Sounds Good, But How About Really Helping?

The October 16, 2006 issue of US News and World Report had an interesting article titled "Mix, Match, and Switch". It is about "kidney exchanges" -- a system where someone who needs a kidney and has a friend or relative willing to donate -- but who is not a blood/tissue match -- are paired up with another two people in the same situation, such that the two donors will match for the two people in need.

Because this can increase the number of kidney's available by getting more people to be live donors, it seems like a really good idea. The article notes that kidneys from live donors are nearly twice as good as those from cadavers (based on acceptance after five years). And there are so many people in need... some 67,962 on just the United Network for Organ Sharing list.

But so far this approach has been quite limited, with only 109 such swaps occuring since the first one in 2000. Why one might ask? Because to do this efficiently and on a grand scale you would need a national database of people in need of donations -- with their blood and tissue types -- and the paired individual they have located and their blood/tissue type, so that a search could be done to match the foursome together. But because an exchange of kidneys like this is considered an exchange of something valuable (duh! a working kidney)... you guessed it... it is against the law. Or at least it is very questionable, according to the ridiculous 1984 National Organ Transplant Act. This ban says that exchanging organs for "valuable consideration" is a criminal act.

As the article notes, earlier this year Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan introduced a bill to eliminate the legal murkiness, by simply adding a line to it that makes explicit that it doesn't ban paired donations.

So adding that to the 1984 ban sounds good to me... at least at first. If it means a national database could be created to match pair-exchange foursomes, that would ease a lot of suffering and save lives. But I just hope that doing so wouldn't prolong any further the current kidney donation regime that bans "valuable consideration" (i.e., payment) being given to live donors. Because even if we magically had tomorrow a robust national database with data for pair-exchanges, you still need to find willing donors. Giving people financial incentive to donate a kidney -- either while alive, or at death (their families get the payment) -- is what would really open the floodgates and do the most good. Think of how much suffering could be stopped and how many lives could be saved if this ban were repealed!! And don't just think about when you are the one needing the kidney... think about it now!

If done correctly, rights could be well protected (such as the rights of the poor or anyone else that might be 'taken advantage of'), as opposed to the current ban which denies rights to everyone involved -- potential donors and those in need of the organs -- to make voluntary, freely-negotiated value-exchanges.

See also my blog posts earlier this year on the need for a market for organs here, then here, then here, then here.

Handful of Iraq Suggestions

The always-a-good-read Daniel Pipes provides several interesting proposals in his recent posting In Iraq, Stay the Course - But Change It.

TSA Little Dictators

Greg Perkins at NoodleFood provides an amazing and funny tale of his recent attempt to get through airport security.

Darth Vader as Grocery Store Manager

If you are like me, and I know I am...

... then you too are behind on viewing funny Darth Vader clips at YouTube. Here is a four-parter that shows what Darth Vader would be like as a Grocery Store manager. Watch them in order, as there are a few plot lines involved. (These are about 5 minutes each.)

• Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager, Part 1
• Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager, Part 2
• Chad Vader: Night Shift Manager, Part 3
• Chad Vader: Night Shift Manager, Part 4

In my view, the best moments are the direct quotes from Vader from the movies that they managed to include. Good stuff...

10 Innovations that led to 300 Million

In September BusinessWeek had a series of online items in anticipation of the US population hitting the 300 Million mark. One of them was an interesting list of 10 key innovations that helped get us there. They have a fine list I think, though one could easily come up with another list of 10 (or even 50) that could rival the ones they chose. And that great volume of important innovations in the past 200 years is what is really striking.

Update on New Features at EpistemeLinks

I thought I would update readers on enhancements I've made at EpistemeLinks over the past 2 months. Here are the highlights:

• Audio and Video - I have combined and expanded the former Audio and Video sections into one Audio and Video section. This section provides a database of nearly 1,000 links to philosophy-related audio and video content, including audiobooks, lectures, radio interviews and discussions, and more, all available on audiotape, CD, VHS, DVD, or various online formats (Windows, QuickTime, RealTime, MP3, MPEG, and so on). These links are searchable by philosopher, topic, title keyword, and more.

• Course Materials - I've expanded the Course Materials section. This section now provides links to course websites as long as they at least provide a syllabus. (In the past, more robust materials such as lecture notes or handouts were needed to be included.) At the same time, I have added about 100 new links in this section in recent weeks.

• Fun and Humor - I've added functionality and categorization to the Fun and Humor section, which contains links to philosophy-related jokes, satire, cartoons, games, and other fun stuff. You can now see the entire list of links (nearly 100), or you can filter the links to see only those categorized by a particular philosopher or topic.

