I am from a small town in Central Illinois. It is a town of about 11,000 people. We have about 3 churches for every resident, we have 2 Christian Bookstores and one used book store. The closest thing to a new bookstore is the WalMart on the edge of town which has single-handedly destroyed the downtown area. And while you are likely to see a sign for which girls softball team has won the latest state high school series, or you will be able to read all about Lincoln and his work as a circuit lawyer who stopped often in our town, you will have a damn hard time finding out that we are the hometown of a NOBEL LAUREATE.
I'm here visiting for the week visiting the parents and getting things done for them. I have no other real connection other than that with my hometown anymore. So I meander around the town trying to re-connect to the town. But it is a sad state of things to know I grew up in this town, spent the first 15 years of my life here and I never knew we were the home of Ed Purcell who won the Physics Nobel in 1952. He was a pioneer in nuclear magnetic resonance and radar at MIT. But I didn't know that until I was living in Boston reading a history of radar. I find out my dad knew Purcell's family.
You can come to this charming farm town and learn all about Lincoln and his "writ of quietus" he requested for the noisy pigs that lived under the courthouse while he was a lawyer. But you would think having a Nobel Laureate son was some sort of dirty secret.
The Fabled Writ of Quietus apparently also applied to talking about my hometown's addition to the world of science. Funny, sad, and it makes me wonder about America's priorities in relation to science.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Conference Presentation Schema
I just returned from a scientific conference. It was one for the chemists in the company I work for but I noted it was similar to other conferences I’ve been to. I’ve been fascinated over the years as I sit through more presentations. I’ve began to notice, as we all do, that presentations given at conferences appear to break down into certain categories. I suspect similar categorizations are available somewhere else on the internet already. But that won’t stop me from posting my own
Classification Scheme for Science Conference Presentations
Classification Scheme for Science Conference Presentations
Slogsentation: A presentation delivered relatively slowly, without any discernible inflection, near monotone, few breaks, very little in the way of organization, and almost always delivered just at the edge of the microphone’s ability to pick up the sound
Umsentation: A presentation with a density of “um” of >5 ums/20 actual words
Hypersentation: A presentation delivered at maximum speed. Accompanied by 1millisecond/slide
Hyposentation: A promise of actual information which immediately goes very deep into the topic without providing anything like background. Thereby rendering it to be of interest to only 3 people on the entire planet, only one of which is in the room at the time, that being the presenter.
Neutron Presentation: Maximum words on a slide coupled with Hypersentation
Recursive Presentation: Three slides forward, one slide back. Repeat.
Acrosentation: A presentation dominated by acronyms which are never spelled out.
Masturbsentation: Given near the end of the conference showing pictures of a small clique having fun or being “silly” earlier at the conference as if everyone knows the people in the pictures and that these are really fun and wacky people. This is the way to recognize the “really important and interesting people”, as opposed to the people you hung out with.
Bait & Switch: Title indicates technological information will be presented but this is dispensed with in about 2 slides followed by 40+ slides of marketing analysis.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
KRYPTONITE!
In the exciting world of NEW MINERALS we see a news report of the discovery of KRYPTONITE!
BBC News reports the discovery of a new mineral, now named Jadarite, which bears the formula for kryptonite as revealed in Superman Returns, the movie.
A white silicate mineral whose chemical composition includes boron, lithium and sodium was found in a mine in Serbia near a town called Jadar. It doesn't contain any of the element krypton (surprise, surprise) so the mineralogical community doesn't feel "good" about naming it kryptonite, despite the fact that its formula is like that seen in the movie Superman Returns on a box of kryptonite.
This, of course, from the same group of people who feel mineral names like Jimthompsonite, dickite, cummingtonite (the latter being the most dirty mineral name in the whole field) are A-OK!
But perhaps the best part of the whole BBC article is this comment on the newly discovered Jadarite:
The real mineral is white and harmless, says Dr Chris Stanley, a mineralogist at London's Natural History Museum.
Whew! While I would dearly love to have a sample of this in my collection I was initially afraid that my yellow-sun induced superpowers would make me succeptible to harm from Jadarite!
And if I can make one request to the committee responsible for axing "kryptonite" as a valid mineral name for this material, it would be:
Why not call it cryptokryptonite?
I think everyone would be happy then.
BBC News reports the discovery of a new mineral, now named Jadarite, which bears the formula for kryptonite as revealed in Superman Returns, the movie.
A white silicate mineral whose chemical composition includes boron, lithium and sodium was found in a mine in Serbia near a town called Jadar. It doesn't contain any of the element krypton (surprise, surprise) so the mineralogical community doesn't feel "good" about naming it kryptonite, despite the fact that its formula is like that seen in the movie Superman Returns on a box of kryptonite.
This, of course, from the same group of people who feel mineral names like Jimthompsonite, dickite, cummingtonite (the latter being the most dirty mineral name in the whole field) are A-OK!
But perhaps the best part of the whole BBC article is this comment on the newly discovered Jadarite:
The real mineral is white and harmless, says Dr Chris Stanley, a mineralogist at London's Natural History Museum.
Whew! While I would dearly love to have a sample of this in my collection I was initially afraid that my yellow-sun induced superpowers would make me succeptible to harm from Jadarite!
And if I can make one request to the committee responsible for axing "kryptonite" as a valid mineral name for this material, it would be:
Why not call it cryptokryptonite?
I think everyone would be happy then.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Politically Acceptable
Recently Mercury News published an editorial excoriating Senator Sheila Kuehl for diverting attention away from more "politically acceptable" healthcare plans.
Yeah, Senator Kuehl! Why are you wasting California’s time proposing something that would be truly universal, when good “politically acceptable” legislation like “mandatory insurance-based plans” or “market-based plans” are still available?
Sure California currently has 19% uninsured versus the U.S. average of 16% uninsured (1), but why should that be of interest to anyone? The insurance companies have a vital role to play in any of these “politically reasonable” plans. Of course the minor, teeny tiny problem with plans like Scwarzenneger’s is that it requires the federal government to kick in some money, and that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon (2).
Senator Kuehl, when you divert precious resources from the real debate you only hurt people. Like the 2,500 Californians who currently die each year due to lack of healthcare coverage (3). If there was a way to help just a small percentage of those people by a convoluted, unenforceable mandatory insurance plan versus helping all of them by a universal plan, I can’t think of a more noble goal! Rational market friendly plans like Bush’s may actually cover up to 7% of the estimated 45 million uninsured in the U.S.! Isn’t that good enough?
