Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default To create more jobs...

.... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.

"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are all
regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35
states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled
in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states
that require a license for animal training."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,144
Default To create more jobs...



"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.


"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are
all regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35
states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled
in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states
that require a license for animal training."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj


Why stop there? Doctors, pilots, bus drivers, demolition contractors,
electricians--open up all lines of work to anybody who wants to give it a
try. If they're not so good at it, well that will come out over time as
their employees and clients fill hospital beds and graves.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default To create more jobs...

On 7/28/2011 2:48 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.


"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf
are all regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm
installer? In 35 states, you will need to earn the government's
permission. Are you skilled in handling animals? You will need more
than that skill in the 20 states that require a license for animal
training."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj


Why stop there? Doctors, pilots, bus drivers, demolition contractors,
electricians--open up all lines of work to anybody who wants to give
it a try. If they're not so good at it, well that will come out over
time as their employees and clients fill hospital beds and graves.


Why stop there? If the price of regulation and the price of wages
hurts job creation, then obviously the price of products does, too. So
companies should be slashing their prices to spur demand and create
jobs. If everything was free, demand would go through the roof = jobs
for everybody!

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default To create more jobs...

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.


"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are
all regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35
states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled
in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states
that require a license for animal training."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...925941712.html
?mod=googlenews_wsj

Why stop there? Doctors, pilots, bus drivers, demolition contractors,
electricians--open up all lines of work to anybody who wants to give it a
try. If they're not so good at it, well that will come out over time as
their employees and clients fill hospital beds and graves.

Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent interpreters for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent electricians do.

In most cases, licensing laws such as those HeyBub referred to are enacted at
the behest of, and for the protection of, those *already* engaged in those
trades, who seek to reduce competition.

There simply is no case to be made for government licensing of any trade or
profession in which incompetent performance poses no threat to life, health,
or safety. Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default To create more jobs...

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.

"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are all
regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35
states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled
in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states
that require a license for animal training."

That ain't gonna happen. If you look at the legislative history of most
licenses, you will find that they were passed at the insistence of the
people being licensed either because there were so many charlatans that
the public no longer trusted the industry or (possibly and) the industry
wanted to limit competition by erecting barriers to entry into the
field.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default To create more jobs...

On 7/28/2011 3:05 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
....

... Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.


Bad hygienic practices could easily lead to introduction of infection in
the eyes w/ possibly serious ramifications up to and including blindness
would be one...shooting fish in a barrel

--


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default To create more jobs...

"HeyBub" writes:

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.

"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are all
regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35
states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled
in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states
that require a license for animal training."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj


Hmm, I know somebody that does interpreting for the deaf.

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?


--
Dan Espen
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default To create more jobs...

On 7/28/2011 4:14 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
....

That ain't gonna happen. If you look at the legislative history of most
licenses, you will find that they were passed at the insistence of the
people being licensed either because there were so many charlatans that
the public no longer trusted the industry or (possibly and) the industry
wanted to limit competition by erecting barriers to entry into the
field.


Goes farther back by far than legislative...the origination dates to
Middle Ages in Europe for the model in Western civilization (and
probably farther than that in China altho I'm not familiar w/ their
practices in the area).

Only relatively recently has penchant been applied to such a wide array
of activities legislatively and there is some truth in the protectionism
argument in some of them but many are really public health and safety
origins and quite a number stem from sufficient public harm over the
years or a particular significant incident or two that made headlines by
its magnitude.

--



  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default To create more jobs...

In article , wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.

"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are
all
regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35
states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled
in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states
that require a license for animal training."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...81925941712.ht
ml?mod=googlenews_wsj


Hmm, I know somebody that does interpreting for the deaf.

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?


Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got any
kind of certification. They asked about my training and experience, etc.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,144
Default To create more jobs...



"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...


Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent electricians
do.


Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training and
certification?

What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance) makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? Who do you sue, some hack who moved two states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? You didn't suffer any broken bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything? Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.

Sure, professional organizations can play games to keep the price of their
services high--the American Medical Assoc. and it's policy of restricting
the number of med school graduates comes to mind. But that isn't a sound
argument against requiring doctors to be licensed.

There simply is no case to be made for government licensing of any trade
or
profession in which incompetent performance poses no threat to life,
health,
or safety. Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.


Ever get a makeup brush jabbed in your eye? No? Well then, you aren't
qualified to speak to the horrors of unlicensed makeup artists running amuck
leaving chaos in their wake.

