I had the pleasure of staying in my daughter’s apartment in Brooklyn for the last few days. It was an experience I’ll treasure. The city is so completely different from my New Hampshire home; I was taken in by everything. She lives in a trendy neighborhood of brownstones called Park Slope. It’s the perfect mix of urban conveniences and residential living. The carbon footprint of the city people is embarrassingly low compared to us country mice. Life exists quite comfortably without a car. Many people have a car, but they only use it for the occasional trip out of the city, and they rely on the subway for commuting. The leaves were falling while I was there- and yes, the side streets are lined with old trees. I noticed immediately that all the parked cars were covered in leaves. It's a visual confirmation of how unimportant cars are to city folks. I was able to find a parking space just around the corner from the apartment, and my car stayed there the entire time. It too, was covered in leaves when I went back to it five days later.
I think city people are healthier than country people. Partly because they walk everywhere, but also because they walk often-- not just once a day, but many times a day for blocks at a time. It’s hard to imagine having all of your daily needs completely within walking distance. In New Hampshire I have to drive 5 miles to do anything: rent a movie, buy groceries, shop for clothes, gifts, visit the library, post office, pharmacy, go to restaurants- you name it, I’m in the car to do it. In the city, all of these amenities are within a few blocks at most, and most are within a block of where you live. The infrastructure is completely centered on pedestrian living, not the automobile. What a novel idea!
Like everything in life, there are drawbacks - like always being in contact with people. Country folks may be intimidated by this and be concerned for their personal security. It’s true, everyone practices safe living, but it’s not obsessive, just common sense. I found the people to be widely different, yet completely comfortable with each other. It’s a study in human cooperation we can all take a lesson from. They’re not the stereotypical cold and unfriendly people of folklore – people who show no interest in strangers and never look you the eye. They respect each other’s space - it’s important to do that in a dense community - but they also have a relaxed and confident manner. It comes from being so immersed in other people all the time.
For example, Halloween was celebrated on Halloween- and at night! In the big city no less! It was amazing to see thousands of little urchins walking down the sidewalks, trick or treating at all the stores and the residences. They even had a Halloween Parade in the evening down Seventh Ave. They did all of the things we’re too affraid to do in New Hampshire. Go figure.
So we ate in some great restaurants and small cafes, visited the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, enjoyed taking the dog for a long runs in Prospect Park, became addicted to the freshly baked apple stuffed croissants just around the corner, watched the NY Marathon, all of these things, without ever getting in a car. But most of all we enjoyed seeing so many people living together in a vibrant, harmonious and stimulating environment- a great NY experience!
Here’s a snippet of our visit in Brooklyn (be sure to select HD & Full Screen) : Our visit to Brooklyn
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Trick or Treat- Is that Joe Lieberman Behind the Joe Lieberman Mask?
Poor Joe, he’s standing at the door saying, “Trick or Treat”, but he already got his treat earlier this year- being able to keep the Chairman’s seat on the Homeland Security Committee- and in exchange for what? Actively campaigning for John McClain? Supporting President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq? Threatening to filibuster with the Republicans against the health care bill? How does a person who stabs you in the back repeatedly deserve such deference? I suppose sixty is his lucky number. As long as Joe is number 60, he can blackmail the Democrats for everything he wants and snub the party in return. It’s something I just can’t understand. If the Democratic Party gets nothing in return for his payola, why do they do it? Is having him caucus with the Democrats really that valuable if he doesn’t go along? Is it the outside chance that he could actually be useful someday? Hardly- He just announced that he will likely campaign for some Republicans in 2010.
Joe Lieberman should shed his Halloween costume- pretending to be Democrat- and just get on with being a Republican. Everything he’s done in the last year has been 24 caret GOP. If the Democrats ever get to 61 seats (not likely in my lifetime), Ole Joe will be thrown out like the old shoe he is. In the meantime, the Democrats are living like the movie Groundhog Day- they get up every day and Joe Lieberman is at the door saying, “Trick or Treat”…
ps- I didn't get this story from Rachel Maddow, we just think alike- that's scary, even on Halloween!
