The NY Times reports that grieving the loss of a friend, family or loved one may soon be considered a form of depression. The American Psychiatric Association is proposing that grief be classified as a type of depression, and reported as such in the standard reference work in the field, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM.
This change would be good for doctors, some insurance plans which cover treatment of mental illness would now pay for treatment of grief, doctors could prescribe psychoactive drugs for it, and people who work in fields requiring sanity could suddenly find that it was harder or impossible to get a security clearance, job working with children, gun permit, visa into some countries, etc.
Proponents claim that it would result in better care for those debilitated by grief, which should be covered by the current symptoms of depression, sleep loss, loss of concentration, inability to handle self care, pay their bills, or continue to work effectively. It's hard to tell if this would improve the health of the patient or that of the doctor's bank account.
How many times do we see some violent criminal described as "cold and heartless, never showed any emotions?" I am more likely to question the normalcy of someone who doesn't feel grief than someone who does. Let's not stigmatize people with normal grief, whether from greed or the belief that normal human emotions need to be "treated," it's a bad idea.
Revisions to the DSM are also being discussed which would narrow the definition of autism, which in some cases would result in loss of insurance coverage for treatment. Proponents say that children "just at an awkward stage" should not be labeled autistic.
Followup: there is a really detailed article on this in Health+Fitness, as well as a overview article on inquisitr.com. There is an article in the NY Times, and AP coverage was carried in many local papers, some with comments from local physicians. Feel free to report other good links in comments.
CapdistNY RSS feed
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
No time to skimp - SUVs for evidence techs
As a long time SUV owner[1], I have a good understanding of what difference an SUV can make in shortening travel time in bad weather, and in making travel possible at all when the destination is not on a paved road. So I speak from experience when I say that Schenectady should stop dithering over cost and get an SUV for use by the "on call" evidence tech.
I see no need for each tech to have an SUV, the purpose is to make sure a very necessary trained person can get to a crime scene, not to provide transportation in lieu of a personal vehicle for the entire staff. Government workers should bear the same responsibility as everyone else for arranging to get to work at their normal location and hours, but when "get to work" isn't the same place or same hours all the time, the one tech on call should have a vehicle suited to the demands of the job, which require going anywhere, any time of the day or night, any day of the week, and promptly. While bringing with them whatever special equipment is needed. Requiring any employee to have a personal vehicle like that is unreasonable, it is special equipment and should be provided.
It would seem even more reasonable to have two vehicles like that, one at home with the on call tech outside of working hours, and one waiting in the Foster Avenue "Garage Mahal" the city built recently. Planning for one vehicle to be unavailable occasionally is good management, vehicles need maintenance, crimes don't always happen one at a time, and a backup would be a reasonable precaution. But it should be the reserve, in the garage, not someone's personal perk or as a spare ride for the garage workers. By alternating the use of vehicles, the mileage will be spread between them, and should be low. That should make these a long term investment rather than something which needs to be replaced frequently.
An SUV is a heavy duty vehicle, its extra capabilities justify the bad mileage and somewhat higher cost of such transportation. Note that I am talking about a "real SUV," and while marketing people may try to deceive the public by calling an all wheel drive (AWD) station wagon such as the Explorer an SUV, it's not. Lest we forget, the "U" is for "utility," and that includes body on frame, a two speed transfer case, robust load rating, high ground clearance, and rear wheel drive. See below for why these features matter. Vehicles such as the Chevy Suburban and Ford Expedition are built on truck frames, and are big, heavy, expensive, rough riding, and capable. Two SUVs make sense for evidence techs, more don't, and lesser vehicles would compromise their ability to the do the job.
In case anyone suggests just getting a few trucks and putting caps on them, I did consider that myself, but it seems like a poor way to save money. First, big capable trucks aren't that much cheaper than an SUV. And an SUV has a lot of marginal utility. That's a term which refers to things it can do which an alternative could not. Compared to a truck, the SUV holds longer evidence with seats folded, and can provide at least some climate control for evidence. And the ability to carry extra passengers into a remote crime scene is valuable, ask any detective how they feel about walking a half mile or more in mud, or rain, or bitter cold. Carrying passengers in some cases will save time, and if those passengers are medical personnel, might save a life. The advantages of an SUV justify the cost, it's just a more adaptable vehicle.
Why SUV features are beneficial:
I see no need for each tech to have an SUV, the purpose is to make sure a very necessary trained person can get to a crime scene, not to provide transportation in lieu of a personal vehicle for the entire staff. Government workers should bear the same responsibility as everyone else for arranging to get to work at their normal location and hours, but when "get to work" isn't the same place or same hours all the time, the one tech on call should have a vehicle suited to the demands of the job, which require going anywhere, any time of the day or night, any day of the week, and promptly. While bringing with them whatever special equipment is needed. Requiring any employee to have a personal vehicle like that is unreasonable, it is special equipment and should be provided.
