When troubleshooting a problem, one must first ascertain the dilemma and give a proper diagnosis before trying to find a solution. In the case of live audio, we rely upon our experience to enable us to locate and resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
For example, if one frequency or another starts to take off during a show, we need to be able to identify the frequency and then locate the source of generation. If we cannot diagnose either the frequency or point of generation of said frequency, then pandemonium will ensue. If one can accurately diagnose the problem, but doesn't know how to properly resolve it, chaos will, once again, rule the moment.
At this point, if one should find their show in such disarray, they most likely will be inundated with solutions yelled at them by the band, the manager, their crew, other audio engineers and anyone else who is being subjected to the abrasive disruption of the show.
Most of the solutions being yelled at the engineer in question would most likely be emanating from a place of anger and dismay rather than a true understanding of the situation. Therefore, these elucidations become a din of irate background noises that further confuse the issue and postpone a resolution to the problem.
Don't Confuse the Issues!
The problem is properly resolved when a knowledgeable person manages to identify the troublesome frequency, locate the point from which the frequency is being generated and employs the proper to tool to diminish the offensive sound. Possibly, if this is a reoccurring issue, changes need to be made to the system itself, or the personnel responsible for maintaining and operating the system. This requires that all the people involved with the system get together and assess the changes that are needed and once again, "Don't confuse the issues!"
The question then becomes: Is the system the correct system for its intended use, and are the personnel involved qualified to oversee the system? If the conversation breaks down into a barrage of accusations about bad management, the style of music, the lack of musical talent, not enough time for setup and sound check, who should be paid more or who should be in charge, then the issues are being confused and – while all these subject matters may be important and need to be addressed – they do not pertain to the question at hand and only serve to complicate and obfuscate the real problem.
From Audio to Health Care
Now, if you would, take a giant step with me and envision the above vignette as an allegory regarding the recent (and ongoing) dispute regarding health care. Not that our small audio problems are on par with the health care debate, but it often helps me to sort out these super-sized issues by imagining something I can actually deal with rather than trying to tackle and subdue some huge beastly concept with a multitude of issues.
This host of issues regarding the healthcare bill that has been so boisterously maligned by certain radio and television personalities ranges from it being:
A Socialist takeover
Anti-constitutional
A way for the Federal government to support abortion
A way for the President to redistribute the wealth
A way for death panels to decide the value of an injured or seriously ill person in regard to the care they might or might not receive.
A Scotch-fueled Debate
Just give me a nice bottle of single malt Scotch and a willing partner, and I would love to debate each and every one of these points into the wee hours of the morning. Of course no solution would be resolved, and by the end of the debate, fueled by the Scotch and our own personal fervor, we would be yelling at each other such intellectual truths as,
"Oh Yeah?"
"Yeah!"
"Says who?"
"Says me, that's who!"
"You're a traitor to our country."
"You're a Nazi pig!"
"F*%k you, I can sing the whole National Anthem standing on my head!"
"That's easy; I can sing the National Anthem while standing on your head too, dipstick!"
"Try it!"
"Why don't you try singing it without any teeth?"
As you can see, confusing the issues brings no resolve to the healthcare debate, other than the two participants finding out just how much coverage they will or will not have at the conclusion of said discussion.
The Real Issue: Money
While it may be a noble ideal to make sure that everyone in the country has insurance, I would venture to say that the real issue in question is, as always, money. According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey from 2008, there were 46.3 million Americans, or 15.4 percent, who were uninsured.
The numbers tend to fluctuate a bit, but despite all the angst and anger regarding a Socialist movement, the truth is that it is extremely expensive to support the uninsured, and often, the costs of treating the uninsured must be absorbed by providers as charity care passed onto the insured via cost-shifting – a means by which one group ends up paying more to cover for another group's costs – either by higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.
Charity care is free or reduced cost health care provided to uninsured patients. For example, anyone who visits the emergency room and cannot pay their bill is considered to be charity care, and these costs are enormous – often running into billions of dollars – over half of which is absorbed by the Federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
"Million Dollar Murray"
What the Dog Saw is a book of compiled articles written by Malcolm Gladwell, and in the book, there is one piece in particular that caught my attention. It's titled "Million Dollar Murray," with the subtitle, "Why problems like homelessness may be easier to solve than to manage." It follows the path of a chronically homeless man who drinks to excess; falls down in the street; then requires the police and emergency service to come and take him to the hospital where he stays until sober (and patched up), before being taken off to jail. When he is finally released and set free on the streets the cycle starts again. These chronically homeless men – Murray was just one of them – racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and municipal fees each year.
Philip Mangano was appointed by President Bush in 2002 to head the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and, in short, his plan to solve the homeless problem included giving a free apartment to these chronically homeless men, give them a group of caseworkers to oversee them as well as giving them the medications that they might need, with the goal being to stabilize them enough to the point of getting a job and actually contributing to their own upkeep. In the case of certain homeless men, the program worked while they were still under supervision, and all in all, the cost of giving them an apartment and providing them with care came to about a third of the medical and municipal costs they incurred while on the street.
Focus on the Concern
The homeless problem, as with the healthcare problem, is accompanied by many issues; not the least of them being moral outrage that some bum should be given a free ride while those who work hard for a living can't get an even break. Sound familiar?
Regardless, let's identify and define the concern, and then attack it, without confounding ourselves with every intellectual and emotional detour possible.
In regard to healthcare, despite the fear of Socialism, Federalism, abortionists, higher taxes and death panels, please keep an eye on the bottom line, as it may be cheaper for all of us to invest money into healthcare and solve the problem rather than merely managing the problem. The topics are valid and should be debated and discussed, just don't confuse the issues!
