TW: Boston Globe has a great photo site (see below) they did a feature on robotics, worth a look.http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/more_robots.html
Monday, August 31, 2009
Which One Is the Robot?
TW: Boston Globe has a great photo site (see below) they did a feature on robotics, worth a look.http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/more_robots.html
Public Service Unions Need Reform
TW: I am not in the all unions are bad camp. Just like I am not in the all rapacious capitalists are bad even though many are. But there is one type of union with whom I have serious problems- public service. Public service unions wield disproportionate power due to the frequent monopolistic power of their industries (i.e. teaching, fire fighting, police etc.) and their exceedingly strong electoral impact especially locally.
Public service unions typically are a core Democratic constituency. That does not mean they should be immune to reform. I have not plowed through the New Yorker article referenced below but am looking forward to it. Improving education is a multi-faceted challenge but increasing the quality of teachers should be part of the solution.
From Economist:
"...studies have shown that the quality of one's teacher is probably the most important factor in determining a student's educational success. But in New York, where the pay and promotion schemes are nearly automatic, good teachers are treated much the same way as bad teachers. Moreover, the tenure system is such that bad teachers stick around for as long as they want. After running through the elaborate and costly system for dealing with incompetent teachers,
Mr Brill [author of New Yorker piece] notes
'[I]n the past two years arbitrators have terminated only two teachers for incompetence alone, and only six others in cases where, according to the Department of Education, the main charge was incompetence.'
Tenure is one of the biggest problems: after three years on the job, teachers are basically guaranteed employment for life. Joel Klein, the city's schools chancellor, has made a dent there, but problems persist.
[From Brill]
'In seven years, Klein has increased the percentage of third-year teachers not given tenure from three to six per cent. Unsatisfactory ratings for tenured teachers have risen from less than one per cent to 1.8 per cent. "Any human-resources professional will tell you that rating only 1.8 per cent of any workforce unsatisfactory is ridiculous," [Dan Weisberg, the general counsel and vice-president for the New Teacher Project] says. "If you look at the upper quartile and the lower quartile, you know that those people are not interchangeable...'
...Why shouldn't public-school teachers be treated like bankers or lawyers or most other occupations in America? Why should they be guaranteed employment after three years, and why doesn't performance play a bigger role in decisions about salaries and promotions? These aren't new questions. Barack Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, has been pushing for reforms to the current system. And Mr Klein has been battling the UTF for seven years. But the teachers' union is powerful, and the state's politicians are easily cowed. In the city, the teachers' contract is up for renewal in October, which should lead to another battle over tenure, evaluation and pay."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/those_who_cant_teach_teach.cfm
Public service unions typically are a core Democratic constituency. That does not mean they should be immune to reform. I have not plowed through the New Yorker article referenced below but am looking forward to it. Improving education is a multi-faceted challenge but increasing the quality of teachers should be part of the solution.
From Economist:
"...studies have shown that the quality of one's teacher is probably the most important factor in determining a student's educational success. But in New York, where the pay and promotion schemes are nearly automatic, good teachers are treated much the same way as bad teachers. Moreover, the tenure system is such that bad teachers stick around for as long as they want. After running through the elaborate and costly system for dealing with incompetent teachers,
Mr Brill [author of New Yorker piece] notes
'[I]n the past two years arbitrators have terminated only two teachers for incompetence alone, and only six others in cases where, according to the Department of Education, the main charge was incompetence.'
Tenure is one of the biggest problems: after three years on the job, teachers are basically guaranteed employment for life. Joel Klein, the city's schools chancellor, has made a dent there, but problems persist.
[From Brill]
'In seven years, Klein has increased the percentage of third-year teachers not given tenure from three to six per cent. Unsatisfactory ratings for tenured teachers have risen from less than one per cent to 1.8 per cent. "Any human-resources professional will tell you that rating only 1.8 per cent of any workforce unsatisfactory is ridiculous," [Dan Weisberg, the general counsel and vice-president for the New Teacher Project] says. "If you look at the upper quartile and the lower quartile, you know that those people are not interchangeable...'
...Why shouldn't public-school teachers be treated like bankers or lawyers or most other occupations in America? Why should they be guaranteed employment after three years, and why doesn't performance play a bigger role in decisions about salaries and promotions? These aren't new questions. Barack Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, has been pushing for reforms to the current system. And Mr Klein has been battling the UTF for seven years. But the teachers' union is powerful, and the state's politicians are easily cowed. In the city, the teachers' contract is up for renewal in October, which should lead to another battle over tenure, evaluation and pay."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/those_who_cant_teach_teach.cfm
Nate Silver And Fox Friends: Oil And Water
TW: You know we like Mr. Silver, the progressive yet accurate polling geek who managed to get 49 of the states right last November. He appeared on Fox and Friends last week with predictable results.
The thing is though, while what Nate said is correct, by saying it he likely ensures he will never appear again on that show perhaps any Fox show. He is not playing the game. A more cynical and popular pundit would have merely released an inane post on his blog advertising his appearance. By speaking the truth he will likely be shut out thereby sealing shut the echo chamber known as Fox a little more tightly.
From Nate Silver:
"This past Friday, I woke up at the crack of dawn to do an interview for Fox and Friends...it was one of the more aggravating experiences that I've had in my brief "career" in politics. The host misread his teleprompter (that's the generous interpretation), introducing me as someone who had correctly predicted "29 out of 50" states last November, and then recited a series of pre-spun questions, seeming flummoxed afterward that I hadn't agreed verbatim with his talking points and complaining aloud that the very smart conservative who was supposed to have been on the panel with me (a last-minute cancellation) hadn't been there (to "balance" me, I suppose).
Then as I was leaving the studio past a huge trailer serving Johnsonville Brats, they launched into a segment about Britney Spears and Alzhemier's. There was just no pretense of trying to do anything even vaguely resembling the news. I'm not reflexively anti-FOX; in fact, I'd had a couple of good experiences last year on Shepherd Smith and on their business channel. But as for their morning program: Wow. I've never met people more terrified of what might happen if they actually tried to engage in a rational discussion."
The thing is though, while what Nate said is correct, by saying it he likely ensures he will never appear again on that show perhaps any Fox show. He is not playing the game. A more cynical and popular pundit would have merely released an inane post on his blog advertising his appearance. By speaking the truth he will likely be shut out thereby sealing shut the echo chamber known as Fox a little more tightly.
From Nate Silver:
"This past Friday, I woke up at the crack of dawn to do an interview for Fox and Friends...it was one of the more aggravating experiences that I've had in my brief "career" in politics. The host misread his teleprompter (that's the generous interpretation), introducing me as someone who had correctly predicted "29 out of 50" states last November, and then recited a series of pre-spun questions, seeming flummoxed afterward that I hadn't agreed verbatim with his talking points and complaining aloud that the very smart conservative who was supposed to have been on the panel with me (a last-minute cancellation) hadn't been there (to "balance" me, I suppose).
Then as I was leaving the studio past a huge trailer serving Johnsonville Brats, they launched into a segment about Britney Spears and Alzhemier's. There was just no pretense of trying to do anything even vaguely resembling the news. I'm not reflexively anti-FOX; in fact, I'd had a couple of good experiences last year on Shepherd Smith and on their business channel. But as for their morning program: Wow. I've never met people more terrified of what might happen if they actually tried to engage in a rational discussion."
Herceptin Treatment: A Real Life Health Care Example
TW: Am going to address health care from a different angle by using a real life example. Ms. Blogger's sister is undergoing chemo. She is using Herceptin which provides an opportunity to compare and contrast our system with others but more importantly frame the challenges associated with universal care and medical costs overall.
Quick context:
1)Herceptin is a "monoclonal antibody," or a targeted biological therapy
2)We will assume it is efficacious
3)It costs roughly $70,000 per patient
4)It has been used widely in the U.S. for about ten years
5)Australia held off approval until 2006 based on concerns about cost/benefit
6)Asked to described the difference in approaches a doctor responded- "If we think it would do some good, we go for it. And then years down the road, we see the evidence of of how much good it does. In a system like Australia's, they have the cost-benefit discussion first."
My questions:
1) Herceptin costs $70,000 per treatment. It is only a part of a person's overall cancer treatment whose other components also have significant costs. How does a society define cost/benefit? At what point does the cost become too high to justify? $700,000? $7,000,000? More? Less?
2) Is the "if we think it would do some good, we go for it" a viable approach given limited resources? If viable for Herceptin, why not for non-health related expenditures such as climate change? education initiatives? etc.
3) Should Herceptin only be available to those with insurance coverage of the type which covers $70K per treatment expenses or should it be available to all who suffer from the relevant cancer(s)? If not available to all, why?
Quick context:
1)Herceptin is a "monoclonal antibody," or a targeted biological therapy
2)We will assume it is efficacious
3)It costs roughly $70,000 per patient
4)It has been used widely in the U.S. for about ten years
5)Australia held off approval until 2006 based on concerns about cost/benefit
6)Asked to described the difference in approaches a doctor responded- "If we think it would do some good, we go for it. And then years down the road, we see the evidence of of how much good it does. In a system like Australia's, they have the cost-benefit discussion first."
My questions:
1) Herceptin costs $70,000 per treatment. It is only a part of a person's overall cancer treatment whose other components also have significant costs. How does a society define cost/benefit? At what point does the cost become too high to justify? $700,000? $7,000,000? More? Less?