And besides, market-based plans and private insurance plans are simply more “American”! What could be more fiscally conservative and “politically reasonable” than paying nearly twice as much for healthcare than the Swiss but having a healthcare system which ranks overall #37 among OECD countries in terms of overall quality and access? Personally I will always buy a GM car versus a Toyota since I know that when I buy a GM I can pay $1500 extra to cover health care coverage as opposed to just $400 extra for a Toyota. Americans always pay a premium for “value” (4)
Oh sure there are critics out there who will say “Why don’t we enact single-payer universal healthcare and then let everyone in the state take $1 out of every $3 and set fire to it and it works out the same?” (6) They are too busy tokin’ it up in the ivory towers to know what us REAL Americans like. Us real Americans are the most well-informed technically savvy shoppers the world has ever seen (despite that fact that according to a 2005 Harris poll 25% believe in homeopathic medicine, and 27% of us believe in witches), maybe that’s why for our annual outlay of over $4000/person we live, on average, 5% shorter than those suckers in Japan who only pay $1800/person per year. A lot of us are probably born under an “unhealthy star sign” and we don’t get to the local witch in time to get a cure.
Besides, what’s wrong with keeping the insurance companies in the loop? Really? Sure in 2005 the top 10 CEO’s of health care companies raked in a paultry $141 million dollars, and the top paid executive in this lot was Wm. McGuire of United Health Group with a small compensation package of more than $37 million (7). I wonder if he worries about his healthcare deductible? I mean there is no way that money would be available unless the companies were helping the general public really really well! But then they should be making lots of money…in 2006 the cost of healthcare coverage in the U.S. vastly outpaced average income and increased about twice the rate of inflation (8)! That’s just good bizness.
And talk about good bizness! Good business means managing your risk. Insurance companies are experts at that. As more people are forced to individual insurance plans some will get to face the inevitable denial for such egregious life-style choices as “being a fireman” or “working as a police officer” (9). But these folks had to know that before they decided to do something as irresponsible as that. Oh wait…no they didn’t. They were systematically denied full and easy access to that information! Oh well. Live ‘n learn! At least under the Schwazenegger plan the insurance companies will be in charge of establishing costs for healthcare.
Now we all know that currently there’s a mandatory automobile insurance system here in California and look how well that works to cover everyone? Sure about 25% of Californians don’t currently bother to carry said “mandated” insurance, but then they never get in auto accidents either. I’m sure the same will happen when healthcare insurance is mandated too!
So Bravo to the San Jose Mercury News for standing up to Senator Kuehl’s tactics of attempting to divert attention away from the real topic: politically feasible semi-universal coverage that helps maintain gross inefficiencies and out of control overhead costs!
Yeah, Senator Kuehl! Why are you wasting California’s time proposing something that would be truly universal, when good “politically acceptable” legislation like “mandatory insurance-based plans” or “market-based plans” are still available?
Sure California currently has 19% uninsured versus the U.S. average of 16% uninsured (1), but why should that be of interest to anyone? The insurance companies have a vital role to play in any of these “politically reasonable” plans. Of course the minor, teeny tiny problem with plans like Scwarzenneger’s is that it requires the federal government to kick in some money, and that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon (2).
Senator Kuehl, when you divert precious resources from the real debate you only hurt people. Like the 2,500 Californians who currently die each year due to lack of healthcare coverage (3). If there was a way to help just a small percentage of those people by a convoluted, unenforceable mandatory insurance plan versus helping all of them by a universal plan, I can’t think of a more noble goal! Rational market friendly plans like Bush’s may actually cover up to 7% of the estimated 45 million uninsured in the U.S.! Isn’t that good enough?
And besides, market-based plans and private insurance plans are simply more “American”! What could be more fiscally conservative and “politically reasonable” than paying nearly twice as much for healthcare than the Swiss but having a healthcare system which ranks overall #37 among OECD countries in terms of overall quality and access? Personally I will always buy a GM car versus a Toyota since I know that when I buy a GM I can pay $1500 extra to cover health care coverage as opposed to just $400 extra for a Toyota. Americans always pay a premium for “value” (4)
Oh sure there are critics out there who will say “Why don’t we enact single-payer universal healthcare and then let everyone in the state take $1 out of every $3 and set fire to it and it works out the same?” (6) They are too busy tokin’ it up in the ivory towers to know what us REAL Americans like. Us real Americans are the most well-informed technically savvy shoppers the world has ever seen (despite that fact that according to a 2005 Harris poll 25% believe in homeopathic medicine, and 27% of us believe in witches), maybe that’s why for our annual outlay of over $4000/person we live, on average, 5% shorter than those suckers in Japan who only pay $1800/person per year. A lot of us are probably born under an “unhealthy star sign” and we don’t get to the local witch in time to get a cure.
Besides, what’s wrong with keeping the insurance companies in the loop? Really? Sure in 2005 the top 10 CEO’s of health care companies raked in a paultry $141 million dollars, and the top paid executive in this lot was Wm. McGuire of United Health Group with a small compensation package of more than $37 million (7). I wonder if he worries about his healthcare deductible? I mean there is no way that money would be available unless the companies were helping the general public really really well! But then they should be making lots of money…in 2006 the cost of healthcare coverage in the U.S. vastly outpaced average income and increased about twice the rate of inflation (8)! That’s just good bizness.
And talk about good bizness! Good business means managing your risk. Insurance companies are experts at that. As more people are forced to individual insurance plans some will get to face the inevitable denial for such egregious life-style choices as “being a fireman” or “working as a police officer” (9). But these folks had to know that before they decided to do something as irresponsible as that. Oh wait…no they didn’t. They were systematically denied full and easy access to that information! Oh well. Live ‘n learn! At least under the Schwazenegger plan the insurance companies will be in charge of establishing costs for healthcare.
Now we all know that currently there’s a mandatory automobile insurance system here in California and look how well that works to cover everyone? Sure about 25% of Californians don’t currently bother to carry said “mandated” insurance, but then they never get in auto accidents either. I’m sure the same will happen when healthcare insurance is mandated too!