Joe Lieberman should shed his Halloween costume- pretending to be Democrat- and just get on with being a Republican. Everything he’s done in the last year has been 24 caret GOP. If the Democrats ever get to 61 seats (not likely in my lifetime), Ole Joe will be thrown out like the old shoe he is. In the meantime, the Democrats are living like the movie Groundhog Day- they get up every day and Joe Lieberman is at the door saying, “Trick or Treat”…
ps- I didn't get this story from Rachel Maddow, we just think alike- that's scary, even on Halloween!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Aligning Democrats is like Herding Cats
My boss used to say managing engineers is like herding cats. Alignment of purpose can be difficult in projects that require many engineers to work together. Engineers are creative and independent minded with different priorities of what's most important. That means the most respected source of any solution is self generated- it comes from within, not from being imposed on them. It is the nature of engineers to solve problems, so it’s unnatural for an engineer to ask someone else for their solution, even less natural to be told what the solution is, and unthinkable to be directed to implement someone else’s solution blindly. You can imagine how challenging it can be to have many engineers get in lock step on large projects if their priorities are not aligned. It sounds like the Democrats have this problem too.
Why are the Democrats unable to exert their agenda with a 60% majority in the Senate? Is it because they have many different priorities and alignment is just too hard to achieve? The Republicans don’t seem to have this problem. They’re clearly more aligned, and seemingly operate as if they were the majority with only 40% of the Senate. But Republicans are more like cows. They all believe the same things, move together on virtually every issue, and seem very contented to do nothing. It’s relatively easy to get the herd to support a policy of “no”. No is pretty simple to rally behind.
Democrats, on the other hand, are completely aligned on their title- Democrat- but they diverge in all directions from that point. It’s been called a rainbow coalition, but the party convention every four years is more a collision than a coalition. A candidate emerges from the chaos of temporary unity and they work together for a few weeks. After the election, they fall off the wagon and wander back into their local or personal priorities for another four years. They're truly cats, not cows. They pick a cause and cling to it tenaciously. It may be civil rights, ethics, peace, gay rights, unions, gun control, work safety, energy, food banks, animal rights, sustainability, arts, health, environment, farming, education… just about anything except investment banking and corporate growth.
The diversity is beautiful, but largely incoherent. It makes unity hard to achieve. Health care reform is running point blank into this diverse group, out of synch with the four year mating season. Money hurts their cause too. The lobbyists have it, a lot of it, and the people don’t. Who would you listen to- a poor voter, or a slick lobbyist in a $2000 suit buying you a $500 dinner and stuffing your pockets with cash until it falls on the floor? If you need money to get re-elected and you’re vulnerable, and you are after all, a politician- the money rules. If the Democrats could ever achieve an 80% majority, they may get enough alignment to get things done. Until that day comes, it’s onward cats- here, there and everywhere… Check out this video, it says it all:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
Why are the Democrats unable to exert their agenda with a 60% majority in the Senate? Is it because they have many different priorities and alignment is just too hard to achieve? The Republicans don’t seem to have this problem. They’re clearly more aligned, and seemingly operate as if they were the majority with only 40% of the Senate. But Republicans are more like cows. They all believe the same things, move together on virtually every issue, and seem very contented to do nothing. It’s relatively easy to get the herd to support a policy of “no”. No is pretty simple to rally behind.
Democrats, on the other hand, are completely aligned on their title- Democrat- but they diverge in all directions from that point. It’s been called a rainbow coalition, but the party convention every four years is more a collision than a coalition. A candidate emerges from the chaos of temporary unity and they work together for a few weeks. After the election, they fall off the wagon and wander back into their local or personal priorities for another four years. They're truly cats, not cows. They pick a cause and cling to it tenaciously. It may be civil rights, ethics, peace, gay rights, unions, gun control, work safety, energy, food banks, animal rights, sustainability, arts, health, environment, farming, education… just about anything except investment banking and corporate growth.
