(click on image to enlarge)Via Feingut.de
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama Time Capsule...
TW: As you know we are always on the lookout for gratuitous, over the top Obama-philia. This one certainly qualifies, am strongly considering acquiring multiple copies for various in-laws...
http://www.theobamatimecapsule.com/
http://www.theobamatimecapsule.com/
Dutch Model: Healthcare
TW: Russell Shorto (btw he wrote "Island at the Center of the World", great book on the very early years of Manhattan 1600-1700) wrote a long piece for NYT about life in Holland where he is apparently camped out for awhile. He compared many aspects about life here v. there, health care was one.
A key attribute of the Dutch system is one I favor- a core insurance scheme for everyone with a system that allows individuals supplement with more expensive and sophisticated coverage as they wish. Society cannot provide a Mercedes to everyone, our current system tends to be a mishmash of VW bugs, Cadillacs, beat-up Chevys and the occasional Porsche.
From Russell Shorto at NYT:
"...The Dutch health care system was drastically revamped in 2006, and its new incarnation has come in for a lot of international scrutiny...The old system involved a vast patchwork of insurers and depended on heavy government regulation to keep costs down. Hoogervorst — a conservative economist and devout believer in the powers of the free market — wanted to streamline and privatize the system, to offer consumers their choice of insurers and plans but also to ensure that certain conditions were maintained via regulation and oversight. It is illegal in the current system for an insurance company to refuse to accept a client, or to charge more for a client based on age or health. Where in the United States insurance companies try to wriggle out of covering chronically ill patients, in the Dutch system the government oversees a fund from which insurers that take on more high-cost clients can be compensated. It seems to work. A study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 54 percent of chronically ill patients in the United States avoided some form of medical attention in 2008 because of costs, while only 7 percent of chronically ill people in the Netherlands did so for financial reasons.
The Dutch are free-marketers, but they also have a keen sense of fairness. As Hoogervorst noted, “The average Dutch person finds it completely unacceptable that people with more money would get better health care.” The solution to balancing these opposing tendencies was to have one guaranteed base level of coverage in the new health scheme, to which people can add supplemental coverage that they pay extra for. Each insurance company offers its own packages of supplements.
Nobody thinks the Dutch health care system is perfect. Many people complain that the new insurance costs more than the old. “That’s true, but that’s because the old system just didn’t charge enough, so society ended up paying for it in other ways,” said Anais Rubingh, who works as a general practitioner in Amsterdam. The complaint I hear from some expat Americans is that while the Dutch system covers everyone, and does a good job with broken bones and ruptured appendixes, it falls behind American care when it comes to conditions that involve complicated procedures. Hoogervorst acknowledged this — to a point. “There is no doubt the U.S. has the best medical care in the world — for those who can pay the top prices,” he said. “I’m sure the top 5 percent of hospitals there are better than the top 5 percent here. But with that exception, I would say overall quality is the same in the two countries.”
Indeed, my nonscientific analysis — culled from my own experience and that of other expats whom I’ve badgered — translates into a clear endorsement. My friend Colin Campbell, an American writer, has been in the Netherlands for four years with his wife and their two children. “Over the course of four years, four human beings end up going to a lot of different doctors,” he said. “The amazing thing is that virtually every experience has been more pleasant than in the U.S. There you have the bureaucracy, the endless forms, the fear of malpractice suits. Here you just go in and see your doctor. It shows that it doesn’t have to be complicated. I wish every single U.S. congressman could come to Amsterdam and live here for a while and see what happens medically.”
I’ve found that many differences between the American and Dutch systems are more cultural than anything else. The Dutch system has a more old-fashioned, personal feel. Nearly all G.P.’s in the country make house calls to infirm or elderly patients. My G.P., like many others, devotes one hour per day to walk-in visits. But as an American who has been freelance most of his career, I find that the outrageously significant difference between the two systems is the cost. In the United States, for a family of four, I paid about $1,400 a month for a policy that didn’t include dental care and was so filled with co-pays, deductibles and exceptions that I routinely found myself replaying in my mind the Monty Python skit in which the man complains about his insurance claim and the agent says, “In your policy it states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.” A similar Dutch policy, by contrast, cost 300 euros a month (about $390), with no co-pays, and included dental coverage; about 90 percent of the cost of my daughter’s braces was covered..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=russell%20shorto%20dutch&st=cse&scp=1
A key attribute of the Dutch system is one I favor- a core insurance scheme for everyone with a system that allows individuals supplement with more expensive and sophisticated coverage as they wish. Society cannot provide a Mercedes to everyone, our current system tends to be a mishmash of VW bugs, Cadillacs, beat-up Chevys and the occasional Porsche.
From Russell Shorto at NYT:
"...The Dutch health care system was drastically revamped in 2006, and its new incarnation has come in for a lot of international scrutiny...The old system involved a vast patchwork of insurers and depended on heavy government regulation to keep costs down. Hoogervorst — a conservative economist and devout believer in the powers of the free market — wanted to streamline and privatize the system, to offer consumers their choice of insurers and plans but also to ensure that certain conditions were maintained via regulation and oversight. It is illegal in the current system for an insurance company to refuse to accept a client, or to charge more for a client based on age or health. Where in the United States insurance companies try to wriggle out of covering chronically ill patients, in the Dutch system the government oversees a fund from which insurers that take on more high-cost clients can be compensated. It seems to work. A study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 54 percent of chronically ill patients in the United States avoided some form of medical attention in 2008 because of costs, while only 7 percent of chronically ill people in the Netherlands did so for financial reasons.
The Dutch are free-marketers, but they also have a keen sense of fairness. As Hoogervorst noted, “The average Dutch person finds it completely unacceptable that people with more money would get better health care.” The solution to balancing these opposing tendencies was to have one guaranteed base level of coverage in the new health scheme, to which people can add supplemental coverage that they pay extra for. Each insurance company offers its own packages of supplements.
Nobody thinks the Dutch health care system is perfect. Many people complain that the new insurance costs more than the old. “That’s true, but that’s because the old system just didn’t charge enough, so society ended up paying for it in other ways,” said Anais Rubingh, who works as a general practitioner in Amsterdam. The complaint I hear from some expat Americans is that while the Dutch system covers everyone, and does a good job with broken bones and ruptured appendixes, it falls behind American care when it comes to conditions that involve complicated procedures. Hoogervorst acknowledged this — to a point. “There is no doubt the U.S. has the best medical care in the world — for those who can pay the top prices,” he said. “I’m sure the top 5 percent of hospitals there are better than the top 5 percent here. But with that exception, I would say overall quality is the same in the two countries.”
Indeed, my nonscientific analysis — culled from my own experience and that of other expats whom I’ve badgered — translates into a clear endorsement. My friend Colin Campbell, an American writer, has been in the Netherlands for four years with his wife and their two children. “Over the course of four years, four human beings end up going to a lot of different doctors,” he said. “The amazing thing is that virtually every experience has been more pleasant than in the U.S. There you have the bureaucracy, the endless forms, the fear of malpractice suits. Here you just go in and see your doctor. It shows that it doesn’t have to be complicated. I wish every single U.S. congressman could come to Amsterdam and live here for a while and see what happens medically.”
I’ve found that many differences between the American and Dutch systems are more cultural than anything else. The Dutch system has a more old-fashioned, personal feel. Nearly all G.P.’s in the country make house calls to infirm or elderly patients. My G.P., like many others, devotes one hour per day to walk-in visits. But as an American who has been freelance most of his career, I find that the outrageously significant difference between the two systems is the cost. In the United States, for a family of four, I paid about $1,400 a month for a policy that didn’t include dental care and was so filled with co-pays, deductibles and exceptions that I routinely found myself replaying in my mind the Monty Python skit in which the man complains about his insurance claim and the agent says, “In your policy it states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.” A similar Dutch policy, by contrast, cost 300 euros a month (about $390), with no co-pays, and included dental coverage; about 90 percent of the cost of my daughter’s braces was covered..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=russell%20shorto%20dutch&st=cse&scp=1
Things I Like - Odds & Ends
The CIA. Aren’t these the folks who use phrases like ‘I could tell you but then I’d have to kill you?’ Everybody has a website these days…
Via email from my sister Janice:
Did any of you know about this website? I’m fascinated that all this info has been compiled and made available to us by our friendly neighborhood CIA . My first thought on seeing this was, “Wow, World Geography reports would have been so much more interesting if I’d had access to this website back in grade school.” (hint, hint to my nieces and nephews) And they have a kid’s page . . . nothing like starting them young.
p.s. How many of you knew the president of a country called Guinea-Bissau was assassinated in March 2009? How many of you knew there was a country called Guinea-Bissau?
Bob Gates Does the Near Impossible
TW: Gates has become a true bi-partisan. He is weaving his way through two very different POTUSes seemingly with ease. He is putting his stamp firmly on the national security policies of the U.S. He clearly knows how to work the bureaucracies known as the U.S. government and Pentagon. He is also benefiting immensely from what Klein refers to as to be that "unbound, fearless advisor" without future ambitions (not so sure he is truly in his twilight).
We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."
...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."
...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.
...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.
...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html
We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."
...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."
...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.
...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.
...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Do We Really Need All Of These Real Estate Subsidies?
TW: This goes in the category of something that will NEVER happen, but probably should. Housing and real estate are supported by so many government subsidies. Many forget about the old capital gains rules whereby real estate gains were treated like other capital gains. Why should they be treated differently? Why for that matter should mortgage interest be deductible? The Canadians make do without it as does many other nations.
