Hot Blava

SB 124, or Stupid Bill 124

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:31:57 PST

I called my state senator Friday to complain about SB124, a bill that makes it a separate, misdemeanor crime to leave your (under 9 years old) child(ren) alone in a car. I am SO annoyed by this bill, and with the Utah State Legislature in general this session. (I'll let you know if I hear back from him.)

First, the specifics: This bill is STUPID. Already the police have permission to intervene when children are left in a dangerous situation--alone in a car while Mom shops for 20 minutes, alone in a car in the cold cold winter or hot hot summer--it's called child endangerment. If the police officer thinks it is a dangerous situation, he or she has the ability to take care of it.

But--if this law passes--it will now be illegal to leave Hebs in the car while I go back in the house to get Gee and Mimi. Illegal to leave the littles in the car while I step 30 feet away to fetch Zee or Em from school. Illegal to get everyone in their carseats, fastened safely, and realize I left my purse--with the car keys--in the house.

I am frustrated enough with the restrictions society places on parents already, especially parents with big families. I'm already annoyed with the Legislature for another bill they are trying to pass, about making league sports have doctors on call or on the sidelines for concussions. For the record, I'm all for doctor support for sports concussions, I just think the State shouldn't be regulating it.

"But it's for the children!" they shout. To quote Colonel Potter, "Horsepucky!" It's about a nanny state, legislating for the sake of legislating, and, in the process, making us criminals by simply going about our lives.

And I'm sick of it.

Prohibition on Drugs

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:39:48 PST

I have very conflicted emotions about the prohibition on certain drugs. Part of me wants to insist that we should prohibit destructive behaviors. I don't believe that illegal drug use is a "victimless crime" and I don't think we should embark on self-medicating journeys without someone experienced to guide us.

Drugs have been a blessing in my life. I can't imagine getting dental work done without the help of the pain relievers and numbing agents the dentist can use. But there is a class of drugs that have proven mostly dangerous. As a society, we've decided to make them illegal. We don't want to deal with the fallout of people taking these drugs.

My church is supportive of the ban on these drugs. That holds a lot of weight for me.

Yet I wonder if the prohibition is causing more problems than it is preventing. John McWhorter writes over at The New Republic that the easy "occupation" of selling drugs has enticed many young black men to forgo productive employment and opt for life on the street. He argues that this is one of the core problems plaguing the black urban community. Have a sample.

The end of the War on Drugs is, in fact, what all people genuinely concerned with black uplift should be focused on.... The black malaise in the U.S. is currently like a card house; the Drug War is a single card which, if pulled out, would collapse the whole thing.

That is neither an exaggeration nor an oversimplification. It comes down to this: If there were no way to sell drugs on the street at a markup, then young black men who drift into this route would instead have to get legal work. They would. Those insisting that they would not have about as much faith in human persistence and ingenuity as those who thought women past their five-year welfare cap would wind up freezing on sidewalk grates.

There would be a new black community in which all able-bodied men had legal work even in less well-off communities—i.e. what even poor black America was like before the '70s; this is no fantasy. Those who say that this could only happen with low-skill factory jobs available a bus ride away from all black neighborhoods would be, again, wrong. That explanation for black poverty is full of holes. Too many people of all colors of modest education manage to get by without taking a time machine to the 1940s, and after the War on Drugs black men would be no exception.

Election Day

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:39:13 PDT

(Now with updates in red!)

It's Election Day, and you know what that means...

...another long political post from Keryn that you can ignore. Yay!

So...the Senate races are some of the biggest to watch. In particular, I'll be looking at:

Nevada (duh): Angle (R) vs Reid (D). This one is going to be a squeaker. I'd like to think Angle wins, but I don't know. We'll just have to see. (Reid wins. Bummer.)
California: Fiorina (R) vs Boxer (D). I think this one stays with Boxer, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't. Boxer comes across as a somewhat obnoxious, and occasionally entitled incumbent; it would be a pleasure if she didn't get sent back to Washington. (Boxer wins.)
Colorado: Buck (R) vs Bennet (D). I don't know too much about this one, but it is a toss-up, apparently.
Alaska: Miller (R) vs McAdams (D) vs Murkowski (Entitled). This one is interesting. Murkowski is the incumbent, but she lost the primary nomination to Miller. She then decided to run a write-in campaign, essentially becoming a pretty sore loser about the primary. (I have Opinions about this.) The Alaska Board of Elections, on Thursday, decided to change its rules to allow lists of write-in candidates' names in the polling places, giving Murkowski a distinct advantage. There have been some very sleazy events surrounding this election. However, polling looks good, and it's hopeful that Miller will win. We'll see!
Washington, Pennsylvania (goes to Republican, thankyouverymuch Arlen Specter R-2, D-2), West Virginia (stays Democratic), and Illinois (President Obama's old seat has gone Republican!) are good ones to watch, as well.

The House is likely to switch parties today (the Senate less likely, but there is a wee little chance), and the number to watch for is 39--the Republican party needs a net gain of 39 to reach the 218 votes needed to have control of the House. (Major news networks are calling the House for the Republicans. No big surprise there.) I haven't been too interested in too many of these races, but an interesting one to follow will be Nevada: Congressional District 3 (suburban Las Vegas, but I don't know if that includes my family's home) Heck (R) vs Titus (D). This one wasn't supposed to be a close race, but Heck has been polling closer and closer to Titus in the last weeks. (And that would be just cool, because then two of Nevada's representatives would be named "Heller" and "Heck".)

