From NBC:
"In what might embarrass less adventurous souls, astronaut Koichi Wakata is returning to Earth with the underwear he kept on for a solid month during his space station stay and scientists will check them out.
They’re experimental high-tech undies, designed in Japan to be odor free.
...Wakata has been off the planet for 4 1/2 months.
“I haven’t talked about this underwear to my crew members,” Wakata said in an interview with The Associated Press, drawing a big laugh from his six shuttle colleagues. “But I wore them for about a month, and my station crew members never complained for about a month, so I think the experiment went fine.”
The underwear, called J-Wear, is a new type of anti-bacterial, water-absorbent, odor-eliminating clothing designed for space missions. “We’ll see the results after landing,” Wakata said...."
Friday, July 31, 2009
When the Fringe Rules
(from Research 2000)
TW: Democracy depends upon a well-informed populace. The "birther" movement is not about birth certificates of that I have no doubt.
Kicking the Can Down the Road: US Postal Service
TW: Another example of our government (to repeat our government is not some ephemeral being it is a reflection of you), kicking the can down the road. The amount of mail being sent is plummeting due to technological and societal changes (i.e. the internet). We need less postal service not more. Yet entrenched interests want to hold on to the past as long as possible.
As usual folks are trying accounting gimmicks and borrowing to address the shortfalls but kicking the can down the road is pointless.
From NYT:
"Postmaster General John E. Potter says the Postal Service now expects to run a record $7 billion deficit in 2009, up from projections in March of $6 billion.
...Mr. Potter previously beseeched Congress to change laws that mandate delivery six days a week, a request that has met strong opposition from some lawmakers.
While some remain dead set against five-day delivery, Dan G. Blair, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that oversees the Postal Service, said the initial “frosty reception” from Congress appeared to be changing.
“Congress certainly seems to be saying ‘no way,’ but what happens when they have another $6 to $7 billion operating debt next year?” he said, noting that the commission does not plan to take sides in the delivery debate.
Mr. Potter predicts that Congress will be more willing to change the law as the Postal Service’s financial situation worsens. He says that five-day delivery could save more than $3 billion a year. The postal commission estimates the savings at $2 billion.
...A bill to allow the Postal Service to pay health benefits from a retirement fund was voted out of committee last week and has 339 co-sponsors. The Postal Service says that could save $2 billion a year from the operating budget.
...language mandating six-day mail service has made its way into the fiscal 2010 spending bill that includes money to reimburse the Postal Service. The act also expresses opposition to the consolidation of postal stations. The Postal Service is reviewing more than 3,200 postal stations and branches to see if they could be closed or their operations consolidated, an effort that has prompted outcry in communities afraid of losing branches.
“I realize that the postmaster general thinks that this will save money, but there are other ways that they can cost-cut,” Ms. Emerson said of the potential consolidations and closures. “My constituents feel very strongly about having their postal service continue as it always has.”
...William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, said that the health benefits bill would provide enough temporary relief to survive the economic downturn, after which mail volume would rebound.
Mr. Potter said he expected the Postal Service to handle at least 27 billion fewer pieces of mail this year than in 2008. Frederic V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the Postal Service should focus on new ways to generate revenue rather than on making substantial changes in service.
“Our take on the five-day delivery is that the Postal Service is making permanent structural changes to a problem that is the result of what is hopefully a temporary deep recession,” he said.
...Congress has authorized the Postal Service to borrow up to $15 billion, capped at $3 billion a year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30postal.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
As usual folks are trying accounting gimmicks and borrowing to address the shortfalls but kicking the can down the road is pointless.
From NYT:
"Postmaster General John E. Potter says the Postal Service now expects to run a record $7 billion deficit in 2009, up from projections in March of $6 billion.
...Mr. Potter previously beseeched Congress to change laws that mandate delivery six days a week, a request that has met strong opposition from some lawmakers.
While some remain dead set against five-day delivery, Dan G. Blair, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that oversees the Postal Service, said the initial “frosty reception” from Congress appeared to be changing.
“Congress certainly seems to be saying ‘no way,’ but what happens when they have another $6 to $7 billion operating debt next year?” he said, noting that the commission does not plan to take sides in the delivery debate.
Mr. Potter predicts that Congress will be more willing to change the law as the Postal Service’s financial situation worsens. He says that five-day delivery could save more than $3 billion a year. The postal commission estimates the savings at $2 billion.
...A bill to allow the Postal Service to pay health benefits from a retirement fund was voted out of committee last week and has 339 co-sponsors. The Postal Service says that could save $2 billion a year from the operating budget.
...language mandating six-day mail service has made its way into the fiscal 2010 spending bill that includes money to reimburse the Postal Service. The act also expresses opposition to the consolidation of postal stations. The Postal Service is reviewing more than 3,200 postal stations and branches to see if they could be closed or their operations consolidated, an effort that has prompted outcry in communities afraid of losing branches.
“I realize that the postmaster general thinks that this will save money, but there are other ways that they can cost-cut,” Ms. Emerson said of the potential consolidations and closures. “My constituents feel very strongly about having their postal service continue as it always has.”
...William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, said that the health benefits bill would provide enough temporary relief to survive the economic downturn, after which mail volume would rebound.
Mr. Potter said he expected the Postal Service to handle at least 27 billion fewer pieces of mail this year than in 2008. Frederic V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the Postal Service should focus on new ways to generate revenue rather than on making substantial changes in service.
“Our take on the five-day delivery is that the Postal Service is making permanent structural changes to a problem that is the result of what is hopefully a temporary deep recession,” he said.
...Congress has authorized the Postal Service to borrow up to $15 billion, capped at $3 billion a year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30postal.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Health Reform Guarantees
TW: Health care reform has many moving parts and even more folks trying to derail or maim it prior to implementation. The Obama administration has struggled at times to control the debate. This week they have defined some "guarantees" which may make the benefits of reform more concrete and attractive to many Americans. One will notice a theme, if someone has an actual serious illness they will not be booted from their coverage, alternatively they will be able to continue to receive coverage even with pre-existing conditions. This gets to the heart of several of the key challenges with the current system.
Via Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. "
Via Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. "
Things I Like - Science
Image: Takahiro Takano, University of Rochester Medical CenterToo late for Christopher Reeve but we may be making progress on treatment for spinal cord injuries:
The piece goes on to explain that we currently have no treatment for patients with spinal cord injury and this discovery requires further research and clinical trials before it can lead to development of a human protocol. Unfortunately, no one (ie, the drug companies) is willing to fund further studies because the product itself is too cheap – it would never be profitable.By lucky accident, researchers discovered that the commonly used food additive FD&C blue dye No. 1 is remarkably similar to a lab compound that blocks a key step in nerve inflammation ... [they] reported only one adverse effect: The rats turned blue.
To test whether the compound could improve recovery after spinal cord injury, rats were given an intravenous infusion of Brilliant Blue G, which is nearly identical to blue food dye, 15 minutes after a 10-gram weight was dropped on their spinal cords (under anesthesia).
Animals who received the blue dye recovered much faster than animals who didn’t: By six weeks, the treatment group could walk with a limp, while the no-treatment group never recovered the ability to walk.
~Wired
Wow. Makes me proud to be a capitalist.
Also, wasn’t it nice that the rats were anesthetized before being injured?
And Some Thought It Had To Do With Christians Or the Enlightenment
TW: A rather cynical view of things. Cold hearted for sure and perhaps instructive for the future. Many folks forget that prior to about 1700 Asians, Turks, Persians et al. were at least equal to Europe in power and technological progress.
From Economist:
"BY THE year 1700, Europe was far better positioned than other regions of the world to launch itself on the path toward industrialisation and self-sustaining growth sufficient to raise incomes in perpetuity. European incomes were considerably higher than those in China and India—between two and five times higher, in fact. But how did that key advantage emerge in the first place? In a Malthusian world, excess income should rapidly be gobbled up by population growth.
Unless, of course, you live in Europe, where filth and war keep population in check. According to Nico Voigtländer and Hans-Joachim Voth, this was the key to Europe's developmental success.
The first lucky stroke was the arrival of the Black Death in the 14th century. Plague killed a huge share of the labour force, pushing incomes up to levels that wouldn't be seen again until Victorian times. This new wealth kicked off a wave of war-waging, which claimed additional lives, and it created a surplus that allowed for relatively high rates of urbanisation. This was also fortunate for Europe, since its cities were particularly deadly, for these reasons:
Europeans ate more meat, and hence kept more animals in close proximity,
European cities were protected by walls due to frequent wars, which could not be moved without major expense, and
Europeans dumped their chamber pots out of their windows, while human refuse was collected in Chinese cities and used as fertiliser in the countryside.
Take it all together and you have nearly four centuries of horrific death, sufficient to make labour scarce and incomes high right up until Europe was ready to finance the industrial revolution. Europe did its best to share the wealth by bringing death to the rest of the world, but success proved difficult to duplicate. "
From Economist:
"BY THE year 1700, Europe was far better positioned than other regions of the world to launch itself on the path toward industrialisation and self-sustaining growth sufficient to raise incomes in perpetuity. European incomes were considerably higher than those in China and India—between two and five times higher, in fact. But how did that key advantage emerge in the first place? In a Malthusian world, excess income should rapidly be gobbled up by population growth.
Unless, of course, you live in Europe, where filth and war keep population in check. According to Nico Voigtländer and Hans-Joachim Voth, this was the key to Europe's developmental success.
The first lucky stroke was the arrival of the Black Death in the 14th century. Plague killed a huge share of the labour force, pushing incomes up to levels that wouldn't be seen again until Victorian times. This new wealth kicked off a wave of war-waging, which claimed additional lives, and it created a surplus that allowed for relatively high rates of urbanisation. This was also fortunate for Europe, since its cities were particularly deadly, for these reasons:
Europeans ate more meat, and hence kept more animals in close proximity,
European cities were protected by walls due to frequent wars, which could not be moved without major expense, and
Europeans dumped their chamber pots out of their windows, while human refuse was collected in Chinese cities and used as fertiliser in the countryside.
