A reminder of the vast financial risks they take to save and improve lives...From the linked article:
We did it, naturally, because we expected to make a profit out of it in the end.Who would have thought that pharmaceutical companies, like all companies, are simply attempting to maximize their profits? If lives are saved as a result, that is a positive side effect, but profit is the guiding principle.
Especially given his comments on Fox News tonight, until this is resolved, it seems impossible to trust Rove as an objective analyst.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." According media reports, this quote keeping Obama company on his wheat-colored carpet is from King.
Except it's not a King quote.To back this up, we are provided with a quote from Theodore Parker:
Parker said in 1853: "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one. . . . But from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice."
"How long? Not long." He would finish in a flourish: "Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Unfortunately, in the mid 90s, I spent just over four years (52 months) in prison.
[snip]
While there were instances of sex abuse in some of the prisons I visited, they were few and far between.
[snip]
I firmly believe that the sex abuse in prison is not a significant enough problem to warrant any action from the federal government.You can rely on this compelling anecdote, or you can rely on the US Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics:
According to the report, released today by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007,” 4.5 percent of the state and federal prisoners surveyed reported sexual victimization in the past 12 months. Given a national prison population of 1,570,861, the BJS findings suggest that in one year alone more than 70,000 prisoners were sexually abused.
And the Congressional Budget Office said in March that the health-care overhaul's Medicare savings "would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits."
The annual analysis of Medicare's financial health released by the program's trustees on Aug. 5 led some Democrats to claim that Medicare's imminent bankruptcy has been delayed, thanks to the creation of their health entitlement program.Unfortunately, the first link goes to socialsecurity.gov, which is not generally the go-to resource for Medicare information. Not a good start. Ryan continues:
Last year's report revealed a $38 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years. This year the shortfall appears to have decreased, but only after the Democrats' health bill cut $529 billion from Medicare. This apparent improvement was the basis for Democratic celebration -- even though the program remains tens of trillions of dollars in the hole.I can't figure out from whence he got the $38 trillion number. If you go to the Medicare trustees' report for 2009 (pdf), you will find a 75-year "unfunded obligation" of $13.4 trillion for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance), $23.2 trillion for Part B (Medical Insurance), and $9.2 trillion for Part D (prescription drug plans). Adding the unfunded obligations for Part A and Part B (and ignoring Part D*) gives $36.6 trillion, which is pretty close to Ryan's figure.
A new study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion finds that Americans between the ages of 36 to 50 are more loyal to religion than Baby Boomers.In his study, Schwadel is mainly interested in people who disaffiliate from a religion. This means that they were raised with a religion, but now report no religious preference. Schwadel concludes:
Additionally, the probability of nonaffiliation grew from between .06 and .08 in the 1970s and 1980s to almost .16 in 2006. Estimated growth in nonaffiliation, however, is notably smaller when being raised with no religious affiliation is constrained to 3 percent of respondents. These results suggest that a substantial proportion of the growth in nonaffiliation is due to more Americans being raised with no religious preference rather than solely being due to an increase in disaffiliation among adults.In the Reuters article, Schwadel is quoted as saying the trend "is good news for those who worry about declining religious adherence." I would have to disagree. Even after controlling for being raised with no religious affiliation, Americans between the ages of 36 and 50 are still disaffiliating from religion, even if they are doing so at a slower rate than Baby Boomers. Even worse, the real world is not controlling for being raised with no religious affiliation. In fact, the probability of being raised without a religious affiliation is increasing.
Mark C. Taylor ... calculates that someone who serves as an associate professor with tenure for five years and then becomes a full professor for 30 years costs a private university $12.2 million. Public universities pay $10 million over the same period. And because most universities pay tenured professors out of their endowments, each professor freezes up tens of millions in otherwise-liquid endowment money for a generation. University debt jumped 54 percent last year, with an average debt of $168 million. If the average university tenured about 15 fewer professors, they'd be in the black.
Evergreen State College in Washington implemented renewable contracts back in 1971. Florida Gulf Coast University scrapped tenure when it was established in 1991. Boston University now offers salary premiums to professors who decide not to take tenure. Market forces will drive other universities to follow suit, whether they want to or not.