The other point is how decisions taken many years ago fester and then create implications far down the road. I have posted about pension decisions made during the 1990's coming back to haunt us. The 1990's were the real Goldilocks economy. There was a very real peace dividend related to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the favorable demographics of the baby boomers were at their peak. Many policies made back then are not sounding so useful now (Glass-Steagall was ended then as well).
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...Bill Clinton might have left office before the worst of the financial sector's excesses. But he wasn't blameless in hyping the housing bubble:
In 1997 Congress made the first $500,000 of capital gains on the sale of a home tax-free for a married couple and $250,000 tax-free for a single person. This gave real estate a distinct advantage over other capital investments and distorted investment decisions from that time on. I'm sure you could find a graph that would show the beginnings of the housing bubble in 1997. I'm not blaming the entire crisis on this tax change or on the Clinton Administration but it definitely constituted a significant Governmental puff into the housing bubble.
This wasn't only Clinton, of course. Ceaselessly pushing homeownership has been a bipartisan preoccupation in America. For readers who want a fuller picture of this, I'd recommend Alyssa Katz's forthcoming book, Our Lot: How Real Estate Came to Own Us..."
The other point is how decisions taken many years ago fester and then create implications far down the road. I have posted about pension decisions made during the 1990's coming back to haunt us. The 1990's were the real Goldilocks economy. There was a very real peace dividend related to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the favorable demographics of the baby boomers were at their peak. Many policies made back then are not sounding so useful now (Glass-Steagall was ended then as well).
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...Bill Clinton might have left office before the worst of the financial sector's excesses. But he wasn't blameless in hyping the housing bubble:
In 1997 Congress made the first $500,000 of capital gains on the sale of a home tax-free for a married couple and $250,000 tax-free for a single person. This gave real estate a distinct advantage over other capital investments and distorted investment decisions from that time on. I'm sure you could find a graph that would show the beginnings of the housing bubble in 1997. I'm not blaming the entire crisis on this tax change or on the Clinton Administration but it definitely constituted a significant Governmental puff into the housing bubble.
This wasn't only Clinton, of course. Ceaselessly pushing homeownership has been a bipartisan preoccupation in America. For readers who want a fuller picture of this, I'd recommend Alyssa Katz's forthcoming book, Our Lot: How Real Estate Came to Own Us..."
Where Is the Wind?
(click on image to enlarge)
TW: The image portrays wind speeds at various points across the U.S. Certainly the U.S. possesses considerable geography which could support viable wind power facilities. Unfortunately many of them are either offshore or far from the urban centers which use the most power. If the U.S. is to reach its potential with this very important alternative power source, distribution infrastructure will play as important a role as the actual wind towers capturing the initial energy. Given these infrastructures cross numerous state boundries (the usual regulator) much cooperation and a fair amount of federal intervention will be necessary.
Things I Like - Chicago
The new Modern Wing of the Art Institute opened a couple weekends ago – to uniformly fabulous reviews. Not only are the exhibits world class, but the building itself is a modern work of art.
The $300 million Piano addition…turns the museum outward. It is a refined structure of openness and translucency, where glass becomes a permeable membrane between art and urban landscape…Now, masterpiece artworks are visible from the street, and the Chicago skyline becomes an artwork in its own right alongside Picasso, Matisse and Kandinsky inside the gallery spaces.Perhaps not as important but almost as exciting is the opening of the Nichols Bridgeway – the pedestrian bridge that links the new wing directly to Millennium Park.
~ JSOnline
The bridge lifts you above the park, giving you a chance to look down on it. You see the Pritzker Pavilion's silvery, steel shells and Lurie Garden's big, green "shoulder hedge." From above Monroe, you can gaze out at the blue waters of Lake Michigan or through the skyscraper canyons of the Loop. At the end, you survey the sunken commuter railroad tracks that bisect the Art Institute. They are a vertiginous 50 feet below.
~ Chicago Tribune
All Tribune photos by E. Jason Wambsgans.
See more here
Friday, May 29, 2009
More Baseball
(click on photo to enlarge)TW: My all-time favorite player, Johnny Bench, with some other good players. This from 1973 All-Star game, Mays' last one. Was surprised how small he seemed compared to the others.
Our Proud Legal Heritage
TW: In these challenging times, we take certain American influences for granted. We also when a new SCOTUS justice is nominated get wrapped up in what ultimately almost always become trivialized discussions with little lasting impact. What has had a lasting impact though is the influence of American jurisprudence throughout the world. American judicial processes and legal predicates are not certainly the only global source of leadership but they are clearly the pre-eminent one. This is something about which to be proud but also about which to be mindful when the notion of American exceptionalism threatens to eclipse our collective good sense.
From NYT:
",,,picking a justice for the Supreme Court will have more ramifications for the republic than any cabinet secretary or ambassador.
The United States may be a comparatively young country, but its institutions have influenced the world profoundly. The constitutional ideals put forth upon its shores in the late 18th century guided the way other societies organized themselves, from the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen in France in 1789, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, to the constitutions of dozens of other countries emerging from colonialism and Communism. From the earliest times, as the historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote: Liberty to Americans meant, “first freedom under laws of their own making, and, second, the right to do anything that did not harm others.”
The U.S. Supreme Court was established in 1789, but drew on the experience of earlier state constitutions. Eighteenth century Americans had read John Locke who wrote “where law ends, tyranny begins,” and they were particularly mindful of setting up an independent judiciary, beholding to none, where abuses of power by kings and political leaders could not prevail. The early justices had robes of black and scarlet, but they agreed with Thomas Jefferson who urged that they “discard the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through branches of oakum.”
For nearly 150 years the United States was practically “the only country with a written constitution enforceable as law,” according to Anthony Lewis, one of America’s most knowledgeable journalists writing about the law.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says that “since W.W. II, however, there is a new interest throughout the world in written constitutions” with legal systems moving closer to the American model — “Germany, Spain, Italy, the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights” as well as countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even France is moving toward a court that can review legislation similar to the U.S. model, according to Breyer.
As Israel’s Aharon Barak once put it, the tyrannies of the 30s and 40s showed that it was no longer possible to rely on the British phrase “it just isn’t done.” The law had to be enforced. Nelson Mandela called it a great day for post -apartheid South Africa when a free and impartial court reversed one of his decisions.
Even though they don’t have a written constitution, the British have created a new Supreme Court, and will be moving their law lords out of the House of Lords into the Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square. It is an effort to make the highest court judges more independent. Can the abandonment of judicial wigs be far behind? ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19iht-edgreenway.html?scp=1&sq=hds%20greenway&st=cse
From NYT:
",,,picking a justice for the Supreme Court will have more ramifications for the republic than any cabinet secretary or ambassador.
The United States may be a comparatively young country, but its institutions have influenced the world profoundly. The constitutional ideals put forth upon its shores in the late 18th century guided the way other societies organized themselves, from the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen in France in 1789, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, to the constitutions of dozens of other countries emerging from colonialism and Communism. From the earliest times, as the historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote: Liberty to Americans meant, “first freedom under laws of their own making, and, second, the right to do anything that did not harm others.”
The U.S. Supreme Court was established in 1789, but drew on the experience of earlier state constitutions. Eighteenth century Americans had read John Locke who wrote “where law ends, tyranny begins,” and they were particularly mindful of setting up an independent judiciary, beholding to none, where abuses of power by kings and political leaders could not prevail. The early justices had robes of black and scarlet, but they agreed with Thomas Jefferson who urged that they “discard the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through branches of oakum.”
For nearly 150 years the United States was practically “the only country with a written constitution enforceable as law,” according to Anthony Lewis, one of America’s most knowledgeable journalists writing about the law.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says that “since W.W. II, however, there is a new interest throughout the world in written constitutions” with legal systems moving closer to the American model — “Germany, Spain, Italy, the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights” as well as countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even France is moving toward a court that can review legislation similar to the U.S. model, according to Breyer.
As Israel’s Aharon Barak once put it, the tyrannies of the 30s and 40s showed that it was no longer possible to rely on the British phrase “it just isn’t done.” The law had to be enforced. Nelson Mandela called it a great day for post -apartheid South Africa when a free and impartial court reversed one of his decisions.
Even though they don’t have a written constitution, the British have created a new Supreme Court, and will be moving their law lords out of the House of Lords into the Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square. It is an effort to make the highest court judges more independent. Can the abandonment of judicial wigs be far behind? ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19iht-edgreenway.html?scp=1&sq=hds%20greenway&st=cse
We Do What We Can But Understand...
TW: What we do is limited. The quantity of media has exploded over the past thirty years with cable and now the internet. This has shattered the old MSM revenue models leading to a decline in average quality. Superficiality is the result. When one watches a newscast, a reporter on scene maybe even with personal interviews and new footage of a story were common. Now one usually gets a reporter talking over file footage perhaps on site perhaps not and even if so probably merely standing in a press pool outside a courtroom or tragedy location not actually working the story. Furthermore, fewer and fewer media outlets can afford the specialists who brought depth of experience and expertise to a topic, leaving the superficial as the only option.
On the internet with blogs, one gets much more opinion than analysis for the simple reason that opining is much easier than analyzing which is much easier than investigating a story. As the piece below points out, opining lends itself to hyperbole and conflict making every news item ripe for...hyperbole and conflict.
On the flip side there are truly wonderful blogs with very specialized content much more so than ever were available pre-internet. These sites provide rich content likely beyond the expertise of most readers but if one is interested in a particular topic they are very useful. But few have the time or inclination to consume their knowledge hence the aggregators (e.g. Huff Post, Drudge etc.) about whom most folks rely to filter their data. But then you end up back in the "conflict and hyperbole" world.
