Important Things are Frequently Boring, "Clue" is not

The New England Journal of Medicine published this very interesting, albeit very dry, article on the costs and benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law on March 23, 2010. In light of my previous post regarding the deficit, it seems appropriate to point out that the article states that "analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) actuary show that the ACA will substantially reduce the deficit, only slightly increase national medical spending (despite an enormous expansion in insurance coverage), begin to reduce the growth rate of medical spending, and introduce various new initiatives that may lead to more fundamental reductions in the long-term rate of health care cost growth."

The Journal also describes the ACA as "the most significant piece of U.S. social policy legislation in almost 50 years," so do yourself a favor and read the article. It's boring and a little confusing, but it's history and the policy will have an effect on every American. It's good to know which side of the fence you are on and why. When you are done you can reward yourself by looking at this picture.

On a note of similar importance, if you haven't seen the movie "Clue," do it. It's arguably the best comedy that you've never seen.

The Deficit vs. The Situation

The second-ranking Republican in the Senate had something interesting to say the other day. When asked how renewing the Bush tax cuts coincides with cutting the deficit, Jon Kyl of Arizona said: "You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans [emphasis added].” Or, as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman succinctly put: "So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn't count." Krugman actually discusses the issue in great detail in an op-ed in the New York Times on Thursday. Former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan has also announced his support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire citing the danger of our growing deficit.

Just to put this in layman's terms, a deficit occurs when you project to spend more money than you expect to bring in. If I need to pay $1,000 in rent next month and I expect to earn $700 next month, then I have a $300 budget deficit. In order to spend more than you bring in you have to borrow money, that borrowed money is your debt. For the rent example, I would need to take on a debt of $300 to meet my budgetary requirements. As long as you can borrow money and afford to pay the interest that accrues then you can continue to operate with a budget deficit as the United States does. However, this is not a practice that can continue indefinitely. As our debt continues to rise and our projected deficits remain high, lenders begin to question whether they will ever be paid back. Therefore, they increase the interest we are required to pay on our debts and become less willing to lend more money.

So, what do we do? If we really wish to get the deficit under control then the simple answer is to increase revenue and decrease spending. Extending the Bush tax cuts as Senator Kyl and the GOP leadership wish to do would clearly decrease revenue. Someone with the priority of cutting the deficit and not worried about reelection (like Alan Greenspan) would oppose the extension of these tax cuts. Similarly, someone very serious about controlling the deficit would look to cut spending. The recent expansion of healthcare by the Democrats will assuredly increase spending on Medicare and Medicaid which already represent around 20% of the federal budget. The point here is that neither side can legitimately claim that they are really trying to aggressively reduce the deficit. Republicans want lower taxes, but refuse to give an inch on defense spending. Democrats are willing to enact higher taxes, but they also want to expand more services (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.).

We can't abandon all spending and we can't solve the deficit problem with taxation alone. What we can do is allow the Bush tax cuts to expire recognizing that an increase in revenue will help to alleviate our deficit. We can also reduce spending in certain areas, while still providing services that keep the quality of life at a level to be expected in the richest country in the world. We need to continue to increase the age at which people become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, recognizing that the average lifespan has increased dramatically since the inception of these programs. We need to dramatically reduce our military spending. Our country faces a much greater threat from fiscal crises than from military crises, and our status as global hegemon will assuredly be jeopardized by the former before the latter. We must resist embroiling ourselves in long-term military commitments unless they are fundamental to the security of the United States. Invading Iran, North Korea, Yemen, or Somalia should not be on anyone's calendar. Spending billions on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a ballistic missile defense program that may or may not ever become operationally effective is exactly the type of defense spending that can afford to be cut without sacrificing our military supremacy.

Then again, an inverse of this strategy may work just as well. Run the deficit as high as you want, and when China and Japan threaten to increase interest rates or cut-off lending we can just send over F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to bomb them and activate our high-tech ballistic missile defenses in case they try to retaliate militarily. I'm sure as long as "Jersey Shore" and "Grey's Anatomy" are on, most Americans won't care either way. Nonetheless, that's The Situation.

This is a Free Country, You Can't Wear That!

The lower house of the French parliament has voted to ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public. The vote was not close, 335 to 1, with 221 abstentions, and the bill will now move to the Senate for ratification in September. Proponents claim the vote is a victory for the "values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals," and that "democracy thrives when it is open-faced." Critics say that those who wear the full veil are not the stereotypical oppressed women that they are made out to be, and that the potential ban merely represents xenophobia.

Should the ban pass the Senate it will still face review by France's Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights, both of which have the potential to overturn the law. Nonetheless, claiming that a ban on the veil serves democracy in any way is hard to wrap one's head around. Let me get this straight...by telling people that they can't wear something, Parliament is allowing them to be free because they assume that the people are only wearing it because they are being forced to as a form of medieval Islamic oppression. This reminds me of the Adam Sandler sketch (audio, text) where he and his buddy decide to join a cult. In the end, Adam Sandler apologizes to his friend because the cult forces him to kill his father. The friend's response: "You know, it's like they said. It was the only way to save him." I'm not sure if that relates, but it's funny so click the link.

