Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Are you special?
Do you belong in the record books? Have you tried but failed to get into Guiness? Well here's your chance to set a record, any record.Say hello to the Universal Record DataBase. The URDB is an on-line open platform for world records and everone's invited to participate.
Like Shauna Pharris who recited all 50 United States alphabetically while riding on a pogo stick in 23.62 seconds.
Or Madeleine Daepp who named 77 TV shows in one minute replacing one word of each title with "horse." Although there's some controversy. Seems Madeline read her list off a piece of paper while the original reocrd holder, Kumail Nanjiani, named his 16 TV shows from memory. There's talk of making a change to the record criteria.
I particularly liked Mr. Fester's achievement. He asked 33 questions during a single drive-thru visit.While wearing a snuggie.
CRITERIA TO BEAT RECORD:
- all questions must be asked during a single visit
- only the driver's questions count
- may not ask same question more than once
- after questions are asked, must end up purchasing only one item
So get recognized for your talent. Set a record!
Just make sure you videotape and have at least one witness.
Inequality And Finace Reform
TW: I think the notion that some financial firms and individuals are betting with the house's (i.e. our tax dollar via "bailouts") money is a core frustration with our current system. This is a manageable attribute of our system which at the end of the day has many positive attributes as well. The mega returns achieved by some distort not only the financial markets but our overall economic stats and growth rates.
From Economist:
"THERE are many reasons for the rise in inequality in Anglo-Saxon nations over the last 30 years. Globalisation has played its part by allowing capital, financial and human, to shift to where it is least taxed and constricted; the arrival of China and India into the global economy has put pressure on wages of unskilled workers. A move from a manufacturing-based to a service-based economy has diminished the power of labour unions, and increased the premium paid to "talent", all the way through from software designers to sports stars. (Up until 1962, British footballers were subject to a maximum wage.) The advantages of private education have given the children of wealthy parents a head start.
But I wanted to put forward an issue that has not often been mentioned; leverage. The Anglo-Saxon economies have been in the vanguard of credit growth and in the dominance of the financial sector.
Imagine that a casino gave much larger credit limits to its punters. Whereas the odds would still favour the house, you would get much bigger gains for the winners and losses for the losers. Similarly in financial markets, rapid credit growth allows more investors and bankers to roll the dice. Some will be skilful; more will be lucky and, as Nassim Taleb, points out in Fooled by Randomess, we will find it hard to tell the difference.
But the crucial difference with a casino is that credit growth in the asset markets turns the odds in favour of the punter. The use of borrowed money to buy assets drives asset prices higher, and encourages banks to lend more money against those assets.
Furthermore, this system rewards those who have assets in the first place. The poor who have few assets don't get to take part.
What about subprime lending? Well one can see the subprime borrowers as the last ones allowed into the Ponzi scheme. The fastest growth in such lending came in 2005 and 2006; the subprime borrowers were thus the suckers lured in at the top of the market.
All this is why controls on bank leverage are so important. It was the high level of leverage that allowed bankers to make big bets, ultimately with taxpayers' money. Control the leverage and banks will make smaller profits in the boom times, and thus pay lower bonuses. But this is a slow process..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/01/inequality_and_leverage
From Economist:
"THERE are many reasons for the rise in inequality in Anglo-Saxon nations over the last 30 years. Globalisation has played its part by allowing capital, financial and human, to shift to where it is least taxed and constricted; the arrival of China and India into the global economy has put pressure on wages of unskilled workers. A move from a manufacturing-based to a service-based economy has diminished the power of labour unions, and increased the premium paid to "talent", all the way through from software designers to sports stars. (Up until 1962, British footballers were subject to a maximum wage.) The advantages of private education have given the children of wealthy parents a head start.
But I wanted to put forward an issue that has not often been mentioned; leverage. The Anglo-Saxon economies have been in the vanguard of credit growth and in the dominance of the financial sector.
Imagine that a casino gave much larger credit limits to its punters. Whereas the odds would still favour the house, you would get much bigger gains for the winners and losses for the losers. Similarly in financial markets, rapid credit growth allows more investors and bankers to roll the dice. Some will be skilful; more will be lucky and, as Nassim Taleb, points out in Fooled by Randomess, we will find it hard to tell the difference.
But the crucial difference with a casino is that credit growth in the asset markets turns the odds in favour of the punter. The use of borrowed money to buy assets drives asset prices higher, and encourages banks to lend more money against those assets.
Furthermore, this system rewards those who have assets in the first place. The poor who have few assets don't get to take part.
What about subprime lending? Well one can see the subprime borrowers as the last ones allowed into the Ponzi scheme. The fastest growth in such lending came in 2005 and 2006; the subprime borrowers were thus the suckers lured in at the top of the market.
All this is why controls on bank leverage are so important. It was the high level of leverage that allowed bankers to make big bets, ultimately with taxpayers' money. Control the leverage and banks will make smaller profits in the boom times, and thus pay lower bonuses. But this is a slow process..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/01/inequality_and_leverage
Friday, January 29, 2010
What Can I Say
TW:...about my fellow Americans who are so freaking irresponsible as to allege support for democracy when blatantly not educating themselves sufficiently to participate effectively. These vacuums of ignorance about what is going on are rife for demagougery and manipulation. This is not a partisan issue it is an issue of an informed populace participating in order to urge their elected officials to act upon challenges.
From Taegan Goddard:
"A new Pew Research poll found that just 32% of Americans know the health care reform bill before Congress received no support from Republican Senators.
In addition, just 26% know that 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster in the Senate."
From Taegan Goddard:
"A new Pew Research poll found that just 32% of Americans know the health care reform bill before Congress received no support from Republican Senators.
In addition, just 26% know that 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster in the Senate."
Empower the Corporations!!
TW: Have been meaning to get to this. The five conservatives on the SCOTUS have decided corporations should have the same rights as folks. Barry Ritholz quoting Jeremy Grantham captures a key difference between the average volk and a corporation. The populists may think these days that the Republicans are their huckleberries but not so much.
From the Big Picture blog:
"Supremely Extreme: Another “Day That Will Live in Infamy”.
Five Supreme Court justices today announced that not only are corporations people and that their money is free speech – this is old hat and a very ugly hat at that – but now, there should be no limit to the money they spend to influence political outcomes. This would be one thing if corporations really were “democratic associations” of humans that the Founding Fathers may have wanted to protect.
They are, instead, small oligarchies of top management. Thus, the top management of major oil and coal companies can decide what political outcomes they want to promote, say, unlimited production of carbon dioxide (none of their CEOs apparently has grandchildren!), utterly without any approval of their decisions by the millions of actual owners.
The financial power of corporations was already in danger of overwhelming the democratic process in Congress and this makes the damage potentially unlimited and puts the Court’s seal of approval on it. So let’s do it in style and have a name change. The U.C.A. has a familiar look: The United Corporations of America!"
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/grantham-usa-uca/
From the Big Picture blog:
"Supremely Extreme: Another “Day That Will Live in Infamy”.
Five Supreme Court justices today announced that not only are corporations people and that their money is free speech – this is old hat and a very ugly hat at that – but now, there should be no limit to the money they spend to influence political outcomes. This would be one thing if corporations really were “democratic associations” of humans that the Founding Fathers may have wanted to protect.