Also, keep an eye on Massachusetts' Barney Frank, who might not win reelection. Heh heh. (Bummer. He wins.)

Also, there are some governor's races to watch.

Colorado: Hickenlooper (D) vs Tancredo (Annoying) vs Maes (R). I have Opinions about this race as well. Specifically, I think that if the primary voters choose a particular nominee (Maes), then the state GOP should darn well better get behind him and support him. If they can't support the people's choice for nominee, then they should RESIGN their positions in the state party. In this case, that didn't happen. And now Maes has single digit support, and the race is between Hickenlooper and Tancredo. Basically, I'm hoping for Hickenlooper, but since I don't live there, I don't know what that would mean for day-to-day stuff. Still, I'm highly annoyed at Tancredo and the CO state GOP. (Hickenlooper wins.)
California: Whitman (R) vs Brown (D). Brown was governor of California from 1975 to 1983, so he knows what's what. Whitman is a multi-killjionaire CEO. This will be interesting. I don't know why anyone would want to be in charge of the mess that is California right now, but different people have different tastes. (Brown wins the...honor?)

Okay, that's my two bits. There are precious few things to care about in my state today, so I'm ranging far abroad for interesting stuff. Even though I voted for Anderson for county commission, I don't care if Henderson wins instead. Ditto for everything else that might be a tight race here. Oh, and I guess I don't want the Constitutional Amendment A to pass. Whoop-de-do.

What do you all think?

Stupid, Racially Charged Headline

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:32:28 PDT

My head is going to explode over this headline: "911 call on Conn. shooting shows racial disparity". I don't know who wrote the headline (Yahoo! or the AP), but it is completely misleading and racially charged.

The first two paragraphs are the only one that deals with the 911 call:

A woman hiding under her desk tells an emergency dispatcher that a co-worker is in the midst of a shooting spree. The dispatcher presses for any information about the man.
"I don't know anything," the woman says, according to a 911 tape released Wednesday. "He's a tall black guy. He's like the only black guy that works here."

How in the WORLD is describing the crazy mad shooter "racially disparity"? That has to be the dumbest, most inflammatory way to describe the caller's actions I can think of. Really, really bad form, AP and/or Yahoo! Super lame.

(The story then goes on to describe the difficulties the man had being the only black man in his office. I have no information about whether or not he was discriminated against in his job. That, however, is not relevant to the headline. The woman under the desk was describing the physical attributes of the attacker for the dispatcher, presumably so the police could identify him.)

Think Progress vs. Breitbart

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:55:42 PDT

I've watched from a distance as the flap over Shirley Sherrod has come and gone over the past week. First, Andrew Breitbart posted a video clip that showed her confessing racist feelings. The audience in the video seemed to chuckle at the sentiment rather than act repulsed or disappointed.

The USDA immediately believed the worst about Sherrod and forced her to resign before they even had a conversation with her to understand her side of the story.

Shortly, the larger picture came out. Sherrod was confessing that she had been a racist but was trying to tell a story of how she moved past those feelings. The clip had been unfair to her. As the news was breaking, my wife was scanning the blogs as we were driving. She started rattling off the list of people who retracted their denouncements of Sherrod. Glenn Beck, Rich Lowry, Shannon Coffin, Jonah Goldberg... basically all the big conservative bloggers immediately set the record straight.

It was really encouraging. Someone made the point, in defense of Breitbart, that it is possible to act rashly without acting maliciously. Breitbart claimed to have received only the small clip that he played and that he hadn't checked the larger context before he posted.

This morning, I was reading through some older posts and I came across a link to a video created by Think Progress. My jaw dropped to the floor. They were splicing together clips from Tea Party activists making racist comments. This may be one of the most dishonest political clips I've ever seen.

The editors at Think Progress chose to use a video clip statement from a man being actively expelled from a Tea Party event as representative of the content of the event. Breathtakingly dishonest. It is like using ellipses to turn a negative movie review into a positive one.

Here is the Big Government post that criticizes the Think Progress clip.

Will Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman now denounce Think Progress as they did Andrew Breitbart? Will those on the left who were fooled by the video come out and apologize as so many on the right have done? This is a test of character. Let's see how it goes.

Pox: Lee AND Bridgewater

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:29:59 PDT

I'm so fed up with Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater, I've decided that I won't cast a vote for either of them tomorrow. There are two reasons for this.

First and most important, they are both running negative campaigns and it is disgusting me. On a small flyer I got from Mike Lee, 25% percent of the space was consumed by stuff he didn't like about his opponent. The rest was filled with photos and fluff.

Bridgewater had the gall to send me a campaign flyer in the mail that denounced Mike Lee for running a negative campaign--and then attempted to smear him for being a lawyer. A short time later, the next flyer in the mail comes from Bridgewater attacking Lee for carrying water for EnergySolutions.

Way to lead by example about how you'll improve the tone in Washington.

The second reason I won't vote for either of them is the blatant disregard they've shown to having my telephone number. The other night, we returned home after a day of being gone. In the two and a half hours, we received SEVEN robocalls from the two candidates. It was infuriating that they would disrespect my time like that. Today, one day before the primary, we've counted 16 calls so far today. Two of them were real people, the rest were robocalls.