Wax appeals to a parable in which a pedestrian is run over by a truck and must learn to walk again. The truck driver pays the pedestrian’s medical bills, but the only way the pedestrian will walk again is through his own efforts. The pedestrian may insist that the driver do more, that justice has not occurred until the driver has himself made the pedestrian learn to walk again. But the sad fact is that justice, under this analysis, is impossible. The legal theory about remedies, Wax points out, grapples with this inconvenience—and the history of the descendants of African slaves, no matter how horrific, cannot upend its implacable logic. As she puts it, “That blacks did not, in an important sense, cause their current predicament does not preclude charging them with alleviating it if nothing else will work.”Accepting this for argument's sake, how can you reconcile this with Wax's rhetorical question:
“Is it possible to pursue an arduous program of self-improvement while simultaneously thinking of oneself as a victim of grievous mistreatment and of one’s shortcomings as a product of external forces?”Now think back to the pedestrian analogy. Does anyone else see a problem?
A preacher might develop a good sermon on how nations fare when they mock God.
No less a theological thinker than Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God's judgment for America's tolerance of slavery. If that were so, why should "the Almighty," as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?As Thomas might say, "A preacher might develop a good sermon on how Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden fared after they mocked God by legalizing same-sex marriage."
Most great powers unravel from within before invading armies (or in America's case, terrorists) conquer them.Terrorists will conquer America, but only after America has already unraveled from within?
And the process of litigation - the public educative function of the courts - has clearly pushed opinion in favor over the years. Just having this issue in the public realm as one generation grew up has transformed public opinion. I see this dynamic as a distinctly American one, where the three branches of government and the people address emerging social issues in a messy, but healthy way.
In large part, the majority support that citizens held by 2004 came about as the result of shifts in attitudes, values, and beliefs, rather than because of demographic factors.
And the process of litigation - the public educative function of the courts - has clearly pushed opinion in favor over the years. Just having this issue in the public realm as one generation grew up has transformed public opinion. I see this dynamic as a distinctly democratic one, where the three branches of government and the people address emerging social issues in a messy, but healthy way.
It’s hard to draw strong lessons from a three-point swing, which is within the margin of error, but it does point towards the possibility...Allahpundit goes on to write some more about the subject, but the reader only needs to understand 5 words: "within the margin of error".
Two hundred and forty-three introductory psychology students at the University of Virginia volunteered for a study entitled “Choosing College Courses.”
[snip]
Their responses were later coded by a research assistant who was unaware of the subjects' condition. She assigned subjects a 1 for each piece of information recalled correctly, a 0 for each piece not recalled, and a -1 for each piece recalled incorrectly. One of the authors also coded the recall questionnaires of 7 subjects; his codings agreed with the research assistant's 94% of the time.The research assistant had to do almost 35 times more grunt work than the professor. I wish I had a research assistant.
Welcome to the world of twenty-first century censorship: censorship without censors. The Chávez government operates nothing so crass and cumbersome as an old-fashioned censorship board. Instead, by keeping broadcast editors and station managers under the vague but constant threat of shutdown, it relies on them to silence their organizations. And it is wildly effective.This reminds me a lot of the argument I have heard against the MPAA (the people responsible for rating movies in America) and the FCC (the governmental organisation responsible for regulating radio and television broadcasting in America).
“[Bristol] doesn’t want him in Hollywood. … She wants him to sort of be like Todd Palin in the background while she does the running around. Levi, on the other hand, is not ready to settle into that role.”
I ask you: How awesome is that? It seems Bristol Palin has been raised to assume that a man’s role is that of supportive helpmeet, that it is Dad who’s supposed to keep the home fires burning while Mom goes out and sets the world on fire. If that’s not a progressive perspective on gender roles, I don’t know what is. Way to fly that feminist flag, Sarah! And, oh yes, you too Todd.Really? That is exactly the same attitude that progressives rightfully dismiss when it goes the other way. How ugly is it? Read it the other way:
Levi wants Bristol to be in the background while he does the running around. Bristol, on the other hand, is not ready to settle into that role.