The diversity is beautiful, but largely incoherent. It makes unity hard to achieve. Health care reform is running point blank into this diverse group, out of synch with the four year mating season. Money hurts their cause too. The lobbyists have it, a lot of it, and the people don’t. Who would you listen to- a poor voter, or a slick lobbyist in a $2000 suit buying you a $500 dinner and stuffing your pockets with cash until it falls on the floor? If you need money to get re-elected and you’re vulnerable, and you are after all, a politician- the money rules. If the Democrats could ever achieve an 80% majority, they may get enough alignment to get things done. Until that day comes, it’s onward cats- here, there and everywhere… Check out this video, it says it all:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Medicare Fuzzy Math- How the Health Industry Bilks Us
I’d like to discuss our beloved Medicare and the supplemental coverage provided by private insurance companies. This is rather boring, but timely, I hope it won’t put you to sleep. The contrast of the two medical plans is a vivid portrait of just how bad the private health insurance companies are compared to Medicare. The stark difference between the plans is probably lost to people who only know that Medicare exists, but don’t really have any desire to know the details. So a little primer is in order.
When everyone turns 65, the government offers Medicare in lieu of private insurance. In simple terms it covers all hospitalization costs with about a $1000 annual deductible and 80% of all medical service costs. The cost for all this coverage is about a $100 a month. The private insurance companies sell a policy that covers the difference, roughly 20% of the medical service costs and the deductibles. To keep things fair and prevent exploitation, all companies must offer exactly the same benefits in about a dozens different plans- they range from Yugo to Cadillac coverage- but only on the measly 20% not covered by Medicare. They are also required to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history.
So what do you think this supplemental coverage costs? Logic would suggest that if Medicare pays 80% at $100 a month, then the total cost might be around $120, right? Wrong. The cheapest plan, the Yugo coverage, only pays a percentage of the 20% (like 50% or 75%) after a large annual deductible of $2000 or even $4000. For that marginal coverage the cost is around $80 a month. Almost what we pay for the primary 80% covered by Medicare! But it gets even crazier. If you want complete supplemental coverage, benefits that pay all the gap costs- the full 20%- the cost is upwards of $250-$300 a month. And that’s per person. So a couple pays twice that amount.
It’s completely beyond me how any rational person can look at these cost comparisons and not be disgusted by what the health cartel is doing to us. They provide 20% of our medical benefits at 3 times the cost of Medicare. Their premiums are more than 10 times higher than they should be for what we get in return. Someday if we ever get universal single payer health care, I’m sure it will come with all the baggage we have in Medicare today. If I were the insurance industry, I’d be lobbying for 80% single payer for everyone, and then pick up the difference with obscene profits, just as they do with Medicare. It’s the perfect storm for the insurance industry- only 20% of the benefits are paid out, and we get bilked at costs almost comparable to the full coverage. I’d like to get some of that action.
OK, I’ve had my say, now you can wake up and go back to reading something interesting… I’m researching Vancouver. It looks like a nice place to live…good skiing, good sailing, and good health care… eh?
When everyone turns 65, the government offers Medicare in lieu of private insurance. In simple terms it covers all hospitalization costs with about a $1000 annual deductible and 80% of all medical service costs. The cost for all this coverage is about a $100 a month. The private insurance companies sell a policy that covers the difference, roughly 20% of the medical service costs and the deductibles. To keep things fair and prevent exploitation, all companies must offer exactly the same benefits in about a dozens different plans- they range from Yugo to Cadillac coverage- but only on the measly 20% not covered by Medicare. They are also required to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history.