• Selected Books - I've added a new page that provides a list of Selected Books, with links to Amazon.com and Half.com. So far, the books included are several hundred from popular book series as well as a few dozen general reference titles in philosophy. More will be added in the future.

• Philosophers Timeline - I've added a new page that provides a Philosophers Timeline based on the birth dates of the philosophers included at EpistemeLinks.

• Over 500 new or updated links at the site... bringing the total links in the database to around 20,000.

Fun JavaScript Clock and an Eye Effects

From Don Parrish fine website, I thought I'd pass along to readers these two fun items:

• JavaScript Clock - just move your mouse around the page, and a wild clock will appear! (not written by Don himself, and apparently it won't work in Firefox or Safari -- just IE)
• Cool Optical Illusion - Read the description of the effect you are seeing here... provided by our friend Merlin Jetton. Pretty interesting.

The Next Time You Hear the Name "Big Oil"

In recent years, and especially this year, the name "Big Oil" has been used ad nauseam, and often in a derogatory way by folks on the political left. The most common refrain has no doubt been decrying the "big profits of Big Oil". The referents of "Big Oil" almost always seem to be the big corporations, such as Exxon Mobil, that are well known in America and the rest of the West. Debate is sometimes had over just how big the profits have been in the past year or two -- with one side focusing on how much total profit was earned, while the other side notes that the profit margins that are being earned aren't really that high compared to many other industries.

But what I almost never hear or read is anyone use the name "Big Oil" to describe the truly big oil corporations of the world. Yes, Exxon Mobil is the world's most valuable listed company, with a market capitalisation of $412 billion. What doesn't get mentioned often though is that Exxon is only 14th amongst big oil companies in terms of how much oil it has left in the ground. And the 13 higher-ranked companies are not other large Western oil corporations like BP for example. So who are they? They are National Oil Companies (NOCs): partially or wholly state-owned firms through which governments retain the profits from oil production.

I've always known, in a vague sense, that this was the reality. But an August 12th article in the Economist, "Oil's Dark Secret" (sorry, subscription required), really made clear just what that reality is. The sub-head for the article summarizes it nicely: "Most of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of state-run companies, many of which are run badly." Or how about this as a summary, from the first paragraph: "Because these national champions control as much as 90% of the world's oil and gas, they can do far more than the likes of Exxon to assuage the current worries about supply and to influence the accompanying record prices. But like most state-owned firms, they are prone to over-staffing, underinvestment, political interference and corruption."

Which countries are the ones that have these truly massive "Big Oil" so-called companies? I'm sure you could guess: Saudi Arabai, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and others.

The article begins with some description of the problems of Venezuela's PDVSA entity. It also highlights problems in other NOCs. One example is Iran, "which has more oil and gas than all other countries save Saudi Arabia and Russia, [but] pumps less today than it did in 1979, when the new Islamic government threw foreigners out." Several similar examples are given; consider this amazing case: "Underinvestment is the most widespread problem of all. Indonesia has become a net importer of oil, despite big reserves, thanks to the failure of state-run Pertamina to develop new fields. The fact that NOCs are sitting on the vast majority of the world's oil but pumping only about half of global output suggests a systematic failure to invest."

And what are the prospects for improvement? Short of something radical happening, "The NOCs will gradually become even more dominant as oil production dwindles in areas which are open to all comers, such as the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. New oil is most likely to be found in the NOCs' territory, precisely because it is largely out of bounds to multinationals such as Exxon or BP, and so has not yet been thoroughly raked over. In the future, therefore, oil production will be even more concentrated in the hands of the national firms of Russia and the Persian Gulf."

So the next time you hear the name "Big Oil" tossed around, just remember that Exxon Mobil and its brethren -- as large as they are -- are blips on the map compared with the truly "Big Oil" companies that are run by statist governments, and generally quite badly run at that. And ask yourself: why do the businesses from the relatively capitalist nations get accused of profiteering and controlling gas prices, but there is no mention of the truly big oil companies that are run by such governments?

Will I be OK?

I received a pamphlet in the mail today... advertising a four-part educational workshop about retirement options and planning, to be held at the local high school. On the first page, it asks "Do you need answers to these retirement questions?" Several of the questions ask about annuities, 401K, and various things like that. The second one is a general question, but a good one: Will I have enough retirement income to meet my needs? But the first question in the list I just found laughably vague: "Will I be O.K.?"

Baseball: Signs of the Time

A friend of mine from work (Tim Fressie) is involved in the production of an interesting baseball documentary video called Signs of the Time. It is about the history of baseball signs, and the two prominent people who from the distant past (one player, one umpire) who have argued that they deserve credit for inventing the system of signs. The trailer is very well done... check it out!

The Middle East: 5,000 Years in just 90 Seconds

And another thanks to Diana for linking to this awesome animation showing the various empires and such that have ruled the Middle East over the past 5,000 years.