I ask you: How awesome is that? It seems Levi Johnson has been raised to assume that a woman’s role is that of supportive helpmeet, that it is Mom who’s supposed to keep the home fires burning while Dad goes out and sets the world on fire. If that’s not a progressive perspective on gender roles, I don’t know what is.In answer to her implied question, I would say that the progressive perspective on gender roles is that both men and women should be able to work outside the home, or be stay-at-home parents, or anything in between. The exact roles each partner plays should depend on their personal goals and desires, and should be agreed to by both partners. An assumption that either partner is "supposed to keep the home fires burning" is a slap in the face to both of them.
It refers to "grave-robbing" – or, more accurately, people who remove Indian artifacts, such as arrowheads, from a park.From the article:
Grave-robbing at Tolowa Dunes State Park on the far North Coast, which left American Indian remains unearthed.
[snip]
An extreme case occurred in April at the remote Tolowa Dunes park in Del Norte County. Grave robbers entered the Yontocket Indian Memorial Cemetery to dig up treasures such as pottery and arrowheads. A $2,000 reward has been offered."Or, more accurately, people who remove Indian artifacts, such as arrowheads, from a park."
Are they earning based on their learning? Well, the answer to that question is yes, always, because the market decides what the right price is.It is almost as if Janke has never heard of the problem immigrant professionals have obtaining credentials to practice their profession in Canada. For example, there are 4,000 foreign-trained doctors in Ontario who cannot practice due to lack of Canadian credentials. There are also many foreign-trained engineers with this problem:
Michael Wu, a geotechnical engineer from China, is a classic example of what's happening. Accepted as a landed immigrant last spring, he came here with his wife and child, leaving behind a relatively prosperous life in Beijing, and now works for $7 an hour in a Vancouver chocolate factory.Does Janke seriously believe that Canada is better off having Wu, who has a PhD, work at $7 per hour making chocolate?
Why does the Federation of Canadian Municipalities need national census data? It shouldn't.If you look at the open letter from the FCM (pdf), however, you will see that they do in fact need national census data:
In fact, over 25 pieces of federal legislation alone require Census data in order to allocate funds and target and evaluate services, with many more examples at the provincial, territorial and municipal levels.Janke:
If a municipality needs demographic data for the municipality, then it should run its own survey.However, if all municipalities need this data, having each municipality run its own survey is an extremely inefficient use of taxpayers' money.
Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Would Cost Families Thousands in 2011, Study Shows
[snip]
Iran's Leader Introduces Plan to Encourage Population Growth by Paying FamiliesAs you can see here, Iran has a long-term plan to pass the US in population. Iran has a 2008 population of 71,956,322 and a growth rate of 1.30831%. America has a 2009 population of 307,006,550 and a 2008 growth rate of 0.91518%. Assuming these patterns continue forever (and why would they not?), in 2379, Iran will surpass the U.S. in population. They will each have 8.9 billion people.
The arguments for academic tenure have always struck me as pretty weak, and more to the point, transparently self-serving.
The best you can say of the system is that it preserves a sort of continuity in schools that is desireable for the purposes of cultivating alumni donations.
But the cost of such a system is simply staggering.
Consider what the academic job market now looks like. You have a small elite on top who have lifetime employment regardless of how little work they do.
This lifetime employment commences somewhere between 35 and 40. For the ten-to-fifteen years before that, they spend their lives in pursuit of the brass ring. They live in poverty suck up to professors, and publish, for one must publish to be tenured.
It's very unfortunate if you don't have anything much worth saying; you need to publish anyway, in order to improve your chances. Fortunately, for the needy tenure seeker, a bevy of journals have sprung up that will print your trivial contributions. If nothing else, they provide a nice simple model which helps introductory economics professors explain Say's Law.Professors and graduate students who "don't have anything much worth saying" tend not to get published. When they do get published, they get published in lesser journals. Although it is a flawed metric in many ways, the impact factor attempts to provide tenure committees with a basis for determining the impact of the candidate's work. Simply put, tenure-track professors who publish rarely, and in second-rate journals, tend not to get tenure.