They are, instead, small oligarchies of top management. Thus, the top management of major oil and coal companies can decide what political outcomes they want to promote, say, unlimited production of carbon dioxide (none of their CEOs apparently has grandchildren!), utterly without any approval of their decisions by the millions of actual owners.
The financial power of corporations was already in danger of overwhelming the democratic process in Congress and this makes the damage potentially unlimited and puts the Court’s seal of approval on it. So let’s do it in style and have a name change. The U.C.A. has a familiar look: The United Corporations of America!"
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/grantham-usa-uca/
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Make Your Valentine's Reservation Early
TW: I know Ms. Blogger is quite excited about our plans! Fret not I called early.
Things I Must Have
Singing in the Rain shower curtain
Zapi UV toothbrush sanitizer seen at Urban Lime
Heart mugs at MollaSpace
Falling books bookend from Art Ori DesignValentine's day is just around the corner...
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Populists As Saps
From David Brooks at NYT:
"...Populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power..."
TW: Populists are saps for both parties.
"...Populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power..."
TW: Populists are saps for both parties.
Things Change
TW: Where have you gone Mr. Travelers Cheque? The answer is mostly toward the ATM. I had almost forgotten they existed. Getting travelers cheques used to be the a fun ritual in front of an international trip. But it sure is nice not fretting about whether, when and where you need to cash another one.
The Museum of Lost Wonders
I am posting this link to the on-line Museum of Lost Wonders for one reason only - the work that went into making this thing is impressive.Take the tour. Enjoy the detailed graphics and soothing music. Interact with the exhibits in the various rooms. Watch the New Exhibit videos (they're very short).
Just don't contact me with concerns regarding my philosophical or religious beliefs.*
via Curious Expeditions
*This means you, Mom & Dad
Oh Well...You Are What You Read And Watch
From Taegen Goddard:
"A new Public Policy Polling survey looks at perceptions of network television news and finds Fox News as the only network that more people say they trust than distrust.
Here are the trust/don't trust spreads: Fox 49% to 37%, CNN 39% to 41%, NBC 35% to 44%, CBS 32% to 46%, and ABC 31% to 46%.
Analysis: "These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed."
"A new Public Policy Polling survey looks at perceptions of network television news and finds Fox News as the only network that more people say they trust than distrust.
Here are the trust/don't trust spreads: Fox 49% to 37%, CNN 39% to 41%, NBC 35% to 44%, CBS 32% to 46%, and ABC 31% to 46%.
Analysis: "These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed."
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
It Gets Harder If You Actually Try To Solve Something
TW: McArdle is a conservative but a thoughtful one. She has actually suggested an alternative approach to reform. It sounds interesting on first blush but once exposed to the scrutiny all alternatives must eventually face (much different than just saying NO!!!) begins to unravel and raises more questions than it answers. But at least she is trying as opposed to most in the Republican party. We have real problems, we need solutions.
From Economist:
"MEGAN MCARDLE has a plan:
'Raise the Medicare tax by half a percentage point, and eliminate the tax-deductibiity of health insurance benefits for people making more than $150K a year in household income, $100K for singles. Then make the federal government the insurer of last resort. Any medical expenses more than 15% or 20% of household income, get picked up by Uncle Sam.
I think this is a reasonablish plan. It would be interesting to see how the CBO would score it. But here's the problem: having Uncle Sam pick up all medical expenses over 15% or 20% of household income wouldn't just be extremely expensive, it would essentially mean single-payer government catastrophic health insurance for everyone.
Why's that? Well, catastrophic illness always costs more than 20% of a household's income, apart from the very rich. There aren't that many people in the country who earn five times as much each year as radiation therapy costs. Obviously, what Ms McArdle means is that the government would pick up the tab over and above whatever your private insurance covers. But that means the obvious incentive for private insurers is to make sure they never cover any medical expenses above 20% of your income. They'll try to shift all of those expenses to the government. And since you'll know the government is picking up the tab anyway, you won't care. In fact, it will become impossible for private insurers to offer policies that cover expenses running higher than 20% of your income. You would have no interest in paying the extra premiums to buy such a policy; your care will already be covered by government.
The effect on policies and premiums could be complicated, and without more details it's hard to say exactly what happens. (Do premiums count as "health expenses" towards that 20% of income? What about if your company pays part or all of the premium?) But the general effect will be to have insurance cover very little of the kinds of costs associated with catastrophic care, so that the costs quickly mount to 20% of the patient's income and everything new is shifted onto the taxpayer. And you'll have no private insurer who covers the cost of procedures or drugs that in and of themselves cost more than $25,000 or so, since the federal government will pick up most or all of the tab for almost all patients. If you could buy a policy that was $1,000 a year cheaper but didn't cover cancer or transplants, but you knew the maximum cost to you of such treatments would be just 20% of your income anyway, you'd buy the cheaper policy. So private catastrophic insurance will all but vanish.
Once that happens, every harm which Ms McArdle and conservative-leaning critics have claimed would result from single-payer insurance will ensue. The taxpayer will be paying for almost every cancer patient in the country. That means the government will likely regulate how cancer is treated: what treatments are warranted and reimbursable under what circumstances. (Did someone say "death panels"?) The government will decide how much to pay for expensive drugs, and will negotiate the prices of, for example, biologics like some kind of MedPAC on steroids. Market pricing for biologics, transplants, and other expensive drugs and procedures will largely cease to exist, since the government will be the only buyer.
I frankly don't have a problem with this. I think America would be much better off with single-payer health insurance than with the system it has now. So I say, great, creative idea. Of course it'll never get anywhere, since unions and big business will never allow the elimination of tax deductibility for health insurance for people making more than $150,000 a year. And the insurance companies will kill it too, since it would incentivise large numbers of people and businesses to drop out of the private insurance market entirely and just rely on the government's 20% maximum guarantee. Still, if conservatives did widely embrace such a plan, it would serve the important function of protecting them against accusations that they don't have a plan."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/libertarian_health_care_proposal_single-payer
From Economist:
"MEGAN MCARDLE has a plan:
'Raise the Medicare tax by half a percentage point, and eliminate the tax-deductibiity of health insurance benefits for people making more than $150K a year in household income, $100K for singles. Then make the federal government the insurer of last resort. Any medical expenses more than 15% or 20% of household income, get picked up by Uncle Sam.
I think this is a reasonablish plan. It would be interesting to see how the CBO would score it. But here's the problem: having Uncle Sam pick up all medical expenses over 15% or 20% of household income wouldn't just be extremely expensive, it would essentially mean single-payer government catastrophic health insurance for everyone.
Why's that? Well, catastrophic illness always costs more than 20% of a household's income, apart from the very rich. There aren't that many people in the country who earn five times as much each year as radiation therapy costs. Obviously, what Ms McArdle means is that the government would pick up the tab over and above whatever your private insurance covers. But that means the obvious incentive for private insurers is to make sure they never cover any medical expenses above 20% of your income. They'll try to shift all of those expenses to the government. And since you'll know the government is picking up the tab anyway, you won't care. In fact, it will become impossible for private insurers to offer policies that cover expenses running higher than 20% of your income. You would have no interest in paying the extra premiums to buy such a policy; your care will already be covered by government.
