 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.25.03
|
SOME MEN SEE THINGS THAT NEVER WERE, AND
HAVE GOOFY IDEAS: Easterblogg just totally
loves the new book by Barry Nalebuff and Ian Ayers
Why Not?, subtitled,
"How to use everyday ingenuity to solve problems
big and small." I totally love this book because
it advances the notion that you should never be
afraid to propose a goofy idea. I totally love the
book because the exponents of the goofy ideas,
Nalebuff and Ayers, both hold chairs at Yale:
Nalebuff in economics and Ayers in law. Goofy
ideas deserve a better hearing within the
establishment! But the most totally lovable thing
about Why Not? is that some of its goofy
ideas are great ideas.
Why not, Nalebuff and Ayers propose, reverse
900 numbers on which the caller pays the person
who listens? Telemarketers could be required to
use reverse 900 numbers, and call recipients would
have money deposited into their phone accounts for
listening to the pitch. Why not have Hollywood
DVDs come in a choice of director's-cut or airline
(Bowdlerized) version, so people could decide for
themselves whether they want R or PG
entertainment? Why not put an electronic chip in
footballs and resolve forever arguments about
whether the runner made it into the end zone?
Nalebuff and Ayers have created a website where anyone can propose a promising
idea. Current top-rated idea: a digital
camera with GPS receiver that would imbed detailed
map coordinates into each photograph. News
organizations, and future historians, might
benefit from knowing exactly where a picture was
taken.
Here's an Easterblogg idea to add to the "Why
Not?" project--intersection warning lights that
flash when a pedestrian is present.
Each year in the United States, more than 5,000
pedestrians are killed by being struck by cars;
even when harm is avoided, the hell-bent,
road-rage atmosphere of modern SUV highway culture
can make crossing the street a nerve-wracking
experience. But think about it from the standpoint
of the driver, especially at night: often, the
driver does not realize a pedestrian is crossing.
In big-city downtowns, there's always a mob at the
light. But in the car-dominated suburbs, usually
there isn't anyone crossing, which is why drivers
tend to roar through intersections without
checking the crosswalk.
Suppose, when a pedestrian pushed the "walk"
button at an intersection, this activated some
distinctive signal--say, a pulsing blue
flasher--on the traffic light. Then approaching
drivers would know a pedestrian was crossing; this
would be particularly helpful at night. Painted
crosswalks marked by yellow signs, the kinds found
away from major intersections, could also have a
light that would come on when a pedestrian pushed
a button. Drivers, in turn, could be told that
fines and points would double for any violation in
the area of an active pedestrian warning.
Ultimately there's no reason why cars could not
have receivers that pick up signals from nearby
intersection "walk" buttons, and project a
heads-up display image of a pedestrian directly
into the driver's field of view. For now, let's
start with flashing lights marking an active
crosswalk. This is an affordable idea that
traffic-safety departments could begin working on
immediately.
|
|
TMQ'S BIG ANNOUNCEMENT: Fans of Tuesday
Morning Quarterback may wish to know that the
column has found a new home. As of today around
noon Eastern, TMQ will
appear on NFL.com. Tuesday Morning
Quarterback will appear there every--well, if you
can't figure it out, we're not going to tell you.
My thanks again for the many expressions of good
wishes and good will I have received from TMQ
readers.
|
11.24.03
|
ERIN BROCKOVICH MUST HAVE LOBBIED ON THIS
ONE: Should Democrats keep blocking the energy
bill? That's a big question facing party
strategists. The bill does have some useful
titles, mainly provisions to encourage new
natural-gas pipelines and construction of
"inherently safe" atomic power plants; both are
needed. But most of the energy bill is a
disaster--no meaningful oil-conservation
provisions, zero action on SUV MPG waste, lots of
tax favors for bad ideas (ethanol) or for things
that would happen anyway (drilling). The minority
party ought not to be obstructionist. But the
energy bill is so bad that obstruction may be
merited.
One issue Democrats seem willing to go to the
mat over, they are wrong about, however. Party
leaders--more to the point, party donors--are
incensed that the bill grants liability waivers to
the petrochemical companies that make MTBE, a gasoline additive.
But waivers on MTBE
should be granted.
First, this substance came into existence
because Congress demanded it: The Clean Air Act
amendments of 1991 effectively mandated MTBE, which reduces
smog-forming pollutants. Petrochemical companies
started making MTBE
with the goal of reducing air pollution, so it's
hardly a sinister corporate conspiracy that needs
to be punished. Nor is it a Republican conspiracy;
after studying the objections to MTBE, Bill Clinton's EPA recommended
in 1999 that use of the substance should be scaled
back, but that it should continue.