At the end of the process, most of the aspirants do not have tenure; they have dropped out, or been dropped, at some point along the way. Meanwhile, the system has ripped up their lives in other ways. They've invested their whole youth, and are back on the job market near entry level at an age when most of their peers have spent ten years building up marketable skills.
Many of them will have seen relationships ripped apart by the difficulties of finding not one, but two tenure-track jobs in the same area.
Others will have invested their early thirties in a college town with no other industry, forcing them to move elsewhere to restart both their careers and their social lives.
Or perhaps they string along adjuncting at near-poverty wages, unable to quite leave the academy that has abused them for so long.It's funny that McArdle, who is such an advocate of personal freedom when it comes to payday loans for the poor, suddenly has her heart-strings tugged by the thought of PhD's working at "near-poverty wages" in the hope of getting a job as a professor.
Is this producing better education? Doubtful; there's no particular relationship between scholarship and the ability to teach.
How about valuable scholarship? Well, define valuable--in many liberal arts fields, the only possible consumer of the research in question is a handful of scholars in the same field. That sort of research is valuable in the same way that children's craft projects are priceless--to their mothers. Basically, these people are supporting an expensive hobby with a sideline business certifying the ability of certain twenty-year olds to write in complete sentences.
And what about the people who do get tenure, and are producing scholarship in areas that other people care about? Doesn't tenure protect free intellectual inquiry? Diversity of thought? Doesn't it allow teachers to be more demanding of students?Finally, halfway through her post, McArdle decides to join the actual debate that is occurring regarding tenure. Her argument:
Perhaps--but the question is, at what point? Most scholars in their sixties are not producing path-breaking new research, but they are precisely the people that tenure protects.The implication of what McArdle is arguing is rather scary. She is effectively arguing that most older academics would be fired if tenure were abolished. This is a few paragraphs after she argues against academia because it causes people to waste their youth, and enter the job market at entry level after their peers have spent years "building up marketable skills".
Scholars in their twenties and thirties, on the other hand, have no academic freedom at all.No academic freedom at all? Really?
Indeed, because tenure raises the stakes so high, the vetting of future employees is much more careful--and the candidates, who know this, are almost certainly more careful than they would be if they were on more ordinary employment contracts.This is almost definitely true. However, there is clearly a trade-off involved here. After obtaining tenure, academics have significantly more freedom then they would ever have under "more ordinary employment contracts". McArdle does not try to argue that the trade-off she proposes is superior. In fact, she argues that "the people that tenure protects" are "scholars in their sixties" who "are not producing path-breaking new research". This is simply wrong.
As a result, the process of getting a degree, getting a job, and getting tenure has stretched out to cover one's whole youth. So tenure makes young scholars--the kind most likely to attack a dominant paradigm--probably more careful than they would be under more normal employment process.This may be true, but it also hides a larger truth. The best way to gain the attention of a tenure committee is to produce ground-breaking research that replaces the current paradigm. Universities love to have professors who can be called "path-breaking".
The same is true of diversity. Academics within the tenure system are probably more careful about weeding out heresy, because they'll be stuck with it if it manages to sneak in.So, within the tenure system, academics will weed out heresy because they will be stuck with it forever. By implication, without a tenure system, these same academics would allow the heresy to flourish because they know they can weed it out whenever they want. This is exactly what tenure is designed to prevent.
Tenure can easily be used to entrench the ideological or scholarly commitments of a department's powerful members, reducing diversity rather than enhancing it.So can any other hiring system. This has nothing to do with tenure, but rather with the method for rating professors.
The current tenure system only protects revolutionary, dangerous ideas to the extent that they spring full blown from an academic's head after he has secured tenure, startling the hell out of everyone who hired him. Or perhaps after he's secured his full professorship. Or after he's managed to move to a better class of research institution with a nicer salary.
Since I don't know of many cases where this has happened, I find it hard to believe that tenure is crucial to preserving the spirit of free inquiry at our nation's colleges.Well, if McArdle does not know of many cases where this has happened, that settles it for me.
