Obedience

There is a local pet store (which shall remain nameless) that I often frequent for dog toys and the occasional grooming service. The staff is generally courteous and their variety of pet accoutrements is unparalleled, so we often take our dog Sandy with us to walk the aisles and interact with other customer’s pets. While Sandy is certainly not the best-trained canine in the world, she has not yet acquired a taste for human flesh and other than excitability; she tends to be pretty well mannered.

Now like most pet stores, they offer in-house obedience classes to the general public that teach the animal basic commands and obedience. What is unusual about this particular location is that they employ a man-dog team that I will refer to as “The Instigators.” Their strategy is simply, yet devastatingly effective:

1. Locate unsuspecting pet owner that has dog in tow and silently stalk them as the wander the aisles. (This is known in the business as Puttin’ a Creepin’ on someone)

2. Using hand signals to indicate timing, have the instigator dog approach the customer’s dog and invade said canine’s personal space in order to elicit a reaction.

3. Once the customer’s dog has been thoroughly riled up, loudly issue a “sit” command to your instigator dog causing him to instantly become motionless.

4. Draw other shoppers’ attention to the contrasting behavior of your highly trained (and suddenly lethargic) animal and the unbridled excitement of the irresponsible customer’s pet.

5. Condescendingly remind the customer that the store offers training courses for “disobedient” pets such as yours and then loudly issue the heel command in order to lead your dog calmly away from the distasteful scene you have caused.

On more than one occasion, my wife and I brought Sandy to the pet store in order to pick out a new toy and encountered the previously mentioned dynamic duo. The first time it occurred, I was at the register while I was waiting to pay for a squeaking rubber chicken. The instigator dog approached us just about the time Sandy had calmed herself and taken a seat beside the register. He proceeded to nudge and sniff my dog until he was able to elicit a reaction, at which time the in-house “dog whisperer” told him to sit.

The employee then sidled up to me and loudly inquired as to whether I was aware that they offered canine obedience classes for people with “spirited” dogs. I came dangerously close to asking him if he had learned any other skills in prison, but thought better of it. Instead I pretended to be engrossed by the latest issue of Dog Fancy magazine until he moved on to a rather fidgety Labrador.

I later recounted the events to other pet owners only to find that they have had the same experience. Having actually viewed some of the classes in progress, I have a few theories as to how our instigator dog was trained and why he reacts so favorably:

Scenario A – There is a windowless, soundproof room hidden behind the parrot food where the dog is taken. Each time the animal proves to be uncooperative, the trainer administers a set of gradually intensifying electric shocks using a car battery wired to a set of off-brand windshield wiper blades. As the voltage courses through the dog’s body, the trainer chants a common code word (like “tweezers”) that the dog will associate with the pain even when amongst the public. In this way, the trainer can mentally transport the dog back to its last date with 450 cold cranking amps and ensure an immediate response to commands.

Scenario B – The animal is brought under control by an alternating system of sleep deprivation and medicinal cocktails. Before the store opens, employees mix a can of Alpo with 2 Xanax tablets and a dollop of Prestone Extended-Life Anifreeze. This calms the animal by combining a slowed central nervous system with acute organ failure. At the end of the day, the dog is placed in a room and forced to watch Bill O’ Reilly outtakes at full volume in order to prohibit unauthorized relaxation.

Scenario C – The dog is actually an elaborate animatronic robot designed by a prestigious Japanese conglomerate and distributed to pet stores across the United States. The illusion of obedience is created by manipulating a small remote in the operator’s pocket that is disguised as a Milk Bone treat. In order to ensure that the device’s authenticity is never questioned, the robot can even urinate on command thanks to an internal reservoir of Country Time Lemonade and a rotating nozzle sprayer.

To be fair to this employee, he may be a perfectly capable dog trainer, but I dare say that the general public is unaware of what credentials to seek in a canine behavior expert. If I look for a mechanic, I want them to be ASE Certified. If I am looking for an accountant, I want them to have a CPA license. If I am looking for a urologist, I want them to have abnormally small hands, but I have no idea what to look for in a dog trainer. So I took to the Internet and found my answer: The Tom Rose School.

