Amtrak Officials Object to Use of "Train Wreck" Metaphor to Describe Obamacare

WASHINGTON--At a news conference Friday, an Amtrak spokesman explained that numerous railroad employees, including both senior management and rank-and-file staff, took offense at the continuing usage of the metaphor "train wreck" to describe the failings of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) website.

"Look," said Amtrak spokesman David Walcott, "we here at Amtrak know a thing or two about train wrecks.  And using that term to describe the ACA website is just insulting to Amtrak.  Even our worst disasters pale in comparison to the complete debacle that is the Obamacare internet portal."

Engineer Mick Gessel, 57, concurred.  "I've been with Amtrak for over twenty-five years, so believe me, I'm no stranger to railway catastrophes.  I've even helped picked up toes at a couple of crash sites.  But none of that can hold a candle to what is happening with healthcare.gov."

Obama administration officials, too, derided the use of the "train wreck" metaphor.  "We don't feel that the website rollout is a train wreck, at all," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.  Carney, however, declined to answer when asked what lethally catastrophic failure--space shuttle explosion, nuclear plant meltdown, avalanche--could serve as a more apt description of Obamacare.

In other news, an Amtrak Obamacare outside Pittsburgh claimed the lives of 37 people early Saturday morning.  Toes were strewn over a five mile area.

Drug Legislation Abuse

If I go to a doctor because I'm in pain, and the doctor believes that I need a prescription medication to alleviate that pain, how hard should it be to get that prescription filled?  Pretty hard, apparently, if the FDA gets its way.  According to an article in today's Times, the Food and Drug Administration, in response to an increase in the number of deaths traced to prescription drug abuse, has recommended new restrictions on hydrocodone, the active ingredient in drugs like Vicodin.  Some pharmacists and patients rights groups are concerned about the proposal.

Modern society has a strange relationship to medication: On the one hand, there seem to be pills for everything, from wonder drugs that cure horrific diseases to modern-day snake oil cures for diseases that didn't seem to exist before the "cures" came along (Restless legs syndrome? Insufficient eyelashes?).  But when it comes to something as seemingly uncontroversial as pills that alleviate basic human suffering--pain--we tend to become uneasy.  It's not just prescription drugs, either, of course: The essential effect of so many of the drugs outlawed by "enlightened"" society--marijuana, heroin--is nothing more insidious than the alleviation of pain.  This is not meant as an endorsement of these drugs--although I personally believe in decriminalization of pretty much all narcotics--but merely an observation that in this highly medicated society, we seem uneasy when it comes to drugs that do nothing more than make people feel good.

Maybe that's the problem, though.  We have no major problem with drugs that cure diseases, because we usually have some objective proof that (A) the condition exists and (B) that the drug has cured it.  "Pain," on the other hand is intangible; it is, quite literally, all in your head.  This is not to say that it is not real to the sufferer--simply that there is no objective way to verify that it exists or how bad it is.  And for some reason, we as a society have seen fit to regulate the amount of pain relief to which people are entitled--even if a doctor agrees that such relief is needed.

Certainly, if people are abusing prescription drugs to a lethal extent, there is a problem.  But I don't think a government agency dictating the way that trained medical professionals dispense necessary medication is the right response.  I imagine most doctors are as concerned about drug abuse as your average government bureaucrat.  Let them be the ones to determine what is appropriate.

The Daily Outrage

During a prenatal exam, a Wisconsin woman divulged that she suffered from an addiction to painkillers, but that she had successfully kicked the habit and was no longer using.  Subsequent drug tests confirmed that she was, in fact, drug free.  Nevertheless, she opened her door one day to find a group of county sheriffs, who promptly took her into custody under a Wisconsin law that allows "child-welfare authorities [to] forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs or alcohol 'to a severe degree,' and who refuses to accept treatment."  Never mind the fact that, in this case at least, the woman had no apparent need for treatment.

Now, I'm all for the protection of fetuses--to an extent.  I can sympathize with those who would want to make it a crime for a pregnant woman to use illegal drugs.  But I would point out to those folks that there's really no need to do that, as using illegal drugs is already. . . what's the technical term?  Ah, yes: ILLEGAL!  On the other hand, I cannot see how punishing a woman who comes to a prenatal exam and provides an honest and accurate medical history--who wants, in other words, to make sure that her fetus develops healthily--advances anyone's interest in child welfare.