Here is a tip to future candidates. (I'm sure they'll all be reading this blog post intently.) As a voter I love to be informed. I appreciate getting a call or two with information about candidates or an endorsement. Especially calls from real people. But if you are wasting your money calling the same people with the same message over and over, I don't trust you to spend money wisely while you're in office.

Glenn's Favorite Graphic

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:14:03 PDT

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) used to put up this graphic pretty frequently. It is the one I think of when people complain about the Tea Party protests being overly partisan.

I'd be curious to see the current numbers for '09 now that that is in the books. Perhaps we'll start seeing an updated view of the spending that will either confirm or refute this rather stunning chart.

Why My Sister Couldn't Be a Union Boss

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:53:38 PDT

My sister is a leader of her local Tea Party movement. The folks in her area have decided they want to get together every two weeks. They invite candidates in to address them.

A lot of these people are really angry. They are taking the time to not only "vent" but to get informed. That is cool. Even so, some of the participants will ask my sister who she is endorsing or recommending in the various elections.

In the face of these requests, it would be easy to counsel these people how to vote. However, my sister doesn't feel comfortable making these calls. She wants people to choose for themselves. She sees her role as being a facillitator of information dissemination.

Think how cool it would be if politically active unions and other organizations would showthe same respect to their diverse members.

A Great Moment of Political Drama

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:49:14 PDT

Basking in the coolness of the new C-SPAN Video Library, I watched some of the Clinton impeachment hearings and came across a striking moment of political drama that I had totally forgotten about.

The two sides in the debate were having their turns giving members one minute speeches either in favor of, or opposed to impeaching the president. The first speech was pro-impeachment and laid out a pretty rational case. The second speech was anti-impeachment and was a massive non sequitor where the congresswoman rambled on about abortion and Medicare and everything except the charges against the president.

The back and forth continued for a couple more speakers. Then, the Republicans bring up their next speaker, Bob Livingstone. However, instead of getting recognized for one minute, he is recognized for two minutes. When he walks up to the podium, he turns to the chair and says something I couldn't hear. (Usually, it is the asking for unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks in the official record.)

As he started speaking, I didn't remember who he was. Then I realized that he was the Speaker of the House-Elect, set to assume those responsibilities in a few weeks time. He spoke at length, way more than two minutes, laying out the case for impeachment. He builds up to a climax where he tells the president that he can end all this agony right now. A hiss emits from the Democrats in the chamber. Livingston presses forward. He calls on the president to resign.

Immediately, the Democrats start shouting, "No! No! No!" and then the dominant voices in the chorus of dissent are shouting, "You resign! You resign!" You see, Livingston had recent admitted to his own extra-marital affair and the Democrats thought it was high hypocrisy (if not a high crime and misdemeanor) for one philanderer to call for the resignation of another philanderer.

After a moment, the chamber quieted enough for Livingston to continue. He seemed to steel himself for the moments to come. And then he announced that he had been unfaithful to his wife and that he would lead by example. He would not take a role as the Speaker of the House, and he would resign his seat in 6 months time when there could be a special election to replace him. He then called on the president to follow his example and resign.

The whole chamber erupted in applause. It looks like even the Democrats gave him a standing ovation. Probably different motives for the applause on the two sides of the aisle, but still an impressive display. It must have been somewhat unexpected for him to make the move and the chamber was all abuzz and the next speaker had a hard time getting started again.

What an interesting moment of political drama, and a moment of political courage as well. I wish more politicians had the courage to admit failure and step aside when appropriate. Instead, many of them cling to power and frequently, though inexplicably, retain enough votes to stay in place.

If you want to watch the video, you can find it here at about 18 minutes in.

HB 113: Child Restraint Device Amendments

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:49:31 PST

I sent this letter to both my state senator and my state congressman. I'll be sure to update the blog with any information they send me.

____________________________

Dear Representative Morley and Senator Madsen,

I have noticed with interest HB113, “Child Restraint Device Amendments”. I believe that the current child restraint device laws are too restrictive, and I am pleased the legislature is considering amending them.

In the book “SuperFreakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors discuss a study indicating that perfectly installed and fitted car seats for 3- and 6-year-olds are no more effective in a crash in protecting children than the poorly fitting built-in seat belt. (A brief summary of their findings can be found here and here at the Freakonomics Blog at the New York Times website.) While I am not claiming that this is a definitive study on the subject, I am interested in learning what studies and reports the Utah State Legislature is using while considering amending the law. I am especially interested in any recent studies about older children (ages 5-8) and booster seats being considered during the deliberative process.

As much as I applaud the direction of the amending (loosening the requirements on older children), I have serious concerns about the language of the amendment. As written, I do not see how this law could be enforced. How would a police officer know if I was driving directly to or from my home? That I was driving to the school or an authorized activity? That I don’t have a booster seat in the trunk in case I have to drive 5 miles away from the house?

As a parent of four children under the age of seven (with a fifth child on the way), I am directly affected by these laws, and will be for a good many years to come. I would very much appreciate hearing from you on your opinion as to these amendments, on how the law would be enforced, and what scientific studies are being used to inform the Legislature on this subject.