Located in the heart of the Midwest, the Tom Rose School allows everyday people (with verifiable income) to become extraordinary trainers through a proven twenty week course. For only $12,000, you too can become an accredited associate trainer by completing the requirements set forth in the syllabus. But why stop at an undergraduate degree when you can shell out another $5,000 dollars and obtain the status of “Master Dog Trainer?” For the real overachievers, there is even a post graduate degree that will only set you back another $4,000 and earns you the title of “Advance Master Dog Trainer.” Even if you do not live in Missouri, they offer on-campus dormitories complete with private bedrooms and communal showers.

It is worth noting that all tuition prices include a discount for your participation in the “clean-up” program. The clean-up program involves making sure that the area utilized for training is uncluttered (translation: you will be on poo-duty.) If you wish to opt out of said program, it will cost you an extra $95 a week in tuition. If all this sounds like a dream come true, it will only cost you a $100 non-refundable application fee to discover whether or not you are Tom Rose material.

Lately I have refrained from taking my pet in the store, but if I am ever approached again I will simply reply that I am unable to place my dog under the care of someone who does not receive the Tom Rose alumni newsletter.

The Decline of Door-To-Door Salesmanship

A few Saturdays ago, as I was just about to step into the shower and pamper my scalp with the best Equate dandruff shampoo money can buy, my wife runs into the bathroom with a look of sheer terror and informs me that someone is trying to get in the front door. Since it is 4:30 in the afternoon and several of my neighbors are outside mowing their yards, it seems unlikely that even the most unseasoned criminal would be that inept. I reapply my shorts and make my way to the front door where I am greeted by a young man who is wearing a blue polo, carrying a metal sign, and sweating profusely despite the mild temperatures. He eyes me careful for a few seconds, and with all of the authority he can muster; requests that I go and get my parents so he may speak with them.

The man was obviously a salesman, and had I been a more intelligent (or less prideful) person, I would have used this opportunity to disengage myself by telling him that my dad was serving a nickel upstate for breaking and entering and my mom was in the spare bedroom going over a bank floor plan and could not be bothered. However, hubris got the best of me and I indignantly replied that my parents do not live here and that I owned the house (or at least I would in another 25 years.) He took a few moments to digest this information, and having apparently decided that I must be confused he replied, “Really?!, because this is a pretty nice house.” Interrupting my shower was one thing, but being summoned to the door in order to have my ability to sustain a mortgage called into question was quite another. If I wanted my ego deflated this much I would have used the gym guest pass I received at the employee health fair.

It was at this point the young salesman perceived that his “call the customer a filthy liar” approach was unlikely to yield any revenue, so he politely ask if he could have a few minutes to inform me of the wonderful promotion that ADT Home Security Systems was offering to residents in my area. Not waiting for an answer, he immediately began assaulting me with a myriad of baseless statistics:

“Did you know that your home has an 84% chance of being broken into?”

“Did you know that your front door design makes you 22% more susceptible to home-invasion?”

“Were you aware that 37% of felonies occur in homes with stain-resistant carpeting?”

This was quickly followed by an unprecedented offer that ADT was prepared to make me due to my close proximity to the road, high visibility to the neighborhood, and the fact that I was stupid enough to actually answer the door. If I would allow them to simply place a metal sign in the front yard, they will give me a free security system and all I have to do is pay for the monthly monitoring. He paused for dramatic effect, and then asked if I had a girlfriend. Unsure whether or not I was being insulted again or flirted with, I replied that I was unable to retain one since I could not get my wife onboard with the concept of polygamy.

Sensing that a sale was slipping away, he explained that for a limited time (we can’t do this all day) they were authorized to give away two free keychain remotes! Going for broke, he also pointed out that although I had conventional smoke detectors, there was a very real chance I would be burned alive before they alerted me of impending doom. I thanked him for his time and promptly shut the door.

Unfortunately, this gentleman was not the first enterprising young salesman to grace my under-fortified front door; he wasn’t even the first to make me the same offer on a security system. That honor belonged to a man we will refer to as Jim.

