exact same as when he is singing a choir tune for church or a Broadway melody, only the words are from The King. C doesn't make it his, he just sings it, if that makes sense. He sings it well, he has fun doing it, but, ultimately, he just sings it.

Again, I don't know music. I may be way off and someone with musical knowledge and/or talent may be able to tell me what I'm hearing and why I think this way. And, don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the two of them perform and do their thing. I think that C's abilities help TL to do what she does with less fear and greater conviction, which makes it valuable. I also reach the conclusion that if someone could teach C how to let go of the perfection and get a little dirtier, he'd find his music takes off in new and unexpected ways.

TV Woes, Part 2

An additional issue we were having with our entertainment center was that our Series 2 Dual-Tuner TiVo was not receiving the remote signal consistently. Sometimes it would work okay, but most of the time it was taking multiple presses to get the signal to the TiVo and, sometimes, it would go through long stretches where it wouldn't accept the signal at all.

This came to a head recently as well. It got to the point where we could barely control our TiVo at all. Once again, I turned to the Interwebs for information to see if others were having this issue.

It turns out that modern LCD/LED TVs have a function called "backlighting." This feature can send out a strong enough signal that it can override your remote's IR signal, effectively blocking it from reaching the IR sensor on the TiVo (or, perhaps, other devices). The backlighting feature is used to make the screen brighter and the colors sharper. It has different settings depending on the way you are using it (for example, on our TV, the "Sports" selection has high backlighting, the "Movie" one has low backlighting, and the "Standard" is a medium amount of backlighting).

I played around with this feature and discovered if we turned it all the way off, our TiVo remote started functioning again. But even one tick up on the scale for backlighting and the TiVo remote stopped working reliably.

I then starting thinking about when this trouble started, because we have owned that TV for a few years and the issue only cropped up in the last few months. I then realized that when we had some work done in the front room, we had changed the setup of the devices within the cabinet, placing the TiVo closer to the TV than it had been before, and I suspected that the problems started about that same time.

After dealing with the issues in TV Woes, Part 1, my wife and I decided to act on my hunch and move the TiVo down in the cabinet, farther away from the TV. This only shifted its position by about 3.5", but I recalled not having the remote issues prior to moving it up and we were definitely having them after moving it up. So, it was worth a shot and didn't cost us anything.

Low and behold, since moving the TiVo down under the other (used much less often) device, the TiVo is working like a champ again.

The moral of the story is, if you find your remotes are not working as well or consistently as they were or you think they should, try finding and turning off the "Backlight" feature on your LCD/LED TV (the feature is also on some plasma TVs). If your remote suddenly seems to work much better and more consistently, then you need to get your device farther away from your TV so the backlight feature doesn't cause interference with the IR reception from the remote. Or, of course, if you don't mind the much duller look of your picture, you can simply turn off the Backlight feature and leave it off.

TV Woes, Part 1

A few years ago we bought a Samsung LN46C630 TV. We love it. It is a nice size (although my wife now admits we could go bigger), a quality-name product, and has a very nice, clear picture. Recently, however, the picture started suffering from a problem: it flickered. By "flicker" I mean that the entire picture would start strobing brighter and darker rapidly while never actually losing the picture. This strobe effect would sometimes turn off when a new signal was received, like the station going into or out of a commercial break, or when a DVD would move to a new chapter, etc., and would occasionally fade or stop on its own.

It was getting worse, though. When it first started, it was only our main (Component 1) input that was affected. If we switched to any other input, the flickering would stop and we would be left in peace. However, over the last few months, switching inputs stopped working to resolve the issue. We were at the mercy of some sort of signal change. Then the signal change stopped working. At that point, once the TV started flashing, it would keep flashing. Needless to say, it made our really nice TV virtually unwatchable when it happened.

We were to the point where we considered buying a new TV. Our TV was out of warranty and, actually, the problem started very shortly after the warranty expired. I decided to check online to see if others were having this issue. Searching on "Samsung TV flickering" and "Samsung TV strobing" I found that there were many who were having the same issue with their Samsung TVs. Reading through the many hits, I found a trend: it seemed to be all the "LN##C###" in particular were having this issue, and the C600 models specifically. It also seemed strangely common and convenient that it happened just about the time the warranty expired in almost every case.

Reading further, someone had called for servicing and his service person was told by Samsung that it is a common problem with a particular run of TVs and that cutting a jumper on one of the two electronics boards inside the TV can resolve the issue. Depending on the exact model of your TV, the exact jumper number may be slightly different, but they are located in the same spot on the board and perform the same function.

Everyone who tried the solution presented had excellent results and their flickering problem went away.

I've been laid up again with back pain after falling down the stairs. So, I've been sitting in the front room in my recliner watching a lot of TV. Having the flickering happening nearly all the time was driving me nuts. I confirmed with my wife that the TV was out of warranty and that we had enough in our account to buy a new TV if needed. I then tackled the issue following the advice/instructions I found online.

Instructions

They are pretty simple and straightforward. The one piece of advice I would add is that the sensor that reads the remote signal is in an awkward place and you can easily pull it out while taking off or putting on the TV's back cover. If you find that you follow these instructions and the remote "stops working," crack open the case and find the little daughter board and make sure the cable that connects that board (and the sensor) to the main motherboard inside is still connected, or reconnect it if needed.

Since performing that little bit of surgery, we have had no flickering/strobing on our TV. It is back to working 100% and looking great.

Taxes

Through some of the biggest growth and success of America, the wealthiest were taxed at what would be considered Draconian amounts today. Shortly after World War 2, the government taxed the wealthy around 90% of their income. Yes, 90%. This lasted through the 1960s. In the 1970s, we lowered the tax rates to around 70% and in the 1980s, Reagan lowered them to 50% and then down to about 30%. In the 1990s, during the last economic crisis, the tax rates were raised to around 40%. Now they are back to round 35% or so.

The problem, as always, is where is the money? By that I mean, who has the money? The federal government can only get taxes from people who can pay taxes. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government taxed the hell out of the upper classes because they were the ones with the money. This allowed the government to afford all the for-work projects it created to get the huge influx of people injected into the workforce as the men came home from war and the women did not want to give up their own careers and go back to being exclusively homemakers.