I'm sure it's protected more than one scholar from getting fired after making stupid remarks to a class. And we would all of us--not just academics--like to be immune from getting fired for making stupid remarks. But what's not clear to me is that this has, in any instance, protected Very Important Scholarship from being censored for the benefit of Mrs. Grundy.
Even if it were, I'd want to know if all that Very Important Scholarship were worth the enormous cost of this outmoded system. And advocates would have a steep uphill battle to convince me that it is.McArdle speaks of the "enormous cost" of the tenure system, but most of the costs she describes (wasted youth, publishing useless articles, academic couples) exist independent of the tenure system. For an economics blogger, it is also surprising that she fails to mention the significant increase in salaries that would be required as compensation for no longer having tenure.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.So, by preventing Muslims (not al Qaeda terrorists, but American Muslims) from building a mosque, they are counteracting "hatred, prejudice and bigotry", all in pursuit of the goal of "fighting anti-Semitism". The only way this makes any sense is if you assume that the mosque itself will teach hatred, prejudice and bigotry. I have not seen any convincing evidence that this would be the case.
Who needs windmills when you've got pumpjacks?SDA is apparently unaware that these improved pumpjacks still consume significant amounts of electricity. In fact, they require about 6,674 kWh of electricity per month to operate ((165,763 kWh used - 92,340 kWh generated) / 11 months).
1. Fight coalition forces to the death without withdrawing or surrendering; attempt to capture coalition forces whenever possible.
Regarding the first directive, it would appear that the so-called “torture-war crimes” conundrum has been put to rest. Not that this will likely dissuade people from believing that Afghans are still being tortured “in our name.”
So, should the burka be banned?Luckily, he answers this one for us.
It’s anathema for a free country like Canada to tell citizens how to dress.
The same liberty that allows the rest of us to dress as we like is the liberty that allows a woman to hide her face.
But what about in a bank? Should masked women, Muslim or not, be allowed into a bank?I would say yes. However, as private businesses, I would allow banks to make that decision themselves.
If that’s okay, how about a man in a ski mask?Again, I would say yes. Does Levant seriously think that a policy against ski masks in banks would cause an increase in bank robberies?
How about testifying in court?Yes.
Who else can hide their eyes and facial expressions while condemning an accused or swearing to their own innocence?Apparently, in New Hampshire this is allowed.
And why stop at witnesses — what about judges or police officers in a burka?
What about ID cards like a driver’s licence?Obviously not. This seems like a massive red herring to me. It doesn't surprise me that some random Muslim thinks she should be allowed to wear a burqa for her driver's license photo. However, considering the rules for passport photos, I don't think that any Canadian government is going to allow burqas in photo identification.
What point is an ID card if it doesn’t actually ID you?There is none. That is why ID cards have to show your face.
Can you vote with a mask on?
Board a plane?
If a burka is okay, how about a Ku Klux Klan mask?Yup. However, I would advise against it, as wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask tends to reflect poorly on the wearer.
But more than all that, is wearing a burka truly an act of individual liberty?It depends. And this is what Levant then admits:
For some it is. But for others, it is a manifestation of tyranny — a brutal husband demanding submission; a radical imam threatening frightened immigrant women.This is a far cry from the Ezra Levant who rallies for liberty and freedom from kangaroo human rights commissions (incidentally, this is a position on which Levant and I agree). Speaking of Section 13, Levant writes, "Ignatieff’s comment from 2006 is more heartening – it shows a respect for freedom of speech, even offensive speech, even offensive speech targeting him." In the case of burqas, Levant's lack of respect for freedom of religion is concerning. In the matter of freedom of speech, he believes that offensive speech must be protected. When it comes to freedom of religion, however, he believes in a hard boundary.
We know from the case of Aqsa Parvez — killed by her father and brother for dressing in western fashion rather than in traditional Islamic clothing — that defying these orders can lead to murder.I agree that this is a problem. However, it is laughable to believe that banning the burqa would solve this problem. Imagine that you are a man who would be willing to kill his sister or daughter for not wearing a burqa. Now, imagine that the government prevents her from wearing a burqa. Would you allow her to leave the house without a burqa, or would you force her to stay in the house so no one can see her?
