6 Questions to Think About While Flossing
I guess, in a lot of ways, I like speakers to headphones. I am winding my watch, though it does not need it, it is digital. But I wind, because it makes me think of Thanksgiving, and days of yore, and my pony Willie Boy. I think that sometimes, it is simply enough to say thank you, and to feel good about it. But more than that, it is really enough to own a rowboat and enough lipbalm for a weekend trip to Scottsdale.
- Do you have a sense of your death? Not in a morbid sense, but in a real sort of time is limited sort of way? I was thinking about it, because I was watching a West Wing episode and a scene between Stockard Channing and Martin Sheen was particularly moving.
- Do you think the Mike Morrissey situation is ever going to amount to anything? I feel that this is an area where we might just see the infamous circling of the wagons. I have often been critical of our fair city for not being transparent enough, and maybe that is our fault for not looking, but I wonder. I wonder how this all works? If the city denies the claim of this Jasurda person, then what happens? And what about the Van De Yacht thing hot on its heels? Tough time to be a the City Attorney, lots to do.
- What is your favorite place to read? I like my chair, because the dog is not interested in my reading in bed.
- I am a movie guy. I am getting a sense that movies are getting a bit more narrative intense now, and less Jerry Bruckheimer. Do you like this trend?
- What are you doing this weekend?
- Do you take notes throughout the day in pen or pencil? Do you have a paper calendar, a digital one, an online one?
timothyp said:
1. As I climb into Senior Citizenhood (hard to believe that I can get a Senior Citizen discount on gas in 3 1/2 years) it becomes a bit of life I ponder more than I ever had.
The words to “Like a Rolling Stone” by Dylan became more meaningful to me, I do less long time planning for my life and smaller details of life become a bit more important, especially when it comes to friendships.
I find myself giving money to homeless people without any thought to feeling better about myself than feeling better for them because that 10-20 bucks might feed them for a day or two. When I did it before, I probably did it more for my own ego and I found that to be selfish and rather cold as I grow older.
I will die. Fact of life. I’d just like to postpone it as long as possible….. hmmmm …note to self….. QUIT SMOKING!
2. With the Morrissey situation, is this fellow worth keeping in public office when he cannot control both his own ethics and/or those of his suboordinents (sic)? He isn’t an elected officer, is he? If not, maybe a time for a change no matter how good a job he did in the past, sorry to say. I always cringe a bit when I hear someone is losing their employment but in this case it may be warranted. As far as the Van de Yacht problem, the city more than likely will have to bite the bullet on that one I think.
3. In bed…absolutely. I either have to read or do a crossword puzzle every night or I cannot fall asleep.
4. Very seldom watch movies.
5. I have Saturday (today) off work …. finally. I will probably do nothing but lay around the house, maybe do a bit of packing seeing I am moving June 1st. Anyone know of any available apartments downtown?
6. I take no notes, have a journal, calendar or most times even wear a watch.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:55 pm #
Alex said:
Concept of using quotes in questions to make it easier for future readers ‘borrowed’ from Tom Neal in a ‘why didn’t I think of that moment’.
1. “…death…”
I think about it a lot. I have things to accomplish first.
2. “…Morrissey … Attorney…”
It’s all blah blah blah to me. I am sure it is important to those that follow/live the story.
3. “…favorite place to read …”
On the couch in front of my laptop.
4. “… movie …”
I am a movie ‘aholic, but not in the traditional sense. I like the narrative style, the world needs the next “Stand By Me”.
5. “…weekend…”
You’re getting an inside view right now.
6. “…notes…”
Not a note kind of guy. I have an interactive calendar on my laptop.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm #
sistergreen said:
1. I have just discovered the West Wing and I am now in love. I do sense my own mortality, I have always told people I don’t see myself reaching 40. However now that 40’s getting closer maybe its going to be 50.
2. I don’t believe anything will come of the Mike Morrissey situation because I trust and believe in Mike. He is a friend of mine and a great person. I am totally biased but Mike Morrissey was on list by Carl Kluz of city staff that were supposed to be fired when Tipple was elected. Along with Bill Nagle, the late John Hess, and Mary Anne Groat. Nothing will become of the Van De Yacht matter because she is a joke and the whole thing is a joke. I am challening the city to take this to trial, Do not settle.