So Bravo to the San Jose Mercury News for standing up to Senator Kuehl’s tactics of attempting to divert attention away from the real topic: politically feasible semi-universal coverage that helps maintain gross inefficiencies and out of control overhead costs!
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Your Salary Is Leading to an “Uncompetitive Fixed Cost”.
I work for a major corporation and have been hearing lately that the management of our company and many other companies is “moving away from pay raises in preference to variable pay options.”
What this means is, it’s better for the bottom line of the company if you don’t get raises, but they give you better bonuses. See, raises are something that once you get, the company always has to pay you at least that much. But bonuses can be more directly tied to company performance.
Sounds good, no? Who can complain about a better bottom line? Who wants to “price themselves out of the market”? That’s bad. It’s bad because a poorly paid job is better than no job.
This is true I suppose.
But the language and the sentiment are somehow completely fucked up. I read today that one of the main reasons to get away from pay raises is because pay raises lead to “uncompetitive fixed costs”. This all started when the employees working for the company went from “personnel” to “human resources” to “human capital”. It’s so damn inconvenient to have to put up with this bioaccumulating capital. And for some reason it needs to make more money! First it was “the cost of living” then it wanted to “buy a house” or “have a family”….sheesh! Don’t the human capital units realize that the company is not a charity ???
Ah, the old days. I remember being under the impression that “pay raises” served two purposes: to help keep pace with the cost of living in an area and to provide a lifestyle for the employees. I’ve met people who actually, after graduating from college with a doctorate want to do the unthinkable and “get married”, “buy a home” and “have children”. Those things usually require more money than you were making back in graduate school (unless your kids like dog food from the can). And pay raises allowed these young professionals to “plan” life rather than live by the vicissitudes of the ever-fluctuating market forces.
But this is the 21st Century! A brave new world. Where employees…uh I mean “human capital” units vie for a toehold on the American dream by hoping that their work in “product delivery” or “accounts receivable” will vault the company into the stratosphere of profitability so they can get a nice bonus of maybe 10% in a really really really good year.
Meanwhile the CEO of the same company toils away for a nearly $1 million base pay but occasionally is able to scrape in a 500% bonus. It must be hard for him or her to plan their lives when they can only count on making $900,000 base pay and have to rely on the whims of the board of directors as to whether they will be able to clear an addition $5 million dollars in bonus.
So, see, it hits all of us. The lowest levels to the highest. In this tough economy we all have to give just a little so we don’t cause our company to have to get rid of us because of our exhorbitantly “uncompetitive fixed costs”.
What this means is, it’s better for the bottom line of the company if you don’t get raises, but they give you better bonuses. See, raises are something that once you get, the company always has to pay you at least that much. But bonuses can be more directly tied to company performance.
Sounds good, no? Who can complain about a better bottom line? Who wants to “price themselves out of the market”? That’s bad. It’s bad because a poorly paid job is better than no job.
This is true I suppose.
But the language and the sentiment are somehow completely fucked up. I read today that one of the main reasons to get away from pay raises is because pay raises lead to “uncompetitive fixed costs”. This all started when the employees working for the company went from “personnel” to “human resources” to “human capital”. It’s so damn inconvenient to have to put up with this bioaccumulating capital. And for some reason it needs to make more money! First it was “the cost of living” then it wanted to “buy a house” or “have a family”….sheesh! Don’t the human capital units realize that the company is not a charity ???
Ah, the old days. I remember being under the impression that “pay raises” served two purposes: to help keep pace with the cost of living in an area and to provide a lifestyle for the employees. I’ve met people who actually, after graduating from college with a doctorate want to do the unthinkable and “get married”, “buy a home” and “have children”. Those things usually require more money than you were making back in graduate school (unless your kids like dog food from the can). And pay raises allowed these young professionals to “plan” life rather than live by the vicissitudes of the ever-fluctuating market forces.
But this is the 21st Century! A brave new world. Where employees…uh I mean “human capital” units vie for a toehold on the American dream by hoping that their work in “product delivery” or “accounts receivable” will vault the company into the stratosphere of profitability so they can get a nice bonus of maybe 10% in a really really really good year.
Meanwhile the CEO of the same company toils away for a nearly $1 million base pay but occasionally is able to scrape in a 500% bonus. It must be hard for him or her to plan their lives when they can only count on making $900,000 base pay and have to rely on the whims of the board of directors as to whether they will be able to clear an addition $5 million dollars in bonus.
So, see, it hits all of us. The lowest levels to the highest. In this tough economy we all have to give just a little so we don’t cause our company to have to get rid of us because of our exhorbitantly “uncompetitive fixed costs”.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
“Calculate Your Wedding Emissions”
Oh dear god in heaven, I think my brain is melting. PortOvert.com has an on-line wedding “carbon” calculator for the environmentally conscientious bride and groom.
I like the idea of reducing our “carbon footprint”, but most weddings are not conducted with anything like “moderation” in mind. That’s why the average wedding has 164 guests and there are usually at least 3 women who will pay good money to buy a dress that not only will not be worn again but indeed, because they are hideous bridesmaid dresses can NEVER see the light of day again for fear of ridicule.
I wonder, however, in the case of the wedding carbon calculator, if they take into account the amount of CO2 that used to be removed from the atmosphere by wheat and sugarcane plants that are now sequestered into the ginormous cake only to be recycled by the various omnivores who will replenish the earth with nutritive waste a couple days later.
Now my wedding was probably not as carbon neutral as I’d like, but it did include people dressed as PIRATES, so I guess it all evens out in the end. I think you are quite aware of the negative correlation between the relative number of pirates and global warming .
Hey we did OUR part! More Pirate Weddings = Better Environment!
I like the idea of reducing our “carbon footprint”, but most weddings are not conducted with anything like “moderation” in mind. That’s why the average wedding has 164 guests and there are usually at least 3 women who will pay good money to buy a dress that not only will not be worn again but indeed, because they are hideous bridesmaid dresses can NEVER see the light of day again for fear of ridicule.
I wonder, however, in the case of the wedding carbon calculator, if they take into account the amount of CO2 that used to be removed from the atmosphere by wheat and sugarcane plants that are now sequestered into the ginormous cake only to be recycled by the various omnivores who will replenish the earth with nutritive waste a couple days later.
Now my wedding was probably not as carbon neutral as I’d like, but it did include people dressed as PIRATES, so I guess it all evens out in the end. I think you are quite aware of the negative correlation between the relative number of pirates and global warming .
