I think there are a few remarkable things about Obama's takedown of Wright today that I have not seen the MSM get at all.
1) He took down a veteran preacher. This is no small deal. Pastors, usually, occupy a place of social importance in black communities for which there is no comparable example in white communities. I will be curious to see if many black people, especially ones more of Wright's generation, see Obama's move to break with him as an uppity, irreverent betrayal.
2) Obama specifically derided beliefs and feelings which are not exactly rare in black communities. I saw recently where a poll had found that 27% of blacks surveyed found it credulous that the US government had created HIV in a lab, and 16% thought such a thing was done to control the black population.
3) Obama seemed (both rightly and smartly so) broadly dismissive of Wright's views. Will this be seen by many black people as unfairly ignoring many other points and grievances which Wright aired that many blacks think are legitimate?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Seriously, Fuck You Jeremiah Wright
I watched much of the Bill Moyers interview, and almost all of the NAACP conference speech. I thought both were for the most part fine, though he can be a bit crude with his racial characterizations at times (and, yes, I realize some of them were meant to be humorous). Oh well. But the thing this morning was just a disaster. He gave a speech which was on par with his speech at the NAACP, but then the questions started and it all went downhill. I personally thought it was awful, but more so I just know that it is going to feed the right wing noise machine against Obama. Sound bytes abounded. Wright didn't seem to internalize that he wasn't in church anymore, that he was instead in front of a skeptical audience and is right in the middle of one of the most important campaigns not only in the history of our country, but of the whole planet. My take on it was that, for what I'm sure are a number of reasons -- including a strange combination self-aggrandizement along with a response to perceived humiliation -- he basically said a Christian "fuck you" to Obama and his campaign (I read that they've only spoken once since all this shit started, and that it was not a pleasant conversation). I don't doubt that Wright has some solid points to make -- however they may grate on racially uncomfortable white people's ears -- but when one stands in front of the country and say it's highly likely that HIV was created by the government to annihilate black people, one's more sane points recede into a static of paranoid hysteria. I mean, he could have made a lot of solid, reasonable points about health care disparities and the history of medicine's crimes against black people and perhaps even cite modern paranoia as an example of these problems. But he instead propagated a belief -- however widely held -- that is based on no scientific or historical fact whatsoever. I get, as best I can, that there are very different faith and cultural experiences and traditions at work here, but at some point people have to share a common bond of evidence and reason. Being a pastor is no excuse.
I've read that the Obama camp is fucking furious about this tour Wright is going on, but that there's nothing they could do to stop him. I'll be curious to see what Obama's response to this is, if there is any at all. It just makes me really sad, because although I think none of this SHOULD matter, it unfortunately DOES.
I spent the first 18 years of my life in the Deep South; I am well aware of the bullshit that black people still deal with daily. They have a reason to be paranoid in many respects. But to abandon reason and civility for shrill, manic lunacy is not the answer. It will be beyond a shame if the first competitive black (as we define "black" anyway) candidate for the presidency -- also the best candidate for this election -- is derailed by hysteria brought on by a black liberation theologian.
Obama needs to take this chance to step up and speak plainly about just how destructive rhetoric of the sort that Wright spews is to our country and to the black community specifically. Wright has served himself up to be a sacrificial counter-example to the unity and progress which Obama believes is our future as a country. If Obama doesn't take this chance -- possibly his last -- to leave Wright and his mindset in his personal and our collective past, he will have done a disservice to the vision he professes. If he cannot show decisive leadership in making a clean and principled cut, maybe he isn't the leader we thought he was.
Update: Slate's Trailhead has background on the AIDS nuttery.
I've read that the Obama camp is fucking furious about this tour Wright is going on, but that there's nothing they could do to stop him. I'll be curious to see what Obama's response to this is, if there is any at all. It just makes me really sad, because although I think none of this SHOULD matter, it unfortunately DOES.
I spent the first 18 years of my life in the Deep South; I am well aware of the bullshit that black people still deal with daily. They have a reason to be paranoid in many respects. But to abandon reason and civility for shrill, manic lunacy is not the answer. It will be beyond a shame if the first competitive black (as we define "black" anyway) candidate for the presidency -- also the best candidate for this election -- is derailed by hysteria brought on by a black liberation theologian.
Obama needs to take this chance to step up and speak plainly about just how destructive rhetoric of the sort that Wright spews is to our country and to the black community specifically. Wright has served himself up to be a sacrificial counter-example to the unity and progress which Obama believes is our future as a country. If Obama doesn't take this chance -- possibly his last -- to leave Wright and his mindset in his personal and our collective past, he will have done a disservice to the vision he professes. If he cannot show decisive leadership in making a clean and principled cut, maybe he isn't the leader we thought he was.