So what do you think this supplemental coverage costs? Logic would suggest that if Medicare pays 80% at $100 a month, then the total cost might be around $120, right? Wrong. The cheapest plan, the Yugo coverage, only pays a percentage of the 20% (like 50% or 75%) after a large annual deductible of $2000 or even $4000. For that marginal coverage the cost is around $80 a month. Almost what we pay for the primary 80% covered by Medicare! But it gets even crazier. If you want complete supplemental coverage, benefits that pay all the gap costs- the full 20%- the cost is upwards of $250-$300 a month. And that’s per person. So a couple pays twice that amount.
It’s completely beyond me how any rational person can look at these cost comparisons and not be disgusted by what the health cartel is doing to us. They provide 20% of our medical benefits at 3 times the cost of Medicare. Their premiums are more than 10 times higher than they should be for what we get in return. Someday if we ever get universal single payer health care, I’m sure it will come with all the baggage we have in Medicare today. If I were the insurance industry, I’d be lobbying for 80% single payer for everyone, and then pick up the difference with obscene profits, just as they do with Medicare. It’s the perfect storm for the insurance industry- only 20% of the benefits are paid out, and we get bilked at costs almost comparable to the full coverage. I’d like to get some of that action.
OK, I’ve had my say, now you can wake up and go back to reading something interesting… I’m researching Vancouver. It looks like a nice place to live…good skiing, good sailing, and good health care… eh?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
No Grid May be Better than a Smart Grid
Yesterday President Obama announced a government subsidy would be provided to modernize our power grid- and focus will be on converting to a smart grid infrastructure. This is much better than doing nothing- something we’ve been very good at for oh so many years, but there may even be a better approach, one that doesn’t perpetuate our dependence on major corporations or a fragile distribution network. It would be a local power system. It could be a single property or a collection of properties in a micro grid.
Our long-term goal should be to have no power grid at all. Why do we have to create all our energy in a few places and move it all over the country to be consumed? Before there even was electricity, if we needed power, we built the facility near a dam, or built a windmill. Wouldn’t it be much cleaner and safer if every home and business generated the power they need? It could be by any means that's cost effective, ie solar, water, wind, tide, etc...
Wires and fiberoptic lines could easily be eliminated. No one would be vulnerable to damaged power lines by storms. We already get TV through satellite. Cell phones provide all the telephone service we need. We need to advance battery technology so we can store it. We should be investing in better battery technology. So if we generated our own power- the smartest grid might be no grid at all.
Here’s the article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114204680
Our long-term goal should be to have no power grid at all. Why do we have to create all our energy in a few places and move it all over the country to be consumed? Before there even was electricity, if we needed power, we built the facility near a dam, or built a windmill. Wouldn’t it be much cleaner and safer if every home and business generated the power they need? It could be by any means that's cost effective, ie solar, water, wind, tide, etc...
Wires and fiberoptic lines could easily be eliminated. No one would be vulnerable to damaged power lines by storms. We already get TV through satellite. Cell phones provide all the telephone service we need. We need to advance battery technology so we can store it. We should be investing in better battery technology. So if we generated our own power- the smartest grid might be no grid at all.
Here’s the article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114204680
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Public Option Comes Back- but Will it Kill the Bill?
Just when I was finally convinced that the public option was lost forever, reports of it’s demise appear to be immature. And surprise of surprises- who would’ve thought the champion to breath new life into it would be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?
What’s most interesting about this procedure is not that he can get away with doing it, because he can -- it’s that he, of all people, is turning out to be the hardball player -- the David who slays the Goliath Health Cartel. I’ll be honest, if I were choosing players for my rugby team, Harry would not be the first person I’d pick. Boy, did I misjudge him. With I one stroke of a pen, he’s shown more chutzpah than President Obama, by standing up for what really matters when the chips are down. Obama has been woefully non-committal on the public option; I think he doesn’t want anything to threaten passage of the health reform bill, regardless of how worthless it may end up for the people. Victory, by any definition, seems to be more important to him at this point than implementing true reforms.