Jim was employed by a competing security company (with a much smaller uniform budget) and had obviously taken several courses in the art of name repetition as he managed to work “Mr. Taylor“ into conversation so much I felt like he was calling roll in phys-ed . Not to be upstaged by his polo-clad nemesis, he too was armed with shockingly illogical statistics:

“Did you know that 86% of rapes could occur in the next two years?”

“Did you know that 44% of crimes that do not occur are prevented by a home security system?”

“Were you aware that a split floor plan makes you more susceptible to Scandinavian biker gangs?”

He followed this statistical onslaught with a few mentions of homicide and kidnapping for good measure and then asked if I had any good reason not to own a security system. I began to wonder if Jim wasn’t casing the neighborhood, so I hastily asked for his card (he was fresh out) and closed the door.

This decline in salesmanship is in no way limited to the quasi-legitimate home security promotions field. Almost a year ago, as I was enjoying a delicious lunch of hot-dogs and Tostitos, I was visited by a traveling investment adviser from Edward Jones. Apparently he was canvassing my neighborhood to give business and/or retirement advice to “everyday people” such as myself.

I was immediately suspicious of any business advice that originated with a man who felt his best chance at shaking loose un-tethered investment capital was random home visits at 2:00 PM on a Wednesday. If he had any illusions about my portfolio, I am sure they melted away when he saw the newly-acquired mustard stain on my shirt and realized that he was interrupting my Law & Order reruns on cable. To his credit, he forged ahead as if he had just been granted an audience with Warren Buffett and assured me that I too could secure my financial future. While I was interested in a more diversified investment strategy, it also came to my attention that Sam Waterston was about to make a key defense witness cry on the stand and I had to keep my priorities in order. I asked him for his card and indicated that we would be in touch (we are not in touch.)

Maybe my expectations are too high, but when I was younger I remember a salesman visiting our house to sell my parents a Rainbow Vacuum System. If you have not had the pleasure of a Rainbow in-home demonstration, let me outline the basic premise:

1. The salesperson allocates a time (usually in the evening) and requests that you clean all of your carpets with your own embarrassingly under-powered vacuum.

2. The salesperson comes in with the Rainbow system and proceeds to vacuum over the carpet you have just cleaned while commenting on what a beautiful family you have.

3. The salesperson then disassembles the water-based filter basin and points out the unholy soup of dust, dirt, and carcinogens your beloved family is exposed too every time you have the audacity to vacuum with an inferior product.

4. You are given several moments of self-loathing and then asked to chose which bonus scent additive you would like with your purchase (I believe we selected Pine Breeze.)

It was a thing of beauty; a stranger walks into your house, insults your ability as a homemaker, and sells you a sweeper so unwieldy you feel as if you are dragging an iron lung behind you. Now that, my friends, is how it is done.

Healthcare: America Needs an Enema

We are currently witnessing the strongest push for reformed healthcare since President Clinton attempted it in 1994. There are strong opinions on both sides of the table with the Democrats pushing what they see as necessary reform and the Republicans digging in their heels in order to defend capitalism against the scourge of “socialized medicine.” I, like most Americans, simply digested the word “socialize medicine” and associated it with a form of medicinal communism that would stifle innovation and cripple our financially-ailing federal government; and to be sure, I think all Americans can agree that our bureaucracies are unparalleled in their ability to misallocate tax-payer funding. With that in mind, the fear of an inefficient, poorly-managed government healthcare infrastructure is certainly not unfounded and perhaps even likely. However, I am equally as frightened of allowing healthcare insurance to remain a profit-driven enterprise where the number of patients receiving care inversely impacts the profits of that company’s shareholders. Simply stated, the more treatment you receive, the less money they make; and I have no illusions that my personal wellness is powerless against handsome yearly dividends.