The effect on policies and premiums could be complicated, and without more details it's hard to say exactly what happens. (Do premiums count as "health expenses" towards that 20% of income? What about if your company pays part or all of the premium?) But the general effect will be to have insurance cover very little of the kinds of costs associated with catastrophic care, so that the costs quickly mount to 20% of the patient's income and everything new is shifted onto the taxpayer. And you'll have no private insurer who covers the cost of procedures or drugs that in and of themselves cost more than $25,000 or so, since the federal government will pick up most or all of the tab for almost all patients. If you could buy a policy that was $1,000 a year cheaper but didn't cover cancer or transplants, but you knew the maximum cost to you of such treatments would be just 20% of your income anyway, you'd buy the cheaper policy. So private catastrophic insurance will all but vanish.
Once that happens, every harm which Ms McArdle and conservative-leaning critics have claimed would result from single-payer insurance will ensue. The taxpayer will be paying for almost every cancer patient in the country. That means the government will likely regulate how cancer is treated: what treatments are warranted and reimbursable under what circumstances. (Did someone say "death panels"?) The government will decide how much to pay for expensive drugs, and will negotiate the prices of, for example, biologics like some kind of MedPAC on steroids. Market pricing for biologics, transplants, and other expensive drugs and procedures will largely cease to exist, since the government will be the only buyer.
I frankly don't have a problem with this. I think America would be much better off with single-payer health insurance than with the system it has now. So I say, great, creative idea. Of course it'll never get anywhere, since unions and big business will never allow the elimination of tax deductibility for health insurance for people making more than $150,000 a year. And the insurance companies will kill it too, since it would incentivise large numbers of people and businesses to drop out of the private insurance market entirely and just rely on the government's 20% maximum guarantee. Still, if conservatives did widely embrace such a plan, it would serve the important function of protecting them against accusations that they don't have a plan."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/libertarian_health_care_proposal_single-payer
Photo Safari?
I saw these pencil drawings on Izismile - I thought they were amazing. There was no identification of the artist so I tried some searches but came up empty. If you know who it is, please let me know so I can give credit. 
Happy Birthday Amy!!
Right On Barry!!
TW: As Ritholz say mixing politics and investing is a recipe for disaster. Now that Murdoch et al. have control of the Wall Street Journal watch out. As he frames the editorial pages of the WSJ have always been a swamp of right-wing polemics in opposition to any and all even marginally progressive ideas. The actual business news pages were far less partisan, this appears to be changing for the worse.
From Barry Ritholz at his Big Picture blog:
"The politicalization of the WSJ has moved to a new and more risky phase. The paper is now in danger of being a money loser — not for its investors (tho that has already happened), but for those traders who read its content.
It used to be that articles on the Market or specific companies or various finance stories were objective and reliable and free from bias. Sure, you could always count on money losing, bat-shit crazy nonsense in the editorial pages, but that was a special area of sequestered partisans, who due to their insanity cared not a whit about how much capital their lunatic ravings lost their readers. (The list is long and varied, but the Boskin “Obama Crash” on March 6th is a good place to start; then read anything Don Luskin writes — he is a reliable contrary indicator).
I assumed the drunks on the OpEd page did not care about what they did to your portfolio if you drank their Kool-Aid. But they were easy to steer clear of — you simply avoided that page, or read it and laughed. Smart investors could easily say “Go sell crazy somewhere else –we ain’t buying.” That was possible because you knew that the business pages were sacrosanct, always run with a steel-eyed objectivity that professionals could rely upon.
That is no longer the case. The lunatics now run the asylum, and henceforth, I am moving the WSJ into the column of “Stuff to read, but not take very seriously.”
I am bereft over this. This is a major change for me, for I have loved this paper for years, even decades. I read the Times (along with many other papers), but as someone who works in finance, I marveled at the quality and breadth of the business reportage at the Journal. Accuracy was paramount, political bias limited to the cartoon (Opinion) pages. For a long time, it was the best paper in America.
Those days are now ending.
...Politics and investing are a fatal combination to performance.
....Hence, I must now move the Journal out of my column of “Essential investor reads,” and into the column marked “Infotainment.” Under Murdoch, the paper has become politicized to the point of losing a significant portion of its value.
Investors beware."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-jumps-the-shark/
From Barry Ritholz at his Big Picture blog:
"The politicalization of the WSJ has moved to a new and more risky phase. The paper is now in danger of being a money loser — not for its investors (tho that has already happened), but for those traders who read its content.
It used to be that articles on the Market or specific companies or various finance stories were objective and reliable and free from bias. Sure, you could always count on money losing, bat-shit crazy nonsense in the editorial pages, but that was a special area of sequestered partisans, who due to their insanity cared not a whit about how much capital their lunatic ravings lost their readers. (The list is long and varied, but the Boskin “Obama Crash” on March 6th is a good place to start; then read anything Don Luskin writes — he is a reliable contrary indicator).
I assumed the drunks on the OpEd page did not care about what they did to your portfolio if you drank their Kool-Aid. But they were easy to steer clear of — you simply avoided that page, or read it and laughed. Smart investors could easily say “Go sell crazy somewhere else –we ain’t buying.” That was possible because you knew that the business pages were sacrosanct, always run with a steel-eyed objectivity that professionals could rely upon.
That is no longer the case. The lunatics now run the asylum, and henceforth, I am moving the WSJ into the column of “Stuff to read, but not take very seriously.”
I am bereft over this. This is a major change for me, for I have loved this paper for years, even decades. I read the Times (along with many other papers), but as someone who works in finance, I marveled at the quality and breadth of the business reportage at the Journal. Accuracy was paramount, political bias limited to the cartoon (Opinion) pages. For a long time, it was the best paper in America.
Those days are now ending.
...Politics and investing are a fatal combination to performance.
....Hence, I must now move the Journal out of my column of “Essential investor reads,” and into the column marked “Infotainment.” Under Murdoch, the paper has become politicized to the point of losing a significant portion of its value.
Investors beware."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-jumps-the-shark/
Monday, January 25, 2010
Yes Its Messy, Just Like Life
TW: The opponents of health care reform have very effectively used the messiness of the process to bolster their opposition. No alternatives presented merely use picking away at the ugly process in order to derail reform. Another approach is particularly insidious, the piecemeal BS as in "we will use the 'free-market' bits without the big government bits'. I have tried to explain moral hazard, adverse selection etc. This stuff all fits together or it does not fit at all.
One of the drawbacks is its yearning for simplicity powered by emotion. A perfect opportunity for an opposing party to demagogue its way back to power by manipulating the emotions.
From Economist:
"TWO sausage metaphors spring to mind when thinking about the health-care bill and its future. First was the familiar "legislative sausage machine" that stuffed the casing with such wonders as the Cornhusker giveaway, the union bribe and so forth. The second, now, would be "salami tactics", also known as "pass the popular bits": the idea that thin slices of the bill could be sent through Congress, to see what makes it through.
The problem, says Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now, is that
'The public wants to stop insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. You can't do that without a mandate; you can't do a mandate without subsidizing coverage; you can't subsidize coverage without Medicare savings and new revenues. The public wants to end medical bankruptcies—but to do that you need to provide affordable coverage to people and you need to mandate decent insurance benefits and put a ban on annual and lifetime caps. Doing all that requires setting up exchanges and subsidizing coverage.'
Put another way, the whole of the bill is a lot more than the sum of its parts; the unhealthy, fattening parts might make it through but not the lean meat. This strategy combines the worst of political timidity and policy failure, and the Democrats don't want to be known as the sausage party."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/nickname_you_dont_want
One of the drawbacks is its yearning for simplicity powered by emotion. A perfect opportunity for an opposing party to demagogue its way back to power by manipulating the emotions.