In Afghanistan, uncovered women have acid thrown in their faces.I do not feel that Canadian law should be pro-actively limiting freedoms because of stuff that happens in Afghanistan.
Only 54% of us want a ban?I hope that the wording of the question (Canada should follow France. Nobody should be able to cover their faces. It is a matter of public safety and business transparency.) is what caused this number to be so high. I hope.
Anders said he has personally witnessed the sons of two different MPs being seduced by women far too attractive to be interested in these “average looking” guys, including a 14-year-old, in Taiwan.
“There is no way that any of those people could have been anything other than influence peddling agents,” Anders told QMI Agency. “That person is up to something when they knock on your door, minutes after your arrival in a foreign hotel offering themselves to you.”
Abigail Thernstrom, a commission member and a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called it "small potatoes" and said conservatives should pursue more important issues against the Obama administration.
[snip]
Thernstrom said that she did not find Adams's testimony convincing and that the facts of the case raised doubts in her mind, noting that the Black Panthers were standing in front of a majority-black precinct that had voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in previous elections -- not a prime
spot for intimidating white voters.
Todd Gaziano, director of the center for legal and judicial studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation who also serves on the commission, disagreed.
"Anyone who has seen the video and who reads [Adams's] testimony knows this is something that needs to be investigated," he said.Thernstrom offers a fact to support her position. Gaziano essentially says that he believes this needs to be investigated. A pox on both their houses, I say.
Our concern is with the fact that from the eighth century to the end of the fourteenth, Arabic science was probably the most advanced science in the world, greatly surpassing the West and China. In virtually every field of endeavor - in astronomy, alchemy, mathematics, medicine, optics, and so forth - Arab scientists (that is, Middle Eastern individuals primarily using the Arabic language but including Arabs, Iranians, Christians, Jews, and others) were in the forefront of scientific advance. The facts, theories, and scientific speculations contained in their treatises were the most advanced to be had anywhere in the world, including China.Sounds interesting, doesn't it? It is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see in a science museum. Of course, if you think that, you are being duped by a vast conspiracy. Alexander Levkovsky:
The main mission of the exhibition is to obscure the hard fact that for the last several centuries the vast Islamic world has contributed almost nothing at all to the great treasury of human civilization!You see, the exhibition should be focusing on the lack of inventions by Muslims in the last several centuries. This is what a science museum should do. However, it is unclear if this alternative exhibit should also focus on the lack of inventions by Christians during the golden age of Islam. Otherwise, it could rightfully be accused of obscuring the hard fact that from the 8th to the 14th century, the vast Christian world contributed almost nothing at all to the great treasury of human civilization!
No one disputes that the drug helps extends life for terminal patients.The National Cancer Institute on E2100, the initial trial to test Avastin:
The results of E2100 had not shown an increase in overall survivalIt turns out the actual issue is a new metric being considered for oncology trials, progression-free survival (PFS). The standard metric is overall survival (OS).
The difference between PFS and OS is that PFS measures the time from a patient's random assignment to one treatment arm or another until the patient's cancer begins to grow again or the patient dies from their cancer; whereas OS measures the time from randomization until death from any cause.If you follow the link, it is actually a fascinating look at the complexities of the metrics used for oncology research. Near the end of the article, there is a good quote from Dr. Richard Pazdur, the director of the FDA Office of Oncology Drug Products:
I have no problem accepting that, in a lethal disease such as metastatic cancer, delaying progression is a clinical benefit in itself, provided that the magnitude of the benefit is sufficient and the side-effect profile acceptable.In other words, there is a risk-benefit analysis that must be performed. No one wants an extra month before the cancer begins to grow if it means that they have to endure a horrible side effect during that month. Note that this is a risk-benefit analysis, not a cost-benefit analysis. On Avastin, Dr. Pazdur notes:
Because treatment with Avastin is associated with considerable toxicity, the magnitude of PFS improvement—especially if not supported by an improvement in overall survival—should be substantial, clinically meaningful, and be able to be replicated in additional trials.By a vote of 12-1, a review by a panel of 13 medical professionals found Avastin to fail this risk-benefit analysis. Or, as Capitol Confidential puts it:
The Avantis case is setting the precedent for the government to arbitrarily deny coverage to millions of American’s based on cost alone.If Capitol Confidential believes that the decision to de-label Avastin was based "on cost alone", he (she?) must be outraged at the composition of the panel that made the decision. There is not a single economist (PDF) on the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee! The members all have irrelevant degrees, like M.D., Pharm.D., Ph.D., RN, M.S., F.A.C.P., and D.O. This is the true outrage!