It would seem even more reasonable to have two vehicles like that, one at home with the on call tech outside of working hours, and one waiting in the Foster Avenue "Garage Mahal" the city built recently. Planning for one vehicle to be unavailable occasionally is good management, vehicles need maintenance, crimes don't always happen one at a time, and a backup would be a reasonable precaution. But it should be the reserve, in the garage, not someone's personal perk or as a spare ride for the garage workers. By alternating the use of vehicles, the mileage will be spread between them, and should be low. That should make these a long term investment rather than something which needs to be replaced frequently.
An SUV is a heavy duty vehicle, its extra capabilities justify the bad mileage and somewhat higher cost of such transportation. Note that I am talking about a "real SUV," and while marketing people may try to deceive the public by calling an all wheel drive (AWD) station wagon such as the Explorer an SUV, it's not. Lest we forget, the "U" is for "utility," and that includes body on frame, a two speed transfer case, robust load rating, high ground clearance, and rear wheel drive. See below for why these features matter. Vehicles such as the Chevy Suburban and Ford Expedition are built on truck frames, and are big, heavy, expensive, rough riding, and capable. Two SUVs make sense for evidence techs, more don't, and lesser vehicles would compromise their ability to the do the job.
In case anyone suggests just getting a few trucks and putting caps on them, I did consider that myself, but it seems like a poor way to save money. First, big capable trucks aren't that much cheaper than an SUV. And an SUV has a lot of marginal utility. That's a term which refers to things it can do which an alternative could not. Compared to a truck, the SUV holds longer evidence with seats folded, and can provide at least some climate control for evidence. And the ability to carry extra passengers into a remote crime scene is valuable, ask any detective how they feel about walking a half mile or more in mud, or rain, or bitter cold. Carrying passengers in some cases will save time, and if those passengers are medical personnel, might save a life. The advantages of an SUV justify the cost, it's just a more adaptable vehicle.
Why SUV features are beneficial:
- body on frame - easier to attach special equipment to the frame, easier to fix if getting to a remote crime scene results in undercarriage or cosmetic damage.
- two speed transfer case - allows the vehicle to be safely used to move things at a scene to gain access, and remove obstacles preventing preservation of evidence. Also useful for pulling stuck official vehicles out of the mud at a crime scene.
- high load rating - because evidence isn't always light.
- high ground clearance - one of the things which really helps travel over bad or nonexistent roads, prevents getting "high centered" with the frame on an obstacle and wheels off the ground.
- rear wheel drive - because equipment and evidence go in the back, because weight shifts to the rear going up hills, because trailers (if needed) put weight on the back. You don't always drive in four wheel drive.
Monday, January 23, 2012
SCCC wants to ignore independent salary findings
I see that SCCC is not inclined to accept independent findings that show pay at the school is significantly below pay for the same positions at most community colleges of similar size in this area. The school wants to compare the raises to those of other (non-teaching) employees in terms of percentage, rather than compare the actual annual value of the salary to what appears to be "fair market value" for educators at similar schools.
I keep hearing about the things the school is doing, and they don't sound like poverty to me. When a school is adding courses and planning new buildings, it's hard to justify a wage policy which looks like paying below customary wages initially and then compounding the problem by offering substandard raises to the people who do the actual work which brings students to the school. I would love to see a comparison of SCCC administrator wages to those at the same similar schools. Are the people who want to hire cheap labor working for 15% below equivalent jobs at other schools themselves?
There are four things which people mention when choosing an employer; wages, benefits, location, and job satisfaction. And while I usually hear them mentioned in that order, when people tell me they are leaving a job, they say the reason is "not happy there" more often than "more money." And those who leave without a new job all lined up are very likely to describe the reason as some variation of "that job sucks." I have to think that a low ball offer on raises, given the comparison to wages elsewhere and the money being spent in other areas will leave a lot of dissatisfied teachers, higher turnover, and being forced to hire those teachers who weren't good enough to find better paid employment somewhere else. Accepting low pay is easier when you feel as though there isn't much money available than when you feel as though you are just not fairly valued.
Has empire building warped the judgement of the administration? Have the media unfairly neglected to report the administrators themselves working for less to fund the infrastructure growth? Or are our students being taught by teachers who couldn't find a better job, while money goes into expansion?