3. I read in bed most of the time but I have begun to read in the living room in front of the tv.
4. Besides Juno I haven’t seen a good movie in the last couple years. Maybe I’m biased but unless its on AMC or TCM its a crappy movie.
5. Went out for fish last night, watching Arrested Development DVD’s tonight. Tomorrow will consist of reading the paper and watching Rock of Love on VH1.
6. I don’t take any notes so I guess that’s why I am so unorganized.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm #
oldwoodchair said:
1. My sense of mortality hit several years back when my mother-in-law passed away…and then my dad…and then my father-in-law. I’ve seen the process of life and am closer to the end of it than to the beginning. That knowledge and the lessons associated with it make every moment sweet and every trouble small.
2. Dino, you want transparency?…what is NOT transparent? A government entity is, by law, under specific strictures that dictate records, information, and actions…all the while dealing with confidentiality laws. What information would you like that they have not given out? Have you asked for that information and been denied? Do you believe everything you read in the Herald???
sistergreen (above) summed it up. I, too, know Mike…I appreciate the tremendous things he’s done for this city, and the awesome person that he is. The thing that rankles me most about this and the VanDeYacht suit is that just because there are accusations doesn’t mean they are accurate or truthful. And why doesn’t the city pipe up to defend itself?…because the public finds too much enjoyment in believing the worst…there is little fun in the facts. (The Daily Herald blogs prove that!)
I’m not sure who said this, but it’s true… “I’ve learned that it takes years to build up trust, and it only takes suspicion, not proof, to destroy it.” What a shame.
3. Bed…I read to the dog.
4. Not much patience to sit through an entire movie…haven’t found one worth it in a long time.
5. Granddaughter’s sleeping over tonight…took her to Angelo’s for dinner and have been coloring and building towers all evening. And trying to keep her from watching Sponge Bob.
6. Always use pen…I have no commitment issues. Computer calendar with paper back-up in case all the computers in the world crash suddenly and we revert back to the dark ages.
6.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
My thoughts on transparency, as it relates to this situation is this…what IS happening?
We have a civic leader, on leave.
We have the county officially refusing to do the investigation.
Who will do said investigation?
Given the amount of information in the public, with the release of the SMS bills from both Fish and Morrissey, this leads to very little.
The use of SMS is part of some peoples daily lives. The FCC has approved the use of an SMS system similar to EAS.
My issue is this, what IS happening?
Without a public dialogue, it is fair to have this question.
I too have met Mike. I think that the city has grown under his offices work. But no one is above this sort of thing.
The Van DeYacht thing apparently is an issue, and we have the document now, and will put it up on Sunday once we verify some of the things in it.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:29 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
1. Definitely have a sense of mortality and the temporary nature of things.
2. Regarding the issues surrounding the Community Development office and the Authority, this too shall pass. Unsettling as it is, there is actually a positive aspect of having some people think the worst — unfair as that is. It is that it tends to build a base of support for the eventual solutions.
In both cases cited, some of the claims are demonstrably false, in my view. Other aspects may well indicate the need for process changes and some have already been made, though they did not necessarily amount to wrongdoing. Others have incomplete information to support them and it is impossible to make a reasoned judgement based on only one, inherently biased side of the story.
For all of the individuals involved, their positive contributions are now, unfortunately, more or less overshadowed by the events and allegations about them. In personnel matters and in matters of litigation, those representing the interests of the city are handicapped in their ability to discuss these things because doing so can well be contrary to the interests of the taxpayers. It will play out. If there is one thing that serving in public office has taught me, it is patience — but learning it hasn’t given me any ability to teach it.
3. I have a reading chair, which doubles as a sleeping chair. These things may or may not be related, depending on what I’m reading.
5. Taxes, moving snow, making chili, family time.
6. Digital calendars are indispensible because that MAKE you look at them with automated reminders and they also provide the opportunity for a more complete record after the fact.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:51 am #
Dino Corvino said:
I agree with you James. I think this shall pass, and not much will be made of it.
But, as someone who has no sense of claims such as this, I ask what is happening?
What is the process?