Hey we did OUR part! More Pirate Weddings = Better Environment!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Pascal’s Climate Wager/Sophie’s Climate Choice
OK, it sounds like the overwhelming verdict is in that global climate change is coming and likely the result of human activity (Source).
But if you listen to the “right” you get the impression that we really don’t know much of anything. Who knows? It could be that the climate will not heat up! It could be that the cause of this alleged heating is NOT human activity! It could all just be coincidence!
Sure, maybe, who knows? The data indicates that we are pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the temperature is rising. Cause and effect? Well, no scientist can ever say with that this or that particular correlation implies causation.
It is the immutable wall of deduction. We assume that there is a statistical link. Only problem is, we don’t have any other planets we’ve done this to in order to compare results. If only we’d screwed up some other planet before we started working on this one!
This is the Pascal’s Wager Portion:
Pascal’s Wager is a theological wager that says, in effect, if you can’t prove God’s existence you can only make a choice based on potential outcomes. If you believe in God and there is a God, you hit the jackpot! If there is no God, when you die it’s no big deal because you’ll just cease to exist. Didn’t cost you too much during your earthly life (especially if you didn’t value reason, the ability to question and explore everything, or being free of fear).
But if you didn’t believe in God when you die and you find you were wrong you are in a world o’ hurt. Eternal torment at worst. Eternal punishment for, what, maybe 70 brief years of “free thought”. Hardly worth it, really.
So the Wager says it makes more sense to choose to believe in God because the outcomes are likely a win or a draw.
Climate Worries are a lot like that, imho. If you believe we can and should change our habits to affect a better climate if you find you are wrong, you simply end up living pretty much as we do today or maybe, if there was nothing we could do from the beginning, cooking on the planet but you got better gas mileage. IF, however you are right, then the planet is saved and humanity will go on! Our generation will be the next greatest generation!
On the other hand if you choose to disbelieve in “Anthropogenic Climate Change” and you opt to keep driving your giant SUV and pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere so you can pilot the Hummer (by yourself) through the suburban jungle, then if you find you were wrong we all cook. And in the end we will all know that YOU and your stupid gas-guzzler were largely responsible for our pain. Good job, asshole.
The reasonable thing is to work, and work hard, for an environmentally sustainable future that, at the very least will improve our impact on the planet and won’t make it worse! And who wants to pay more for gasoline?
Now here’s where Sophie’s Climate Choice comes in:
In the book Sophie’s Choice the eponymous character is forced at one point to make a choice between the lives of her two children.
Our choice for the most environmentally friendly power sources are coming up fast. Suppose we go all “Ed Begley Jr” on the environment and get an electric car. Well, that electricity has to come from somewhere and right now it’s coming from the coal-fired power plants by and large. Those things dump so much CO2 into the atmosphere as well as an alarming number of other nasties. We put scrubbers on the plants to keep down SOx which produces acid rain, so that’s good, but you can’t really keep from making CO2, it’s gonna get out on a largescale basis.
What about nuclear? Well, yeah, that’s overall cleaner. No combustion byproducts and on a daily basis, a nuke plant spews out less radioactive material than a coal fired powerplant! (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html). You’d be surprised what is in coal. It isn’t just fun carbon and hydrogen and a little oxygen. It has just about any metal you can imagine, including thorium, lead, uranium, mercury! It’s a veritable Periodic Table.
But then again, when a coal-fired powerplant burns to the ground in Salem, MA it doesn’t completely contaminate the entirety of New England. And you can live in Salem again within the next couple days.
This is a “risk choice” we need to make. Right now solar, wind and hydro power are still bit players, but have a lot of potential. They will require a lot more additional capacity to get us over the hump. And remember, we’ve taken Pascal’s Climate Wager and decided to DO something and time is running out! So our primary choice is nuclear at this point. At least it can buy us time to develop more eco-friendly, low-risk means.
Ugh. Which do you choose? The centralized, steady poisoning of our environment through a coal fired power plant? Or a ticking nuclear disaster that might or might not destroy vast swaths of land?
Man, this responsibility stuff is starting to suck! I’m gonna trade in my Yaris and get me a Hummer. Then I’ll log into Rapture Ready and “mark time” until the end! Or at least until alternatives are more well funded and start their exponential growth in development.
But if you listen to the “right” you get the impression that we really don’t know much of anything. Who knows? It could be that the climate will not heat up! It could be that the cause of this alleged heating is NOT human activity! It could all just be coincidence!
Sure, maybe, who knows? The data indicates that we are pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the temperature is rising. Cause and effect? Well, no scientist can ever say with that this or that particular correlation implies causation.
It is the immutable wall of deduction. We assume that there is a statistical link. Only problem is, we don’t have any other planets we’ve done this to in order to compare results. If only we’d screwed up some other planet before we started working on this one!
This is the Pascal’s Wager Portion:
Pascal’s Wager is a theological wager that says, in effect, if you can’t prove God’s existence you can only make a choice based on potential outcomes. If you believe in God and there is a God, you hit the jackpot! If there is no God, when you die it’s no big deal because you’ll just cease to exist. Didn’t cost you too much during your earthly life (especially if you didn’t value reason, the ability to question and explore everything, or being free of fear).
But if you didn’t believe in God when you die and you find you were wrong you are in a world o’ hurt. Eternal torment at worst. Eternal punishment for, what, maybe 70 brief years of “free thought”. Hardly worth it, really.
So the Wager says it makes more sense to choose to believe in God because the outcomes are likely a win or a draw.
Climate Worries are a lot like that, imho. If you believe we can and should change our habits to affect a better climate if you find you are wrong, you simply end up living pretty much as we do today or maybe, if there was nothing we could do from the beginning, cooking on the planet but you got better gas mileage. IF, however you are right, then the planet is saved and humanity will go on! Our generation will be the next greatest generation!
On the other hand if you choose to disbelieve in “Anthropogenic Climate Change” and you opt to keep driving your giant SUV and pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere so you can pilot the Hummer (by yourself) through the suburban jungle, then if you find you were wrong we all cook. And in the end we will all know that YOU and your stupid gas-guzzler were largely responsible for our pain. Good job, asshole.
The reasonable thing is to work, and work hard, for an environmentally sustainable future that, at the very least will improve our impact on the planet and won’t make it worse! And who wants to pay more for gasoline?
