Blackeye of the Tiger

This Tiger Woods story has so many questions that we could just run a loop of Nancy Kerrigan's "Why?" in perpetuity.

Why 2:30am?

Why so fast?

Why a golf club?

Why cheat on Elin? (allegedly)

Why say "I promise it won't happen again." in your statement if all you are referring to is the traffic incident?

Why cheat on Elin? Whyyyyyyyyyyy?


I know, StupidBike, he's just an athlete so WHY do we care?

Well, based on all the news coverage and all the conversations I've had with friends and neighbors -- many of whom couldn't care less about golf or sports -- I think quite a number of people care simply because this is bigger than sports.

Anyway, this is insane. And I still can't believe it's happening.

The most-watched one-car traffic incident of all time.

Possibly the biggest black spot ever to be smacked on to a pristine image of an athlete/celebrity.

I haven't had a chance to listen to any sports radio since August, so if any of you are or have been, feel free to add your thoughts on this thread. Even if you're not a sports radio junkie, I would love your insight.

If this whole mistress thing is untrue (and I hope it is but this is the hope that I had when I heard Santa wasn't real) then wouldn't he pounce on that thing like only Tiger can?

Instead he seems to be taking PR advice from Roger Clemens.

UN-believable.

Read more...

Al Gore Can't Get A Break

When things turn, they turn quickly. Just read this on the Freakonomics blog (and yes, SuperFreakonomics is an even better read). Apparently Gore was lecturing on The Tonight Show about how hot the core of the earth was an how it serves as a valuable geothermal energy source. However, like most pseudo-scientists, his numbers weren't even close to reality. He was off by several million degrees.

As he told Conan O’Brien in this recent Tonight Show interview, while discussing geothermal energy, “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.”

It turns out it is like 500-900 degrees Celsius. Maybe he was thinking Fahrenheit? Even there it is only like 900-1800 degrees. Is there a way to politely ask him to retire to his estate with his pile of gold from cooking up a fake problem and getting us all falsely alarmed?

Read more...

Eternal Life

It's no secret that Mormons believe in eternal life. We existed before mortality, and will live again after death. The eternal nature of our families is – for lack of a better term – one of the primary selling points for missionaries. But I think the prominent Mormon Senator from Nevada is misinterpreting that doctrine, or at the very least projecting it onto his own political delusions of grandeur. Said Brother Reid, regarding health care:

Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation--indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever face: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

Our government is so competent, and so utterly compassionate that they can provide for us a life free from disease and death. Guaranteed! All we need to do is forfeit our freedoms, pay exorbitant taxes, and wait in the long lines of bureaucratic ineptitude. A small and pithy price to pay for eternal life!

And I have to wonder if, like global warming (which causes prostitution, by the way), the health care debate is about to get completely absurd. Is there a financially sound argument for national health care? Of course not. Is there even a socially sound argument? Not really. Oh sure, the democrats talk about "taking care of old people" and "covering [insert number of the month] million "uninsured". Which is all well and good. Meaningless, but well and good. Like most liberal policies. But what good will a takeover of health care really provide society? Other than stripping the incentives to become a doctor, raising taxes through the roof, collapsing the existing insurance industry (causing millions of jobs to be lost) and generally eroding the quality of life we enjoy today?

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

The burden of proof is with the Democrats. They have to convince the American public that government controlled health care is beneficial. The more they fail to do so, the more frustrated and absurd they get. (See, Grayson, Representative) I don't think making ridiculous claims to immortality and to a life "free from the fear of illness and death" will help their cause any more than claiming that climate change is forcing women into the sex trade.

And anyway, someone ought to point out to Brother Reid that in the UK, France, Canada, and everywhere else in the world where the government controls health care, people still indeed, do get sick. Some of them even die.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Which is especially true when the government controls your health care.

Read more...

SNL Needs More Fact Check

Read more...

yummy new moon

Most men get a lot of flack from their wives about the obsession with fantasy sports. "League of Dorks" or "Fake Football" or "Dumb League" are some of the terms that are thrown around as epithets towards the fantasy football addicts' obsession.

