Texsox

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Pay your bills, or dont get power. Its pretty simple and goes for everyone regardless of age. If i had that much in overdue bills, should I be crying because its cold or should I smack myself in the face for not paying my bills? BTW, what does him being a Vet have ANYTHING to do with it? Allowing poor people to die is one way of dealing with the problem. I guess that pot allows for imaginative answers to old age and poverty. And what job does a 93 year old man work? And being a vet matters because he has contributed to this country in a way that some poeple will never understand or appreciate. We owe it to those individuals who but their ass on the line for our freedom a little more respect than telling them to smack themselves in the face when they are 93 and struggling to survive.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) It is not plausible to believe an electric company would/should know the living/housing situations of all of its clients unless the town had like 100 people in it They are required, at least in Texas, to track which homes have life support equipment. I believe it would be easy enough to track any other special needs like elderly, handicapped, etc. and have a second contact person to inform if they are going to limit or terminate service.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/bayc-j28.shtml

My best guess from a GMA report and a couple newspaper reports, but some conjecture He was struggling to make ends meet, possible medical bills Was not aware they limited his electric (possibly expecting to be the cut off) Was waiting for his SS check to make a payment Had no idea help was available Thought he could "gut it out" Still for a WWII vet to die in his own home, frozen to death, seems senseless and avoidable. I agree we can't just give people electricity for free, but the utility companies should know who they are cutting off when the weather is this bad. Other sad stuff No one to check on him daily. Neighbors reported seeing him regularly.

It could not be confirmed, but it seems he did not have telephone service. Neighbors did report he would grocery shop on his own. I saw news coverage this morning and the outside of the house appeared neat and orderly and in good repair.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) If he wasnt he shouldnt have been living by himself When your electricity goes off, do you think they attached a limiting device on your meter? I doubt I would have checked. It seems, at a minimum, they should have to contact him and show him how to reset the device. The pictures of his home show snow piled up, I'm not certain he would have been able to reach the device. It seems it happened in New Zealand, only worse, For $168 and it stopped a person's oxygen device http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article....jectid=10443049

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) because dude didn't even acknowledge it. What is the proper acknowledgment in you office? WHEW! That one is even burning my eyes! Ahem, excuse me. Sorry. Whoa, I'd stay away from the copier, I ripped one Now that's how a man rips one Bambi

Some more info from other reports I heard. Basically the cut off is attached to his meter, outside. If the load surpasses the preset limit, I believe they said 10 Amps in this case, a circuit breaker opens and you have to go outside to your meter and turn it back on. The theory is you will keep turning stuff off until you stay within the range. This way the electricity stays on but you might not be able to watch TV or run the dishwasher. What seems to have happened here is it tripped and the man had no idea what happened. He may have thought they turned it off because he was delinquent. The company has used this device for ten years, this is the first death.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) I don't care about the political points. I care about carving out the billions of dollars in extras that get used to grease the system. Ideally I would like to see it removed as a means of "compromise" and instead would have congress actually voting on the merits of a bill, instead of what bribes they received. Exactly. But also remember it is how some good stuff gets passed by the minority party. For example, the GOP would have problems getting things they want through right now. So they wait until the Dems need them, and tack it on. This could be things that we agree with. I would dislike seeing the GOP neutered for the next two years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483244,00.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) If it really was that important to both sides, they could easily override the veto. Most of the time those "cooperations" mean stuffing some extras into a bill to bribe the other side to agree to it. That is what I want to end. Agreed. But now think about negotiating when you know the President may be pressured to veto the stuffing? The other thing that gets weird is sometimes the stuffing is a better expense than what is in the bill already. Where this gets ugly. "Will your President support this item or will it get veto'd?" "We have the White House on board" "OK, bring it for a vote" "this will never pass again"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) I guess the poor need better lobbyists.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) I wouldn't mind that, but I would much rather see a line item veto if given the choice. That would cause a seismic shift in Washington, and one I'd like to see. The grease is what gets both sides to agree, but what costs us in additional programs. It never is your program or mine. It always becomes let's do both! And bill the grand kids. Image the negotiations when one side knows the President could veto the very concession that was made to get bipartisan cooperation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) Which is of course...why the government had that large program to help people buy the converters available...until it ran out of money in the late part of the previous administration. There is still a cost above and beyond the coupon price. Basically they want the "rabbit ear" set to spend money so someone else can use the frequency. I agree with Southsider, (a lot today it seems), the process was flawed from the start. The only way to assure it worked was to offer the converters free.