Update: Slate's Trailhead has background on the AIDS nuttery.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Speaking Plainly About a Changing Economy
The NY Times editorial board does a good job of calling out the Democratic candidates on their anti-trade pandering. It's amazing how these conversations -- where candidates merely speak to what they know are the preconceived beliefs of a particular constituency -- occur in the absence of any reference whatsoever to actual facts.
During the run-up to the Ohio primary, the fodder here turned overwhelmingly to anti-China and anti-NAFTA talking points. There are legitimate and critical discussions to have about both China and NAFTA's relationships to our changing economy, but the candidates basically eschewed any thoughtful nuance in exchange for shooting exotic fish in a barrel.
I won't claim to be a cultural expert on the working class in the rust belt, but it is my impression since moving here that people expect to inhabit a static economy where the jobs never change and they last the length of one's working life. It would be refreshing if a Democratic candidate would stop playing this Luddite game and instead speak plainly about tough but necessary changes. There were vague references of this sort, in the form of job retraining, etc., but they were always couched among a backdrop of essentially xenophobic economic rhetoric.
It's not the government's responsibility to keep our economy and workforce frozen in time, nor should we want it to do so. Imagine if we'd taken such an approach since the inception of this country; we'd still inhabit a largely agrarian economy. The people making these arguments expect to be taken seriously, but one can see by applying them to a different time period just how ridiculous such a mindset is.
I have no doubt that some of the changes in our economy over the last few decades have both economically and culturally jarred some segments of the public, but the answers to such anxieties do not lie in clamming up and refusing the acknowledge a changing world.
During the run-up to the Ohio primary, the fodder here turned overwhelmingly to anti-China and anti-NAFTA talking points. There are legitimate and critical discussions to have about both China and NAFTA's relationships to our changing economy, but the candidates basically eschewed any thoughtful nuance in exchange for shooting exotic fish in a barrel.
I won't claim to be a cultural expert on the working class in the rust belt, but it is my impression since moving here that people expect to inhabit a static economy where the jobs never change and they last the length of one's working life. It would be refreshing if a Democratic candidate would stop playing this Luddite game and instead speak plainly about tough but necessary changes. There were vague references of this sort, in the form of job retraining, etc., but they were always couched among a backdrop of essentially xenophobic economic rhetoric.
It's not the government's responsibility to keep our economy and workforce frozen in time, nor should we want it to do so. Imagine if we'd taken such an approach since the inception of this country; we'd still inhabit a largely agrarian economy. The people making these arguments expect to be taken seriously, but one can see by applying them to a different time period just how ridiculous such a mindset is.
I have no doubt that some of the changes in our economy over the last few decades have both economically and culturally jarred some segments of the public, but the answers to such anxieties do not lie in clamming up and refusing the acknowledge a changing world.
VA Lying About Veteran Mental Health?
In some shocking but not surprising news from last week, Senator Pat Murray (D-Washington), charges that the VA has been lying about the problem and prevalence of suicide and suicide attempts among our veterans. She cites an internal memo:
From my experience in medical school, I think much of this attitude starts in my own profession. I have repeatedly been shocked at the way both students and practicing doctors react toward mental illness -- ranging from fear to outright mocking. Until we find seriousness among our own outlooks and lead a deliberate, united effort to change public and institutional attitudes toward mental illness, I doubt much will change.
"Dr. Katz's message to Ev Chasen, the department's communications director, started with "Shh!" It continued, "Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see in our medical facilities. Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?"Not really surprising, I suppose. We as a nation, and the armed forces in particular -- in all their machismo -- have long treated mental illness as something to hide, something not worth serious attention.
From my experience in medical school, I think much of this attitude starts in my own profession. I have repeatedly been shocked at the way both students and practicing doctors react toward mental illness -- ranging from fear to outright mocking. Until we find seriousness among our own outlooks and lead a deliberate, united effort to change public and institutional attitudes toward mental illness, I doubt much will change.
Why Obama Will Win States in the General Election Which He "Lost" in the Primaries
A theme frequently repeated, and always annoying, from the Clinton Camp is that Hillary will be the stronger general election candidate because she has "won the big states" or "the states that a Democrat must win." The weakness in this argument is obvious, but I have seen media outlets repeat it ad nauseum without questioning it.
How each Democratic nominee performs within his or her own party does not necessarily -- and in this case almost certainly does not -- tell us how he or she would perform in the general election. The reality is that most of the people voting for Clinton in the primaries are party diehards; many of these people are voting for Clinton out of party loyalty, and/or a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. These voters will vote Democratic in the general anyway (Yes, some current polling indicates that some people may switch sides, but it is far too early to take that seriously; they will come back once the general campaign gets going and candidate differences become more clearly defined).