Now the battle really gets interesting. Will the Democrats get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster? If they don’t, will the bill stay as written? If the Republicans do filibuster, will it help or hurt their cause? Does it prevent the bill from ever being voted on? And finally, will the Democrats stand tall and vote down the bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an entitlement bill for the insurance companies? Several Yogi Berra sayings come to mind here- the best one may be “you can see a lot by watching”…
What’s most interesting about this procedure is not that he can get away with doing it, because he can -- it’s that he, of all people, is turning out to be the hardball player -- the David who slays the Goliath Health Cartel. I’ll be honest, if I were choosing players for my rugby team, Harry would not be the first person I’d pick. Boy, did I misjudge him. With I one stroke of a pen, he’s shown more chutzpah than President Obama, by standing up for what really matters when the chips are down. Obama has been woefully non-committal on the public option; I think he doesn’t want anything to threaten passage of the health reform bill, regardless of how worthless it may end up for the people. Victory, by any definition, seems to be more important to him at this point than implementing true reforms.
Now the battle really gets interesting. Will the Democrats get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster? If they don’t, will the bill stay as written? If the Republicans do filibuster, will it help or hurt their cause? Does it prevent the bill from ever being voted on? And finally, will the Democrats stand tall and vote down the bill if it turns out to be nothing more than an entitlement bill for the insurance companies? Several Yogi Berra sayings come to mind here- the best one may be “you can see a lot by watching”…
Monday, October 26, 2009
Global Warming-Hurry Up and Fix It
The one thing we can all agree on about the human psyche is our impatience to fix things. Take climate change. It crept up on us for a hundred years. When we finally decided that: a) It could be a real problem, and b) we had a hand in making the problem, what do we do? We demand an instant solution- or at least one that gives us results we can see in our lifetime. After all, who could stand still for spending a lot of money, undergo self-imposed restrictions on our lifestyle, and not demand to see the results of our investment?
The lack of a speedy solution seems to be one of the major criticisms of the Cap and Trade Bill. Worldwide efforts to conserve, convert, or bury CO2 to mitigate global warming is just too slow and painful. Opponents say it's too little, too late, and too costly. Well, don’t worry; the free enterprise system will come to our rescue. Smelling opportunity and profit- pseudo climate conscious scientists would like to “geoengineer” the problem so we can all experience that primordial thrill of instant gratification we carry around in our subconscious- probably a latent gene nurtured from generations of slaying wooly mammoths.
I’m not against fixing the problem. I am against expensive, hasty, untested solutions motivated by profit, which might have unknown catastrophic collateral damage down the road. I personally think if it took a hundred years to create the problem and we take another hundred years to fix it; that seems reasonable. Even 50 years from now we may develop earth friendly solutions that could mitigate the problem faster, smarter, cheaper and safer than we can even envision today.
Computer models and simulations would have to be used to validate massive geoengineering solutions- like seeding the heavens with chemicals to create clouds, towing ice bergs to lower latitudes, pumping cold water up from the bottom of the sea, deploying space umbrellas, reforestation of half the world and other such (crazy?) gargantuan undertakings. Having spent a good deal of time with computer models in my career, I can say it’s a scary footing to base any attempts to play god with the environment.
We used to say that computer models would give the analysts the answers they’re being paid to find. It’s nearly impossible to include all the variables. What we don’t know isn’t even considered in the analysis. Another way to look at computer models of this magnitude is: “Garbage in, Gospel out”. If you invest upwards of a billion dollars in a computer model validation of such a major undertaking, the investors expect results- good results. So let’s tread lightly if we do plan to play god, and make sure the implementations, if we go there, are based on human considerations, not profit considerations. Otherwise, we’re in trouble before we start.
The lack of a speedy solution seems to be one of the major criticisms of the Cap and Trade Bill. Worldwide efforts to conserve, convert, or bury CO2 to mitigate global warming is just too slow and painful. Opponents say it's too little, too late, and too costly. Well, don’t worry; the free enterprise system will come to our rescue. Smelling opportunity and profit- pseudo climate conscious scientists would like to “geoengineer” the problem so we can all experience that primordial thrill of instant gratification we carry around in our subconscious- probably a latent gene nurtured from generations of slaying wooly mammoths.