So we find ourselves trapped between an existing system that forces 700,000 American citizens a year into bankruptcy for the misfortune of simply getting sick, and an untested government-regulated path that would become the largest overhaul of a healthcare system the world has ever known. As T.R. Reid pointed out in his book “The Healing of America,” there is one pivotal moral question that must come before all others: Should every citizen have the right to receive medical care regardless of employment or economic status? This question is and has been the driving force behind every successful healthcare reform movement of the past 200 years, because without a consensus amongst the populous concerning this issue, failure is assured. When I pressed myself for an answer, I had to elevate healthcare above a privilege and recognize it as a right. When I visualize a privilege I see home ownership, having a car, and even attending college; for these, to an extent, function as capitalist “spoils of war” and are not guaranteed.

Despite their intrinsic philosophical differences, both parties can agree on a simple fact: our current system is bloated, unfair, and dramatically ineffective. As Americans we pay more for health care than any industrialized nation on earth, spending around 16% of our gross-domestic product on healthcare and watching an average of 20% of that money finance advertising, administrative overhead, and profit for out private insurers. As a comparison, France spends less than 8% of their GDP on healthcare and their administrative costs run about 5%.

Now it is easy to dismiss a comparison like this by relying on the idea that “you get what you pay for” and sure we pay more, because we have access to the greatest physicians and hospitals in the world, right? Unfortunately for us, the comparison cannot be nullified that easily. In 2000, The World Health Organization ranked wealthy industrialized nations on the fairness and quality of their healthcare infrastructures. France was ranked number one, and the United States came in at thirty-seven.

So maybe we cannot tell ourselves that we have the fairest or cheapest system, but don’t we at least have the most innovative and effective? Again, the statistics are sobering:

· America ranks 19^th in preventing death from curable diseases in people under the age of 75.

· America has the highest infant mortality rate out of the 23 industrialized nations surveyed and more than double that of Japan and Sweden.

· America was tied for dead last out of 23 nations in the category of “healthy life expectancy after age 60.”

· American diabetics have a shorter life span than diabetics in any of the other 23 industrialized nations.

The problem is not the training or skill of our medical community, it is the fact that the number of people financially able to reach that community is rapidly shrinking due to exponentially increasing cost. So does this mean we have to institute the dreaded “socialized medicine” in order to see the kind of results Europeans have gotten? Let’s look at how they do it:

· The Bismark Model – Providers of both insurance and medical treatment are private with employers and employees paying a portion of the cost. The government does negotiate fees for treatment with the medical community so that fees are standardized and costs can be adequately controlled. It is basically the same system that we use except the insurance companies operate as a non-profit entity and the fees are standardized. This is the model used in France, Germany, Japan, Belgium, and Switzerland.

· The Beveridge Model – There are no medical bills or fees and the doctors, hospitals, and treatment are all paid for and provided by the government through taxes. In this system, medical treatment is a sort of taxpayer funded community service like the Fire or Police Department. This is what most of us think of as “socialized medicine” and it used by Great Brittan, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, and (gasp) the Unites States Department of Veterans Affairs.

· National Health Insurance Model – The providers are still all private, but instead of several private competing insurance companies, there is one big government insurance pool that everyone pays into. This gives the government incredible bargaining power (which explains why they can buy the exact same drugs as us for 70% less) but they still do not own or pay the doctors or hospitals. This is used in Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, and (double gasp) the United States as Medicare (we even stole the name from the Canadians.)

Each approach has its pros and cons, but many are not as different from our current system as some would have us believe. While these models can be an excellent stepping stone toward a fairer and more efficient system, we must also remain aware that our challenge is unprecedented in size and scope since we are attempting to cover a population of over 300 million people (by comparison, the populations of France and Great Brittan combined barely cracks 125 million.)

So what have our Washington friends come up with to alleviate this problem? Several days ago I began searching for the similarities and differences between the Democratic offerings and the Republican offerings. Since most of the GOP offerings are similar in scope and approach, I will use the Patients Choice Act (helmed by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan) to compare to the Obama / Biden policy of the Democrats.

My initial impression was shock at how many components they both shared:

· Both call for a type of open-air marketplace called “The Exchange” that would theoretically stimulate competition between providers and allow better deals for the end consumer.

· Both would provide a form of “sliding-scale” tax credits that would allow greater federal tax deductions based on income and medical expenditures.

· Both plans would require guaranteed access to care for all Americans regardless of age, race, or pre-existing conditions.