From Economist:
"IN HIS fine book "Breaking the News", James Fallows argues that political journalists have an unhealthy tendency to cover public-policy debates as horse-races, for the simple and understandable reason that most journalists have a good grasp on the dynamics of political power struggles in a democracy, whereas it's not really feasible for most of us to have much depth of expertise in more than a tiny fraction of the issues we're expected to write or speak about. A few of us have been griping here about the low signal-to-noise ratio in public discussion of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, but we haven't ourselves done the kind of close scrutiny of Ms Sotomayor's legal opinions that we've suggested. In part this is simply because doing a close reading of a legal opinion is fairly time-consuming, even if you know that area of the law well. It is also because, as with policy, even a journalist who spends huge chunks of his professional life reading opinions and briefs is unlikely to be competent to assess the quality of a jurist's reasoning outside a few domains..."
On the internet with blogs, one gets much more opinion than analysis for the simple reason that opining is much easier than analyzing which is much easier than investigating a story. As the piece below points out, opining lends itself to hyperbole and conflict making every news item ripe for...hyperbole and conflict.
On the flip side there are truly wonderful blogs with very specialized content much more so than ever were available pre-internet. These sites provide rich content likely beyond the expertise of most readers but if one is interested in a particular topic they are very useful. But few have the time or inclination to consume their knowledge hence the aggregators (e.g. Huff Post, Drudge etc.) about whom most folks rely to filter their data. But then you end up back in the "conflict and hyperbole" world.
From Economist:
"IN HIS fine book "Breaking the News", James Fallows argues that political journalists have an unhealthy tendency to cover public-policy debates as horse-races, for the simple and understandable reason that most journalists have a good grasp on the dynamics of political power struggles in a democracy, whereas it's not really feasible for most of us to have much depth of expertise in more than a tiny fraction of the issues we're expected to write or speak about. A few of us have been griping here about the low signal-to-noise ratio in public discussion of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, but we haven't ourselves done the kind of close scrutiny of Ms Sotomayor's legal opinions that we've suggested. In part this is simply because doing a close reading of a legal opinion is fairly time-consuming, even if you know that area of the law well. It is also because, as with policy, even a journalist who spends huge chunks of his professional life reading opinions and briefs is unlikely to be competent to assess the quality of a jurist's reasoning outside a few domains..."
How Fresh Is Your Underwear?
TW: Am always impressed by the complex and elegant analysis which many of our economic leaders create. They get paid much money to come up with this stuff.
From Economist:
"DURING the halcyon days of consumer overspending, there emerged a trend of mid-riff bearing starlets not wearing underpants. The hemline indicator suggests skirts are shorter during booms, but fashion gets more conservative during downturns. Perhaps we should have taken the skin exposure a few years ago as an omen.
Somewhat similarly, Alan Greenspan looks at male underwear sales as an indicator of economic activity. Michael Brush reports
Men's underpants sales were down 12% in January, but have levelled off in recent months. This does not signal recovery, however, because men are not yet feeling confident enough to start replacing their worn-out skivvies. We'll know better times are ahead when sales start to increase.
Sales of women's undergarments are a less reliable indicator. Bra sales have actually remained vigorous throughout the recession. That may be because women consider undergarments a necessary good, it has a lip stick effect (women want to buy a small luxury they can still afford), or during the free-wheeling, no under-wearing days they did not build up an adequate supply to get them through these more austere times."
From Economist:
"DURING the halcyon days of consumer overspending, there emerged a trend of mid-riff bearing starlets not wearing underpants. The hemline indicator suggests skirts are shorter during booms, but fashion gets more conservative during downturns. Perhaps we should have taken the skin exposure a few years ago as an omen.
Somewhat similarly, Alan Greenspan looks at male underwear sales as an indicator of economic activity. Michael Brush reports
Greenspan reasons that because hardly anyone actually sees a guy's undies,
they're the first thing men stop buying when the economy tightens. By
extension, pent-up demand means underwear sales should be among the early risers when growth returns and consumers feel confident enough to shrug off "frugal
fatigue," says Marshal Cohen, the chief industry analyst with NPD Group, which
tracks consumer behavior.
Men's underpants sales were down 12% in January, but have levelled off in recent months. This does not signal recovery, however, because men are not yet feeling confident enough to start replacing their worn-out skivvies. We'll know better times are ahead when sales start to increase.
Sales of women's undergarments are a less reliable indicator. Bra sales have actually remained vigorous throughout the recession. That may be because women consider undergarments a necessary good, it has a lip stick effect (women want to buy a small luxury they can still afford), or during the free-wheeling, no under-wearing days they did not build up an adequate supply to get them through these more austere times."
Things I Like - Sciences
Mr. White forwarded this link – check out the World’s Best Illusion on Inside Science News Service for an incredible animation that explains why baseball’s curve ball is tough to hit. This kind of thing really makes you wonder how much you can trust what you think you’re seeing.
Another illusion from the article is this pair of photographs:
* You will have to go to the site to see this photo - it didn't really translate.
Another illusion from the article is this pair of photographs:
One appears to be male; the other, female. Both faces actually belong to the same person, digitally altered by Richard Russell of Harvard University. The dark parts of the photograph are a little darker and light parts are a little lighter in the "female" photograph. The subtle changes suggest that one way our brains may sort out sex is to notice how strong the contrast is between features.
~ Inside Science
I saw something similar at Wired Magazine that had a photo of what looked like Albert Einstein up close but like Marilyn Monroe from across the room.* How does that happen? As explained in the article:
Our eyes pick up resolutions with both high spatial frequencies (sharp lines) and low ones (blurred shapes). By blending the high frequencies from one picture with the lows from another, Oliva creates images that change as a function of distance and time—allowing her to parse how humans absorb visual information. Turns out that we perceive coarse features quickly, within the first 30 milliseconds, and then home in on details at around 100 milliseconds. We also focus on the higher frequencies close up and register softer shapes from afar.And I thought the sign across the street was blurry because my eyes were going bad.
~ Wired
* You will have to go to the site to see this photo - it didn't really translate.
Watch VERY Closely And Ignore Them
TW: North Korea is a true international pariah, their leaders choosing to isolate the nation from globalization rather than engage even at great harm to the populace. The one bargaining chip they have is to poke the international community including playing with nukes. They act in a fairly predictable way to attain aid and some degree of influence merely by nuisance.
As with most nuisance the best means by which to address them is to ignore them unless and until they should become something worse. Like many situations there are essentially no viable military solutions short of a massive and hugely destructive all-out attack which due to the North Korean conventional and nuclear forces would need to be extraordinary. That attack would not be in anyway be surgical.
Those on the right who call for "something strong" in response almost never define what that is only that it be "strong". As the piece points out if the North Koreans act rationally they are containable, if not something drastic would have to happen but if that were to pass millions might die. I would hope we monitor very closely whilst letting the nuisance stew in its own strange juices.
From Economist:
"THREATS of war are nothing new for North Korea, so Pyongyang's latest warning to Seoul, after the South took the largely symbolic step of joining the Proliferation Security Initiative, is easily dismissed by some. Russia, though, is not amused, and John McCreary of NightWatch describes a possibility that oughtto affect America's reaction.
Yesterday and today numerous pundits proffered ideas of how Barack Obama might deal with the hermit kingdom. Most assumed some sort of rationality on the part of Pyongyang, believing that Mr Kim wants aid in exchange for his nukes. But what if the pot-bellied dictator is truly a mad man who has lost his mind? Mr Obama's best strategy is to simply sit back and wait for the country's internal political situation to sort itself out. Dealing with Pyongyang at this point would be a maddening waste of time. "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/has_north_korea_gone_crazy.cfm
As with most nuisance the best means by which to address them is to ignore them unless and until they should become something worse. Like many situations there are essentially no viable military solutions short of a massive and hugely destructive all-out attack which due to the North Korean conventional and nuclear forces would need to be extraordinary. That attack would not be in anyway be surgical.
Those on the right who call for "something strong" in response almost never define what that is only that it be "strong". As the piece points out if the North Koreans act rationally they are containable, if not something drastic would have to happen but if that were to pass millions might die. I would hope we monitor very closely whilst letting the nuisance stew in its own strange juices.
From Economist:
"THREATS of war are nothing new for North Korea, so Pyongyang's latest warning to Seoul, after the South took the largely symbolic step of joining the Proliferation Security Initiative, is easily dismissed by some. Russia, though, is not amused, and John McCreary of NightWatch describes a possibility that oughtto affect America's reaction.
During the past 40 years North Korean leaders have been blustery but
fundamentally risk averse. They have done nothing that would risk the total
destruction of their state—which means Pyongyang for all practical and symbolic
purposes—until now. ....
The actions in the past two days represent risk accepting behavior,
defiance bordering on recklessness. This behavior began shortly after Kim
Chong-il's stroke in August 2008. If Kim is ordering these actions, he has had a
personality change, which can occur if dementia follows a stroke, according to
medical authorities.
Yesterday and today numerous pundits proffered ideas of how Barack Obama might deal with the hermit kingdom. Most assumed some sort of rationality on the part of Pyongyang, believing that Mr Kim wants aid in exchange for his nukes. But what if the pot-bellied dictator is truly a mad man who has lost his mind? Mr Obama's best strategy is to simply sit back and wait for the country's internal political situation to sort itself out. Dealing with Pyongyang at this point would be a maddening waste of time. "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/has_north_korea_gone_crazy.cfm
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Good Old Days- I Miss Karl Rove
TW: Obama recently entertained folks at the Correspondent's dinner in DC. He was well-received, but a mere two years ago the entertainment was provided by a much different person. A little trip down memory lane.