From Economist:
"TWO sausage metaphors spring to mind when thinking about the health-care bill and its future. First was the familiar "legislative sausage machine" that stuffed the casing with such wonders as the Cornhusker giveaway, the union bribe and so forth. The second, now, would be "salami tactics", also known as "pass the popular bits": the idea that thin slices of the bill could be sent through Congress, to see what makes it through.
The problem, says Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now, is that
'The public wants to stop insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. You can't do that without a mandate; you can't do a mandate without subsidizing coverage; you can't subsidize coverage without Medicare savings and new revenues. The public wants to end medical bankruptcies—but to do that you need to provide affordable coverage to people and you need to mandate decent insurance benefits and put a ban on annual and lifetime caps. Doing all that requires setting up exchanges and subsidizing coverage.'
Put another way, the whole of the bill is a lot more than the sum of its parts; the unhealthy, fattening parts might make it through but not the lean meat. This strategy combines the worst of political timidity and policy failure, and the Democrats don't want to be known as the sausage party."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/nickname_you_dont_want
I Wanted to be Chrissie Hynde
I remember when The Pretenders' first album came out - I bought it immediately after hearing Brass in Pocket. The rest of the album was even better and I became a lifelong fan of Chrissie Hynde.I haven't done a music post before but we were watching the Haiti Telethon earlier this week and Shakira did a great cover of I'll Stand by You that sent me in search of the real thing. Here's Stop your Sobbing from a 1987 performance on David Letterman:
Can you believe that voice? Can you believe how good they sound live? Can you believe how young Dave looks?
If the Danes Can Do It....
From NYT:
"...You see how easy it is for me?” Mr. Danstrup said, sitting at his desk while video chatting with his nurse at Frederiksberg University Hospital, a mile away. “Instead of wasting the day at the hospital?”
He clipped an electronic pulse reader to his finger. It logged his reading and sent it to his doctor. Mr. Danstrup can also look up his personal health record online. His prescriptions are paperless — his doctors enters them electronically, and any pharmacy in the country can pull them up. Any time he wants to get in touch with his primary care doctor, he sends an e-mail message.
All of this is possible because Mr. Danstrup lives in Denmark, a country that began embracing electronic health records and other health care information technology a decade ago. Today, virtually all primary care physicians and nearly half of the hospitals use electronic records, and officials are trying to encourage more “telemedicine” projects like the one started at Frederiksberg by Dr. Klaus Phanareth, a physician there.
Several studies, including one to be published later this month by the Commonwealth Fund, conclude that the Danish information system is the most efficient in the world, saving doctors an average of 50 minutes a day in administrative work. And a 2008 report from the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society estimated that electronic record keeping saved Denmark’s health system as much as $120 million a year.
Now policy makers in the United States are studying Denmark’s system to see whether its successes can be replicated as part of the overhaul of the health system making its way through Congress. Dr. David Blumenthal, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School who was named by President Obama as national coordinator of health information technology, has said the United States is “well behind” Denmark and its Scandinavian neighbors, Sweden and Norway, in the use of electronic health records.
Denmark’s success has much to do with the its small size, its homogeneous population and its regulated health care system — on all counts, very different from the United States. As in much of Europe, health care in Denmark is financed by taxes, and most services are free.
...Kurt Nielsen, the hospital’s director, says that while the doctors are not particularly adept at information technology, they have gradually embraced it. And it helps that the staff was involved in developing the innovations.
“My staff at the hospital is very, very satisfied,” he said. “We build these systems in an incremental way, and seek their input throughout.”
...Culturally, Danes are also different. Mr. Larsen, of Denmark’s health information agency, says his countrymen have few objections to the national patient registry — perhaps because they have different priorities from Americans when it comes to medical privacy.
“As long you are a healthy man, you fear for your privacy,” he said. “It is when you are sick that you wish people knew what your problem was.” ...”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/health/12denmark.html?scp=1&sq=sindya%20bhanoo&st=cse
"...You see how easy it is for me?” Mr. Danstrup said, sitting at his desk while video chatting with his nurse at Frederiksberg University Hospital, a mile away. “Instead of wasting the day at the hospital?”
He clipped an electronic pulse reader to his finger. It logged his reading and sent it to his doctor. Mr. Danstrup can also look up his personal health record online. His prescriptions are paperless — his doctors enters them electronically, and any pharmacy in the country can pull them up. Any time he wants to get in touch with his primary care doctor, he sends an e-mail message.
All of this is possible because Mr. Danstrup lives in Denmark, a country that began embracing electronic health records and other health care information technology a decade ago. Today, virtually all primary care physicians and nearly half of the hospitals use electronic records, and officials are trying to encourage more “telemedicine” projects like the one started at Frederiksberg by Dr. Klaus Phanareth, a physician there.
Several studies, including one to be published later this month by the Commonwealth Fund, conclude that the Danish information system is the most efficient in the world, saving doctors an average of 50 minutes a day in administrative work. And a 2008 report from the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society estimated that electronic record keeping saved Denmark’s health system as much as $120 million a year.
Now policy makers in the United States are studying Denmark’s system to see whether its successes can be replicated as part of the overhaul of the health system making its way through Congress. Dr. David Blumenthal, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School who was named by President Obama as national coordinator of health information technology, has said the United States is “well behind” Denmark and its Scandinavian neighbors, Sweden and Norway, in the use of electronic health records.
Denmark’s success has much to do with the its small size, its homogeneous population and its regulated health care system — on all counts, very different from the United States. As in much of Europe, health care in Denmark is financed by taxes, and most services are free.
...Kurt Nielsen, the hospital’s director, says that while the doctors are not particularly adept at information technology, they have gradually embraced it. And it helps that the staff was involved in developing the innovations.
“My staff at the hospital is very, very satisfied,” he said. “We build these systems in an incremental way, and seek their input throughout.”
...Culturally, Danes are also different. Mr. Larsen, of Denmark’s health information agency, says his countrymen have few objections to the national patient registry — perhaps because they have different priorities from Americans when it comes to medical privacy.
“As long you are a healthy man, you fear for your privacy,” he said. “It is when you are sick that you wish people knew what your problem was.” ...”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/health/12denmark.html?scp=1&sq=sindya%20bhanoo&st=cse
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Clusterfuggery In Place Of Governance
From Ezra Klein:
"Bruce Bartlett thinks that Timothy Geithner is becoming a liability to Obama, but there's not much Obama can do about it.
'Geithner's political tone-deafness is becoming a serious liability to Obama. The problem with replacing him, as I have said earlier, is finding someone who is qualified, confirmable and not connected to Wall Street. Given that half the top political appointees at Treasury are still awaiting Senate confirmation, I think Obama may be stuck with Geithner no matter how low his stock falls. Is there a potential replacement who has paid his taxes, has populist leanings, knows Wall Street but isn't part of it, who wouldn't be filibustered by the Republicans?'
I made this point the other day, as well. A Senate that can't be trusted to confirm non-controversial nominees can't be trusted to confirm controversial nominees. In that way, holds and filibusters, which are supposed to make the executive branch's nominees more accountable, in fact makes confirmed nominees much less accountable, as the president can't trust his ability to easily replace them and so can't take the risk of firing them. I thought of ending this post with a line about how Republicans who want Geithner gone are actually making it impossible for him to go, but then I realized that Republicans probably don't want Geithner gone. They're served best by making him both unpopular and irreplaceable."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/if_you_cant_hire_you_cant_fire.html
"Bruce Bartlett thinks that Timothy Geithner is becoming a liability to Obama, but there's not much Obama can do about it.