Furthermore, I am sick and tired of these right-wing lunatics who claim that unborn children must be protected at all costs, but then turn around and condemn poor people--many of whom have actual BORN children at home--as moochers.  In fact, in the spirit of compromising with morons, I have a modest proposal: You want to punish pregnant women who abuse drugs or alcohol for endangering "children"?  Fine.  But.  You must, then, ensure that every pregnant woman has enough to eat and a secure place to live--in fact, let's put all pregnant women up in nice hotels.  Not necessarily the Four Seasons, but, you know, a nice Sheraton, at least.  Seems fair to me.

An Academic Manager's Lot Is Not a Happy One

Managers deal with complaints.  It goes with the territory.  I am a manager--of sorts--and I am no exception.  I frequently have to handle complaints, primarily complaints lodged by students against faculty members or tutors or staff.  This is probably the single most difficult part of my job--almost never satisfying and frequently exasperating.

The main problem is I am never exactly sure what I am supposed to do when a student complains--particularly if she's complaining about a faculty member.  It's never cut and dried, you see.  Well, almost never: I mean if a student complains that an instructor, say, stripped down to his underwear and engaged in simulated sex acts with a piece of canteloupe--well, then I can pretty safely and decisively take action, or at the very least acknowledge that, yes, the instructor acted improperly.  (Unless it was a particularly attractive canteloupe, a possible mitigating factor.)  But circumstances are rarely so clear.

Typically, students complain that instructors (or tutors or staff members) were "rude" to them, or disrespectful, or unfair.  Students might complain that a teacher "isn't teaching them anything."  The problem, of course, is that the only evidence they offer for this is that they "haven't learned anything."  Sort of a chicken-egg scenario at best, you know?  And academia is not retail: The customer is not always right.  Seriously, just look at the test results!  I'm often happy if the "customers" are "right" just enough to earn a 'C.'  Kidding aside, though, most of the complaints I deal with revolve around he-said-she-said situations and/or subjective feelings.  The teacher isn't clear; I deserved a higher grade; that tutor has an "attitude."  What is a manager to do?

Years ago, I dealt with a student's complaint in precisely the wrong way: I tried to reason with him.  I was working as an office manager in a college departmental office.  A student came to see me because he wanted to file a complaint against his teacher for giving him a "bad" grade.  The grade she assigned?  A 'B.'  I pointed out to the student that a 'B' was hardly a bad grade--that, indeed, by definition a 'B' meant that the student had done "good work."  The student felt that he had done 'A' work--not because he had ever earned an 'A' on his assignments, but simply because he felt his work had been excellent.  I pointed out that he could certainly protest the grade (and I should have stopped there), but that it would be difficult if not impossible to prove that his work was "excellent" as opposed to just "quite good."  Things escalated, and we both ended up yelling at each other.  Nothing more came of it, but--well, this was about twenty years ago, and I STILL feel somewhat stymied by the whole customer-relations/complaint-resolution aspect of the academic-manager job.

I know now how to handle complaints, of course.  I do all the proper interpersonal-relations stuff: I listen, I reflect back what the speaker is saying, I try to put myself in the other person's shoes, I am calm but firm in my replies.  But in the end, I almost always find myself wrestling with a fundamental question: What am I supposed to do about this?  Again, if what a student describes is a violation of the law or school policies, I can follow up with the instructor--I must follow up with the instructor.  But if what's being described is purely subjective?  Is it worth following up on?  Will this simply make the instructor (or whoever) feel defensive?  Will it just make the situation worse?  And of course, as an educator, I also feel obligated to help the students make sense of the experience--to look critically at their own role in the situation and to help them identify ways that they could handle future situations better.  The customer is not always right, indeed.

Training Day

Today, we received training on our new telephone system!

I'm glad we can finally get rid of those old Roman-numeral keypads.  No more dialing ix for an outside line!

If They Ever Discover Real Football, It's Over

Brazilians, according to a feature article in today's Times, are fanatical about soccer.  I, for one, am grateful.  Why?  Because with one of the world's fastest-growing economies, an appealing climate, and a population of beautiful people who, if popular imagery is any guide, like to run around largely naked for no good reason, Brazil is almost inconceivably awesome.  I imagine that only its people's devotion to this lamest of sports keeps the nation from floating off into some heavenly realm, inhabited only by seraphim and cherubim.  Thank you, Brazil.