Take it all together and you have nearly four centuries of horrific death, sufficient to make labour scarce and incomes high right up until Europe was ready to finance the industrial revolution. Europe did its best to share the wealth by bringing death to the rest of the world, but success proved difficult to duplicate. "
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Bottom Up Governance For Pot
TW: This Chicago Tribune editorial speaks to the confused nature of how America deals with pot. A proposed Cook County measure to reduce the sanctions against pot possession has garnered press not because of its profound substance, it would not change much either way, but because it is pot and ooooh pot is pot.
The editorial one hand appears to support reducing the possession sanctions (because they are expensive) but then blanches at the notion of perhaps legalizing it to tax and regulate (because after all it is illegal...but jeez if it were legalized would it not then be....legal). They appear to like the notion fining pot possessors just not taxing them. Perhaps because fines sound better than taxes.
Like many other political issues I suspect over time liberalized laws will grow, it is just a very haphazard (inefficient and inequitable) way of going about governance.
From Chicago Tribune:
"The measure would give...officers discretion to issue a $200 ticket instead of making a misdemeanor arrest in cases where the suspect was carrying less than 10 grams of marijuana.
....Cook County will be far from the first place to decriminalize small amounts of pot. Similar laws began popping up in the '70s, and close to one in three Americans now lives in a jurisdiction where officers are allowed to make similar calls.Whether this reflects growing acceptance of marijuana use or a more pragmatic concern for the cost of enforcement, or both, is subject to interpretation.
...Roughly 9 of every 10 marijuana arrests nationwide are for possession only, and the vast majority of them result in plea bargains or dismissals, calling into question the cost-effectiveness of arresting, jailing and prosecuting small-time users. Governments that have decriminalized such cases report little to no increase in marijuana use -- and significant savings in enforcement.
We see the sense in decriminalizing. Lately, though, the liberalization of marijuana laws is being driven by pot's potential as a revenue source. Prosecuting people for possession costs money; fining them brings in cash.
...We're grateful that Illinois leaders haven't smoked enough to fantasize about marijuana as a budget booster. It's an illegal drug, remember?
...They and other police departments will have no such discretion in the cities and villages. Dart's officers made just 173 misdemeanor pot arrests last year and 150 the year before..."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0725edit1jul25,0,7364464.story
The editorial one hand appears to support reducing the possession sanctions (because they are expensive) but then blanches at the notion of perhaps legalizing it to tax and regulate (because after all it is illegal...but jeez if it were legalized would it not then be....legal). They appear to like the notion fining pot possessors just not taxing them. Perhaps because fines sound better than taxes.
Like many other political issues I suspect over time liberalized laws will grow, it is just a very haphazard (inefficient and inequitable) way of going about governance.
From Chicago Tribune:
"The measure would give...officers discretion to issue a $200 ticket instead of making a misdemeanor arrest in cases where the suspect was carrying less than 10 grams of marijuana.
....Cook County will be far from the first place to decriminalize small amounts of pot. Similar laws began popping up in the '70s, and close to one in three Americans now lives in a jurisdiction where officers are allowed to make similar calls.Whether this reflects growing acceptance of marijuana use or a more pragmatic concern for the cost of enforcement, or both, is subject to interpretation.
...Roughly 9 of every 10 marijuana arrests nationwide are for possession only, and the vast majority of them result in plea bargains or dismissals, calling into question the cost-effectiveness of arresting, jailing and prosecuting small-time users. Governments that have decriminalized such cases report little to no increase in marijuana use -- and significant savings in enforcement.
We see the sense in decriminalizing. Lately, though, the liberalization of marijuana laws is being driven by pot's potential as a revenue source. Prosecuting people for possession costs money; fining them brings in cash.
...We're grateful that Illinois leaders haven't smoked enough to fantasize about marijuana as a budget booster. It's an illegal drug, remember?
...They and other police departments will have no such discretion in the cities and villages. Dart's officers made just 173 misdemeanor pot arrests last year and 150 the year before..."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0725edit1jul25,0,7364464.story
The Old "Wealthy Pay All the Taxes" Whine From the Right
TW: Like clockwork this morning I see the conservative econ bloggers flagging the annual Tax Foundation report that shows wealthy folks paying lots of federal tax, their grave tones indicating they are purveying profound new information is so very cynical if utterly consistent: 
From Jim Pethokoukis:
"1) The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government — the highest percentage in modern history — while the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden.
2) The share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
3) To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined."
From Greg Mankiw:
"IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act. Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined."
"1) The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government — the highest percentage in modern history — while the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden.
2) The share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
3) To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined."
From Greg Mankiw:
"IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act. Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined."
TW: We have debunked this propaganda previously. It is not challenging. Conservatives throw out this meme to portray "woe is me" for wealthy taxpayers. But they NEVER complete the circle. They only show federal income tax so payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes which are paid far more proportionately by less wealthy folks are ignored. Most importantly they NEVER do the intellectually honest thing and show what % of the income those same wealthy folks have. The basic point- income is so concentrated now in the U.S. that the wealthy pay a % of the federal income tax because they possess a high % of the income, unless the federal taxes are set up to be regressive they will inherently pay a % of the federal income tax.
The graph at the top from Peth might as well be a graph of how income has pooled at the top to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. Here are some more relevant graphics:
More Kicking the Can Down the Road
TW: Here is another insane transaction by a local government to avoid make hard choices by essentially covering budget shortfalls with the equivalent of a home equity loan. This time it is a state, Arizona and they make no qualms about setting aside money for the future. They claim all options have been exhausted. This is hopefully a political lie. Because if it were true then it would mean Arizona is functionally bankrupt. They just do not want to make tough choices- raise taxes, cut spending/services etc. They just want to kick the can down the road.
The proposal will get noticed because it involves a sale/leaseback of the state capital but what they are using as collateral is relevant only symbolically, the real issue is these deals take money from future taxes and apply it to the present. They are also going to use the old trick of privatizing prisons by selling the right to manage the prisons. Classically bad policy.
From Arizona Republic:
"Legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've conducted state business for more than 50 years.
Dozens of other state properties also may be sold as the state government faces its worst financial crisis in a generation, if not ever. The plan isn't to liquidate state assets, though.
Instead, officials hope to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again.
...allow government services to continue without interruption while giving the state a fast infusion of as much as $735 million, according to Capitol projections.
For investors, the arrangement means long-term lease payments from a stable source.
...Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed such sale/leaseback provisions along with most of the rest of a fiscal 2010 state budget plan sent to her by the Legislature.
But the provisions are expected to return as part of a GOP-led legislative budget proposal surfacing this week. Although Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman called sale/leaseback deals "one of the governor's least favorite options," he conceded the likelihood that they'll play a key role in any plan to close a state shortfall estimated at $3.4 billion.
The state may have little choice. Reserves already have been drained, easier fiscal gimmicks are virtually tapped out, and there's no political will for spending cuts of the size and scope needed to close the deficit.
"This is the predicament we find ourselves in," said Tom Manos, a Brewer budget adviser. "We've exhausted the better options."
...While the state is looking to sell and lease back selected properties, it also may try to contract out the operations of some prisons. The concessions provision is expected to be included within the new budget proposal, and legislative analysts believe it could generate as much as $100 million (on top of the sale/leaseback revenue) for state coffers. Private, for-profit prison operators would bid for the right to manage selected facilities, but the state would maintain ownership."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/07/29/20090729assets0729.html
The proposal will get noticed because it involves a sale/leaseback of the state capital but what they are using as collateral is relevant only symbolically, the real issue is these deals take money from future taxes and apply it to the present. They are also going to use the old trick of privatizing prisons by selling the right to manage the prisons. Classically bad policy.
From Arizona Republic:
"Legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've conducted state business for more than 50 years.
Dozens of other state properties also may be sold as the state government faces its worst financial crisis in a generation, if not ever. The plan isn't to liquidate state assets, though.
Instead, officials hope to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again.
...allow government services to continue without interruption while giving the state a fast infusion of as much as $735 million, according to Capitol projections.
For investors, the arrangement means long-term lease payments from a stable source.
...Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed such sale/leaseback provisions along with most of the rest of a fiscal 2010 state budget plan sent to her by the Legislature.
But the provisions are expected to return as part of a GOP-led legislative budget proposal surfacing this week. Although Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman called sale/leaseback deals "one of the governor's least favorite options," he conceded the likelihood that they'll play a key role in any plan to close a state shortfall estimated at $3.4 billion.
The state may have little choice. Reserves already have been drained, easier fiscal gimmicks are virtually tapped out, and there's no political will for spending cuts of the size and scope needed to close the deficit.
"This is the predicament we find ourselves in," said Tom Manos, a Brewer budget adviser. "We've exhausted the better options."
...While the state is looking to sell and lease back selected properties, it also may try to contract out the operations of some prisons. The concessions provision is expected to be included within the new budget proposal, and legislative analysts believe it could generate as much as $100 million (on top of the sale/leaseback revenue) for state coffers. Private, for-profit prison operators would bid for the right to manage selected facilities, but the state would maintain ownership."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/07/29/20090729assets0729.html
Things I Like - Books
I just finished reading Loving Frank by Nancy Horan – the fictionalized account of the love affair between Frank Lloyd Wright and Mamah Borthwick Cheney. The story of the famous architect running away with the wife of one of his clients would hardly raise eyebrows today. Or maybe it would - I've noticed a lot of media attention focused on some folks named Jon and Kate lately...Regardless, back in 1909, this was a major society scandal and the Chicago papers made it their business to sensationalize the affair from sordid beginning to horrific end.