· Both promise portability so that workers can take their health insurance with them if they happen to change jobs.

· Both wish to save money by digitizing all of your medical records & insurance history onto an electronic card that would be swiped at the doctor’s office to eliminate paper records.

· Both demand an increase in “transparency” concerning hospital costs, patient care figures, and percentage of premiums going to administrative overhead.

· Both promise more emphasis placed on prevention in order to reduce the number of preventable diseases killing Americans.

So at this point you might wonder what all the fighting is about. If the plans are so closely linked, why has this schism appeared between members of the two parties? The answer lies in the logistics of bringing these promised changes about:

· The GOP uncompromisingly believes that the Federal Government cannot be trusted to “deliver high quality health care to every American;” instead they believe that the necessary reforms can be made by returning the current system to “core values” through a matrix of tax incentives and non-profit insurance oversight committees, and member-owned entities.

· The Democrats believe that only the federal government has the negotiating and oversight power to implement and enforce the necessary changes and to ensure fairness and coverage for all.

What I Like:

· The digitization of medical records is long overdue and could save billions in administrative overhead and even prevent unnecessary loss of life and expensive duplication of efforts. Both plans are pushing for it, with the Republicans suggesting an independent member-owned Health Bank to house the data. My question is, if everyone is required to have digital records, who would not be a “member?” The Democrats suggest that a government branch should be established to house the records, akin to the existing social security administration. One entity will have all our health records either way, and it is disconcerting but necessary.

· The idea of transparency is a must, especially concerning the costs of rendering services. I could visit 100 different clinics, have the same tests run, and still end up with 100 different prices for the exact same service. It is like pulling in to get an oil change and instead of giving me the price, they just take my keys and tell me “We’ll just see how it goes and let you know how much the price is afterward.” In France, every doctor’s office and hospital has a posted sign with the prices for medical treatment on it, just like ordering from a restaurant.

What we need to add:

· Both plans leave the current profit-driven private insurance industry intact. No industrialized nation has successfully implemented affordable coverage for all of its citizens while maintaining a profit-driven private insurance infrastructure. Simply put, there is just not enough money to cover everyone’s medical bills and still make shareholders rich because those are two conflicting ideals.

What I am not buying:

· The GOP promises to bring about all of the changes with no tax increases or new government spending. I am certainly no economist, but I am skeptical that we can establish many of the measures, such as nationwide “Health Courts,” state based “Exchanges,” new oversight committees, and affordable healthcare of everyone, without forking out something for them. It also seems unlikely that tax incentives alone could force a profit driven industry to bring the 45 million uninsured Americans under their wing for a reasonable fee to the consumer.

· The Democrats also promise to bring about these wonderful changes without “adding a dime to the deficit” by paying for everything upfront. This is also unrealistic as the government oversight measures and entities necessary to implement their plan will have to be funded by someone. I can guarantee you that no-one in Congress (Republican or Democrat) is going to supplement funding by reducing their own salary. The money has to come from somewhere.

If we are serious about changing the way healthcare works in this country, it will be painful and we will initially spend more money than we save. However, I, like so many others, have come to the decision that the goal of fixing what is broken justifies the frustrating trial and error that will no doubt accompany an overhaul of this magnitude. We can and should learn from the example of countries like Canada, France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and Japan, but while doing so we must remember that the system likely to emerge from all this will be uniquely American and that is something that I can live with.

Everyone should read the proposed solutions to make an informed decision. Here are the links to the detailed summaries for each side’s proposal:

Obama / Biden Proposal - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

GOP Patient’s Choice Act - http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/index.htm

*Facts and statistics come from the World Health Organization and T.R. Reid’s The Healing of America

Litterbuggin'

Humanity has come a long way. Given adequate time and resources, we have proven ourselves capable of everything from walking on the moon to mapping the human genome. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if all these accomplishments are nullified every time we are too lazy to place our refuse in a garbage can. Regardless of how you feel about global warming, environmental protection, or Al Gore’s choice of hairstyle; litter is a bi-partisan issue.