Competency Trumps Ideology Despite the Echo Chambers
TW: We are somewhat delusional and biased but when you are meant to be running a political party or any other entity it pays to manage your own biases downward. This piece weaves things like the Pundit Fallacy (i.e. "if only MY ideas were adopted, then my party would win), and the common voters tendency to vote competency over ideology to frame the challenge the Republicans face re-orienting their party.
It has been said before but I very much agree with those who say the worst thing W. Bush may have done for the Republicans was not the Iraq War but the Katrina recovery debacle. The Republicans always have branded the Dems as idealistic and ineffectual. Reagan came in after Carter and got things done for better or worse. W. Bush frittered the competency attribute away for the Republicans (their Congressional scandals exacerbated the problem).
W. Bush whatever your opinion of his substance never came across as someone who rigorously thought through issues, there was a flippancy to his management approach. Obama thus far is about 180 degrees different and reeks of rigor in attacking issues. He may not always be right but he appears to at least be thinking things through I think this matters.
Finally as far as the current Republicans go, the piece speaks of the old-guard's quandry. If they have not been "competent", then perhaps they should move on. Therefore, instead of pushing their competence (which the electorate desires), they are pushing ideology. It is a trap.
From Economist:
"POLITICAL commentators are prone to imagining that their own preferred policies and pet issues are also the keys to political success for the party crafty enough to adopt them. So common is this delusion that it's acquired a name: the Pundit's Fallacy. But as the ongoing civil war on the right reminds us, this particular form of cognitive bias can affect the grassroots as easily as the chattering classes. To the frustration of Republican reformers—and the bemusement of Democratic observers—there seems to be substantial disagreement among Republicans, the base no less than the leadership, about whether the party has a serious image problem requiring drastic measures, or whether, as the Black Knight might say, it's just a flesh wound!
...as ideologues sometimes forget, many voters simply don't conceive electoral politics as a contest between liberal and conservative philosophies of government, but primarily as a choice between individuals who may be personally competent or incompetent, trustworthy or corrupt. Among these voters, Mr Andres suggests, the problem is not (as moderates aver) that the party is seen as too extreme or (as conservatives insist) that Republicans need to more clearly distinguish themselves from Democrats, but that the current set of Republican standard bearers are seen as venal and inept. That's awkward for party leadership if true: An ideological problem can be fixed by moving to the right or the centre as needed; a personnel problem can only be solved by moving out. Which, one imagines, strengthens the incentive for them to conclude there's no problem.
...It became evident over the course of the last presidential campaign that much of the conservative base essentially believed that they were representative of the great mass of voters, albeit more politically engaged or informed. If they were aghast at Barack Obama's tenuous links to Bill Ayers, then the contest was won if only John McCain would press the attack. If they considered a programme that would push America closer to European-style welfare states little better than socialism, then voters merely needed the link to be made clear and they would recoil in horror. Yet these tactics did not prove particularly effective.
...For modern conservatives, the narrative of the liberal media seems to play much the same role. Some months ago, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, your correspondent saw bow-tied wunderkind Tucker Carlson roundly booed for suggesting that if the right wished to wield greater media influence, they should stop focusing primarily on opinion and commentary, and learn something from the New York Times' commitment to rigorous original reporting. The audience was incredulous and aghast. They did not simply think, as Mr Carlson happily allowed, that the Times had a liberal editorial page, and that the presuppositions of its left-leaning reporters might skew coverage in subtle but collectively significant ways. They thought it was Pravda. The basic truth that folks who work in mainstream media tend to be left of center had been made to bear almost the entire weight of Republican defeats.
...greater mobility has greatly increased our propensity to cluster geographically with others who share our political views. This increases the cocoon effect for left as well as right, but liberals are more prone to be clustered in densely-populated urban areas where a fair amount of heterogeneity is evident even if the area is, on average, well to the left of the rest of the country. Second, media fragmentation combined with the narrative about the inauthenticity of the MSM makes it easier to believe that the fellow travelers encountered at conservative sites are the truly representative citizens, while the views aired on CNN reflect only an out-of-touch clique centred in New York, Los Angeles and Washington..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/the_perils_of_unpopular_populi.cfm
It has been said before but I very much agree with those who say the worst thing W. Bush may have done for the Republicans was not the Iraq War but the Katrina recovery debacle. The Republicans always have branded the Dems as idealistic and ineffectual. Reagan came in after Carter and got things done for better or worse. W. Bush frittered the competency attribute away for the Republicans (their Congressional scandals exacerbated the problem).
W. Bush whatever your opinion of his substance never came across as someone who rigorously thought through issues, there was a flippancy to his management approach. Obama thus far is about 180 degrees different and reeks of rigor in attacking issues. He may not always be right but he appears to at least be thinking things through I think this matters.
Finally as far as the current Republicans go, the piece speaks of the old-guard's quandry. If they have not been "competent", then perhaps they should move on. Therefore, instead of pushing their competence (which the electorate desires), they are pushing ideology. It is a trap.
From Economist:
"POLITICAL commentators are prone to imagining that their own preferred policies and pet issues are also the keys to political success for the party crafty enough to adopt them. So common is this delusion that it's acquired a name: the Pundit's Fallacy. But as the ongoing civil war on the right reminds us, this particular form of cognitive bias can affect the grassroots as easily as the chattering classes. To the frustration of Republican reformers—and the bemusement of Democratic observers—there seems to be substantial disagreement among Republicans, the base no less than the leadership, about whether the party has a serious image problem requiring drastic measures, or whether, as the Black Knight might say, it's just a flesh wound!
...as ideologues sometimes forget, many voters simply don't conceive electoral politics as a contest between liberal and conservative philosophies of government, but primarily as a choice between individuals who may be personally competent or incompetent, trustworthy or corrupt. Among these voters, Mr Andres suggests, the problem is not (as moderates aver) that the party is seen as too extreme or (as conservatives insist) that Republicans need to more clearly distinguish themselves from Democrats, but that the current set of Republican standard bearers are seen as venal and inept. That's awkward for party leadership if true: An ideological problem can be fixed by moving to the right or the centre as needed; a personnel problem can only be solved by moving out. Which, one imagines, strengthens the incentive for them to conclude there's no problem.
...It became evident over the course of the last presidential campaign that much of the conservative base essentially believed that they were representative of the great mass of voters, albeit more politically engaged or informed. If they were aghast at Barack Obama's tenuous links to Bill Ayers, then the contest was won if only John McCain would press the attack. If they considered a programme that would push America closer to European-style welfare states little better than socialism, then voters merely needed the link to be made clear and they would recoil in horror. Yet these tactics did not prove particularly effective.
...For modern conservatives, the narrative of the liberal media seems to play much the same role. Some months ago, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, your correspondent saw bow-tied wunderkind Tucker Carlson roundly booed for suggesting that if the right wished to wield greater media influence, they should stop focusing primarily on opinion and commentary, and learn something from the New York Times' commitment to rigorous original reporting. The audience was incredulous and aghast. They did not simply think, as Mr Carlson happily allowed, that the Times had a liberal editorial page, and that the presuppositions of its left-leaning reporters might skew coverage in subtle but collectively significant ways. They thought it was Pravda. The basic truth that folks who work in mainstream media tend to be left of center had been made to bear almost the entire weight of Republican defeats.
...greater mobility has greatly increased our propensity to cluster geographically with others who share our political views. This increases the cocoon effect for left as well as right, but liberals are more prone to be clustered in densely-populated urban areas where a fair amount of heterogeneity is evident even if the area is, on average, well to the left of the rest of the country. Second, media fragmentation combined with the narrative about the inauthenticity of the MSM makes it easier to believe that the fellow travelers encountered at conservative sites are the truly representative citizens, while the views aired on CNN reflect only an out-of-touch clique centred in New York, Los Angeles and Washington..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/the_perils_of_unpopular_populi.cfm
Electricity Consumption Falls For First Time Since WWII
(via Paul Kedrosky's blog)TW: You just do not see graphs like this one often. For the first time since WWII world-wide electricity consumption is likely to decrease. While music to the ears of hard-core greenies, it speaks to the relative uniqueness of this current Great Recession. Electricity consumption and economic growth are typically correlated quite closely. Many analysts are keeping a close eye on Chinese electricity consumption which has been increasing annually at double digit rates, until the last two or three quarters when it has suddenly slowed almost to a stop. How Chinese GDP is retaining its 6% growth rates whilst its electricity consumption slows greatly is perplexing some observers.
Republicans Making Moves On Health Care Reform
TW: We appear to be on our way to some form of health care reform. The fiscal realities driven by demographics are becoming increasingly dire, a consensus that change is required is no longer very controversial. How to do so is of course debated but interestingly the Republicans and Dems are not that far apart. The recent proposal by a prominent group of Republican congressmen is a step in the right direction. Although their proposal much like the Dem's skirts the fundamental questions of cost containment.
They propose removing the tax exempt status of employer funded health benefits (not likely to happen) and uses that money to subsidize individual plans. Their plan would leave more folks uninsured than the Dem's plan (no mandated insurance) and seeks to use some privatization principles. We shall see...
From Karen Tumulty at Time:
"The last time this country undertook a serious debate over health-care reform, back when Hillary Clinton put together her proposal in 1993, the Republican strategy could have been summed up in three words: Just say no. This time around, however, the clamor for fundamental change of a system that covers too few and costs too much has grown to the point where the minority party knows that simple obstructionism is a dangerous route to take.