I’ve known the general story since my childhood fascination with FLW and his architecture but this book looks at things from Mamah’s point of view:
Drawing on years of research, Horan weaves little-known facts into a compelling narrative, vividly portraying the conflicts and struggles of a woman forced to choose between the roles of mother, wife, lover, and intellectual. Horan’s Mamah is a woman seeking to find her own place, her own creative calling in the world.It’s not a pretty tale – two entire families destroyed by the selfish actions of two people who needed to be ‘true to themselves and their love’ (and I'm not even talking about the massacre up in Spring Green). But at least it was a true love, right? A love worth all the pain and unhappiness that they caused? Perhaps this was the case on Mamah’s part, I’m not so sure about Frank. It seems that he took up with another woman (Miriam Noel) who had sent him condolences on his loss. They were living together within weeks of Mamah’s death.
~Random House
But he didn’t stop there - let’s take a quick look at the known love life of Frank Lloyd Wright:
1889 – Marries Catherine Clark in Chicago
1903 – Builds house for Mamah and Edward Cheney
1909 – Leaves with Mamah to live in Europe
1911 – Returns to US and lives with Mamah at Taliesin
1914 – Mamah and others murdered at Taliesin
1914 – Meets Miriam Noel who moves in to Taliesin
1916 – Travels to and lives in Tokyo with Miriam
1922 – Granted divorce from Catherine
1923 – After waiting the required 1 year, marries Miriam Noel
1924 – Separates from Miriam
1924 – Meets Olga Milanoff (married at the time but separated)
1927 – Divorce from Miriam is finalized
1928 – Marries Olga exactly one year after his last divorce
1959 – Dies at age 91
I guess he got it right with woman number 4. I still love Wright’s architecture and think he was brilliant but he sounds like an ass. Oh yeah, I really liked the book!
The house that Wright designed and built for Edward and Mamah Cheney.
The Prostate Test
TW: Leonhardt has turned into a go-to guy for health care. Here he uses prostate cancer to frame some of the cost/rationing/care challenges we face with our current system. There are multiple treatment varying widely in cost but with very unclear relative benefits. Even if say a $100K treatment is better than a $5K treatment at what point is it sufficiently better to warrant the cost? Who should make these determinations? One thing that is unclear from the article is exactly how these more expensive treatments are getting approved in the first place. Regardless these are questions which must be addressed if cost control is to ever become reality.
From David Leonhardt at NYT:
"...The prostate cancer test will determine whether President Obama and Congress put together a bill that begins to fix the fundamental problem with our medical system: the combination of soaring costs and mediocre results. If they don’t, the medical system will remain deeply troubled, no matter what other improvements they make.
...Right now, men with the most common form — slow-growing, early-stage prostate cancer — can choose from at least five different courses of treatment. The simplest is known as watchful waiting, which means doing nothing unless later tests show the cancer is worsening. More aggressive options include removing the prostate gland or receiving one of several forms of radiation. The latest treatment — proton radiation therapy — involves a proton accelerator that can be as big as a football field.
Some doctors swear by one treatment, others by another. But no one really knows which is best. Rigorous research has been scant. Above all, no serious study has found that the high-technology treatments do better at keeping men healthy and alive. Most die of something else before prostate cancer becomes a problem.
“No therapy has been shown superior to another,” an analysis by the RAND Corporation found. Dr. Michael Rawlins, the chairman of a British medical research institute, told me, “We’re not sure how good any of these treatments are.” When I asked Dr. Daniella Perlroth of Stanford University, who has studied the data, what she would recommend to a family member, she paused. Then she said, “Watchful waiting.”
But if the treatments have roughly similar benefits, they have very different prices. Watchful waiting costs just a few thousand dollars, in follow-up doctor visits and tests. Surgery to remove the prostate gland costs about $23,000. A targeted form of radiation, known as I.M.R.T., runs $50,000. Proton radiation therapy often exceeds $100,000.
And in our current fee-for-service medical system — in which doctors and hospitals are paid for how much care they provide, rather than how well they care for their patients — you can probably guess which treatments are becoming more popular: the ones that cost a lot of money.
Use of I.M.R.T. rose tenfold from 2002 to 2006, according to unpublished RAND data.
...You may never see this bill, but you’re paying it. It has raised your health insurance premiums and left your employer with less money to give you a decent raise. The cost of prostate cancer care is one small reason that some companies have stopped offering health insurance. It is also one reason that medical costs are on a pace to make the federal government insolvent.
...The first step to passing the prostate cancer test is laying the groundwork to figure out what actually works. Incredibly, the only recent randomized trial comparing treatments is a 2005 study from Sweden. (It suggested that removing the prostate might benefit men under 65, which is consistent with the sensible notion that younger men are better candidates for some aggressive treatments.)
...To do that, health care reform will have to start to change the incentives in the medical system. We’ll have to start paying for quality, not volume.
On this score, health care economists tell me that they are troubled by Congress’s early work. They are hoping that the Senate Finance Committee will soon release a bill that does better. But as Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the committee, says, “There has not been adequate attention to changing the incentives that drive behavior.” One big reason is that the health care industry is lobbying hard for the status quo.
Plenty of good alternatives exist. Hospitals can be financially punished for making costly errors. Consumers can be given more choice of insurers, creating an incentive for them to sign up for a plan that doesn’t cover wasteful care. Doctors can be paid a set fee for some conditions, adequate to cover the least expensive most effective treatment. (This is similar to what happens in other countries, where doctors are on salary rather than paid piecemeal — and medical care is much less expensive.)
Even if Congress did all this, we would still face tough decisions. Imagine if further prostate research showed that a $50,000 dose of targeted radiation did not extend life but did bring fewer side effects, like diarrhea, than other forms of radiation. Should Medicare spend billions to pay for targeted radiation? Or should it help prostate patients manage their diarrhea and then spend the billions on other kinds of care?
The answer isn’t obvious. But this much is: The current health care system is hard-wired to be bloated and inefficient. Doesn’t that seem like a problem that a once-in-a-generation effort to reform health care should address?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html?scp=1&sq=david%20leonhardt%20prostate&st=cse
From David Leonhardt at NYT:
"...The prostate cancer test will determine whether President Obama and Congress put together a bill that begins to fix the fundamental problem with our medical system: the combination of soaring costs and mediocre results. If they don’t, the medical system will remain deeply troubled, no matter what other improvements they make.
...Right now, men with the most common form — slow-growing, early-stage prostate cancer — can choose from at least five different courses of treatment. The simplest is known as watchful waiting, which means doing nothing unless later tests show the cancer is worsening. More aggressive options include removing the prostate gland or receiving one of several forms of radiation. The latest treatment — proton radiation therapy — involves a proton accelerator that can be as big as a football field.
Some doctors swear by one treatment, others by another. But no one really knows which is best. Rigorous research has been scant. Above all, no serious study has found that the high-technology treatments do better at keeping men healthy and alive. Most die of something else before prostate cancer becomes a problem.
“No therapy has been shown superior to another,” an analysis by the RAND Corporation found. Dr. Michael Rawlins, the chairman of a British medical research institute, told me, “We’re not sure how good any of these treatments are.” When I asked Dr. Daniella Perlroth of Stanford University, who has studied the data, what she would recommend to a family member, she paused. Then she said, “Watchful waiting.”
But if the treatments have roughly similar benefits, they have very different prices. Watchful waiting costs just a few thousand dollars, in follow-up doctor visits and tests. Surgery to remove the prostate gland costs about $23,000. A targeted form of radiation, known as I.M.R.T., runs $50,000. Proton radiation therapy often exceeds $100,000.
And in our current fee-for-service medical system — in which doctors and hospitals are paid for how much care they provide, rather than how well they care for their patients — you can probably guess which treatments are becoming more popular: the ones that cost a lot of money.
Use of I.M.R.T. rose tenfold from 2002 to 2006, according to unpublished RAND data.
...You may never see this bill, but you’re paying it. It has raised your health insurance premiums and left your employer with less money to give you a decent raise. The cost of prostate cancer care is one small reason that some companies have stopped offering health insurance. It is also one reason that medical costs are on a pace to make the federal government insolvent.
...The first step to passing the prostate cancer test is laying the groundwork to figure out what actually works. Incredibly, the only recent randomized trial comparing treatments is a 2005 study from Sweden. (It suggested that removing the prostate might benefit men under 65, which is consistent with the sensible notion that younger men are better candidates for some aggressive treatments.)
...To do that, health care reform will have to start to change the incentives in the medical system. We’ll have to start paying for quality, not volume.
On this score, health care economists tell me that they are troubled by Congress’s early work. They are hoping that the Senate Finance Committee will soon release a bill that does better. But as Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the committee, says, “There has not been adequate attention to changing the incentives that drive behavior.” One big reason is that the health care industry is lobbying hard for the status quo.
Plenty of good alternatives exist. Hospitals can be financially punished for making costly errors. Consumers can be given more choice of insurers, creating an incentive for them to sign up for a plan that doesn’t cover wasteful care. Doctors can be paid a set fee for some conditions, adequate to cover the least expensive most effective treatment. (This is similar to what happens in other countries, where doctors are on salary rather than paid piecemeal — and medical care is much less expensive.)
Even if Congress did all this, we would still face tough decisions. Imagine if further prostate research showed that a $50,000 dose of targeted radiation did not extend life but did bring fewer side effects, like diarrhea, than other forms of radiation. Should Medicare spend billions to pay for targeted radiation? Or should it help prostate patients manage their diarrhea and then spend the billions on other kinds of care?
The answer isn’t obvious. But this much is: The current health care system is hard-wired to be bloated and inefficient. Doesn’t that seem like a problem that a once-in-a-generation effort to reform health care should address?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html?scp=1&sq=david%20leonhardt%20prostate&st=cse
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Splash Of Color
Blue Thousand and One from Blue Man Group HD on Vimeo.
TW: Always like a good slo-mo video with lots of color (via Sullivan's blog).
Why We Are Stuck
From a new CBS/NYT poll:
"Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending."
TW: Putting aside the issue of folks wanting to cut federal spending amidst a demand contraction which would every chance to stimulate GD 2.0. The part about strong majorities wanting to do so whilst not increasing taxes or cutting "services" is of course unsurprising if utterly contradictory. I understand Americans like most human beings want everything while paying for nothing but it just does not work.
