dagblog.com

Health Care Reform: An Eleven-Year-Old Boy Reminds Congress What's at Stake

Orlando — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:38:03 +0000

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

The Business of Universities

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:24:52 +0000

A lot of people who talk about reforming American universities like to say that they should be "run like a business." Those people seldom explain what they mean by that, because they take their "like a business" phrase as self-evident and self-explanatory. But American universities, even if they're non-profits, already run like businesses. In fact, they are businesses. The only question is what kind of businesses they should be.

(Part of people mean when they say schools should be run like businesses, of course, is that they should be run by a businessman: by a CEO much like the CEOs who run large corporations, with a free hand to use the top-down management techniques seen in Fortune 500 companies. That's a subject for another post, but at least a few universities have already tried their luck with a CEO-style President.)

But if we're seriously going to imagine the enterprise of the university as a business, the key question is what university's product is. Most people who talk about "running universities like a business" generally imagine that the core business is selling classes to the students. That makes a kind of easy, first-glance sense: the students pay tuition, so they must be the customers, and they thing they pay for, the classes and credit hours and diplomas, must be the product. In this model, there's no fundamental difference between selling courses to undergraduates and selling slices of pizza at the mall. You give the customers what they want. When you're selling pizza that means cutting your price and throwing on a little extra pepperoni.

But in a complicated business model, the most obvious place where money changes hands isn't always the heart of the actual business, and it's a rookie mistake to make that presumption. For example, thinking of newspapers as in the business of selling readers the actual copies of the paper is a mistake; the core business of the newspaper is selling advertising, not newspapers per se, and the price of a copy is only a way to recoup the distribution costs. In the same way, tuition at non-profit universities merely offsets the costs of operations. In fact, almost every university (without counting the newer for-profit schools) runs a loss on tuition. Even when a student is paying full price, that full tuition doesn't actually cover the expenses of teaching the student for a year. Maybe that's a sign of inefficient, unbusinesslike practices that require a CEO to whip things into shape. But more likely it's a sign of a different business model entirely. The wealthiest and most successful universities actually take a bigger loss on tuition than other schools, because they can afford to, and because doing so furthers their long-term goals.

The actual product of university teaching is alumni. (The university has another product, research results, but I want to keep the focus on teaching for this post.) The goal of a university, properly understood, is to produce as many educated and successful people as it can. The wealthy private schools, such as the Ivies, spend more money on their undergraduates, give out more financial aid, and keep their sticker price pretty much the same as any other private college's; the top price at Harvard or Princeton is the same as the top price at a less famous place. So Princeton, to take an example, collects less in overall tuition money than a second-tier private university does, but spends much more. Yet it keeps growing richer than its less famous rivals. Princeton's core business is alumni development; the school lives off the gratitude of its successful former students. And the more generous those grateful alumni are, the more Princeton can afford to invest in its current students, in order to maximize their later success. That is a business model, and judging by the last century or two a quite viable one. Public universities also succeed when their alumni donate to them, but the chief source of extra revenue there is funding by state governments. The current rhetoric about free markets makes any government spending look suspect, but funding state universities is a deeply rational economic decision. In effect, the state legislatures are buying in-state alumni, subsidizing tuition in order to have a better-educated and better-paid corps of adult taxpayers in the future. The question of how much to spend on, say, the University of California could be rendered, economically, as the question of how much to spend to increase California's tax base.

The difference between selling classes and producing alumni is enormous, and affects the educational strategy on every level. If you're selling classes by the slice, you keep the costs as low as you can. If you're producing alumni, you keep the quality as high as you can, even if it means taking short-term losses. If you're selling classes, you're focused on providing the customers what they want before they take the class. If you're producing alumni, you're focused on creating long-term satisfaction and long-term success. If you're selling classes, the students only have to be happy when it's time to enroll for next semester, but if you're producing alumni, they have to be happy with the education they got twenty years later. If you're selling classes, the impulse is to sell, and indeed too often to oversell, the benefits of the classes. If you're producing alumni, there is sometimes even an incentive to block students from a career path they might not be suited to; the pre-med courses at Princeton aren't designed to maximize customer satisfaction. They're in fact designed to redirect young people who think they want to be doctors, but who don't seem to have the skills or the motivation to become very successful as physicians, into some other field where they are more likely to thrive. (Princeton would rather have an alumnus become a leading art historian than a pediatrician with lots of malpractice suits; and while it allows its students to make that decision on their own, it lets them face the reality of the professional demands.) Now, that would make for very poor advertising copy ("Princeton: Where We Disabuse You of Your Less Realistic Dreams") but it's ultimately more interested in the student's success than other models of education are.