2) Is the "if we think it would do some good, we go for it" a viable approach given limited resources? If viable for Herceptin, why not for non-health related expenditures such as climate change? education initiatives? etc.
3) Should Herceptin only be available to those with insurance coverage of the type which covers $70K per treatment expenses or should it be available to all who suffer from the relevant cancer(s)? If not available to all, why?
Let the Market Decide
TW: Trying a little jujitsu here. Free markets are fairly revered in the U.S., more than they deserve in my opinion. Not that they are bad but just not the panacea many folks perceive them to be. One reason they are not a panacea is certain economic activities are not priced by the market. I discussed them a while back here.
Burning carbon creates negative externalities that are not priced into the market. As Klein outlines some folks would like to get all granola-ish and somehow reduce their carbon footprints. This is a highly inefficient way to accomplish a valid goal. I am for letting the market function by pricing in the negative impact of carbon emissions. Folks can argue over how to value those negative externalities (i.e. is climate change real, do we really care if we are subsidizing Chavez/Ahmadinejad etc., do we care if we need to deploy our troops in hellholes to guard oil supplies, would have less sulfur in the air be a good thing) but pricing carbon is the right way to do it.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...making sensible decisions about how to reduce carbon emissions is really, really hard. It's intuitive, for instance, to eat local foods. But it's less intuitive to eat foods that are shipped rather than trucked. And few people know that it's much more important to reduce meat than reduce miles.
...Lots of activities burn carbon. Some, like driving, have been hyped, and everyone knows about them. Some, like raising large numbers of animals to feed to humans, have not been hyped, and so people don't know about them. Some, like whether to take the bus or the metro, are simply unclear to people who haven't studied the issue. Asking people to be carbon calculators is a silly way to reduce their carbon output.
The problem is not that we burn carbon. It's that we don't price the harm of the carbon we burn into the products we buy. To put it slightly differently, it's that we don't burn carbon responsibly. That's why something like cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, makes sense. The point isn't to have me running a thousand calculations about whether I should drive, walk, metro or bike; or whether I should eat a local chicken or buy a spinach salad. It's to have me simply go about my day and let prices make those decisions for me. Goods or services that burn more carbon will be more expensive. Goods or services that burn less will be less expensive. That's information I actually know how to use."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/burn_carbon_responsibly.html
Burning carbon creates negative externalities that are not priced into the market. As Klein outlines some folks would like to get all granola-ish and somehow reduce their carbon footprints. This is a highly inefficient way to accomplish a valid goal. I am for letting the market function by pricing in the negative impact of carbon emissions. Folks can argue over how to value those negative externalities (i.e. is climate change real, do we really care if we are subsidizing Chavez/Ahmadinejad etc., do we care if we need to deploy our troops in hellholes to guard oil supplies, would have less sulfur in the air be a good thing) but pricing carbon is the right way to do it.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...making sensible decisions about how to reduce carbon emissions is really, really hard. It's intuitive, for instance, to eat local foods. But it's less intuitive to eat foods that are shipped rather than trucked. And few people know that it's much more important to reduce meat than reduce miles.
...Lots of activities burn carbon. Some, like driving, have been hyped, and everyone knows about them. Some, like raising large numbers of animals to feed to humans, have not been hyped, and so people don't know about them. Some, like whether to take the bus or the metro, are simply unclear to people who haven't studied the issue. Asking people to be carbon calculators is a silly way to reduce their carbon output.
The problem is not that we burn carbon. It's that we don't price the harm of the carbon we burn into the products we buy. To put it slightly differently, it's that we don't burn carbon responsibly. That's why something like cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, makes sense. The point isn't to have me running a thousand calculations about whether I should drive, walk, metro or bike; or whether I should eat a local chicken or buy a spinach salad. It's to have me simply go about my day and let prices make those decisions for me. Goods or services that burn more carbon will be more expensive. Goods or services that burn less will be less expensive. That's information I actually know how to use."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/burn_carbon_responsibly.html
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Agreed
From Paul Kedrosky's blog:
"Air travel security restrictions are nuts. No shoes was bad enough, creating this U.S.-wide pajama party, but now this one: Nothing in the seatback pockets please. I kid you not:
'The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that airlines whose flight attendants had been telling passengers that no personal items of any kind could be placed in seatback pockets were “following our guidance, if they are enforcing this with travelers.”
The agency’s response came after numerous inquiries following a flight I made from Denver to Tucson operated by SkyWest Airlines, on which the flight attendant announced before takeoff that, as a safety measure, nothing could be placed in seatback storage pockets — no eyeglasses, no ticket stubs, no iPods or bottles of water or magazines.'
My suggestion: Let’s go straight to no humans on planes. They’re just a general security risk, and they smell badly too."
TW: I used to fly a ton, 100K+ miles annually. I did not mind travel but since 9/11 things have gotten stupid (er).
"Air travel security restrictions are nuts. No shoes was bad enough, creating this U.S.-wide pajama party, but now this one: Nothing in the seatback pockets please. I kid you not:
'The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that airlines whose flight attendants had been telling passengers that no personal items of any kind could be placed in seatback pockets were “following our guidance, if they are enforcing this with travelers.”
The agency’s response came after numerous inquiries following a flight I made from Denver to Tucson operated by SkyWest Airlines, on which the flight attendant announced before takeoff that, as a safety measure, nothing could be placed in seatback storage pockets — no eyeglasses, no ticket stubs, no iPods or bottles of water or magazines.'
My suggestion: Let’s go straight to no humans on planes. They’re just a general security risk, and they smell badly too."
TW: I used to fly a ton, 100K+ miles annually. I did not mind travel but since 9/11 things have gotten stupid (er).
Ganjapreneurship
TW: I support drug legalization. Grow the stuff here, tax the heck out of it, regulate it, support American jobs. Various states have relatively liberal drug laws but federal laws overlay local law. The Obama administration is taking a more lenient view of the state laws (see Dems can support states rights too...) than his predecessor. Unsurprisingly jobs are being created. Or perhaps not so much created as lifted from the "black" economy, where no one pays into social security, medicare etc., into the formal economy where they do. Imagine folks opening up storefronts paying property tax contributing to the vitality of a town rather than lurking surreptitiously within the shadows of society. This stuff is not that complex.
From Atlantic Monthly:
"...What can only be rightly described as an explosion of ganjapreneurship is currently underway in Colorado, sparked by the Obama Administration's new policy announcement in February, which directed federal agencies to defer to state law enforcement on the issue of medical marijuana.
Medical marijuana has been technically legal in Colorado since 2000, when residents voted to add Amendment 20 to the state's constitution. The Bush Administration, however, always maintained a rigid stance that federal anti-drug laws took precedence over state rights. Regular DEA raids on medical marijuana distributors in states that legally permit such commerce effectively intimidated citizens who would have otherwise officially registered as patients or caregivers.
At the beginning of this year, only 2000 people had applied for Colorado's Medical Marijuana Registry since the system was established on 2001. In the past six months, the registry has grown to nearly 10,000.
...Colorado is just now entering a phase of transition that embraces that legal reality. The longtime lucrative blackmarket in a forbidden agricultural product is being legitimized--all the financial transactions that used to flow underground are now being raised to the taxable surface, creating a new era for an ancient industry, and fertile ground for ganjapreneurial start-ups to sprout like new shoots of Cannabis sativa.
...Kathleen suggests, "Marijuana is the only thing pulling Colorado out of the recession right now." Not only has her own small business been saved, but whereas her previous sales tax bill would run about $500 per quarter, Nederland will be getting a $5000 check out of her first few months as a dispensary. Most of the farmers Kathleen works with have been cultivating their product illegally for many years--the oldest has been in the illicit business for 35, more than half have grown marijuana for over two decades. Now that they sell their product to a legal commercial enterprise, weed farmers will have to register their income and pay taxes on it, just like anyone growing tomatoes or tobacco.
...Kathleen says. Since marijuana farmers have begun selling exclusively to legitimate dispensaries, the underground market for illegal weed has been quashed, putting drug dealers out of business for lack of available stock.
...Considering the prevalence of the underground market, legitimizing the business has the effect of tightening controls over it, regulating who can legally purchase, sell, or grow it, which puts unscrupulous drug dealers out of business, this reducing the availability of product through any but official channels. The controls that come with legalization effectively reduces its availability, rather than the contrary..."
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/christina_davidson/2009/08/at_first_glance_the_one.php
From Atlantic Monthly:
"...What can only be rightly described as an explosion of ganjapreneurship is currently underway in Colorado, sparked by the Obama Administration's new policy announcement in February, which directed federal agencies to defer to state law enforcement on the issue of medical marijuana.
Medical marijuana has been technically legal in Colorado since 2000, when residents voted to add Amendment 20 to the state's constitution. The Bush Administration, however, always maintained a rigid stance that federal anti-drug laws took precedence over state rights. Regular DEA raids on medical marijuana distributors in states that legally permit such commerce effectively intimidated citizens who would have otherwise officially registered as patients or caregivers.
At the beginning of this year, only 2000 people had applied for Colorado's Medical Marijuana Registry since the system was established on 2001. In the past six months, the registry has grown to nearly 10,000.