Obama's huge advantage in the general arises from the excess voter capacity he can generate. Not only is his potential crossover appeal much greater than Clinton's, but he stands to -- especially as compared to Hillary -- expand voter participation in two key groups: young people and black people. The former group's increased participation is broadly beneficial. The latter could potentially rearrange the electoral map. It is no secret that black voters tend to go largely Democratic, but Obama's nomination will increase black voter participation to levels never seen before. This makes it possible for him to carry a number of Southern states, which have large black populations. This will have the direct effect of potentially adding votes to Obama's electoral column, but it will also have the indirect effect of forcing McCain's campaign to spread itself on its already weak budget. This will dilute McCain's efforts in traditionally solidly Democratic -- but now battleground -- states where, if the election ran similarly to 2000 and 2004, he might really have a chance to eke out a win.
This recent NY times article gets at these ideas a bit, the first mention I have seen of these dynamics.
How each Democratic nominee performs within his or her own party does not necessarily -- and in this case almost certainly does not -- tell us how he or she would perform in the general election. The reality is that most of the people voting for Clinton in the primaries are party diehards; many of these people are voting for Clinton out of party loyalty, and/or a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. These voters will vote Democratic in the general anyway (Yes, some current polling indicates that some people may switch sides, but it is far too early to take that seriously; they will come back once the general campaign gets going and candidate differences become more clearly defined).
Obama's huge advantage in the general arises from the excess voter capacity he can generate. Not only is his potential crossover appeal much greater than Clinton's, but he stands to -- especially as compared to Hillary -- expand voter participation in two key groups: young people and black people. The former group's increased participation is broadly beneficial. The latter could potentially rearrange the electoral map. It is no secret that black voters tend to go largely Democratic, but Obama's nomination will increase black voter participation to levels never seen before. This makes it possible for him to carry a number of Southern states, which have large black populations. This will have the direct effect of potentially adding votes to Obama's electoral column, but it will also have the indirect effect of forcing McCain's campaign to spread itself on its already weak budget. This will dilute McCain's efforts in traditionally solidly Democratic -- but now battleground -- states where, if the election ran similarly to 2000 and 2004, he might really have a chance to eke out a win.
This recent NY times article gets at these ideas a bit, the first mention I have seen of these dynamics.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Poison Plastics?
A couple of interesting entries on the growing concern about the developmental effects of plastics. The Discover Magazine article offers good depth. The question is this: how hard would a transition be? Can manufacturers easily shift to apparently safer alternatives? Or are we stuck with problems like this because of modern living?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Why Amazon.com is the Future of Commerce
The New York Times reports on the continued success of Amazon. I think this will continue for the foreseeable future. Shopping on Amazon and similar sites just makes practical sense for consumers. You can find most anything from the comfort and convenience of your own home. It never closes. You don't have to make time to go there. The presence of many vendors almost ensures the lowest market price (check this out by comparing to other online vendors, it's true). The modest shipping charges are usually worth the savings in fuel and time. Also, for shoppers who live in places with fewer sellers of the same item and few items available period, it opens up equal consumer exposure and guarantees competitive prices. And it all fits into a pre-existing delivery structure in the form of USPS, UPS, DHL, etc. And when was the last time you were in a store that offered you an array of customer product reviews?
On the flip side, there is the seller's advantage. Businesses -- such as specialty vendors which might otherwise have not found a friendly marketplace -- are suddenly opened up to a global audience, where one can find a buyer for almost anything.
As the older generation is increasingly replaced by net savvy consumers, this model can't help but balloon.
On the flip side, there is the seller's advantage. Businesses -- such as specialty vendors which might otherwise have not found a friendly marketplace -- are suddenly opened up to a global audience, where one can find a buyer for almost anything.
As the older generation is increasingly replaced by net savvy consumers, this model can't help but balloon.
Blaming Our Parents' Generation
A reader writes into Andrew Sullivan and expresses many of the visceral feelings of myself and many in my generation. But at the same time, I think casting this blame is just a bit too easy. While there have been catastrophic fiscal errors made, it's glib to pretend that there weren't a lot of people fighting them along the way. In the 1990's, a coalition of Democrats and Republicans committed to balancing the budget. It's hard to call what they accomplished, and the intent behind it, irresponsible. The trap door came along when Bush entered office and promised everyone a free lunch. Remember, we were oh so close to avoiding this fiscal catastrophe, but for the whole Florida debacle.
Also, there are a lot of economic time bombs which were not centrally determined. While regulation could have played a tempering role and incentives could have re-directed development plans, Americans have shown a preference for expansive lifestyles that gobble up energy. Also, the explosion in health care spending is largely tech driven. Expensive as they are, federal health programs are something most people want. This is not going to change. Nor is the cost. However we may centrally attack cost and quality control, the health care we want is expensive. It's time to own up to that and pay for it like the adults we should strive to be.
Also, there are a lot of economic time bombs which were not centrally determined. While regulation could have played a tempering role and incentives could have re-directed development plans, Americans have shown a preference for expansive lifestyles that gobble up energy. Also, the explosion in health care spending is largely tech driven. Expensive as they are, federal health programs are something most people want. This is not going to change. Nor is the cost. However we may centrally attack cost and quality control, the health care we want is expensive. It's time to own up to that and pay for it like the adults we should strive to be.