Mosquito: A Parody of Firefly

Thanks to Diana for passing along this gem from YouTube: Mosquito, a parody of the great FireFly series. If you saw all the ill-fated Firefly episodes, I think you'll find this pretty funny.

What Is and What Should Never Be

I have recently written (here and here) about the United Nations and why I think it is not just problematic at present, but flawed at its core, and that the US should immediately announce our intention to leave the world body by a set date (say, six months from now). But of course, my primary criticism of the UN -- that it sanctions countries 'led' by criminals (dictators and other statists who deny, on principle and by their very existence, individual rights on a massive scale) -- also applies to some actions and policies of the US (and other countries) in our direct dealings with such criminal leaders.

The latest example I've seen is reported in the Sept. 25 issue of US News and World Report, in the article "Dictator and Diplomat". It shows a grotesque picture of Sec. of State Rice shaking hands with Equatorial Guinea (see Wikipedia entry on EG) "President" Teodoro Obiang Nguema. The sub-headline reads: "Why is this man smiling? Here's a hint: It has something to do with oil."

So of course this is just another example of the US playing friendly with oppressive regimes because of our interest in the oil they have. Such supposed "pragmatism" is standard practice for the US, for many, many decades, especially it seems in dealings with third-world countries.

I won't make the same arguments here that have been made many times before... that the US shouldn't deal with such regimes, even given their value as oil providers (including the more difficult cases -- due to the size of the oil reserves in question -- such as Saudi Arabia). I only mention this case because again, if the US were to make a radical break from its past policies, and announce a completely new set of policies -- and hence its plans to leave the flawed United Nations -- I can't help but wonder what kind of changes such an earthquake would cause in the various dictatorships of the world. It would vary from country to country, but I wonder if the US did this, and if a few other major countries came along with us in doing so (say Britain, Australia, et al.) -- would some of the smaller thug states not look at the new reality and decide to radically reform? It is not at all easy to predict, and I'm sure most people would think I'm being naive and entirely too optimistic, but I wonder about this. I doubt Saudi Arabia or various other large countries would change their ways very quickly, but a puny country like Equatorial Guinea?

Afterall, the US is currently the only military and economic super-power in the world. Couldn't we use that position to change the world for the better by setting a new path, much as our founders did when they created the country? This would be for both our own benefit and for the benefit of all those whose individual rights are being violated on such a massive scale.

Cochlear Implants = Genocide ?

I blogged a month ago about parents deliberately choosing to have deaf children.

Now I'm reading Marc Fisher's column in the Washington Post, about the student protests at Gallaudet University over incoming president Jane Fernandes, who it seems they don't think is "deaf enough" to be president of their university -- at least, in terms of how and to what degree she supports radical deaf culture. I say radical, because of this bizarre paragraph:

Fernandes tells of a friend on the faculty who has now broken with her -- "a former friend, maybe" -- who refers to the advent of cochlear implants, electronic devices that give the deaf a sense of sound, as a "genocide."

This is ridiculous, on many levels. Genocide is a very serious matter. To claim that cochlear implants represent "genocide" against deaf people is to invert a virtuous desire and action -- the desire to have the sense of hearing, with a vicious one -- generally considered to be the killing of people within a group because they are members of that group (ethnic, racial, religious, etc.).

To those who make such wild claims, I'd love to ask the following the thought experiment. What if all deaf people could be given cochlear implants -- or even better technological or medical surgeries -- that would give them full hearing. And what if medical science could determine how to fix deafness in the womb or genetically, so that no child ever need be born deaf again. And even all cases of accidental hearing loss (e.g., from loud music, old age, etc.) could somehow be corrected as well, such that any future deafness would only be temporary. That is, imagine a world where we could essentially banish deafness forever. I ask the defenders of deaf culture (as apparently an intrinsic good that must be defended at all costs) -- those who claim that cochlear implants amount to 'genocide' -- what would they say to such a seemingly wonderful turn of events? Would they fight it to retain "deafness" in the world? And if so, why?

History of Computers via Old TV Ads

This online item from PC World magazine provides a nice history of desktop computers, via old ads available at YouTub. Some of those old ones (like the Shatner one) are quite hilarious. (Thanks to GeekPress for the link.)

Walter Williams on Foreign Trade

Walter Williams makes many good points about foreign trade and the US trade deficit, and along the way rightly criticizes protectionists like Pat Buchanan. And I really liked the end of this column:

Buchanan, like so many others, points to the government subsidies and tariff protections given to businesses in other countries, a practice from which we can’t plead complete innocence. Protectionists call for “free trade but fair trade.” They call for a “level playing field.”