Thank you for your service and your help in this request.

Toddler Car Seats Debunked

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:11:00 PST

Shocking result reported in the book SuperFreakonomics. Perfectly installed and fitted car seats for 3 and 6 year olds are no more effective in a crash in protecting children than the poorly fitting built-in lap belt. Hear the authors talk about it in segment 7 of this talk.

Other interesting comments from that segment, though I don't know if all of these are actually backed up by the research or if they are merely conclusions based on the new intuition informed by the study:

The passenger seat is the least safe seat in the car.
A child would fare better than an adult in the front seat because they are smaller and less likely to get squashed by something.
The safest place for an infant would be on the floor of the backseat.
Crash testing companies had never done comparative testing of regular seat belts and child seats. The authors were turned down several times. The engineer who finally did the test was certain they were going to destroy his crash test dummy and made them promise to replace it if it got destroyed in the tests using only a plain seat belt.
Using a seat belt of any sort makes an enormous difference in the survivability of a crash.
Babe-in-arms in the front seat is the worst possible place for an infant.
The authors note that other people disagree with their conclusions.

Legislators, will you take action to further investigate this and remedy the situation if further study bears this out?

I feel more oppressed by child safety seat regulation than any other government regulation I can think of because it affects me nearly every day as a father of four children under the age of 7. We switched to a minivan from a sedan when our third child was born because fitting three car seats in the back seat was problematic. (It was hard to close the back doors.)

Now that we have a minivan, I'm still concerned about adding the fifth child to this car because I'm not sure how easy it will be to access the built in seat belt when three booster seats or child seats are squeezed onto that back bench. Perversely, the cumbersome nature of child safety seats makes me less inclined to buckle my kids for trips of three blocks or less. I'm sure that isn't the safety result the legislators were hoping for.

Thoughts on Humanitarian Aid

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:22:42 PST

Rick Steves, the famous travel guide author, gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club. At the very end of his recorded speech, he riffed for a minute about the differences in European and American approaches to helping the poor and about the obligation that we have to reach out.

You see beautiful kids in your travels that are every bit as precious as our kids. And when I look at these girls on a garbage dump in El Salvador, I see every bit as much deserving beauty there as my own daughter.

I know my daughter's got $5000 for straight teeth and money left over for whitener. And I looked around her class and apparently every girl has $5000 for straight teeth and money left over for whitener. That's not a bad thing. I don't apologize for that. We have a winning society. I work hard; my daughter gets straight teeth.

But that doesn't negate the fact that in this village, the moms are not home because they're out walking for water. And for the cost of two sets of braces, we could drill a well in that thirsty community to parents could stay home and take care of their kids. That's not a guilt trip. That's an opportunity.

I share Rick's desire to improve the world. I also recently heard a bit of wisdom from Sharon Eubank on this topic in a recent lecture at the BYU Kennedy Center. Sharon shared some of her experiences in dealing with international humanitarian aid. Her talk was explicitly about the vital importance of keeping LDS humanitarian aid and LDS proselyting strictly separate to ensure our continued ability to do humanitarian work. I want to highlight a different point from her talk, however.

Sharon is involved in the wheelchair distribution effort for the LDS Humanitarian Services division. For a while, they would find the cheapest wheelchairs to distribute to poor people around the world. This gave them the largest number of wheelchairs for their limited humanitarian dollars. However, they discovered that when the wheelchairs inevitably broke down, there were no local resources to repair or replace the chairs and the recipients were eventually just as bad off as they'd been before. Lesson: Pay more to purchase chairs locally and strengthen the local market to ensure that the chairs and suppliers will have longevity.

Sharon has seen humanitarian projects with big plaques on the wall (see her talk about that about 34 minutes into the video) that stroke the ego of the donor who made it possible. But something perverse happens. The community doesn't feel ownership of the well that was dug or the clinic that was built. Eventually, it decays, along with the sign, and the donor's name emblazoned on the plaque becomes a symbol of neglect and abandonment rather than a symbol of hope and empowerment. Lesson: emphasize community ownership and maintenance. The local people must learn to build and maintain the project and have the resources to carry it forward.

Will Reason Fail?

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:59:58 PST

After a debate, which argument is more persuasive? Will conservative viewpoints convince more people, or will liberal viewpoints win the day?

I've been listening to the Intelligence Squared US debates. "Oxford style debate on America's shores." By the rules of the game, the winner is declared based on how many people switched rather than just the predisposition of the crowd that purchased tickets. Given that the events are hosted in New York, it comes as no surprise to me that the liberal point of view on each question usual starts and finishes with a greater majority of the vote. But which point of view causes more people to change their opinion?

The following charts summarize the results of the debates currently available online that had a political angle. (I skipped the debates that didn't seem to highlight a left/right divide such as "Good Riddance to the Mainstream Media" and "The Art Market is Less Ethical than the Stock Market.") Click the chart to see the date of the debate the the info about the participants.

Is it surprising that you find such a high number of people that pay $35-$45 to attend a debate and leave without picking a side?

Do these results mean that conservatives are more likely to hear the arguments before making a decision? Or does it mean that, after a full hearing of both sides of an issue, people are more likely to agree with conservatives? Do you think people, particularly conservatives, are going in with the intention of misstating their original belief so that their side will garner more "switch" points?