Video-Camera, Plants, animals, drugs, explosives, weapons, any kind of pornography, mass printed propaganda, radio, wireless or satellite communicator (GPS), mobile phone (can be left at airport locker).Luckily, the following are allowed in the DPRK:
Photo-camera (analog or digital), laptop (without wireless/radio communication devices), PDA, CD Player, MP3Of course, you may have difficulty finding a laptop that does not have a built-in wireless.
"President Obama has the power to stop this 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' business. Just sign an executive order. I don't know why it's taking so long—it's not fair. We should stop this nonsense."
It's not about anti-gay. It's about being comfortable in the barracks. It's not about anti-gay.Such bold and fearless advocacy for gay rights! No "Clintonian fear" for Papa Bear O'Reilly!
Of course, I wouldn’t take this position were it not for the fact that codes associated with dueling seek to bring about peaceful resolutions to conflicts before any blood is shed, but even if this were not the case, innocent lives would be saved by ensuring, through the presence and organization of duels regulated by a code of conduct, that noncombatants would be nowhere near the line of fire if antagonists decided to use violence to settle their disputes.How many gun-related murders do you suppose occur in which the victim had a long-standing grudge against the perpetrator? Remember, you can only have a duel if both people agree. I would guess that most gun murder victims are innocent of any crime. The obvious exception, of course, is gang violence. The article to which Yousefzadeh links, written by Jamie Brooke, offers dueling as a way of avoiding the deaths of innocent bystanders in gang wars:
Much violence is based on a desire for respect and in reaction to perceived slurs in gang dominated sections of society. Outside these gangs the same problems are dealt with entirely differently, however this was not always the case. Medieval knights, noblemen and royals would do anything to be seen as courageous and to preserve their honour, and as is the case with modern city gangs were prepared to die defending that image. The system that was established is that of duelling.
The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him.
Upon review of a judgment affirming the conviction, for violation of § 20 of the Criminal Code and conspiracy thereunto, of local law enforcement officers who arrested a negro citizen for a state offense and wrongfully beat him to death, the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial.
It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching. Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "anti-black jack" or "anti-fisticuffs" laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling.
The case of Eli Cooper is illustrative. One night in late summer 1919, a gang of fifteen or twenty white men abducted Cooper, a black man, from his home in Cadwell in Laurens County and transported him to Petway's Gift Church in Dodge County, a few miles away. The gang shot Cooper, set the church on fire, and pitched his body into the flames.
What difference is there between a savage murder by [burning] -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "[anti-burning]" laws.As a side note, where the hell were the editors on this one?
To the question of why their patient — the U.S. economy — did not respond as expected, the Obama team's answer is that the patient was sicker at the beginning of 2009 than they had originally thought, not that they administered the wrong medicine. The spending-heavy fiscal stimulus, they argue, was the right approach and did some good; if the stimulus bill had not been enacted, unemployment today would be even higher. The reason the stimulus failed to cure the economy's woes is not that it was the wrong course of treatment: It simply wasn't a big enough dose. (Hence the repeated calls for a "second stimulus.")
[snip]
The trouble is, we have no way of knowing for sure if the model was in fact correct. To react to a model's failure to predict events accurately by insisting that the model was nonetheless right — as Obama's economic advisors have done — is hardly the most obvious course. Careful economists should instead respond with humility. When their predictions fail — as they often do — they should not dig in their heels, but should instead be willing to go back to their starting assumptions and question their validity.
The administration's second assumption, meanwhile, is a matter of academic theories about the sizes of the relevant economic multipliers.
The Romers' conclusion, which is at odds with most traditional Keynesian analysis, was that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations.
[snip]
But several studies on government-spending multipliers have been conducted using techniques similar to those used by the Romers.