In effect, they’re saying that if other governments rip off their citizens with business subsidies and import duties, forcing them to pay higher prices, our government should retaliate by using the same tools to rip off its citizens.

The next time I see Pat, I might ask him what he would do if we both were at sea in a rowboat and I shot a hole in my end of the boat. Would he retaliate by shooting a hole in his end?

The Iraq War Certainly Is Something

This editorial by Frank J. is hilarious. I was laughing throughout, but then lost it when I got to the line near the end "The Iraq war certainly is something." While reading this I had visions of the countless news reports and pundit roundtables I've seen in the past several years from FoxNews, CNN, PBS, and more. Well done...

Capitalist Defender? Not So Much

I am in agreement with Paul Hsieh's rejection of the claims that recent economics Nobel-winner Edmund Phelps is a real defender of free-market capitalism. Weak defenses of capitalism such as those from Phelps are all too common, and are one reason I don't consider myself either a conservative or a libertarian. Hsieh notes:

So Phelps' moral defense of capitalism rests on two pillars -- the fact that it is the best system for helping the poorest amongst us, and that it helps maximize "self-expression" of creative people. Although these are incidentally true, they are so far removed from what Objectivists would regard as the fundamental moral defense of capitalism, namely man's need to think in order to live, and the corresponding need for freedom from inititation of force in order to use his mind. So if this is a "strong defense of capitalism", I'd hate to see a weak one!

Cool Elevator Floor Illusion

Check this out: Elevator Floor Illusion. I am freaked out just looking at the photos, I'd hate to see how I'd react if I wasn't paying attention and walked into that elevator. (thanks to NoodleFood for the link)

The Nietzsche Family Circus

This is a funny cultural combination: The Nietzsche Family Circus. It provides quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche as the captions to random Family Circus cartoons. Some combinations are naturally funnier than others, but I got several laughs here (thanks to Paul at NoodleFood for the link).

Tibor on Common Good, Government, and Respect

Philosopher Tibor Machan has recently posted several brief items worth reading:

• Society isn't Government - critical of conservatives (e.g., David Brooks of the NYT, who regularly conflate society and government.
• Respect our Enemies - Why? - critical of comments from physicist Freeman Dyson who defended the somewhat cliche notion that we can't understand our enemies unless we "respect" them as human beings.
• The Common Good - critical of many who continue to misunderstand and misuse the usually vague, and almost never correctly defined, notion of "the Common Good".

From this third one I'll quote for you the following two paragraphs:

In most countries throughout human history the idea was promoted that there is a rich common good, a whole slew of objectives that we all must pursue. In other words, the common good was really the collective goods of all the people, as if they really did share goods galore that they needed to promote. The one size fits all mentality was encouraged by rulers, monarchs, tsars, and the rest who needed to hoodwink us into thinking that their goals are really our goals and we cannot really, individually, have goals of our own. That was the common good—the leaders’ good peddled for the rest as their good, too.

The American Founders, guided by the classical liberal social-political philosophies of John Locke and Co., saw through this. They realized that in a big country, the millions of inhabitants, citizens, share but very few goods. (Of course, small associations—churches, clubs, corporations, professional groups and so forth—can have some common objectives all right. It is only that no such common good or objective exists for the millions of us!) And the most important—probably, in fact, only—common good we share is the protection of our individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It’s the one good that’s indeed good for us all, that we have in common.

Evanescence and Hinder

As regular readers know, I almost never post a blog entry like this one... but bear with me as I'm making an exception. I hope you'll get value from it.

In the past few weeks I have twice been flipping channels and came upon VH1 only to be amazed that I actually liked what was playing. I know, I know... I'm getting old. I did just turn 33 a few weeks ago, afterall...

In both cases, I then tracked down the video online, and it wasn't a couple of fluke moments. I really do like these two songs. And I like their videos. That is very rare for me -- to rate both a song and its video highly. And on top of that, I am not at all knowledgeable of contemporary hit music. I couldn't name you more than three songs released in the past year (well, excluding these two I am talking about now). I don't know any of the new groups or arists, and that is true going back 5-10 years even. My knowledge of 1990s music is hit and miss -- there are some groups I definitely liked a lot, but my main favorites are from the 1960s and 70s (Pink Floyd, Led Zep, Jethro Tull, etc.). My point being that I am not at all "hip to what the kids are listening to these days", if you get my drift. And from what I have heard, I wouldn't like much of it... but then I find a few gems...

So without any further ado, here are the two that I am so impressed by... click on the link to launch the video and full song in a separate window, courtesty of MTV (you'll see a couple of very brief ads first):

1. "Call Me When You're Sober", by Evanescence
I don't know much about this group. They are an American group, and have been around a few years... somewhat "Gothic Rock" I guess. I really like the choreography of this video (towards the end, on the steps, and then the final table scene!). And the lead singer (Amy Lee) has a great voice in this one. And they use piano, which I like to see in rock groups. See the Wikipedia entry on them for more info.