Shopping the Bean Aisle for the Recession
Maybe it's because I come from frugal Irish grandparents, but I've always felt this way.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Attention Barack and Hillary: Vaccines DO NOT Cause Autism
Props to Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings for calling out Barack and Hillary for stoking the vaccines and autism paranoia. It's clear that neither of them knows enough about the subject to speak on it, so why can't they just say "you know, I frankly haven't read up on it and have not discussed it with my science advisors, so it would be irresponsible of me to express say anything." Must our candidates and politicians have an opinion on everything? We don't need our leaders to be promoting anti-scientific paranoia and pseudoscience. What's next? Are they going to say they're not sure if the US government created HIV to destroy black communities?
For more on the topic, see Arthur Allen's series of entries in Slate here, here, and here. For a more general outlook on modern pseudo-skepticism, check out Daniel Engber's recent series.
For more on the topic, see Arthur Allen's series of entries in Slate here, here, and here. For a more general outlook on modern pseudo-skepticism, check out Daniel Engber's recent series.
Appealing to Our Tribalism
Andrew Sullivan has an insightful post (for a beltway guy, anyway) about the nefarious games being played with Obama's identity. During Clinton's first tour through the national spotlight, I was too young to form an independent impression of her. Entering this campaign season, I was willing to give Hillary a chance on her own terms, but her willingness to appeal -- sometimes subtly and sometimes not -- to the citizenry's most superficial biases and fears makes me want to vomit. I expected as much from some right-wing nutjobs, but to see a supposedly enlightened liberal do this to a promising member of her own party is simply disgusting. I am not filled with racial paranoia, but I grew up in a very racist environment in the Deep South seeing and hearing the ugly side of hatred against blacks, a hatred which is rarely aired on the national stage in a frank manner. I know that there are a lot of people out there who hated or mistrusted Obama before they ever heard him speak a word. And many others were just waiting for an excuse. Ask yourself this: If he were a 60 year-old white guy named Bill Smith, would this mud stick in the way that it has? Would it be slung in this way, with these overtones, at all?
The Inanity of Splitting Green Hairs
Slate runs another stupid article about greening up one's life. This sort of writing and focus misses the point entirely. The differences articles like this illuminate are usually so small that the changes they might incite in an individual's behavior are inconsequential, insofar as they affect nothing more than the preening person's sense of eco-virtue. The environmental problems we face are structural problems at a societal level, which will be solved only with broad regulation (read: sacrifice or prohibitive costliness that few will welcome when they realize what it would require of them) or technological leaps. So far few in the political arena have addressed these needed changes seriously. I've heard that Thomas Friedman's forthcoming book will explore these issues thoroughly. It's funny how it takes a purveyor of conventional wisdom to bring credibility to arguments which others on the "fringe" were making decades ago.
The Blog is Back
I am sufficiently bored with my life as a socially isolated 20-something that I've decided to start blogging again, at least through the election in November. If someone actually reads it, great.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Jesus Camp
Just came from Jesus Camp. I highly recommend it. I found it to be a fair and balanced movie. One's interpretations of it depend wholly on personal perspective.
Two things that the religious right has that will be hard for the rest of us to duplicate:
- threat of punishment by God for voting wrong
- weekly (at least) meetings and a national network of people with common cause
The Congress may be upturned this time, but these crazed religious legions are not going away any time soon.
On the way home from the movie, my girlfriend and I were discussing how evangelicals have corporatized Jesus. The merchandizing is a multimillion dollar business. There are extensive and well-funded ad campaigns. If you listen closely, there is a whole lexicon of vocabulary, phaseology, and slogan. Jesus is a franchise. In this brand lies not only extraordinary power, but also tremendous profit.
Two things that the religious right has that will be hard for the rest of us to duplicate:
- threat of punishment by God for voting wrong
- weekly (at least) meetings and a national network of people with common cause
The Congress may be upturned this time, but these crazed religious legions are not going away any time soon.
On the way home from the movie, my girlfriend and I were discussing how evangelicals have corporatized Jesus. The merchandizing is a multimillion dollar business. There are extensive and well-funded ad campaigns. If you listen closely, there is a whole lexicon of vocabulary, phaseology, and slogan. Jesus is a franchise. In this brand lies not only extraordinary power, but also tremendous profit.
Monday, October 09, 2006
The Science of Sleep
If you are as in love with your dreams as I am, go see Michel Gondry's new film. You should first dispense with traditional notions of plot.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
When Baseball Cards Meant Something
Up until I was 12 or so, I was a crazed collector of baseball cards. There is no telling how much time and money I spent on them. I would buy them pack by pack, assembling a numerically ordered full set. I divided them up by player, giving Nolan Ryan and Rickey Henderson they own pages and binders. I spent hours poring over the stats on their backs; an opportunity to combine my childhood passions: baseball and math. One of the best days of my childhood was when I found an old box in my grandmother's attic, and opened it to find cards of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Ernie Banks, and Ted Williams.