Now here’s where Sophie’s Climate Choice comes in:
In the book Sophie’s Choice the eponymous character is forced at one point to make a choice between the lives of her two children.
Our choice for the most environmentally friendly power sources are coming up fast. Suppose we go all “Ed Begley Jr” on the environment and get an electric car. Well, that electricity has to come from somewhere and right now it’s coming from the coal-fired power plants by and large. Those things dump so much CO2 into the atmosphere as well as an alarming number of other nasties. We put scrubbers on the plants to keep down SOx which produces acid rain, so that’s good, but you can’t really keep from making CO2, it’s gonna get out on a largescale basis.
What about nuclear? Well, yeah, that’s overall cleaner. No combustion byproducts and on a daily basis, a nuke plant spews out less radioactive material than a coal fired powerplant! (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html). You’d be surprised what is in coal. It isn’t just fun carbon and hydrogen and a little oxygen. It has just about any metal you can imagine, including thorium, lead, uranium, mercury! It’s a veritable Periodic Table.
But then again, when a coal-fired powerplant burns to the ground in Salem, MA it doesn’t completely contaminate the entirety of New England. And you can live in Salem again within the next couple days.
This is a “risk choice” we need to make. Right now solar, wind and hydro power are still bit players, but have a lot of potential. They will require a lot more additional capacity to get us over the hump. And remember, we’ve taken Pascal’s Climate Wager and decided to DO something and time is running out! So our primary choice is nuclear at this point. At least it can buy us time to develop more eco-friendly, low-risk means.
Ugh. Which do you choose? The centralized, steady poisoning of our environment through a coal fired power plant? Or a ticking nuclear disaster that might or might not destroy vast swaths of land?
Man, this responsibility stuff is starting to suck! I’m gonna trade in my Yaris and get me a Hummer. Then I’ll log into Rapture Ready and “mark time” until the end! Or at least until alternatives are more well funded and start their exponential growth in development.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Cruel Intentions
Interesting article about a new brain scanning technique that allows scientists to determine a persons “intent”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html
Using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scientists were able to predict a person’s actions with 70% accuracy. Not too shabby considering we don’t really know where “intent” comes from. It sounds largely empirical. Match activity to ultimate actions. This will require a bit more work before it becomes as powerful as it might be.
Clearly a great case of “correlation” linked to “causation”, only in this case the causation can be diverted. I might wish to slug my arch nemesis “Dr. DoB” in the hallway after he is particulary snotty to me, but I won’t. Is there a secondary “intention” that kicks in?
“What does a scanner see? Into the head? Into the heart? Does it see into me? Clearly? Or darkly?” (A Scanner Darkly)
Of course the standard fears of “Minority Report” movie-style dystopias are already popping up. Blah blah blah. It’s a technology, it will be abused, it will be used for the worst possible ends imaginable. We know that. We’re heading for disaster.
BUT, that being said, what I find fascinating is it helps us take one step closer to determining the source of “free will” and “intention”. I have often had heated debates with my philosopher friend, Dr. G., over this very topic. I don’t claim to understand where he thinks “thoughts come from”, he is a theist after a fashion and supports the idea of the non-physical as real, so thoughts and “will” for him can and do have an underlying non-physical component which is what he calls the soul.
But I’m a materialist and I don’t buy that. I am under the impression that my thoughts and my personality are the result of complex electrochemical interactions in my brain. But I still don’t know where my “will to do something” comes from.
Dr. G. suggests that by my metric if we knew all of the predicate physics and chemistry my brain was exposed to, then we could predict with 100% accuracy what the next thought would be that I would have. But yet I “feel” like I have free will and can choose to think about certain things, which feeds into Dr. G’s smug assertion that I do, indeed, have a non-physical “soul”. Ha. Or are my thoughts fully pre-determined? Are they randomly generated from some “seed” thought?
But it does make me wonder. Where does intention come from? Will this scanning technique lead to a deeper understanding of “free will”?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html
Using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scientists were able to predict a person’s actions with 70% accuracy. Not too shabby considering we don’t really know where “intent” comes from. It sounds largely empirical. Match activity to ultimate actions. This will require a bit more work before it becomes as powerful as it might be.
Clearly a great case of “correlation” linked to “causation”, only in this case the causation can be diverted. I might wish to slug my arch nemesis “Dr. DoB” in the hallway after he is particulary snotty to me, but I won’t. Is there a secondary “intention” that kicks in?
“What does a scanner see? Into the head? Into the heart? Does it see into me? Clearly? Or darkly?” (A Scanner Darkly)
Of course the standard fears of “Minority Report” movie-style dystopias are already popping up. Blah blah blah. It’s a technology, it will be abused, it will be used for the worst possible ends imaginable. We know that. We’re heading for disaster.
BUT, that being said, what I find fascinating is it helps us take one step closer to determining the source of “free will” and “intention”. I have often had heated debates with my philosopher friend, Dr. G., over this very topic. I don’t claim to understand where he thinks “thoughts come from”, he is a theist after a fashion and supports the idea of the non-physical as real, so thoughts and “will” for him can and do have an underlying non-physical component which is what he calls the soul.
But I’m a materialist and I don’t buy that. I am under the impression that my thoughts and my personality are the result of complex electrochemical interactions in my brain. But I still don’t know where my “will to do something” comes from.
Dr. G. suggests that by my metric if we knew all of the predicate physics and chemistry my brain was exposed to, then we could predict with 100% accuracy what the next thought would be that I would have. But yet I “feel” like I have free will and can choose to think about certain things, which feeds into Dr. G’s smug assertion that I do, indeed, have a non-physical “soul”. Ha. Or are my thoughts fully pre-determined? Are they randomly generated from some “seed” thought?
But it does make me wonder. Where does intention come from? Will this scanning technique lead to a deeper understanding of “free will”?
Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Game is ON!
Ohmy gosh! Ohmygosh! My ultra-favorite fundy ex-tv star, Kiiiiiirk Cameron and his super fun-buddy Ray "Comfort" Comfort have a game out!
Design vs Evolution
http://www.faithworksonline.com/search/isbn/1878859374
Oh I can't wait to play it! Although, I will likely play it as poorly as I play all other games and ultimately prove evolution, but we'll have to wait!
Here's what the website says along with my [parenthetical] comments!