As I have said before the clusterfug in California with their budget really is a metaphor for the rest of the country. Raise taxes, cut defense/prisons/homeland security, cut social security, or cut health care spending. Those are the options they never change.
This nation will lose its international pre-eminence if we are unable to sort out choices. The rest of the world due to our demographic strengths (1800's expansion), major wars (WWI and II) and poor governance (i.e. Soviets) used to follow us and not because we waved our flag so vociferously. Now they have do not need to so much, we need to be COMPETENT. Instead I guarantee you tomorrow will be spent on more important topics like which beer Gates/Cowley and Obama shared.
The answer btw from my view is- "all of the above". Instead we get "none of the above".
"Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending."
TW: Putting aside the issue of folks wanting to cut federal spending amidst a demand contraction which would every chance to stimulate GD 2.0. The part about strong majorities wanting to do so whilst not increasing taxes or cutting "services" is of course unsurprising if utterly contradictory. I understand Americans like most human beings want everything while paying for nothing but it just does not work.
As I have said before the clusterfug in California with their budget really is a metaphor for the rest of the country. Raise taxes, cut defense/prisons/homeland security, cut social security, or cut health care spending. Those are the options they never change.
This nation will lose its international pre-eminence if we are unable to sort out choices. The rest of the world due to our demographic strengths (1800's expansion), major wars (WWI and II) and poor governance (i.e. Soviets) used to follow us and not because we waved our flag so vociferously. Now they have do not need to so much, we need to be COMPETENT. Instead I guarantee you tomorrow will be spent on more important topics like which beer Gates/Cowley and Obama shared.
The answer btw from my view is- "all of the above". Instead we get "none of the above".
Health Care As a Black Power Initiative
TW: It is becoming clear that Obama's gaffe relative to the Cambridge Gates matter has served as a permission slip for some on the right to jump back to their portrayal of Obama as a closet white-phobe. This attitude disgusts me. Do white folks really think they get the short end of the deal in this country?
I peek at Fox Nation to get a feel for what is percolating with the right-wing. Today's top headline was entitled: "Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform" (other headlines included: "Is Obama a Snob", "Tea Party Protesters Erupt at Town Hall", etc.).
It references a piece from Investors Business Daily, a mainstream investing publication. I have never really read IBD but have seen them take a conservative slant on their opinion pieces. But in this one they try to somehow tie Obama's health care reform effort to providing reparations to slavery descendants. This stuff is obscene. Where is the sane opposition in this country? The IBD is not some cable TV channel trying to stir up sixty seconds of conflict to adhere channel flippers. This is an INVESTING paper making racial shit up for no apparent reason.
Here is the piece, I read it about three times trying to understand the convoluted logic but cannot even accounting for the fact that they take quotes out of context to build their perverted story.
From IBD:
"Still believe in post-racial politics? Read the health care bill. It's affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.
President Obama is on the record as being officially opposed to reparations for slavery. But as with other issues, you have to sift through his eloquent rhetoric and go beyond the teleprompter to get at what he really means.
His opposition to reparations is based on the fact they don't go far enough. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."
Never mind there are those who thought we apologized at Gettysburg and that an African-American president is a recognition of the hard work that has been done.
At a press conference with minority journalists last fall, candidate Obama was pressed for more detail on his reparations position. He said he was more interested in taking action to help people who were just getting by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would benefit from reparations.
"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionally affect people of color, because they are disproportionally uninsured," Obama said.
This may be a goal of Obama's health care plan: the redress of health care disparities on the basis of race and the punishment of those believed to be responsible, such as greedy doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures and greedy insurance and drug companies lusting for profits.
In his health care plan published during the campaign, it was written that Obama and Biden will "challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated this when she addressed the NAACP this month, saying: "It is a moral issue for our country to reduce health disparities, whether in diabetes, asthma, heart disease, cancer and HIV/AIDS."
The racial grievance industry under health care reform could be calling the shots in the emergency room, the operating room, the medical room, even medical school. As Terence Jeffrey, editor at large of Human Events puts it, not only our wealth, but also our health will be redistributed."
I peek at Fox Nation to get a feel for what is percolating with the right-wing. Today's top headline was entitled: "Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform" (other headlines included: "Is Obama a Snob", "Tea Party Protesters Erupt at Town Hall", etc.).
It references a piece from Investors Business Daily, a mainstream investing publication. I have never really read IBD but have seen them take a conservative slant on their opinion pieces. But in this one they try to somehow tie Obama's health care reform effort to providing reparations to slavery descendants. This stuff is obscene. Where is the sane opposition in this country? The IBD is not some cable TV channel trying to stir up sixty seconds of conflict to adhere channel flippers. This is an INVESTING paper making racial shit up for no apparent reason.
Here is the piece, I read it about three times trying to understand the convoluted logic but cannot even accounting for the fact that they take quotes out of context to build their perverted story.
From IBD:
"Still believe in post-racial politics? Read the health care bill. It's affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.
President Obama is on the record as being officially opposed to reparations for slavery. But as with other issues, you have to sift through his eloquent rhetoric and go beyond the teleprompter to get at what he really means.
His opposition to reparations is based on the fact they don't go far enough. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."
Never mind there are those who thought we apologized at Gettysburg and that an African-American president is a recognition of the hard work that has been done.
At a press conference with minority journalists last fall, candidate Obama was pressed for more detail on his reparations position. He said he was more interested in taking action to help people who were just getting by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would benefit from reparations.
"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionally affect people of color, because they are disproportionally uninsured," Obama said.
This may be a goal of Obama's health care plan: the redress of health care disparities on the basis of race and the punishment of those believed to be responsible, such as greedy doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures and greedy insurance and drug companies lusting for profits.
In his health care plan published during the campaign, it was written that Obama and Biden will "challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated this when she addressed the NAACP this month, saying: "It is a moral issue for our country to reduce health disparities, whether in diabetes, asthma, heart disease, cancer and HIV/AIDS."
The racial grievance industry under health care reform could be calling the shots in the emergency room, the operating room, the medical room, even medical school. As Terence Jeffrey, editor at large of Human Events puts it, not only our wealth, but also our health will be redistributed."
Growing American Soft Power
TW: Some folks regard an American POTUS being popular in France as either irrelevant or outright bad news (I do not). Regardless the Obama Administration is rapidly restoring large measures of respect for the U.S. throughout the world. Some of the reasons are obvious, less bellicosity and more engagement. Some are more subtle. Building power is not all about guns and even $.From Economist:
"MUCH of the world will resent us no matter what we do, at least when venting to pollsters from the Pew Global Attitudes Project." That's James Kirchik, arguing in the Weekly Standard last October that Democrats were foolish to believe that a restrained, multilateral Obama administration would dramatically improve America's image abroad. And, when the latest Pew Global Attitudes Project data came in last week, it turned out Mr Kirchik had been right—if by "much of the world" you mean "Pakistan and Israel". Pretty much everywhere else, the Obama administration has been punching up America's brand with numbers that would make Don Draper drool.
The leap in confidence that the American president "will do the right thing" was most shocking—not just the jump in France from George Bush's 13% to Mr Obama's 91%, but from 30% to 62% in China! That's, what, 450m people? (Oh, wait—urban China was over-surveyed. Okay, let's call it 200m.) Even in "new-Europe" Poland—don't forget Poland!—Mr Obama scored 62% to Mr Bush's 41%.
Much of this improvement is tied to Mr Obama's personal characteristics and image. But much of it isn't. It's the result of policy shifts America has made over the last six months—some of them below the radar of the American public.
For example, Hillary Clinton just wound up an immensely successful trip to Southeast Asia, ...Condoleezza Rice's visits to the region were much less frequent and this was more problematic for American foreign policy than Bush Administration officials seemed to realise.
...a raft of American and Southeast Asian experts identified a failure to send "appropriate-level" diplomats to regional meetings as a major impediment to improving America's relations in a region increasingly coming under the sway of Chinese "soft power". Experts from Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia complained that America did not seem to be engaged in regional issues and that the low rank of the officials it was sending to the region sent a message that it didn't consider Southeast Asia important..."
Things I Like - Food
I’m a big fan of Campari – have been since the first time I tried it. There’s something about the bitter red aperitif that just tastes right to me, especially in the summer.Although my favorite is the basic - Campari and soda over ice - it is very versatile and can be:
Fruited up - with orange juice & soda
Drunked up – with gin in a Negroni
Cocktailed – with vermouth in an Americano
Apparently, it can also be turned into a lamp
On sale for $420 at StardustAnd it’s such a pretty color. Imagine my horror when I read yesterday that the cherry red color comes from beetle blood.
Campari and other red, pink, or purple beverages, yogurts, and ice creams … are often colored with Natural Red 4 … also known as crimson lake, carmine, carminic acid, or cochineal. The dye is made from an insect called the cochineal, which lives on cacti in Mexico and South America.After further research, I learned that the manufacturers, Gruppo Campari, started using an artificial non-insect based coloring agent in 2006 for much of their production.
~Chowhound
I have to say, I went straight to the liquor cabinet to see which kind I had.
My bottle didn’t have a list of ingredients but it did say Artificially Colored so I’m assuming that no beetles died for my Campari Soda last night.
Core Health Care Issues: Controlling Costs (Part 2)
TW: Republicans are not proposing many iniatives to control health care spending. Generally they are merely opposing initiatives to control costs like comparative effectiveness research, a public insurance alternative, federal buying pools for pharma etc. etc. etc.
The one flag they wave is attractive superficially if highly dubious in practice- FREE MARKETS. Let the free market cut costs they say. But as we post frequently health care is not the same as a loaf of bread.
From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.
...There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.
The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (”I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.
Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.
All of this doesn’t necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful health-care systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
The one flag they wave is attractive superficially if highly dubious in practice- FREE MARKETS. Let the free market cut costs they say. But as we post frequently health care is not the same as a loaf of bread.
From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.
...There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.
The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (”I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.
Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.