[snip]
Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers.Of course, back in early 2009, Brad Delong made the following comment:
The two studies [Romer and Romer, and Ramey] use very different methodologies. They are not comparable. For example, the Ramey study on the effects of government spending--while a superb contribution to the literature, and one that I have assigned to my graduate students--does not fully control for the tax increases that often accompany spending increases. Thus it is very likely to understate the effects of spending increases alone: her study assesses the impact of the Korean-War military spending increase without taking account of the fact that it was accompanied by a large tax increase.
Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments.
How is it possible that such a bright man as the president repeatedly reacts without the facts when it comes to a topic so explosive as race?[snip]How is it possible that the once glorious NAACP – the leading name in America’s fight against racial segregation – has come to the point where it is pushing the first black president to fire anyone – but especially a black woman — on a charge of racism without checking to be sure she was a hateful racist?
But then someone – still unknown – took Sherrod’s touching speech and edited it to create the impression that she was a black racist. The editor made it appear that Sherrod claimed to a black audience that she withheld help from a white man because he is white.That twisted tape was placed for all to see on a right-wing website, BigGovernment.com, as a two and half minute video clip.[snip]Everyone – the White House, the Agriculture Department, the anonymous editor, the website – has political dirt and racial guilt all over their hands.
The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with.That assurance won’t stop the attacks, of course. So why don’t we publish whatever portions of the Journolist archive we have and end the debate? Because a lot of them have no obvious news value, for one thing.[snip]Plus, a lot of the material on Journolist is actually pretty banal. In addition to being partisan hacks, a lot of these guys turn out to be pedestrian thinkers. Disappointing.
Anyone on Journolist who claims we quoted him “out of context” can reveal the context himself.
78 percent of the difference in income today between sub-Saharan Africa and Western Europe is explained by technology differences that already existed in 1500 AD – even BEFORE the slave trade and colonialism.
Moreover, these technological differences had already appeared by 1000 BC. The state of technology in 1000 BC has a strong correlation with technology 2500 years later, in 1500 AD.
I was listening to writer Clay Shirky talk about cognitive surplus – the idea of spare brainpower in the world’s collective mind just sitting there waiting, wanting, to be harnessed.
It's telling to me that he sets up a straw-man. There was no "conspiracy" on Journolist, so far as I can tell, and I haven't claimed there was.
Turns out the real irony here is that people who viewed it as a “secretive conspiracy” were right.
The Daily Caller has acquired documents that show the conspiratorial nature of the list and its ability to massage and manipulate the news.
It is true that there is a sense of tribalism among some leading journalists on the Right that often prevents them from taking on conservative sacred cows, but I never saw anything remotely close to the Journolist conspiracy -- and would have been disgusted if I had, and left the room, so to speak.
Others named in the same warrant and caught by the Chinese police had described beatings, suffocation, electric shocks, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture to get them to disclose details about the human rights group to which they all belonged.
Others named in the same warrant and caught by the Chinese police had described beatings and sleep deprivation to get them to disclose details about the human rights group to which they all belonged. They also described suffocation, electric shocks, and other forms of torture.It is unfortunate that Bernstein is such a poor reporter that she is unable to follow the NYT's own style guide.
Scholars have since theorized that the $ sign evolved out of an abbreviation for peso: The plural for pesos was "ps," which eventually became "ps," and then simply an "S" with a single stroke denoting the "p." One early instance of the $ symbol crops up in a letter written by the merchant Oliver Pollock in 1778. Pollock also uses the "ps" abbreviation, making the letter a bridge between the two. The double-line through the S variation is less easily explained. Some believe they represent the twin pillars of Gibraltar depicted on the Spanish coat of arms. Others say it's shorthand for the letter "U" superimposed over the letter "S"—for U.S.
Incidentally, do you know where that sign [the dollar sign] comes from? It stands for the initials of the United States.
Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it. It was the only country in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade...
Both are rooted in magical thinking: Naïve supply-siders believe tax cuts pay for themselves, naïve Keynesians believe spending pays for itself through the magic of the multiplier effect.
.svg){kind=link}