...Colorado is just now entering a phase of transition that embraces that legal reality. The longtime lucrative blackmarket in a forbidden agricultural product is being legitimized--all the financial transactions that used to flow underground are now being raised to the taxable surface, creating a new era for an ancient industry, and fertile ground for ganjapreneurial start-ups to sprout like new shoots of Cannabis sativa.
...Kathleen suggests, "Marijuana is the only thing pulling Colorado out of the recession right now." Not only has her own small business been saved, but whereas her previous sales tax bill would run about $500 per quarter, Nederland will be getting a $5000 check out of her first few months as a dispensary. Most of the farmers Kathleen works with have been cultivating their product illegally for many years--the oldest has been in the illicit business for 35, more than half have grown marijuana for over two decades. Now that they sell their product to a legal commercial enterprise, weed farmers will have to register their income and pay taxes on it, just like anyone growing tomatoes or tobacco.
...Kathleen says. Since marijuana farmers have begun selling exclusively to legitimate dispensaries, the underground market for illegal weed has been quashed, putting drug dealers out of business for lack of available stock.
...Considering the prevalence of the underground market, legitimizing the business has the effect of tightening controls over it, regulating who can legally purchase, sell, or grow it, which puts unscrupulous drug dealers out of business, this reducing the availability of product through any but official channels. The controls that come with legalization effectively reduces its availability, rather than the contrary..."
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/christina_davidson/2009/08/at_first_glance_the_one.php
Republicans As Medicare Pushers
TW: I have posted before about the senior voting bloc. It is large, it votes and it is growing. The Republicans have found political gold in claiming Obamacrats are seeking to slow medical spending on seniors. We are. But then we must slow the rate of increase on medical spending across all demographics or else medical spending will grow from the 8% of GDP of the 1970's to the 16% of the naughties to 30%+ by the 2030s.
Conservative columnist Douthat asks whether the Republicans are opening a pandora's box by pandering so baldly to the 65+ yr voters.
From Ross Douthat at NYT:
"...If the Democratic Party’s attempt at health care reform perishes, senior citizens will have done it in, not talk-radio listeners and Glenn Beck acolytes. It’s the skepticism of over-65 Americans that’s dragging support for reform southward. And it’s their opposition to cost-cutting that makes finding the money to pay for it so difficult.
That’s because they’re the ones whose benefits are on the chopping block. At present, Medicare gives its recipients all the benefits of socialized medicine, with few of the drawbacks. Once you hit 65, the system pays and pays, without regard for efficiency or cost-effectiveness.
...Republicans find themselves tiptoeing into an unfamiliar role — as champions of old-age entitlements.
....You can understand why Republicans, after decades of being demagogued for proposing even modest entitlement reforms, would relish the chance to turn the tables. But this is a perilous strategy for the right.
Medicare’s price tag, if trends continue, will make a mockery of the idea of limited government. For conservatives, no fiscal cause is more important than curbing this exponential growth. And by fighting health care reform with tactics ripped from Democratic playbooks, and enlisting anxious seniors as foot soldiers, conservatives are setting themselves up to win the battle and lose the longer war.
...But for now, their strategy means the country suddenly has two political parties devoted to Mediscaring seniors — which in turn seems likely to make the program more untouchable than ever.
And if you think reform is tough today, just wait. We’re already practically a gerontocracy: Americans over 50 cast over 40 percent of the votes in the 2008 elections, and half the votes in the ’06 midterms. As the population ages — by 2030, there will be more Americans over 65 than under 18 — the power of the elderly and nearly elderly may become almost absolute.
In this future, somebody will need to stand for the principle that Medicare can’t pay every bill and bless every procedure. Somebody will need to defend the younger generation’s promise (and its pocketbooks). Somebody will need to say “no” to retirees.
That’s supposed to be the Republicans’ job. They should stick to doing it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17douthat.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=ross%20douthat%20grandma&st=cse
Conservative columnist Douthat asks whether the Republicans are opening a pandora's box by pandering so baldly to the 65+ yr voters.
From Ross Douthat at NYT:
"...If the Democratic Party’s attempt at health care reform perishes, senior citizens will have done it in, not talk-radio listeners and Glenn Beck acolytes. It’s the skepticism of over-65 Americans that’s dragging support for reform southward. And it’s their opposition to cost-cutting that makes finding the money to pay for it so difficult.
That’s because they’re the ones whose benefits are on the chopping block. At present, Medicare gives its recipients all the benefits of socialized medicine, with few of the drawbacks. Once you hit 65, the system pays and pays, without regard for efficiency or cost-effectiveness.
...Republicans find themselves tiptoeing into an unfamiliar role — as champions of old-age entitlements.
....You can understand why Republicans, after decades of being demagogued for proposing even modest entitlement reforms, would relish the chance to turn the tables. But this is a perilous strategy for the right.
Medicare’s price tag, if trends continue, will make a mockery of the idea of limited government. For conservatives, no fiscal cause is more important than curbing this exponential growth. And by fighting health care reform with tactics ripped from Democratic playbooks, and enlisting anxious seniors as foot soldiers, conservatives are setting themselves up to win the battle and lose the longer war.
...But for now, their strategy means the country suddenly has two political parties devoted to Mediscaring seniors — which in turn seems likely to make the program more untouchable than ever.
And if you think reform is tough today, just wait. We’re already practically a gerontocracy: Americans over 50 cast over 40 percent of the votes in the 2008 elections, and half the votes in the ’06 midterms. As the population ages — by 2030, there will be more Americans over 65 than under 18 — the power of the elderly and nearly elderly may become almost absolute.
In this future, somebody will need to stand for the principle that Medicare can’t pay every bill and bless every procedure. Somebody will need to defend the younger generation’s promise (and its pocketbooks). Somebody will need to say “no” to retirees.
That’s supposed to be the Republicans’ job. They should stick to doing it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17douthat.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=ross%20douthat%20grandma&st=cse
Things I Like - Odds & Ends
I have gardens on the brain this week – my tomatoes started to ripen at the beginning of the month and I’ve been collecting baskets-full ever since. I still dream of having a real garden, the kind in the ground as opposed to the kind in containers, but until we have some actual ground, containers on the deck will have to do.It looks like Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, the documentary filmmakers behind Wicked Delicate, have garden limitations as well. Container gardens come in all sizes. Theirs comes in the flatbed of a 1986 Dodge pickup parked on the street in Brooklyn New York. And since they are filmmakers, the garden's growth is being documented via a solar powered time lapse camera.
Check out the site to see the first 2 episodes in the life of Truck Farm.
Via Notcot
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Knife Grabbers (cont.)
TW: We have set out this rally and still will for now. We are not alone, but can certainly empathize with these sentiments.
From the Reformed Broker blog:
"I talk to a ton of traders, portfolio managers, brokers and high net worth investors, both on and off Wall Street. Most of them have engaged in a bit of panic buying at some point this summer as the 50% rally in US stocks surprised many smart players...The quotes below are real, if paraphrased, and came from a variety of my contacts and friends:
The Five Stages of Panic Buying!
1. Denial (Late March/ Early April)
“Ha, another Bear Market rally…wait til the foreclosure/ new home sales/ confidence data comes in! Right back to 6500, maybe lower…bagholders”
“Dude, the stress tests are coming out next month. B of A may be done-ski. Sell the May 10 calls, you’ll never have to cover.”
2. Anger (Mid-April)
“What the f@&% do you mean the goddamn banks are cheap based on normalized earnings? They will never ever earn anything again, ever! Idiot!”
“You gotta be kidding me with these retailers running now. RETAILERS? Are you nuts? They’re FINISHED!”
“If one more consumer discretionary name rallies on a less-than-expected loss, I’m gonna kick this Bloomberg down a flight of stairs.”
3. Bargaining (May-June)
“Okay, I can stomach picking up some large cap tech and I’ll nibble – NIBBLE! – at discount retailers, but I will absolutely NOT buy Goldman Sachs at 130.”
If China would just pull back 5 to 7% I’d get in, but I can’t chase it here…except Sohu, and I guess a little Baidu and I’ll just take a quarter position in China Mobile just in case. But I’m not chasing here.”
“(whispered) Dear market god, please stop the tape. Just give me one crack at the Nazz and some banks and I will never doubt the solvency of the US balance sheet or the wisdom of the Troubled Asset Relief Program ever again.”
4. Depression (July)
“I can’t believe I missed it. Those D-bags next to me are high-fiving after every earnings report. Hate those f@&%ing guys.”
“How could Las Vegas Sands do this to me? I’ve been watching this stock go up for 900% now. Couldn’t just give me one chance to get in. I suck.”
5. Acceptance (Early August)
“That’s it! I don’t give a damn anymore, GET ME IN NOW! Forget the big ones, they’re already up too much, are there any $5 stocks left that haven’t done anything yet?
“I gotta blow out this stupid GLD, it does nothing, sick of it and sick of hearing about inflation. Even Paulson blew it out. Get me some $2 biotechs and some midwest regional bank stocks, I gotta get poppin’ over here! We’re going to 10,000 baby!”
If hearing these words and phrases from somewhere outside of your own inner monologue was at all cathartic or helpful, then you’re welcome... "
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/08/27/the-five-stages-of-panic-buying/#more-5307
From the Reformed Broker blog:
"I talk to a ton of traders, portfolio managers, brokers and high net worth investors, both on and off Wall Street. Most of them have engaged in a bit of panic buying at some point this summer as the 50% rally in US stocks surprised many smart players...The quotes below are real, if paraphrased, and came from a variety of my contacts and friends:
The Five Stages of Panic Buying!