As the workforce expanded, even more jobs were created, which allowed poorer individuals to move up, and allowed the middle class to both spring into existence and grow in size (millions of people) and wealth (percentage of wealth in their collective hands). The bulk of the wealth of America shifted from a few people having a lot of money and the majority not having it, to the majority of the wealth being spread over a lot of people, with only a few on the extreme ends. In this way, the federal government was able to ease the tax burden on everybody and lower the tax rates on the rich while easing the tax rates on the huge middle class. As the middle-classes' amount of the wealth slowly increased, the federal government steadily lowered the tax rates on the rich, as they didn't need to shoulder the bulk of the burden any more, and the much lower rates on the steadily increasing middle-class continued to cover the needs of the government.

However, the government did not change this philosophy as the wealth started to move back into the hands of a minority of people again during the 1990s. The tax rates were changed for a brief time and America was able to "right the ship" on the false belief that the economic crisis was over. However, Bush lowered the taxes again on the wealthy during the 2000s, and the money continued flowing faster toward a minority of people again. Middle-class wages were no longer keeping up with or exceeding inflation, people's dollars were not buying what they once could (like housing and cars), and the middle-class had to borrow increasing amounts of credit to do what they wanted, while the rich got wealthier and inject less of that money back into the economy as either purchases or taxes.

I guess a simple way to put it is like this:

The federal government needs $1000 to run. You have 10 people from which to gather the $1000.

• 1 person makes $1000 (top 10 %)
• 2 people make $500 each (wealthy)
• 5 people make $100 each (middle class)
• 1 person makes $50 (minimum wage)
• 1 person makes $10 or less (poor or out of work)

If you only tax the 5 middle class people any amount, including 100% of their income, you cannot reach the $1000 you need to run the government. If, however, you tax the top 30% a tax rate of 45%, you net $900 of the dollars needed ($450 from the top and $225 each from the next two). Now the 5 people making $100 only needs to make up the remaining $100, or be taxed at about 20% each ($20 each). Notice that those in the lowest brackets don't even need to pay taxes, even though they may be the people who benefit the most out of the government's use of its funds.

Now, here's the thing: the middle class is taking home $80 (or 80%) of their income, which they can use to buy a lot of goods and services, assuming that their buying power is strong. As a whole entity, the middle class has a collective buying power of $400. The next wealthiest group, even though they are being taxed more than double what the middle class makes, takes home 3.5 TIMES the middle class amount ($275/ea), so are still considered very wealthy. The top 10% take home almost 7 TIMES the middle class amount ($550), and nearly double what even the next wealthiest 20% do, so are still considered extremely wealthy and have huge buying power and ability to create jobs and more income!

This is why high tax rates on the wealthy work. You can tax them using extremely high tax rates and they still take home more money than the middle class workers do, by a large amount.

You can find many graphs online that show the money discrepancy in America. Using the same example data, above, we are taxing all but the lowest class approximately 30%, which is why we have a deficit. If you tax everyone 30%, you only take in $765 of the $1000 you need to run the government. Either you have to cut government programs to work under the new figure, or you have to raise taxes.

The other problem is that the buying line has shifted. In my first example, I'm assuming a buying power of $50. The minimum wage people are, therefore, living paycheck-to-paycheck and just scraping by, the middle class (after taxes) has room for some savings and extra purchases, and the wealthy have huge buying power. Today, however, that is not true. They buying power is at about $80. So the poor are at a huge disadvantage, with nearly no upward mobility. The minimum wage people get farther behind with few chances to move up. The middle class is slowly getting farther behind and cannot put much away for savings, with fewer chances to move up. But the wealthiest 30% are not touched at all and see nothing wrong or problematic with the system.

Here's a great video that illustrates the income discrepancy in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Notice that the respondents know and understand that the distribution of wealth should be unequal. People understand that there should be stratuses of wealth, as it gives them something to work and strive for. What people do not understand is how much wealth the top 20% (and the top 1%) actually has. Once you realize how much of the actual dollars are with the wealthy, you understand that they MUST be taxed higher because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. You cannot get blood from a stone, and the middle class simply no longer has the bulk of the money. Its buying power isn't the equivalent to the wealthiest people any more... not by a long shot.

Is that video the end-all, be-all? No, of course not. It has well-documented flaws. But it shows the vast disparity of where the wealth is actually located. When you take into account that Congress keeps pushing for yet more tax breaks for the wealthiest, even though that is where the money is located, that means the non-wealthiest have to pay more in taxes, even though they don't have the money to do so. The more they pay in taxes, the lower their buying power to purchase items that keep the economy running and the fewer dollars they can save for retirement or emergencies. So,either the wealthiest 20% (and 1% in particular) need to be taxed at much higher rates OR they need to spend the equivalent of what the 100 million or so "middle class" people would be spending on items, goods, and services to keep the economy flowing. So, either way, the wealthiest few need to inject more money into the system because they are the ones with the money.

And, frankly, as my simplistic example above showed, you can tax the wealthiest at significantly higher rates and it doesn't affect their buying power or their status. It won't affect people trying to strive to be in that stratum of the country, either. But, regardless, that money HAS TO flow into the country either via purchases (and, simply put, the wealthiest few simply cannot purchase enough "stuff" to keep the economy going-- there are only so many houses, cars, refrigerators, and toys that a million people need) OR via taxes.

Addendum

Read this post, written over two years after I made this post. Interesting that some of the rich are coming to similar conclusions.

Give the Devil His Due

Sometimes, something just strikes you. I don't claim this is original thought, it is just original to me and one that came to me a few days ago like the proverbial light bulb turning on.

If you follow the Christian mythology, God created all things. However, He only gave free will to Man. The Devil is a fallen Angel, who "rebelled" against God and his favoring of Man above all His other creations. But Angels do not have free will and cannot do anything other than God's will. Therefore, Lucifer, the Morningstar and first among Angels, must have been commanded by God to rebel. It is part of God's plan that the Devil exists. It also means that the strife and discord that the fallen Angel brings is on purpose and according to God's plan.