"The status quo is no longer acceptable," political strategist Frank Luntz wrote in a confidential memo to congressional Republicans earlier this month. "The overwhelming majority of Americans believe significant reform is needed — and they see Republicans (and the insurance companies) as the roadblock. If the dynamic becomes 'President Obama and congressional Democrats are on the side of reform and Republicans are against it' — which is exactly what Obama has already started to promote — the public will side with the Democrats and you will lose both the communication and the policy."
What kind of health-care reform would Republicans like to see? Four conservative GOP lawmakers — Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina, along with Congressmen Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California — introduced a proposal on May 19 that looks a lot like the one John McCain advanced during his presidential campaign as well as an idea George W. Bush advanced as President.
But it also includes the kind of rhetoric more generally associated with the Democrats. A 15-page summary of the bill begins: "It is time to publicly admit that the health-care system in America is broken. Costs are rising at an unacceptable rate — more than doubling over the last 10 years, which is nearly four times the rate of wage growth. Too many patients feel trapped by health-care decisions dictated by HMOs. Too many doctors are torn between practicing medicine and practicing insurance. And 47 million Americans worry what will happen to them or their children if they get sick."
The GOP plan would make the health benefits that companies provide their workers count as taxable income, and then use that money to provide tax credits with which individuals could purchase their own health coverage...it would provide new incentives for insurers to offer coverage to people who now have trouble buying it because they have pre-existing health conditions. It also puts more emphasis on preventive care and sets up "state exchanges" — similar to the one now operating in Massachusetts — in which individuals and families could comparison-shop for insurance plans.
However, that Republican bill does not purport to assure coverage to all — or even most — of the 47 million or so Americans who now lack it. It does not, for instance, impose a requirement that employers provide coverage to their workers or that individuals who do not get health benefits at work buy them on their own. The tax credits that it provides — $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families — fall well short of the average annual cost of a health policy, which is between $10,000 and $12,000 per family, says Robert Blendon, professor at Harvard.
Coburn, a practicing physician, disputes Blendon's analysis of his bill. "In the vast majority of cases, our credit will more than cover an employee's share of a health plan's cost, which is about a third of a plan's total cost, or $4,000," Coburn says...
...one thing seems clear: Republicans have figured out that, this time, the debate over health-care reform is not one they are going to win simply by saying no."
They propose removing the tax exempt status of employer funded health benefits (not likely to happen) and uses that money to subsidize individual plans. Their plan would leave more folks uninsured than the Dem's plan (no mandated insurance) and seeks to use some privatization principles. We shall see...
From Karen Tumulty at Time:
"The last time this country undertook a serious debate over health-care reform, back when Hillary Clinton put together her proposal in 1993, the Republican strategy could have been summed up in three words: Just say no. This time around, however, the clamor for fundamental change of a system that covers too few and costs too much has grown to the point where the minority party knows that simple obstructionism is a dangerous route to take.
"The status quo is no longer acceptable," political strategist Frank Luntz wrote in a confidential memo to congressional Republicans earlier this month. "The overwhelming majority of Americans believe significant reform is needed — and they see Republicans (and the insurance companies) as the roadblock. If the dynamic becomes 'President Obama and congressional Democrats are on the side of reform and Republicans are against it' — which is exactly what Obama has already started to promote — the public will side with the Democrats and you will lose both the communication and the policy."
What kind of health-care reform would Republicans like to see? Four conservative GOP lawmakers — Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina, along with Congressmen Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California — introduced a proposal on May 19 that looks a lot like the one John McCain advanced during his presidential campaign as well as an idea George W. Bush advanced as President.
But it also includes the kind of rhetoric more generally associated with the Democrats. A 15-page summary of the bill begins: "It is time to publicly admit that the health-care system in America is broken. Costs are rising at an unacceptable rate — more than doubling over the last 10 years, which is nearly four times the rate of wage growth. Too many patients feel trapped by health-care decisions dictated by HMOs. Too many doctors are torn between practicing medicine and practicing insurance. And 47 million Americans worry what will happen to them or their children if they get sick."
The GOP plan would make the health benefits that companies provide their workers count as taxable income, and then use that money to provide tax credits with which individuals could purchase their own health coverage...it would provide new incentives for insurers to offer coverage to people who now have trouble buying it because they have pre-existing health conditions. It also puts more emphasis on preventive care and sets up "state exchanges" — similar to the one now operating in Massachusetts — in which individuals and families could comparison-shop for insurance plans.
However, that Republican bill does not purport to assure coverage to all — or even most — of the 47 million or so Americans who now lack it. It does not, for instance, impose a requirement that employers provide coverage to their workers or that individuals who do not get health benefits at work buy them on their own. The tax credits that it provides — $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families — fall well short of the average annual cost of a health policy, which is between $10,000 and $12,000 per family, says Robert Blendon, professor at Harvard.
Coburn, a practicing physician, disputes Blendon's analysis of his bill. "In the vast majority of cases, our credit will more than cover an employee's share of a health plan's cost, which is about a third of a plan's total cost, or $4,000," Coburn says...
...one thing seems clear: Republicans have figured out that, this time, the debate over health-care reform is not one they are going to win simply by saying no."
Things I Like - Books
Last week I posed the question - how much stock do you put in someone else’s opinion? When it comes to my own reading selections, I’m happy to take the suggestions of readers I know and who know me. Presumably, such a reader would not recommend something that they didn’t think I would enjoy.Making a reading choice based on the opinion of a professional critic or an unknown blogger is not as easy. Before I’m willing to spend my money and time reading something recommended by someone I don’t know, I need to know what that person thought of books that I really liked or disliked. If we agree, I’m a lot more likely to take his/her advice about something new.
With that in mind, I recommend the following blog sites that offer book reviews as well as entertainment:
The Millions – a multi-function site offering book reviews, reader forums, an Atlas of Book Stores and Literary places and the ‘Ask a Book Question’ feature.
Welcome to The Millions, offering coverage on books, arts, and culture since 2003. The Millions has been featured on NPR and noted by The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Village Voice, among others.The Old Hag - Although the format of her site is the type that drives me nuts (too much stuff in too many places), she is very entertaining and her book reviews are useful.
~ The Millions
Old Hag is the work of Lizzie Skurnick, a critic, poet, essayist, blogger and author. I have given up trying to merge these for you people. Please see bios below [see the site for descriptions of her various incarnations]Bibliolatrist - Interesting thoughts on interesting things:
~ The Old Hag
I believe reading is essential to living a good life. This blog is my attempt to share my favorite (and not so favorite) works. Recommendations and opinions are welcome.~ BibliolatristBookninja – Not so much for book reviews as for book industry related news and events.
Bookninja is the premier Canadian literary site, and one of the top literary sites in the world. It is frequented by thousands of people from all around the globe and has become a nexus for literary news and opinion.Sounds a little stuffy but George Murray (Founding Editor and Publisher) is very funny.
~ Bookninja
Passion, Design And America
America Is F*cked.......(Graphically at least) from Jess Gibson on Vimeo.
TW: First off if the F word bothers you, move on. But this piece shows someone who is passionate and passion is pretty important in life. His beef basically is just with those who due to lack of passion, ignorance or greed diminish the cultural heritage of our nation or world. I have had some involvement with design and designers over the years, their work may be subtle at times but truly good design is a rare thing.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Some Baseball Photos
TW: Some baseball photos, the first Cincy Reds manager Birdie Tebbets in 1957 (you don't get color photographs that far back every day) and Cub HOFer Billy Williams (our nephews' favorite old-time Cub).Old Ads As Flashbacks
(definitely click on image to enlarge this one)TW: One thing that gets lost when you troll through old magazine archives on-line are the old ads. To me the old ads are almost as interesting as the articles. In these challenging times, it is somewhat re-assuring to be reminded how far and fast technology has evolved. This ad was from I believe 1977. It featured a scintillating 4K of memory but then with a 1 MHZ microprocessor how much did you need? There primary application appeared to be Pong.
The flip-side, naturally, is how archaic will today's computer ads appear in thirty years?
A Shootdown That Was Not
(L-R) German Ace Franz Stigler, artist Ernie Boyett, and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown. 
TW: The Memorial Day posts were of the somber variety, ran across this story which had a happier ending many years ago.From the Lisbon Reporter and Info Dissmenation:
"Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot...at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Steigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe. When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
When asked why he didn’t shoot them down, Stigler later said, “I didn’t have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute.”
Both men died in 2008."
Wish We Had This Problem!
TW: Look at the numbers the Dutch have 12,000 prisoners, we have I believe about 2,000,000. They are fretting because they will need to shrink their prison system resulting in job losses. Perhaps we could work out a deal...
From NRC
"During the 1990s the Netherlands faced a shortage of prison cells, but a decline in crime has since led to overcapacity in the prison system. The country now has capacity for 14,000 prisoners but only 12,000 detainees.
Deputy justice minister Nebahat Albayrak announced on Tuesday that eight prisons will be closed, resulting in the loss of 1,200 jobs. Natural redundancy and other measures should prevent any forced lay-offs, the minister said. The overcapacity is a result of the declining crime rate, which the ministry's research department expects to continue for some time.
Some reprieve might come from a deal with Belgium, which is facing overpopulation in its prisons. The two countries are working out an agreement to house Belgian prisoners in Dutch prisons. Some five-hundred Belgian prisoners could be transferred to the Tilburg prison by 2010. The Netherlands would get 30 million euros in the deal, and it will allow the closing of the prisons in Rotterdam and Veenhuizen to be postponed until 2012."