Many years ago I knew a woman who applied her lipstick using a little sable
brush, it was one of the most intensely erotic things I ever saw. She
actually had been trained in makeup application though she probably wasn't
licensed, I'll grant you that.



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,144
Default To create more jobs...



"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Hmm, I know somebody that does interpreting for the deaf.


Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.


Still think they don't need to be licensed?


Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got any
kind of certification. They asked about my training and experience, etc.


Witnesses aren't employees of the court, they're called by one side or the
other to bolster that side's case. Can you picture a trial where the
prosecution and the defense both get their own interpreters and offer
competing versions of what a deaf defendant signed? Sound reasonable to
you?

If it was your trial with your freedom at stake, would you want the court
reporter to be trained, certified and licensed, or just somebody who had
convinced that judge he was probably up to the job of making an accurate
record of what was said in the courtroom?

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default To create more jobs...

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Hmm, I know somebody that does interpreting for the deaf.


Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.


Still think they don't need to be licensed?


Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got any
kind of certification. They asked about my training and experience, etc.


Witnesses aren't employees of the court, they're called by one side or the
other to bolster that side's case. Can you picture a trial where the
prosecution and the defense both get their own interpreters and offer
competing versions of what a deaf defendant signed? Sound reasonable to
you?


Where that came from I'll never know. The court decides who is an expert
witness, that is at the judge's discretion. Same with the translators.
It is the judge that decides. There is no requirement for any kind of
license, just that the translator satisfies the judge (in many cases the
presiding judge and/or designee). Generally they have some kind of
criteria such as training, experience, etc.


If it was your trial with your freedom at stake, would you want the court
reporter to be trained, certified and licensed, or just somebody who had
convinced that judge he was probably up to the job of making an accurate
record of what was said in the courtroom?

Doesn't really make any difference what I think. It is what the
judge thinks and the specific court system has decreed.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default To create more jobs...

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...925941712.html
?mod=googlenews_wsj


Wait. You're quoting the WSJ? That perverted liberal rag full of nothing
but lies and fiction? What time did you start drinking today?
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default To create more jobs...

In article , dpb wrote:
On 7/28/2011 3:05 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
....

... Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.


Bad hygienic practices could easily lead to introduction of infection in
the eyes w/ possibly serious ramifications up to and including blindness
would be one..


That's, ummm... pretty far-fetched. To be charitable.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default To create more jobs...

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...


Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent electricians
do.


Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training and
certification?


No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your health.


What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance) makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? Who do you sue, some hack who moved two states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? You didn't suffer any broken bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything?


You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.


So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of it.

Sure, professional organizations can play games to keep the price of their
services high--the American Medical Assoc. and it's policy of restricting
the number of med school graduates comes to mind. But that isn't a sound
argument against requiring doctors to be licensed.


Nice straw man you built there.

I never claimed there were arguments against requiring doctors to be licensed;
in fact, I acknowledged that there *is* a compelling public safety interest in
doing so.

There simply is no case to be made for government licensing of any trade or
profession in which incompetent performance poses no threat to life, health,
or safety. Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.


Ever get a makeup brush jabbed in your eye? No? Well then, you aren't
qualified to speak to the horrors of unlicensed makeup artists running amuck
leaving chaos in their wake.


GMAFB. Can't you do any better than that?


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default To create more jobs...

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...


Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent electricians
do.


Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training and
certification?


No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your health.


What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance) makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? Who do you sue, some hack who moved two states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? You didn't suffer any broken bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything?


You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.


So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of it.

Sure, professional organizations can play games to keep the price of their
services high--the American Medical Assoc. and it's policy of restricting
the number of med school graduates comes to mind. But that isn't a sound
argument against requiring doctors to be licensed.


Nice straw man you built there.

I never claimed there were arguments against requiring doctors to be licensed;
in fact, I acknowledged that there *is* a compelling public safety interest in
doing so.

There simply is no case to be made for government licensing of any trade or
profession in which incompetent performance poses no threat to life, health,
or safety. Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.


Ever get a makeup brush jabbed in your eye? No? Well then, you aren't
qualified to speak to the horrors of unlicensed makeup artists running amuck
leaving chaos in their wake.


GMAFB. Can't you do any better than that?


Pretty sure that was a joke.

As for makeup artists, not all makeup artists have to be licensed.
It looks to me like the ones that need licensing are the ones that
need training. Here's a description of the training required for
some makeup artists and what they do:

http://tinyurl.com/3sv7crp

More than I wanted to know...