What does this mean for Christians today? Well, knowing that it is part of God's will that there be a Devil, and all the discord that he sows, might change how Christians view the bad things that happen in life. It means that the Devil is God's way of testing Christians, making them use their free will, and hopefully choosing good over evil.

Also, obviously, Christians have a list of ten rules that must be followed (the 10 Commandments). It is in these areas that mankind is most likely to be tested and where the Devil will tempt Christians. These also seem to be the areas where Man's emotions and free will are the weakest.

Lastly, it also means that the image of the Devil as a horned, tailed, pitchfork-wielding creature who revels in torment is likely wrong. It is much more likely, if following God's plan, that Lucifer is as beautiful as any other Angel. His job is to tempt, after all. And, as the old axiom goes, it is easier to catch flies with honey. How often does the, say, attractive politician or celebrity in the nice suit lead someone astray?

What does this mean for Christians? I'm not sure. At the least, you know that your temptations are part of God's plan (which you should already know), and that you are more likely to be tempted by the fair face. You should realize that those temptations are part of God's plan for you and part of your quest to salvation. And that God loved you enough to give you something against which to be tested, to prove your mettle, and to overcome.

As I said, I'm sure that none of this is original thought. But, I think, it is interesting to ponder.

Helix

Normally, it takes a TV show multiple episodes before it completely goes off the rails and re-interprets or ignores characterizations of its own characters. Not Helix, the new SyFy channel TV show about a potential plague and the CDC's attempts to halt it.

The show had a stellar pilot episode. The sets were well-made and interesting, the characters were broadly written but well-defined, the story was interesting and engaging, and the actors were adept. My only quibble was the small amount of melodrama inserted from the beginning -- the fact that Julia had slept with Peter while married to Alan. I loved how the show used very little music, outside of "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?". The direction was competent. I was thinking that this might be a nice, new addition to my TV watching.

And then I watched episode two.

The premise of Helix is that a secret base full of scientists working on groundbreaking and cutting-edge research in the Arctic concoct a deadly pathogen that gets loose within the base and could start an outbreak of epic proportions. The CDC is called in to help analyze and resolve the situation. Once there, the CDC starts to discover things are worse than they imagined, and the pathogen actually mutates people.

By episode two, you already have people acting like idiots... er, I mean, "typical" horror-movie walking fatalities waiting to happen. These supposedly smart scientists who have worked on these types of issues before, are suddenly:

• Working alone, many levels away from support and other people, with her back to the only door in/out of the lab she is in, even though she knows there are loose, pathogen-plagued individuals wandering around who cannot be found (and at least one of which has proven quite dangerous). You cannot be surprised when an infected gains access and threatens her.
• Putting three possibly infected people together in one room even while she sees clear evidence of infection and the three are all physically larger and stronger than she is and they are exhibiting paranoid behaviors. You cannot be surprised when the three gang up and threaten her trying to secure their release.
• Acting in such a lackadaisical fashion about the people they think may be infected in general. You cannot be surprised when the three women are overwhelmed by the infected and they all get loose.
• Ignoring the team leader.
• Alan asks his ex-wife repeatedly to work on one aspect of the pathogen and she constantly ignores him, does her own thing, and confronts (or tries to confront) him about his decisions. When she finally actually does what he asks, she finds out revelatory information about the pathogen that may have changed their protocols and analysis had she actually done it much sooner (for example, when first asked).
• Alan tells everyone that they must go everywhere with a buddy. Everyone ignores this rule whenever it is convenient to the story to do so, and people are killed, infected, and harassed because of doing so.
• Julia goes off to take a shower on her own, and is apparently infected by Peter in a pseudo-rape/aggressive sexualized encounter (his "kiss" spreads the infection and he attacks her when she rebuffs him and forces his kiss on her in a very aggressive, powerful context) scene in the shower (while he is fully clothed and she is completely naked, of course).
• Lying to each other. Alan tries to convince the obviously evil and "in on it" head of the research group that they must be straight with each other in order to resolve this problem and save everyone's lives, yet then turns around and doesn't share everything he's learned with his teammates.
• Being obtuse to the obvious and strange behavior of the head of the research group as he is obviously and verifiably lying to them over and over.

Now, looking at the list of idiotic behavior, you note that vast majority of them were performed by the female cast members. That's strike one. You notice that each is a behavior that people with intimate knowledge of viruses, pathogens, behavior, and disease control simply would not do, and is certainly against the characters and their backgrounds as presented in episode one. That's strike two. You notice they put the "hot chick" into a situation where she is naked and assaulted, fulfilling the standard "rape fantasy" aspects of any horror movie. That's strike three.

What looked to be an interesting and challenging TV show has turned into a typical, and badly written, horror archetype by the second episode. After watching them both, I am unsure whether I will even go back for a third helping, let alone finish out the season.

ADDENDUM (1/19/2014)

After watching the third episode, where the characters, in particular the female characters, continued to act in ways that are, at best, hard to fathom for trained professionals in their capacity, I had to delete the season pass and write off this series. It's too bad, as it has a lot of promise and the first episode was so good.

"Affordable" Care Act

Many years ago, California passed laws that made having auto insurance mandatory within the state. The insurance companies looked at that legislation and said, "Great, we have a captive audience. Let's cancel policies, create new ones at many times the current costs, and screw as many people as possible, while making huge profits." (I'm paraphrasing.) While the intention of the state mandate was good, and, logically, the insurance companies would have had many more millions buying the existing policies, increasing their coffers a very respectable amount, they got greedy. California later then created and passed Proposition 103, which forced the insurance companies to rein in their greed. According to the Consumer Federation of America's report, Prop 103 has saved California drivers about $100 billion since it was passed, in 1988. California is also the only state where auto insurance rates have consistently gone down over the last 25 years.

The Affordable Care Act is a great idea. Allowing children to stay on their parents insurance longer? Great. Insurance companies not denying or dismissing your insurance for pre-existing conditions? Wonderful. Setting a baseline for the minimum amount of healthcare that plans will service? Stupendous. Getting rid of plan maximum payouts? Awesome.

But, like in California with the auto insurance, the federal government forgot some vital components:

1. Setting insurance cost maximums for those base policies.
2. Making it illegal for insurance plans to eliminate your insurance and then sell it to you again at higher rates.