Second, the problems caused by MTBE could not have
reasonably been foreseen. Third, it's far from
clear that MTBE causes
any harm, although maybe harm will eventually be
demonstrated. Tests show that residues of MTBE are accumulating in
groundwater, mainly in the West. Groundwater is a
major concern because it's a "pathway" to human
exposure. But does the fact that MTBE is being detected in
groundwater mean anyone is being harmed? The EPA
calls MTBE a
"possible" human carcinogen, but approximately
half of all substances subjected to initial animal
testing register as possible human carcinogens.
Chemophobics and trial lawyers are now promoting
the idea that MTBE is
an astonishing mega-calamity. But this study by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory concludes that the worst we can
be sure of is that MTBE "may progressively
accumulate until it contaminates groundwater
resources on a regional scale." Plenty of reason
to stop using the stuff, but no proof of human
harm.
Democrats are expressing outrage over the MTBE waiver because some
enviro fundraisers see this chemical as the next
one to get people really frightened over, while
the tort bar has visions of big settlements
dancing in its head. In our chemophobic age, the
question of whether or not MTBE causes actual harm may
be quickly discarded in litigation; merely the
fact the public fears harm may lead to
substantial payments that mainly benefit lawyers.
Considering that Congress itself asked the
petrochemical industry to put MTBE into gasoline, it is
fair for Congress to exempt that industry from
consequences that could not reasonably have been
foreseen.
|
|
CHRISTIAN RIGHT: GOD LOVES EVERYBODY EXCEPT
AS NOTED, PLEASE SEE DISCLAIMER: Christian
right types complaining about George W. Bush's
statement regarding Christians and Muslims--"I
believe we worship the same God"--sure don't know
their theology. In theology, it's incontrovertible
that the God of the Koran is the same as the God
of the Bible. Islam is the third "Abrahamic"
religion, the faiths that trace their lineage to
Abraham. Islamic theology views its divinity as
the same one addressed by Jesus and the ancient
Israelite prophets, while the Koran contains many
references to Jesus, Moses, and other biblical
figures. Don't be thrown off by Islamic usage of
the term Allah, which simply means Lord in Arabic.
A Muslim could readily pray to Jehovah or Yahweh,
which are just other words for the monotheist God.
English-speaking Christians don't think
Spanish-speaking Christians are addressing a
different God when they invoke the name Dios.
Invoking Allah doesn't make the Muslim deity any
different from the Christian deity.
Now, it may be that the Prophet Muhammad did
not receive a true revelation, in which case the
specifics of Islamic observance can be objected
to. Indeed, Christians must believe that
Muhammad did not receive a true revelation: If he
did, every Christian ought to convert to Islam.
But whether Muhammad received a true revelation
can be answered only by faith. Whether Christians
and Muslims pray to the same God can be answered
by theology, and the answer is: Yes, they do.
|
11.21.03
|
GLOBALIZATION TAKES SHORE LEAVE: Today
the United States' guided-missile frigate
Vandergrift, Oliver Perry-class,
FFG-48--buy the Fujimi 1/700th model of
Vandergrift here--departs from its
four-day port of call at Ho Chi Minh City harbor.
The ceremonial stopover of the Vandergrift
was finalized in early November when, to
surprisingly little attention, Vietnamese Defense
Minister Pham Van Tra visited Washington. This
really must be the twenty-first century!
|
|
LOVE AND MARRIAGE: Let's set aside the
dueling legalese about gay marriage and get to the
core issue. Marriage is, more than anything else,
the expression of love. And if two people of the
same gender love each other in the fullest sense
and wish to express that love by joining their
lives, why shouldn't society be happy about that?
"This is my commandment, that you love one
another as I have loved you," Jesus declared,
summarizing his ministry. Christ's statement was
not fuzzy generalized relationship advice: It was
a commandment. All religions grant significance to
love, but since so much of the opposition to gay
union comes from Christians--and hardly just the
faith's right--the Christian aspect of this topic
seems particularly relevant. If you could
understand one thing and only one thing about
Christianity, it should be that Jesus held love
the highest fulfillment of the spiritual ideal. In
Christian thought, the state of love is the most
important achievement available in all the cosmos:
to men, to women, to God. And in Christ's "this is
my commandment" teaching, love between
people is given significance equal to divine
love.