2. "Lips of an Angel", by Hinder
I like the choreography switching from the phone coversation to the band playing. And the lead singer, Austin Winkler, seems like a combination of Joe Cocker (for arm movements when singing -- he is very passionate) and Steven Tyler of Aerosmith. This songs also seems like a nice return to solid rock from yesteryear. See the Wikipedia entry on them for more info.

And in both of these songs the lyrics are about relationship problems -- something I long grew tired of as rock song themes! And yet I really like these two songs. The rare exceptions to my general rule I guess...

Your mileage will no doubt vary here, but if you watch these videos and like them, I'd be interesting in hearing about it.

Philadelphia/KC/Oakland Athletics All-Time Team

Today I posted my draft chapter on the Philadelphia/KC/Oakland Athletics. For the book introduction and several other team chapters posted so far, see the book project index page.

Farmers Doing the Double-Dip Dance

See this Washington Post article about how farmers often make out pretty well from a combination of government-subsidized disaster insurance and direct aid from the government -- and sometimes a double-dip (getting paid twice) for the same disaster! Past attempts to move to a system of insurance only and scrapping the direct-aid aspect of this have failed because politicians lost their fiscal will. I found this to be particularly disturbing:

A major share of the money goes to parched and flood-prone areas where farming is tenuous at best and "disasters" seem to happen every year, a review of thousands of records and interviews with dozens of farmers, economists, insurers and government regulators have found.

Then there are these bits too:

In the past 25 years, Congress has passed three major "reforms" of the federal crop insurance program in an effort to sign up more farmers and reduce their dependence on disaster aid. Instead, the result has been a continuous cycle in which Congress expands crop insurance only to turn around and hand out more disaster payments.

...

Disaster payments to farmers are a public record but, by law, the USDA keeps the names of recipients of crop insurance confidential. Thus there is no way to count how many farmers have collected both and in what amount. However, interviews with farmers and government officials indicate that farmers who get insurance payments also get most of the disaster money.

...

Many of the recent disaster packages have been shoehorned into large appropriations bills, including a military construction bill in 2004. That means legislators do not even get an opportunity to vote directly on the subsidies.

There are many good examples and data points in this multi-page article. And what rationale is given in defense of retaining direct aid handouts on top of subsidized insurance programs?

Congressional sponsors of disaster legislation offer a variety of reasons for their bills. They say federally subsidized insurance doesn't cover all of a farmer's losses, and disaster aid fills the gaps. It helps to stabilize rural economies, which don't have many other options. And it offsets rising fuel and production costs while securing cheap food for Americans.

Ugh! None of these three reasons are even the responsibility of government, not to mention the federal government! The fact that a person or company doesn't buy enough insurance is not something the government should come in and bail them out of. The fact that a particular rural economy is "unstable" is not something that government should somehow "fix". And the fact that fuel prices vary over time, and can sometimes dig into profits for farmers (and most other businesses!) is not something that the government should be involved in "fixing" (except to the extent that the "problem" - the high or unnecessarily unstable gas prices - is itself caused by the government). I would argue these points philosophically, but also want to ask: Where in the constitution, or in other basic documents that define the role of government in this country, does it say the government -- specifically the federal government -- should have such a paternalistic role, to help some individuals and corporations at a great cost to everyone else (that is, through taxation)?

Rationales like those given above often sound warm and fuzzy to the average person who doesn't think it through, but they are examples of insane paternalism. Couldn't the same rationales be given for subsidized insurance and regular bailouts of any other corporation or individual who wants money? Why are farmers so special? (rhetorical question... I realize they have a huge lobby, are a huge voting bloc, etc.) Farming involves risk -- including risks of good and bad seasons based on mother nature. So do other businesses and actions that invididuals take -- we all face risks of various kinds on a regular basis. There are things you can to mitigate risk, and in the case of farming that involves, amongst other things, purchasing insurance against natural disasters. But imagine someone saying: "My company made some bad decisions: we took a risk by creating 1,000 widgets without having buyers lined up ahead of time. Now no one wants are widgets, so the government should bail us out." Or how about an individual: "I took some risks by putting all of my money in two stocks instead of being diversified in mutual funds, bonds, and money markets. They both tanked bigtime, so the government should bail me out and give me my money back." Hopefully people don't feel warm and fuzzy at those requests!

But it gets even better:

Among the ideas being considered by Buis [president of the National Farmers Union] and others is guaranteeing a portion of a farmer's income.