Universities are in business, right now. Their business is their students' eventual fulfillment and success. When you hear university administrators talking about building up a school's "brand," remember that universities were building their brands, through the quality of their alumni, before business types ever stumbled across the concept. You can try to build a school's brand the way you would for sneakers, or pizzas, or car stereos, with fancy logos and advertising, but at the end of the day a school's real brand is the reputation it gets from the quality of its alumni. If your old students are impressive, people will be impressed with your school; if your old students aren't, people won't be. A university's prosperity is inevitably and rightly linked to that of its former students. And in the end, a school doesn't deserve to be rewarded for anything else.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

First Press: How Bill O'Reilly Saved Christmas

Genghis — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:18:11 +0000

Readers, I apologize for my slow posting lately. I've been hunkering down to work on my upcoming book, How Bill O'Reilly Saved Christmas. But I'm popping my head up briefly to announce my first piece of press, a blog article at the Washington Post. Check it out to see me answer probing questions like "What is the single most resilient myth you will crush in the book?", "How will conservatives react to your analysis?", "Is it true that you once saved the nation of Liechtenstein from an army of Ann Coulter clones?"

I've also just discovered, via self-googling, that my book is now available on Amazon. Sign up now for the pre-order sale price. (And yes, I will be flogging my book at every opportunity for the rest of the year.)

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

"Down the Republicans' Throats"

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:00:00 +0000

It's clearly an orchestrated Republican talking point that health care reform is being "rammed" (or jammed, or crammed) "down our throats." That talking point is silly and deceptive. (After bills passed the House and passed the Senate with a 60-vote majority, the vote to make the details of those bills match is undemocratic?) But I also admit, I find it hilarious.

"Ramming [x] down our throats" is a stereotypical cri de coeur on comic-book messageboards, where it's used by fanboys or fangals who've gotten their (Spiderman-themed) undergarments in a knot over some comic-book storyline that displeases them. (Example: "Anyone who understands Batman at all would know that he could never feel the same kind of love for another woman that years of continuity have shown that he feels for Selina Kyle. DC Comics is ruining the character by RAMMING this Silver St. Cloud "romance" DOWN OUR THROATS!") So every time I hear John Boehner use that phrase, I find it hysterically funny. It's like he's some guy who's on the verge of tears about the Blue Beetle not having a monthly comic anymore.

When comic-book fans protest that writers are "ramming a story down our throats" they simply mean that the writers have written a story. That said story happens to displease that particular fans is infuriating, and a sign that, somehow, that the fan's integrity and free will have been violated. (Of course, only a small, vocal, and immature minority of comics fans are like this. But they are, alas, usually among the first ones you'll notice.) The phrase connotes a certain self-righteous hysteria, combined with a deep presumption of entitlement. The fan has not actually helped participated in creating the new Batman storyline, but (s)he feels a right to veto any storyline that is not acceptable by his or her own idiosyncratic standards. The implicit argument is that the writers should provide the fans only with exactly the stories the fans want.

When John Boehner or Mitch McConnell say that a piece of legislation is being "rammed down our throats," they simply mean that they have lost a vote in Congress. The implicit argument is that the losing side should not have to accept losing votes simply because the other side actually, um, outvoted them. And it presumes, oddly, that a piece of legislation should be designed to please all of the legislators who did not participate in writing it and who did not want it to pass. But weirdly, the people who are opposed to bills generally don't like those bills. That's how the world works.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Costa Rica to re-institute military to fend off possible Rush Limbaugh attack

William K. Wolfrum — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:49:44 +0000

COSTA RICA – Calling it the “greatest threat our nation has ever faced,” Costa Rican President Óscar Arias has announced that his country will re-institute the military in order to fend of an invasion by American entertainer Rush Limbaugh.

“We can sit back and wait to see if the U.S. passes health care reform, or we can act now,” said Arias. “We don’t want our answer to come in the form of a mushmouth cloud.”

Arias was responding to recent comments from the entertainer, who said he would move to Costa Rica if health care reform passed in the United States.