Huddled together in poverty and persecution,
the early Christians had almost nothing in
physical terms--just as Christ had almost nothing
in physical terms--yet the love they possessed for
each other gave them more power than all other
forces in the world combined. The monotheistic
conceptualization of love as the highest possible
fulfillment did not begin in the Gospel era; it
began centuries before, in the lives of the
prophets Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. But in Jesus,
the expression of love became everything: the
dream, the logos, the purpose of temporal
life.
So how can Christians not esteem the wish of
homosexuals to join their lives in love?
Yes, marriage has other aspects. People marry
for economic reasons (studies confirm that the
married have more buying power than two singles of
the same income); they marry to create a new
family structure to replace the one that must
inevitably fade as their parents age; they marry
for mutual support in life's travails; people wed
to receive the legal advantages of marriage and
the community respect accorded this state.
(Simultaneously the wedded accept added duties
plus restrictions on freedom, so marriage is
hardly all benefits.) But why should it cause any
umbrage in the community if two people of the same
gender see all the reasons above as ones that
they, too, should wed? As long as a gay or lesbian
bond is a true marriage--intended as a lifelong
commitment--the desire of homosexuals to enter
into such unions ought to be viewed by the married
as a great compliment to their institution.
And, yes, homosexuals cannot naturally have
children. Some heterosexual married men and women
cannot naturally have children and no one thinks
this ought to be an obstacle to their taking vows.
Some heterosexual married men and women do not
wish children--my wife and I are very glad to have
three, but the ceaseless obligations make us
keenly understand that kids aren't right for
everyone--and no one thinks this ought to be an
obstacle to their taking vows.
In the end, much of the opposition to gay union
seems to boil down to legal tradition and to
taste.
By legal tradition, marriage is a union between
"a man and a woman." At various points in legal
tradition, women could not vote, slaves were
three-fifths of a person and children could work
in mines. Legal traditions change all the time,
and what a relief that they do.
As regards taste, at heart many men and women
find it offensive that two men or two women want
to live as married partners, as if giving offense
to the majority were the motive. What gays seeking
union want is to embrace committed love. Love
bears all things, knows all things, believes all
things: and love does not insist on its own way.
The majority must not insist on its own way
regarding the homosexual minority. Once the desire
for love is recognized as the basic drive of gay
union, just as it is the basic drive of union
between men and women, all other objections to
homosexual marriage should collapse. All
objections to homosexual marriage are, in fact,
about to collapse. Those who believe in love as
the highest fulfillment--including Christians who
believe this--ought to approve.
|
11.20.03
|
MASSIVE ORDNANCE MEETS MASSIVE BUDGET:
You can't understand the defense budget unless you
read Aviation Week and Space Technology,
the McGraw-Hill publication known to insiders as
Aviation Leak and Space Terminology. The
publication can be studied, Kremlinology-like, for
clues to what top Pentagon officials are thinking,
and how much money defense contractors dare ask
for. Every issue also contains at least one news
gem and at least one point of military-policy
interest.
From the current issue of Aviation Leak and
Space Terminology, here's the point of
military-policy interest. The Biblically-named
MOAB device--referred
to in popular news reports as the Mother of All
Bombs, its acronym stands for Massive Ordnance Air
Blast--was never used in the Iraq war. Last spring
news organizations breathlessly suggested the
10-ton MOAB, world's
largest conventional bomb, could explode with the
force of a small tactical nuclear weapon, and
would be used extensively against Iraq. Actually,
even given its size, MOAB detonates with a tiny
fraction of the blast of the lowest-yield tactical
nuclear warhead; and MOAB was never dropped.
The MOAB was
designed as an "area weapon"--to be dropped in the
middle of a troop or armor formation, causing
broad destruction. Currently, Aviation Leak
reports, such bombs are being refitted and tested
for use as bunker-busters. A truly gigantic 15-ton
version may pack enough wallop to hit the top of a
reinforced bunker and generate shock waves that
collapse the structure, causing very unpleasant
death for those within. Both MOAB versions can with
present hardware only be used in conditions of
total air superiority, as they must be dropped
from a slow-moving specially-adopted cargo plane.
Pentagon planners assume the United States will
have total air superiority indefinitely.