A couple of recent Slate pieces have rekindled thoughts of those times, and make it clear that those days have passed for good. The baseball card industry has shrunk and no longer cares about kids. And it turns out the companies are not such a great place to work anyway. It makes me wonder if much has changed, or if it was all just a childhood illusion. There have been many times I have returned to places of my childhood, both real and imaginative, to find that they are not what I remembered. That's probably partly it. But there was a real time when baseball parks had history and character and weren't named for agribusiness and tech companies. When shortstops looked like normal guys and not amateur body-builders. It was never perfect and pure, but it wasn't always the sham it is now.
A couple of recent Slate pieces have rekindled thoughts of those times, and make it clear that those days have passed for good. The baseball card industry has shrunk and no longer cares about kids. And it turns out the companies are not such a great place to work anyway. It makes me wonder if much has changed, or if it was all just a childhood illusion. There have been many times I have returned to places of my childhood, both real and imaginative, to find that they are not what I remembered. That's probably partly it. But there was a real time when baseball parks had history and character and weren't named for agribusiness and tech companies. When shortstops looked like normal guys and not amateur body-builders. It was never perfect and pure, but it wasn't always the sham it is now.
"Bush presses Senate on anti-terror bill"
The headline from Yahoo! News.
The Orwellianism continues.
Why are we adopting the tactics of people we spent most of the 20th century battling? Was that merely an expediency to global power?
Call torture by its right name.
The Orwellianism continues.
Why are we adopting the tactics of people we spent most of the 20th century battling? Was that merely an expediency to global power?
Call torture by its right name.
More Dumb Doctors
Following our ignorance of sanitation, witness the fall in medical settings of the second great health advantage of modern societies.
Simplicity just isn't sexy.
Simplicity just isn't sexy.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Medicate by Number
Here's a great, practical piece from Slate -- something many in health care would do well to read and understand better.
The public's general discomfort with numbers affects us more than we care to admit. People who understand numbers can take a data set and present it in ways that will be interpreted very differently and will prompt different decisions, a phenomenon known as "framing."
The point in this article is the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. A relative risk reduction of 25% is great if the number of people affected by an adverse event goes from 80/100 to 60/100 (an absolute risk reduction of 20 percentage points). A relative risk reduction of 50% is not so great if the number of people affected changes from 2/100 to 1/100 (absolute risk reduction of 1 percentage point).
The public's general discomfort with numbers affects us more than we care to admit. People who understand numbers can take a data set and present it in ways that will be interpreted very differently and will prompt different decisions, a phenomenon known as "framing."
The point in this article is the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. A relative risk reduction of 25% is great if the number of people affected by an adverse event goes from 80/100 to 60/100 (an absolute risk reduction of 20 percentage points). A relative risk reduction of 50% is not so great if the number of people affected changes from 2/100 to 1/100 (absolute risk reduction of 1 percentage point).
Dumb Doctors
It's amazing how we hold the medical profession in such high esteem, when it has trouble with something as simple as hand washing.
One of the things that has driven me most nuts over the last few years, and in my first few months of med school, is how easily we are distracted by technology and fancy gadgets. I admit it's tempting to be drawn in (and that we have much to gain from tech) because its fascinating and exciting. But I think it's probably a good idea to sort out the cheaper and simpler stuff first. All the helical CT scans in the world are of little comfort when doctors refuse to learn the lessons of centuries-old germ theory.
One of the things that has driven me most nuts over the last few years, and in my first few months of med school, is how easily we are distracted by technology and fancy gadgets. I admit it's tempting to be drawn in (and that we have much to gain from tech) because its fascinating and exciting. But I think it's probably a good idea to sort out the cheaper and simpler stuff first. All the helical CT scans in the world are of little comfort when doctors refuse to learn the lessons of centuries-old germ theory.
Pun of the Day
"Is there a human right to free and fair erections?"
- William Saletan, on the first ever penis transplant
It's even funnier because he's talking about a Chinese guy.
Several days old, but still a classic worth pointing out.
- William Saletan, on the first ever penis transplant
It's even funnier because he's talking about a Chinese guy.
Several days old, but still a classic worth pointing out.
Sans Trans Fats
After restaurants failed to satisfactorily comply with a voluntary ban on trans fats in New York City's restaurants, the city is planning legal enforcement of such a ban.
While I am a public health nut, I am not sure that this is a prudent move. Some are comparing it to the ban on indoor smoking in NYC, but this doesn't quite work. While the ban may have curbed overall smoking, its primary motivation was that smoking affects other people who don't smoke. This is not immediately the case with trans fat consumption.
