Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
To create more jobs...
|
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
To create more jobs...
In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article , (Doug Miller) wrote: 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. No, you sue him, which costs you attorney fees, he loses, the judge orders him to pay you, and he doesn't. It's quite convenient for you that you're an electrician, and I'm not. Where did you get that notion? electricity is theoretically dangerous. I suppose you'd advocate for unlicensed plumbers, painters, roofers, A/C techs, etc. ad infinitum though. What I'd advocate is the abolition of laws that prohibit unlicensed tradesmen from practicing their trade -- leave it up to the consumer to decide whether he wishes to hire a licensed (and hence presumably competent) tradesman, or an unlicensed (and possibly incompetent) one -- as long as incompetent performance of said trade does not pose a danger to public health or safety. |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. But did he stay in a Holiday Inn Express, last night? ALWAYS the controlling variable (grin0 -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
agentur fuer arbeit jobs im ausland , jobs ins ausland , jobs insausland , stellen ausland , arbeiten im ausland russland , Koch Koechin ,karriere ausland , | Woodworking |