All of this doesn’t necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful health-care systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Pot Legalization Stuck In Neutral Nationally
TW: My guy Obama and his director of drug policy are not going to blaze any trails on pot legalization. To think they would do so is to believe in a bridge too far. Our country is so cockeyed on such issues that we will just keep bashing our collective heads bloody before pondering legitimate alternatives. Meanwhile the drug cartels get richer, enforcement dollars are squandered etc. etc.
There are some signs of progress, however, on the local level...more to come.
From Economist:
"...Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "Legalisation is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine,"... Sadly America's conversation about marijuana has not advanced to the point where an official can even mull the idea of legalisation. More depressing, though, was Mr Kerlikowske's line that "marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit". That is a trite and ignorant statement.
Mr Kerlikowske is simply echoing the conclusion reached by the FDA in 2006, which we said at the time seemed to "lack common sense".
Cannabis has been used as a medicinal plant for millennia. In fact, the American government actually supplied cannabis as a medicine for some time, before the scheme was shut down in the early 1990s. Today, cannabis is used all over the world, despite its illegality, to relieve pain and anxiety, to aid sleep, and to prevent seizures and muscle spasms...
...We can say that this has no medical benefit because no tests have been done, and then we refuse to let you do any tests. The US has gotten into a bind, it has made cannabis out to be such a villain that people blindly say 'no'..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/panning_pot.cfm
There are some signs of progress, however, on the local level...more to come.
From Economist:
"...Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "Legalisation is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine,"... Sadly America's conversation about marijuana has not advanced to the point where an official can even mull the idea of legalisation. More depressing, though, was Mr Kerlikowske's line that "marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit". That is a trite and ignorant statement.
Mr Kerlikowske is simply echoing the conclusion reached by the FDA in 2006, which we said at the time seemed to "lack common sense".
Cannabis has been used as a medicinal plant for millennia. In fact, the American government actually supplied cannabis as a medicine for some time, before the scheme was shut down in the early 1990s. Today, cannabis is used all over the world, despite its illegality, to relieve pain and anxiety, to aid sleep, and to prevent seizures and muscle spasms...
...We can say that this has no medical benefit because no tests have been done, and then we refuse to let you do any tests. The US has gotten into a bind, it has made cannabis out to be such a villain that people blindly say 'no'..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/panning_pot.cfm
The Bots Are Coming...Albeit Slowly
TW: Folks have been hailing the dawn of the robot era for decades. We are still waiting mostly. But they do exist, we saw our friends use one with the pool recently to clean the pool bottom, pretty nifty although the bot cannot skim the surface debris. Slowly but surely the bots are entering everyday life and again like other technologies at some point a tipping point will be reached and their use will soar. Then a couple of decades from now kids will ponder how their predecessors functioned without them (of course folks have been making this prediction for about forty years).
From Economist:
"...Floor-cleaning machines capable of responding to their environment were among the first commercially available domestic products worthy of being called robots. The best known is the Roomba, made by iRobot, an American company which has sold more than 3m of the frisbee-sized vacuuming robots. The latest model, the fifth incarnation of the Roomba, has more sensors and cleverer software than its predecessors. Press the “Clean” button and the robot glides out of its docking station and sets off across the floor.
Domestic robots are supposed to free up time so that you can do other things, but watching how the Roomba deals with obstacles is strangely compelling. It is capable of sensing its surroundings, and does not simply try to adhere to a pre-planned route, so it is not upset if furniture is moved, or if it is picked up and taken to clean another room. Its infra-red sensors enable it to slow down before nudging up to an obstacle—such as a dozy cat—changing direction and setting off again.
It steadily works its way around the room, figuring out how to get out from under the television stand or untangle itself from a stray Game Boy recharging lead. Watch it for long enough, and you can sometimes predict its next move. The machine has a “dirt sensor” and flashes a blue light when it finds things to clean up. Only when it detects no more dirt does it stop going over the same area and, eventually, conclude that the whole room is clean. It then trundles back to dock at its recharging station. On the whole it does a good job.
So the first observation of life with a domestic robot is that you will keep watching it before you trust it completely. Perhaps that is not surprising: after all, when automatic washing-machines first appeared people used to draw up a chair and sit and watch them complete their wash, rinse and spin cycles...
...Sweden’s Husqvarna recently launched a new version of its Automower lawnmowing robot. Before it can be used, a wire must be stapled around the perimeter of the lawn to define the area to be cut. The Automower does not collect grass, but chops it up finely and leaves it behind as a mulch. If toys and other obstacles are not cleared from the lawn before it starts work, the robot will steer around them, leaving uncut areas. The latest version can even top up its batteries with solar power, or send its owner a text message if it gets into trouble trying to climb a mole-hill.
But there is still only a limited range of domestic robots. Machines that mop the floor, clean a swimming pool and clear muck from guttering are made by iRobot. Several surveillance robots are also on offer. The Rovio, made by WowWee of Hong Kong, is a Wi-Fi-enabled webcam, mounted on an extending arm, which rides along on a nimble set of wheels. It can be remotely operated over the internet via a laptop or mobile phone. The idea is that Rovio can patrol the home when its owner is away, either automatically or under manual control. Two-way communication allows the operator to see and talk via the machine. So you could, for instance, shout at the dog if it is sleeping on your best sofa..."
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13725803
From Economist:
"...Floor-cleaning machines capable of responding to their environment were among the first commercially available domestic products worthy of being called robots. The best known is the Roomba, made by iRobot, an American company which has sold more than 3m of the frisbee-sized vacuuming robots. The latest model, the fifth incarnation of the Roomba, has more sensors and cleverer software than its predecessors. Press the “Clean” button and the robot glides out of its docking station and sets off across the floor.
Domestic robots are supposed to free up time so that you can do other things, but watching how the Roomba deals with obstacles is strangely compelling. It is capable of sensing its surroundings, and does not simply try to adhere to a pre-planned route, so it is not upset if furniture is moved, or if it is picked up and taken to clean another room. Its infra-red sensors enable it to slow down before nudging up to an obstacle—such as a dozy cat—changing direction and setting off again.
It steadily works its way around the room, figuring out how to get out from under the television stand or untangle itself from a stray Game Boy recharging lead. Watch it for long enough, and you can sometimes predict its next move. The machine has a “dirt sensor” and flashes a blue light when it finds things to clean up. Only when it detects no more dirt does it stop going over the same area and, eventually, conclude that the whole room is clean. It then trundles back to dock at its recharging station. On the whole it does a good job.
So the first observation of life with a domestic robot is that you will keep watching it before you trust it completely. Perhaps that is not surprising: after all, when automatic washing-machines first appeared people used to draw up a chair and sit and watch them complete their wash, rinse and spin cycles...
...Sweden’s Husqvarna recently launched a new version of its Automower lawnmowing robot. Before it can be used, a wire must be stapled around the perimeter of the lawn to define the area to be cut. The Automower does not collect grass, but chops it up finely and leaves it behind as a mulch. If toys and other obstacles are not cleared from the lawn before it starts work, the robot will steer around them, leaving uncut areas. The latest version can even top up its batteries with solar power, or send its owner a text message if it gets into trouble trying to climb a mole-hill.
But there is still only a limited range of domestic robots. Machines that mop the floor, clean a swimming pool and clear muck from guttering are made by iRobot. Several surveillance robots are also on offer. The Rovio, made by WowWee of Hong Kong, is a Wi-Fi-enabled webcam, mounted on an extending arm, which rides along on a nimble set of wheels. It can be remotely operated over the internet via a laptop or mobile phone. The idea is that Rovio can patrol the home when its owner is away, either automatically or under manual control. Two-way communication allows the operator to see and talk via the machine. So you could, for instance, shout at the dog if it is sleeping on your best sofa..."
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13725803
The Calorie Nudge
TW: Have posted before about the nudge concept espoused by Cass Sunstein, academic and Obama advisor. Americans are fat of that there can be no doubt. Calorie posting can be another effective example of the concept. I agree with Klein there are better alternatives than things like soda taxes. The oil of market capitalism is information. Why oppose the provision of data? These are the type initiatives which can improve health without rationing care or bankrupting the economy.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"I think you can raise rather a lot of money from things like soda taxes. But I don't think you'll do much to change eating habits that way. Menu labeling, however, is much more interesting. The reason is not, as some think, that individuals will make radically different decisions because they can see calorie content when ordering a burger (they might make slightly different decisions, but the evidence, as of yet, is mixed). It's that restaurants might make different choices when individuals can see the caloric content of their meals.
Restaurants know that consumers have no effective way of comparing the caloric content of meals. Diners know, of course, that a burger is worse for you than a banana. But eggs cooked in a vat of butter look like eggs cooked in very little butter. A salad with a dressing that adds 600 calories looks like a salad with a dressing that adds 300 calories. People return to restaurants for taste and price and ambiance, because that's what they can measure. So restaurants jack up the caloric content pretty heedlessly.
If menu labeling is passed, however, and consumers exhibit any preference toward relatively less fattening items, that creates an incentive to reformulate those items to be less fattening. California, which recently passed a labeling law for restaurants with more than 20 locations, is seeing this happen. The Macaroni Grill, for instance, just cut its scallop and spinach salad from an astonishing 1,270 calories -- do they grow the spinach in butter? -- to 390 calories. Denny's has slimmed down its Grand Slam breakfast. And the law hasn't even gone into effect yet.
But this is exactly the response we'd expect. The Macaroni Grill's example is a good one. Ordering the spinach and scallop salad is the sort of thing that you'd do if you were watching your calories. But since you didn't actually know how many calories were in the dish, the Macaroni Grill could make it delicious and filling and fatty and you really weren't any the wiser. That made the Macaroni Grill more attractive to healthy eaters even as it was actually tricking them. Now customers will know the caloric content, and so the Macroni Grill reformulated the dish so it's more in line with diner preferences.
Menu labeling, in other words, has the potential to not only change what diners choose, but what they're offered. And that could be where its true promise lies."