'Geithner's political tone-deafness is becoming a serious liability to Obama. The problem with replacing him, as I have said earlier, is finding someone who is qualified, confirmable and not connected to Wall Street. Given that half the top political appointees at Treasury are still awaiting Senate confirmation, I think Obama may be stuck with Geithner no matter how low his stock falls. Is there a potential replacement who has paid his taxes, has populist leanings, knows Wall Street but isn't part of it, who wouldn't be filibustered by the Republicans?'
I made this point the other day, as well. A Senate that can't be trusted to confirm non-controversial nominees can't be trusted to confirm controversial nominees. In that way, holds and filibusters, which are supposed to make the executive branch's nominees more accountable, in fact makes confirmed nominees much less accountable, as the president can't trust his ability to easily replace them and so can't take the risk of firing them. I thought of ending this post with a line about how Republicans who want Geithner gone are actually making it impossible for him to go, but then I realized that Republicans probably don't want Geithner gone. They're served best by making him both unpopular and irreplaceable."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/if_you_cant_hire_you_cant_fire.html
The Known Universe
This video does a great job of putting things into perspective
via Neatorama
Although there is no narration, the soundtrack is relaxing...I had me a nice little savasana while watching the universe go by.
btw - this reminded me a bit of the Powers of Ten video from a while back.
via Neatorama
Although there is no narration, the soundtrack is relaxing...I had me a nice little savasana while watching the universe go by.
btw - this reminded me a bit of the Powers of Ten video from a while back.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Dems Need To Nut Up...
(the image is smaller than usual, click to enlarge a bit)
TW:...and pass some frigging health care reform. Our plans kick conservative ass, implement them. Am tired of this prevaricating and pussyfooting. Just do it.
Ever Wonder Why Marketing Is So Important...
TW:...because form beats substance, always has always will. Folks get uptight about it but it is what makes the world go around where information is diffused, contradictory and obsfucated willfully.
From the Economist:
"WHAT do the Christian Coalition, GM, General Electric and Shell have in common with the NRDC, the BlueGreen Alliance and the AFL-CIO?
They all signed their names to this statement:
'How will America take back control of its energy future while enhancing our national security?
When will the U.S. economy regain its competitive edge instead of letting other countries corner the emerging global clean energy market?
How can we get the U.S. back on track by creating American jobs in the new low-carbon economy?
How can we protect our natural resources and future generations from climate change?
...We believe it’s time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs.'
Notice what comes first ("national security"), second ("competitive edge") and third ("creating American jobs"). Now notice what has to wait until fourth place ("protect...future generations from climate change").
It's going to take a lot of bottom-up pressure of this kind to make any greenhouse-gas bill happen in 2010. Arguments based on the climate alone—let's not destroy the climate system in defence of our inalienable right to get eight miles to the gallon—have little traction in the country right now. So its proponents are trying everything else they can: stop sending money to terrorists! Beat China in this round of high-tech competition! Create jobs! Oh, and mumble mumble climate mumble mumble.
This is the kind of thing Lindsey Graham tried out on angry constituents after signing an op-ed with John Kerry on limiting emissions. And notice the title of the Senate bill: "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act". No "climate" to be found. This is the only way to sell it. And even then, it's a hard sell."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/dont_mention_climate
From the Economist:
"WHAT do the Christian Coalition, GM, General Electric and Shell have in common with the NRDC, the BlueGreen Alliance and the AFL-CIO?
They all signed their names to this statement:
'How will America take back control of its energy future while enhancing our national security?
When will the U.S. economy regain its competitive edge instead of letting other countries corner the emerging global clean energy market?
How can we get the U.S. back on track by creating American jobs in the new low-carbon economy?
How can we protect our natural resources and future generations from climate change?
...We believe it’s time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs.'
Notice what comes first ("national security"), second ("competitive edge") and third ("creating American jobs"). Now notice what has to wait until fourth place ("protect...future generations from climate change").
It's going to take a lot of bottom-up pressure of this kind to make any greenhouse-gas bill happen in 2010. Arguments based on the climate alone—let's not destroy the climate system in defence of our inalienable right to get eight miles to the gallon—have little traction in the country right now. So its proponents are trying everything else they can: stop sending money to terrorists! Beat China in this round of high-tech competition! Create jobs! Oh, and mumble mumble climate mumble mumble.
This is the kind of thing Lindsey Graham tried out on angry constituents after signing an op-ed with John Kerry on limiting emissions. And notice the title of the Senate bill: "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act". No "climate" to be found. This is the only way to sell it. And even then, it's a hard sell."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/dont_mention_climate
Where are you now?
I've always wanted to see Stonehenge - the idea that something erected by humans 4,600 years ago still exists blows my mind. Btw, the Egyptians were starting the whole Pyramid program around the same time - it seems that the early English were going for a more rustic look.
Since I'm not likely to be in Wiltshire any time soon, I'm really glad that the Google Maps guys got out there. Even better, Google got permission from the National Trust of Britain to actually map through the circle. It's obviously nothing like being there in person, but it's pretty cool all the same.
Check this link for a virtual walk through the stones and learn more about them from Wikipedia here.
Friday, January 22, 2010
I Do Not Think So...
From Economist:
"International hotel chain Holiday Inn is offering a trial human bed-warming service at three hotels in Britain this month.
'If requested, a willing staff-member at two of the chain's London hotels and one in the northern English city of Manchester will dress in an all-in-one fleece sleeper suit before slipping between the sheets.
The bed-warmer is equipped with a thermometer to measure the bed's required temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68 Fahrenheit).
And because someone is sure to ask:
Holiday Inn said the warmer would be fully dressed and leave the bed before the guest occupied it. They could not confirm if the warmer would shower first, but said hair would be covered.
Also:
Holiday Inn are promoting the service with the help of sleep-expert Chris Idzikowski, director of the Edinburgh Sleep Center, who said the idea could help people sleep.'
Indeed, nothing is more comforting to me when I'm trying to sleep than the idea that only minutes earlier a complete stranger was lying in my bed.
"International hotel chain Holiday Inn is offering a trial human bed-warming service at three hotels in Britain this month.
'If requested, a willing staff-member at two of the chain's London hotels and one in the northern English city of Manchester will dress in an all-in-one fleece sleeper suit before slipping between the sheets.
The bed-warmer is equipped with a thermometer to measure the bed's required temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68 Fahrenheit).
And because someone is sure to ask:
Holiday Inn said the warmer would be fully dressed and leave the bed before the guest occupied it. They could not confirm if the warmer would shower first, but said hair would be covered.
Also:
Holiday Inn are promoting the service with the help of sleep-expert Chris Idzikowski, director of the Edinburgh Sleep Center, who said the idea could help people sleep.'
Indeed, nothing is more comforting to me when I'm trying to sleep than the idea that only minutes earlier a complete stranger was lying in my bed.
Be Careful What You Ask For...