--------------------------------------------------
“Intelligent Design versus Evolution” is unique in that the playing-pieces are small rubber brains [because you can hit a rubber brain with a hammer and it still functions the same afterwards...as opposed to a real brain!], and each team plays for “brain” cards [that's ironic]. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains [Like some sorta ZOMBIE], and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think [irony meter pegging] . . . and that’s exactly what it does. It is evangelistic, educational, entertaining [pick any two!] and comes with a free copy of the award-winning DVD “The Science of Evolution.”
-----------------------------------------
Oh Santa, pleases bring me one this summer!
Design vs Evolution
http://www.faithworksonline.com/search/isbn/1878859374
Oh I can't wait to play it! Although, I will likely play it as poorly as I play all other games and ultimately prove evolution, but we'll have to wait!
Here's what the website says along with my [parenthetical] comments!
--------------------------------------------------
“Intelligent Design versus Evolution” is unique in that the playing-pieces are small rubber brains [because you can hit a rubber brain with a hammer and it still functions the same afterwards...as opposed to a real brain!], and each team plays for “brain” cards [that's ironic]. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains [Like some sorta ZOMBIE], and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think [irony meter pegging] . . . and that’s exactly what it does. It is evangelistic, educational, entertaining [pick any two!] and comes with a free copy of the award-winning DVD “The Science of Evolution.”
-----------------------------------------
Oh Santa, pleases bring me one this summer!
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
A Story with EVERYTHING
Only occasionally does a news story cross the wires that has every conceivable element important to a good story. But one just did.
The following story has:
1. Love
2. Deception
3. Kidnapping
4. Disguises
5. Chicks
6. ASTRONAUTS
CNN.com has a story about a female astronaut who is alleged to have attempted to kidnap or otherwise intimidate another female astronaut who was involved in a volatile astronaut-based love triangle!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/astronaut.arrested/index.html
In this story astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak is being charged with assaulting and attempting to kidnap a rival female astronaut rival for the affections of a third astronaut. Can the story be even BETTER?
You betcha!
Astronaut Lisa Marie allegedly hopped in her car and drove from Houston, TX to Orlando, FL while wearing a NASA-style diaper so she could make better time (it’s the diaper that astronauts wear on missions! It’s super absorbent). In Orlando she allegedly donned a disguise (including a tan trench coat, because astronauts in trench coats are just cool) and pepper-sprayed her victim. The victim made a get-away and reported it to the authorities.
When the police found her, Astronaut Lisa had a bag with the following things in it:
1. A new steel mallet
2. A folding knife with a 4-inch blade
3. Three to 4 feet of rubber tubing
4. Large plastic garbage bags
5. About $600 in cash
But supposedly she only wanted to “scare” the other woman into talking with her. I think she had just about all she needed to do that! And that doesn’t include the stuff found in Astronaut Lisa Marie’s car! That included more diapers and some latex gloves. Man, astronauts are wicked!
Upon being granted bail Astronaut Lisa Marie was fitted with a GPS-device. Which leads to my favorite part in the whole story, this item:
“Col. Steve Lindsey, Nowak's superior and commander of her space shuttle mission last July, testified Nowak had no reason to have any contact with Shipman and said the GPS device would not hamper Nowak's work.”
Of course that doesn’t count in the fact that she’s an ASTRONAUT! GPS devices are probably less useful once you are above the elevation of the GPS satellites! Can you effectively triangulate the location of a fleeing suspect in SPAAAAACE???
NOTE: Don’t anyone steal this, because I’m working on my first novel now!
"On the run from the law, knowing only the Law of Love, Astronaut Lisa Nowak makes a daring escape from the surly bonds of gravity but can't escape the stronger bonds on her heart..."
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Make Your Own Damn Paper
I’ve been a paper-industry and paper-related industry chemist now for about 7 years. Before that I worked on carbon and coal. It took me 12 years of college and 5 years of postdoctoral work to get here. I’ve got a somewhat narrow specialization despite a broad background in the physical sciences.
Since I joined Corporate America I’ve had the supreme joy of being in charge of my own retirement. By the time I came along the age of the “pension plan” was fading fast in the rearview mirror of history. Suddenly we were all given the keys to the machine of our destiny and told “Here, take it and drive it around!”
Unfortunately some of us, myself especially, are intent on driving it off a cliff. I have been given near total control over a 401k retirement investment portfolio that will determine if I live like a pauper or a prince after I am forced out of work at age 65.
I’ve seen enough of the television commercials to know that it really is just a matter of what tropical island I want to live on after I retire, assuming I choose the right investments. Or more importantly, if I choose the best investment advisor. Of course the first doesn’t cost anything the second costs a goodly amount.
The brutal reality is that I am going to live in poverty upon retirement. No question about it. I will be eating the cheapest canned dog food I can force down my throat for sustenance. If I have a permanent home it will be in the most deplorable conditions imaginable. Which will fit well with the limited health care I’ll have access to. Hopefully it will be mercifully short.
Oh, yeah, and I’ll go from PhD research chemist to WalMart greeter. After I am decreed too old to be of use in technology I can be the slow-moving happy voice of welcome to a cheaper America!
I can’t wait!
But how did it come to this? Well, because I spent my 12 years learning science rather than business. If I had wanted a business degree I would have gotten one. When I started with one job after getting my PhD and finishing my postdocs I was informed that now I might want to consider getting an MBA. I had passed the first hurdle in being able to get a doctorate in the physical sciences, but now the real work was to begin and if I wanted to amount to something I’d have to get a Masters degree. Somehow that seemed backwards. But it was coming out of the mouth of a seasoned science professional.
Suddenly I realized I had been wasting my limited mental skills. I was trying to learn about DG, DS, z, and countless other physical measurements when I was supposed to be learning about P/E ratios and SEC 8K filings!
I was confused. I thought that learning science was important. It certainly took a long time! Take a look at the following pictures.
A scientific Calculator
A Financial Calculator
Notice anything different? Well there’s a lot fewer things on a “Financial” calculator. There’s less to do, right? Well sorta-kinda. The point I’d like to make here is that the functions are DIFFERENT. Just because I can do a bunch of the things on the “Scientific” calculator doesn’t mean I can do the stuff on the “Financial” calculator! But more importantly the people who can do stuff on the Financial Calculator can’t necessarily do the stuff on the Scientific Calculator.