Should we expect more people to be persuaded by arguments? In an "enlightened" society, shouldn't we see a large majority switching to the side with the more "reasonable" arguments? Why don't we see that?

Thanks for the Memories

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:21:07 PDT

How good is your memory? I seem to be blessed with a particularly faulty memory, including a shockingly poor ability to remember if I've seen a face before.

Do you remember the famous Hillary Clinton whopper where she talked about her mortal peril in Bosina? She said, “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Her account is at odds with the facts (we have video), but the question remains, was she lying? We'll never know, but there is a remarkable amount of scientific research demonstrating the malleability of our memories. It is entirely consistent with scientific research to suppose that Hillary actually believed the Bosnia account as she told it.

Elizabeth Loftus used Clinton as an example in a lecture where she recounted lots of other juicy info about memory. Here are some tidbits:

There is no evidence for "repressed memories" as popularly understood.
Researchers have been able to "encourage" people to remember childhood incidents like getting lost in the mall or getting sick after eating an egg salad sandwich--that never happened.
People can convincingly recount their memories of seeing Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, after reading a key piece of bogus advertising as a seed for the impossible memory. (They don't have Bugs at Disneyland, as you probably know.)
That false memory of the egg salad sandwich made those who were susceptible to the memory less likely to eat egg salad sandwiches up to four months later.
False positive memories about asparagus made people more likely to claim they would order asparagus at a fancy restaurant.

Isn't it crazy how changeable our memories are? I recounted the following information to a colleague. A few days later she included the material in a training exercise and got all the numbers wrong. Apparently, our memories about memory research is also susceptible to corruption. (Hence this post.) Ginger Campbell is summarizing the research presented in the book "On Being Certain" by Robert Burton. Here is an excerpt that will probably surprise you. Emphasis mine.

So within a day of the Challenger explosion he interviewed 106 students and he had them write down exactly how they heard about it, where they were, what they were doing, and how they felt. Two and a half years later, he interviewed them again and he found that for 25% of them their second account was significantly different from their original journal entries. In fact, more than half the people had some degree of error and less than 10% gave all the details exactly the same as they had originally.

Even so, before they saw their original journals, most of them were certain that their memories were absolutely correct. In fact many of them, when confronted with what they had originally wrote down, still had a high degree of confidence in their false recollections- even when faced with journals in their own handwriting, because they just felt that their current memories were correct. In fact, there was one student who said, "That's my handwriting but that's not what happened."

The moral of this story? Give people the benefit of the doubt and trust their sincerity until you have solid reason to believe otherwise. Thanks for the lesson, Secretary Clinton.

A Few Nobel Suggestions

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:24:20 PDT

The game is over for this year's Nobel Peace Prize competition. President Obama beat out contenders like Piedad Cordoba (Colombian senator that has helped free hostages), Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad (Jordanian professor who has fostered interfaith tolerance and dialog), Sima Samar (Afghan human rights activists), and 202 other nominees.

If the prize committee isn't aware of enough people with previous accomplishments, perhaps I can name a few for their consideration for next year. This list is just off the top of my head; surely with a little pondering you can augment the list with other worthies.

Bill Clinton. He didn't do so well as president, but since then he seems to be working hard with his Clinton Global Initiative. I'll bet there are a raft of accomplishments there we can cite in the nomination letter.
Bono. He's invested his fame heavily into promoting good causes.
Bill and Melinda Gates. Their work against malaria has been particularly noteworthy.
WWII veterans. Go with the large group concept that Time pioneered with their Person of the Year award in 2006. These soldiers sacrificed a lot to bring peace to the world. Sure it hasn't been perfect, but it was no small thing. Before the rest of them die off, let's give them this final honor.
Napoleon Dzombe. Yeah, you've never heard of him, but the stuff he's accomplished is remarkable.
George W. Bush. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that having Saddam off the world stage is a good step in the cause of peace.
Margaret Thatcher. Her health is failing, but she is the last of the trio, including Ronald Reagan and John Paul II, who did so much to resist the march of communism and help bring it down.

If none of those are good enough, and you need something more aspirational, perhaps you can select my kids. They bring such a huge smile to my face that perhaps they could bring world peace if I just shared them with the world.

On Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:58:01 PDT

I made a comment elsewhere quite a while ago that I wanted to capture here so I could find it more easily. It is something that has been bothering me for a while: charges of hypocrisy against conservative politicians who have affairs.

===

There is a more subtle point to be made here. Hypocrisy is frequently expressed as the divergence of one’s words with one’s actions. I’d alter that traditional definition a bit. I would say that hypocrisy is the divergence of one’s words from one’s true beliefs.

Let me give two examples. Joe is a public campaigner against overeating. Joe is 400 lbs. Joe may not be a hypocrite. He may merely be weak, a much less damning offense. He knows what a trap food has become for him and he wants to help others avoid his fate.

John is a public campaigner against overeating. John’s primary business is selling deep fried Twinkies at parties. John is more likely to be a hypocrite. We can more easily believe that he really doesn’t have a problem with people who have bad eating habits but that he merely says those things publicly because he thinks they will make him more popular.

I must admit that I haven’t read much about Ensign’s affair and the aftermath. Nor do I know anything about him as a person. So instead, let me speak to a hypothetical politician in his same situation. We’ll call him Fred.