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals
From NRC
"During the 1990s the Netherlands faced a shortage of prison cells, but a decline in crime has since led to overcapacity in the prison system. The country now has capacity for 14,000 prisoners but only 12,000 detainees.
Deputy justice minister Nebahat Albayrak announced on Tuesday that eight prisons will be closed, resulting in the loss of 1,200 jobs. Natural redundancy and other measures should prevent any forced lay-offs, the minister said. The overcapacity is a result of the declining crime rate, which the ministry's research department expects to continue for some time.
Some reprieve might come from a deal with Belgium, which is facing overpopulation in its prisons. The two countries are working out an agreement to house Belgian prisoners in Dutch prisons. Some five-hundred Belgian prisoners could be transferred to the Tilburg prison by 2010. The Netherlands would get 30 million euros in the deal, and it will allow the closing of the prisons in Rotterdam and Veenhuizen to be postponed until 2012."
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals
Things I Like - Food
While it might look like this post is going to be about party food, don’t hold your breath looking for any recipes. Only one of the three items above is something you might find at a cocktail or dinner party. The other two are dog food. Can you pick out the one that doesn't belong in Fido's dish?Don't be too hard on yourself if you aren’t sure – neither could 83% of the participants in a study conducted by John Bohannon, Robin Goldstein and Alexis Herschkowitsch for the American Association of Wine Economists (AAWE) and they were actually tasting the samples. (I have so many questions. Most importantly, what is a wine economist?)
As reported in their paper ‘Can People Distinguish Pâté from Dog Food?’ the authors hypothesized:
Considering the similarity of its ingredients, canned dog food could be a suitable and inexpensive substitute for pâté or processed blended meat products such as Spam or liverwurst…[upon a blind tasting] if the dog food were ranked favorably relative to human comestible goods with similar ingredients, it should be considered fit for human consumption.In order to test this idea, they conducted a double-blind taste test. 4 blended meat products (duck liver mousse, pork liver pâté, supermarket liverwurst, and Spam) and a can of turkey-chicken dog food were selected. Each of the items was pulsed in a food processor to the consistency of mousse, dished out into serving bowls, garnished with parsley and chilled.
The results were interesting - although 72% of subjects ranked the dog food as the worst of the five samples in terms of taste, only 3 of 18 tasters correctly identified the dog food. In fact, 44% of the test group thought that the liverwurst was the dog food.
The authors concluded:
Even with the benefits of added salt, a smooth texture, and attractive presentation, canned dog food is unpalatable compared to a range of similar blended meat products…We conclude that, although human beings do not enjoyThank goodness for that, imagine if they had found differently. Trendy hostesses everywhere would be serving dog food as canapés. Although if you're a big fan of liverwurst it seems that you can lower your grocery bill and improve your dining experience by switching to canned dog food. I believe the brand was Newman's Own.
eating dog food, they are also not able to distinguish its flavor profile from other meat-based products that are intended for human consumption.
Btw, the 1st photo is chicken-liver pâté, the other two are organic dog food and a doggie sausage snack.
via Marginal Revolution
Detroit's Problems: Not Just Unions Or Incompetence
TW: Unions, incompetent managements and brilliant foreigners get blamed for Detroit's woes but there is another contributor, the dealers. American car dealers are a legacy structure going back decades which have created a huge cost infrastructure contributing immensely to Detroit's woes.
The dealers are frequently pillars of their communities, the epitome of "small-businessmen" that rightly or wrongly are considered the backbone of American life. Partially as a result of these attributes, the dealers have been a potent lobbying force for decades leading stringent franchise laws which forced the Big Three to retain thousands of un-needed dealerships even as their market shares declined.
Culling them has been neither popular nor legally feasible but they are a massive overhead nonetheless. The culling process will cost thousands of jobs directly and indirectly (e.g. not as many ads in the local papers and billboards) and create empty lots across America. The economics realities rule, however, and Detroit and those effected communities would have benefited if this process had been allowed to take its natural course over the past years rather than blow up all at once.
Franchise laws exist for legitimate legal and economic reasons but frequently those laws have been co-opted by the franchisees to their benefit (most are state level). The auto industry is by no means the only industry impacted. So if you don't feel sorry for the union folks, you should not feel so sorry for these folks either.
From Economist:
"...Fitzgerald was among the 789 Chrysler dealers, a quarter of the total, that the carmaker “extinguished”, as he puts it, as part of its move through the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. The decision had been expected: the firm had been saying it needed to cull its dealers for years.
The same is true of General Motors, which still had nearly 6,000 dealers in America last year, hardly fewer than in the 1960s when it controlled roughly half the domestic market (these days it is struggling to keep its share close to 20%). Just a day after Chrysler’s announcement, GM sent letters to 1,100 of its own retailers letting them know their franchise agreements would not be renewed. At least 500 more dealers will be dropped in the months to come as it closes or sells off its Hummer, Saturn, Saab and Pontiac brands. It eventually hopes to get the number down to 3,600.
Why are the companies desperate to reduce their dealer count when they are haemorrhaging sales and market share? Foreign firms such as Toyota have found that they can do a better job with fewer stores. Toyota now outsells Chrysler with barely a third as many showrooms. Its dealers do not have to compete with one another on price. That means they earn better margins which, according to Mark Templin of Lexus (Toyota’s luxury brand), they put back into their stores “to deliver a more attractive experience for their customers”.
...It is only thanks to bankruptcy (actual for Chrysler, imminent for GM) that the two carmakers can now overcome onerous state franchise laws that have long frustrated their efforts to modernise the system. Individually and through umbrella organisations, such as the National Automobile Dealers Association, car retailers are some of the country’s most effective lobbyists—which is not surprising as they are among the largest state and local taxpayers. In some states, such as Texas, taking away a franchise is virtually impossible, even when a retailer is convicted of fraud. A few years ago GM spent more than a billion dollars to buy out the retailers affected by its decision to eliminate its Oldsmobile brand..."
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13703900
The dealers are frequently pillars of their communities, the epitome of "small-businessmen" that rightly or wrongly are considered the backbone of American life. Partially as a result of these attributes, the dealers have been a potent lobbying force for decades leading stringent franchise laws which forced the Big Three to retain thousands of un-needed dealerships even as their market shares declined.
Culling them has been neither popular nor legally feasible but they are a massive overhead nonetheless. The culling process will cost thousands of jobs directly and indirectly (e.g. not as many ads in the local papers and billboards) and create empty lots across America. The economics realities rule, however, and Detroit and those effected communities would have benefited if this process had been allowed to take its natural course over the past years rather than blow up all at once.
Franchise laws exist for legitimate legal and economic reasons but frequently those laws have been co-opted by the franchisees to their benefit (most are state level). The auto industry is by no means the only industry impacted. So if you don't feel sorry for the union folks, you should not feel so sorry for these folks either.
From Economist:
"...Fitzgerald was among the 789 Chrysler dealers, a quarter of the total, that the carmaker “extinguished”, as he puts it, as part of its move through the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. The decision had been expected: the firm had been saying it needed to cull its dealers for years.
The same is true of General Motors, which still had nearly 6,000 dealers in America last year, hardly fewer than in the 1960s when it controlled roughly half the domestic market (these days it is struggling to keep its share close to 20%). Just a day after Chrysler’s announcement, GM sent letters to 1,100 of its own retailers letting them know their franchise agreements would not be renewed. At least 500 more dealers will be dropped in the months to come as it closes or sells off its Hummer, Saturn, Saab and Pontiac brands. It eventually hopes to get the number down to 3,600.
Why are the companies desperate to reduce their dealer count when they are haemorrhaging sales and market share? Foreign firms such as Toyota have found that they can do a better job with fewer stores. Toyota now outsells Chrysler with barely a third as many showrooms. Its dealers do not have to compete with one another on price. That means they earn better margins which, according to Mark Templin of Lexus (Toyota’s luxury brand), they put back into their stores “to deliver a more attractive experience for their customers”.
...It is only thanks to bankruptcy (actual for Chrysler, imminent for GM) that the two carmakers can now overcome onerous state franchise laws that have long frustrated their efforts to modernise the system. Individually and through umbrella organisations, such as the National Automobile Dealers Association, car retailers are some of the country’s most effective lobbyists—which is not surprising as they are among the largest state and local taxpayers. In some states, such as Texas, taking away a franchise is virtually impossible, even when a retailer is convicted of fraud. A few years ago GM spent more than a billion dollars to buy out the retailers affected by its decision to eliminate its Oldsmobile brand..."
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13703900
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Mr T. At Wrigley
TW: As you may know, they have a "celebrity" sing the 7th inning stretch at Wrigley typically. Last night was Mr. T, I was never an A-Team fan but he is still kicking, the last part of the video is good too.
Less Money For Prisons: A Recession Silver Lining
TW: American prison strategy over the past 30 years could simplistically (overly so) be described as build many prisons, put them in jail and throw away the key. This created many jobs, a great industry of firms providing goods and services to those prisons and electoral candy for numerous politicians. It also costs a fortune, a fortune that we do not have. There are always silver linings, a slowdown in this prison strategy may be one of them from this current Great Contraction.
From Economist:
"Wisconsin’s prison population grew by 14% between 2000 and 2007 but, in the same period, the rate of violent crime rose by 23%. By 2019 the number of prisoners is expected to have swollen by another 25%, with a price tag of $2.5 billion. Facing a $6.6 billion deficit this year, Wisconsin can hardly afford to expand its prison system further.