And the women have a point. It is, in a way, dorky. And it is fake. I happen to love it and I think it's a painfully fun annual tradition. But I think the women take it to a whole other level of dorky fantasy fakeness when it comes to the vampires and werewolves of the Twilight series.

I mean the word 'yummy' used to describe food. Now it describes a werewolf. I find that funny.

And there were probably quite a few vampire widowers this weekend given that New Moon raked in a buck-forty this weekend. Good for third on the all-time list of opening weekend revenues.

So honest question here: who has the dorkier obsession? Or is this an apple-orange comparision altogether?

(Note: I intentionally kept the picture small so that our site doesn't get overloaded with gawkers.)

Read more...

More Nails in the Coffin of "Man-Made Climate Change"

Just got back from Paris, and apart from seeing posters of Michael Moore's latest movie plastered all over the city (whoa, big surprise), it was a great 36 hour trip. Anyway, an interesting thing happened on the way to the climate change conference in 3 weeks. Someone hacked into the email accounts of prominent climate change scientists to find out what they really think. This is like stealing the hot girls diary in high school to see if she really likes you.

It turns out she doesn't know what she thinks, but is willing to pretend along with her friends that she does in fact like you. Ok the metaphor went off the tracks, but this is a very interesting development.

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

All in the name of science right? These people should be excommunicated from the church of environmentalism for expressing such heresies.

Read more...

Bitner in Businessweek

Ok, a bit misleading, but hear me out.

Darden is in Businessweek for one of the more wacky business school traditions around the country. You can read more about it here.

During our first year we are divided into five sections (roughly 60 per section) and Section B (my section) clearly has the most tradition of the five. We have a mascot. The mascot is Big Bird. The little stuffed Big Bird is held in high regard within Section B (terribly corny, but whatev) and other sections do anything they can to steal the bird.

Each Friday a student is nominated to be the caretaker of the bird. Nominations are given for stupid comments. Sounds harsh, but they are typically funny.

Like one girl asked about a 'negative opportunity cost'. That deserves the bird. (She came from a nonprofit background so we cut her some slack.)

One guy asked if it was ok if he downloaded every annual financial report of the Fortune 500 in advance of the open book, open note test (because the stipulation is that the info has to be on your computer or in your hands, not live internet searches). Definitely bird worthy.

This week a girl sent around a link to an online macroeconomic learning tool, but it was the THIRD time in two weeks that the section received the email. Bird.

You get the idea.

Anyway, the bird is featured in Businessweek. Corny or not, it makes us proud.

Any wacky traditions in your graduate program?

Read more...

Chrome

For those of you that don't know much about Google Chrome, and the coming revolution, here is your primer.



This is Web 3.0.

Read more...

LeBron's Jersey Number

TTKS (and specifically this author) is under attack (just bustin' your chops Azar) because of the opinion that LeBron shouldn't wear 23 and shouldn't wear 6, either.

I thought I'd make a short case as to why I think this way. (There was a lively debate this weekend, if you'd like some background.)

Consider Derek Jeter for a moment. I'm not sure how much he knew about his potential legendary status when he came up through the Yankees organization, but I bet he thought he'd be pretty good. His selection for jersey numbers is relatively limited given the Yankees history. He certainly wasn't wearing #2 his whole life. (He wore #13 in high school.) So, for a variety of reasons (plausibly) he decided on #2. Similarly, when free agents joing the Yankees, they often have to change their number because 3 is Ruth's and 7 is Mantle's, for example.

In basketball, this issue presents itself most with Celtics or Lakers players who have limited options with all the numbers in the respective rafters. (Think Shaq having to adjust his numbers depending on the team he's on.)

Now, in these cases the jersey numbers aren't actually available, so the player is forced to choose something else. But in basketball, even though the #23 is only retired in a few organizations, there is a large and obvious cloud of assumptions and pressure that is associated with the #23 so even though the number is available (i.e. not retired) in most places, it comes with some strings attached. In other words, those numbers (23 specifically) that carry lasting associations with certain players may be better left in the proverbial rafters.