Insurance works by having many people pay a small amount into a pooled fund. It is assumed that the majority will need very little of the fund and a small minority will need some or a lot of funds, so the majority pay for the minority and everybody pays a small amount total. The insurance companies get their profit from:

• the amount of people in the fund, paying insurance premiums
• the interest from the (assumed) amount of money that is paid in that is not paid out again.

Insurance is, in essence, the only legal pyramid scheme allowed, and all insurance works this way.

Health insurance companies could have looked at "Obamacare" as a huge influx of money into their coffers. They should have been lauding and trumpeting the passage and the subsequent Supreme Court rulings making it legal. Depending on which side you ask, somewhere between 15 and 50 million Americans would be added into the pool of those paying for health insurance. This would, by how insurance works, create more premiums going into its coffers and create more interest on the unused, larger amount of funds.

But, like in California in the 1980s with the auto insurance, the health insurances saw a way to make even more profit from Obamacare: in order to hit the baseline minimums that the Affordable Care Act insisted on, insurers simply eliminated a host of existing plans and then resold those people new plans that hit those base minimums but at a much higher cost to the canceled plans.

The minimums required by Obamacare are:

1. Ambulatory patient services
2. Emergency services
3. Hospitalization
4. Maternity and newborn care
5. Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
6. Prescription drugs
7. Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
8. Laboratory services
9. Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
10. Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

You may not need every single aspect (you might be male and single, and don't need maternity or newborn care, for example), but I think most people can respect that these are the bare minimums of things that should be covered by any insurance plan.

Let's say you had Plan X and it had 8 of the 10 minimums and charged you $50 a month. Insurers could add the two items you do not have to your plan and charge you, say, $5 or $10 a month more for the plan, which you would likely find reasonable and affordable. Instead, insurers are primarily choosing to delete your current plan, create a brand new plan with all 10 items, and charge you $100+ to rejoin. What do you get out of it: the exact same coverage, with one or two new coverages added, at double, triple, or more the original rate.

Now, let's say you are a health insurance company. You have 100,000 people with Plan X, paying $50 a month. You are getting $5 million a month from that plan, or $60 million a year. You are betting that less than 20% of your insured population will need to use these funds during any given year, and further betting that, of those who do need to, the majority are for low-cost circumstances (ER visit, kid has the flu, blood tests, medications, etc.). As an insurer, you can add those two missing items, charge the same people $60 a month, and start making $6 million a month. Because of Obamacare, you may also get another couple of thousand who didn't have insurance before who buy into Plan X. So, now you have 110,000 people at $60/month, or $6.6 million a month. You've increased your income by approximately 33%!

Instead, insurers chose to cancel the policies in full, force people to sign back up (with a strong likelihood they would, since the online registration rollout was so poorly handled), and charge them double, or more, for nearly identical plans. That is a money grab, plain and simple. Instead of being happy with the huge increase in profits that would come naturally, they made a grab for even more. And, what's worse, is that it is completely legal, because the politicians didn't consider that a corporation would take full advantage of a law like this, even though they had examples in fairly recent history.

Well, California is leading the charge again. They are proposing legislation similar to Prop 103 that would work the same way. I imagine it will have the same effect, too; insurance companies will continue to do business, will continue to make huge profits, but the people will have affordable rates and policies. No more raising rates by 170% over the last decade while inflation rose 32.5% during the same period!

Had the federal government thought to do this from the beginning, many of the people now without plans, and most of the people who were forced out and back into new plans, would have hardly noticed the Obamacare rollout. It would have truly meant only those people without a plan would need to work toward getting one.

There is absolutely no reason why the Affordable Care Act cannot work and work well. We've seen it work in more than one state and in nearly two dozen industrialized countries. Insuring everyone is a good thing, when done right. However, rather than learning from similar situations (like car insurance in California) or from the various ways that other countries have implemented it, America decided to recreate the wheel -- and did it badly. Insurance companies, which should have been helping every step of the way and thinking about all that new money that would be coming in naturally, got greedy. Politicians, rather than looking out for their constituents, made bad decisions (Democrats) or abstained from the process altogether (Republicans), rather than writing a law that made sense and closed these types of loopholes.

I hope that Obamacare continues because I know people with cancer and similar, expensive illnesses who need the caps on insurance removed. I know (and am!) people with pre-existing conditions that either cannot get healthcare or cannot get affordable healthcare because of them. I know people with insurance that doesn't actually cover anything, and I know people who have had their insurance dropped for no good reason except they had to actually use it, cutting into fly-by-night insurers profits.

Please, government, don't get rid of the ideas behind Obamacare -- just fix the broken bits with laws that make sense and keep the people in mind.

Back Pain, Again

I mentioned a little while ago that I had some severe back pain (here and here). Taking the advice of many family, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances, I pushed for an MRI before starting physical therapy. The issue, many of them explained to me, was that physio is great as long as you are being treated for the right cause. In many cases, however, they started physio right away and nothing worked or their back trouble got worse, because you do different physio based on the root cause of the problem.

The MRI was last week and I got the results today. Turns out that I have disc herniation in the L4-5/S1 area of my back, presenting on the right side. Which is exactly where all of my pain and discomfort came from. Even down to my right leg not wanting to make a full arc when walking due to the discomfort I still feel in it.

The herniation is NOT pressing on the nerve, which is great news, but the fact everything is swollen and not in line still causes a lot of pain and discomfort.

Now that I have a cause, I can go get the right physio for my situation. And my doctor is setting up a referral to a back specialist to review the case and make sure that nothing more is needed, like surgery or specialized treatment.

Hopefully, in a few weeks or months, I can post how my back pain is gone and my therapy worked. Now that we know the root cause of the problem.

Oh, and to the ass hat of an urgent care doctor that didn't want to listen, didn't want to know, and acted put out that I insisted on an x-ray, gave me bad pain medication, and refused to pay attention to my medical history -- I was right and you were wrong. Idiot. I don't know where he graduated in his class, but I can guess he failed the parts about "bedside manner."

Bullied

I was bullied at times as a child. I was small, always something that bullies look for in a victim. I was a bit of a smart ass, something that bullies hate. I was one of the smart kids, something that many bullies can't stand. As someone who was bullied fairly regularly, I learned that there is never one set, pat answer to the bully. The correct response is fluid and changes with what is going on, how bad the bullying gets, the level of physical or mental trauma inflicted, and the level of threat in evidence.