1. Denial (Late March/ Early April)
“Ha, another Bear Market rally…wait til the foreclosure/ new home sales/ confidence data comes in! Right back to 6500, maybe lower…bagholders”
“Dude, the stress tests are coming out next month. B of A may be done-ski. Sell the May 10 calls, you’ll never have to cover.”
2. Anger (Mid-April)
“What the f@&% do you mean the goddamn banks are cheap based on normalized earnings? They will never ever earn anything again, ever! Idiot!”
“You gotta be kidding me with these retailers running now. RETAILERS? Are you nuts? They’re FINISHED!”
“If one more consumer discretionary name rallies on a less-than-expected loss, I’m gonna kick this Bloomberg down a flight of stairs.”
3. Bargaining (May-June)
“Okay, I can stomach picking up some large cap tech and I’ll nibble – NIBBLE! – at discount retailers, but I will absolutely NOT buy Goldman Sachs at 130.”
If China would just pull back 5 to 7% I’d get in, but I can’t chase it here…except Sohu, and I guess a little Baidu and I’ll just take a quarter position in China Mobile just in case. But I’m not chasing here.”
“(whispered) Dear market god, please stop the tape. Just give me one crack at the Nazz and some banks and I will never doubt the solvency of the US balance sheet or the wisdom of the Troubled Asset Relief Program ever again.”
4. Depression (July)
“I can’t believe I missed it. Those D-bags next to me are high-fiving after every earnings report. Hate those f@&%ing guys.”
“How could Las Vegas Sands do this to me? I’ve been watching this stock go up for 900% now. Couldn’t just give me one chance to get in. I suck.”
5. Acceptance (Early August)
“That’s it! I don’t give a damn anymore, GET ME IN NOW! Forget the big ones, they’re already up too much, are there any $5 stocks left that haven’t done anything yet?
“I gotta blow out this stupid GLD, it does nothing, sick of it and sick of hearing about inflation. Even Paulson blew it out. Get me some $2 biotechs and some midwest regional bank stocks, I gotta get poppin’ over here! We’re going to 10,000 baby!”
If hearing these words and phrases from somewhere outside of your own inner monologue was at all cathartic or helpful, then you’re welcome... "
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/08/27/the-five-stages-of-panic-buying/#more-5307
Per Capita GDP By Country
TW: Nice tool to review per capita GDP by country. The disparities are still pretty stark. Click on the link below to use the tool.http://snippets.com/what-is-the-gdp-per-capita-for-every-country.htm
Actual Footage Of an Obama Death Panel
Death Panel Advisors - watch more funny videos
h/t Ezra Klein blog
Things I Like - Chicago
Well this is the biggest Chicago food event for the White House since the opening of the Jewel at Kinzie and Milwaukee (sweetly located across from the Blommer’s Chocolate factory).I’m talking about the long awaited MetraMarket in the Ogilvie Transportation Center (that would be the Northwestern Train Station for you old timers) scheduled to open in October.
The MetraMarket will be in that huge (100,000-square-foot) space just south of the station and bordered by Lake, Canal, Washington and Clinton streets. The exciting news is that the space will contain a French Market which will be managed and operated by the Bensidoun family, the largest market operator in and around Paris. The market currently has the following vendors signed up:
• Albano’s Deli, an Italian specialty store
• Canady Le Chocolatier
• Chicago Organics grocery store
• Completely Nuts
• Flip Crepes
• Fraternite Notre Dame bakery
• Pastoral Artisan Cheese, Bread & Wine
• Sweet Miss Giving’s bakery
• Vanille Patisserie pastry shop
• Wisconsin Cheese Mart
I'm pretty excited about the Italian deli and I know that Mr. White will want to check out the crepe place. Here's hoping they add some flower kiosks - then it will really be a French market.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wellman Classico
TW: An oldie but goodie, takes him a few seconds to really get rolling but certainly an all-time performance.
Income And Education
(click on graphs to enlarge)
TW: The first graph above is from Greg Mankiw's blog, he dismisses it:
"...Of course! But so what? This fact tells us nothing about the causal impact of income on test scores...This graph is a good example of omitted variable bias...The key omitted variable here is parents' IQ. Smart parents make more money and pass those good genes on to their offspring.Suppose we were to graph average SAT scores by the number of bathrooms a student has in his or her family home. That curve would also likely slope upward..."
TW: He is right. The graph implies causation when many other variables could be relevant (including although certainly not limited to IQ). But my guy Krugman counters with the second graph. Low income kids with high scores manage to attain fewer college degrees than high income kids with LOW scores. Why is that?
What Is All the Fuss About Again?
TW: Nate Silver does nice job reminding wonky types that much of what passes for political debate and angst is missed by the majority of folks getting on with their lives. One can find poll after poll showing "the public option" as either well supported or poorly supported. These results are possible because most folks do not really know what the "public option" is and are highly susceptible to wording of the poll depending on their pre-existing biases. Furthermore, while those involved in the debate or actively following it may get excited about the details most Americans just are not. This dynamic is neither new nor unusual. It does, however, partailly explain how elites and interest groups dominate legislation for better or worse.From Nate Silver at 528.com
"It is tempting to attribute these results to attempts by conservatives to blur the distinctions of the health care debate. And surely that is part of the story. But it may not be all that much of it. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to correctly identify the public option in this poll, but not by all that wide a margin -- 41 percent versus 34 percent. Meanwhile, 35 percent of Republicans thought the public option refers to "creating a national healthcare system like they have in Great Britain" -- but so did 23 percent of Democrats.
This should serve as something of a reality check for people on both sides of the public option debate. If the respondents had simply chosen randomly among the three options provide to them, 33 percent would have selected the correct definition for the public option. Instead, only 37 percent did (although 23 percent did not bother to guess).
This is mostly a debate being had among policy elites and the relatively small fraction of the public that is highly knowledgeable and engaged about health care reform; for most others, the details are lost on them.This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they're asking the questions. You don't see those sorts of discrepancies when polling about, say, gay marriage or the death penalty, where the options are a little bit more self-evident...
More generally, there seems to be a sort of arm's-race on both sides of the debate to conduct crappy, manipulative polls on health care reform, and the public option in particular. This poll belongs in the 'crap' pile, as do most of the others. Defenders of the public option, however, should have little to fret about: the most neutrally and accurately-worded polls on the public option -- these are the ones from Quinnipiac and Time/SRBI -- suggest that their position is in the majority, with 56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option and 33-36 percent opposed. "
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/poll-most-dont-know-what-public-option.html
TW: And I would agree with Smith as well with caveat that the debate has never really been about policy it has always been about broader politics.
From Ben Smith at Politico:
"The health care debate is no longer about health care: It's about partisan politics, change and fear of change, technology, and the role of government. It may be possible to turn the debate in the Senate back toward policy; I don't see how the public debate becomes wonkier."
Sunday Funnies (On Friday)
TW: In my ideal world all I would do is post cartoons, so when they start to stack up a bit, we get Sunday funnies on Friday.Things I Like - Sciences
I’ve always been fascinated by Fractals – geometric shapes that exhibit the property of self-similarity (each part is a reduced-size copy of the whole). Theoretically, the deeper you go into the object, the smaller the copies become.
This sequence of photos (from Wikipedia), each enlarging the inset box from the prior photo demonstrates the idea:
You may think that fractals are merely a mathematical concept, but you'd be wrong - they are also found in nature.
They have also become an art form (at least within the geek community). Fractal artists use software designed to take a mathematical equation through self-replicating iterations. The end resulting patterns are then colored and sometimes enhanced further through computer manipulation.
Tessallation Station from Fractal World Gallery
Winter from Sekino's Fractal Gallery
Definitely not as awe-inspiring as the fractals found in nature, but also pretty amazing to think that these images are based on math.
This sequence of photos (from Wikipedia), each enlarging the inset box from the prior photo demonstrates the idea:
You may think that fractals are merely a mathematical concept, but you'd be wrong - they are also found in nature.
They have also become an art form (at least within the geek community). Fractal artists use software designed to take a mathematical equation through self-replicating iterations. The end resulting patterns are then colored and sometimes enhanced further through computer manipulation.
Tessallation Station from Fractal World Gallery
Winter from Sekino's Fractal GalleryDefinitely not as awe-inspiring as the fractals found in nature, but also pretty amazing to think that these images are based on math.
Hal McCoy's Favorite Cities
TW: Hal McCoy is a hall-of-fame baseball writer for the Dayton Daily News, one of the few remaining writers with some style. Unfortunately given the current and future economics of newspapers his type who follow baseball teams around the country are a dying breed. This will be his last year as his paper has chosen to join the trend and end their baseball beat. The Reds, my team, which as recently as two years ago had three beat writers will now have one whose future is likely also dubious. This will change the nature of sports reporting. No on-site perspective, merely generic PR releases from the teams and whatever the internet chatter can gin up.
Below is Hal's run-down of his favorite NL cities. I might not agree with his exact rankings but he gets the top five cities right.