I’m not against fixing the problem. I am against expensive, hasty, untested solutions motivated by profit, which might have unknown catastrophic collateral damage down the road. I personally think if it took a hundred years to create the problem and we take another hundred years to fix it; that seems reasonable. Even 50 years from now we may develop earth friendly solutions that could mitigate the problem faster, smarter, cheaper and safer than we can even envision today.
Computer models and simulations would have to be used to validate massive geoengineering solutions- like seeding the heavens with chemicals to create clouds, towing ice bergs to lower latitudes, pumping cold water up from the bottom of the sea, deploying space umbrellas, reforestation of half the world and other such (crazy?) gargantuan undertakings. Having spent a good deal of time with computer models in my career, I can say it’s a scary footing to base any attempts to play god with the environment.
We used to say that computer models would give the analysts the answers they’re being paid to find. It’s nearly impossible to include all the variables. What we don’t know isn’t even considered in the analysis. Another way to look at computer models of this magnitude is: “Garbage in, Gospel out”. If you invest upwards of a billion dollars in a computer model validation of such a major undertaking, the investors expect results- good results. So let’s tread lightly if we do plan to play god, and make sure the implementations, if we go there, are based on human considerations, not profit considerations. Otherwise, we’re in trouble before we start.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Collateral Damage of Good Intentions
It's ironic how often we do something good and it turns out to have a downside. MTBE was added to our gas to make the fuel burn cleaner and produce less air pollution. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Yet, after a few years we noticed it turning up in our wells and drinking water. Then it also turned out to be a carcinogen. Why couldn’t we have researched the downside before it was introduced? It would seem to be a simple process. In all likelihood it was rushed through under lobby pressure because cars would test lower in emissions with the additive- a freebie for the car manufacturers. Notice how quietly it went away. I think someone is trying to avoid a megasuit.
Another attempt to clean up the air came with the introduction of catalytic converters in the early seventies. Unburned hydrocarbons were being spewed into the air and created heavy smog in urban areas. The air was dirty- even unhealthy to breath at times- cities issued warnings to stay inside on particularly bad days. It continues to today in some cities. Catalytic converters did a great job of removing the unburned hydrocarbons and city smog was reduced measurably. The byproduct of the converters is water and carbon dioxide. CO2 was considered a friendly gas, even essential to the environment. Now CO2 is classified as a polutant. Today vehicles with catalytic converters produce nearly one-third of the world’s CO2. Would global warming have continued without the introduction of catalytic converters? Sure. Would it be worse today without catalytic converters? That’s a debatable question.
How about butter? We were driven away from it only to be victimized by hydrogenated fats.
Recycling glass, plastic and paper is another good intention- and probably worthwhile, but at what cost? When these products were mandated to be recycled, the primary motivation was to unclog our landfills. I don’t think anyone thought about the energy spent, or the carbon footprint of the process. It would be interesting to know if it takes more energy or less energy to use recycled material to manufacture products, rather than to make things out of raw materials. Reusing makes sense. I’d pay extra if someone would refill a bottle. Zero waste products make sense, but making products, and then using a lot of energy to remanufacture them- I don’t know. I’d like to see the round trip energy cost of that process.
Have you noticed how long the CYA statement is on prescription drugs? They seem to go out of their way to tell you how bad all the side effects could be, so if you do suffer from it, they’re covered and they can say I told you so. Why should we have to put up with such nonsense? It seems like the FDA has gone to sleep on us. If the drug makes you sick instead of healing you, they should be liable. Putting a label on a bottle shouldn’t absolve the drug industry of their responsibility to do no harm. It’s crazy. If we ever get a Consumer Protection Agency, the collateral damage of good intentions might improve in many areas.