The Incognito/Martin issue currently in the news, and constantly developing, really shows a dichotomy in how people think and see bullying. I was just watching ESPN and it was showing an exchange between Mike Golic and another former NFL player on the subject. Golic's response showed me that Golic has never, ever been bullied in his life (or that he believes one answer is right for all circumstances). He was basically saying, "Martin should have stood up to Incognito. He should have fought him and this problem would have gone away. Martin was weak to handle it the way he did."

Believing that you always stand up to a bully and doing so is the only correct solution shows a lack of understanding of the subject. While many bullies are in it for the physical (or mental) domination and having their prey stand up to them takes that away, not all bullies work that way. Some simply target someone for "fun" or some reason specific to the bully. Once targeted, the bully will do whatever it takes to stay in what they see as a position of dominance and control over their selected victim. If physical works, they use that. If the person stands up to that, they move on to emotional harassment, then maybe political control. They will lie to peers and those in power, even when the victim isn't around, in order to facilitate further bullying later. They will do things subtly, so if the victim speaks out or acts up, it looks like they are the ones at fault or having the problem, and the bully can keep right on doing it.

Add into this the level of sophistication and 24/7 access that today's technology allows a bully, and the abuse can be neverending.

When I was bullied, I had to determine which response was the best/right one for the current circumstances:

• Stand up and take a beating (and hope to give one, too)?
• Run away and live to fight another day?
• Use quick wit and smarts to get out of it or away from it?
• Take it to an authority and tell on the bully?

Each response has its Pros and its Cons. Each has a potential negative and may cause the bully to continue the attacks, or even double-down on them and make them worse.

With one bully, I stood up. I got punched in the ear so hard it started ringing and I thought his fist would come out the other side of my head. I kicked him in the testicles in return, and we actually became pretty good friends. In another case, I ran away; he had numbers on his side and I was likely going to get really messed up, but I knew I was faster than anyone in the bully's group, so I could escape that circumstance. I then had to avoid that bully and his gang until I figured a way to turn the tables on the bully and get back at him. Then he turned his attention on someone else. In another case, the bully was not physically imposing, but was mentally trying to dominate and control me. I had to use my wits to overcome this threat. And, on more than one occasion, I had to go my least favorite route and simply tell on the bully and see where the chips fell. In some instances, it went badly for both of us. In most cases, the authority figure believed me and the bully got taken down and had to move on to someone else because I refused to play the game.

In many of those cases, had I simply stood up to the bully physically, it would not have made any difference. Those who bully through emotional manipulation, lies, subterfuge -- they would have simply continued on, and probably increase their efforts, because they got the rise out of me they were looking for.

Another aspect that comes into play is the bullied person's temperament. A quite, shy, introvert is going to have a very different response and way of dealing with the situation, regardless of bullying type, than an extroverted, outgoing, confident person. The introvert will want to ignore it, at first, and then try to "go along to get along" second. He/she may finally feel either telling an authority figure or running away is the best course of action. An extrovert is going to confront first, and maybe use their wits, charm, and people skills to diffuse the situation. Both are valid responses, and neither is right or wrong. But what do these people do if their bully simply changes tactics and continues to come at them? That is when character is tested.

This is a very complex issue and one that cannot be solved simply by a physical confrontation. We are still finding out what went on between Incognito and Martin, so I cannot say how Martin handled it was right or wrong. Anyone who says that there is only one right way for Martin to handle the situation, however, I take exception to. Either they have never been bullied or they are completely obtuse to how bullying works.

Concussion Conclusions

I'm torn on the recent spate of journalism on concussions in the NFL (and all football). After watching and reading a bunch about it, I'm left with two opinions:

1. Concussions are bad and it is a shame the NFL has obfuscated, ignored, and lied about it for so long, rather than just helping to fix it. They should get compensation from the NFL for this.
2. These people get paid hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year partially because of the danger inherent in the job. If the job is safer, they should be paid less.

I'm not sure which opinion, if either, is more important. But, if we are making the game of football less dangerous, than shouldn't we also lower the pay we provide to watch these players enjoy the game?

The average NFL career is three years. For 2013, the base NFL salary for a Rookie is $405,000. The average American yearly income is around $50,000 (it's hard to nail down a precise figure, as there are a lot of variables involved, especially as the wealth gets less evenly distributed. Most sites seem to agree on around $50,000). NFL rookies get paid eight times what the average adult income per year is -- and this is the amount given to the work-a-day rookies. It does not include signing and roster bonuses or various incentives. A third year player can earn a base salary of over $600,000 plus bonuses -- or 12 times the average American salary per year.

Part of this salary, and part for any sports league's high salaries, is based on the short career due to the high potential for injury and even death while playing. Part of the high salary is also simple economics; they can ask for it, due to the high revenues, so they get it.

These salaries have always assumed that NFL players will be somewhat broken down when they retire from the sport, and the high salary is partial compensation for that fact. After three years in the NFL, the average player will have somewhere north of $1.2 million in base salary. This same amount would take the average American salaried employee about 24 years to earn, in their (supposedly) less dangerous and more stable work environment.

The best I can determine is that the average career length for a police officer in America is around five years. The average salary is somewhere between $35,000 and about $50,000 per year, depending on where they are providing law enforcement. The police's job is at least as subject to injury and death as an NFL player's career, so why don't we pay our law enforcement personnel better?

Firefighters get an average between $40,000 and $50,000 per year, depending on location. Their lives are at risk every single time they go to a fire, and yet they only earn up to the national salary average?

Many teachers work in sub-optimal conditions, where their lives are threatened on a weekly basis. Yet the national average for teacher salaries is at approximately $35,500 -- and is only that high because of higher base salaries in the worst areas, like New York, New Jersey, and California. Not only are teachers' lives threatened constantly, their careers are constantly under threat from politicians, funding, and vindictive students and parents. They have to constantly make do with less, and spend a disproportionate amount of their salary on at-work requirements that cannot be found in other professions -- meaning they make even less than the national average if you take into account all of the books, resources, "free" coaching/theater/tutoring/music/etc., and other services they provide out of their own pocket each year. And yet they have one of the most important jobs in the world -- educating the next generation of workers, politicians, and everything else.