Why is that? Is it because one is smarter than the other? NO. A thousand times NO. It means we are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. I don’t want to be the one calculating Depreciation on Capital. I want to be the one calculating the natural log of a function.
So why is it that now I’m tossed out into the big world to fend for my own financial future? Suddenly I am meaningless and what I do is meaningless.
At some point it became more important to be a business person than a scientist in an absolute sense.
“But Thredkil! You degenerate fool! If you don’t want to starve when you are old, I suggest you get off your duff and learn how to manage your investments!” you will say. To which I respond: “So, are you willing to go out and make your own paper? Are you aware of the various polymers and inorganic additives that make paper paper? Are you willing to find your own coal to run the powerplant so you aren’t cold at night?”
Why is it, in this country you can be “proud” of not understanding thermodynamics but considered a complete idiot if you don’t know where to invest your 401k funds?
Since I joined Corporate America I’ve had the supreme joy of being in charge of my own retirement. By the time I came along the age of the “pension plan” was fading fast in the rearview mirror of history. Suddenly we were all given the keys to the machine of our destiny and told “Here, take it and drive it around!”
Unfortunately some of us, myself especially, are intent on driving it off a cliff. I have been given near total control over a 401k retirement investment portfolio that will determine if I live like a pauper or a prince after I am forced out of work at age 65.
I’ve seen enough of the television commercials to know that it really is just a matter of what tropical island I want to live on after I retire, assuming I choose the right investments. Or more importantly, if I choose the best investment advisor. Of course the first doesn’t cost anything the second costs a goodly amount.
The brutal reality is that I am going to live in poverty upon retirement. No question about it. I will be eating the cheapest canned dog food I can force down my throat for sustenance. If I have a permanent home it will be in the most deplorable conditions imaginable. Which will fit well with the limited health care I’ll have access to. Hopefully it will be mercifully short.
Oh, yeah, and I’ll go from PhD research chemist to WalMart greeter. After I am decreed too old to be of use in technology I can be the slow-moving happy voice of welcome to a cheaper America!
I can’t wait!
But how did it come to this? Well, because I spent my 12 years learning science rather than business. If I had wanted a business degree I would have gotten one. When I started with one job after getting my PhD and finishing my postdocs I was informed that now I might want to consider getting an MBA. I had passed the first hurdle in being able to get a doctorate in the physical sciences, but now the real work was to begin and if I wanted to amount to something I’d have to get a Masters degree. Somehow that seemed backwards. But it was coming out of the mouth of a seasoned science professional.
Suddenly I realized I had been wasting my limited mental skills. I was trying to learn about DG, DS, z, and countless other physical measurements when I was supposed to be learning about P/E ratios and SEC 8K filings!
I was confused. I thought that learning science was important. It certainly took a long time! Take a look at the following pictures.
A scientific Calculator
A Financial Calculator
Notice anything different? Well there’s a lot fewer things on a “Financial” calculator. There’s less to do, right? Well sorta-kinda. The point I’d like to make here is that the functions are DIFFERENT. Just because I can do a bunch of the things on the “Scientific” calculator doesn’t mean I can do the stuff on the “Financial” calculator! But more importantly the people who can do stuff on the Financial Calculator can’t necessarily do the stuff on the Scientific Calculator.
Why is that? Is it because one is smarter than the other? NO. A thousand times NO. It means we are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. I don’t want to be the one calculating Depreciation on Capital. I want to be the one calculating the natural log of a function.
So why is it that now I’m tossed out into the big world to fend for my own financial future? Suddenly I am meaningless and what I do is meaningless.
At some point it became more important to be a business person than a scientist in an absolute sense.
“But Thredkil! You degenerate fool! If you don’t want to starve when you are old, I suggest you get off your duff and learn how to manage your investments!” you will say. To which I respond: “So, are you willing to go out and make your own paper? Are you aware of the various polymers and inorganic additives that make paper paper? Are you willing to find your own coal to run the powerplant so you aren’t cold at night?”
Why is it, in this country you can be “proud” of not understanding thermodynamics but considered a complete idiot if you don’t know where to invest your 401k funds?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Bush's Health Plan 2007
The Bush Health Plan and other “Market-based Plans”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the goals of this policy is really to rationalize our health care spending so that we're getting higher value, more efficient care, and we hope in the long run that that substantially brings down the trajectory of growth in national health spending, because [people will] be allocating their health care dollars more efficiently," -Katherine Baicker, Council of Economic Advisers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Plan and all other "Market-Based Plans" exist to get Americans involved as "informed health care consumers". In order for health care to be a "normal market good" that can be "comparison shopped" and made more "efficient" by the invisible hand of the free market means all the consumers are equally informed about the quality and necessity of various medical procedures and medicines. Remember, as the old saying goes, the consumer should have “skin in the game”…and it really applies when real skin is involved!
Purchasing health care is like buying a television, you don’t really have to understand how it works, to do it, but unlike buying a television, the consequences of getting a “bad one” may be death or permanent disability. But still, it’s a “normal market good”, isn’t it?
A good comparison shopper is an informed comparison shopper. If the doctor insists on you getting a triple-bypass, surely there’s a way to cut some costs on things. How much anesthesia do you really need, after all. And when you’re in the emergency room after a grisly lawn-mower accident, you can always haggle about how many stitches are absolutely necessary. Remember, every penny counts.
But first, let's take a look at the American Consumer. The American health care consumer is going to be intimately familiar with medical procedures. How hard can it be to do that "doctorin'" stuff? Well, it usually only takes 8 years of college followed by a 3 year residency, so anyone with 11 years to spare can get an MD. So it can't be TOO hard can it? Remember, in order to be the best comparison shopper you can be you need to be fully aware of all the details about the medical field.
But what do we know about America's health "shopping" habits? Well, according to the National Center for Homeopathy, 7.3 Million American have tried homeopathy. Last year American’s Spent $425 Million on Homeopathic Remedies! And in the last decade the relative number of American who have used homeopathy has increased 500%. All this despite the fact that The National Center for Homeopathy itself says: “Homeopaths acknowledge that most remedies are so diluted that laboratory tests cannot locate a single molecule of the original substance.”
And the National Center Against Health Fraud had this to say about Homeopathy: "The marketing of homeopathic products and services fits the definition of quackery established by a United States House of Representatives committee which investigated the problem (i.e., the promotion of ‘medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which are unproven, for a profit’).”