Obviously, LeBron (and any other player, global icon or otherwise) can choose whatever non-retired number they want. But for a guy like LeBron, who very clearly had and still has the most upside of any athlete or hoopster we have ever seen, and who will inevitably (barring injury) be considered among the greastest basketball players, if not the greatest, it behooves them to select a number that can be their own! A number that can long be associated with them, not their idol(s).

I understand that we are now at a point where the Russells and the Jordans and the Birds have influenced multiple generations of basketball players -- guys who want to pay tribute by sporting a particular jersey number. Yet, I think that for those select few once-in-a-generation players, it is in their best interest (in terms of legend and mystique) to choose a number that doesn't carry any heavy associations.

What was 23 before Jordan wore it?

What was 3 before Ruth wore it?

What was 2 before Jeter wore it?

Whatever it was we forgot it or nothing material ever existed.

To the extent that guys like LeBron recognize something special with these legendary numbers (and clearly, LBJ recognizes something in these numbers), then it is to his benefit to pave a new way. To establish himself apart from the 23s and the 6s or the 32s and the 33s.

So, I criticize LeBron for his choice of 23 and of his new choice of 6 because he has the power to make a new great number. When I say 'be your own guy' I am craving for him to be original with his number choice. There are plenty of numbers between 1 and 30 that don't have the names Jordan, Russell, Bird, Magic, etc immortally attached to them. Consider these legendary numbers as hanging in the proverbial rafters, and pick your own to add to the rafters. It's not like the world is teeming with LeBrons and Jordans. They are rare. And they ought to be remembered in part by their defining jersey number.

Forced or not, Jeter benefited by finding his own number.

LeBron would too.

Read more...

Fort Hood

I've had several reactions to the shootings at Fort Hood, and to the evidence being brought to light about the shooter. But instead of pointing out the obvious, and then having to start all over again on the numerous discussions we've had in this space about the reality of radical Islamic terrorists, I thought I'd sit back and watch the media bend over backwards as they try to paint Nidal Hasan as a victim. Which is entirely predictable. What was not predictable was the horrifically insensitive, politically-correct nonsense uttered by one the Army's top generals, George Casey:

As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

I was going to go on a tirade about that statement, but there was nothing I could say that would make it more offensive than it already is.

In the Age of Obama diversity is more valuable than human life.

Read more...

The Number 23

Apparently LeBron reads TTKS.

The astounding logic and passion that has been presented on this blog in pushing for LeBron to find his own number and for others to follow suit has finally found some traction with the King.

I couldn't be more proud of that fact.

Pat Riley retired #23 for the Heat organization and LeBron is now advocating retiring it league-wide. Pretty hilarious how he did it, too, because you can tell how highly he thinks of himself.

I feel like no NBA player should wear 23. I'm starting a petition, and I've
got to get everyone in the NBA to sign it. Now, if I'm not going to wear No. 23,
then nobody else should be able to wear it.

Very well presented. That wasn't how I suggested he say it, but at least he listened to the overall movement of retiring 23.

Be your own guy, Bron Bron.

Read more...

Name That Quote

You know the rules*. Who said this:

[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

A. Mitt Romney

B. Mother Teresa

C. Billy Graham

D. Barack Obama

E. Bono

It's an interesting quote, and one that I am not sure I fully agree with. Yes, law is a moral code, and we ought to bring our values to the public policy debate. But the danger in that is very soon the government then starts to act as our moral barometer. And that can't go anywhere other than down the road of oppression. Indeed, that exists largely in our society today, where "morality" is often determined by the political party in power (or 9 judges) rather than the individual states and/or communities themselves. And when those communities do vote, such as we are seeing nationwide with same-sex marriage, then those who oppose the outcome start stomping their jackboots on the throats of those who "injected their personal morality" into the debate.