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"I think you can raise rather a lot of money from things like soda taxes. But I don't think you'll do much to change eating habits that way. Menu labeling, however, is much more interesting. The reason is not, as some think, that individuals will make radically different decisions because they can see calorie content when ordering a burger (they might make slightly different decisions, but the evidence, as of yet, is mixed). It's that restaurants might make different choices when individuals can see the caloric content of their meals.
Restaurants know that consumers have no effective way of comparing the caloric content of meals. Diners know, of course, that a burger is worse for you than a banana. But eggs cooked in a vat of butter look like eggs cooked in very little butter. A salad with a dressing that adds 600 calories looks like a salad with a dressing that adds 300 calories. People return to restaurants for taste and price and ambiance, because that's what they can measure. So restaurants jack up the caloric content pretty heedlessly.
If menu labeling is passed, however, and consumers exhibit any preference toward relatively less fattening items, that creates an incentive to reformulate those items to be less fattening. California, which recently passed a labeling law for restaurants with more than 20 locations, is seeing this happen. The Macaroni Grill, for instance, just cut its scallop and spinach salad from an astonishing 1,270 calories -- do they grow the spinach in butter? -- to 390 calories. Denny's has slimmed down its Grand Slam breakfast. And the law hasn't even gone into effect yet.
But this is exactly the response we'd expect. The Macaroni Grill's example is a good one. Ordering the spinach and scallop salad is the sort of thing that you'd do if you were watching your calories. But since you didn't actually know how many calories were in the dish, the Macaroni Grill could make it delicious and filling and fatty and you really weren't any the wiser. That made the Macaroni Grill more attractive to healthy eaters even as it was actually tricking them. Now customers will know the caloric content, and so the Macroni Grill reformulated the dish so it's more in line with diner preferences.
Menu labeling, in other words, has the potential to not only change what diners choose, but what they're offered. And that could be where its true promise lies."
Things I Like - Art
Painting with glass - the amazing pieces of Miriam DiFiore.
Goodbye
Note: the artist creates these beautiful pieces by layering different colors of glass - they end up looking like paintings:
Winter on my River
See more here.
via Daily Art Muse where Susan Lomuto just completed a phenomenal series on art glass.
Goodbye
Note: the artist creates these beautiful pieces by layering different colors of glass - they end up looking like paintings:
Winter on my River
See more here.
via Daily Art Muse where Susan Lomuto just completed a phenomenal series on art glass.
Real Estate Half Full Or Half Empty
TW: The meme factories have moved from 2nd derivative gains, to green shoots to the recession is just about over. Perhaps all of them are true. But I remain skeptical.
This is the Bloomberg headline on June's existing home sales:
"U.S. Economy: New-Home Sales Climb 11%, Most in Eight Years"
This is Floyd Norris' take at NYT:
"Did new home sales really surge in June? No.
...That calculation is based on seasonally adjusted annual rates, which went from a rate of 346,000 in May to 384,000 in June, for the highest rate since November.
A year ago, when there were headlines about how bad sales were, the annual rate for June was 488,000, which was then the lowest for any month since 1991. Somehow a headline that says “sales fall 21 percent from year-ago levels” would not sound the same as the headlines that are now running.
In actual sales, the preliminary estimate is that 36,000 homes were sold, up 3,000 from May but down 9,000 from last June.
To put it another way, this was the second worst June since they began counting new home sales in 1963. It was not quite as bad as June 1982, when the country was mired in a deep recession and interest rates were sky high. Then 34,000 new homes were sold.
There are twice as many households in America as there were then, so relative to population this was the worst June ever, by far..."
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/homes-sales-up-11-and-down-21/
Then there is this via the Big Picture blog:
“National New Home Sales, on a monthly basis, don’t even add up to half of the total foreclosure activity in California alone in a single month.”
-Mark M Hanson
This is the Bloomberg headline on June's existing home sales:
"U.S. Economy: New-Home Sales Climb 11%, Most in Eight Years"
This is Floyd Norris' take at NYT:
"Did new home sales really surge in June? No.
...That calculation is based on seasonally adjusted annual rates, which went from a rate of 346,000 in May to 384,000 in June, for the highest rate since November.
A year ago, when there were headlines about how bad sales were, the annual rate for June was 488,000, which was then the lowest for any month since 1991. Somehow a headline that says “sales fall 21 percent from year-ago levels” would not sound the same as the headlines that are now running.
In actual sales, the preliminary estimate is that 36,000 homes were sold, up 3,000 from May but down 9,000 from last June.
To put it another way, this was the second worst June since they began counting new home sales in 1963. It was not quite as bad as June 1982, when the country was mired in a deep recession and interest rates were sky high. Then 34,000 new homes were sold.
There are twice as many households in America as there were then, so relative to population this was the worst June ever, by far..."
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/homes-sales-up-11-and-down-21/
Then there is this via the Big Picture blog:
“National New Home Sales, on a monthly basis, don’t even add up to half of the total foreclosure activity in California alone in a single month.”
-Mark M Hanson
Monday, July 27, 2009
Beware the Cloned Sniffer Dogs....
TW: I have said before some in the U.S. may object to certain science, but others will not. Here we have the South Korean sniffer dogs, all clones of a previous super sniffer.
Slicing the Health Care Groups Differently
TW: On the previous post I broke folks down into three groups health care wise: those covered by government plans, those on employer plans and those without or with little coverage. Another more simple way to break folks down is simply this: either you low-risk health wise or not.
Low-risk meaning you exist on the part of the health continuum where youth, good genes and clean living make one an attractive health insurance candidate or...not. An individual at the end of the day only controls the one variable, "clean-living" (i.e. no smoking, proper nutrition/exercise, excessive drinking etc.).
Medicare mitigates the age challenge once folks get to 65. There have been suggestions that this age be increased to mitigate costs. I would bet you any amount of money this will NEVER happen. Raising the social security age maybe, but not Medicare eligibility because then the risk of being shoved into the third group rises quickly.
Folks with bad genes are left to fend for themselves if not covered by GOOD employee plans. I ask what is the moral imperative that makes 65 a magic number for those in this group? Free market solutions would do nothing for this as they are bad risks (as are folks increasingly as they age).
At the end of the day health insurance is not so much about employment or mainly about clean living but about age and genes, two variables that the individual does not control.
Low-risk meaning you exist on the part of the health continuum where youth, good genes and clean living make one an attractive health insurance candidate or...not. An individual at the end of the day only controls the one variable, "clean-living" (i.e. no smoking, proper nutrition/exercise, excessive drinking etc.).
Medicare mitigates the age challenge once folks get to 65. There have been suggestions that this age be increased to mitigate costs. I would bet you any amount of money this will NEVER happen. Raising the social security age maybe, but not Medicare eligibility because then the risk of being shoved into the third group rises quickly.
Folks with bad genes are left to fend for themselves if not covered by GOOD employee plans. I ask what is the moral imperative that makes 65 a magic number for those in this group? Free market solutions would do nothing for this as they are bad risks (as are folks increasingly as they age).
At the end of the day health insurance is not so much about employment or mainly about clean living but about age and genes, two variables that the individual does not control.
Why Folks Don't Know What To Do With Health Care
From Econmist:
"MATTHEW YGLESIAS, a supporter of health-care reform, is unsure about what to do in the face of public opinion data that shows Americans are satisfied with their own care, but most want to see the system fundamentally changed. David Leonhardt notes the political challenge this presents Democrats: "Americans say they want change, but they also want to preserve their own status quo." Our own polls show much the same thing. But while it may seem odd on the surface, I think the numbers fail to take account of one big factor influencing people's opinions: the risk that they might lose their insurance, reform or no reform.
Perhaps most Americans want to see fundamental health-care reform because they feel all of their fellow citizens deserve at least some coverage. Others, perhaps, think that the fee-for-service system is inherently flawed. But I would imagine a very large number of Americans want to see reform because they are put off by the uncertainty involved in the current system. So that while they may be happy with their current insurance scheme, they're not entirely sure it will be there in a year due to rising costs, loss of a job, or some other extenuating circumstance. Hence they support changing the system even as they oppose any change to their own care. In fact, the they support changing the system because they oppose any change to their own care."
TW: The above makes sense to me given:
1) There are several groups of health care recipients- those covered by government (Vets, Medicare, Medicaid), those with strong employer provided plans, and those with no or shaky coverage. These groups have very different perspectives. Those covered by existing plans either governmental or employer are focused primarily on retaining that coverage whilst limiting any service diminishment or cost increases. The last group is just looking for some good coverage. The key difference between those on current government plans and those on employer plans is the risk of the latter ending up in the 3rd group due to loss of employment or shifting life circumstances.
2) But the common thread is that costs for all three groups are going up at unsustainable rates.
Presumably there are three things motivating "reform":
1) Folks without any or with little coverage wanting coverage (bolstered by some empathy for their plight from those with coverage)
2) Folks concerned about being shoved into group three
3) Folks concerned about escalating costs
The challenge with the reform movement is those three groups and concerns are at cross-currents unless one believes universal coverage provides a means by which in time overall costs can be better managed. I believe it does but the linkage is complex, too complex for our legislative processes. More to come.
"MATTHEW YGLESIAS, a supporter of health-care reform, is unsure about what to do in the face of public opinion data that shows Americans are satisfied with their own care, but most want to see the system fundamentally changed. David Leonhardt notes the political challenge this presents Democrats: "Americans say they want change, but they also want to preserve their own status quo." Our own polls show much the same thing. But while it may seem odd on the surface, I think the numbers fail to take account of one big factor influencing people's opinions: the risk that they might lose their insurance, reform or no reform.
Perhaps most Americans want to see fundamental health-care reform because they feel all of their fellow citizens deserve at least some coverage. Others, perhaps, think that the fee-for-service system is inherently flawed. But I would imagine a very large number of Americans want to see reform because they are put off by the uncertainty involved in the current system. So that while they may be happy with their current insurance scheme, they're not entirely sure it will be there in a year due to rising costs, loss of a job, or some other extenuating circumstance. Hence they support changing the system even as they oppose any change to their own care. In fact, the they support changing the system because they oppose any change to their own care."