NYC isn't banning trans fats altogether, e.g. from grocery story shelves. The ban in only restaurants seems arbitrary. NYC didn't ban cigarettes altogether, because we generally recognize that a rational person, knowing the risks, has the right to damage his own body. Why can we not say the same for eating trans fats?
The city's argument might be along the lines that when eating at a restaurant, consumers have no way of knowing what ingredients and nutrients are in the food they are eating. This could be easily solved. List nutrition info for each dish; this info is easy obtainable by establishments from nutrition info of ingredients and would be for the most part a one-time inconvenience. I would even go so far as to list a warning next to dishes containing trans fats, explaining the health risk their consumption entails. Using cigarettes as an example, foods containing trans fats could also be taxed. It is pretty well accepted that trans fats (and saturated, for that matter) contribute to cardiovascular disease. Don't remove the freedom to eat such foods, but make the consumer pay for the health care costs he is creating, costs which bear on private insurance rates and especially on Medicare budgets (the vast majority of health consequences of poor diet manifest as chronic disease later in life).
Every person has the right to harm himself. He just doesn't have the right to make the rest of us pay for it.
While I am a public health nut, I am not sure that this is a prudent move. Some are comparing it to the ban on indoor smoking in NYC, but this doesn't quite work. While the ban may have curbed overall smoking, its primary motivation was that smoking affects other people who don't smoke. This is not immediately the case with trans fat consumption.
NYC isn't banning trans fats altogether, e.g. from grocery story shelves. The ban in only restaurants seems arbitrary. NYC didn't ban cigarettes altogether, because we generally recognize that a rational person, knowing the risks, has the right to damage his own body. Why can we not say the same for eating trans fats?
The city's argument might be along the lines that when eating at a restaurant, consumers have no way of knowing what ingredients and nutrients are in the food they are eating. This could be easily solved. List nutrition info for each dish; this info is easy obtainable by establishments from nutrition info of ingredients and would be for the most part a one-time inconvenience. I would even go so far as to list a warning next to dishes containing trans fats, explaining the health risk their consumption entails. Using cigarettes as an example, foods containing trans fats could also be taxed. It is pretty well accepted that trans fats (and saturated, for that matter) contribute to cardiovascular disease. Don't remove the freedom to eat such foods, but make the consumer pay for the health care costs he is creating, costs which bear on private insurance rates and especially on Medicare budgets (the vast majority of health consequences of poor diet manifest as chronic disease later in life).
Every person has the right to harm himself. He just doesn't have the right to make the rest of us pay for it.
The Death of Rule of Law
The Bush administration is trying to gain the power to detain American civilian citizens indefinitely and without charges.
A major feature of the Bush administration's reign which has been largely missed by the news corps and the pundits is the erosion of rule of law. Bush prefers to enforce laws of his choosing (passive noncompliance), and when he doesn't like them, he often just ignores them (active violation). This is rule by man, and it represents a fundamental and dangerous shift in American governance.
It reminds me of a classic paradigm in old Communist China. China was (and still is, but to a lesser degree) run by renzhi (rule by individuals), as opposed to fazhi (rule by law). Renzhi is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes and is by definition antithetical to democracy. This change in American government is just one more example (along with torture, for example) of our succumbing to the corrosive practices of regimes we have long claimed to hate and whose existence long served as a cautionary counter-example to our greatest ideals.
Have the American people personally felt consequences from this yet? For the most part, no. But if history is any guide, societies usually realize these fundamental mistakes too late. Like the alcoholic who stops four drinks after he should, we are drunk on our own power and are consumed by notions that we are somehow different and "it won't happen to us."
Who will stop this bold power grab? Probably not Congress. I see it as likely that Republicans will retain both the House and the Senate. Americans are more concerned with tax cuts (in a deficit environment, mind you) and Christianism than with maintaining a free society with transparent governance. It is unlikely the that Supreme Court would stop this either, seeing as it's now loaded with justices deferential to boundless executive power.
A major feature of the Bush administration's reign which has been largely missed by the news corps and the pundits is the erosion of rule of law. Bush prefers to enforce laws of his choosing (passive noncompliance), and when he doesn't like them, he often just ignores them (active violation). This is rule by man, and it represents a fundamental and dangerous shift in American governance.
It reminds me of a classic paradigm in old Communist China. China was (and still is, but to a lesser degree) run by renzhi (rule by individuals), as opposed to fazhi (rule by law). Renzhi is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes and is by definition antithetical to democracy. This change in American government is just one more example (along with torture, for example) of our succumbing to the corrosive practices of regimes we have long claimed to hate and whose existence long served as a cautionary counter-example to our greatest ideals.
Have the American people personally felt consequences from this yet? For the most part, no. But if history is any guide, societies usually realize these fundamental mistakes too late. Like the alcoholic who stops four drinks after he should, we are drunk on our own power and are consumed by notions that we are somehow different and "it won't happen to us."