Ummm... wow. Doesn't the current setup nearly do that already? Government funds are given, in various ways, to protect farmers from risk and nearly guarantee their income (especially if you add in the subsidies some farmers get in the form of price controls, or those in the form of money literally for nothing -- for not growing on a particular piece of land). This suggestion just makes things complete and explicit I guess. So... can other businesses get this deal too? And what about all individuals?

So what to do? I'm all in favor of private insurance for farmers. Even subsidized insurance would be better than direct aid handouts. So if in the short term subsidized insurance is needed as a brief transition to fully private insurance for farmers, then so be it. But a principled federal government would announce ahead of time the period that subsidies would last (just a few years), and that after that point all farmers would be on their own -- like all the rest of us are! -- to buy insurance, and take other measures, to guard against the risks they take in their business.

Add Shopaholic to List of Disorders and Diseases

See the report from Shankar Vedantam in the Washington Post. A recent study in the American Journal of Psychiatry estimates that there might be 10 million people who "shop compulsively, buy things they do not need and often cannot afford, and jeopardize their work, their families, and their mental health." I don't know about the number given here, but obviously there are many people who fit this description.

But what is disturbing is that the American Psychiatric Association is "weighing whether to list compulsive buying as a disorder." As Shankar notes "That proposal is sure to stir a long-running debate about whether psychiatry is turning every troubling aspect of human behavior into a disease."

I surely hope this "stirs debate", as opposed to being approved without much debate that is! The notion that this is a "disorder" or a "disease" reduces the role that free choice plays, and hence lessens the claims of personal responsibility for one's choices and actions. It could even lead to drug companies targetting it as something treatable by popping a pill. Or imagine how it might come up in court cases: "I can't be found guilty... I have an actual disorder! The APA says so!" Or think about how such a decision, down the road, could effect government policies: It is a disorder or disease, and drug companies create treatment for it, so insurance must cover that, so taxpayers must pay for it through medicaid/medicare (or even worse, for everyone if we end up with socialized medicine in this country).

Alas, Vedantam also writes: "Some researchers argue that categorizing binge buying as a medical problem takes the focus away from social factors such as the impact of advertising, easy credit, and commercialization." That sounds good at first, but then notice that these also seem to imply a loss of freedom of choice - as though people are controlled by advertising (to a large extent), that when offered credit they won't be able to resist it, and so on. But in reality this just isn't the case. Don't quote me statistics on this matter, because this is an issue that is deeper than what some particular people are in fact doing. While advertising makes it easy for people to learn about products and can create reasons to buy a product that they wouldn't otherwise, and while easy credit can actually make possible purchases that they couldn't have made otherwise, none of this actually negates freedom of choice. And hence none of it negates the personal responsibility of the individual that arises from that freedom of choice. So what if there is more advertising today? So what if people get given multiple credit card offers in the mail every day? People still have free choice and people should still be responsible for their choices. That is the major issue here.

(I'll note that IF it could be proved that someone truly had a loss of free will and couldn't control their actions upon watching HSN or upon entering a shopping mall, then that person no longer has freedom of choice, and clearly has a severe problem: a form of insanity that could perhaps be helped with drugs or other intense therapy. But I get the sense that what is being talked about here is, in most cases, not nearly this extreme -- because surely there are not 10 million people who literally have NO control over their actions when strolling through the aisles of Macy's.)

Anecdotes on (mostly) Eastern Europeans

Stephen Browne, who lived and travelled for many years in various Eastern European countries, offers many interesting anecdotes about the people there, and especially how they differ from Americans, what their views of America are, and related issues. This is a really interesting post, full of fascinating anecdotes. If I had to pick one favorite, it would be this one though:

Perhaps it’s not so odd that our real friends in Europe are in the East. For one thing, they know about dictators here and cry no tears at the fall of onemore murderous s.o.b. And for another, they are not shocked at the prospect of American forces crossing another country's borders to get that dictatorwhen for two generations they would have been overjoyed to see those forces pouring across their borders.

I once stated that point in a conversation with an Englishwoman who still admired the Soviet Union and said the crimes of the USSR were "just Stalin". She poo-poohed the idea, "You're just looking at the world through your American goggles." I nodded towards the two Poles at the table and said, “Ask them.” She turned to them and said, “Is this true?” They both nodded, “Oh yes, of course.” She looked uncomfortable and changed the subject.

Dishonest Social Security Ads Again

A few weeks ago I meant to blog on a nice brief item from Michael Tanner on some recent Social Security ads. After discussing some of the ads' falsehoods, Tanner writes:

Perhaps even more disturbing than the actual falsehoods is how the ads ignore Social Security's looming financial crisis. Social Security will begin running a deficit in just 11 years. Of course, in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay benefits until 2040. That's not much comfort to today's 33-year olds, who will face an automatic 26 percent cut in benefits unless the program is reformed before they retire. But even that figure is misleading, because the Trust Fund contains no actual assets. The government bonds it holds are simply a form of IOU, a measure of how much money the government owes the system. It says nothing about where the government will get the money to pay back those IOUs.

Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the Trust Fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2040. Then, Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax -- and that revenue will not be sufficient to pay all promised benefits. Overall, the system's unfunded liabilities -- the amount it has promised beyond what it can actually pay -- now total $15.3 trillion. Yes, that's trillion with a "T." Setting aside some technical changes in how future obligations are calculated, that's $550 billion worse than last year. By failing to act last year, Congress handed our children and grandchildren a bill for another $550 billion.

Moreover, Social Security taxes are already so high, relative to benefits, that Social Security has simply become a bad deal for younger workers, providing a low, below-market rate-of-return. In fact, many young workers will end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. They will actually lose money.

But the most important problem with the current Social Security system is that workers don't own their benefits: Workers totally depend on the good will of 535 politicians to determine what they receive in retirement. Any politician, regardless of party, with the courage to address these issues should be celebrated, not vilified.

It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with various Social Security reform proposals, including personal accounts. But Social Security is too important to be left to demagoguery. At a minimum, we should expect the truth about the choices we face.

Protecting the Good Name of Genghis Khan

Robert Bidinotto reports on the odd bit of news that Mongolia's parliament is trying to ban the use of "Genghis Khan's name or portrait in a degrading or insulting manner, or to serve the interests of political parties or non-governmental bodies". He is seen very differently in Mongolia than just about anywhere else in the world (see Wikipedia entry).

Disaster Was Bound to Happen

The Sept. 4 issue of US News and World Report has a good little article titled "A Disaster Long in the Making". It is actually not an article, but rather an excerpt from the book Path of Destruction: The Devastation of New Orleans and the Coming Age fo Superstorms, by John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein.

It first briefly describes the New Orleans area relative to the sea, much of which I already knew. But what I found most interesting were the horrific details of the negligence of government officials in properly planning for "the big one" and the evasion of the facts of reality concerning the risks of that region. Here is the part I am talking about:

When computer modeling of storm surges improved in the 1980s and 1990s, however, it became clear that even a weak hurricane could put virtually any point under water. Thousands, maybe tens of thousands could end up dead. Hundreds of thousands could be trapped on rooftops. New Orleans itself could be destroyed.

The models made explicit one of the strangest trade-offs in American history. Faced with the risk of New Orleans being destroyed, the policy of the U.S. government was to throw up its hands. Local governments could try to save as many lives as possible, but the city itself would be sacrificed. Higher, stronger levees could eliminate the risk, or at least reduce it, but that option would never be a priority with the corps or Congress. The corps was building its system as originally designed. It hadn't failed yet, and that was good enough.

As emergency professionals gathered regularly for hurricane planning, New Orleans officials seemed curiously uninterested in the most urgent issue they faced. In 2004, a federally funded exercise called Hurricane Pam had tested the government response to a catastrophic flood of New Orleans. But while the city sent a representative or two to Hurricane Pam exercises, it played no real leadership role and did little to act on the recommendations. During the National Hurricane Conference in early 2005, various participants discussed and debated how to get the people out of New Orleans, but no city officials bothered to attend.

Wow... assuming that is true... Wow! I understand that disaster preparedness is a risk calculation, and that resources (people, time, etc.) are always limited. But given the evidence, the studies, the articles, the advice -- over many decades (including a National Geographic article I believe the year before Katrina), it is just amazing how government leaders and others acted as they did, and set up New Orleans for Katrina.

It makes me wonder what thinking is going into the rebuilding efforts, both of the levees, but also of the city itself. Of course, I generally wonder why people rebuild houses over and over in hurricane areas and flood zones. It always the first thing they say when interviewed on TV after the disaster, things like "Horrible, just horrible. But... we'll... rebuild. We've got to." Umm... no you don't... at least not in those exact locations!

Most Money Ever for a Yet to be Profitable Business?

The recent announcement that Google was buying YouTube was not a big surprise to me. While the founders of YouTube were not letting much out about who was courting them, it seemed obvious to me that they had many suitors and that it was only a matter of time before one of the big players made an offer they couldn't refuse.

So Google is spending $1.65 billion in stock to purchase the young phenomenon that is YouTube, even though YT has not yet turned a profit as a business. This makes complete sense to me though: the guys at YouTube have focused on building up -- extremely rapidly -- a huge user base, and Google is the king of online advertising with their AdWords and related programs (in addition to being the king of online search for even longer). Their own Video solution was big, but not nearly what YT has become. So this just makes sense to me.