About two months ago I decided to take advantage of a beautiful summer day and complete some much needed yard-work. After removing the necessary lawn apparatus from my garage, I was fully prepared to begin entertaining my neighbors with my inability to pull start my weed trimmer when I noticed an odd collection of litter adorning my property. Further investigation revealed that my newly acquired yard potpourri was a combination of a Nachos Bell Grande value meal and a disturbingly-large bag of organic hamster food. Exactly what kind of nocturnal activities require both the delicate culinary delights of Taco Bell and immediate access to hamster food? Why did these articles suddenly become unbearable to have in their vehicle in front of my house? Who takes the time to feed their hamster and intentionally places the empty bag in their car to begin with?

This was not the first time I had found litter in my yard. Over my two years of residence I have seen beer cans, cigarette butts, fast food wrappers, plastic bottles, and even used paper plates. The volume was such that at one point I suspected I was the victim of an unusually passive hate-crime. I have since come to the conclusion that many of us reflexively throw our waste onto the ground without as much as a second thought, but we have long since passed the point of “innocence by ignorance.”

There are only a couple of valid excuses for indiscriminately disposing of waste outside of the proper receptacles. The first would be unavailability of a trash bin combined with the dire necessity of separating oneself from waste. This is perhaps feasible when on solitary wilderness hikes in bear country, but seems inapplicable in the majority of cases where studies have shown that littering most often occurs within six yards of a garbage can. I quickly marked this off my list.

The second possibility is that the perpetrator is blissfully unaware of the eclectic stream of trash launching itself from their vehicle. While this does occur, reports from state transportation departments seem to indicate that this “incidental littering” could only account for a very small percentage of the volume collected on roadsides. As it seems unlikely that someone could retain consciousness while remaining unaware that an entire value meal has catapulted itself from the seat of their car, I also eliminated this as a possibility. The unyielding facts left me with only one chilling scenario: I was the victim of a “litterbug.”

The term was coined in 1952 by Annette H. Richards while composing an article on vandalism in National Parks entitled “The Great American Litterbug” and has become synonymous with those who indiscriminately make their waste other people’s problem. Soon, I would be taking steps to unveil this hamster-loving menace.

Since our neighborhood is predominately comprised of closed streets, we see very little “thru-traffic” and I could safely assume that the scofflaw had ties to the area. This narrowed the field, but I really needed more if I was going to tighten my metaphorical dragnet…

Several years ago Texas conducted research to accurately profile repeat “litterbugs” (I can only imagine the federal grant money being channeled into this nugget) and the results caused a perceptible ripple amongst the litterbug profiling community: The typical litterbug is male or female smoker between the ages of 16-24 that travels more than 50 miles per day, eats fast food at least twice a week, and has never been married.

I thought that the last part was particularly insightful since the majority of 18 year-olds funding a nicotine habit while buying a full tank of gas every five days are probably still on the market. Nonetheless, I began surreptitiously creating a mental inventory of all local un-wed chain smoking miscreants too young to rent a car. While this narrowed the list of suspects to a more manageable number, I still needed more. I needed to go deeper, to unlock the primitive motivation behind this social deviance. Fortunately for me, the brave men and women of the Environmental Protection Agency of Australia are up to the task and have provided an easy to use classification system.

“Ignorants” – those mentally unable to link their littering to any environmental impact (these individuals are often in possessions of autographed Night Ranger ticket stubs)

“Willful Arrogants” – those who believe contextual littering is acceptable, such as urban littering, but will not litter in the countryside (because there are no baby seals at the bus stop)

“Anti-Establishments” – make a personal or political statement by purposeful littering (There is no greater catalyst of social reform than a carelessly discarded Fillet-O-Fish wrapper. “Take that, evil corporations!”)

Despite the plethora of profiling tools at my fingertips, I have, as of this writing, been unable to identify the offender. I am steadfast in my resolve to stop their reign of terror, but over the past several days I have come to the realization that my litterbug is by no means an endangered species.

So the next time that you are about to turn that value meal into yard shrapnel; do yourself a favor and let it ride shotgun for a few more miles, because if the litterbug profile is correct, you could probably use the company.