TW: Populism is fun, it lets many folks blow off steam frequently without the burden of thinking too hard or reconciling those emotions to actual governance. It is also dangerous. Both political parties will try to harness its power for their electoral benefit. I assure you the Republican establishment is merely using the teabaggers as pawns as their core philosphy of what is good for Wall Street is good for them (think Chamber of Commerce) does not jive well with the teabaggers.
Many "street" pros who have spent the past year lamenting "guvmint" intervention are starting to get nervous about "populist" policies actually being enacted.
From Paul Kedrosky:
"My friend Doug Kass has out a lucid musing on the market’s Howard Beale moment. There is a populist uproar in progress, one that people overlook at their peril.
'The populist uproar is geared toward the incumbent, toward anyone in power. It does not run on party lines, nor is it focused on health care. It is the zeitgeist of dissatisfaction, a sign of the times. Maybe it's a function of high unemployment or the electorate ticked off at the wealthy and the largest institutions (especially of a banking kind). This dissatisfaction was expressed in the Democratic tsunami that brought Obama the Presidency, and it was seen yesterday in the Massachusetts Senatorial election that brought Brown the Senate seat. In other words, the mood of the country has been changing for a while, and it is being reflected in a very negative view toward those who have not suffered from high unemployment or from wayward derivative bets (and still got paid). And, as I have written before, this will lead to policies that are arguably needed but, generally speaking, are valuation deflating.
…While I recognize that historically political gridlock is generally seen as a market positive, it might not be this time as the nation needs sound direction and leadership, not legislative inertia. Given the complexity and scope of our country's fiscal problems, obstruction and the perception of continued divisive and partisan political agendas and the lack of an overall governmental community (which could thwart desperately necessary legislative solutions) might quickly be seen as a negative.' "
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/01/the_markets_how.html
Many "street" pros who have spent the past year lamenting "guvmint" intervention are starting to get nervous about "populist" policies actually being enacted.
From Paul Kedrosky:
"My friend Doug Kass has out a lucid musing on the market’s Howard Beale moment. There is a populist uproar in progress, one that people overlook at their peril.
'The populist uproar is geared toward the incumbent, toward anyone in power. It does not run on party lines, nor is it focused on health care. It is the zeitgeist of dissatisfaction, a sign of the times. Maybe it's a function of high unemployment or the electorate ticked off at the wealthy and the largest institutions (especially of a banking kind). This dissatisfaction was expressed in the Democratic tsunami that brought Obama the Presidency, and it was seen yesterday in the Massachusetts Senatorial election that brought Brown the Senate seat. In other words, the mood of the country has been changing for a while, and it is being reflected in a very negative view toward those who have not suffered from high unemployment or from wayward derivative bets (and still got paid). And, as I have written before, this will lead to policies that are arguably needed but, generally speaking, are valuation deflating.
…While I recognize that historically political gridlock is generally seen as a market positive, it might not be this time as the nation needs sound direction and leadership, not legislative inertia. Given the complexity and scope of our country's fiscal problems, obstruction and the perception of continued divisive and partisan political agendas and the lack of an overall governmental community (which could thwart desperately necessary legislative solutions) might quickly be seen as a negative.' "
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/01/the_markets_how.html
For All You Scaredy Cats Out There....
TW: Americans spend trillions on defense and many still think we are going to be overrun by some combination of Asian hordes or Islamic terrorists. We are great at assuming we suck while potential foes are somehow supernaturally capable. If the Soviets had had half the capabilities we attributed to them they would have rolled over us ten times.
From an anonymous friend (and blog reader):
"I read an in-depth, objective 3rd party evaluation of the MiG-29 and variants yesterday. As you probably know, the MiG-29 is an incredibly capable aircraft on paper. For amusement, I thought I would share some bits:
The only aircraft ever shot down in combat by a MiG-29 was one fratricide - iraqi shooting down his wingman in the the Gulf War before flying into the ground himself trying to avoid an F-15, and two Cessnas. 2-3 MiG-29s have been lost in combat as a result of maneuver suicides (i.e. crashed into the ground) indicating either ergonomic issues in the cockpit or handling problems at low altitudes. Another 3 have been similarly lost at air shows. The aircraft has only flown around two hundred total combat sorties in its career with a loss of 22 aircraft.
The Auditor General of India found 139 of 189 engines failed prematurely. 62 had not even reached 50% of their first overhaul point. Due to this and other issues, the MiG-29s are apparently the undisputed hanger queens of the Indian air force.
The much reported success of the MiG-29 in service with the Luftwaffe has mainly to do with the squadron being an aggressor squadron for all of NATO wanting to practice aerial combat against MiGs - i.e. similar skill and rules of engagement to Top Gun in the US where the instructors always win. Otherwise, the Germans have had similar maintenance issues to what the Indians have experienced.
The doors that cover the engine inlets for rough field takeoffs trap debris which lodges on or at the bottom of the door seal so as a pilot clears the runway, starts to pull the gear up, and shoves the throttles full forward to climb out at 50 or so feet, the doors retract and dump all the FoD collected from the takeoff run into the engines simultaneously.
The MiG-29 does feature one of the most effective, proven ejection seats in the world."
From an anonymous friend (and blog reader):
"I read an in-depth, objective 3rd party evaluation of the MiG-29 and variants yesterday. As you probably know, the MiG-29 is an incredibly capable aircraft on paper. For amusement, I thought I would share some bits:
The only aircraft ever shot down in combat by a MiG-29 was one fratricide - iraqi shooting down his wingman in the the Gulf War before flying into the ground himself trying to avoid an F-15, and two Cessnas. 2-3 MiG-29s have been lost in combat as a result of maneuver suicides (i.e. crashed into the ground) indicating either ergonomic issues in the cockpit or handling problems at low altitudes. Another 3 have been similarly lost at air shows. The aircraft has only flown around two hundred total combat sorties in its career with a loss of 22 aircraft.
The Auditor General of India found 139 of 189 engines failed prematurely. 62 had not even reached 50% of their first overhaul point. Due to this and other issues, the MiG-29s are apparently the undisputed hanger queens of the Indian air force.
The much reported success of the MiG-29 in service with the Luftwaffe has mainly to do with the squadron being an aggressor squadron for all of NATO wanting to practice aerial combat against MiGs - i.e. similar skill and rules of engagement to Top Gun in the US where the instructors always win. Otherwise, the Germans have had similar maintenance issues to what the Indians have experienced.
The doors that cover the engine inlets for rough field takeoffs trap debris which lodges on or at the bottom of the door seal so as a pilot clears the runway, starts to pull the gear up, and shoves the throttles full forward to climb out at 50 or so feet, the doors retract and dump all the FoD collected from the takeoff run into the engines simultaneously.
The MiG-29 does feature one of the most effective, proven ejection seats in the world."
What Is Big Government?
TW: These type dichotomies are why I call Bullshit on those who disclaim "big government" and parade around alleging some righteousness in the cause of "liberty". Many on the right are highly comfortable with certain forms of big government just not those which do not jive with their views of what is important. Security at all costs, equality not so much, equity not so much.
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Exactly!!
From Barry Ritholz at the Big Picture blog:
"I spoke at a conference recently at a major bulge bracket firm. A friend introduced me to a bond manager who runs an enormous amount of money.
He is not the typical manager. He said one of the most amusing things I’ve ever heard:
“Isn’t it funny when you walk into a investment firm, and you see all of the financial advisors watching CNBC — that gives me the same feeling of confidence I would have if I walked into the Mayo-clinic or Sloan Kettering and all the medical were watching General Hospital…”
-Senior portfolio manager, UBS"
TW: I would add also analogous to a voter who watches Fox News all day and then tries to make an informed decision.