From Hal McCoy at the Dayton Daily News:
"ONE: San Diego — I think I saw it rain once in 37 years in San Diego. They rolled out the tarp to cover the field and it shredded into pieces because it was rotted from non-use. The airport, though, is right downtown with one main runway and the approach takes you between tall building and I swear I once saw a lawyer counting his money as we passed his office window.
TWO: Denver — A great ballpark, the mountains with snow on them in mid-summer and a lively downtown. The only detriment is that if I walk at a fast pace (which I haven’t been able to do for five years) I am quickly out of breath due to the thin air. That’s what I tell myself.
THREE: San Francisco — You can eat at a different restaurant every day and seldom will you be disappointed. The walk between restaurants, though, is fraught with street beggars, one on every corner. I always tell them, “I gave to the last guy.” There was a guy once on Fisherman’s Wharf who had a sign, “I won’t lie, I want money for beer.” I gave him $5.
FOUR: Washington, D.C. — Until the Nationals came into the league, I hadn’t been to the nation’s capital since I was in the fifth grade and won a trip as an elementary school crossing guard. I was Lieutenant McCoy of the schoolboy patrol. The last three years I have been able to catch up on my sightseeing duties, plus there is a great cigar bar in which you can get a hand-rolled cigar and a Tangueray and tonic for, oh, about $100.
FIVE: Chicago — Big and eclectic, but not too big like New York City. My favorite steak house (The Saloon), my favorite pizza (Giordano’s) and my favorite Mexican joint (El Mexicano) are in the Windy City, but to tell the truth, I think it’s windier in Milwaukee. Folks think I probably love Wrigley Field. Wrong. Great place to watch a game, but horrible conditions for the poor w"
Below is Hal's run-down of his favorite NL cities. I might not agree with his exact rankings but he gets the top five cities right.
From Hal McCoy at the Dayton Daily News:
"ONE: San Diego — I think I saw it rain once in 37 years in San Diego. They rolled out the tarp to cover the field and it shredded into pieces because it was rotted from non-use. The airport, though, is right downtown with one main runway and the approach takes you between tall building and I swear I once saw a lawyer counting his money as we passed his office window.
TWO: Denver — A great ballpark, the mountains with snow on them in mid-summer and a lively downtown. The only detriment is that if I walk at a fast pace (which I haven’t been able to do for five years) I am quickly out of breath due to the thin air. That’s what I tell myself.
THREE: San Francisco — You can eat at a different restaurant every day and seldom will you be disappointed. The walk between restaurants, though, is fraught with street beggars, one on every corner. I always tell them, “I gave to the last guy.” There was a guy once on Fisherman’s Wharf who had a sign, “I won’t lie, I want money for beer.” I gave him $5.
FOUR: Washington, D.C. — Until the Nationals came into the league, I hadn’t been to the nation’s capital since I was in the fifth grade and won a trip as an elementary school crossing guard. I was Lieutenant McCoy of the schoolboy patrol. The last three years I have been able to catch up on my sightseeing duties, plus there is a great cigar bar in which you can get a hand-rolled cigar and a Tangueray and tonic for, oh, about $100.
FIVE: Chicago — Big and eclectic, but not too big like New York City. My favorite steak house (The Saloon), my favorite pizza (Giordano’s) and my favorite Mexican joint (El Mexicano) are in the Windy City, but to tell the truth, I think it’s windier in Milwaukee. Folks think I probably love Wrigley Field. Wrong. Great place to watch a game, but horrible conditions for the poor w"
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Menu Navigating...
From former NYT food critic Frank Bruni:
"IS THERE ANY BEST, SAFEST WAY TO NAVIGATE A MENU?
Scratch off the appetizers and entrees that are most like dishes you’ve seen in many other restaurants, because they represent this one at its most dutiful, conservative and profit-minded. The chef’s heart isn’t in them.
Scratch off the dishes that look the most aggressively fanciful. The chef’s vanity — possibly too much of it — spawned these.
Then scratch off anything that mentions truffle oil.
Choose among the remaining dishes."
And if you are looking for "value" in the Big Apple:
"At Eleven Madison Park, for example, the $88 prix fixe includes five one-bite amuse-bouches per person, terrific gougères, unlimited bread with both goat’s milk and cow’s milk butter, an appetizer, an entree, a dessert amuse-bouche, dessert and petit fours. Plus you’re sitting in comfort in one of the city’s most beautiful dining rooms, with many polished servers attending to you"
TW: I think he is onto something re the menu...and from personal experience 11 Madison IS a great value but then most Danny Meyer places are. One could blow $88 on a burger and fries in Manhattan.
"IS THERE ANY BEST, SAFEST WAY TO NAVIGATE A MENU?
Scratch off the appetizers and entrees that are most like dishes you’ve seen in many other restaurants, because they represent this one at its most dutiful, conservative and profit-minded. The chef’s heart isn’t in them.
Scratch off the dishes that look the most aggressively fanciful. The chef’s vanity — possibly too much of it — spawned these.
Then scratch off anything that mentions truffle oil.
Choose among the remaining dishes."
And if you are looking for "value" in the Big Apple:
"At Eleven Madison Park, for example, the $88 prix fixe includes five one-bite amuse-bouches per person, terrific gougères, unlimited bread with both goat’s milk and cow’s milk butter, an appetizer, an entree, a dessert amuse-bouche, dessert and petit fours. Plus you’re sitting in comfort in one of the city’s most beautiful dining rooms, with many polished servers attending to you"
TW: I think he is onto something re the menu...and from personal experience 11 Madison IS a great value but then most Danny Meyer places are. One could blow $88 on a burger and fries in Manhattan.
Some West Bank Optimism
TW: We and others have invested heavily in building up the Fatah government in the West Bank. The West Bank Palestinians are now taking responsibility for some of their security. Partially as a result the West Bank economy is booming despite the worldwide contraction.
A big piece has been a well-trained para-military Palestinian force, trained by the U.S. These programs take time but now appear to be paying dividends.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"For Palestinians, long trapped between burgeoning Israeli settlements and an Israeli occupation army, subject to lawlessness in their own cities and the fecklessness of their own political leadership, life has clearly started to improve a bit, thanks to a new virtuous cycle: improved Palestinian policing that has led to more Palestinian investment and trade that has led to the Israeli Army dismantling more checkpoints in the West Bank that has led to more Palestinian travel and commerce.
...Make no mistake: Palestinians still want the Israeli occupation to end, and their own state to emerge, tomorrow. That is not going to happen. But for the first time since Oslo, there is an economic-security dynamic emerging on the ground in the West Bank that has the potential — the potential — to give the post-Yasir Arafat Palestinians another chance to build the sort of self-governing authority, army and economy that are prerequisites for securing their own independent state. A Palestinian peace partner for Israel may be taking shape again.
The key to this rebirth was the recruitment, training and deployment of four battalions of new Palestinian National Security Forces — a move spearheaded by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. Trained in Jordan in a program paid for by the U.S., three of these battalions have fanned out since May 2008 and brought order to the major Palestinian towns: Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Bethlehem.
These N.S.F. troops, who replaced either Israeli soldiers or Palestinian gangs, have been warmly received by the locals. Recently, N.S.F. forces wiped out a Hamas cell in Qalqilya, and took losses themselves. The death of the Hamas fighters drew nary a peep, but a memorial service for the N.S.F. soldiers killed drew thousands of people. For the first time, I’ve heard top Israeli military officers say these new Palestinian troops are professional and for real.
...“Our people need to see we are governing ourselves and are not simply subcontractors for Israeli security,” Prime Minister Fayyad told me.
...America must nurture this virtuous cycle: more money to train credible Palestinian troops, more encouragement for Israel’s risk-taking in eliminating checkpoints, more Palestinian economic growth and quicker negotiations on the contours of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Hamas and Gaza can join later. Don’t wait for them. If we build it, they will come."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1251396184-T5Pb8q+HzcTniv7/M8FSbw
A big piece has been a well-trained para-military Palestinian force, trained by the U.S. These programs take time but now appear to be paying dividends.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"For Palestinians, long trapped between burgeoning Israeli settlements and an Israeli occupation army, subject to lawlessness in their own cities and the fecklessness of their own political leadership, life has clearly started to improve a bit, thanks to a new virtuous cycle: improved Palestinian policing that has led to more Palestinian investment and trade that has led to the Israeli Army dismantling more checkpoints in the West Bank that has led to more Palestinian travel and commerce.
...Make no mistake: Palestinians still want the Israeli occupation to end, and their own state to emerge, tomorrow. That is not going to happen. But for the first time since Oslo, there is an economic-security dynamic emerging on the ground in the West Bank that has the potential — the potential — to give the post-Yasir Arafat Palestinians another chance to build the sort of self-governing authority, army and economy that are prerequisites for securing their own independent state. A Palestinian peace partner for Israel may be taking shape again.
The key to this rebirth was the recruitment, training and deployment of four battalions of new Palestinian National Security Forces — a move spearheaded by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. Trained in Jordan in a program paid for by the U.S., three of these battalions have fanned out since May 2008 and brought order to the major Palestinian towns: Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Bethlehem.
These N.S.F. troops, who replaced either Israeli soldiers or Palestinian gangs, have been warmly received by the locals. Recently, N.S.F. forces wiped out a Hamas cell in Qalqilya, and took losses themselves. The death of the Hamas fighters drew nary a peep, but a memorial service for the N.S.F. soldiers killed drew thousands of people. For the first time, I’ve heard top Israeli military officers say these new Palestinian troops are professional and for real.