I have said before that I could care less about Fish and Morrissey and if they are dating, only if it impacts the work.
I am glad your here to talk about it.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
I’ll talk about the process of claims in a general sense. When someone files a claim against the city, it is evaluated by the insurance carrier, who will make a recommendation for approval or denial based on the facts as they are known. Most claims are denied or the waiting period expires, which constitutes a denial. At that point, the person filing the claim is free to file a lawsuit. In short, the ball ends up in the unsuccessful claimant’s court after a denial and that is almost always where the burden of proof will reside. Actual lawsuits following denial of claims are not at all a routine occurrence.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm #
rockerchick said:
1. Yep, you bet. My grandmother passed away last week, so mortality is a poignant issue to me right now.
2. Nope.
3. I read in bed.
4. Narrative movies are okay.
5. My band played out this past Saturday night.
6. Pen. Always pen. Paper calendar and I use the tickler on my cell to help me remember stuff.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am #
Dino Corvino said:
Jim,
Since no one will ask the obvious question I will. In the situation you outlined, what is the motivation for the Insurance company of anyone to say they will pay? I would make the claim that it does not benefit anyone to put that out there, to write that check.
It benefits an insurance company to be an advocate for the insured, to deny claims, and to force litigation. Thereby driving people out of the making claims business.
Clearly those unable to afford representation, are going to be excluded from this process.
In this case though, it seems a bit absurd that the people who are being in many ways accused of wrong doing, are doing the evaluation of the claim.
This system, while I am sure is the system in place, seems horribly flawed to me.
I also take issue with the word unsuccessful. Clearly, the isnurance company should act in its own best interest, and deny the claim. But it appears the field of play is uneven, and as such, one cannot truly be successful at all in this early step.
I make no assumptions about this claim, but rather in the system that you describe.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
You can replace the word “unsuccessful” with whatever you want to, but it accurately describes the outcome at that stage, doesn’t it? Further, there is the possibility that a particular claim might be approved, based on the merit. Some are — and some of these may never come to the city council at all.
But you need to understand that claims against the city are a constant occurrence. People slip on sidewalks. They hit potholes and need work on their cars. They strike rocks with their lawnmowers while mowing the boulevard, which is city property, etc. In many cases, muncipal liability is capped and in many others, people may be operating largely at their own risk. In all cases, the city needs to manage its own risks. Part of the way that we do that is with insurance and with the expert counsel that such policies entail.
It is in the city’s (taxpayers’) interest to act fairly, while limiting financial exposure to what is required by the law. Insurance companies are in the business of understanding and managing risk. If the city is acting with impunity, then an enterprising trial lawyer might well want to take such a case.
What alternative system are you proposing? Are you suggesting we write checks out of the city’s general fund because we don’t agree with the insurance carrier’s judgement, so we should prefer to just accept liability on our own? Make it a political decision instead of one for the lawyers? I disagree.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:46 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
Jim,
I am not suggesting any such thing as writing checks out of the general fund.
But I find it dubious that the first line of evaluation of something like this is in fact the very people who would write the check.
The City’s insurance carrier is not in the business of writing checks to person A, and has its best interest in mind in denying every claim.
What if person A cannot hire a lawyer?
I understand that this is in fact the system, but it is a flaw to think that the insurance company will do anything other than write a check to someone if they do not have to. In this case, in the situation you describe, they do not have to. Ever.
They have the ability as the arbiters of any case to say no. Then it is the bringer of said allegations responsibility and expense to get a lawyer willing to bring a suit against the city.
If I am proposing anything, I propose that the validity of a case, any case, not be decided by the people the case is being made against. In this case, the city’s insurance company, acting as an advocate for the city and its taxpayers.
What oversight is there in this? Why should the Insurance company in all cases say no.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
How is it different than if you get into a car accident and someone tries to sue you, with the exception of the exercise of filing a notice of claim prior to commencing with a lawsuit and exchanging offers of settlement? And would you not expect YOUR insurance company to either defend or pay the claim? It’s the same thing. Most of these things are settled short of court. If the facts and the law aren’t on the side of the claimant to begin with, then it’s a very steep hill to climb — and it darn well should be.