The other danger is that things that have little to do with morality at all become moral issues, which all too often strips the objectivity out of the whole process. Global warming is the standard example. It's no longer a scientific argument. Nor even an economic one. It's religious. You either believe or you don't. And if you don't, then to hell with you.

Incidentally, this reminds me of the local fervor right now about the LDS Church endorsing an anti-discrimination bill that would protect people from being fired or evicted based on sexual preference. Both sides are making the moral argument that defends their overall position on such things. Even the church in its endorsement has said that this law will not hurt the definition of marriage. Which is precisely irrelevant. My objection to the bill has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but entirely to do with the obvious result of its passing, which will be the effective hostage-holding of employers and landlords who will find that no matter how incompetent a gay employee or tenant is, cannot be fired. That no law maker seem to understand that is baffling. And what about the straight male that feels burned when he gets fired?

But I have hijacked my own post.

I read much of the speech that the above mystery quote came from, and it's full of the author's typical speechifying. In fact, the speech is a fine example of exactly my concerns with the quote - namely the moralfication of political, economic, and environmental issues that are not inherently so. I'd be quite interested to find out if the author of the above statement still stands by it (this all is a pretty solid hint, by the way).

Your thoughts?

You can find the answer here. But before you click, take a guess, or chime in with your thoughts in the comments section.

*No google cheating.

h/t: NRO

Read more...

Crisis then Comfort?

I read an article today and it had me scratching my head. I had these weird feelings going on, the first was sorrow and sympathy for the people out of work. The second feeling though was a bit of, "WTF were you thinking," floating through my mind.

The story starts off as you would expect a tragic news piece to begin.

Paul Joegriner hasn't worked since March 2008, when he was laid off from his $200,000-a-year job as chief executive officer of a small bank.

Tough luck, 200k jobs are hard to come by.

But then the next part makes me really scratch my head.

His wife, Marzena, shuttles their two young children to private school every morning. The family recently vacationed in Virginia Beach, Va., and likes to dine on Porterhouse steaks. Since losing his job, Mr. Joegriner, 44 years old, has had several offers. He's turned each down in hopes of landing a position comparable to what he held before.

Later in the article we'll find that school costs him $13,000 a year for his two children. I am not out of work, I'm very fortunate to have a job that pays a liveable wage, but I cannot understand the mindset of these people in this article. I certainly don't feel sympathy for them in the traditional sense. The sympathy comes more from a "how could they have failed so badly at basic financial education?" Once the money runs out they seem adept enough at counting pennies, but you needed a debt of 70k to tell you that maybe buying your wife a 12k diamond ring was a bad idea over putting more money away for bad times that will inevitably come?

This article serves as a nice reminder that when the bad times come, recognition is the first step. You can't move forward until you recognize the new setup and adjust quickly to it. My company has done a great job doing that and has been rewarded by having our stock price more than quadruple from the lows of last year. Quick response to changed circumstances.

Read more...

DJ Steve Porter: Press Hop

If you haven't caught this yet, it's pretty dang good.

Read more...

Applaud a Vet Today

This morning right before class started we said thank you to a former Apache helicopter pilot in the Army, Kory Farmer. The dude is one of the coolest guys you'll ever meet. Says what he thinks and doesn't beat around the bush. That trait is really refreshing.

Well, when the spotlight turned to him today his reaction was priceless.

"Naw. It's no big deal, man. Happy to do it."

Here's to you Farmer, Lawson and all the other Vets:

Read more...

The New-Look Sick Day

Remember when you used to make the extra effort to push through those flu-like symptoms and go to work anyway, even though you felt like pooh?

Or how your runny nose and hacking cough was no match for your determination to show your dedication to the company?

Well, this H1N1 thing has really flipped that on its head, hasn't it?

Businesses and schools are making all kinds of concessions to make sure that H1N1 is as contained as possible. If you feel ill you are emphatically encouraged to stay home. And if you sound ill, your peers and colleagues will beg you (either to your face or behind your back) to GO HOME!