I keep hearing about the things the school is doing, and they don't sound like poverty to me. When a school is adding courses and planning new buildings, it's hard to justify a wage policy which looks like paying below customary wages initially and then compounding the problem by offering substandard raises to the people who do the actual work which brings students to the school. I would love to see a comparison of SCCC administrator wages to those at the same similar schools. Are the people who want to hire cheap labor working for 15% below equivalent jobs at other schools themselves?
There are four things which people mention when choosing an employer; wages, benefits, location, and job satisfaction. And while I usually hear them mentioned in that order, when people tell me they are leaving a job, they say the reason is "not happy there" more often than "more money." And those who leave without a new job all lined up are very likely to describe the reason as some variation of "that job sucks." I have to think that a low ball offer on raises, given the comparison to wages elsewhere and the money being spent in other areas will leave a lot of dissatisfied teachers, higher turnover, and being forced to hire those teachers who weren't good enough to find better paid employment somewhere else. Accepting low pay is easier when you feel as though there isn't much money available than when you feel as though you are just not fairly valued.
Has empire building warped the judgement of the administration? Have the media unfairly neglected to report the administrators themselves working for less to fund the infrastructure growth? Or are our students being taught by teachers who couldn't find a better job, while money goes into expansion?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
What is the value of naming rights?
A few odd thoughts popped into my head when I heard that one of the venues inside the Time-Union Arena was getting a new name. In no particular order:
What's in a name? What is the actual return on investment from having a commercial name attached to a building, or part of one? Do enough people choose your product based on your name on a sports complex to increase your sales to the point where you can justify it as an advertizing expense? Or is it some mix of publicity and ego boost?
Naming rights on sections in a complex is newer. how far down the scale will it go? Will I next visit the Frank and Joe's Sunoco men's room, right next to the Slim-Fast ladies room? Or does a business have to buy a pair of restrooms and apply a single name to them, like Sam and Betty's Bar Personal Comfort Area? And do related businesses benefit more from name association than an unrelated business, like Nike being more effective than Nabisco on a sports complex? Perhaps the comfort stations would help a plumbing business more, or a paper products company? How about the Charmin Quilted Ladies Toilet? And if parts of an arena can have naming rights, how about areas within? Will I find the Pampers Changing Station inside one of these rest rooms?
What happened to the taxpayers name? The Times-Union Arena was originally the Knickerbocker Arena. Why didn't the naming rights get sold for the product or service preceding the name the taxpayer paid for, so that the name would be Sponsor Knickerbocker Arena and people would associate the sponsor and the building even more closely. It would be nice if the name contained some hint that we taxpayers paid for it.
Where does this trend end? The time is long past when we could count on common sense, good taste, public perception, or even basic human dignity to restrain the process of making money. Will we see naming rights sold to personal products companies, diseases, political parties, or religions? And will other public buildings sell naming rights? I have visions of the Trojan Condom Elementary School, or Prostate Cancer Woman's Shelter, and the price any of the legal firms who advertise on TV would pay for naming rights to the courthouse. I bet some people think I'm exaggerating, reread the second sentence of this paragraph. Funeral homes would buy naming rights on the morgue.
What's in a name? What is the actual return on investment from having a commercial name attached to a building, or part of one? Do enough people choose your product based on your name on a sports complex to increase your sales to the point where you can justify it as an advertizing expense? Or is it some mix of publicity and ego boost?
Naming rights on sections in a complex is newer. how far down the scale will it go? Will I next visit the Frank and Joe's Sunoco men's room, right next to the Slim-Fast ladies room? Or does a business have to buy a pair of restrooms and apply a single name to them, like Sam and Betty's Bar Personal Comfort Area? And do related businesses benefit more from name association than an unrelated business, like Nike being more effective than Nabisco on a sports complex? Perhaps the comfort stations would help a plumbing business more, or a paper products company? How about the Charmin Quilted Ladies Toilet? And if parts of an arena can have naming rights, how about areas within? Will I find the Pampers Changing Station inside one of these rest rooms?
What happened to the taxpayers name? The Times-Union Arena was originally the Knickerbocker Arena. Why didn't the naming rights get sold for the product or service preceding the name the taxpayer paid for, so that the name would be Sponsor Knickerbocker Arena and people would associate the sponsor and the building even more closely. It would be nice if the name contained some hint that we taxpayers paid for it.
Where does this trend end? The time is long past when we could count on common sense, good taste, public perception, or even basic human dignity to restrain the process of making money. Will we see naming rights sold to personal products companies, diseases, political parties, or religions? And will other public buildings sell naming rights? I have visions of the Trojan Condom Elementary School, or Prostate Cancer Woman's Shelter, and the price any of the legal firms who advertise on TV would pay for naming rights to the courthouse. I bet some people think I'm exaggerating, reread the second sentence of this paragraph. Funeral homes would buy naming rights on the morgue.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What is with Schenectady Mayoral Candidates?