Either way, forcing someone not to do something so that others can't force them to do it is an ironic solution to a sensitive problem. Will eliminating traditional veils like the burka and niqab in public make oppressive men treat women more equitably as proponents of the ban insinuate? Will the righteousness of Western values strike them like lightning leading them to favor a "I ♥ NY" t-shirt for their wife rather than the pious Snuggie that they've laid out every morning prior? Or will such men still be sober, sexist wife-beaters even if the law passes? 

And this is all assuming that the women who wear the veils are not choosing to do so. What if some are? What if a law was proposed stating that women can't wear Christian crosses around their necks because some Christian men view women as inferior and treat them like crap? I think a lot of Christian women would ask what their husband, father, or brother has to do with their personal methods of practicing their faith.

It's estimated that only 2,000 women wear the veil in France and yet many of the country's five million Muslims oppose the ban. Is this because Muslims in France hate equality or is it because they understand the religious meaning of the veil a bit better than Parliament? Promoting equality and providing religiously-conscious social services to battered and oppressed women seems like a more democratic solution than assuming that every woman walking down the street in a burka is being forced to by an evil Muslim man. 

If government is going to outlaw anything it should be couples wearing matching outfits. It is clear evidence of the non-surgical castration performed by many Western women on their male partners and it can lead to long nights of watching "The Piano Sisterhood of the Ya-Ya Traveling Pants Luck Club in the City." I've not seen it, but I read a review in a nightmare I had and it was the worst experience of my life.

What's Caused Half of All Human Deaths Since the Stone Age?

No, it's not the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. It's malaria, and this article by Sonia Shah, author of "The Fever: How Malaria Has Ruled Humankind for 500,000 Years," provides an incredible account of our battle with the disease dating back to the Roman Empire. The scourge of malaria led the regal, Roman physician Serenus Sammonicus to prescribe the wearing of an amulet inscribed with the word "Abracadabra" as one of the first attempts at a cure. That didn't quite work, and since, that word has crept into one of my most hated corners of our lexicon: magicians' phrases. Now we have to watch Criss Angel say it as he gets paid to pretend to walk on water while dressed like a kid who hates his parents and all the popular kids at school because he's the loser who decided to do magic tricks instead of play sports. I hate you, Criss Angel. The only "Mindfreak" that's going on here is that you somehow misspelled "Chris," and that a large enough portion of America thinks you can float for you to get a show. You started this, Serenus Sammonicus, and if you were alive I'd punch you in the ear.

Anyway, malaria continues to kill nearly 1 million people every year and the only thing anyone seems to care about is when the next LFO album comes out. I know "Summer Girls" is intoxicating, but for the sake of mankind, quit thinking about girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch long enough to start hating Criss Angel...and malaria.  

Serial Killers Should Always Finish Their Pizza

DNA evidence from a discarded slice of pizza led LAPD detectives to arrest Lonnie David Franklin Jr., the alleged prostitute-murdering serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper." The man, described by neighbors as a helpful, friendly handyman, is suspected of killing at least 10 women, mostly in the 1980's, but as recently as 2003. There is not much detail on how LA Weekly came up with the nickname the "Grim Sleeper," but I imagine it went like this:

LA Weekly employee 1: "What should we call this guy?"
LA Weekly employee 2: "How about the 'Grim Reaper?'"
LA Weekly employee 1: "Why are you so stupid?"
LA Weekly employee 2: "Ok. How about the 'Grim Sleeper?'"
LA Weekly employee 1: "Shut up. Blossom is on."

And the Stupidest Country Is...Equatorial Guinea!

Don't blame me Equatorial Guineanites, this is science. And in an effort to kick you while you're down, the University of New Mexico has also found that you are the most likely to be diseased. In fact, they have found that the two are actually linked. Fighting off diseases and developing a brain are both very metabolically taxing, therefore, individuals forced to stave off infection during their developmental stages are less likely to fully develop their head noodles.

Move over North Korea, I'm grabbing some Purell and heading to Equatorial Guinea to impress the locals with my unparalleled Highlights Magazine 'Hidden Pictures' skills. I give it about 3 hours before they elect me 'Jesus.'

Science Knows How Long You'll Need to Wear Depends

DNA researchers at Boston University have apparently identified the unique genetic variations that lead to longevity by studying the world's wrinkliest people. By studying the genetic makeup of more than 1,000 individuals over the age of 100, scientists have isolated approximately 150 'markers' that these centenarians have in common. They are now working to develop a test, which will be offered for free, so that people can find out if they are genetically predisposed to one day resemble Benjamin Bellybutton.

This breakthrough once again raises the question among medical ethicists as to whether such tests will reveal more information than people want to, or should, know. I can tell you that the only changes I would make if I found out I would live long enough to be a mummy would be to moisturize so I don't look like this, and to start stocking up on Depends when they are on sale. As the Boy Scouts say: if you're going to go to the bathroom in your pants...be prepared.