--
Dan Espen
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default To create more jobs...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , dpb wrote:
On 7/28/2011 3:05 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
....

... Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.


Bad hygienic practices could easily lead to introduction of infection in
the eyes w/ possibly serious ramifications up to and including blindness
would be one..


That's, ummm... pretty far-fetched. To be charitable.


That's not far fetched and you're certainly not being charitable without at
least Googling the matter first. You've obviously spent far less time with
personal injury attorneys than I have. The history of regulation and
licensing is basically the history of abuse by industries:

"The absence of regulation of the manufacture and use of cosmetics has led
to negative side effects, deformities, blindness, and even death through the
ages. Examples of this were the prevalent use of ceruse (white lead), to
cover the face during the Renaissance, and blindness caused by the mascara
Lash Lure during the early 20th century."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics

FWIW, Lash Lure was involved in a case where a woman became totally blind
and was the first product ever seized from the market under the new FDA law
signed by Roosevelt. The victim's eyebrows had been plucked before dying
which led to a Staphylococcus aureans infection that spread to her eyes,
eventually taking her eyesight. Cases like Lash Lure are what drives
regulation and licensing but they often happened so long ago that people
completely forget why such laws were passed in the first place.

One merely has to look through court records (or Google) to realize how many
scalp and eye injuries are caused in both professional and kitchen table
beauty salons. Performing any activity near the human eye requires
substantial care that many practitioners are unable to provide. Licensing
usually requires the passing of a test indicating at least a minimum
proficiency in the subject matter. For that, I am glad.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cosmetics+and+eye+injury

Gives you a few dozen sites to read up on the problem.

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Product.../ucm137241.htm

says: Permanent eyelash and eyebrow tints and dyes have been known to
cause serious eye injuries, including blindness. There are no color
additives approved by FDA for permanent dyeing or tinting of eyelashes and
eyebrows. FDA has an Import Alert in effect for eyelash and eyebrow dyes
containing coal tar colors.

Licensing at least insures a minimum level of competency and usually demands
the practictioner obtain some form of insurance against an act of theirs
that leads to harm to a client. Beauty treatment eye injuries are a common
enough injury to have turned into a lucrative practice for some attorneys:

http://www.lntlb.com/PracticeAreas/d...injury-lawyers

Beauty Burns
Burns resulting from beauty treatments, such as hair coloring or laser hair
reduction services, are on the rise. The International Spa Association
reports that medical spas ("Medi-Spas") are the fastest growing segment of
the spa industry, quadrupling from 471 in 2004 to 1,804 today. Unlike day
spas, which specialize in relaxation services such as massages, facials and
body wraps, Medi-Spas offer cosmetic procedures that involve the use of
laser medical devices.

Laser Hair Removal Injuries
In the hair reduction or removal process, service providers use a laser to
target the melanin in the hair follicle. When the procedure is done
properly, the heat inactivates or destroys cells in the target area without
having a significant effect on surrounding cells. If not performed properly,
however, a laser procedure can result in permanent scarring, prolonged loss
of color in the skin, or serious infection.

Injuries From Hair-Dye
Hair highlighting using chemical solutions to alter the pigmentation of hair
is a popular procedure. Hair dye is potentially caustic to the scalp,
however, and can cause hair loss, painful blisters and red-raw skin.

Eyelash/Eyebrow Tinting
The use of permanent eyelash and eyebrow tinting and dyeing can cause
serious eye injuries and even blindness. Consumers should know that the FDA
has not approved any color additives for dyeing or tinting eyelashes and
eyebrows.

Prevent Beauty Burns
Beauty burn injuries can occur in a Salon or Medi-Spa and consumers must
carefully research their service providers to insure that the provider is
properly licensed and that the equipment used for services and treatments is
up-to-date and used properly.

The "starve the beast" folks are only down on government regulation until
they need it to protect *them* just like a liberal used to be a conservative
that hasn't been mugged yet. Licensing didn't arise because the government
wanted power - it arose because people DEMANDED it. The Congress
continually refused to enact stronger food and drug safety laws UNTIL over
100 people died taking a commercially prepared yet highly poisonous
medication:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA#Ori...rug_regulation

The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and
federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory
authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled
permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, cosmetics
which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis.
The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the
United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the
public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100
people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent.
The only way that the FDA could even seize the product was due to a
misbranding problem: an "Elixir" was defined as a medication dissolved in
ethanol, not the diethylene glycol used in the Elixir Sulfanilamide.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act) into law on June 24, 1938.

Just as we forgot about the cost of senseless wars like Viet Nam and Iraq,
people forget that laws and licensing requirements came about as responses
to industries unable or unwilling to police themselves. Oh, how I remember
the kicking and screaming over seat belts and airbags. However, the data is
in and the bottom line is well-established: those improvements save not
only the lives of reckless drivers, but also the lives of the innocent
people they run into.

--
Bobby G.



  #19   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default To create more jobs...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , wrote:


stuff snipped

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?


Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got any
kind of certification. They asked about my training and experience, etc.


My dad was an "expert witness" and many courts will simply eject a witness
even with credentials when they start reaching impossible conclusions. I've
seen it happen in a case where a forensic expert tried to reconstruct a
fire's origin based on blurry 3 by 5 photos that he had not even personally
taken. He hadn't visited the fire scene, either. Zoot! Out he went. The
outcome might have been different if it has been a jury trial, I'll admit,
but smart lawyers make sure the witnesses they hire are credentialed out the
wazoo and well-spoken, too, before they take the stand. For engineers, the
credentials part usually (not always) means having a PE license.

As for licensed translators being more competent then their unlicensed
brethren all I can say is there's no shortage of appellate briefs alleging
translation errors during criminal trials and in my limited experience,
those allegations often prove true. That's because translation is subject
to all sorts of errors.

A brief review of POTUS errors in translation (ostensibly the best
translators money can buy) will reveal "I am a donut!" and "my wife is
frigid," the two Presidential translation errors most cited in the press.
Extra credit if you can tell me what they were really trying to say.

--
Bobby G.



  #20   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default To create more jobs...

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...925941712.html
?mod=googlenews_wsj


Wait. You're quoting the WSJ? That perverted liberal rag full of nothing
but lies and fiction? What time did you start drinking today?


The question is more like "don't you EVER stop drinking?" As for the WSJ
they've certainly slid downhill like a ton of loose gravel since Rupert
"I'll tap your phone" Murdoch took over. It's interesting to see how far
they are bending over backwards to try to avoid saying anything bad about
their phone hacking boss.

Hacking into the phone of a young murder victim and leading police to
believe she was still alive is apparently where that line is drawn. Too bad
for Rupe that he's standing on the other side of it. I personally believe
he bought the WSJ simple to do stock-touting on a scale that's never been
seen before. I suspect as he tries to throw his subordinates under the bus,
even more dirty laundy will be showing up the News Corpse. So funny to
watch guys renowned for micro management say "yes, I signed that huge
settlement check but I didn't know why." Arf, arf.

--
Bobby G.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default To create more jobs...

dpb wrote:
On 7/28/2011 4:14 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
...

That ain't gonna happen. If you look at the legislative history of
most licenses, you will find that they were passed at the insistence
of the people being licensed either because there were so many
charlatans that the public no longer trusted the industry or
(possibly and) the industry wanted to limit competition by erecting
barriers to entry into the field.


Goes farther back by far than legislative...the origination dates to
Middle Ages in Europe for the model in Western civilization (and
probably farther than that in China altho I'm not familiar w/ their
practices in the area).

Only relatively recently has penchant been applied to such a wide
array of activities legislatively and there is some truth in the
protectionism argument in some of them but many are really public
health and safety origins and quite a number stem from sufficient
public harm over the years or a particular significant incident or
two that made headlines by its magnitude.


Hair brading? Flower arranging? Interior decorating? Manicurists or
Pedicurists? Pet washing? Breast augmentation?

Bah!


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default To create more jobs...

DGDevin wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Hmm, I know somebody that does interpreting for the deaf.


Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.


Still think they don't need to be licensed?


Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got
any kind of certification. They asked about my training and
experience, etc.


Witnesses aren't employees of the court, they're called by one side
or the other to bolster that side's case. Can you picture a trial
where the prosecution and the defense both get their own interpreters
and offer competing versions of what a deaf defendant signed? Sound
reasonable to you?

If it was your trial with your freedom at stake, would you want the
court reporter to be trained, certified and licensed, or just
somebody who had convinced that judge he was probably up to the job
of making an accurate record of what was said in the courtroom?


First, it is foolish to design a law based on how it affects a particular
person.