In all seriousness, I find it interesting that it takes a Swine Flu to make people change their outlook on the Sick Day. Instead of it being a sign of weakness, it is now a noble use of time and company money. I'm not sure how many flu seasons this trend will last, or if it can persist between flu seasons, but I like it.

And by the way, what do we do when people won't admit they are too sick for work?

Read more...

Official Acknowledgment

Sam,

Per your request, this conservative hereby acknowledges that the Dow is doing well under the Obama watch. This acknowledgment recognizes no causal link between Obama's governance and the resulting increase in the value of the Dow.

I'd welcome any efforts on the part of the left to make such an argument if only to relish the opportunity to refute such argument.

In the words of Uncle Ronnie:

"Never mistake the stock market for the economy."

Sincerely,

Chris

Read more...

Best of the Web

James Taranto is the Best of the Web. I don't know what I'd do without him. Anyway he has a very funny section to conclude his piece yesterday.

As if the books by Scott McClellan and Matt Latimer weren't betrayal enough, now look what Ari Fleischer, President Bush's first press secretary, has gone and done. In a New York Times op-ed Fleischer, a fan of the New York Yankees, blames his team's championship drought between 2001 and 2008 not on the party actually to blame, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, not even on global warming, but on--you guessed it:

For eight long years, President Bush put a curse on my New York Yankees. . . .
I was standing in the Oval Office when the president secretly put his curse on my team. The 2000 champions paid a celebratory visit to the White House in May 2001. President Bush gathered the players in the Oval Office and was telling them what role models they were when George Steinbrenner, the team owner, suddenly tried to talk over him.
"George," Mr. Bush interjected, "not even the Boss gets to interrupt the president." . . .
But then terrible things started to happen. . . . And for eight straight years--all of which perfectly coincided with his time in office--the Yankees didn't win.
Flesicher's conclusion:

If you're a Democrat who wants the Yankees to lose--like the Boston Red Sox president, Larry Lucchino--you need to start voting Republican. And if you're a Yankee fan like me, well, I just can't bear to say it. . . .
The closing ellipsis is his. Let this be a reminder to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

And btw, I know I have been really busy and not posting very much.

Read more...

The Dow Speaketh

At some point we might as well acknowlegde that the Dow continues to rise under Obama's watch. Like or not, we just closed at a 2009 high and you right-wingers need to recognize.

-Sam

Read more...

11.9.89

Read more...

Keeping Score of Jobs Saved (and Created)

Here is a rundown for those curious about how the pres-o-dent keeps score.

To get you started:

Salary raises counted as saved jobs; 2 out of 3 Head Start jobs overcounted

An Associated Press review of the latest stimulus reports ... found that more than two-thirds of 14,506 jobs credited to the recovery act under spending by just one federal office were overstated because they counted pay increases for existing workers as jobs saved.

The inflated job count is at least partly the product of the administration instructing local community agencies that received money to count the raises as jobs saved...

But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs. "If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

Most of the inflated figures were like those cited ... by Southwest Georgia Community Action in Moultrie, Ga. The agency, like hundreds of others collecting Head Start money, claimed all its existing employees' jobs were saved because they received a pay raise with the stimulus cash...

The agency employs 508 people but claimed 935 jobs were saved.

... director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved. [AP]

Read more...

Soccer Time

Tomorrow is the 3rd installment of intramural athletic tournaments here at business school. These are typically highly contested events. You can imagine how involved I am in them.

We've had softball and flag football so far.

Tomorrow is going to be off the hook, though. SOCCER. The real game of football. All the international students are buzzing and bragging.

Let the games begin...

(PS thanks to Egs for passing this on and taking the contest tomorrow to a whole other level.)

Read more...

Damn Yankees!

As if there are not already enough reasons to vote against a Democrat for president, a reader* of Best of the Web gives us one more:

Since the Yankees won their first pennant (1921), every Democratic president except Lyndon Johnson has presided over two or more Yankee world championships. And during the past 50 years, the Yankees have won eight World Series in the 20 years in which a Democrat occupied the White House and have not won a single championship in the 30 years in which a Republican was president. During the past half century, the Yankees have won 40% of the time when a Democrat is president and 0% of the time when a Republican is president.