Fred actually believes the things that he spoke publicly about morality and marriage. He recognized the weakness in himself that tempted him to violate his marriage vows. He recognized the damage breaking those vows would do to his family and to society at large. Thus, he took public positions that sought to encourage others to uphold those vows and virtues. Eventually, however, Fred succumbed to temptation and did what he knew he shouldn’t do. He still believes that what he did was wrong and is willing to publicly admit the same.

So far, Fred is not a hypocrite. He may be unfit for public office, but that is a separate question of trustworthiness and judgment.

Now suppose that Fred had frequently called for other politicians who strayed to step aside and relinquish their posts. But when his own failing comes, he decides not to step aside. Now I would say that Fred is a hypocrite. (I’m looking at you, Mr. Sanford.) He believes that what is right for him is different that what he’s been saying all along.

Coarse Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:02:01 PDT

Tony Blankley offered quite a zinger on the most recent episode of "Left, Right & Center." Obviously, he went a bit over the top, but the point was dead on. The subject was the "coarsening of our politics."

Initially, the Democrats called the demonstrators who opposed health care “demonstrators”, then they call them a “mob”. Then the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, called them “evil”. Then the House Democratic leader, Steny Hoyer, called them “un-American”. Then the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called them “Nazis”. Then the president, on Labor Day, called them “liars”. Then the former Democratic President of United States, Jimmy Carter, called them “racists”. And then the Speaker of the House called them “encouraging assassins” a la Harvey Milk’s murder in San Francisco.

And then the president laments the coarsening of political dialogue. And he does it in an accusatory rather than a concessionary tone. That is an extraordinary list of statements made by the senior elected leadership of the Democratic party against the people who have been making nothing but policy arguments. So yes, there’s been a coarsening, but who’s doing the coarsening?

There were a few other comments, and then Tony had 15 more seconds for his "rant" at the end of the show and said this.

It is interesting that in order to find some rude or outrageous statements on the opposition side they have to look for signs in a crowd of 200,000 people. And for me to find rude and outrageous statements, I go to the senior elected Democratic leaders of the nation. I think that’s an interesting comparison.

Interesting, indeed.

Second Guessing the Doctor

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:34:00 PDT

It is challenging as a parent to get medical advice from doctors that you don't believe you need to follow. Not that you believe it would be harmful to follow the advice, just wasteful. How can you avoid feeling like a terrible parent if you choose to ignore the physician's advice? What if the improbable occurs? It will be all my fault!

That psychology costs us a lot of money in health care. I've felt it many times in dealing with my own children.

My third child has spina bifida. This health condition carries a lot of risks. On the spectrum of spina bifida kids, my child is very blessed and is in excellent condition. When therapists tell us we should engage or this or that treatment or should have visits on a weekly basis, my wife and I look at each other and shake our heads. We suspect that some of the treatments are unnecessary, but we don't dare say no since we aren't experts. What if we're wrong?!

My fourth child was affected by jaundice after he was born. That is a high level of bilirubin in the blood that causes the skin to turn yellow and can result in brain damage. Yikes! Fortunately, the treatment is well known and simple. The child is placed under special blue lights that break down the substance in the blood and keeps him safe. In nearly all cases, the condition is temporary.

However, the hospital only had these lights in the ICU. That meant that the cost of his hospital stay was through the roof. ICU isn't cheap. And they gave him the attention that a baby in the ICU should receive! But he didn't need it. We would have been just fine in taking the lights home (as they eventually allowed us to do) and brought him in for daily blood tests. But the doctors had to be excessively cautious and so they ran a lot of tests that, in hindsight, didn't provide any value.

How could I tell them no, even though my wife and I agreed that the situation was absurd? We didn't dare! What if something DID go wrong? Would they sue us for being bad parents and take away our children? We had good insurance and so we just rode it out, bit the bullet, and paid our share. In the end, though, a lot of money was spent providing medical care that didn't enhance or prolong life.

How can we empower patients to say no? Unless we address this psychological challenge, we can't.

That Cost Me What?

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:30:00 PDT

I'm in the IT field, so I can readily appreciate that the value I provide is not only in pressing buttons on a keyboard, a task which any monkey can do, but in knowing which buttons to press and when. Likewise, I expect to pay a neurosurgeon a lot of money for the knowledge that he brings to the operating table in addition to the physical task that he performs.

Even with that caveat, I'm astonished at some of the prices I've been charged for health care procedures. Here is a sampling of some of the costs that blew my mind. I don't want to come across as ungrateful since I literally owe my child's life to the people who have cared for him.