Here's the news gem from the current issue. The
Pentagon wants a drone for use against cell
phones! Commanders trying to stabilize Iraq and
Afghanistan desire "airborne
communications-jamming to disrupt cell phones
terrorists rely on to pass orders and trigger
explosive devices," the magazine reports. Predator
B, the large drone built by the wonderfully named
defense contractor General
Atomics, may be refitted for the
cell-phone jamming role in Iraq. The way wireless
phones behave in the United States, Easterblogg
would have sworn the skies were full of
cell-jamming devices already.
Finally, Aviation Leak dryly reports
that Pentagon planners still have little idea how
to go about an admittedly difficult task--finding
terrorists in small groups. According to the
magazine, the Defense Science Board recently sent
around a memo declaring that "if you've got a good
idea" on combating terrorism, please "turn it in
as fast as possible" because in the current
budget, the supply of antiterrorism money exceeds
the supply of antiterrorism concepts.
|
|
WAS FOX MULDER ON THE GRASSY KNOLL?:
This morning a New York Times reflection on the Kennedy
assassination refers to the rifle Lee
Harvey Oswald used "to kill the president,
according to official accounts." Please. Forty
years and countless investigations later, we can
believe that Oswald was the one who did it. All
lingering doubts were erased by the 1994 book
Case Closed by Gerald Posner.
|
|
"NOT THE RIGHT FIT," A TIFFANY NETWORK
SPOKESMAN DECLARED: CBS has announced that its
special "Michael Jackson Presents 'The Reagans'
Sponsored by Victoria's Secret" will be postponed.
|
11.19.03
|
IN CANADA DRUGS ARE CHEAPER, AND YOU GET
WHAT YOU PAY FOR: Let's cut to the quick on
the Republican prescription-drug plan: What's in
it for you? ("You" in this sense means seniors.)
If you're poor, there is a great deal in it for
you. If you're chronically ill, there is a great
deal in it for you. If you're financially
comfortable and in good health, there's not much
in it for you. This sounds like--better sit
down--liberal social policy.
Here's a useful New York Times chart
summarizing the Republican proposal, which was
endorsed Monday by the American Association of
Retired Persons--greatly improving its political
odds. (Check the rather young, dashing man in AARP's endorsement graphic.)
The key provisions:
Beginning in 2006, Medicare
beneficiaries could sign up for a stand-alone
drug plan or join a private health plan that
offers drug coverage. They would be charged
premiums averaging $35 a month, or about $420 a
year. After the beneficiary pays a $275
deductible, insurance would cover 75 percent of
drug costs up to $2,200.
After $2,200 in
drug costs, the program would pay nothing until
the beneficiary has spent a total of $3,600 out
of pocket.
When out-of-pocket spending
reaches $3,600, the beneficiary would pay 5
percent of the cost of each prescription, or a
copayment, perhaps $5 or $10 for each
prescription. The premium, deductible and
coverage gap would be waived for people with
incomes up to $12,123 a year. To qualify for the
subsidy, recipients could have no more than
$6,000 in assets. The subsidies would be phased
out between $12,123 and roughly $13,500 in
yearly income. Assuming any of this
can be understood, the first provision appears to
mean the typical senior will pay $420 per year to
receive a benefit of $1,444--75 percent of the
difference between $275 and $2,200--plus
catastrophic coverage for most costs over $3,600.
A premium of $420 for $1,444 of reimbursement plus
catastrophe protection isn't bad, considering that
a high percentage of the insureds will claim
benefits.
So this part of the plan, which will be what is
used by the majority of middle-class
reasonably-healthy seniors, is okay but not a
fabulous new windfall. Once typical middle-class
seniors realize what they're getting is okay but
not hugely great, there is bound to be grumbling;
the political expectation seems to be that drugs
for seniors will become free. Some middle-class
seniors will also protest that they are being
charged not $420 but $695 for the $1,444
benefit--the premium plus the deductible. But the
$420 premium pays for the $1,444 reimbursement
that a senior otherwise wouldn't get. The first
$275 the patient would be paying whether the plan
existed or not.
Sidelight: why the formula is so deucedly
convoluted is inexplicable. Everyone's going to
hate the complexity, while politicians will have
trouble taking credit because it's so hard to
explain what they are taking credit for. "I
brought the good people of this district 75
percent coverage of amounts up to $2,200, then 95
percent of the amount over $3,600, excluding the
amount between $2,200 and $3,600," etc.
Now look at provisions for the impoverished.