I believe it would be helpful to consider the qualifications the new Senator must have. Must be from the same party and willing to be "loyal" Should help the rest of the party to win or hold offices statewide Should be "confirm-able" Must not be a rival of the Gov or anyone he is close to Feel free to add to the list. My point is, the process starts out slimy and gets worse. What does highest bidder mean? Someone who can bring the most back to the state? Someone who will raise the most money for the party at a dinner? Someone who will load the Gov's freezer with cash?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) The fact that the public wasn't demanding it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision if it frees up a chunk of the spectrum for other uses. The public just expects that everything (Cell phones, radios, TV's, Wifi, etc.) is going to work, it doesn't care how that happens. In this case, that requires some change on the part of the public, and that's not going to happen unless it's done forcibly. I agree it is the right decision. But consider this. Who will be using the devices that will now use the spectrum? It probably will not be the "analog TV and rabbit ear" set. So we are taking from the poor and non tech citizens to give to the non-poor and tech class.

I really dislike it when we mix bills.

Long term $ short term $$$$ Sucks for the landlord/owner Are there any residence hotels that work?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) Sounds like Dawn of the Dead. It is so close. They bring a couple staff members and they sit in the McDonalds drinking coffee and meanwhile their "patients" and "residents" and tearing open packages, and starting conversations with everyone. Today one of their kids grabbed my cart to return it to the front where the 85 year old, I should have saved for retirement, greeter would say "nice job!". And it is Winter Texas time so the damn trailer parks are full and they all come to "WalMart's" with their name tags and helpful suggestions that start "up north we . . ."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) I hate shopping. I hate stores, particularly big and/or crowded ones, and I despise malls. There are maybe a few stores I actually enjoy being in - Abt Electronics, REI... that's about it. Everything else, my pulse and blood pressure rise notably when I'm inside, and I want to get out as quickly as possible. REI is more than a store . . . 5 hour drive to my closest one. I even let my membership lapse.

Geographically I have a WalMart near my house, it is damn convenient, I pass by it a couple times a day. Normally it would be an easy and quick stop to pick up everything from dish soap to a 52" HDTV. But instead I've stopped going there. Why? Because every adult day care center, every handicapable center, uses it for a freaking field trip. They never buy anything, the bus drops them off and they wander the store, drooling and blocking the aisles.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) Come June 17th, there will still be the majority of these people who haven't done a thing about it. Wasn't the original date in 2005 or 2006 for going digital? Obviously that wasn't going to happen, but it just shows how this whole project has been screwed up. The screw up is the public isn't buying into it. From what I read, broadcasters are ready, but it's the public that is screwing this up by not going out and spending the money to continue watching "free TV". We are forcing consumers into something they do not want. Anyone that is still watching an analog TV through an antenna clearly is not all that concerned about picture quality, or any of the benefits of HDTV. Instead they are being told to spend money on something they don't want. Which is why the industry went to the government in the first place and asked for a mandatory conversion date. The public wasn't demanding it.

I still have to agree with Southsider on this one, if they have some really great evidence, which is what we all seem to believe, they could have released some stuff a few notches better than this. And they can't "save stuff for the trial", they have to disclose their case to the defendant. Perhaps both sides prefer some of this to remain private until it has to be disclosed. If this was a city councilperson in Smithville (pop 428) then that is one thing, but if you are going to prosecute the Governor of Illinois, take a lethal shot early.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:43 AM) Well, you can't just indict someone for no reason. So why not release the best evidence? They have to disclose what they have to the person on trial eventually.