TW: The above makes sense to me given:
1) There are several groups of health care recipients- those covered by government (Vets, Medicare, Medicaid), those with strong employer provided plans, and those with no or shaky coverage. These groups have very different perspectives. Those covered by existing plans either governmental or employer are focused primarily on retaining that coverage whilst limiting any service diminishment or cost increases. The last group is just looking for some good coverage. The key difference between those on current government plans and those on employer plans is the risk of the latter ending up in the 3rd group due to loss of employment or shifting life circumstances.
2) But the common thread is that costs for all three groups are going up at unsustainable rates.
Presumably there are three things motivating "reform":
1) Folks without any or with little coverage wanting coverage (bolstered by some empathy for their plight from those with coverage)
2) Folks concerned about being shoved into group three
3) Folks concerned about escalating costs
The challenge with the reform movement is those three groups and concerns are at cross-currents unless one believes universal coverage provides a means by which in time overall costs can be better managed. I believe it does but the linkage is complex, too complex for our legislative processes. More to come.
Our Handwriting Has Gone To the Crapper
TW: My handwriting was never good. Now it is barely legible even to myself. Kids today are barely even learning how to write cursive. As the article says (although I did not clip much of the historical stuff), handwriting has always evolved. Try reading a 19th century letter. I am not particularly concerned by this latest evolution.
I will just offer a shout out to my parents who forced me to take a typewriting class in high school (that would have been in the BC period- before computers). At least I can type on a keyboard pretty darn well, which in this day and age is all one really needs.
From Time:
"...I am a member of Gen Y, the generation that shunned cursive. And now there is a group coming after me, a boom of tech-savvy children who don't remember life before the Internet and who text-message nearly as much as they talk. They have even less need for good penmanship. We are witnessing the death of handwriting.
People born after 1980 tend to have a distinctive style of handwriting: a little bit sloppy, a little bit childish and almost never in cursive. The knee-jerk explanation is that computers are responsible for our increasingly illegible scrawl, but Steve Graham, a special-education and literacy professor at Vanderbilt University, says that's not the case. The simple fact is that kids haven't learned to write neatly because no one has forced them to. "Writing is just not part of the national agenda anymore," he says.
...Over the decades, daily handwriting lessons have decreased from an average of 30 minutes to 15.
...Technology is only part of the reason. A study published in the February issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology found that just 9% of American high school students use an in-class computer more than once a week. The cause of the decline in handwriting may lie not so much in computers as in standardized testing. The Federal Government's landmark 1983 report A Nation at Risk, on the dismal state of public education, ushered in a new era of standardized assessment that has intensified since the passage in 2002 of the No Child Left Behind Act. "In schools today, they're teaching to the tests," says Tamara Thornton, a University of Buffalo professor and the author of a history of American handwriting. "If something isn't on a test, it's viewed as a luxury."
...Is that such a bad thing? Except for physicians — whose illegible handwriting on charts and prescription pads causes thousands of deaths a year — penmanship has almost no bearing on job performance. And aside from the occasional grocery list or Post-it note, most adults write very little by hand..."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1912419,00.html
I will just offer a shout out to my parents who forced me to take a typewriting class in high school (that would have been in the BC period- before computers). At least I can type on a keyboard pretty darn well, which in this day and age is all one really needs.
From Time:
"...I am a member of Gen Y, the generation that shunned cursive. And now there is a group coming after me, a boom of tech-savvy children who don't remember life before the Internet and who text-message nearly as much as they talk. They have even less need for good penmanship. We are witnessing the death of handwriting.
People born after 1980 tend to have a distinctive style of handwriting: a little bit sloppy, a little bit childish and almost never in cursive. The knee-jerk explanation is that computers are responsible for our increasingly illegible scrawl, but Steve Graham, a special-education and literacy professor at Vanderbilt University, says that's not the case. The simple fact is that kids haven't learned to write neatly because no one has forced them to. "Writing is just not part of the national agenda anymore," he says.
...Over the decades, daily handwriting lessons have decreased from an average of 30 minutes to 15.
...Technology is only part of the reason. A study published in the February issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology found that just 9% of American high school students use an in-class computer more than once a week. The cause of the decline in handwriting may lie not so much in computers as in standardized testing. The Federal Government's landmark 1983 report A Nation at Risk, on the dismal state of public education, ushered in a new era of standardized assessment that has intensified since the passage in 2002 of the No Child Left Behind Act. "In schools today, they're teaching to the tests," says Tamara Thornton, a University of Buffalo professor and the author of a history of American handwriting. "If something isn't on a test, it's viewed as a luxury."
...Is that such a bad thing? Except for physicians — whose illegible handwriting on charts and prescription pads causes thousands of deaths a year — penmanship has almost no bearing on job performance. And aside from the occasional grocery list or Post-it note, most adults write very little by hand..."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1912419,00.html
Things I Like - Humor
Proof that SciFi / Star Wars Geeks are pretty funny - the Stormtroopers are priceless:
Make sure your volume is on:btw, did you know there was a Wookieepdedia???
And because the original was pretty cool:
Hahahahahahhaha!!
Make sure your volume is on:btw, did you know there was a Wookieepdedia???
And because the original was pretty cool:
Hahahahahahhaha!!
China Is Blowing the Next Great Bubble
TW: The "recovery" such as it is, is premised upon a couple of predicates: 1) inventories are being worked down and 2) places like China are still growing fairly rapidly. The first point is true but at best would mean the economy stops shrinking and either flatlines or grows very tepidly.
The second is really the basis for most of the commodity and stock market increases. As the pieces below mention, the continuing high single digit growth in China may prove ephemeral. Their banks directed by the national government are lending funds like drunken sailors whilst many of those funds are being directed towards investment- either materials or additional production capacity. Domestic consumption within China is not growing particularly well. For what purpose will all of those materials and additional capacity be needed in six months? The world is awash in production capacity, providing more only feeds the deflationary risk.
As for the loans drunken sailors end up hungover, drunken sailor loans end up as un-repaid loans (something we Americans have considerable experience with in the recent past).
From Michael Pettis' blog:
"...Hu Shilu, editor of Caijing...recently made a strong case against continuation of the current fiscal program when she wrote in an editorial this week that “a policy that encourages loose lending and investment is driving China’s economic engine down an old, unsustainable path.”
'Various signals suggested China’s economy had returned to a stable track by the end of the second quarter, giving us an opportunity to reassess macroeconomic policy. Data released by the National Bureau of Statistics showed that China’s GDP rose 7.1 percent in the first half of the year, and 7.9 percent in the second quarter alone. Apparently, China’s economy has bottomed out. These achievements could intoxicate Chinese policymakers. But we see no miracles here. In fact, economic growth recovery in China is being driven by investment. Some 6.2 percent of the country’s first half GDP growth rate can be credited to investment, while consumption accounted for 3.8 percent. The net export business contributed a minus 2.9 percent to the growth rate figure.'Hu makes the point that the “surprisingly high” Chinese growth is neither surprising nor cause for celebration. It is the automatic outcome of a huge stimulus, and the real question, as I have argued many times, is not whether high current growth indicates that China has turned the corner on the crisis (it most certainly has not, in my opinion), but whether the cost of achieving this growth is excessive and will lead to more difficult conditions in the future..."
http://mpettis.com/2009/07/more-public-worrying-about-the-chinese-stimulus/
From John Mauldin at Barry Ritholz' blog:
"...If I told you that the next US stimulus package would be $4.5 trillion dollars, mostly given to banks that would be forced to loan out the money quickly, do you think that might jump spending and GDP in the short term? Would you start looking for a few bubbles to be created? What about the dollar?
That is the equivalent of what China is now doing. The volume of credit that is flowing into China isequivalent to one-third of their GDP. Banks that already have large problem-loan portfolios are now lending even more, in a very short time frame..."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/the-statistical-recovery/
The second is really the basis for most of the commodity and stock market increases. As the pieces below mention, the continuing high single digit growth in China may prove ephemeral. Their banks directed by the national government are lending funds like drunken sailors whilst many of those funds are being directed towards investment- either materials or additional production capacity. Domestic consumption within China is not growing particularly well. For what purpose will all of those materials and additional capacity be needed in six months? The world is awash in production capacity, providing more only feeds the deflationary risk.
As for the loans drunken sailors end up hungover, drunken sailor loans end up as un-repaid loans (something we Americans have considerable experience with in the recent past).
From Michael Pettis' blog:
"...Hu Shilu, editor of Caijing...recently made a strong case against continuation of the current fiscal program when she wrote in an editorial this week that “a policy that encourages loose lending and investment is driving China’s economic engine down an old, unsustainable path.”
'Various signals suggested China’s economy had returned to a stable track by the end of the second quarter, giving us an opportunity to reassess macroeconomic policy. Data released by the National Bureau of Statistics showed that China’s GDP rose 7.1 percent in the first half of the year, and 7.9 percent in the second quarter alone. Apparently, China’s economy has bottomed out. These achievements could intoxicate Chinese policymakers. But we see no miracles here. In fact, economic growth recovery in China is being driven by investment. Some 6.2 percent of the country’s first half GDP growth rate can be credited to investment, while consumption accounted for 3.8 percent. The net export business contributed a minus 2.9 percent to the growth rate figure.'Hu makes the point that the “surprisingly high” Chinese growth is neither surprising nor cause for celebration. It is the automatic outcome of a huge stimulus, and the real question, as I have argued many times, is not whether high current growth indicates that China has turned the corner on the crisis (it most certainly has not, in my opinion), but whether the cost of achieving this growth is excessive and will lead to more difficult conditions in the future..."
http://mpettis.com/2009/07/more-public-worrying-about-the-chinese-stimulus/
From John Mauldin at Barry Ritholz' blog:
"...If I told you that the next US stimulus package would be $4.5 trillion dollars, mostly given to banks that would be forced to loan out the money quickly, do you think that might jump spending and GDP in the short term? Would you start looking for a few bubbles to be created? What about the dollar?