Another attempt to clean up the air came with the introduction of catalytic converters in the early seventies. Unburned hydrocarbons were being spewed into the air and created heavy smog in urban areas. The air was dirty- even unhealthy to breath at times- cities issued warnings to stay inside on particularly bad days. It continues to today in some cities. Catalytic converters did a great job of removing the unburned hydrocarbons and city smog was reduced measurably. The byproduct of the converters is water and carbon dioxide. CO2 was considered a friendly gas, even essential to the environment. Now CO2 is classified as a polutant. Today vehicles with catalytic converters produce nearly one-third of the world’s CO2. Would global warming have continued without the introduction of catalytic converters? Sure. Would it be worse today without catalytic converters? That’s a debatable question.
How about butter? We were driven away from it only to be victimized by hydrogenated fats.
Recycling glass, plastic and paper is another good intention- and probably worthwhile, but at what cost? When these products were mandated to be recycled, the primary motivation was to unclog our landfills. I don’t think anyone thought about the energy spent, or the carbon footprint of the process. It would be interesting to know if it takes more energy or less energy to use recycled material to manufacture products, rather than to make things out of raw materials. Reusing makes sense. I’d pay extra if someone would refill a bottle. Zero waste products make sense, but making products, and then using a lot of energy to remanufacture them- I don’t know. I’d like to see the round trip energy cost of that process.
Have you noticed how long the CYA statement is on prescription drugs? They seem to go out of their way to tell you how bad all the side effects could be, so if you do suffer from it, they’re covered and they can say I told you so. Why should we have to put up with such nonsense? It seems like the FDA has gone to sleep on us. If the drug makes you sick instead of healing you, they should be liable. Putting a label on a bottle shouldn’t absolve the drug industry of their responsibility to do no harm. It’s crazy. If we ever get a Consumer Protection Agency, the collateral damage of good intentions might improve in many areas.
Friday, October 23, 2009
In the Dog Days of the War, Recession and Health Reform
You know we’re in the dog days of politics when the esteemed NY Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks writes a column about Obama’s education reform. After all the conflict and hoopla of the past several months it’s nice to read about something different. It’s time to move on.
The recession will end when it ends. No talking by the media gabinators or artful Op-Ed columns will hasten the recovery. The Dow continues to inch upward and unemployment appears to be inching downward. You can’t drive over any bridge or road in America that isn’t under repair with stimulus funds. It is what it is. There’s no changing it now.
Health reform is in the ninth inning. If you’re against it, you’re losing 10 to zip. If you want universal single payer, you were ejected from the game in the first inning. If you want the public option, you’re still behind by one run, and you have one more at-bat with 2 outs, and nobody on base. It’ll take a home run just to push the game into extra innings.
The President is showing signs of indecision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. The conservative gabinators smell blood. The war is in a holding pattern while he decides how to fight his war without appearing to look like the warmonger he ran against to get elected.
The 2010 election campaigns are starting to fill their war chests, but it’s still way too early to think about who will be Mr. October, better yet what the October surprise will be. The only thing that’s certain; Republicans will gain some seats. The party on the outside always picks up seats mid-term, and it won’t be any different this time.
So the brilliant David Brooks wrote about “The Quiet Revolution” in education reform today. A noble topic, but not the fire and brimstone we’ve become accustomed to lately. If we don’t get out of the dog days of politics soon we’ll all be putting our pens down.
The recession will end when it ends. No talking by the media gabinators or artful Op-Ed columns will hasten the recovery. The Dow continues to inch upward and unemployment appears to be inching downward. You can’t drive over any bridge or road in America that isn’t under repair with stimulus funds. It is what it is. There’s no changing it now.
Health reform is in the ninth inning. If you’re against it, you’re losing 10 to zip. If you want universal single payer, you were ejected from the game in the first inning. If you want the public option, you’re still behind by one run, and you have one more at-bat with 2 outs, and nobody on base. It’ll take a home run just to push the game into extra innings.