"I spoke at a conference recently at a major bulge bracket firm. A friend introduced me to a bond manager who runs an enormous amount of money.
He is not the typical manager. He said one of the most amusing things I’ve ever heard:
“Isn’t it funny when you walk into a investment firm, and you see all of the financial advisors watching CNBC — that gives me the same feeling of confidence I would have if I walked into the Mayo-clinic or Sloan Kettering and all the medical were watching General Hospital…”
-Senior portfolio manager, UBS"
TW: I would add also analogous to a voter who watches Fox News all day and then tries to make an informed decision.
Oh Well...Substance Is Boring Anyway
From Jim Surowiecki at New Yorker:
"...Thanks to my longstanding obsession with the obsolescence of our eighteenth-century political and electoral hydraulics (such as the separation of powers and the lack of a single government accountable to a national electorate) and this sclerotic system’s sadomasochistic twentieth-century refinements (such as the institutionalization of the filibuster), I am not astonished that Obama has had trouble “getting things done.” Absent only the filibuster—even while leaving untouched all the other monkey wrenches (committee chairs, corrupt campaign money, safe districts, Republicans, etc.)—Obama by now would have signed landmark bills addressing health care, global warming, and financial regulation, and a larger, better-designed stimulus package, too.
Obama came into office with a slightly better-than-average electoral mandate, but he was immediately faced with difficulties of a size and type that his post-mid-century Democratic predecessors were not: a gigantic economic emergency whose full effects weren’t felt until halfway into his first year; two botched wars in chaotic Muslim countries; an essentially nihilistic opposition party dominated by a pro-torture, anti-intellectual, anti-public-spirited, xenophobic “conservative” movement; and a rightist propaganda apparatus owned by nominally respectable media corporations and financed by nominally respectable advertisers. Excuses? Maybe. Good ones, though. Sometimes excuses actually excuse.
Meanwhile, President Obama forestalled a second Great Depression, turned the attention of the executive branch toward real problems, restored lawfulness and decency to foreign and domestic policy, damped down the flames of global anti-Americanism, and staffed the agencies and departments with competent, public-spirited officials who believe in the duty of government to advance the general welfare. In this generation, Obama is as good as it is likely to get. I’m not sure whether that’s good news or bad, and I’m not saying that liberals shouldn’t keep the pressure on him to do better. I am saying that their—our—anger and exasperation should be directed elsewhere, at systemic grotesqueries like the filibuster and at the nihilists those grotesqueries enable."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/01/one-year-beware-of-sudden-downdrafts.html
"...Thanks to my longstanding obsession with the obsolescence of our eighteenth-century political and electoral hydraulics (such as the separation of powers and the lack of a single government accountable to a national electorate) and this sclerotic system’s sadomasochistic twentieth-century refinements (such as the institutionalization of the filibuster), I am not astonished that Obama has had trouble “getting things done.” Absent only the filibuster—even while leaving untouched all the other monkey wrenches (committee chairs, corrupt campaign money, safe districts, Republicans, etc.)—Obama by now would have signed landmark bills addressing health care, global warming, and financial regulation, and a larger, better-designed stimulus package, too.
Obama came into office with a slightly better-than-average electoral mandate, but he was immediately faced with difficulties of a size and type that his post-mid-century Democratic predecessors were not: a gigantic economic emergency whose full effects weren’t felt until halfway into his first year; two botched wars in chaotic Muslim countries; an essentially nihilistic opposition party dominated by a pro-torture, anti-intellectual, anti-public-spirited, xenophobic “conservative” movement; and a rightist propaganda apparatus owned by nominally respectable media corporations and financed by nominally respectable advertisers. Excuses? Maybe. Good ones, though. Sometimes excuses actually excuse.
Meanwhile, President Obama forestalled a second Great Depression, turned the attention of the executive branch toward real problems, restored lawfulness and decency to foreign and domestic policy, damped down the flames of global anti-Americanism, and staffed the agencies and departments with competent, public-spirited officials who believe in the duty of government to advance the general welfare. In this generation, Obama is as good as it is likely to get. I’m not sure whether that’s good news or bad, and I’m not saying that liberals shouldn’t keep the pressure on him to do better. I am saying that their—our—anger and exasperation should be directed elsewhere, at systemic grotesqueries like the filibuster and at the nihilists those grotesqueries enable."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/01/one-year-beware-of-sudden-downdrafts.html
Magic in the Air
The Sleeping HouseMagical landscapes from Alexander Jansson. This Swedish illustrator has a way with the mystical - and I love the slightly warped nature of his work.
Be sure to double click on the images - the detail is amazing.
Wellie
Selma
The Sleeping House in WinterSleeping House is Jansson's design studio - check out his website for more (don't miss the link to his blog)
Oh Well...Populist Nonsense Makes For Better TV Anyway
From George Packer at New Yorker:
"The other day, I was lighting a fire with a copy of the Times from June 27, 2009 when my eye fell on an article about Republican objections to the health-care reform bill. Back then, the public option troubled Susan Collins, who also “said she would like to see the legislation ‘put more emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, end of life care,’ as well as tax credits for small businesses and self-employed Americans to ease their access to health insurance.” Her fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe “said she was striving to produce a plan ‘that does not undo the current system in terms of employer-based coverage or the quality of our health-care system.’ ”
It occurred to me that these might be grounds for negotiation if Democrats end up needing to pick up a few Republican votes (a need that came to pass yesterday). And then, as the paper went up in flames, it occurred to me that pretty much every one of these objections and conditions was met in the bill that passed the Senate last month, without the benefit of Ms. Collins’, Ms. Snowe’s, or any other Republican’s support."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/01/the-lonesome-death-of-post-partisanship.html
"The other day, I was lighting a fire with a copy of the Times from June 27, 2009 when my eye fell on an article about Republican objections to the health-care reform bill. Back then, the public option troubled Susan Collins, who also “said she would like to see the legislation ‘put more emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, end of life care,’ as well as tax credits for small businesses and self-employed Americans to ease their access to health insurance.” Her fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe “said she was striving to produce a plan ‘that does not undo the current system in terms of employer-based coverage or the quality of our health-care system.’ ”
It occurred to me that these might be grounds for negotiation if Democrats end up needing to pick up a few Republican votes (a need that came to pass yesterday). And then, as the paper went up in flames, it occurred to me that pretty much every one of these objections and conditions was met in the bill that passed the Senate last month, without the benefit of Ms. Collins’, Ms. Snowe’s, or any other Republican’s support."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/01/the-lonesome-death-of-post-partisanship.html
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
It Is All Relative
From Robert Rapier's blog:
"...Current Energy Prices per Million BTU
Powder River Basin Coal - $0.56
Northern Appalachia Coal - $2.08
Natural gas - $5.67
Ethanol subsidy - $5.92
Petroleum - $13.56
Propane - $13.92
#2 Heating Oil - $15.33
Jet fuel - $16.01
Diesel - $16.21
Gasoline - $18.16
Wood pellets - $18.57
Ethanol - $24.74
Electricity - $34.03..."