Second, there is no difference between convincing a judge as to a
translator's capabilities and convincing a licensing board. Both require
some sort of government sanction.

Third, I'll wager there is not a similar requirement for court-appointed
language translators.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default To create more jobs...

Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , wrote:


stuff snipped

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?


Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got
any kind of certification. They asked about my training and
experience, etc.


My dad was an "expert witness" and many courts will simply eject a
witness even with credentials when they start reaching impossible
conclusions. I've seen it happen in a case where a forensic expert
tried to reconstruct a fire's origin based on blurry 3 by 5 photos
that he had not even personally taken. He hadn't visited the fire
scene, either. Zoot! Out he went. The outcome might have been
different if it has been a jury trial, I'll admit, but smart lawyers
make sure the witnesses they hire are credentialed out the wazoo and
well-spoken, too, before they take the stand. For engineers, the
credentials part usually (not always) means having a PE license.

As for licensed translators being more competent then their unlicensed
brethren all I can say is there's no shortage of appellate briefs
alleging translation errors during criminal trials and in my limited
experience, those allegations often prove true. That's because
translation is subject to all sorts of errors.

A brief review of POTUS errors in translation (ostensibly the best
translators money can buy) will reveal "I am a donut!" and "my wife is
frigid," the two Presidential translation errors most cited in the
press. Extra credit if you can tell me what they were really trying
to say.


The first was JFK trying to convince Germans that he was a native of Berlin
("Ich bein ein Berliner").

Don't know about the second. That's not surprising, though. Inasmuch as the
phrase has been uttered, at most, once in the last century, it's rare enough
to not have been recorded.


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default To create more jobs...

Robert Green wrote:

The question is more like "don't you EVER stop drinking?" As for the
WSJ they've certainly slid downhill like a ton of loose gravel since
Rupert "I'll tap your phone" Murdoch took over. It's interesting to
see how far they are bending over backwards to try to avoid saying
anything bad about their phone hacking boss.

Hacking into the phone of a young murder victim and leading police to
believe she was still alive is apparently where that line is drawn.
Too bad for Rupe that he's standing on the other side of it. I
personally believe he bought the WSJ simple to do stock-touting on a
scale that's never been seen before. I suspect as he tries to throw
his subordinates under the bus, even more dirty laundy will be
showing up the News Corpse. So funny to watch guys renowned for
micro management say "yes, I signed that huge settlement check but I
didn't know why." Arf, arf.


NewsCorp took over DowJones (including the WSJ) in late 2007. The WSJ is now
the nation's largest circulation newspaper with over 2 million subscribers
(USA Today has about 1.2 million and the NY Times about 950,000).

As to the WSJ being a shill for Murdoch, their reporting doesn't seem to
bear out that claim:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...293626808.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...28-707459.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...037684108.html

And many, similar, stories covering the issue.


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default To create more jobs...


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "DGDevin"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...


Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment
installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent
interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent
bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent
electricians
do.


Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting
against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training
and
certification?


No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up
and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your
health.


What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance)
makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? Who do you sue, some hack who moved two states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? You didn't suffer any broken
bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything?


You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial
difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by
helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.


So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of
it.




LMAO!!!!! Being licensed requires insurance. _Only_ government can require
being licensed, not insurance companies.








  #26   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,644
Default To create more jobs...

republicans including michelle bachman want to create more jobs

By elminating the minimum wage, elminating SS and medicare as we know
it, and cutting taxes for the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year....

meanwhile the republicans are blocking the increase of the debt limit
which can crash what remains of our recession recovery.

republicans the party of the wealthy. unfortunately i am not part of
their selected favored group
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default To create more jobs...


Robert Green wrote:

Oh, how I remember
the kicking and screaming over seat belts and airbags. However, the data is
in and the bottom line is well-established: those improvements save not
only the lives of reckless drivers, but also the lives of the innocent
people they run into.


Actually, you are quite incorrect on that last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows that
many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better off dead
since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies (this I've
heard directly from ER doctors).
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default To create more jobs...

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Robert Green wrote:

Oh, how I remember
the kicking and screaming over seat belts and airbags. However, the data is
in and the bottom line is well-established: those improvements save not
only the lives of reckless drivers, but also the lives of the innocent
people they run into.


Actually, you are quite incorrect on that last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows that
many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better off dead
since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies (this I've
heard directly from ER doctors).