$2,693: U of U Neonatal ICU room: My son was born with spina bifida. That meant that part of his spinal cord was poking out of his back in a little bubble when he was born. Obviously a touchy situation right after birth. After he was born, they passed him through a window from the delivery room into the neonatal ICU room. (We knew about the condition before his birth and were in the right place to be prepared to deal with it.) He stayed there for 90 minutes. They kept his back clean and safe in preparation for transport to Primary Children's Medical Center (PCMC).
$237: IHC Life Flight Service: This was the cost to roll my son through a hallway/tunnel that connects the U of U hospital (where he was born) into PCMC. Sure the gurney was like a space capsule, but it was obvious that it was massive lawsuit-avoidance overkill in transporting him between the two facilities. The task took about 15 minutes with two attendants. There was no helicopter involved. My part of the monthly premium (though my employer pays the lion's share) for health insurance is $277. If this tiny part of the care for my child is consumed with a pretty mundane task, how can we hope that I'll ever pay in enough to cover all the rest of this stuff?
$5,291: Neurosurgeon's bill. The surgery took a couple of hours. The quality of this surgery will affect the rest of my son's life. From what I can tell, it was done flawlessly. I list the price here for comparison with the neonatal room above. Sure, the surgeon made more in two hours than I earned in the month, but some things are worth paying for. I think this was one of them.
$161: Pediatrician visit in hospital. The doctor moves from room to room, checking on each child and answering questions from the parents. Each time he visited us for 5-8 minutes, they billed the same $161. I realize that I'm paying something for his availability and skill, but for a visit that was so brief, the price seems exorbitant. For an 8 minute visit, that works out to $20/minute. Most people feel good about making that much per hour.
$3,966: Neurosurgeon's bill. This was a shunt placement a few weeks after birth. It was literally brain surgery that inserted a tube into the middle of my boy's head and then down his body, underneath the skin, into his abdomen. I don't remember how this one compared in time to the previous surgery on his spine. This one will probably be performed a few times in his life as these tubes frequently fail. Remember that this is just the surgeon's bill. The hospital, drugs, anesthesia, and so on are all billed separately. (My wife reminds me that the plastic shunt valve itself also cost a small fortune... and has since been recalled. Does that mean we should get a refund?) I don't know why the price of this surgery was different from the previous one. It was the same surgeon, though obviously a very different procedure. I suspect both were equally complex, but I wouldn't really know.

The above list also proves that I have a very poor ability to gauge the value of the service that is being provided to me. Because the prices are so hidden at the time of service, we haven't developed any intuition for them like we have with other items we spend so much money on.

Would health care be different if we all knew the price up front? Would that necessarily be a good thing in every case? Would it even matter? I should note that nobody ever asked me whether we should do anything for my child. It was only a question of when, if even that. More on that in a future post.

Let's Start With the Price

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:52:53 PDT

Price is a market signal that should reflect, over time, all the cumulative cost of the components of a product or service. As we ponder the health care system, it seems like the first thing we need to do is break down the prices we are paying to understand why they are so high. Once we understand the thing that drives the price up, we can work to address those areas with market solutions.

Royce Flippin wrote an article that I've been meaning to write for a long time. Titled "The Price is Right: How Greater Transparency Can Help Fix Our Health Care System," the article makes the case that consumers must know what the price of service is before it is rendered so that they can make an informed choice.

One of the reasons people pay so much for health care is that average people are not told what their fees will be at the time of service. And even if a patient takes it upon himself to ask, getting the full answer is far from easy: He can usually find out the basic charge for an office visit--but what about a scan or a lab test? And how about the cost of those prescription medications being swiftly scribbled down? Most likely, the doctor or his or her staff will tell the inquisitive patient he has to wait for his insurance statement--or worse, the bill--to arrive in the mail.

This is so true. I never know what something will cost before I get it in health care with the partial exception of my dentist. When he tells me how much work I need, I do get a predicted bill for the service. The dentist is forced to do this because he doesn't want to perform work that people can't pay for. It is in his interest to give me advance disclosure, so he does. Why doesn't this apply to all doctors?

In a future post, I want to post some examples of prices I've been charged for medical care that astonished me.

Speechless (well, not quite)

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:31:23 PDT

Governor Mark Sanford (R, S.C.) has admitted to an extramarital affair. And he disappeared--with apparently no one knowing where he was, and with no way to contact him, either by his family (he has four young boys with his wife) or by his staff--for five or six days. Over Father's Day weekend. To visit his mistress. In Argentina.

Wow. Just wow.

I think he needs to resign as governor. (Not that it is really any of my business, never having ever set foot in South Carolina before.) Oh, sure, he has resigned as the chair of the Republican Governor's Association. It's a start, but not good enough. Governor Sanford allowed his tawdry situation come between him and his duty to the citizens of his state. He allegedly was totally incommunicado for five+ days! I'm pretty sure I would be steamed if President Obama did that. Or if my governor did it. When you become a chief executive, that kind of thing is a luxury you don't get.

Senator John Ensign (R, NV) admitted to an affair about a week ago. Senator Ensign resigned as chair of the Republican Policy Committee, but won't be resigning from his senate seat. I think he should resign, too. (If he doesn't, I hope that the voters will take care of that for him. I know my mother vows never to vote for him again, even if she agrees with his politics.) My feelings are slightly less strong about this situation, though. At least when fallout from the affair threatened his ability to do his job (reportedly blackmail), he stepped up and admitted to the affair. (Still, I think: Resign, sir!)

These two politicians are following in the footsteps of far too many. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich come to mind.) Why does it seem that the majority of politicians have extramarital affairs? Is it just because we hear about them more, because they are in the public eye? Or is it a result of the power they get in office? Or are men with the tendency to stray more likely to become politicians?

Whatever it is, it ISN'T all right. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to it, or excuse it because the "other" side does it, too. I want men and women of strong moral character to represent me in the government. If someone can be tempted to break his/her marriage vows, what's to stop him/her from accepting a little bribe here, a little pay-for-play there?