...“Our people need to see we are governing ourselves and are not simply subcontractors for Israeli security,” Prime Minister Fayyad told me.
...America must nurture this virtuous cycle: more money to train credible Palestinian troops, more encouragement for Israel’s risk-taking in eliminating checkpoints, more Palestinian economic growth and quicker negotiations on the contours of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Hamas and Gaza can join later. Don’t wait for them. If we build it, they will come."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1251396184-T5Pb8q+HzcTniv7/M8FSbw
Mind Reading Leaping Towards Every Day Life
TW: The Germans, amongst others, are charging ahead with research into systems that would convert brain waves into physical actions (e.g. typing, manipulating objects, steering vehicles etc.). The first beneficiaries might be those with significant and even total paralysis. The uses beyond that get far out. As one can imagine our Defense Department is providing funding for military uses. The article gets into some detail, I only grabbed a small snip.
From Der Spiegel:
"Imagine controlling machines, typing text or juggling balls using nothing but the power of thought. What sounds like far-fetched science fiction is gradually becoming possible, providing hope for disabled patients -- and new gimmicks for the computer gaming industry.
DIZ SENTENS IS WRUTEN WID TAUGHTS. No keyboard, no hands, no blinking even. I think, therefore I write.
My original plan was to write this article with nothing but the power of thought, but the technology of transforming ideas into characters is still crude and prone to error...
The goal of BCI is to enable the user to use thoughts -- instead of a keyboard, mouse or touch screen -- to control a computer's actions..."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,644296,00.html
From Der Spiegel:
"Imagine controlling machines, typing text or juggling balls using nothing but the power of thought. What sounds like far-fetched science fiction is gradually becoming possible, providing hope for disabled patients -- and new gimmicks for the computer gaming industry.
DIZ SENTENS IS WRUTEN WID TAUGHTS. No keyboard, no hands, no blinking even. I think, therefore I write.
My original plan was to write this article with nothing but the power of thought, but the technology of transforming ideas into characters is still crude and prone to error...
The goal of BCI is to enable the user to use thoughts -- instead of a keyboard, mouse or touch screen -- to control a computer's actions..."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,644296,00.html
Foreign Health Care Sucks...Not So Much
TW: The arrogance and ignorance expressed by many Americans is embarrassing. Our system does some things well, some things not well at all and everything very expensively. No system is perfect, of course, but the notion that the U.S. is superior is naive. There is a large segment of Americans who think we are the best at everything. We have a great country, but we are not, not even close.
TR Reid has written a book on the various health care delivery systems throughout the developed world. Below are some summaries he prepared for WaPo:
"1. It's all socialized medicine out there?
Not so...In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States...Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines?
Generally, no. ...As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries...In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment.
3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.
Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.
U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation.
False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)
5. Health insurance has to be cruel.
Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.
Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums...The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.
...the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html
TR Reid has written a book on the various health care delivery systems throughout the developed world. Below are some summaries he prepared for WaPo:
"1. It's all socialized medicine out there?
Not so...In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States...Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines?
Generally, no. ...As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries...In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment.
3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.
Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.
U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation.
False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.
Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)
5. Health insurance has to be cruel.
Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.
Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums...The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.
...the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html
Things I Like - Books
I saw an interesting item at The Book Bench, the on-line book department of the New Yorker magazine (unfortunately, I think the link will only work if you have a subscription to the hard copy).
Book Vending Machines - apparently, they're all over the place:
London Gatwick Airport
~Still Burning
Barcelona Metro Station
~AustinEvan
Stockholm Airport
~jblyberg
Paris
~CasperMoller
Haven't seen one in Chicago yet - the Union and Northwestern train stations would be good spots.
Book Vending Machines - apparently, they're all over the place:
London Gatwick Airport
~Still BurningBarcelona Metro Station
~AustinEvanStockholm Airport
~jblybergParis
~CasperMollerHaven't seen one in Chicago yet - the Union and Northwestern train stations would be good spots.
Our Deficits
TW: That the looming deficits are "Obama's" is ludicrous. As a nation we have embraced massive deficits because we love tax cuts, bellicose foreign policy and spending on ourselves especially health care. As a nation we do not like raising taxes or cutting spending on practically anything.
But as the piece frames, a McCain Administration would have likely created deficits much like Obama unless they had embraced Hooverian policies to cut federal spending amidst the Great Contraction.
The WSJ editorial embraces the supply side tax cut fantasy whilst waving the flag in support of war spending, in other words they seek to slough off 25 years of Reagan and Bush profligacy.
We face significant fiscal challenges. We face them today, we faced them last year and will face them tomorrow. For the umpteenth time what do YOU want to do? Raise taxes, cut social security, cut defense, cut health care spending? Which is it?
From Economist:
"TODAY'S papers are reporting the results of the mid-session budget review, which projected $9 trillion in deficits over the next ten years, more than expected and primarily due to the unexpectedly deep recession. Over at the Wall Street Journal, the headline story "Decade of debt", is followed by links to other Journal commentary on the news. First up is an editorial, headlined "The Pelosi-Obama deficits", which reads in part:
'We've never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases.'
Immediately below that link is a Real Time Economics story by David Wessel, headlined, "The Deficit: Just as bad under McCain?". The piece quotes analysis from Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett, who writes:
'If one goes through the March update (pp. 6-7) and the August update (pp. 52-53) and adds up all the changes to the January estimate, you find that the deficit increase since January consists of $46 billion in lower than expected revenues due to the economy (11.5%), $129 billion in higher spending due to technical re-estimates (32.2%), and $226 billion due to legislative changes to both spending and revenues (56.3%).
This suggests that we would have had a deficit of at least $1,361 billion this year even if McCain had won (January deficit plus lower revenues and technical changes and no legislative changes)...that’s assuming no stimulus and that the economy would have performed as well without it. '
Here's another piece of analysis worth looking at. Point one is that America's structural budget problems have been years in the making, and taking into account those problems and the current recession there is basically nothing the Obama administration could have done to significantly reduce the long-run budget outlook. Point two is that current deficits are a good thing; efforts to reduce spending or raise revenue amid recession would have been disastrous for the economy.
Point three is that the Journal editorial board has peculiar views on deficits that ought to be explained or supported in some way. Or ignored. What growth the Bush administration's tax cuts promoted doesn't seem to have been particularly sustainable (or revenue enhancing). Setting aside the case of Iraq, does the Journal believe that a deficit funded military victory is a good in and of itself? There are lots of potential winnable wars out there that America could fight. Presumably we care about what the deficit-funded military adventure accomplishes, relative to alternative deployments of national wealth."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/08/juxtaposition_of_the_day_1.cfm
But as the piece frames, a McCain Administration would have likely created deficits much like Obama unless they had embraced Hooverian policies to cut federal spending amidst the Great Contraction.
The WSJ editorial embraces the supply side tax cut fantasy whilst waving the flag in support of war spending, in other words they seek to slough off 25 years of Reagan and Bush profligacy.
We face significant fiscal challenges. We face them today, we faced them last year and will face them tomorrow. For the umpteenth time what do YOU want to do? Raise taxes, cut social security, cut defense, cut health care spending? Which is it?
From Economist:
"TODAY'S papers are reporting the results of the mid-session budget review, which projected $9 trillion in deficits over the next ten years, more than expected and primarily due to the unexpectedly deep recession. Over at the Wall Street Journal, the headline story "Decade of debt", is followed by links to other Journal commentary on the news. First up is an editorial, headlined "The Pelosi-Obama deficits", which reads in part:
'We've never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases.'
Immediately below that link is a Real Time Economics story by David Wessel, headlined, "The Deficit: Just as bad under McCain?". The piece quotes analysis from Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett, who writes:
'If one goes through the March update (pp. 6-7) and the August update (pp. 52-53) and adds up all the changes to the January estimate, you find that the deficit increase since January consists of $46 billion in lower than expected revenues due to the economy (11.5%), $129 billion in higher spending due to technical re-estimates (32.2%), and $226 billion due to legislative changes to both spending and revenues (56.3%).
This suggests that we would have had a deficit of at least $1,361 billion this year even if McCain had won (January deficit plus lower revenues and technical changes and no legislative changes)...that’s assuming no stimulus and that the economy would have performed as well without it. '
Here's another piece of analysis worth looking at. Point one is that America's structural budget problems have been years in the making, and taking into account those problems and the current recession there is basically nothing the Obama administration could have done to significantly reduce the long-run budget outlook. Point two is that current deficits are a good thing; efforts to reduce spending or raise revenue amid recession would have been disastrous for the economy.
Point three is that the Journal editorial board has peculiar views on deficits that ought to be explained or supported in some way. Or ignored. What growth the Bush administration's tax cuts promoted doesn't seem to have been particularly sustainable (or revenue enhancing). Setting aside the case of Iraq, does the Journal believe that a deficit funded military victory is a good in and of itself? There are lots of potential winnable wars out there that America could fight. Presumably we care about what the deficit-funded military adventure accomplishes, relative to alternative deployments of national wealth."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/08/juxtaposition_of_the_day_1.cfm
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Say What You Will...
TW: about this family- the carousing, the deviousness, the Freudian petrie dishiness of the whole thing- but Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy created a family with some talent. That Edward was the only son to die of natural causes is amazing in and of itself given their exploits.