But it makes me wonder... is it the most money ever spent for a business that has not yet turned a profit? I have no idea -- are there obvious examples that are larger that just aren't coming to mind?

George Bush: End the Genocide Now

I have recently seen several commercials demanding that George Bush (and by extension, the US) "End the Genocide... NOW", referring of course to the horrific situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

I'll first note that the ads imply that the genocide in Sudan is somehow George Bush's fault -- as though he is responsible, instead of or at least in addition to, the actual murderers in that country. This faulty reasoning relies on flawed premises -- that are quite common -- in which lack of action is somehow presented as a form of causation. Sometimes this is explicit (as it is in some philosophical literature), but other times it is more nuanced, where the argument is couched in causation terms, but really what is being argued is that the lack of an action equates to moral responsibility for the events that occur. No doubt, there are some very limited circumstances where this can occur, e.g., a lifeguard at a pool who does nothing as a child drowns in front of them. But such cases are quite limited and there is always a strict context where the expectation and responsibility to take a positive action is what allows moral blame to be given when the person does not. But I don't see such a context in this case with Sudan: It can't be expected that the US will somehow prevent all murderous regimes from killing hundreds of thousands of their own people. Not when leftists around the world whine over US "imperialism" and complain whenever the US tries to impose itself, even in the slightest way, in the affairs of other, so-called "sovereign" nations (so-called because countries ruled by dictators and other thugs are not actually deserving of such a respectful designation).

But even more interesting to me about these ads is the explicit argument (request... demand!) they give. They don't demand that George Bush (the US) directly do something to solve the Sudan problem and stop the killing and raping. For example, it doesn't suggest that the US should invade the Sudan, temporarily take over that country, and directly fix the situation. That would work, though it would cost some US lives and would have other problems -- and I'm not here advocating for that.

Rather, I note that these commercials are actually demanding that George Bush step up and go to the United Nations, and get that organization to do something to fix the situation. So what is curious about this? Well, why get upset with Bush on this score? Why not instead expect the United Nations to do this on its own? Why does the UN only seem to do things of this kind when the US presses them to take actions? That is the assumption of these commercials! How weak and inefficacious can this world body be? It baffles the mind. All the more reason to think that the US should abandon the UN (as I argued here, and again a bit here).

That's Why They Play the Games

To borrow a line from Chris Berman (usually in a football context), "That why they play the games!". The Yankees lost a third game in a row today, and therefore are out of the playoffs. This only a short time after I -- and many others -- touted them as having possibly the best batting lineup 1-9 ever. There starting pitching was a known weakness, but their bats just didn't do much during the past three games. After getting 14 hits and scoring 8 runs in game one, they totalled just 19 hits and 6 runs in the next three. Ouch.

Omar, Ozzie, and Others

On August 1st I posted my thoughts on a recent column from local sportswriter Bob Matthews where he described some current players as "locks" for the Baseball Hall of Fame and also gave his odds for other current stars' chances of making it. He gave Omar Vizquel only 10-90 odds of making it, and in my post I wrote:

"I wouldn't even go that high. He has 10 gold gloves and 357 SB, and likely won't play more than one or two more seasons, if that (hitting .302 so far this year though). He has only been an all-star three times. Compare that with Bill Mazeroski who was a middle-infielder and won 8 gold gloves and was an all-star 7 times, and it took the veterans committee to vote him in. And Vizquel of course doesn't compare with Ozzie Smith, who had 580 SB, 13 gold gloves and 15 all-star appearances."

But there has been some recent debate on this question on a baseball email discussion list that I get (SABR-L). The argument in Omar's favor follows a common pattern: "Person X is in, Person Y is comparable, so Person Y should get in too." In this case, Person X is Ozzie Smith, and Person Y is Omar Vizquel. Leaving aside the debate about the reasonableness (or lack thereof) for this kind of argument approach, I thought it would be fun to go ahead and do some comparing of Omar and Ozzie, and some other similar players as well. First, here are some comparisons made already on the list:Ozzie and Omar -- both switch-hitting shortstops

• Ozzie has 13 Gold Gloves vs. Omar with 10 (+1 likely again in 2006)
• Ozzie .262 BA, Omar .276
• Ozzie .337 OBP, Omar .342
• Ozzie .328 SLG, Omar .360
• Ozzie 1257 runs, Omar 1283
• Ozzie 793 RBIs, Omar 818
• Ozzie 402 2B, 69 3B, 28 HR, Omar 398 2B, 68 3B, 73 HR
• Ozzie 580 SB, Omar 366

Those arguing in favor of Omar note that yes, he has played in a different era, with much higher offensive stats. This definitely cuts into the worth of Omar's (relatively) higher HR numbers, and to some extent his comparable RBI total. For batting av