Especially since the early legislative history of the airbag clearly
shows it was originally the intention of Congress to use them as passive
restraint systems, to save those who would not buckle up. Ooops.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default To create more jobs...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Robert Green wrote:

Oh, how I remember
the kicking and screaming over seat belts and airbags. However, the

data is
in and the bottom line is well-established: those improvements save

not
only the lives of reckless drivers, but also the lives of the innocent
people they run into.


Actually, you are quite incorrect on that last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows that
many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better off dead
since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies (this I've
heard directly from ER doctors).


Especially since the early legislative history of the airbag clearly
shows it was originally the intention of Congress to use them as passive
restraint systems, to save those who would not buckle up. Ooops.


I'm not sure what you're agreeing to, Kurt, but even the most rudimentary
search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=lives...ts+and+airbags

will demonstrate that air bags and seat belts have saved far more lives than
some would have us believe. Once the issue of small children was discovered
it was easily resolved (disable switches). Those few early deaths were
certainly not enough to abandon a life-saving technology.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811206.pdf

explains in excruciating detail how they calculate the benefits of seat
belts and air bags and even factor in the unfortunate and rare occurrences
when belts or laps do more harm than good. As our resident medical
statistician, Kurt, you can't possibly agree that all but a small subclass
of passengers would be better off without airbags. Air bags and seat belts
have been studied from here to Andromeda and back.

When I was a reporter and air bags were unheard of there was a name for the
wounds unrestrained people got when propelled through even a safety glass
windshield. They called it "the glass necklace." Most who got it didn't
survive. If the vehicle rolled just right, some would end up headless.

I'd be interested in seeing the legitimate study that says seat belts and
air bags do more harm than good.

--
Bobby G.


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default To create more jobs...

In article , "David1950" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "DGDevin"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...


Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment
installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent
interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent
bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent
electricians
do.

Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting
against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training
and
certification?


No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up
and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your
health.


What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance)
makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? Who do you sue, some hack who moved two states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? You didn't suffer any broken
bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything?


You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial
difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by
helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.


So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of
it.




LMAO!!!!! Being licensed requires insurance. _Only_ government can require
being licensed, not insurance companies.


Like DGDevin, you seem determined to miss the point.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default To create more jobs...

"Cindy Hamilton replied to what "HeyBub" wrote

stuff snipped

Which one do you actually hear?
"I'd love to hire more people, but I pay too much in taxes and fees."
"I'd love to hire more people, but the orders just aren't coming in
to justify it."

With HeyBub you have to ask whether he heard it on the news, in the street
or in his head. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man but it takes a great one to convict
an innocent one."


  #33   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default To create more jobs...

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows that
many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better off dead
since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies (this I've
heard directly from ER doctors).


Especially since the early legislative history of the airbag clearly
shows it was originally the intention of Congress to use them as passive
restraint systems, to save those who would not buckle up. Ooops.


I

explains in excruciating detail how they calculate the benefits of seat
belts and air bags and even factor in the unfortunate and rare occurrences
when belts or laps do more harm than good. As our resident medical
statistician, Kurt, you can't possibly agree that all but a small subclass
of passengers would be better off without airbags. Air bags and seat belts
have been studied from here to Andromeda and back.

I was merely mentioning that when originally legislated, they were
touted as a REPLACEMENT for seat belts. The research shows that a much
larger class of people were killed by airbags only.





--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 625
Default To create more jobs...

On Jul 28, 7:16*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training and
certification?


Who said anything about TRAINING or CERTIFICATION?

Licensing rarely, if ever, requires such things in any measurable or
enforceable way. A driver's license in most states only requires you
pass a written exam and a basic skills test where you can screw up
pretty bad and still get your license.
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default To create more jobs...

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

I'm not (an electrician.) Where did you get that notion?


You like to play one on usenet. My mistake.


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default To create more jobs...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
republicans including michelle bachman want to create more jobs

By elminating the minimum wage, elminating SS and medicare as we know
it, and cutting taxes for the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year....

meanwhile the republicans are blocking the increase of the debt limit
which can crash what remains of our recession recovery.


Yes. Somewhere in the past 30 years or so, the USA has changed from
respecting the will of the voters to cult-like partisanship willing to say
out loud: "(Even though we lost the election) we are determined to see the
elected candidate fail. (By any means necessary)." The goal is *not*
government reduction, it's power over the other side. Who is the big dog
that can hold a nation's recovery hostage over a deficit few really
understand and that doesn't mean what politicians purport it to mean?