That is the equivalent of what China is now doing. The volume of credit that is flowing into China isequivalent to one-third of their GDP. Banks that already have large problem-loan portfolios are now lending even more, in a very short time frame..."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/the-statistical-recovery/
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ronald Reagan Railing Against Medicare And Those Damn Socialists
TW: A 1961 audio of then political pundit Ronald Reagan railing against the possibility of socialized medicine which at the time was the pending Medicare legislation. LBJ did not pull Medicare out of his backside it was originally proposed by Truman (health care reform is never fast). Reagan's arguments/scaremongering hardly differ from much of today's debate.
The Blogosphere v. Social Networks
TW: A pretty apt summary of how I see the life of bloggery. I like Facebook too, very different animal though. I would have thought folks would mix it up re current events and politics more on FB but at least within my little network folks to dip their toes in the water occasionally but largely avoid them. Too public I suppose. Or more likely folks just do not want the aggravation.
From Gawker via Andrew Sullivans blog:
"...A blog lets you define yourself, whereas on a social network you are more likely to be defined by others...A blog is not necessarily better than a Facebook profile, nor is it worse; it is, simply, different.
...A blog lets you raise your voice without asking anyone's permission, and no one is in a position to tell you to shut up. It is, as the journalism scholar Jay Rosen puts it, "a little First Amendment machine," an engine of free speech operating powerfully at a fulcrum-point between individual autonomy and the pressures of the group. Blogging uniquely straddles the acts of writing and reading; it can be private and public, solitary and gregarious, in ratios that each practitioner sets for himself. It is hardly the only way to project yourself onto the Web, and today it is no longer the easiest way. But it remains the most interesting way. Nothing else so richly combines the invitation to speak your mind with the opportunity to mix it up with other minds."
From Gawker via Andrew Sullivans blog:
"...A blog lets you define yourself, whereas on a social network you are more likely to be defined by others...A blog is not necessarily better than a Facebook profile, nor is it worse; it is, simply, different.
...A blog lets you raise your voice without asking anyone's permission, and no one is in a position to tell you to shut up. It is, as the journalism scholar Jay Rosen puts it, "a little First Amendment machine," an engine of free speech operating powerfully at a fulcrum-point between individual autonomy and the pressures of the group. Blogging uniquely straddles the acts of writing and reading; it can be private and public, solitary and gregarious, in ratios that each practitioner sets for himself. It is hardly the only way to project yourself onto the Web, and today it is no longer the easiest way. But it remains the most interesting way. Nothing else so richly combines the invitation to speak your mind with the opportunity to mix it up with other minds."
Congrats To Lance
TW: We watch a ton of the Tour de France. It was a good race this year with minimal doping for a change. The scenery as always is stunning. Really like the first picture above as it mashed up the race with Monaco. But for Lance Armstrong to finish 3rd at age 37 after four years off is pretty amazing. He has created his own team for next year which will make things really interesting a year from now. Although, this year's winner, Contador, appears unassailable and frankly would have been a real threat to Armstrong even several years ago when he was at his prime. As one can see from the Armstrong photo, the guys that race in the Tour are physically emaciated yet still capable of throwing off massive wattage. Things I Like - Odds & Ends
After fighting for years to keep cars that run on alternative fuel sources off the road, the major carmakers all have some form of electric or hybrid car in design or production. It’s about time.
In addition to the energy benefits of these cars (reduction of carbon emissions and an eventual decreased reliance on oil), they are also very quiet. Can you imagine a hybrid taxi fleet in New York City? Along with a significant improvement in the air quality, they might even be able to hear the cries of the bicyclists they’re sideswiping.
Unfortunately, the majority of the green cars out there are nothing special in the looks department:
The Prius
Subaru R1E
Miles Automotive Group XS500
Photos
Although there are a couple that look nice (BMW’s Mini Cooper is identical to the current incarnation and the Tesla Roadster looks like fun), the cars of today – whether gas or hybrid or electric, are generally pretty dull. Unless it’s a sports car or luxury model, they all look the same and it’s not pretty. Whatever happened to the style and panache of the cars Detroit was putting out in the 1950’s? Wouldn’t you love to drive around in one of these?
1951 Buick XP 300
1951 Buick LeSabre
1953 Lincoln Fifty X-100
1953 Cadillac Ghia Coupe
Photos
Yes, they’re bigger and clearly heavier but good design doesn’t require muscle, just imagination.
See more photos of classic cars here.
Thanks to Dad for forwarding an email with classic car photos.
In addition to the energy benefits of these cars (reduction of carbon emissions and an eventual decreased reliance on oil), they are also very quiet. Can you imagine a hybrid taxi fleet in New York City? Along with a significant improvement in the air quality, they might even be able to hear the cries of the bicyclists they’re sideswiping.
Unfortunately, the majority of the green cars out there are nothing special in the looks department:
The Prius
Subaru R1E
Miles Automotive Group XS500
PhotosAlthough there are a couple that look nice (BMW’s Mini Cooper is identical to the current incarnation and the Tesla Roadster looks like fun), the cars of today – whether gas or hybrid or electric, are generally pretty dull. Unless it’s a sports car or luxury model, they all look the same and it’s not pretty. Whatever happened to the style and panache of the cars Detroit was putting out in the 1950’s? Wouldn’t you love to drive around in one of these?
1951 Buick XP 300
1951 Buick LeSabre
1953 Lincoln Fifty X-100
1953 Cadillac Ghia Coupe
Photos Yes, they’re bigger and clearly heavier but good design doesn’t require muscle, just imagination.
See more photos of classic cars here.
Thanks to Dad for forwarding an email with classic car photos.
Our Evolutionary Psychology Contributes To Political Morass
TW: I suspect at some point the human brain will be sorted out and make contemporary psychology seem utterly naive and barbaric. When they do figure some things out perhaps they will be able apply some of that knowledge to our political processes.
From Nic Kristoff at NYT:
"Our political system sometimes produces such skewed results that it’s difficult not to blame bloviating politicians. But maybe the deeper problem lies in our brains.
Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks. In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.
If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer.
...Consider America’s political response to these two recent challenges:
1. President Obama proposes moving some inmates from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to supermax prisons from which no one has ever escaped. This is the “enemy with club” threat that we have evolved to be alert to, so Democrats and Republicans alike erupt in outrage and kill the plan.
2. The climate warms, ice sheets melt and seas rise. The House scrounges a narrow majority to pass a feeble cap-and-trade system, but Senate passage is uncertain. The issue is complex, full of trade-offs and more cerebral than visceral — and so it doesn’t activate our warning systems.
...the kinds of dangers that are most serious today — such as climate change — sneak in under the brain’s radar.
...we respond to threats that we deem disgusting or immoral — characteristics more associated with sex, betrayal or spoiled food than with atmospheric chemistry.
“That’s why people are incensed about flag burning, or about what kind of sex people have in private, even though that doesn’t really affect the rest of us,” Professor Gilbert said. “Yet where we have a real threat to our well-being, like global warming, it doesn’t ring alarm bells.”
...threats get our attention when they are imminent, while our brain circuitry is often cavalier about the future. That’s why we are so bad at saving for retirement. Economists tear their hair out at a puzzlingly irrational behavior called hyperbolic discounting: people’s preference for money now rather than much larger payments later.
...we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual. We yawn at a slow melting of the glaciers, while if they shrank overnight we might take to the streets.
In short, we’re brilliantly programmed to act on the risks that confronted us in the Pleistocene Age. We’re less adept with 21st-century challenges.
The objects of our phobias, and the things that are actually dangerous to us, are almost unrelated in the modern world, but they were related in our ancient environment,” Mr. Haidt said. “We have no ‘preparedness’ to fear a gradual rise in the Earth’s temperature.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nicholas%20kristof%20short%20circuitry&st=cse
From Nic Kristoff at NYT:
"Our political system sometimes produces such skewed results that it’s difficult not to blame bloviating politicians. But maybe the deeper problem lies in our brains.
Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks. In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.
If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer.
...Consider America’s political response to these two recent challenges:
1. President Obama proposes moving some inmates from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to supermax prisons from which no one has ever escaped. This is the “enemy with club” threat that we have evolved to be alert to, so Democrats and Republicans alike erupt in outrage and kill the plan.
2. The climate warms, ice sheets melt and seas rise. The House scrounges a narrow majority to pass a feeble cap-and-trade system, but Senate passage is uncertain. The issue is complex, full of trade-offs and more cerebral than visceral — and so it doesn’t activate our warning systems.
...the kinds of dangers that are most serious today — such as climate change — sneak in under the brain’s radar.
...we respond to threats that we deem disgusting or immoral — characteristics more associated with sex, betrayal or spoiled food than with atmospheric chemistry.
“That’s why people are incensed about flag burning, or about what kind of sex people have in private, even though that doesn’t really affect the rest of us,” Professor Gilbert said. “Yet where we have a real threat to our well-being, like global warming, it doesn’t ring alarm bells.”
...threats get our attention when they are imminent, while our brain circuitry is often cavalier about the future. That’s why we are so bad at saving for retirement. Economists tear their hair out at a puzzlingly irrational behavior called hyperbolic discounting: people’s preference for money now rather than much larger payments later.
...we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual. We yawn at a slow melting of the glaciers, while if they shrank overnight we might take to the streets.
In short, we’re brilliantly programmed to act on the risks that confronted us in the Pleistocene Age. We’re less adept with 21st-century challenges.
The objects of our phobias, and the things that are actually dangerous to us, are almost unrelated in the modern world, but they were related in our ancient environment,” Mr. Haidt said. “We have no ‘preparedness’ to fear a gradual rise in the Earth’s temperature.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nicholas%20kristof%20short%20circuitry&st=cse
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Waxy POTUSes
TW: I don't recall ever stepping foot into a wax museum. This display I think validates my policy. Those are some strange looking folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)