It seems like NFL players should be able to put enough aside to take care of their ongoing medical needs after their career, even if that injury is CTE, Alzheimer's, or another head-related trauma. Or, the NFL or Players Association could put aside somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of that salary for medical expenses and retirement needs for the first three years in some fashion that the players cannot touch or get at until after retirement.

I continue to be torn over this issue. These athletes should be able to ensure they are well cared for almost regardless of what type of injury they incur, and that is one of the reasons why we pay them so much. Those who make it past three years are even richer and more capable of taking care of themselves. On the other hand, they were misled and outright lied to over the years by their employers as to just what level of risk the "silent killer" of head trauma could play in their lives. Yet other, even more important, high-risk careers don't get paid nearly what these athletes do in order to entertain us. The athletes are in a high-reward and very profitable business, and should get whatever they can from management. But, at the same time, they should think about the future and save some of that money for the problems 5, 10, 20 years down the line.

This one has me stumped.

Moving Forward and Looking Back

When ServiceMaster (SM) first arrived to help us with our sewage flood in our basement, they were helpful, attentive, and hard-working. Morris, the guy we initially dealt with, talked all about the benefits of having a bin brought in to store our stuff in while the reclamation project proceeded. He and "the girls" were quick to sort through everything, box up what could be salvaged and pile up and discard what couldn't.

SM then proceeded with the recovery phase. They were quick to get the wallboard cut out, the damp, moldy fiberglass removed, and the industrial-strength HEPA and dehumidifiers working. Morris talked about the process and the project as it moved forward. Then Morris left.

We were left calling Lynn at the main SM office. She was helpful and we told her what we needed and what SM had done. What we didn't know until about a week and half into talking with Lynn was that she was just relaying these messages to someone called Mike, who was our actual project manager (PM) for the project. But still, things were moving forward; we had new wallboard put in, new insulation installed. The painter came and started the mudding of the wallboard.

But then the painter said he and his wife were going on vacation for a week and was that okay? Not realizing the effect this would have on the project, I said it was okay. When he came back, he got busy right away (well, on Tuesday; Monday was a holiday). He had the whole thing painted in a couple of days and ... the project came to a screeching halt.

TD Insurance sent an appraiser out to review the work done to-date and ask me how I felt about SM's performance so far. I said it was very good, but I lamented the lack of communication with SM.

All of sudden, I get a phone call from Mike. He wants to come over and review the project and get it moving again. Great, I'm thinking, that's what I want to. So I met my PM about 4 weeks into the project. He makes a lot of promises about calling me, getting things moving again. And, for about three days, he was great about that. "The girls" came back to remove stuff from the bin and clean up after the painter.

More little bits of work were needed. I'd call SM and would leave messages, but never get phone calls back or, if I did, they were from Lynn. "The girls" missed a room when cleaning, so they came back after almost a week of back and forths. The lawn was damaged from the bin sitting on it and then the removal process (the truck gouged and scraped up pieces of lawn). All of a sudden, SM was claiming that we would have to pay for the bin and the lawn damage ourselves; they claimed we told them to put it where they did, when no one asked us.

For the last three weeks, starting September 9th, I have called SM each Monday or Tuesday, asking about the lawn project. Each time, Lynn said she'd talk with Mike or email him and have him contact us. Finally, after having my wife call today, Mike finally called her back. He finally admitted that he doesn't know anything about the lawn and was having to contact another company, Taylor's Landscaping, for advice. My wife has had bad dealings with Taylor's and doesn't trust them to shovel manure much less fix our lawn. So red flags went up. More red flags when Mike continued to insist the lawn damage wasn't really their (SM's) fault and they were doing us a favor repairing it. He then said that he was going to send "some guys" over to rake some fertilizer into place and that would be that. Huge red flag. After this conversation, I called SM and asked to speak with Chris, Mike's boss. He wasn't in, but they would give him the message.

We immediately contacted TD Insurance and told them that the SM was not going to provide the services they quoted to us (to the tune of $900!). TD took a dim view of that and canceled the check. I called Lynn at SM and explained that we had the check canceled and that we felt it was in everyone's best interests to move on and get our usual lawn care people, Garden Pro, to do the work. She apologized. I was quite clear with her that we liked dealing with her, and liked SM's overall handling of the process, but that the miscommunication and lack of contact continued to be a big issue for us.

If Mike had managed the project from the get-go, this probably wouldn't have happened. We should have met him the first day or two, and been given his cell phone number to contact him with questions, rather than dealing with a half-dozen other intermediaries. If Mike had been more responsive to our messages, if he had told us that he needed to subcontract the lawn care out, we could have had this all resolved three weeks ago, most likely. It is the constant lack of communication, poor communication, or downright incorrect communication that has caused all this ire.

In the end, I think we left things on decent terms with SM. I'm still irritated with Mike, and I want to speak to Chris about some ways that SM could improve the lines of communication (I will try to remain civil). I already made a phone call to our lawn care guy to give come out and give us an estimate. We're moving forward and putting this behind us.

Congressional Rules (Revised)

I have revised my set of rules for Congress.

A member of Congress:

1. Shall be paid a Salary equal to the American Median Income + 10%. This amount cannot be raised or changed by Congress in any way.
1. Must make public and easily accessible any and all Income made in addition to their Congressional salary, including any stock and bond transactions, gifts, gratuities, honorariums, speaking engagements, book deals, campaign funds/contributions, et al.
2. Shall only have “free” health care provision while in office.
3. Must make public and easily accessible all travel expenses while in office. Only those that are for official government functions and reasons will be paid for by the government. Campaigning, fundraising, vacations, travel for family members, and any other travel deemed to not be for official government purposes will not be reimbursed by the government. (UPDATED)

[Solves the problem of Congress being paid well more than the average person (current Congressional salary: $174,000/year; current median income: about $45,000/year), making it a job that, once earned, no one wants to leave, but it is still valuable enough that those who want to serve the people will run for office.]

[Provides incentive to Congress to make sure laws enacted are beneficial to all income demographics.]