The Torture Memos
TW: The reaction this week to AG Holder's limited investigation into Bush era torture/interrogation programs is predictable. The left says it is not enough, the right claims any investigation is too much. I suspect a year from now little will have been accomplished. Those on the left will still believe we tortured with little benefit, the right will still believe almost any actions in pursuit of security justify the means.
I stand mostly with the left for what it is worth although I empathize with our intelligence services which were frequently caught between a security at any price White House and with the knowledge that the POTUS would change and initiate less rabid protocols.
Reading the CIA IG report makes it clear either side will be able to justify their position. Which is why, when crisis strikes one should strongly prefer their side in power as whoever occupies the Executive has tremendous leeway in these matters especially amidst a crisis when the legislative branch cowers in fear.
I realize many Americans have no problem torturing others. I do. I do not think it works, it undermines "American values" such as they are, and levers open the pandora's box of torture against our citizens that much further.
Scherer from Time provides a relatively brief re-cap:
"1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out...
2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department...
3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result...
4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern...”
5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/five-important-revelations-from-the-cia-inspector-general-report/#more-15570
I stand mostly with the left for what it is worth although I empathize with our intelligence services which were frequently caught between a security at any price White House and with the knowledge that the POTUS would change and initiate less rabid protocols.
Reading the CIA IG report makes it clear either side will be able to justify their position. Which is why, when crisis strikes one should strongly prefer their side in power as whoever occupies the Executive has tremendous leeway in these matters especially amidst a crisis when the legislative branch cowers in fear.
I realize many Americans have no problem torturing others. I do. I do not think it works, it undermines "American values" such as they are, and levers open the pandora's box of torture against our citizens that much further.
Scherer from Time provides a relatively brief re-cap:
"1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out...
2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department...
3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result...
4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern...”
5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/five-important-revelations-from-the-cia-inspector-general-report/#more-15570
Iraq Still Violent- No Suprise There
TW: Iraq is going through a severe molting process. It will be violent, this is inevitable and unavoidable. Would the violence have been different had we not "surged" perhaps. But I doubt it will be that different (some Americans may feel better for the surge, I do not). The Iraqis never wanted to be occupied and certainly do not want to be occupied now. The sooner we have fewer troops there the better. Although I suspect five years from now we will still have a material presence in Kurdistan (they DO want us around) and perhaps in or around Basra to keep an eye on Iran.
Indigenous violence in a country one occupies is one thing, a different thing when one is not occupying it.
From Nightwatch:
"We worked ourselves out of a job," according to a US military officer, referring to the sharp drop in violence over the past two years. "This is what the end of a counterinsurgency looks like."
Actually the US officer is incorrect and looking backwards, not forwards. The next stage of the insurgency is just beginning. It features a violent breakout from US-enforced power sharing, but the US now is de-fanged by common consent and on the side lines. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds want to slug it out without the US as the referee. This is not success, just postponement of the end game.
The unfinished business is political control of Baghdad, between the Sunnis and the Shii. The US is no longer relevant to this smoldering grudge match, by common consent. The Shia backed by Iran should win, on the numbers, thanks to the US military effort to support majority rule, but the bloodletting is likely to get much, much worse."
Indigenous violence in a country one occupies is one thing, a different thing when one is not occupying it.
From Nightwatch:
"We worked ourselves out of a job," according to a US military officer, referring to the sharp drop in violence over the past two years. "This is what the end of a counterinsurgency looks like."
Actually the US officer is incorrect and looking backwards, not forwards. The next stage of the insurgency is just beginning. It features a violent breakout from US-enforced power sharing, but the US now is de-fanged by common consent and on the side lines. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds want to slug it out without the US as the referee. This is not success, just postponement of the end game.
The unfinished business is political control of Baghdad, between the Sunnis and the Shii. The US is no longer relevant to this smoldering grudge match, by common consent. The Shia backed by Iran should win, on the numbers, thanks to the US military effort to support majority rule, but the bloodletting is likely to get much, much worse."
Things I Like - Food
I’m going to spend a week with my sister Amy and her family in Colorado Springs next month. She has the luxury of an extra freezer so we’re going to do some major make ahead cooking followed by some major freezing. One of the dishes I'm planning is Ropa Vieja – a Cuban pulled beef stew that tastes better than it looks. They call it old clothes for a reason, it took a while to find a somewhat appetizing photo.
I love it regardless of how it looks. It couldn’t be easier to make, especially if you have a slow cooker. And it has some great flavors that are probably common in other households but not so much at the White house. It’s always nice to have a change of pace.
But most importantly from a cooking ahead perspective, it’s one of those two for one dishes. The recipe makes enough for at least two meals - you can serve it with rice (or pasta) for dinner one night and then use it as the filling for enchiladas later in the week. Note that I do not claim that the enchiladas are even close to authentic, but they are tasty.
I’m looking forward to my visit with Amy, I hope she’s got a lot of freezer containers.
Recipe for Ropa Vieja in the comments.
From Time:
"There was a time 40 years ago, right after the assassination of his brother Robert, when it looked like Edward Kennedy would become President someday by right of succession. The Kennedy curse, the one that had seen all three of his brothers cut down in their prime, had created for him a sort of Kennedy prerogative, or at least the illusion of one, an inevitable claim on the White House. For years he seemed like a man simply waiting for the right moment to take what everybody knew was coming his way.
Everybody was wrong. Ted Kennedy would never reach the White House. His weaknesses — and the long shadow of Chappaquiddick — were an obstacle that even his strengths couldn't overcome. But his failure to get to the presidency opened the way to the true fulfillment of his gifts, which was to become one of the greatest legislators in American history."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
What To Get Laura For Xmas Or Lets Get Snuggy With It
TW: A bit early but why not. Mrs. White House (aka FLOTWH) tells me I am a bit behind the curve on these killer items but better late than never. The commercials just started here this past weekend. So I did the obvious and did a YouTube search. Turns out there are some parodies as well.
Curb Those Settlements
TW: Friedman was in Israel and Palestine recently, he came back with some optimism. This piece speaks to the need for Israel to back off settlements, something about which I obviously feel strongly.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"Israel and America are having one of those periodic marital spats..I’d like to offer some free marriage counseling.
Here’s what Israelis need to understand: President Obama is not some outlier when it comes to Israel. His call for a settlements freeze reflects attitudes that have been building in America for a long time. For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naïve U.S. presidents that since Israel was negotiating to give up significant territory, there was no need to fight over “insignificant” settlements on some territory. Behind this charade, Israeli settlers bit off more and more of the West Bank, creating a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends.
As Bradley Burston, a columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, put it last week: “The settlement movement has cost Israel some $100 billion. ... The double standard which for decades has favored settlers with inexpensive housing, heavily subsidized social services, and blind-eye building permits has long been accompanied by a kid-gloves approach regarding settler violence against Palestinians and their property. ... Settlers and settlement planners have covertly bent and distorted zoning procedures, military directives, and government decrees in order to boost settlement, block Palestinian construction, agriculture, and access to employment, and effectively neutralize measures intended to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.”
For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it.
...So if Mr. Obama has bluntly pressed for a settlements freeze, he is, in fact, reflecting a broad sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon and among many Americans, Jews included...
...there are a few style points Mr. Obama should keep in mind.
One is: Don’t get into the business of apportioning historical blame for this conflict, which his Cairo speech veered into. Palestinians don’t believe they are to blame for this problem; neither do Israelis. A religious Israeli professor friend of mine said it well: “People will give a lot if they think they are not guilty. My mother says to me: ‘Look, I am ready to give them Jerusalem, but don’t tell me that I started it...’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02friedman.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=thomas%20friedman&st=cse
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"Israel and America are having one of those periodic marital spats..I’d like to offer some free marriage counseling.
Here’s what Israelis need to understand: President Obama is not some outlier when it comes to Israel. His call for a settlements freeze reflects attitudes that have been building in America for a long time. For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naïve U.S. presidents that since Israel was negotiating to give up significant territory, there was no need to fight over “insignificant” settlements on some territory. Behind this charade, Israeli settlers bit off more and more of the West Bank, creating a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends.
As Bradley Burston, a columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, put it last week: “The settlement movement has cost Israel some $100 billion. ... The double standard which for decades has favored settlers with inexpensive housing, heavily subsidized social services, and blind-eye building permits has long been accompanied by a kid-gloves approach regarding settler violence against Palestinians and their property. ... Settlers and settlement planners have covertly bent and distorted zoning procedures, military directives, and government decrees in order to boost settlement, block Palestinian construction, agriculture, and access to employment, and effectively neutralize measures intended to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.”
For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it.
...So if Mr. Obama has bluntly pressed for a settlements freeze, he is, in fact, reflecting a broad sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon and among many Americans, Jews included...
...there are a few style points Mr. Obama should keep in mind.
One is: Don’t get into the business of apportioning historical blame for this conflict, which his Cairo speech veered into. Palestinians don’t believe they are to blame for this problem; neither do Israelis. A religious Israeli professor friend of mine said it well: “People will give a lot if they think they are not guilty. My mother says to me: ‘Look, I am ready to give them Jerusalem, but don’t tell me that I started it...’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02friedman.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=thomas%20friedman&st=cse
The Circular Morass That Is Our Media
TW: Have posted often on the bias in media, not so much towards the left or right but towards profits. Profits come from viewership, what drives viewership? Sensation, conflict, titillation.