Vote Republican, and help defeat the Evil Empire!

*The reader, it should be pointed out is a Democrat who went on to sarcastically (I think) blame Bush for the Yankees 9 year World Series drought. It came in response to BoTW author James Taranto's theory that it was Hillary Clinton who had cursed the Bronx Bombers.

Read more...

The Vision of the Anointed

Thomas Sowell has become one of my favorite columnists and authors. Ryan actually introduced him to me with The Vision of the Anointed and I was immediately hooked. His logic is clear and simple. He tears apart the tactic used by politicians and academics to declare everything to be very "complex". Joe Biden used this strategy just the other day when he said that "The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘drill, baby, drill,’...It’s a lot more complicated, Sarah!”

Perhaps it is. But that is another discussion for another day. However, one could also remind the Vice President that governing a diverse nation of more than 300 million people is a little more complex than "Yes We Can".

One common theme coming from the Obama Administration, and from politicians at large, is that we are in the midst of several crisis. Afghanistan is a crisis. The economy is in crisis. Health Care is a crisis. The swine flu, unemployment, obesity, and on and on and on. The only 'solution' to these various crisis is to do "something". Thomas Sowell wrote in The Vision of the Anointed that "When the anointed say that there is a crisis this means that something must be done--and it must be done simply because the anointed want it done."

And what must be done in the current health care "crisis"?

Why, something of course!

And that something is a government take over of medical care. What good will come of Government Insurance and Medical? None. No government medical intervention that has occurred in other nations and in other States is something I would want to emulate for the entire United States. The swine flu "crisis" is actually acting as an unintended barometer on the government's inability to handle even minor health and wellness issues. That is, long lines for the vaccine, rationing of the vaccine, and horrendous misuses of it are commonplace. And why is that? It can't be because the government is utterly incapable of executing a plan (any plan) in a timely and cost-effective manner can it? Stephen Hayes wrote at the Weekly Standard that "The shortage is so severe that state and local health officials have been forced to cancel and reschedule vaccination clinics, and to adjust their strategies about who gets a shot and when." (emphasis mine)

Who gets a shot and when? That sounds like rationing of care, does it not? Perhaps Kathleen Sebelius, our Health and Wellness (and sneeze) Czar may have a different definition of rationing: "I don’t think there’s anything about the public option that would ration care. Unfortunately care is being rationed each and everyday right now. Often private insurance companies stand between a patient and a doctor deciding what treatment can be provided."

But, isn't that exactly what is happening with the government distributed swine flu vaccine?

Never mind the details I suppose, after all, the vision of the Anointed must not be questioned.

Recently Dr. Sowell has written a 4-part series on the costs of health care. He points out the flawed logic behind this "public option" and warns of the inevitable consequences of government involvement:

Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes-- or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

I highly recommend reading all 4 parts. They are short, simple, and frankly, they are devastating to the common thinking that government can solve this problem. The truth is quite the opposite:

In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need. However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."

But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases.

Today is, as Ronald Reagan put it in 1964, a time for choosing. Will the American people choose to be wards of the State, or independent citizens and individuals, free to pursue our own ends?

Or, will the elite jam their vision down our throats, regardless of what "we" choose?

Read more...

Weather Man

Have you ever wished that you could check the weather and be reminded just.how. cool. Barack Obama is at the same time? (I know, who hasn't?)

Now you can!

For sycophants in every climate, it's Obama Weather!

Read more...

America and Golden Eggs

I've been reflecting this weekend on the state of the nation. I'm not going to wax philosophical and pretend I have any answers. I mostly have a lot of questions. I am trying to put my finger on my attitude right now. I don't feel apathy, but I am far from feeling optimistic.

I was a few articles from the WSJ on my phone as a lay in bed one night and stumbled on this one by Peggy Noonan, and it resonated. I think she has come the closest to capturing how I feel. I'm curious what each of you feel as you read this. Its worth the read. Here's the link. (Sorry if this feels a bit choppy.)