[Solves the problem of Congress members getting rich via alternate means while in office.]

2. Must spend a minimum of 12 days out of every month in their home location.
1. Congress members must maintain a residence in their home during the entire time they are in office.

[Solves the problem of Congress spending all of their time in Washington, D.C. and losing touch with those whom they are supposed to serve and represent.]

3. Cannot serve more than two consecutive terms in office, and no more than three terms total.

[Solves the problem of lifelong public jobs, cronyism, and the “good ole boy” club mentality. Forces Congress members to have to live under the laws they create.]

4. Must vote in a minimum of 90% of all Congressional votes. If a Congressman does not vote in a minimum of 90% of voting opportunities, the House or Senate will immediately begin the process of removing the Congressman from office.
1. Voting and abstentions will be documented per Congress member.
2. Votes cannot be delegated to another member of Congress.
3. Votes cannot be made anonymously.
4. Abstained votes will count as a non vote toward the 90% minimum requirement.
5. All voting records will be made public and easily accessible.

[Solves the problem of Congress members who are granted all the perks of a government job without the accountability of actually doing the job.]

[Solves the problem of a lack of accountability for votes.]

[Solves the problem of the public not being able to find out how their representative votes on any issue.]

5. Cannot enact any law that does not include all members of Congress.
1. Any existing law that excludes any member of Congress will be immediately and summarily changed to include all Congress members.
2. The Laws of the land will be applied equally to all, regardless of position or status.

[Solves the problem of Congress exempting itself from laws that affect all other citizens. I.e., being able to trade stocks based on their inside information of which laws will pass/won’t pass.]

Fall Out

I saw my GP today. Or, rather, I saw the doctor he had filling in for him while he's on vacation or otherwise away from the office. She had me run through a series of tests to determine what may be going on with my back and, in the end, agreed that I am "MRI worthy." However, she also said that regardless of the MRI results, the immediate therapy will be the same and will probably do what is needed: stop the pain and strengthen the back.

As I said I would, I argued for the MRI anyway, saying that it can't hurt, it gives us new and better information, and, on the off chance that something serious happened, it will catch it and we can change course at that time. She agreed and wrote me the script. Now, the bad part: MRI availability is such that I probably won't be seen for three to six months. The joys of being in the Atlantic Provinces!

She was confused that the UC doctor gave me a script for Percocet for two reasons: 1. it doesn't treat potential (and most likely) nerve pain and 2. it is filtered through the liver, and I have a chronic liver condition. So she wrote me a script for both an anti-inflammatory and something to help with the nerve pain, which I will start taking tonight.

Her in-office tests showed that I don't appear to have any nerve damage. I'm to watch for incontinence and loss of muscle function and get to the ER immediately if either happens. That means the nerve has been damaged or pinched again, and the signals are not getting through to where they need to go. It also sort of confirms what was going on during the worst pain from a week ago, as I needed to use the bathroom much more often than I usually do (with large volume each time -- seemingly more than I had actually taken in) and I got to the point where my right leg would not support my weight at all. My nerve must have been under some serious stress at that time, so I'm glad my wife took me to the UC the next day.

I made yet another follow up appointment for November. Hopefully by then I will be back on my feet (literally and figuratively) and my normal doctor can suggest therapies and other regimens along with what I plan to ease back into doing (walking, riding my stationary bike, etc.). In the meantime, I need to avoid lifting and twisting, even after my back feels "fine," as I could re-injure it. I also need to be better about having assistance when I need to move something and not doing it on my own. I already have helpers/doers lined up for our upcoming heavy lifting needs, so that should work out.

Back Pain a Week Later

It is now September 11th, an auspicious day, and I am finally able to walk without too much effort and assistance. As long as I don't move around too much, lift anything heavy, or over-exert myself, my pain is minimal. However, I walk with a shuffle, as the pain is still there and my right leg doesn't want to take my weight as well as my left leg. At night, when I roll over, I am waking up and rolling slowly and carefully, due to the stabs of pain that still exist. Sitting in my work chair in the office is uncomfortable and I have to take frequent pauses to stretch and move so my back doesn't lock up and hurt worse when I finally do move.

All told, I hurt my back in the late afternoon of September 1st (around 4 pm) and I am only just starting to feel like I am getting back to normal on September 11th. That's 10 full days, plus a half of a day on the 1st itself. And that includes having the Percocet to take daily and being given 4 days of full rest from the doctor, during which I did next to nothing except sit or lie down and try not to move.

While I know spasming is occurring, and it is difficult for me to keep my back relaxed and loose throughout the day, I find it hard to believe that there is not some sort of underlying cause to this pain. Nearly every person who has had a similar situation happen to them has mentioned that they wound up having either a pinched nerve or some sort of back or disc trouble that needed further attention. In one case, it led to back surgery after years of trying to force her doctor to do the necessary tests to find out what the problem was. In most cases, it required at minimum physical therapy, massage, acupuncture, and/or chiropractic manipulation. In some cases, it has required changes to lifestyle, including one friend who had to get a standing desk at work and is still doing therapy over a year later.

I go to my family doctor tomorrow. Although I am obviously improving, I am going to press for an MRI so that we can definitively rule out or confirm disc issues and proceed with the proper course of action based on that conclusion. I still find it hard to believe that the urgent care doctor wouldn't have insisted on that being done at the time of my visit to rule out anything more severe. Maybe it is nothing -- maybe the MRI will show no damage and it truly is nothing more than severe spasms. Or maybe it will show the simplest form of damage, either a pinched nerve or a bulging disc, which typically require exercises and massage therapies to alleviate. Either way, I want to know.

This situation has driven home the point that I need to work on my weight and my core strength more consistently. I was to the point where I was using my stationary bicycle regularly, and was starting to see some results, when our basement flooded. That resulted in our workout equipment being put into a bin for over six weeks. I did continue to do walks, but walking is not very comfortable for me (rheumatoid arthritis), which is why I got the low-impact bicycle. Just as the situation started to turn around and we started moving our items back into the basement, I strained my back. So it has been since mid-June that I've used my bike. Once my back is to a point where I can walk and ride, I plan on pushing myself to improve my effort and get my endurance back up to a reasonable level (I still generally have my strength, what I lack is any endurance). This should help improve my weight, which will also help my back (as I carry nearly all of my extra weight on my belly).