Back when MSM was new, relatively small, and dominated by monopolies (CBS, NBC, UPI, AP one or two local newspapers, etc.), there was a code of relative neutrality and quality that permeated. Understand MSM radio/TV are new since the 1930's and 1950's respectively and really had brief periods of domination of about 30 years each (10 of those overlapping in the '50s).
Since the advent of cable and the internet, the media beast has become a circular beast sated primarily by its own self-generated sensation, conflict and titillation. These things are always evolving just because the current environment appears dire does not mean it will never get better (then again it could get even worse).
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...it's in the competitive pressures to drift toward sensationalism and hot stories. A smear like "death panels" emerges and catches fire because it's fundamentally interesting. You could write a great thriller, or film a poignant drama, about death panels. Not so about health insurance exchanges. That said, the New York Times would probably never mention the lie if given the opportunity. But after it hits talk radio and explodes onto cable news and rips through the blogosphere, it stops being a lie and begins being a story. And though you can refuse to cover a lie, you can't refuse to cover a story. Nor is it even obvious you should. After all, if you don't correct the record, who will?
The problem is that "The Media" is a big beast with a lot of component parts. Some of those parts are respectable and sober. Others aren't. But if the legs run somewhere, the head follows whether it wants to or not. That would be fine if the head commanded the legs. But it's generally the other way around.
The central conflict of interest in the media is that the same institution that's supposed to follow the conversation is also responsible for creating the conversation. That contradiction can be elided so long as everyone in the game is playing by the same rules. And for a brief period, when the "objective" institutions were the only major outlets, that worked out fine.
But with the rise of partisan and sensationalizing mediums like talk radio and cable news and the blogosphere, half of the outlets are now consciously creating the conversation that the other half are following. But the objective institutions haven't responded to this in any obvious way. They just get caught following a manipulated conversation, and so being part of the manipulation, part of the machine that focuses on cynical lies like the death panels rather than policy specifics like the exchanges. That's not the fault of an individual reporter, though. It's structural, and it requires a structural response."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/more_on_reporting_the_lies.html
Back when MSM was new, relatively small, and dominated by monopolies (CBS, NBC, UPI, AP one or two local newspapers, etc.), there was a code of relative neutrality and quality that permeated. Understand MSM radio/TV are new since the 1930's and 1950's respectively and really had brief periods of domination of about 30 years each (10 of those overlapping in the '50s).
Since the advent of cable and the internet, the media beast has become a circular beast sated primarily by its own self-generated sensation, conflict and titillation. These things are always evolving just because the current environment appears dire does not mean it will never get better (then again it could get even worse).
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...it's in the competitive pressures to drift toward sensationalism and hot stories. A smear like "death panels" emerges and catches fire because it's fundamentally interesting. You could write a great thriller, or film a poignant drama, about death panels. Not so about health insurance exchanges. That said, the New York Times would probably never mention the lie if given the opportunity. But after it hits talk radio and explodes onto cable news and rips through the blogosphere, it stops being a lie and begins being a story. And though you can refuse to cover a lie, you can't refuse to cover a story. Nor is it even obvious you should. After all, if you don't correct the record, who will?
The problem is that "The Media" is a big beast with a lot of component parts. Some of those parts are respectable and sober. Others aren't. But if the legs run somewhere, the head follows whether it wants to or not. That would be fine if the head commanded the legs. But it's generally the other way around.
The central conflict of interest in the media is that the same institution that's supposed to follow the conversation is also responsible for creating the conversation. That contradiction can be elided so long as everyone in the game is playing by the same rules. And for a brief period, when the "objective" institutions were the only major outlets, that worked out fine.
But with the rise of partisan and sensationalizing mediums like talk radio and cable news and the blogosphere, half of the outlets are now consciously creating the conversation that the other half are following. But the objective institutions haven't responded to this in any obvious way. They just get caught following a manipulated conversation, and so being part of the manipulation, part of the machine that focuses on cynical lies like the death panels rather than policy specifics like the exchanges. That's not the fault of an individual reporter, though. It's structural, and it requires a structural response."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/more_on_reporting_the_lies.html
Why Reform Is So Hard (cont.)
TW: Micheal Steele's health care speech yesterday epitomizes why reform is so challenging. He combined blind support for the current Medicare program with untrue insinuations about the Dems' program. It is a potent prescription.
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Things I Like - Art
Phenomenal pencil drawings by RJ Blanchette - you will want to see these closer, click on each to enlarge.
St. Michel Menton
Wood Island Light
Cathedral Lausanne
Even more impressive when you learn that the “artist literally hammers the paper with rock-hard graphite to achieve the rich tonal array [that] simultaneously diminishes and increases the importance of the subjects he presents.”
Be sure to check out the WIPS section of his site where he has documented the development of some of his pieces through photos taken throughout the process. Amazing.
See more here.
Via Crimson Kaie
St. Michel Menton
Wood Island Light
Cathedral Lausanne
Even more impressive when you learn that the “artist literally hammers the paper with rock-hard graphite to achieve the rich tonal array [that] simultaneously diminishes and increases the importance of the subjects he presents.”
Be sure to check out the WIPS section of his site where he has documented the development of some of his pieces through photos taken throughout the process. Amazing.
See more here.
Via Crimson Kaie
Fat Taxes: To Be Or Not To Be?
TW: This is a relatively long piece from which I clipped a small chunk. Should we nudge folks with obesity taxes on sweets and high fat items much like we do with sin taxes? Personally I have no problem with it. Anything to nudge folks towards cutting weight is good by me. Yes the taxes would be regressive, yes the tax efficacies dubious but it addresses a societal challenge for which few alternatives are available. Given the choice between watching our society eat its way towards oblivion and trying something like this I say give it a shot.
Taxes are going up one way or the other (barring unlikely yet preferred from my perspective cuts to defense, health care and social security). A value-added tax will almost certainly emerge in our lifetimes. Fat taxes seem like as good a way to start as any.
From Chicago Tribune:
"Sin taxes" on cigarettes have turned out to be the most effective weapon in the campaign to reduce smoking.Why not try it on Flamin' Hot Cheetos, vanilla Coke and Twinkies?
...The notion is catching on with the general public, however. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month found that 55% of respondents favored a tax on unhealthful snack foods, up from 52% in April. Support for a soda tax rose to 53% from 46%.
And 63% of those who opposed the idea said they would change their minds if the revenue were used to fund healthcare reform and combat health problems related to obesity.
A report this summer from the Urban Institute said such taxes are needed to ensure that rising obesity rates don't cause the average American life expectancy to fall for the first time in history."
We are killing 100,000 people per year, so something needs to get done," said University of Virginia pediatric cardiologist Arthur Garson, one of the study's authors.
...the logic of a junk-food tax seems clear. Fattening foods tend to be cheap, and fresh produce and lean cuts of meat are often the priciest. A tax could help offset that imbalance, nudging people to eat more of what they should and less of what they shouldn't.
...To make a significant dent in escalating rates of obesity, taxes would have to be steep and widespread. Two-thirds of states now impose a modest soft-drink tax -- the average rate is 5.2% -- and though the taxes are linked to a drop in body weight, the difference is extremely slight: about 3 ounces for a 5-foot-10, 279-pound person.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-sci-junk-food-tax23-2009aug23,0,7345912.story
Taxes are going up one way or the other (barring unlikely yet preferred from my perspective cuts to defense, health care and social security). A value-added tax will almost certainly emerge in our lifetimes. Fat taxes seem like as good a way to start as any.
From Chicago Tribune:
"Sin taxes" on cigarettes have turned out to be the most effective weapon in the campaign to reduce smoking.Why not try it on Flamin' Hot Cheetos, vanilla Coke and Twinkies?
...The notion is catching on with the general public, however. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month found that 55% of respondents favored a tax on unhealthful snack foods, up from 52% in April. Support for a soda tax rose to 53% from 46%.
And 63% of those who opposed the idea said they would change their minds if the revenue were used to fund healthcare reform and combat health problems related to obesity.
A report this summer from the Urban Institute said such taxes are needed to ensure that rising obesity rates don't cause the average American life expectancy to fall for the first time in history."
We are killing 100,000 people per year, so something needs to get done," said University of Virginia pediatric cardiologist Arthur Garson, one of the study's authors.
...the logic of a junk-food tax seems clear. Fattening foods tend to be cheap, and fresh produce and lean cuts of meat are often the priciest. A tax could help offset that imbalance, nudging people to eat more of what they should and less of what they shouldn't.
...To make a significant dent in escalating rates of obesity, taxes would have to be steep and widespread. Two-thirds of states now impose a modest soft-drink tax -- the average rate is 5.2% -- and though the taxes are linked to a drop in body weight, the difference is extremely slight: about 3 ounces for a 5-foot-10, 279-pound person.
...Tobacco taxes are also much higher than anything likely to be adopted for food and beverages. Slapping a 10% tax on a $1.50-bottle of Coke would raise the price a mere 15 cents -- not enough to persuade most shoppers to drink Diet Coke instead. Many calorie-laden foods are simply too cheap to be priced out of the market by any but the most draconian of taxes. Studies mostly bear this out..."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-sci-junk-food-tax23-2009aug23,0,7345912.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)