Full disclosure: I know both of these recent candidates, and have worked with both of them on neighborhood association issues.
Recently barely defeated candidate Roger Hull wrote a very critical piece for the news recently, in which he complains that there should have been a recount after the very close race for mayor, and that Gary McCarthy is "double dipping" by accepting a public pension while seeking (and winning) an elected public office. I'll talk about those point in a moment, but the whole tone of the piece sounded like whining loser rather than game changing third party founder.
During the race Gary McCarthy refused to approve permits to allow other people to collect signatures on petitions for Roger Hull, a process which has been rubber stamped by both parties for years. Even Hull's son was refused a permit, which served no good purpose, as enough signatures were collected, but did offend a number of voters, who were not shy about saying so. I heard that in College Park, I heard it in Woodlawn, and I heard it in the Stockade. Doing something which offends even people who are inclined to like you isn't good politics.
Recounting the votes
I completely agree that the vote should have been recounted in this case, not because it would have changed the result, but because it would have avoided speculation about vote irregularities, particularly those caused by unplugging and moving the machines at Schenectady High, which certainly introduced doubts because poll watchers for other candidates couldn't be in two places at once to monitor the handling of the machines both inside and outside the school. While I don't believe the conspiracy theories about the bomb scare being a trick to get the machines moved, it looks questionable, and since people are talking about the origin of the call, someone must believe it was a dirty trick.
Double dipping
Unless voters have a problem with the idea of someone retiring and drawing a pension from one job while working another, I don't see why this point was raised. Usually the term is used to refer to someone who retires from a job and then continue to do the same job as a "consultant." Clearly that's not the case here, and while Gary McCarthy is putting more money in his pocket by retiring to take the mayor's job, it does save the city money by not having to pay for some benefits. Score that one a win-win, big win for the mayor, small win for the city. And probably overall a small win for the taxpayers as a whole, Given the number of retired people working a little because the pension isn't going very far, I don't think the public is going to see this as a problem.
I have two wishes about Schenectady politics, the first being the new third party continue to field viable candidates and keep the council on its best behavior, and second that the next election be more civil in tone and focused on issue, because "I like his solutions" is what you want to hear, not terms like "lesser of two evils." And having people turn out because they actually think their vote makes a difference is refreshing, I hope that continues. It's been about a decade since I heard people saying "I'm glad I voted" or "I should have voted" after an election.
Recently barely defeated candidate Roger Hull wrote a very critical piece for the news recently, in which he complains that there should have been a recount after the very close race for mayor, and that Gary McCarthy is "double dipping" by accepting a public pension while seeking (and winning) an elected public office. I'll talk about those point in a moment, but the whole tone of the piece sounded like whining loser rather than game changing third party founder.
During the race Gary McCarthy refused to approve permits to allow other people to collect signatures on petitions for Roger Hull, a process which has been rubber stamped by both parties for years. Even Hull's son was refused a permit, which served no good purpose, as enough signatures were collected, but did offend a number of voters, who were not shy about saying so. I heard that in College Park, I heard it in Woodlawn, and I heard it in the Stockade. Doing something which offends even people who are inclined to like you isn't good politics.
Recounting the votes
I completely agree that the vote should have been recounted in this case, not because it would have changed the result, but because it would have avoided speculation about vote irregularities, particularly those caused by unplugging and moving the machines at Schenectady High, which certainly introduced doubts because poll watchers for other candidates couldn't be in two places at once to monitor the handling of the machines both inside and outside the school. While I don't believe the conspiracy theories about the bomb scare being a trick to get the machines moved, it looks questionable, and since people are talking about the origin of the call, someone must believe it was a dirty trick.
Double dipping
Unless voters have a problem with the idea of someone retiring and drawing a pension from one job while working another, I don't see why this point was raised. Usually the term is used to refer to someone who retires from a job and then continue to do the same job as a "consultant." Clearly that's not the case here, and while Gary McCarthy is putting more money in his pocket by retiring to take the mayor's job, it does save the city money by not having to pay for some benefits. Score that one a win-win, big win for the mayor, small win for the city. And probably overall a small win for the taxpayers as a whole, Given the number of retired people working a little because the pension isn't going very far, I don't think the public is going to see this as a problem.
I have two wishes about Schenectady politics, the first being the new third party continue to field viable candidates and keep the council on its best behavior, and second that the next election be more civil in tone and focused on issue, because "I like his solutions" is what you want to hear, not terms like "lesser of two evils." And having people turn out because they actually think their vote makes a difference is refreshing, I hope that continues. It's been about a decade since I heard people saying "I'm glad I voted" or "I should have voted" after an election.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)