What is frustrating me the most is that we are in the prime "John needs to do stuff" period of the year. There is wood that needs to be split. There is wood that needs to be ranked/stacked for winter. There is maintenance on the front porch needed. I need to take the AC out of the office window and store it. Even simple things have been affected: I haven't been able to stand well enough or long enough to help with dinner (usually one of my main tasks). We have new flooring coming soon, and I may not be able to move the furniture out of the way or back for when that is happening.

So, basically, during what is usually one of my busiest times around the house, I have been useless. My wife has had to do a lot more and she's got a lot of pressure on her from other sources (work, family, etc.) not to need my poor health and inability to help out adding more to her plate.

I am hopeful that my GP can help. Hopefully he will agree to the MRI. I assume he'll also provide me with some sort of therapy to help strengthen my back to resist this from happening in the future. For my part, I have firm plans to work out more regularly to build up my endurance, continue the plans to eat better to help lose weight (which should help my back as well), and move toward strengthening my core as I am able to do more. I have contacted friends who have offered to help with the wood, furniture moving, and a few other "John-tasks" around the house. And I hope to be able to start taking back some of my responsibilities around the house, like making dinner, soon, so I can relieve some of the pressure on my wife.

Back Pain

On the long weekend, my wife and I began the long process of recovery from our recent basement sewage flood. Servicemaster had finished most of its efforts to clean, repair, and recover the sheetrock, fiberglass insulation, etc., and had moved our vacated items back into the basement.

I went down on Sunday evening to assess the plan of action for Monday (my wife was away visiting some friends). As often happens, I started to move a little something, which led to moving a little something more, and next thing I knew, I had been down there for 90 minutes or more and had cleared a whole area. As one final act, I decided to lift a large bag filled with bathroom mats onto a spot in the downstairs closet. When I did, I felt a very tiny "pop" in my lower back and nearly fell to my knees from the pain that suddenly swept from my back through my legs.

I managed to hobble my way upstairs, grab the heating pad, and sit. I waited patiently for my wife to get home and didn't do much moving. She had to help me stand up and move into the bedroom that evening, as the pain was growing pretty bad.

Monday (the holiday) I could barely move. Any excess weight on my back at all, from trying to walk, standing up, and even some positions of sitting, caused intense pain. Any twisting and leaning also caused the pain. So Monday I spent most of the day in my comfy chair. I tried not to do much, rest it as much as I could, and withstand the pain. I finally took two Advil -- not even a dent in the pain. I then took a Motrin -- didn't even touch the pain. My wife went and spoke with a pharmacist an was given some Robaxin -- nothing, nada, zilch.

That night was horrible. I was in so much pain. On a scale of 1-10, it was 10. It was the most pain I have ever felt. At one point during the night, I had to use the bathroom. Even with my wife's help, I only made it about four small steps before the pain completely overwhelmed me. It was so intense that my entire body was sweating from those four steps enough that my sleeping attire was drenched through in seconds. I would have crumpled to my knees had my wife not been holding on to me for dear life. I was crying from the pain and starting to hyperventilate. Right then and there, we probably should have called an ambulance and gone to the ER. Instead, I peed into a cup my wife brought me and she folded me back into bed. I finally passed out for a couple of hours from about 5am to about 7:30am.

Tuesday morning we spoke with my mother in law (MIL), who is a nurse, and we all agreed I should go to either the ER or Urgent Care (UC). My MIL came down to help get me there, and off we went.

The UC had me go straight back to a stretcher. Soon enough, the doctor came. He jabbed a knuckle into my spine and didn't care how much he made me jump. He pronounced that I couldn't possibly have done anything structural to my body with what I described happening. He was going to give me a shot and a script and send me home. I had to ask him for an x-ray. When he got the x-ray back, he seemed surprised by the amount of spasm shown in them (it was straightening my spine). His goal seemed to be to get rid of me and make me my family doctor's problem, so he wrote a script for Percocet, a script for four days of bed rest, and sent me home.

What bothered me the most about this visit is that the doctor didn't want to look me in the eye, didn't want to do what, to me, seems like the bare minimum for someone presenting with unexplained and intense back pain (x-rays and an MRI), and didn't want to find the underlying cause. He just wanted me out of there. Not one person in the UC even glanced at my Medical Alert bracelet, no one seemed willing to pay attention to the medications I am on or care about the chronic conditions I have -- one of which is Rheumatoid Arthritis which, you know, just might be causing swelling in my spine? At the bare minimum, to find the source of the problem, it seems like a doctor should insist on an x-ray (for problems that could be detected there) and an MRI (for all the other problems that do not show up on x-ray or physical exam). Yet this doctor didn't want to do either and had to be persuaded to give me the x-ray!

Today is Thursday. I have been taking the Percocet, which makes me a bit loopy and groggy. It does not do much for the pain, but it makes me functionally able to move around, so I guess that is okay. I am staying off of it as much as I can and trying not to move around a great deal, but you use your back for everything.

Over the last few days, I have learned the pain is primarily on the right side of my spine and down my right leg. If I keep most of my weight off of that side of the body, the pain is much less than when using both legs or when I have to put weight on the right side (like while getting dressed, walking, etc.). I am spending most of my day in my comfy chair or in bed.

We also made a follow-up appointment with my GP. At that appointment, I am going to insist on an MRI, as a number of friends and colleagues have said that their bulging, herniated, or degenerating discs presented like my pain at first and it took weeks, months, and even years before they got an MRI and found the real problem and started to address it. And, since most of these types of issues do not show up via a physical exam nor on an x-ray, the MRI is the only way to find it. I have enough other issues that I will not stand for this to linger; if I need surgery or specialized treatment to fix this problem, I want to get to it now.

As we have our two cords of wood coming, more work in the basement, work coming for our living room and porch, and the rainy season almost upon us, I need to get healthy enough to start working again soon. But, being my back, I also don't want to screw it up in a permanent or chronic way. It will be a balancing act. Luckily, I have good friends who can likely help with the wood and furniture moving that will be needed.