The President is showing signs of indecision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. The conservative gabinators smell blood. The war is in a holding pattern while he decides how to fight his war without appearing to look like the warmonger he ran against to get elected.
The 2010 election campaigns are starting to fill their war chests, but it’s still way too early to think about who will be Mr. October, better yet what the October surprise will be. The only thing that’s certain; Republicans will gain some seats. The party on the outside always picks up seats mid-term, and it won’t be any different this time.
So the brilliant David Brooks wrote about “The Quiet Revolution” in education reform today. A noble topic, but not the fire and brimstone we’ve become accustomed to lately. If we don’t get out of the dog days of politics soon we’ll all be putting our pens down.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Old Dogs and New Tricks
We see what we know. Our brain has taught us to recognize what we see, but what if we see something new- something completely new? Are we the 2-month-old newborn all over again- staring in wonder? Or do we instantly correlate our vision with our life’s library stored in our little gray cells and surmise to know what it is? I don't think so. I think we are always newborns. As we live, seeing something new and learning about it occurs less often, but our brain still works like a newborn when it happens. I think we come the closest to newborn blankness when we view an abstract painting.
Who hasn’t stared at a Jackson Pollock abstract like this for the first time and thought- what is it? Or, anybody can paint like that- it doesn’t look like anything. When our brain scans our memory banks and tries to correlate everything we expect it to be against what we view, it comes up empty- no correlation. Therefore, it doesn’t look like anything. That’s the beauty of the art. It’s so completely original that it has no frame of reference. We are learning something new. The really cool thing is the next time you view a Jackson Pollock; you may recognize it before you look to see who the artist is. Our brain is uncanny that way. Our brain notices style and nuances to recognize something we haven’t even seen before- like unique handwriting. That’s how we learn to recognize what we see. Picasso and Matisse are other great examples of unique painters, yet they both have a style that we learn to see and recognize. From a distance we can safely say- "oh, that’s a Picasso", and upon closer inspection we confirm it.
We also learn new thoughts throughout our life, probably even more than we see. That’s why great stories stir our mind and stimulate us so much. It’s fun to read something new, yet familiar, and have the internal correlation of our knowledge and experiences embellish the words we read, and pull us through the story. When food or odors are described, we taste and smell them in our minds. They're familiar to us and we relate to them deeply. Sequels to novels are like that too. We’re familiar enough with the setting to breeze through the story comfortably, without questions or uneasiness that comes from reading an entirely new author for the first time-like JK Rowling. The unfamiliar names, places and behaviors can be unsettling, because we don’t have the apriori knowledge. But as we learn the lingo and all the syntax of the two worlds portrayed in Harry Potter books, we’re learning just as a child learns. We take in the unfamiliar words and build a new internal library of thoughts, and then the setting and the story becomes easy to read and understand. It all happens without trying. Don’t you just marvel at what our brain can do? Computers, as fast and as good as they are, haven’t come close to replicating how we think and learn.
We also learn new thoughts throughout our life, probably even more than we see. That’s why great stories stir our mind and stimulate us so much. It’s fun to read something new, yet familiar, and have the internal correlation of our knowledge and experiences embellish the words we read, and pull us through the story. When food or odors are described, we taste and smell them in our minds. They're familiar to us and we relate to them deeply. Sequels to novels are like that too. We’re familiar enough with the setting to breeze through the story comfortably, without questions or uneasiness that comes from reading an entirely new author for the first time-like JK Rowling. The unfamiliar names, places and behaviors can be unsettling, because we don’t have the apriori knowledge. But as we learn the lingo and all the syntax of the two worlds portrayed in Harry Potter books, we’re learning just as a child learns. We take in the unfamiliar words and build a new internal library of thoughts, and then the setting and the story becomes easy to read and understand. It all happens without trying. Don’t you just marvel at what our brain can do? Computers, as fast and as good as they are, haven’t come close to replicating how we think and learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
