Posts from — September 2009

I’m listening to NPR’s On The Media, a podcast with which I have a love/hate relationship. They’re talking about a bill in the senate that would give newspapers an option of becoming non-profits and getting some sort of deals to survive (I forget the details, but it doesn’t matter for this post). The main caveat that was a deal-breaker for the papers was that they would no longer be able to endorse political candidates. They could fact-check and report on candidates all they wanted, but they couldn’t vocally endorse them.

Brooke Gladstone (one of the hosts) made a statement suggesting that this was a critical service that newspapers provide to people. A newspaper publisher came on and said approximately the same thing (mostly about local elections, not presidential ones). He said (paraphrased): “people come up to me all the time and say ‘I use your endorsements as a voting guide and vote for all of them’, so it’s clearly very important”. This is in no way a sign that the newspapers are doing a good job of picking politicians. It’s impossible to test how good the picks are, really, but I don’t think society would be that much worse. If the newspapers were doing no reporting and vetting of candidates, that would certainly be to the detriment of democracy, but endorsement is unnecessary. Why shouldn’t magazines, cable news and network TV news endorse candidates, too? I think this has more to do with (some) power over candidates than helping readers.

A picture from the 9/12 protests in DC:

(pic src)

The look on this kid’s face is pretty scary to me. It looks like rage and determination, and there’s no way he really has a meaningful understanding to justify it. I’m fairly certain he doesn’t really understand what his shirt is saying.

Kids as political props are nothing new, on the right or left, and it’s almost always bad. There are a few exceptions of really smart kids who have read and learned enough to have a meaningful understanding, including one I think I saw at the Republican convention on TV, but that’s rare.

A while ago, a coworker was talking to me at lunch about raising kids while dealing with politics. He wanted to be teaching his kids what he thought was right and wrong, but he also wanted them to form their own opinions. This is rather difficult, especially for people with strong political opinions. People with strong opinions often like to convince others to have the same opinions, and kids (of certain ages) are pretty easy to convince.

I remember hearing from my Republican cousin’s son (not sure of his age, maybe 6?) that he supported ‘the guy with white hair’ for President last year. It seemed rather silly to me for someone so young to support a candidate, but to be honest if I had a kid the same age, I wouldn’t be surprised if they became an Obama supporter.

The Economist on “The Idiocy of Protectionism”:

Ford makes transit vans in Turkey, with passenger seats in the back. When the vans are shipped to America, the brand-new seats are immediately torn out and recycled.

Why? Because 46 years ago, Europe slapped tariffs on American chickens. America retaliated with a tax on European commercial vans.

To get round this, an American firm’s European factory adds passenger seats to its commercial vans so they can be classified as passenger vans, which attract a lower tariff. Then it trashes the seats once the vans are safely landed in Baltimore.

Sometimes the rules that make the least sense last the longest.

I was disappointed with Obama’s tariff on Chinese tires. I hope we won’t see much more of that.

A reader on Andrew Sullivan’s blog sends along this picture of the Little Rock school integration protests:

I hadn’t seen this before, but it’s interested that a lot of the same names (‘communism’, ‘antichrist’) were used in reference against racial integration that are now being leveled at Obama today, especially by the fringe. While some modern protesters are certainly racists, I don’t think that most are. It’s good that people protest unbridled government spending. I wonder where these people were during the Bush administration, though…

I was talking with my Grandmother the other day about socialism and related things. Necessary background: she and I would have about the opposite reaction to watching 30 minutes of Glenn Beck. Anyway, in our conversation, we stumbled upon an interesting disagreement:
She believed that government control of the banks is a big problem, but I thought the opposite was a bigger problem: bank control of politicians.

The evidence that the banks have the power is quite clear to me: first, look which way the money has been going, the lack of meaningful financial reforms, and the precedent that bailouts may have established.

I can understand how someone would view the opposite, though, that the government has more financial control of the banks now, and there’s likely going to be more governmental control in the future.

Of course, I still think I’m right, but I found it interesting that the same facts could lead to almost the opposite conclusion.

I found this map from CNN showing health care costs, percentage of government-run care, etc. The most striking thing to me was the health care spending per capita.

A few selected countries (ordered by increasing life expectancy):
- USA: $6714
- UK: $2939
- France: $4056
- Canada: $2754
- Sweden: $3143

Just examining a couple of variables leaves quite a bit out, of course, but for me these numbers make arguments about abuse in public options seem a lot less convincing. Even if we have “the best health care in the world”, as some claim, I haven’t seen much convincing evidence that it’s /that/ much better.

I wondered if this might have something to do with exorbitant medical malpractice claims, but it turns out that’s not the case. According to the Congressional Budget Office:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.

(from CBO.gov)

NYT “On Language” writer William Saffire has died, instantly reminding me of the Onion article William Safire Orders Two Whoppers Junior.

This is why I use phrases like “two ipods touch”.

Since this was in my head last week, now it’s time to share. “Carol Brown” by Flight of the Conchords (from Season 2, Episode 5, which is among my favorite episodes):

My posting has been sparse lately because I’ve been busy moving to a new apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. Moving is always a horrendous ordeal, but I’m glad to have made it here. I have plenty more exploring to do in the Mission. It’s by far the most culturally, racially, and economically diverse place I’ve lived. There’s a lot to do around here, easy access to transportation, and our neighbors are pretty cool (everyone in this building is in their 20s, as far as I know). There’s also a great view on the roof as well as a surprisingly-enjoyable trampoline in the back yard. I’ll take some pictures once things are a bit more set up.

And, yes, now I’m one of the “trendy Goolge professionals” ruining the Mission.

Taking a quick break from work to write a bit..

I haven’t seen any of Obama’s speech, but this sentence on the FiveThirtyEight liveblog struck me:

Note, though, that many Republicans didn’t stand up and clap when Obama said “no one should go broke because they get sick.”

That’s a real fundamental value difference between the sides of the debate. I think how you answer that question really defines where you want to go from here.

The tie between bankruptcy and medical problems is quite clear and seems to be getting stronger, according to the Washington Post earlier this year:

Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released today by the American Journal of Medicine. That’s nearly 20 percentage points higher than that pool of respondents reported were connected to medical costs in 2001.

Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.

That last sentence never ceases to amaze me.