Her intro:

"The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business."

She mentions a few discussions she's had with executives at drug and insurance companies (the satan-spawn of capitalist America). One of the executives made this comment:

"They don't understand that people can just stop, get out. I have friends and colleagues who've said to me 'I'm done.'" He spoke of his own increasing tax burden and said, "They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."

He felt government doesn't understand that business in America is run by people, by human beings. [Barney] Frank must believe America is populated by high-achieving robots who will obey whatever command he and his friends issue. But of course they're human, and they can become disheartened. They can pack it in, go elsewhere, quit what used to be called the rat race and might as well be called that again since the government seems to think they're all rats. (That would be you, Chamber of Commerce.)

We've all probably heard Aesop's fable of the goose and the golden egg. Most of us probably heard it from our reading of the 7 Habits. Here's a recap and if miss a detail, don't shoot me: A man awakes one morning to find that his goose has laid a golden egg. In the days ahead, and to his good fortune, he finds that each morning his goose lays him one golden egg. The man becomes greedy and decides to kill the goose and cut it open thinking he would then obtain the entire fortune that awaits him. He only finds the innards typical of any other goose. And now he's lost his ability to obtain any eggs at all.

In the article, Noonan draws the parallel between and America and the goose. And in a certain context, the analogy works, in my opinion. Her concluding words were really what spoke the loudest to me. We are being governed by a generation who grew up not knowing anything but prosperity. I think she really captures it well:

"When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren't they worried about the impact of what they're doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

I think I know part of the answer. It is that they've never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don't have the habit of worry. They talk about their "concerns"—they're big on that word. But they're not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa's lap.

They don't feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—"strongest nation in the world," "indispensable nation," "unipolar power," "highest standard of living"—and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.

We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice."

Read more...

More on Health Care: The Most Expensive 1% to Care For - Part II

Part I (here) discussed the portion of the most expensive 1% to care for who are there often through poor life decisions. This discusses that portion who are in that group in the last month of their life.

In the first part of this analysis, I looked at NICU patients, Dialysis patients, and transplant patients. I'd like to look now at patients in the last month of their life. Those four groups taken together are about 1% of the consumers of healthcare but whose care accounts for 1/3 of total health care dollars spent in America.

We have cultivated a culture where doctors are no longer able to counsel with patients and families as easily about "last month of life" decisions. I bring this up with a lump in my throat as I lost my father and my grandmother whose lives could have been artificially (and fruitlessly) prolonged and would have been had we chosen to admit them to the hospital when their lives were ending.

At some point, probably as family disputes spilled over into litigation, "saying goodbye to Grandma" became "pulling the plug on Grandma." One is not a hotly contested or expensive issue. The other is.

When my father passed away from ALS (Lou Gherig's disease), his neurologist counseled us that, when he went, we shouldn't call 911. The medics first and the hospital later would be under an ethical obligation to revive him and keep him alive as long as they could barring any legal documents that my father had prepared (which he hadn't) stipulating the contrary.

ALS is terminal whether it's this month or next month and his quality of life was such that those extra month or months were, in the view of my family, not worth pursuing. But the point is, we could have had that decision largely removed from us by admitting him to a hospital for care. We could not have stayed a doctor's hand once admitted to his or her care without problems and costs we didn't want to deal with.

Is there something wrong with this? The argument always is that you can't put a dollar amount on that last one month of life in many instances, but I think that sometimes you can. And when you talk about systemic costs, maybe you have to. I know that the right has shouted out about the evil of "death panels," and certainly the solution is not a government bureaucracy making case-by-case decisions about who will live that extra month or more and who won't.

But don't we need to re-think how we look at the end of life? I admit that I haven't the foggiest notion of how to reform the ethical construct of the medical profession, nor do I know exactly how to "incentivize" creating living wills or other appropriate legal documents to guide doctors in the individual's wishes regarding the last month of their life.

Any ideas?

Read more...