Who will stop this bold power grab? Probably not Congress. I see it as likely that Republicans will retain both the House and the Senate. Americans are more concerned with tax cuts (in a deficit environment, mind you) and Christianism than with maintaining a free society with transparent governance. It is unlikely the that Supreme Court would stop this either, seeing as it's now loaded with justices deferential to boundless executive power.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Sustaining Our Waste
Some disturbing reporting and commentary about a recent chemical dump in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. While I'm not surprised, I had no idea transnational dumping was such a problem. I guess it's in part due to the lack of reporting on the subject, as the article points out. It's NIMBY on a global scale.
I think the questions the article raises are symptomatic of a larger problem. There is almost nothing which is sustainable about the U.S. economic paradigm. Our agriculture, energy consumption, budget deficits, trade imbalances, educational system (unless you're talking about sustaining an ignorant populace), none of it.
We are in many ways running a colonial system. Of course we no longer own other lands or people, but we do use them as a resource in the stead of internal development. This is not always a bad thing, for it's no doubt helped some countries to develop and gain wealth. But I can't help but feel that the only thing it sustains is a bloated sense of economic power. If our economy is perched on a pile of debt and a domestic workforce that is ever declining in relative skills and knowledge, how long can that last before it collapses from within?
I say this as someone who feels globalization is on the whole a good thing and possesses the potential to lift billions out of abject poverty. I am not a protectionist. I just feel that the economic challenge America faces is distinctly different from those of the past. The Soviet Union was hollow. Japan was brilliant, but small (and itself a bit protectionist). Europe has long kept pace with us on its own terms.
Asia presents something altogether new. If it can navigate dicey political problems (and that's a big "if"), it will become an economic and cultural force on an unprecedented scale. There's a priori that this change can't be of overall benefit, and I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. But people of my generation shouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now our country is far less relevant than it was in our youths.
I think the questions the article raises are symptomatic of a larger problem. There is almost nothing which is sustainable about the U.S. economic paradigm. Our agriculture, energy consumption, budget deficits, trade imbalances, educational system (unless you're talking about sustaining an ignorant populace), none of it.
We are in many ways running a colonial system. Of course we no longer own other lands or people, but we do use them as a resource in the stead of internal development. This is not always a bad thing, for it's no doubt helped some countries to develop and gain wealth. But I can't help but feel that the only thing it sustains is a bloated sense of economic power. If our economy is perched on a pile of debt and a domestic workforce that is ever declining in relative skills and knowledge, how long can that last before it collapses from within?
I say this as someone who feels globalization is on the whole a good thing and possesses the potential to lift billions out of abject poverty. I am not a protectionist. I just feel that the economic challenge America faces is distinctly different from those of the past. The Soviet Union was hollow. Japan was brilliant, but small (and itself a bit protectionist). Europe has long kept pace with us on its own terms.
Asia presents something altogether new. If it can navigate dicey political problems (and that's a big "if"), it will become an economic and cultural force on an unprecedented scale. There's a priori that this change can't be of overall benefit, and I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. But people of my generation shouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now our country is far less relevant than it was in our youths.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Calling Torture by Its Right Name
Andrew Sullivan weighs in on the torture bill with his usual intellectual and moral sobriety. I disagree with him on many topics of governance, but he has been a steady opponent of the tyranny of this administration. He calls the administration what it is. He is right to call this a "torture bill." I can't count how many times in the last few weeks I have seen Orwellian euphemisms in the mainstream media:
"Terror Bill"
"Interrogation Bill"
"Detainee Treatment Bill"
Blah, blah, blah. Journalistic fairmindedness does not require suspension of reason and honest interpretation. When someone is threatened with drowning, it is torture. Call it by its right name. When he is kept awake for weeks on end, it is torture. Call it by its right name. When a man is beaten until his legs turn to pulp, it is torture. Call it by its right name.
This administration is fighting for the right to torture people in its custody. Why can't we state that plainly in our headlines?
"Terror Bill"
"Interrogation Bill"
"Detainee Treatment Bill"
Blah, blah, blah. Journalistic fairmindedness does not require suspension of reason and honest interpretation. When someone is threatened with drowning, it is torture. Call it by its right name. When he is kept awake for weeks on end, it is torture. Call it by its right name. When a man is beaten until his legs turn to pulp, it is torture. Call it by its right name.
This administration is fighting for the right to torture people in its custody. Why can't we state that plainly in our headlines?
"They will raise your taxes!"
That's Bush's (worn-out) refrain. Some shit never changes.
Might raising taxes make sense? Seeing as we're running record budget deficits -- in addition to the fact that we have $43 trillion in unfunded fiscal liabilities (more than half on Bush's and the GOP Congress's watch) -- I think it would.