A number of years back, before I was on city council, a city vehicle hit and damaged my legally parked car on a city street. I filed a claim and it was paid. Legitimate claims are paid. On the other hand, claims that aren’t likely to stand up when the facts are weighed against the law are not.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t magically end at the steps of city hall. People don’t just get to make claims and prevail without due process — any more than you should be charged with a crime and jailed or sued for damages and be required to pay without a trial.
People making claims against the city are essentially expecting everyone in the city to share in paying them; either outright or via insurance premiums that reflect the comparative risk. Do you want a system in which your government rolls over and doesn’t demand that every penny paid under such circumstances is not totally justified? I don’t. I want claims paid in the correct amount when they are justified. I want them to be refused and defended when they are not. And to the greatest extent that it is possible, I don’t want it to be a political decision.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
You invoke due process? Where is said due process when this is system built on the person bringing suit is asking the person who is liable(they are cutting the check) to pay them.
This is a spreadsheet. How much does it cost to pay off, versus how much will it cost to defend? If it is more to defend then to pay off, pay off. If they can outlast the bringer of the action, then they go to court.
I want the same thing you want Jim. But I do not feel the insurance company should be the one to evaluate that claim, and decide if it goes further.
Your asking me to accept that the insurance company will act fairly. the insurance companies have been proven to not be on the side of fairness, but rather profit.
Just because they are the cities insurance, versus my car insurance does not make it less so.
They should not be the ones to decide the veracity of the claim. They are in no position of objectiveness.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
Our legal system is adversarial by its nature and we don’t have Solomon waiting around to decide all of these things for us. So propose your alternative process for resolving these things. Don’t forget that claimants can say just about anything that they want to and they sometimes do. They aren’t the only people who need protection of their rights and property. Everyone does.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
I understand that Jim.
But in the case of someone bringing a suit against the city. Which is what this is if I understand it.
Person A makes a claim AGAINST the city. The City sits back, and allows the Insurance company to decide what to do.
The Insurance company is in the case described, the group that would be paying.
So we are asking someone who is going to be losing money in a situation to be objective.
An advocate for something, cannot be an objective judge in a claim against it.
I am a Yankee fan. Lets go a step further. Lets say I am a person who works in the Yankees front office.
Someone seeks to do harm to my club (a lawsuit in this metaphor, costing thousands of dollars).
I work for the Yankees,am I going to be objective, and decide that those people seeking to harm my club are doing so fairly?
I could care less about this VDY thing, but without that, without that situation, the idea of a cities insurance company acting as a fair and objecitve decider of claims is a bit absurd.
If you want me to propose something, then how about this…I propose that claimants be allowed to go to a lawsuit directly, and not have to be judged by the advocate for the defendant.
And we do have Solomon wiating around. We call them judges.
Your system has eliminated the judge. You expect me to believe that without going to court, an insurance company is going to act against its own interest, and give money away.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm #
Jim Rosenberg said:
An insurance company will evaluate its position (and the city’s) in relation to the law. If that situation is vulnerable, then it will seek a settlement rather than risk a more adverse outcome with a weak case in court.
Our justice system is not perfect, but it may be the best that we can do at this point in time, given the competing interests that are in play and the need to accommodate them. (Likewise, our legislative process and our executive branches of government are imperfect, with strengths and weaknesses.)
What you haven’t convinced me of is the need to tilt the field to be more in favor of plaintiffs in this equation.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
I am not going to. I am not trying to.
I am simply posing the question, is it fair that the insurance company, the company that would be accepting said liability, be teh evaluator of a claim?
I do not.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:38 pm #
Barry Liss said:
I don’t floss…I bought one of those waterpics - it’s kind of cumbersome but it doesn’t hurt as much…
April 15th, 2008 at 5:38 am #
janeal said:
1. I am constantly aware of my own mortality. Especially now that I am an “adult orphan.”
2. I fear a sweeping under the rug.
3. I read in bed. I feel guilty if I read at any other time, always the sense that I should be doing something else. I listen to books on tape when I commute.
4. Everything is cyclical.
5. thinking of going to check out the Filmor.
6. I only take notes when I am overwhelmed. Keep a calendar on my wall, and one on my computer
April 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am #