...Wisconsin is not alone. Nearby Michigan, which spent a staggering 22% of its general fund on corrections last year, is debating reforms. Three judges in California have instructed that state to cut its prison population by one-third by 2012.
...State correction systems have exploded in recent decades. The Pew Centre on the States, a research outfit, reports that one in 100 Americans is incarcerated. One in 31 is in prison, on parole or on probation. This is expensive. Corrections have gobbled more and more of state budgets, at a faster pace than any government service except Medicaid. In 2008 spending on corrections was 303% greater than two decades earlier.
New laws, not more crime, are the main factor. Since the 1970s, when parole boards had wide discretion to release prisoners, states such as Wisconsin have set mandatory minimum sentences and applied baseball’s “three-strikes” rule to the national pastime of incarceration, often locking up repeat offenders for life. In the 1990s federal incentives prodded the states to adopt “truth in sentencing”, meaning that a court sentence would be completed in full, ending rewards for good behaviour behind bars. Mr Grams noted a change both in the time offenders spent at Columbia and in the prison’s “climate”, a euphemism for whether inmates behave well or abominably.
...Ms Taylor points to Texas and Kansas as examples of states where reform has begun to reverse these trends. The Justice Centre counselled both states in 2007. The ensuing policy changes expanded treatment programmes in the community and strengthened supervision of those on probation and parole. In Texas the prison population grew by only 529 inmates between January 2007 and December 2008, rather than the 5,141 predicted before reform.
In Wisconsin the governor and Ms Taylor’s committee...have proposed different plans, but they have much in common. Each would allow an inmate to serve a shorter sentence if he completed certain programmes, such as job training. To keep offenders from repeating their mistakes, each would improve treatments for problems such as mental illness and drug abuse.
The proposals have many critics. Mr Doyle’s plan to end “truth in sentencing” has upset Wisconsin’s attorney-general and legislators such as Scott Suder, who calls it the “let ’em loose early” scheme. Concern over Wisconsin’s deficit may scuttle the committee’s proposal, which costs $30m. But the Justice Centre estimates that investing $30m today would avert spending $2.3 billion by 2019."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13702846
From Economist:
"Wisconsin’s prison population grew by 14% between 2000 and 2007 but, in the same period, the rate of violent crime rose by 23%. By 2019 the number of prisoners is expected to have swollen by another 25%, with a price tag of $2.5 billion. Facing a $6.6 billion deficit this year, Wisconsin can hardly afford to expand its prison system further.
...Wisconsin is not alone. Nearby Michigan, which spent a staggering 22% of its general fund on corrections last year, is debating reforms. Three judges in California have instructed that state to cut its prison population by one-third by 2012.
...State correction systems have exploded in recent decades. The Pew Centre on the States, a research outfit, reports that one in 100 Americans is incarcerated. One in 31 is in prison, on parole or on probation. This is expensive. Corrections have gobbled more and more of state budgets, at a faster pace than any government service except Medicaid. In 2008 spending on corrections was 303% greater than two decades earlier.
New laws, not more crime, are the main factor. Since the 1970s, when parole boards had wide discretion to release prisoners, states such as Wisconsin have set mandatory minimum sentences and applied baseball’s “three-strikes” rule to the national pastime of incarceration, often locking up repeat offenders for life. In the 1990s federal incentives prodded the states to adopt “truth in sentencing”, meaning that a court sentence would be completed in full, ending rewards for good behaviour behind bars. Mr Grams noted a change both in the time offenders spent at Columbia and in the prison’s “climate”, a euphemism for whether inmates behave well or abominably.
...Ms Taylor points to Texas and Kansas as examples of states where reform has begun to reverse these trends. The Justice Centre counselled both states in 2007. The ensuing policy changes expanded treatment programmes in the community and strengthened supervision of those on probation and parole. In Texas the prison population grew by only 529 inmates between January 2007 and December 2008, rather than the 5,141 predicted before reform.
In Wisconsin the governor and Ms Taylor’s committee...have proposed different plans, but they have much in common. Each would allow an inmate to serve a shorter sentence if he completed certain programmes, such as job training. To keep offenders from repeating their mistakes, each would improve treatments for problems such as mental illness and drug abuse.
The proposals have many critics. Mr Doyle’s plan to end “truth in sentencing” has upset Wisconsin’s attorney-general and legislators such as Scott Suder, who calls it the “let ’em loose early” scheme. Concern over Wisconsin’s deficit may scuttle the committee’s proposal, which costs $30m. But the Justice Centre estimates that investing $30m today would avert spending $2.3 billion by 2019."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13702846
Stop the Settlements!
TW: This is the happy horse dung that I just do not understand from the Israelis. I understand they live in a rough neighborhood and need extraordinary security arrangements and guarantees, and the right of return for the Palestinians is a no-go for instance. But colonizing the West Bank makes no sense to me. It serves no purpose other than appeasement of the rabid right-wing settler community but undercuts their moral standing as a nation. The day an American POTUS says no mas to the settlements will be a good day.
The spokesman's rationales make no sense. To continue "natural growth" assumes they have a right to be there in the first place and/or that they will stay forever. That they are needed for security implies also that they will stay forever. If they are staying forever then they are true colonies and will require another series of wars to figure out if the Arabs are comfortable with an enlarged Israel.
From Haartez:
"Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."
"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees." According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required ? it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."
... We won't let them threaten us," Ya'alon added. "From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is," Ya'alon concluded. "This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087541.html
The spokesman's rationales make no sense. To continue "natural growth" assumes they have a right to be there in the first place and/or that they will stay forever. That they are needed for security implies also that they will stay forever. If they are staying forever then they are true colonies and will require another series of wars to figure out if the Arabs are comfortable with an enlarged Israel.
From Haartez:
"Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."
"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees." According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required ? it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."
... We won't let them threaten us," Ya'alon added. "From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is," Ya'alon concluded. "This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087541.html
Sotomayor
TW: Am not going to get too much into the trees on this topic but two things. Sotomayor has an interesting background see below. Two, barring some skeleton in the closet the Republicans are crazy to oppose this nomination intensely. Can they raise some money with the base? Probably.
But unless Obama appoints an outright conservative that is going to be the case with any of his nominees. Sotomayor is highly qualified. The Republicans risk further pushing themselves into the toilet with women, Hispanics and moderates as Sotomayor happens to be all three. Those three groups are the same three groups Republicans will eventually need to attract should they wish to regain electoral strength.
From NYT"
"...Judge Sotomayor, 54, grew up in a Bronx housing project, a child of Puerto Rican parents. She would be the court's first Hispanic justice. Her father died when she was 9, leaving her mother to raise her and a brother. In speeches to Latino groups over the years, Judge Sotomayor has recalled how her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to send her and her brother to Catholic school, purchased the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood and kept a warm pot of rice and beans on the stove every day for their friends.
She loved Nancy Drew mysteries, she once said, and yearned to be a police detective. But a doctor who diagnosed her childhood diabetes suggested that would be difficult. She traded her adoration of Nancy for an allegiance to Perry -- she became a fan of Perry Mason on television, she said, and decided to become a lawyer.
She went to Princeton, which she has described as a life-changing experience. When she arrived on campus from the Bronx, she said it was like "a visitor landing in an alien country." She never raised her hand in her first year there. "I was too embarrassed and too intimidated to ask questions," Judge Sotomayor said.
In one speech, she sounded some themes similar to Mr. Obama's description of his social uncertainties as a biracial youth in a largely white society.
"I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of the worlds I inhabit," she said, adding that that despite her accomplishments, "I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up."
After graduating summa cum laude from Princeton, she went to Yale Law School, worked for Robert M. Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and spent time in private practice before being named to the bench..."
From Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"...H.W. Bush nominated her for the district court in 1992 (she'd been recommended by Daniel Patrick Moynihan), and Clinton nominated her for the appeals court bench five years later. Senate Republicans, as is their habit, held up Sotomayor's nomination for more than a year, "because they believed that as a Hispanic appellate judge she would be a formidable candidate for the Supreme Court."
But unless Obama appoints an outright conservative that is going to be the case with any of his nominees. Sotomayor is highly qualified. The Republicans risk further pushing themselves into the toilet with women, Hispanics and moderates as Sotomayor happens to be all three. Those three groups are the same three groups Republicans will eventually need to attract should they wish to regain electoral strength.
From NYT"
"...Judge Sotomayor, 54, grew up in a Bronx housing project, a child of Puerto Rican parents. She would be the court's first Hispanic justice. Her father died when she was 9, leaving her mother to raise her and a brother. In speeches to Latino groups over the years, Judge Sotomayor has recalled how her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to send her and her brother to Catholic school, purchased the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood and kept a warm pot of rice and beans on the stove every day for their friends.
She loved Nancy Drew mysteries, she once said, and yearned to be a police detective. But a doctor who diagnosed her childhood diabetes suggested that would be difficult. She traded her adoration of Nancy for an allegiance to Perry -- she became a fan of Perry Mason on television, she said, and decided to become a lawyer.
She went to Princeton, which she has described as a life-changing experience. When she arrived on campus from the Bronx, she said it was like "a visitor landing in an alien country." She never raised her hand in her first year there. "I was too embarrassed and too intimidated to ask questions," Judge Sotomayor said.
In one speech, she sounded some themes similar to Mr. Obama's description of his social uncertainties as a biracial youth in a largely white society.
"I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of the worlds I inhabit," she said, adding that that despite her accomplishments, "I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up."
After graduating summa cum laude from Princeton, she went to Yale Law School, worked for Robert M. Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and spent time in private practice before being named to the bench..."
From Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"...H.W. Bush nominated her for the district court in 1992 (she'd been recommended by Daniel Patrick Moynihan), and Clinton nominated her for the appeals court bench five years later. Senate Republicans, as is their habit, held up Sotomayor's nomination for more than a year, "because they believed that as a Hispanic appellate judge she would be a formidable candidate for the Supreme Court."
Things I Like - Art
I've always loved the colors that you get on ceramics that have been fired using the Raku process. You usually see them on vases or platters - these figurines from Judy Geerts are so graceful and the colors are stunning in contrast to the white glaze.
From the artist~
Bird in the Hand
Wild Bird with Red Skirt
Wild Bird with Girl in Green Skirt
via Daily Art Muse
From the artist~
My current area of focus is creating stylized figures that combine copper-flash patina and white crackle glaze Raku processes. Using flowing lines, I like including a narrative connection to nature. Whether she’s holding a twig for a miniature bird to light upon or a vessel for carrying water, each figure has an expression of joy in the wonderment of the world around her.
Bird in the Hand
Wild Bird with Red Skirt
Wild Bird with Girl in Green Skirt
via Daily Art Muse
How Do We Pay the Bills?
TW: The premise of this piece is somewhat flawed. She asserts universal care will require either- tax increases, reduced payments to providers or rationed care. What she misses is that uninsured folks receive a great deal of care already some of which they pay out of pocket and some of which just gets absorbed indirectly into the system when they are treated but do not pay. Furthermore, folks who avoid care due to lack of insurance may create worse health care bills down the road due to preventable but untreated symptoms etc. The challenge is converting those costs from the nebulous to the quantifiable will in fact be very challenging. And yes some uninsureds will begin consuming more health care than they did previously.
But at some point I agree with her premise, our health care costs cannot continue increasing faster than our income with crowding out other consumption and/or bankrupting the nation. Taxes may go up some but ultimately that cannot be the answer (if the costs rises faster than income then taxes would have to increase to unfeasible levels). So greater efficiency and/or rationing will have to happen. The more efficient we can become the less rationing that will be necessary. Neither the Dems nor the Republicans are being honest about this equation especially the rationing part.
From Business Week:
"When considering proposals for extending health-care benefits to 47 million uninsured, keep in mind that there are only three ways to pay for universal coverage: Raise taxes, cut payments to medical providers, or ration care. Is there a politician willing to have an honest discussion with the public about these tough choices?
The CBO estimates that covering the uninsured could add anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the federal budget over 10 years. On top of that, government economists expect Medicare to run out of money in 2017 if current spending trends continue. "When do the adults show up and say the part about needing to eat our vegetables?" asks Benjamin E. Sasse, Asst. Sec. of HHS from 2007 to 2009. "Every politician wants to solve the uninsured problem, but that's the ice cream. Being honest about the price is the spinach, and they're ducking."
The Senate Finance Committee did quietly release a 40-page document on May 18 laying out payment options for universal coverage. They range from taxing employee health insurance to fining companies that don't offer benefits to levying taxes on alcohol and soda. None will be an easy sell.
Economists tend to favor a tax on employee health-care benefits, which could bring in more than $200 billion a year (now these benefits are tax-exempt). But given the shaky economy, Congress is unlikely to take any action that might encourage companies to drop employee insurance or reduce a worker's take-home pay, says Robert J. Blendon, professor at Harvard University.
...How about the white coats? Hospitals and doctors account for 62% of the nation's health spending, but they have shown little interest in taking a hit to their income.
...Then there's rationing. Actually, there's not. Telling patients they can't have every treatment they want is not remotely on the table. There is some hope that patients may respond to financial incentives to choose healthier lifestyles, but—given that two-thirds of adults are overweight and half of all patients do not take their medications as prescribed—nobody is banking on it.
In policy circles there's some optimism that the political class knows it has to address the funding question soon. "In both the Administration and Congress there are a lot of people who understand the need, at a pretty sophisticated level, to bring down costs," says Douglas A. Hastings, a Washington health-care attorney with Epstein Becker & Green. Now all they need to do is educate the voters."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_22/b4133000817326.htm?chan=magazine+channel_news
But at some point I agree with her premise, our health care costs cannot continue increasing faster than our income with crowding out other consumption and/or bankrupting the nation. Taxes may go up some but ultimately that cannot be the answer (if the costs rises faster than income then taxes would have to increase to unfeasible levels). So greater efficiency and/or rationing will have to happen. The more efficient we can become the less rationing that will be necessary. Neither the Dems nor the Republicans are being honest about this equation especially the rationing part.
From Business Week:
"When considering proposals for extending health-care benefits to 47 million uninsured, keep in mind that there are only three ways to pay for universal coverage: Raise taxes, cut payments to medical providers, or ration care. Is there a politician willing to have an honest discussion with the public about these tough choices?
The CBO estimates that covering the uninsured could add anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the federal budget over 10 years. On top of that, government economists expect Medicare to run out of money in 2017 if current spending trends continue. "When do the adults show up and say the part about needing to eat our vegetables?" asks Benjamin E. Sasse, Asst. Sec. of HHS from 2007 to 2009. "Every politician wants to solve the uninsured problem, but that's the ice cream. Being honest about the price is the spinach, and they're ducking."
The Senate Finance Committee did quietly release a 40-page document on May 18 laying out payment options for universal coverage. They range from taxing employee health insurance to fining companies that don't offer benefits to levying taxes on alcohol and soda. None will be an easy sell.
Economists tend to favor a tax on employee health-care benefits, which could bring in more than $200 billion a year (now these benefits are tax-exempt). But given the shaky economy, Congress is unlikely to take any action that might encourage companies to drop employee insurance or reduce a worker's take-home pay, says Robert J. Blendon, professor at Harvard University.
...How about the white coats? Hospitals and doctors account for 62% of the nation's health spending, but they have shown little interest in taking a hit to their income.
...Then there's rationing. Actually, there's not. Telling patients they can't have every treatment they want is not remotely on the table. There is some hope that patients may respond to financial incentives to choose healthier lifestyles, but—given that two-thirds of adults are overweight and half of all patients do not take their medications as prescribed—nobody is banking on it.
In policy circles there's some optimism that the political class knows it has to address the funding question soon. "In both the Administration and Congress there are a lot of people who understand the need, at a pretty sophisticated level, to bring down costs," says Douglas A. Hastings, a Washington health-care attorney with Epstein Becker & Green. Now all they need to do is educate the voters."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_22/b4133000817326.htm?chan=magazine+channel_news
Monday, May 25, 2009
An American Hero
TW: Pat Tillman was notorious for having left the NFL to enlist. He died in Afghanistan in 2005. He had real depth. He was not a follower, he wanted to know where and why he was going not just that he was going, but he still went. He is the type person I would have liked to have met.From Sports Illustrated (Sept, 2006)
"...Who else showed up in a college assistant coach's office at 1 a.m., asking what he thought of Mormonism with such zest that both ended up reading the Book of Mormon so they could discuss it in detail? Who else in the NFL or the U.S. Army took a book everywhere, even on 10-minute errands, read The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, the Bible and the Koran, so he could carve out his own convictions ... then bought you the book and picked a philosophical fight just to flush out some viewpoint that might push him to revise his, push him to evolve? Gays, for instance. By the last few years of his life, his narrow view of them as an adolescent had so altered that he would argue they were the most evolved form of man.
...You didn't talk politics over there, not while you were still in the sandbox. But that night, as Pat watched another orange and white flash-bang shudder the distant town, he shook his head and said, "This war is so f------ illegal." Russ, for the first time, realized how wobbly a tightrope Pat was walking between his integrity and his duty. Even later in their 3 1/2-month deployment in Iraq, as it began to appear that they'd been sent on a nukes-and-biochemical-weapons wild-goose chase, Russ never heard Pat go further than, "This is all bulls---."
But surely Pat's fame and fierce independence had unsettled higher-ups from the day he enlisted. They had tried to persuade him to be a recruiting poster boy in Washington rather than a Ranger. Surely, one family member was convinced, once the Army got its first glimpse of Pat's psychological profile -- he was the one who stood outside the Cardinals' team prayer circle, the one who couldn't wait to have a mutual friend arrange a meeting with renowned anti-war leftist Noam Chomsky after his discharge -- it never would have allowed him to become a Ranger if it hadn't had to because he was Pat Tillman.
Hell, at the Army recruiting office the day he enlisted, before he'd even signed his papers, one of those jalapeño drill sergeants lined up Pat, Kevin and a gaggle of other recruits and started fire-breathing contradictory orders. "Look, you're confusing everybody and being unreasonable," Pat told the astonished sergeant. "You're treating us like ass----s, and we haven't even signed up to be treated like ass----s yet." At first it was a curiosity to Pat, then an irritation, when he kept receiving orders to undergo additional psychological evaluations.
Everybody who thought he'd enlisted purely out of patriotism, they missed reality by a half mile. Sure, he loved America and felt compelled to fight for it after more than 2,600 people at the World Trade Center were turned to dust. But his decision sprang from soil so much richer than that. The foisting of all the dirty work onto people less fortunate than an NFL safety clawed at his ethics.
...He yearned to have a voice one day that would carry, possibly in politics, and he was far from the sort of man who could send others into a fire that he had skirted. His relentless curiosity, his determination to live his life as if it were a book that would hold its reader to the last word, pushed him into the flames as well. The history of man is war, he told a family member, so how, without sampling it, could he ever know man or himself completely?..."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/05/tillman0911/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/05/tillman0911/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)