Nah, that would be too adult and responsible. Besides, taxes are evil and don't play well during election season. And why pay down our debts now when we can pass it on to our children with interest accrual?
The day will come when the world no longer needs our consumer and energy demands so much, and when it does, our debts will be due. Lets just hope we're able to pay it in cash and not heads.
Might raising taxes make sense? Seeing as we're running record budget deficits -- in addition to the fact that we have $43 trillion in unfunded fiscal liabilities (more than half on Bush's and the GOP Congress's watch) -- I think it would.
Nah, that would be too adult and responsible. Besides, taxes are evil and don't play well during election season. And why pay down our debts now when we can pass it on to our children with interest accrual?
The day will come when the world no longer needs our consumer and energy demands so much, and when it does, our debts will be due. Lets just hope we're able to pay it in cash and not heads.
The Election: Tracking and Toss-ups
Slate offers a wonderful feature to help you follow House, Senate, and state gubernatorial races.
Their mathematician gives a sobering insight into the statistical probability that the Dems will actually take over the House. I'm not sure what's that's worth, since the Dems' immense gift for recent losing isn't exactly quantifiable. Likewise for the shameless fearmongering of many in the GOP.
Their mathematician gives a sobering insight into the statistical probability that the Dems will actually take over the House. I'm not sure what's that's worth, since the Dems' immense gift for recent losing isn't exactly quantifiable. Likewise for the shameless fearmongering of many in the GOP.
Sharing a Bed
I love this recent NY times story about learning to share a bed. I know it's been a rough transition for me, especially since this year we're working with a full bed, for space and monetary reasons. As my sleep is increasingly at a premium, I've spent several nights on the futon not because I was in trouble, but because I needed a good night's sleep to catch up on rest!
The Frontier of Medicine
Now that I am about two and a half months into my first year of school, I've formed a few initial impressions.
The most astounding thing thus far has been my learning about just how limited our current collective medical knowledge is. Frequently in class -- across our wide-ranging discussions of human biology -- we are served mere sketches of the mechanisms of normal physiology and disease. A professor will describe and explain a system or process, only to stop short and say "...and that's all we know at this point." The knowledge we do have is impressive and inspires confidence, but it is nowhere near what I'd expected. And I say that as someone fairly acquainted with science. I think the general population thinks we know far more than we do.
A related point is that the idea of "disease" is far murkier than most people think. While it's usually clear-cut when a bacterium or virus can be detected, it's far less so for chronic disease and cancer. Normal and disease states can produce indicator values whose normal ranges often have substantial overlap. Scientists are left to draw a line at an optimal value, but that inevitably results in missing some disease and mislabeling some normal people. Some people who could benefit from treatment miss out, and others who don't need it are harmed by unnecessary intervention. Add to this that health and disease are not a binary states. Disease is not an on/off switch. Development of disease is often a gradual, incremental process. All heart disease is not created equal and neither are all cancers. I raise this point not to be critical of medicine, but merely to illuminate. It's a tough thing to navigate, especially when explaining it to a patient or his family members. Most people tend to want black and white answers, and it's just not that easy.
Finally, despite our current limitations, our knowledge and power in medical and related biology are advancing at paces that I think none but a very small, insular group truly appreciates. This advance is soon going to create dilemmas with which we as a society and world will be ill-educated and ill-equipped to cope. I'll write about that at much greater length in the future.
The most astounding thing thus far has been my learning about just how limited our current collective medical knowledge is. Frequently in class -- across our wide-ranging discussions of human biology -- we are served mere sketches of the mechanisms of normal physiology and disease. A professor will describe and explain a system or process, only to stop short and say "...and that's all we know at this point." The knowledge we do have is impressive and inspires confidence, but it is nowhere near what I'd expected. And I say that as someone fairly acquainted with science. I think the general population thinks we know far more than we do.
A related point is that the idea of "disease" is far murkier than most people think. While it's usually clear-cut when a bacterium or virus can be detected, it's far less so for chronic disease and cancer. Normal and disease states can produce indicator values whose normal ranges often have substantial overlap. Scientists are left to draw a line at an optimal value, but that inevitably results in missing some disease and mislabeling some normal people. Some people who could benefit from treatment miss out, and others who don't need it are harmed by unnecessary intervention. Add to this that health and disease are not a binary states. Disease is not an on/off switch. Development of disease is often a gradual, incremental process. All heart disease is not created equal and neither are all cancers. I raise this point not to be critical of medicine, but merely to illuminate. It's a tough thing to navigate, especially when explaining it to a patient or his family members. Most people tend to want black and white answers, and it's just not that easy.
Finally, despite our current limitations, our knowledge and power in medical and related biology are advancing at paces that I think none but a very small, insular group truly appreciates. This advance is soon going to create dilemmas with which we as a society and world will be ill-educated and ill-equipped to cope. I'll write about that at much greater length in the future.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