The American health care consumer is also going to have to be generally technically savvy as well! Positron emission tomography scans, functional MRI’s, nuclear medicine, it's going to require a highly skilled, highly technically educated consumer to drive this market-plan forward. If health care is a "normal market good" then Americans will be able to step up to the plate and choose the best care for the least price! But who are these technically savvy consumers"?
Well, according to a 2005 Harris Poll: 25% of Americans believe in astrology (better hope you were born under a “healthy sign”), and about 28% of Americans believe in witches. So if you find that the so-called doctors in your town haven’t found the cure for your disease, perhaps the person selling eye-of-newt will be better able to serve. But finally a whopping 73% of Americans believe in miracles. Which is good if you want to survive a market-based healthcare plan.
But the other half of the Bush plan involves number-crunching and tax incentives. All Americans are expert at tax arcana, right? We all have to do it every year, so we must be good at it! That’s probably why about 60% of Americans have a tax preparer do their taxes for them.
The U.S. Tax Code is 17,000 pages long and since 1986 Congress has made 15,000 changes to it, so it’s probably pretty easy to keep up with it all. According to a U.S. Census report, in 2005 only 35% of Americans read a book for leisure. Maybe all the rest were reading the Tax Code.
Under the current Bush proposal the White House estimates that only about 20% of Americans currently getting health care coverage through work will see an increase in taxes because their plans will exceed the $15,000 family/$7,500 single “caps”, and while these caps will be adjusted for inflation, health care costs rise a lot faster! A preliminary analysis by the Tax Policy Center suggests that within 10 years of the Bush Plan’s implementation, 40% of all plans will exceed the cap, et viola, 40% of people covered under employer-purchased plans will get to pay more in taxes.
So overall we have a populace that is going to have to get out there and get do the heavy lifting and make this market plan work. Convoluted tax breaks coupled with extremely advanced technology and a complex discipline such as medicine all in the hands of regular people like you and me who believe in witches and pay other people to compute our taxes for us.
Yeah, this is gonna work out real well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the goals of this policy is really to rationalize our health care spending so that we're getting higher value, more efficient care, and we hope in the long run that that substantially brings down the trajectory of growth in national health spending, because [people will] be allocating their health care dollars more efficiently," -Katherine Baicker, Council of Economic Advisers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Plan and all other "Market-Based Plans" exist to get Americans involved as "informed health care consumers". In order for health care to be a "normal market good" that can be "comparison shopped" and made more "efficient" by the invisible hand of the free market means all the consumers are equally informed about the quality and necessity of various medical procedures and medicines. Remember, as the old saying goes, the consumer should have “skin in the game”…and it really applies when real skin is involved!
Purchasing health care is like buying a television, you don’t really have to understand how it works, to do it, but unlike buying a television, the consequences of getting a “bad one” may be death or permanent disability. But still, it’s a “normal market good”, isn’t it?
A good comparison shopper is an informed comparison shopper. If the doctor insists on you getting a triple-bypass, surely there’s a way to cut some costs on things. How much anesthesia do you really need, after all. And when you’re in the emergency room after a grisly lawn-mower accident, you can always haggle about how many stitches are absolutely necessary. Remember, every penny counts.
But first, let's take a look at the American Consumer. The American health care consumer is going to be intimately familiar with medical procedures. How hard can it be to do that "doctorin'" stuff? Well, it usually only takes 8 years of college followed by a 3 year residency, so anyone with 11 years to spare can get an MD. So it can't be TOO hard can it? Remember, in order to be the best comparison shopper you can be you need to be fully aware of all the details about the medical field.
But what do we know about America's health "shopping" habits? Well, according to the National Center for Homeopathy, 7.3 Million American have tried homeopathy. Last year American’s Spent $425 Million on Homeopathic Remedies! And in the last decade the relative number of American who have used homeopathy has increased 500%. All this despite the fact that The National Center for Homeopathy itself says: “Homeopaths acknowledge that most remedies are so diluted that laboratory tests cannot locate a single molecule of the original substance.”
And the National Center Against Health Fraud had this to say about Homeopathy: "The marketing of homeopathic products and services fits the definition of quackery established by a United States House of Representatives committee which investigated the problem (i.e., the promotion of ‘medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which are unproven, for a profit’).”
The American health care consumer is also going to have to be generally technically savvy as well! Positron emission tomography scans, functional MRI’s, nuclear medicine, it's going to require a highly skilled, highly technically educated consumer to drive this market-plan forward. If health care is a "normal market good" then Americans will be able to step up to the plate and choose the best care for the least price! But who are these technically savvy consumers"?
Well, according to a 2005 Harris Poll: 25% of Americans believe in astrology (better hope you were born under a “healthy sign”), and about 28% of Americans believe in witches. So if you find that the so-called doctors in your town haven’t found the cure for your disease, perhaps the person selling eye-of-newt will be better able to serve. But finally a whopping 73% of Americans believe in miracles. Which is good if you want to survive a market-based healthcare plan.
But the other half of the Bush plan involves number-crunching and tax incentives. All Americans are expert at tax arcana, right? We all have to do it every year, so we must be good at it! That’s probably why about 60% of Americans have a tax preparer do their taxes for them.
The U.S. Tax Code is 17,000 pages long and since 1986 Congress has made 15,000 changes to it, so it’s probably pretty easy to keep up with it all. According to a U.S. Census report, in 2005 only 35% of Americans read a book for leisure. Maybe all the rest were reading the Tax Code.
Under the current Bush proposal the White House estimates that only about 20% of Americans currently getting health care coverage through work will see an increase in taxes because their plans will exceed the $15,000 family/$7,500 single “caps”, and while these caps will be adjusted for inflation, health care costs rise a lot faster! A preliminary analysis by the Tax Policy Center suggests that within 10 years of the Bush Plan’s implementation, 40% of all plans will exceed the cap, et viola, 40% of people covered under employer-purchased plans will get to pay more in taxes.
So overall we have a populace that is going to have to get out there and get do the heavy lifting and make this market plan work. Convoluted tax breaks coupled with extremely advanced technology and a complex discipline such as medicine all in the hands of regular people like you and me who believe in witches and pay other people to compute our taxes for us.
Yeah, this is gonna work out real well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)