Poor seniors get the insurance part gratis; it
appears they would pay at most $481 annually (25
percent of the gap between $275 and $2,200) for
any amount of pharmaceuticals. True, the
definition of poverty here is a strict one--since
many needy seniors have at least some assets, the
gratis plan will go mainly to those who do not own
a home. But the impoverished should always be the
first concern of social policy, and they are the
first concern of the Republican prescription drug
plan. Poor seniors will be better off under this
program than under the program they are likely to
use for drugs now, the Medicaid system, which in
many states is of dubious quality.
Next, look at the provisions for the
chronically ill senior who uses substantial
amounts of expensive drugs. The chronically ill
senior of any financial means, using $25,000 per
year worth of pharmaceuticals, apparently would
pay $3,646 under the plan; a person using $50,000
worth would pay $4,896. Not bad. And, essential to
the chronically ill senior, this coverage can't be
cancelled.
So the Republican plan seems very generous to
the poor and sick, and only somewhat helpful to
the comfortable middle-class senior--that is, to
the core Republican voter. Whatever else you may
think of the plan, bear this in mind.
|
|
THE P.T. BARNUM COMMEMORATIVE STAMP IS A
NICE TOUCH: A standby of direct mail is the
important-looking envelop covered with block-type
statements like OFFICIAL
NOTICE. The word "official" has little
official meaning, and so may be used practically
any way a bulk-mailer wishes. The latest
state-of-the-art in this tradition arrived in
Easterblogg's mailbox yesterday. Inside is a pitch
from CapitalOne bank. The outside has been
designed to look like an Internal Revenue Service
letter. The appearance of the envelope and the
typeface of the return address (which cryptically
says only BUSINESS SERVICES
DIVISION) are amazingly similar to those as
used by the IRS. A big pseudo-government-looking
notice on the front says,
ATTENTION. Do not forward unless the
addressee has filed an authorizing
change-of-address notice. If addressee has
moved, handle in accordance with Section F020 of
the United States Postal Service Domestic Mail
Manual. Download the 1,060-page Domestic Mail Manual, and
discover that Section F020 simply governs the
forwarding of mail. Since the USPS doesn't need to be told
to forward mail in accordance with its own rules,
the pseudo-official notice on the front of the
envelop is gibberish. But it's gibberish designed
to help make it seem the letter comes from the
IRS.
|
11.18.03
|
LIGHTS, CAMERA, GOVERNOR: California may
now claim, "My governor can beat up your
governor," as comedian Tim Bedore noted
yesterday. Schwarzenegger's plan? Tax cuts and
borrowing, which sounds very Gray-Davis-like. The
infuriating thing is that for Arnold, it might
work.
As this space has noted before, California's
income tax code is very progressive, focused on
the upper tier more than any other state's. That
means that when the economy is slow, as it was
under Davis, and the rich aren't rolling in dough,
state revenues drop sharply. But if the economy
picks up and the rich start getting richer,
California revenues should rise more than will
revenues in other states. Schwarzenegger may have
walked onto the Sacramento sound stage just as the
California budget mess was about to self-correct.
He could end up doing little or nothing, and being
credited as a miracle-worker.
Meanwhile Schwarzenegger says he wants total,
revolutionary change in California government.
Wasn't Jesse Ventura going to totally,
revolutionarily change Minnesota government?
Ventura lost interest fast when he realized that
government is work and causing change is hard; by
the end of his term, Jesse seemed more interested
in doing XFL games than reporting to the office.
Expect Schwarzenegger to hold a couple of big,
flashy events where he demands instant, total
change. Then, realizing government is work and
causing change is hard, Arnold will start making
personal appearances and rarely reporting to the
office.
|
|
A WEBSITE TO BELIEVE IN: It's exciting
to report that the most sought-after Online Journalism Award for General
Excellence for an independent website just
went to Beliefnet, the ecumenical site
founded by Steven Waldman, who's penned a few
New Republic articles.
Beliefnet is one of the very best things on the
Web--surely the best site by far for spiritual
issues, and one whose ecumenical worldview both
embraces and criticizes all faiths and
denominations. (Note: I played a small part in the
establishment of Beliefnet, so am not exactly
unbiased.) Beliefnet's strength is that it fills a
role the "old" media generally seem uncomfortable
with: that of taking faith seriously as a serious
concern and a meaningful component of millions of
lives. And the depth of content on the site is
simply amazing: entire areas on all world
religions and denominations, plus prayer circles,
memorials to thousands of people, and many other
features. If you haven't wandered around Beliefnet
before, now would be an excellent time. Years of
under-funded, very-high-quality work on Beliefnet
has finally been recognized by the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