“I don’t know. I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented, I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica,” said Limbaugh.

Arias said he would not allow his nation to suffer the same fate as the U.S. and called for every man, woman and child in the nation to join the military and guard the borders. Costa Rica has not had an active military since 1948.

“This is the greatest threat our democracy has ever faced,” said Arias. “If Limbaugh gets in, then Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter will surely follow. They travel in packs and share the same vision of world demolition.

“We cannot allow these weapons of mass distraction come and ruin our nation as they have worked so hard to do in America,” added Arias.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

John Ensign on Eric Massa: "I don't tickle anyone"

William K. Wolfrum — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:42:56 +0000

WASHINGTON – Republican Senator John Ensign – speaking from his room at the C Street Center – has come out swinging against ex-Representative Eric Massa.

“That he would admit to a tickle fight is a travesty and an embarrassment for this Congress,” said Ensign, who at no time during his speech slept with any of his friends’ wives. “The Democrats have once again proven to have serious ethics problems.”

Ensign – who while speaking never once tried to find a job for anyone he cuckolded – said he felt his record showed him as a fierce non-tickler.

“I don’t tickle the Republican Party at all,” said Ensign, who was backed by close friend, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. “I stridently avoid any ticklish situations.”

Ensign’s speech was cut short, however, as his parents arrived and chased away reporters with a broom and $100 bills.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Everyone in the NFL arrested

William K. Wolfrum — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:01:10 +0000

CANTON, Ohio – In a surprise move by the Federal Government, every single player in the NFL has been arrested today. Charges range from possession of illegal performance enhancing drugs, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, perjury, driving while intoxicated, and an undeserved sense of self-worth.

Aside from the players, every owner was also arrested, for everything from collusion to tax fraud to using the NFL season as a bargaining chip.

“We figured we had probable cause just to arrest everyone,” said a government spokesman. “We’re pretty sure we can get a 90 percent conviction rate, without even having any physical evidence yet.”

The charges come following several recent incidents, including Minnesota Vikings All-Pro defensive tackle Kevin Williams testifying that he has never taken steroids or steroid-masking agents, and Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger being accused of sexual assault.

Also, two players – Miami’s Will Allen and Washington’s Bryan Westbrook – have recently been arrested for DUIs.

“It’s pretty obvious that everyone in the NFL has skirted the law for years,” said the federal official. “Even the players that aren’t guilty of anything are guilty of hanging around those that are guilty.

"We're just trying to protect the general public,” he added.

With all teams now sans any players and the NFL Draft coming up, the arrests are good news for former Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. The former University of Florida quarterback is now expected to be picked as early as the 6th round by quarterback-hungry teams.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Eric Massa: Trial by Combat

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:32:19 +0000

After days of mounting sexual harasment revelations, Eric Massa has gone old school. As in 12th-century old school. First he was denying that he had any ethics problems, then he was admitting minor ethics problems, then he was resigning over those totally minor ethics problems, then he went on the attack. Those totally-no-big-deal ethics questions he was quitting Congress over? They were trumped up by the House Democratic leadership! So really, this was a dirty trick over health care! Yeah, that's the ticket.

Limbaugh and Beck run with that story. And although the story makes no sense, for three or four individual reasons, George Stephanopoulos dutifully asked Robert Gibbs about it, as the White House bore the burden of refuting this claim.

Massa's basic tactic hearkens back to Merrie England, before there was a guarantee of a jury trial. In those romantic days, when upper-class criminals were thrown into prison, they could basically start accusing everyone they had grudges against of any felonies that came to mind, and challenge them to trial by combat. And then everyone they accused, on the sole basis of the imprisoned felons' accusations, got thrown into prison too, until the imprisoned felon got a chance to fight them. This didn't get the accusers out of jail themselves. It was done purely out of spite, to hurt people. The felonious accusers did it because they had nothing left to lose, and because they were generally evil.

Massa's ploy, likewise, is not an attempt to stay in office (he's already resigned) but a display of vindictive despair. Nothing can save Massa's political career, but he's going to take some other people down if he can.