We spent a lot of money in the last decade on a lot of things we felt we
needed. Though some (who've apparently never worked with the Feds) believe
Federal invoices are paid at lightspeed, the truth is far different. The
serious bills for what we bought (two wars, the TSA, Medicare RX, Homeland
Sec., etc) now are coming due and need to be paid for.

Anyone in military procurement can explain how a torpedo or cruise missile
cost is accounted for when it is consumed in a war. It certainly isn't
instanteously. Military equipment databases capture at least five different
costs per item, and some I know of use more than ten. Even then, by the
time a cruise missile is expended and the accounting for the acquisition of
a new one begins, the model number has changed or some contract enhancement
has been made, causing a re-certification process to kick in. All that stuff
proceeds at all due speed - government speed.

Somewhere I'll bet some unit is still trying to get replacements for items
consumed during the first Iraq war. The cost of that war was actually a
bargain because we got to light off some soon to expire munitions and NOT
have to ship them home for expensive disarming. Government moves very, very
slowly.

Besides, hiring an army of guys and gals to "touch your junk" every time you
fly costs money!

The issue is that no one likes paying for something long, long after they've
consumed it and Democrats are too dumb to seize the initiative and explain
to people where we spent our money. It's finally time to understand that
we'll be paying a trillion dollars over the next 40 years (probably a LOT
more) to care for the veterans mangled in the AfRaq wars. More importantly
US citizens need to realize that wars cost money unless you seize treasure
from the conquered like the Romans did.

republicans the party of the wealthy. unfortunately i am not part of
their selected favored group


You just got to love how they get poor people to vote against their
self-interest. It's always amazed me. It's the political miracle of the
last 30 years. I wish I had a nickel for every senior I've heard say "I
want smaller, cheaper government but don't you dare touch my SS or my
Medicare. And don't forget to fence the Mexicans out. And don't forget to
kill Islamic terrorists. And Somali pirates. And don't forget to catch all
the hackers. And keep bombs off planes. And seize illegal drugs entering
the country. Someone has to pay for all those things.

--
Bobby G.


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default To create more jobs...

Robert Green wrote:

Neither. But several congress-critters report they hear "I'd hire
more people, but I don't know what the government will require of me
next year."


That's what their controllers PAY them to say. It's called
astro-turfing. Corporate shills paid to express their handlers
opinions as if they were really their own.


Oh.

I didn't know that.

Thanks for the heads-up.


  #39   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default To create more jobs...

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

I'm not (an electrician.) Where did you get that notion?


You like to play one on usenet. My mistake.


I have never claimed to be an electrician.
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default To create more jobs...

On Jul 29, 4:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

The question is more like "don't you EVER stop drinking?" *As for the
WSJ they've certainly slid downhill like a ton of loose gravel since
Rupert "I'll tap your phone" Murdoch took over. *It's interesting to
see how far they are bending over backwards to try to avoid saying
anything bad about their phone hacking boss.


Hacking into the phone of a young murder victim and leading police to
believe she was still alive is apparently where that line is drawn.
Too bad for Rupe that he's standing on the other side of it. *I
personally believe he bought the WSJ simple to do stock-touting on a
scale that's never been seen before. *I suspect as he tries to throw
his subordinates under the bus, even more dirty laundy will be
showing up the News Corpse. *So funny to watch guys renowned for
micro management say "yes, I signed that huge settlement check but I
didn't know why." *Arf, arf.


NewsCorp took over DowJones (including the WSJ) in late 2007. The WSJ is now
the nation's largest circulation newspaper with over 2 million subscribers
(USA Today has about 1.2 million and the NY Times about 950,000).

As to the WSJ being a shill for Murdoch, their reporting doesn't seem to
bear out that claim:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57645422429362...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...28-707459.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57642942303768...

And many, similar, stories covering the issue.


The wall between reporting and editing at WSJ remains in better shape
than in most large metropolitan newspapers, where you don't know where
the hell what you're reading comes from. If you read just the
editorial pages of the WSJ you are back in the 18th century, if not
earlier. But other parts of the paper still have good reporting, and
most wonderful of all, good writing and editing!
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
agentur fuer arbeit jobs im ausland , jobs ins ausland , jobs insausland , stellen ausland , arbeiten im ausland russland , Koch Koechin ,karriere ausland , herbert gruen Woodworking 0 December 1st 09 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"