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2010/01/costs-of-various-energy-sources.html#links
TW: Wonder why coal remains a crucial energy source despite its extensive negative externalities. Combine the fact that things like jet fuel have no ready substitutes it is no wonder talk of alternative energy sources struggle to gain reliable traction. Things like carbon taxes and cap and trade can mitigate the pricing differentials in order to reflect their negative externalities but that would raise energy prices....ooh, we cannot do that...
"...Current Energy Prices per Million BTU
Powder River Basin Coal - $0.56
Northern Appalachia Coal - $2.08
Natural gas - $5.67
Ethanol subsidy - $5.92
Petroleum - $13.56
Propane - $13.92
#2 Heating Oil - $15.33
Jet fuel - $16.01
Diesel - $16.21
Gasoline - $18.16
Wood pellets - $18.57
Ethanol - $24.74
Electricity - $34.03..."
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2010/01/costs-of-various-energy-sources.html#links
TW: Wonder why coal remains a crucial energy source despite its extensive negative externalities. Combine the fact that things like jet fuel have no ready substitutes it is no wonder talk of alternative energy sources struggle to gain reliable traction. Things like carbon taxes and cap and trade can mitigate the pricing differentials in order to reflect their negative externalities but that would raise energy prices....ooh, we cannot do that...
Mmmm, Tasty
The CherpumpleYou've heard of the Turducken - that's the poultry nightmare that consists of a chicken inside a duck inside a turkey.
Well Charles Phoenix has come up with a dessert along the same lines - the Cherpumple. It's a cherry pie baked inside a white cake on top of an apple pie baked inside a yellow cake and a pumpkin pie baked inside a spice cake. All covered in cream cheese frosting.
Yummy.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Okay...
From Economist:
"...While we're on the subject of pleasurable vices, here's a piece from the Economist's archives about South African drinking games. A sample:
[T]ake a fresh pat of buffalo dung, lay it on the bar and add water to make it nice and sloppy. All the lads in the boozing group then place their chins on the bar, as close to the dung as possible, and the barman slaps the mess as hard as he can. The man with the fewest blobs of excrement on his face has to buy the next round. “Spots”, as this merry diversion is known, was invented by macho game wardens and is popular wherever beer and buffalo are plentiful. If there are no buffaloes, you can play a different game with the droppings of the kudu, a large antelope with twirly horns. Contestants place a pellet of dried kudu waste in their mouths and see how far they can spit it. Distances of 20 metres have been recorded..."
"...While we're on the subject of pleasurable vices, here's a piece from the Economist's archives about South African drinking games. A sample:
[T]ake a fresh pat of buffalo dung, lay it on the bar and add water to make it nice and sloppy. All the lads in the boozing group then place their chins on the bar, as close to the dung as possible, and the barman slaps the mess as hard as he can. The man with the fewest blobs of excrement on his face has to buy the next round. “Spots”, as this merry diversion is known, was invented by macho game wardens and is popular wherever beer and buffalo are plentiful. If there are no buffaloes, you can play a different game with the droppings of the kudu, a large antelope with twirly horns. Contestants place a pellet of dried kudu waste in their mouths and see how far they can spit it. Distances of 20 metres have been recorded..."
Proof that the French are Silly
The explanation (in French) from YouTube
Si Star Wars avait été Français... Et bien ça aurait eu de la gueule... Quand on pense que Lucasfilm a osé sortir cinq nouvels opus après ce chef-d'œuvre frenchy...
Translated??
If Star Wars had been French... And well that would have had mouth... When one thinks that Lucasfilm dared go out five new opus after this masterpiece frenchy...
Btw, don't worry if you can't watch all the way to the end - absolutely nothing happens.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Merger Of Wall Street With the Tea Baggers
From David Rosenburg economist, market analyst and conservative at Gluskin Scheff:
"...Think of all the White House policies that work against coal utilities, dirty oil (think Canadian oil sands!), asset managers, luxury retailers, big oil, not to mention private health care insurers. They will not be unperturbed I am sure by a Scott Brown victory..."
TW: Rosenburg is cheering for Brown and signaling which stocks to buy when Brown wins in Massachusetts. Somehow I don't think many of those "populist" tea-baggers working so hard to defeat the evil Dems think they are out there pushing the agenda of coal, dirty oil, luxury retailers etc. but they are, mosdef they are.
"...Think of all the White House policies that work against coal utilities, dirty oil (think Canadian oil sands!), asset managers, luxury retailers, big oil, not to mention private health care insurers. They will not be unperturbed I am sure by a Scott Brown victory..."
TW: Rosenburg is cheering for Brown and signaling which stocks to buy when Brown wins in Massachusetts. Somehow I don't think many of those "populist" tea-baggers working so hard to defeat the evil Dems think they are out there pushing the agenda of coal, dirty oil, luxury retailers etc. but they are, mosdef they are.
A Little Baseball Humor
TW: I vented a bit with the day's first post, so will revert to less cynical fare.
From Hal McCoy at Dayton Daily News:
"THE SPEAKER...was major-league umpire Charlie Reliford...If the guy quits umpiring, he can do stand-up comedy.
When the crowd gave him a rousing round of applause when he was introduced, he said, “That’s not the way you normally greet umpires. Greet me the way you always do umpires.”
The crowd booed lustily and he said, “Now I feel better.”
He said umpiring is the only job he knows where you have to be perfect your first day on the job, “Then get better.” And he added, “Umpiring is like a toilet. Nobody notices you until you aren’t functioning.”
Former Reds pitcher Don Gullett, from nearby Lynn, Ky., attends the dinner and Reliford said, “You all think Gullett is such a nice guy. I remember a day I was pitching and he sauntered up to me and said, ‘Hey, Charlie. Flip home plate over and read the directions because you ain’t getting ‘em right.’”
Former Reds third base coach Jim Lett, now a coach with the Washington Nationals, is from nearby Nitro, W.Va. and Reliford said Lett walked by while the umpire was sweeping off home plate and said, ‘Hey, Charlie. You’ll make somebody a nice wife some day.” To which Reliford replied, ‘Very funny. Now go into the dugout and tell your hitters that the batter’s box is now part of the strike zone.”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2010/01/17/baseball_talk_portsmouth_style.html
From Hal McCoy at Dayton Daily News:
"THE SPEAKER...was major-league umpire Charlie Reliford...If the guy quits umpiring, he can do stand-up comedy.
When the crowd gave him a rousing round of applause when he was introduced, he said, “That’s not the way you normally greet umpires. Greet me the way you always do umpires.”
The crowd booed lustily and he said, “Now I feel better.”
He said umpiring is the only job he knows where you have to be perfect your first day on the job, “Then get better.” And he added, “Umpiring is like a toilet. Nobody notices you until you aren’t functioning.”
Former Reds pitcher Don Gullett, from nearby Lynn, Ky., attends the dinner and Reliford said, “You all think Gullett is such a nice guy. I remember a day I was pitching and he sauntered up to me and said, ‘Hey, Charlie. Flip home plate over and read the directions because you ain’t getting ‘em right.’”
Former Reds third base coach Jim Lett, now a coach with the Washington Nationals, is from nearby Nitro, W.Va. and Reliford said Lett walked by while the umpire was sweeping off home plate and said, ‘Hey, Charlie. You’ll make somebody a nice wife some day.” To which Reliford replied, ‘Very funny. Now go into the dugout and tell your hitters that the batter’s box is now part of the strike zone.”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2010/01/17/baseball_talk_portsmouth_style.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)