Throw the bums out.

Flu Frustrations

noreply@blogger.com (Keryn) — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:42:23 PDT

I am seriously perplexed by the swine flu--not the flu itself, but information about the flu. You all know information is my bread-and-butter; I thrive on it. (Okay, yes, I thrive on knowing things other people don't know, in particular. It helps me feel superior and all that. Sad but true.)

For example: Why are we worried about a fall outbreak? Why is it possible it will be worse, scary, or catastrophic? I know I don't have the medical/chemical/biological background to really understand all the details about viral shifts and what-have-you, but reporters are usually pretty good at broadly explaining important stuff to us laypeople. We are told that we have to be on the alert for a fall outbreak, but not why it might happen. Does it just get passed around to just a few people here and there until we're all indoors again with the cold weather, and then SWOOP! it gets us all? And does that mean that in the Southern Hemisphere they should get it really bad now, and then not as bad starting in September?

And speaking of the public being told things, why, exactly, is the public being told to prepare for a fall outbreak? What, exactly, are we supposed to do? I can see telling public health officials about it, and I certainly don't mind reporting about meetings and what goes on during them, but there is little to no information/advice for the public on this subject. Okay, then, we're supposed to be alert for a fall outbreak. That's nice. So we should eat, drink, and be merry this summer, because in the autumn we die? Or maybe we should just be making sure we get our bunkers finished.

I'm frustrated because I feel like I am lacking the tools to deal with this crisis, whether real or imaginary. Anybody got any better information?

Notre Dame Should Welcome Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:46:00 PDT

BYU took a lot of flack for inviting Vice President Cheney to speak at a commencement. I strongly disagreed with those who protested Mr. Cheney's appearance. Whether you agree or disagree with him personally, as a holder of high political office, he represents not only himself, but our country. If you can't agree with his politics or policies, you can at least celebrate the chair he sits in.

My view about Obama speaking at a commencement at Notre Dame is the same. I disagree with President Obama's position on abortion. But the ideals that he stands for as the president of our country are far greater than the several policy issues where we differ. I would be proud to hear Mr. Obama speak at any event and to honor his as our president.

In writing this post, I had to ask myself if I would have taken the same position on President Clinton. I'll admit that I would have had a harder time supporting him speaking at some BYU event. I understand that a similar sense of revulsion drives those who oppose Mr. Cheney. But I would hope that the principle of open dialogue would prevail and that we would be willing to hear those who are our elected leaders and honor the great traditions of our country.

Giving Helps the Giver

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:26:00 PDT

I listened to a terrific forum address at BYU by Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. His intriguing thesis is this: people who give of their means to others end up receiving more than they give. In other words, being philanthropic leads to being more wealthy rather than vice versa. You can hear audio of the speech or you can watch the video. I can't provide a direct link to the video, but click here and then click "Conferences and Addresses" and then find the forum address from 2/24/2009.

He sets forth four myths that he rebuts during the presentation:

Giving makes us poorer.
People are naturally selfish.
Giving is a luxury.
Our nation can afford to substitute government for private giving.

As a Mormon, I particularly enjoyed his story about the "magic briefcase" near the end of his talk. He talks about a BYU briefcase he was given as a gift and the reactions from others and from himself when he--a Roman Catholic--carried it around when his regular briefcase broke.

On his website, he has a bunch of interesting statistics pulled from his book on this subject that you might find interesting.

Moral Foil: Stem Cell and Torture

noreply@blogger.com (Bradley Ross) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:21:12 PDT

I recently posted one scientist's defense of the Bush administration's record on science. Will Saletan over at Slate just provided another very thought-provoking piece to the moral puzzle that surrounds one of the hottest scientific debates of the Bush presidency: embryonic stem cell research.

Though Saletan incorrectly describes President Obama's action as "lifting a ban" on stem cell research (the research wasn't banned; it was funded with severe limitations), he goes on to offer a word of caution to the proponents of embryonic stem cell research. He notes that they face a moral peril.

The best way to understand this peril is to look at an issue that has become the mirror image of the stem-cell fight. That issue is torture. On Jan. 22, Obama signed an executive order prohibiting interrogation methods used by the Bush administration to extract information from accused terrorists. "We can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but that we can still effectively obtain the intelligence that we need," the president declared. "We are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

Did you catch the comparison? Apply that argument against torture to the stem cell debate. Ask yourself if your logic works when you switch topics using the same argument. It is a very probing question.

You don't have to equate embryos with full-grown human beings—I don't—to appreciate the danger of exploiting them. Embryos are the beginnings of people. They're not parts of people. They're the whole thing, in very early form. Harvesting them, whether for research or medicine, is different from harvesting other kinds of cells. It's the difference between using an object and using a subject. How long can we grow this subject before dismembering it to get useful cells? How far should we strip-mine humanity in order to save it?
If you have trouble taking this question seriously—if you think it's just the hypersensitivity of fetus-lovers—try shifting the context from stem cells to torture. There, the question is: How much ruthless violence should we use to defeat ruthless violence? The paradox and the dilemma are easy to recognize. Creating and destroying embryos to save lives presents a similar, though not equal, dilemma.

Thanks for making me think, Will. That's why I keep coming back.