The felons back in the twelfth century could get away with this vicious trick because they were dealing with a justice system that made no attempt to verify truth independently. It wasn't just that early medieval courts didn't search for truth in the forensic ways that we have come to expect, it's that the courts didn't believe they could determine truth at all. The trial by combat system works on the assumption that no judge can find out who's telling the truth and who's lying, so you let the two parties fight and say that God has vindicated the winner. There was no looking for evidence, no use of any judge or jury's independent reason. So in the name of impartiality every accusation, no matter how wildly improbable, had to be taken at the same face value, and all of the accused treated alike.

This kind of nonsense was eventually replaced by things like the grand jury system, which attempts to sort valid accusations from flimsy or malicious ones, and generally by the rights, such as habeas corpus and jury trials, that the Magna Carta bequeathed to us in 1215.

Massa's accusations can only thrive in an environment where people refuse to exercise independent judgment in pursuit of the truth. Our current political media environment now largely operates like 12th-century jurisprudence, throwing up its hands, proclaiming moral or logical conclusions outside its charge, and calling whoever wins the brawl the rightful victor. It's a 12th-century world these days. We just live in it.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Sarah Palin crosses border to get health care in Canada? Much ado about Skagway

William K. Wolfrum — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:47:58 +0000

Liberal blogs are abuzz today about Sarah Palin’s admission that her family crossed the border from Skagway, Alaska to Whitehorse in Canada to receive health care for her brother:

“My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.”

Now, while it’s easy to spot the political stupidity of her bringing up this story, there does need to be a non-knee-jerk response to it. Mainly, the fact that her family was in Skagway. In the 1960s.

I actually spent a summer working as a reporter for the Skagway News. In the summer, with cruise ships pouring in, the population of the Southeastern town explodes to about 2,000. But the fact is, year-round, the population of Skagway is in the neighborhood of 800. It’s not exactly a great place to spend your winters. Or to get health care for serious issues.

Skagway is a town with limited access, in or out. It’s also not a place where it’s likely they can handle severe burns. Maybe in 2010 they can, but it’s almost a certainty that they couldn’t in the 1960s. I’d be willing to wager that any major medical problem would end up being taken care of Whitehorse, which is by far the closest big city around.

Add to that the fact that Canada’s Universal Health Care program wasn’t truly in full effect until 1966*; it was Palin's parents that made the journey; and they most likely paid for it.

So while mocking Palin is rightfully a national sport at this point, and the timing and content of her remark was politically stupid, it’s really a non-starter. And poor political discourse.

Update: While the “Getting free health care in Canada” story is still a non-starter, the Anchorage Daily News, among others, has noted that Palin originally told The Skagway News that her brother had been taken via ferry to Juneau.

* Some confusion on this. Here’s the link to a time line of Canada’s health care system.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

It’s your own damned fault if you get murdered

William K. Wolfrum — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:20:11 +0000

While murder is still considered a grave crime, today’s enlightened society tends to see it as something more than a black & white issue. Because more often than not, a murder victim has every opportunity to avoid being murdered.

Simply put, if you get murdered, it’s very likely your own damned fault. This is obvious to any who care to look at the issue.

Most murder victims could easily save their own lives if they followed a few simple rules:

Don’t dress provocatively – you’re just asking to be murdered.
Never drink to excess publicly – it will lower your inhibitions and make you an easier murder target.
Don’t walk alone, anywhere – you’ll just attract murderers.
Don’t flirt - you could be flirting with a murderer.
Never go to anyone’s home – again, you’re just asking to be murdered.

But the fact is that most murder victims are too careless, too un-Godly, too unwilling to take the personal responsibility needed to avoid being murdered. This is why so many murder victims are far too ashamed to go to authorities following their murder – they know they played a part in it.

And the legal system is aware of this. This is why so few murderers get sentenced for their crimes. Defense lawyers will quickly pounce on the past history of the victim and come to one conclusion – the murdered didn’t do what’s necessary to not be murdered. Thus, many victims of murder will not go to the authorities.

Murder is epidemic in the United States. The statistics are staggering. But the fact is that murderers are helpless to stop themselves, and when people dress and act in certain ways, all they are doing is attracting those that will murder them.

It’s a hard truth, but the fact is that in 2010, we should be a more enlightened society. So dress conservatively, don’t go out, and don’t draw attention to yourself. And remember, once a murder starts, it’s too late to say no. You’ve asked for it, and it’s going to happen.

Because – as most people rightly believe – the blame for the crime of murder falls almost solely on the murder victim.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos