In the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Kate Winslet's character Clementine decides to shed her memories of a former boyfriend Joel (Jim Carrey) "on a lark." She hands over all of her possessions that have a link to their romance to a company that specializes in erasing memories. When her ex-boyfriend seeks out Clementine the next day to try to make up, Joel finds out that she has no knowledge of who he is. Joel also opts to have his mind wiped of all memory of Clementine, too. He hands over all the items he believes have something to do with his relationship with her.
Eventually, Joel realizes that his memories of Clementine are being erased in reverse order. As he experiences in his mind the earlier, happier times with her, he realizes that he wants to stop the procedure and keep the memories. He decides he wants to remember Clementine. The rest of the movie is a comedic struggle between Joel to keep his memories, and the technicians at the company to continue with the procedure. In the end, Clementine and Joel decide to keep their memories and get back together.
All of this seemed like wonderfully impossible science fiction until last year, when researchers at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, figured out how to delete memories in rodents. The researchers initially taught the rats to negotiate a chamber that shocked their feet if they chose the wrong path. Then, after the rats had learned the right path to take, their brains were injected with a drug called ZIP, which caused the rats to quickly forget their hard-earned knowledge regarding safe routes through the chamber.
It's a tough life -- that of a laboratory rat's.
It turns out that the science behind Eternal Sunshine isn't too far from reality. The brain stores negative emotional memories very differently from unemotional, or even positive ones. Negative emotional memories, for instance, tend to capture more details about the experience than positive ones. While most memories are kept only in one area of the brain, the brain uses two separate parts to capture particularly traumatic memories.
One of those areas is the hippocampus, the normal seat of memory, where all other memories are kept. The other area is the amygdala, one of the brain's emotional centers. This explains the "negative haunches" and "bad vibes" we sometimes feel about people or events even when we have no memory associated with them. It also explains why people who are incapable of forming long-term memories can nonetheless form subconscious memories of traumatic events.
Obviously, the possibility that we will someday soon be able to scrub the brain of bad memories raises ethical questions. And, predictably, an internecine battle will arise within the bioethics community. On one side, naysayers will warn about sinister government campaigns to control the masses. On the other side, idealists will promise an end to post-traumatic stress disorder and Alzheimer’s. But the reality is that both will miss the big picture, and memory deletion will probably be most used for reasons like the one in Eternal Sunshine.
Most people fear new technology until the neighbor down the street starts using it, at which point it becomes a commodity rather than a horror. Contraception, in-vitro fertilization, antidepressants, the Internet, Facebook have all followed this track. Most present-day uses of these technologies are consensual and matter-of-fact, and memory deletion will probably be no different.
I don't doubt that memory deletion could be used to erase truly traumatic memories. We could erase memories such as those one might form while fighting in a war. It seems unethical to condemn people who have experienced terrible trauma to suffer when we have the means to eliminate that suffering. But would this treatment contribute toward the "dehumanization" of soldiers? Acts committed within the context of war are often quite horrendous, and it's that knowledge that deters us from going to war for frivolous reasons. Perhaps a better alternative would be a world in which these acts rarely or never happened at all rather than one in which they are simply accepted as necessary.
The desire for people not to suffer is not a bad thing, but it must be balanced by the need to learn from our experiences. This applies to traumatic experiences as well as our own awareness of unpleasant thoughts. What if everyone, everywhere suddenly "forgot" about their own mortality? There would be no impetus to live responsibly or to enjoy every moment. Neither would there be motivation to find cures for cancers and other diseases, since nobody would have any concept in the first place that they might die. Whether the aim is to treat a war-battled psyche or a broken heart, an ethical drug therapy should alleviate suffering, but not to the point where the we cease to care about what we experience.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
A better option: Give the uninsured access to the health plans offered Members of Congress
A public insurance plan as an option under a new health-care system is proving to be a major point of controversy. While President Obama has addressed the controversy, he has continued to avoid addressing the real issues behind the controversy, as well as why an obvious solution that would make everyone feel better about health care reform wasn't considered instead. One issue surrounding the controversy is that allowing government to support a public business enterprise in competition with private firms is counterproductive.
While the President recognizes that subsidizing the federal government's own health insurance company would give it an unfair advantage against private insurers, the issue is more subtle than that.The President supports a public-plan option plan because he believes that it will offer lower administrative costs, an alleged advantage of Medicare.
However, much of Medicare's administrative costs are hidden. For example, Medicare reports its administrative costs as a percentage of identified administrative costs divided by claims. That seems simple enough, right? But there’s a lot more to administering a health plan than just paying claims. For example, there’s an entire bureaucracy involved in managing Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Yet the salaries of these professionals are not included in Medicare’s administrative costs.
Nor are the marketing costs incurred by CMS to promote Part D. Nor Medicare’s use of the tax apparatus to collect “premiums.” By overlooking these and other hidden costs, advocates of government-run health care greatly underestimate the true cost of administering Medicare.In embracing the hope of lower administration costs, President Obama also overlooks the fact that some administrative costs add value. Disease management programs can help reduce overall medical care spending while improving the quality of life for insureds.
The private sector also pays taxes, government fees and incurs the cost of compliance with government mandates and reports. Good or bad, these costs are beyond the control of private health plans.Fraud prevention is another administrative cost that adds value. Medicare's low percentage of administrative cost has come at the expense of a high rate of fraud and unjustified reimbursement.
As just one example, on June 23, the Justice Department announced 53 criminal indictments against individuals making false claims to Medicare. FBI Director Mueller said that there are 2,400 open health-care fraud investigations. Medicare's low rate of administrative cost likely results because the program is under-administered, with insufficient oversight of claims resulting in higher total payouts - creating an exaggerated statistical ratio of low administrative costs to high payouts.
So, if lower administrative costs are elusive and the threat to private sector insurers palpable, why not embrace the better option of allowing the uninsured to enroll in the same health plans offered to Members of Congress? Certainly, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) is part of the current private insurer, third party payer system that needs reform. But the President himself cites the FEHBP favorably, and it provides a choice of competing carriers and plans.
Federal employees are happy with their plans. And the FEHBP achieves this without offering a government insurance plan; rather, it uses private plans competing against each other on the basis of quality and price, marketing to cost-conscious consumers (who can save money if they choose a less-expensive plan). Under the FEHBP, every consumer has a choice of at least ten competing private insurance plans from at least six competing insurance companies - and in most parts of the country, the range of choice is significantly greater.
Even though the federal employee population is large, it is only a small fraction of the total workforce. With a nationwide system of health-insurance exchanges for all consumers, the number of alternatives surely would be greater still. Allowing America’s uninsured access to the health plans offered Members of Congress—along with everyone else on the Federal payroll – could help those who could afford it although some, perhaps many, would probably find the premiums beyond their reach. A tax rebate in the form of a health care voucher could help the rest.
While the President recognizes that subsidizing the federal government's own health insurance company would give it an unfair advantage against private insurers, the issue is more subtle than that.The President supports a public-plan option plan because he believes that it will offer lower administrative costs, an alleged advantage of Medicare.
However, much of Medicare's administrative costs are hidden. For example, Medicare reports its administrative costs as a percentage of identified administrative costs divided by claims. That seems simple enough, right? But there’s a lot more to administering a health plan than just paying claims. For example, there’s an entire bureaucracy involved in managing Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Yet the salaries of these professionals are not included in Medicare’s administrative costs.
Nor are the marketing costs incurred by CMS to promote Part D. Nor Medicare’s use of the tax apparatus to collect “premiums.” By overlooking these and other hidden costs, advocates of government-run health care greatly underestimate the true cost of administering Medicare.In embracing the hope of lower administration costs, President Obama also overlooks the fact that some administrative costs add value. Disease management programs can help reduce overall medical care spending while improving the quality of life for insureds.
The private sector also pays taxes, government fees and incurs the cost of compliance with government mandates and reports. Good or bad, these costs are beyond the control of private health plans.Fraud prevention is another administrative cost that adds value. Medicare's low percentage of administrative cost has come at the expense of a high rate of fraud and unjustified reimbursement.
As just one example, on June 23, the Justice Department announced 53 criminal indictments against individuals making false claims to Medicare. FBI Director Mueller said that there are 2,400 open health-care fraud investigations. Medicare's low rate of administrative cost likely results because the program is under-administered, with insufficient oversight of claims resulting in higher total payouts - creating an exaggerated statistical ratio of low administrative costs to high payouts.
So, if lower administrative costs are elusive and the threat to private sector insurers palpable, why not embrace the better option of allowing the uninsured to enroll in the same health plans offered to Members of Congress? Certainly, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) is part of the current private insurer, third party payer system that needs reform. But the President himself cites the FEHBP favorably, and it provides a choice of competing carriers and plans.
Federal employees are happy with their plans. And the FEHBP achieves this without offering a government insurance plan; rather, it uses private plans competing against each other on the basis of quality and price, marketing to cost-conscious consumers (who can save money if they choose a less-expensive plan). Under the FEHBP, every consumer has a choice of at least ten competing private insurance plans from at least six competing insurance companies - and in most parts of the country, the range of choice is significantly greater.
Even though the federal employee population is large, it is only a small fraction of the total workforce. With a nationwide system of health-insurance exchanges for all consumers, the number of alternatives surely would be greater still. Allowing America’s uninsured access to the health plans offered Members of Congress—along with everyone else on the Federal payroll – could help those who could afford it although some, perhaps many, would probably find the premiums beyond their reach. A tax rebate in the form of a health care voucher could help the rest.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Some practical advice for the class of 2009
Let's just get the bad news that we already know out of the way, first.
The national unemployment rate is 8.9 percent, up from 5.0 percent a year ago. Employers expect to hire fewer new college graduates this year than they did last year. About half are unsure about their hiring plans for fall 2009, and some are even trimming their college hiring further.
Welcome to the real world, Class of 2009. It's tough out there.
Some, perhaps many, of you will not find the jobs you had hoped for during your college years — at least, not immediately. But please allow me this opportunity to dispense some unsolicited advice, starting with me. Don't let these tough times defeat you. Keep your hopes high and never give up the fight to make for yourselves the kind of life you want to live. You don't need to be working at your dream job in order to be achieving your dreams.
Be flexible. Take any job that offers you a chance to show what you can do. You may be surprised to learn that many people you consider successful today took similar detours, twists and turns in their careers before arriving where they are at today.
You may be ready to change the corporate world, and you may, in fact, really change it. But the best way to change the world is by living in it. Dress appropriately to your position. Speak appropriately to your position. Do whatever you have been tasked to do as best you can. Treat everyone you encounter, regardless of his or her social standing, with dignity and respect.
Stay optimistic. These tough times are temporary. The economy will improve. New opportunities will arise. And always remember that your friends and family support you and want you to succeed.
What advice would you give to the class of 2009?
The national unemployment rate is 8.9 percent, up from 5.0 percent a year ago. Employers expect to hire fewer new college graduates this year than they did last year. About half are unsure about their hiring plans for fall 2009, and some are even trimming their college hiring further.
Welcome to the real world, Class of 2009. It's tough out there.
Some, perhaps many, of you will not find the jobs you had hoped for during your college years — at least, not immediately. But please allow me this opportunity to dispense some unsolicited advice, starting with me. Don't let these tough times defeat you. Keep your hopes high and never give up the fight to make for yourselves the kind of life you want to live. You don't need to be working at your dream job in order to be achieving your dreams.
Be flexible. Take any job that offers you a chance to show what you can do. You may be surprised to learn that many people you consider successful today took similar detours, twists and turns in their careers before arriving where they are at today.
You may be ready to change the corporate world, and you may, in fact, really change it. But the best way to change the world is by living in it. Dress appropriately to your position. Speak appropriately to your position. Do whatever you have been tasked to do as best you can. Treat everyone you encounter, regardless of his or her social standing, with dignity and respect.
Stay optimistic. These tough times are temporary. The economy will improve. New opportunities will arise. And always remember that your friends and family support you and want you to succeed.
What advice would you give to the class of 2009?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Thank you, mothers
Today at 1 p.m., women around the world are encouraged to gather themselves and their families and stand for five minutes in silence to reflect on ways to improve the world. Many will read aloud Julia Ward Howe's “Mother’s Day Proclamation,” written in 1870.
But many of these women already improve the world simply by being a mother.
A growing body of scientific evidence shows that the way babies are cared for by their mothers determines not only their emotional development, but also the biological development of the child’s brain and central nervous system. New data is emerging from a multitude of disciplines including neurology, psychology, biology, ethology, anthropology and neurocardiology to show that a mother’s love acts as a template for love itself and has far reaching effects on her child’s ability to love throughout life.
Alan Schore, an assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA School of Medicine, says “The child’s first relationship, the one with the mother, acts as a template, as it permanently molds the individual’s capacities to enter into all later emotional relationships.” Other experts agree.
But the bond between mother and child is not only about proper brain development -- it's an affair of the heart. Our hearts and brains are hardwired for love, and from infancy to old age our health and happiness depend on receiving it. And it's a two-way street in which both mother and child benefit. It is interdependence in its simplest form. Behavioral scientists have long established that our advancement as a society depends mightily on how we interrelate. Interdependence is a concept that is well understood in Eastern cultures, but it is sometimes downplayed in our modern Western culture.
We embrace independence, individuality and freedom more than any other culture, and rightly so. But the reality is that we are not entirely independent of each other. The wise King Solomon wrote that "Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established." Modern translation: No one is an island. Our plans succeed when we build healthy relationships with others, and realize that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Mothers are proof of our interdependence with each other in the microcosm-- a part of what makes us created in the image of God.
But many of these women already improve the world simply by being a mother.
A growing body of scientific evidence shows that the way babies are cared for by their mothers determines not only their emotional development, but also the biological development of the child’s brain and central nervous system. New data is emerging from a multitude of disciplines including neurology, psychology, biology, ethology, anthropology and neurocardiology to show that a mother’s love acts as a template for love itself and has far reaching effects on her child’s ability to love throughout life.
Alan Schore, an assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA School of Medicine, says “The child’s first relationship, the one with the mother, acts as a template, as it permanently molds the individual’s capacities to enter into all later emotional relationships.” Other experts agree.
But the bond between mother and child is not only about proper brain development -- it's an affair of the heart. Our hearts and brains are hardwired for love, and from infancy to old age our health and happiness depend on receiving it. And it's a two-way street in which both mother and child benefit. It is interdependence in its simplest form. Behavioral scientists have long established that our advancement as a society depends mightily on how we interrelate. Interdependence is a concept that is well understood in Eastern cultures, but it is sometimes downplayed in our modern Western culture.
We embrace independence, individuality and freedom more than any other culture, and rightly so. But the reality is that we are not entirely independent of each other. The wise King Solomon wrote that "Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established." Modern translation: No one is an island. Our plans succeed when we build healthy relationships with others, and realize that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Mothers are proof of our interdependence with each other in the microcosm-- a part of what makes us created in the image of God.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Married working women and taxes: the case for tax reform
Today is the day of great tax reckoning for many people. As we fill out and file our tax returns, we may be inclined to believe that married couples benefit from an increase in allowable deductions; however, this isn't the case. Many married women could benefit from tax reform -- so says today's D.C. Examiner.
According to a study by Edward McCaffery, a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California, and published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, there is a high disconnect between the way women participate in the economy and how they are taxed. The major elements of the tax system were put in place in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when most women were not in the workforce. Today, 70 percent of all married women work for wages while 60 percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 work for wages. Yet, the tax laws are biased toward single-earner households in which only one spouse works, and biased against two-earner households.
According to McCaffery, the "marriage penalty" in the tax code is a tax on two earner households -- when a wife enters the labor market, even if she earns only the minimum wage, she is automatically in her husband's tax bracket. Moreover, even if her husband has paid the maximum Social Security tax, the wife who works must begin paying from the first dollar she earns.
Combine a 28 percent federal income tax with an 8.5 percent state and local income tax, then add a 7.65 percent Social Security (FICA) payroll tax, and the marginal tax rate of the second earner in the average household is more than 44 percent. Some married working women actually lose money by entering the labor market.
Under present tax law, if you are middle- to upper-income and married, the incentive is not to work. And if you are low-income and working, the incentive is not to marry. In order to bring our tax system into the 21st century, McCaffery recommends changing the income tax law to permit each married partner to file separately and avoid unfair penalties for working wives. He also suggests allowing a second-earner exemption which would let couples deduct work-related expenses associated with two earner households when calculating income taxes.
It's time to get the tax code out of the 1950s.
According to a study by Edward McCaffery, a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California, and published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, there is a high disconnect between the way women participate in the economy and how they are taxed. The major elements of the tax system were put in place in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when most women were not in the workforce. Today, 70 percent of all married women work for wages while 60 percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 work for wages. Yet, the tax laws are biased toward single-earner households in which only one spouse works, and biased against two-earner households.
According to McCaffery, the "marriage penalty" in the tax code is a tax on two earner households -- when a wife enters the labor market, even if she earns only the minimum wage, she is automatically in her husband's tax bracket. Moreover, even if her husband has paid the maximum Social Security tax, the wife who works must begin paying from the first dollar she earns.
Combine a 28 percent federal income tax with an 8.5 percent state and local income tax, then add a 7.65 percent Social Security (FICA) payroll tax, and the marginal tax rate of the second earner in the average household is more than 44 percent. Some married working women actually lose money by entering the labor market.
Under present tax law, if you are middle- to upper-income and married, the incentive is not to work. And if you are low-income and working, the incentive is not to marry. In order to bring our tax system into the 21st century, McCaffery recommends changing the income tax law to permit each married partner to file separately and avoid unfair penalties for working wives. He also suggests allowing a second-earner exemption which would let couples deduct work-related expenses associated with two earner households when calculating income taxes.
It's time to get the tax code out of the 1950s.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
When good news isn't so good, and bad news isn't so bad
The two big items in today's financial news were the better-than-expected first quarter earnings reported by Goldman Sachs, and the worse-than-expected 1.1 percent decline in retail sales in March.
The market rewarded Goldman Sachs with a sell-off that sent its common stock down almost 12 percent. And some analysts are calling the retail sales decline an encouraging sign. So, what gives? Well, it turns out that Goldman's good earnings report isn't so good, and the decline in retail sales isn't so bad.
First, let's look at the Goldman Sachs. It's true that Goldman reported a $1.8 billion profit in the first quarter -- one of its highest ever. Why is this not good news? It's not good news because Goldman resorted to a little accounting gimmickry, and investors were not fooled. Goldman's 2008 fiscal year ended November 30, and Goldman switched to calendar year reporting this year. This switch allowed Goldman to effectively "skip" December in its earnings report. Not surprisingly, Goldman used December to write off $780 million in losses.
Goldman has also received $12.9 billion in counterparty payments from AIG. No one knows what the "AIG" effect was in December, and naturally Goldman isn't talking. Goldman probably benefited from the suspension of mark-to-market accounting rules as well. In the end, investors weren't buying it, and the stock plummeted. It's encouraging when investors act rationally.
That's not to say that Goldman's earning report is a bad sign for the economy. Goldman Sachs is one of a number of large banks that is heavily exposed and in danger of failing (the others are Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC USA, SunTrust, Compass, Fifth Third, and Huntington). But many other large and mid-sized banks are healthy, and that's good news.
This brings us to March's retail sales. It's true that retail sales fell when analysts had expected a small increase. This isn't as bad as it might seem. While retail sales fell, savings increased. This means that consumers are saving money and paying off debt. That's important because one of the bigger problems facing us is that consumers are over-extended with debt. Paying off debt is a good thing.
In the 90's boom, people used to talk about the "wealth effect" due to housing and the market. Well, now we have the reverse -- the poverty effect. To everyone's surprise, consumers are acting in a sane and logical manner; saving money and paying down debt. In the long run, this is a good thing. It means that we're getting healthier, we're heading in the right direction. But right now it means pain, and unfortunately this pain will probably be with us for a while.
The market rewarded Goldman Sachs with a sell-off that sent its common stock down almost 12 percent. And some analysts are calling the retail sales decline an encouraging sign. So, what gives? Well, it turns out that Goldman's good earnings report isn't so good, and the decline in retail sales isn't so bad.
First, let's look at the Goldman Sachs. It's true that Goldman reported a $1.8 billion profit in the first quarter -- one of its highest ever. Why is this not good news? It's not good news because Goldman resorted to a little accounting gimmickry, and investors were not fooled. Goldman's 2008 fiscal year ended November 30, and Goldman switched to calendar year reporting this year. This switch allowed Goldman to effectively "skip" December in its earnings report. Not surprisingly, Goldman used December to write off $780 million in losses.
Goldman has also received $12.9 billion in counterparty payments from AIG. No one knows what the "AIG" effect was in December, and naturally Goldman isn't talking. Goldman probably benefited from the suspension of mark-to-market accounting rules as well. In the end, investors weren't buying it, and the stock plummeted. It's encouraging when investors act rationally.
That's not to say that Goldman's earning report is a bad sign for the economy. Goldman Sachs is one of a number of large banks that is heavily exposed and in danger of failing (the others are Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC USA, SunTrust, Compass, Fifth Third, and Huntington). But many other large and mid-sized banks are healthy, and that's good news.
This brings us to March's retail sales. It's true that retail sales fell when analysts had expected a small increase. This isn't as bad as it might seem. While retail sales fell, savings increased. This means that consumers are saving money and paying off debt. That's important because one of the bigger problems facing us is that consumers are over-extended with debt. Paying off debt is a good thing.
In the 90's boom, people used to talk about the "wealth effect" due to housing and the market. Well, now we have the reverse -- the poverty effect. To everyone's surprise, consumers are acting in a sane and logical manner; saving money and paying down debt. In the long run, this is a good thing. It means that we're getting healthier, we're heading in the right direction. But right now it means pain, and unfortunately this pain will probably be with us for a while.
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Madness of Angels
"Book trailers" on the Internet are relatively new on the marketing scene, and most of them fall short in my opinion. This one, however, is pretty cool.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Cheering for the frogs (and salamanders, too)
As if there wasn't already enough to think about in our sometimes frenetic, hectic lives, there is now one more thing, thanks to Linda Madsen -- local town resident and submitter of a letter to the editor in my town's newspaper. The vernal pool season is once again upon us!
What on earth is a "vernal pool" you might ask? And who is Linda Madsen? Well, a vernal pool is a wetland area that fills with water in the spring. It is sort of like a temporary pond that only exists during the months of March or April, depending on your region of the country.
Each year, on the first warm and rainy night of spring, millions of frogs and salamanders migrate to vernal pools to breed. That is what's called the vernal pool season. The salamanders and frogs come out of their winter habitat and travel through woods and fields to get to their breeding pools. Unfortunately, large numbers of these amphibians are destroyed by vehicles, and several species are on the verge of becoming endangered because of this.
Linda is an older woman in town who works 10-hour days, but still finds time to venture into the woods in hip boots in her spare time to identify vernal pools to help protect the environment. She closed her letter by suggesting that readers try not to drive on rainy nights at least until mid-April. And if we do have to drive, Linda implored, please go out of our way to avoid amphibian crossings.
The news of the day has unsettled many of us, and perhaps rightly so. There is concern for our global economy, rising unemployment, trillion-dollar budget deficits, diminishing retirement savings, uncertain and tumultuous financial markets, not to mention wars, famines, and not a few natural disasters. Add to that school and school activities, home improvement projects, bills, and housework. For most of us, the plight of frogs and salamanders does not place very high on this list.
And yet, something about Linda's letter struck me not as tragic, but importantly hopeful.
While it may be difficult for us to restructure much of our lives to take into account the migration of these creatures, it is hard not to be pulling for them. Linda's letter reminds us that this rite of passage will take place this year as it has for thousands of years before it. In God's economy, even these small and seemingly insignificant creatures hold a highly consequential place in our eco-system. They will get through this. If frogs and salamanders can do it, how much more so can we?
Thank you, Linda, for helping to remind us of this. I look forward to this harbinger of spring and the promise of renewal it brings.
What on earth is a "vernal pool" you might ask? And who is Linda Madsen? Well, a vernal pool is a wetland area that fills with water in the spring. It is sort of like a temporary pond that only exists during the months of March or April, depending on your region of the country.
Each year, on the first warm and rainy night of spring, millions of frogs and salamanders migrate to vernal pools to breed. That is what's called the vernal pool season. The salamanders and frogs come out of their winter habitat and travel through woods and fields to get to their breeding pools. Unfortunately, large numbers of these amphibians are destroyed by vehicles, and several species are on the verge of becoming endangered because of this.
Linda is an older woman in town who works 10-hour days, but still finds time to venture into the woods in hip boots in her spare time to identify vernal pools to help protect the environment. She closed her letter by suggesting that readers try not to drive on rainy nights at least until mid-April. And if we do have to drive, Linda implored, please go out of our way to avoid amphibian crossings.
The news of the day has unsettled many of us, and perhaps rightly so. There is concern for our global economy, rising unemployment, trillion-dollar budget deficits, diminishing retirement savings, uncertain and tumultuous financial markets, not to mention wars, famines, and not a few natural disasters. Add to that school and school activities, home improvement projects, bills, and housework. For most of us, the plight of frogs and salamanders does not place very high on this list.
And yet, something about Linda's letter struck me not as tragic, but importantly hopeful.
While it may be difficult for us to restructure much of our lives to take into account the migration of these creatures, it is hard not to be pulling for them. Linda's letter reminds us that this rite of passage will take place this year as it has for thousands of years before it. In God's economy, even these small and seemingly insignificant creatures hold a highly consequential place in our eco-system. They will get through this. If frogs and salamanders can do it, how much more so can we?
Thank you, Linda, for helping to remind us of this. I look forward to this harbinger of spring and the promise of renewal it brings.
The Big Loser in Geithner's Plan? You!
Did anyone really not see this happening? Welcome to the unintended consequences of government intervention in the financial markets - big (and possibly insolvent) banks aggressively buying securities that the taxpayer is going to subsidize hedge funds and private investors to buy in a few months. And all of this is made possible by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's public-private partnership program. According to Friday's New York Post, Citi and Bank of America have been aggressively buying up Alt-A and ARM mortgage backed securities, sometimes paying more than the going rate of around 30 cents on the dollar.
See, these banks were given TARP funds to stimulate the economy by making new loans to safe borrowers. Instead, Bank of America and Citi are spending money to buy up the old, bad loans. Why? Because they know that the Geithner plan will create renewed demand for mortgage-backed securities. Actually, they are betting on it ... with your money. We have created a moral hazard here where the taxpayer will bear all of the risk (and the burden), and big banks really won't quite have learned any lessons. Remember, that the purpose of TARP was to help big banks rid themselves of these assets. Instead, they are aggressively buying them back up in the secondary market.
One Wall Street trader told The Post that what's been most puzzling about the purchases is how aggressively both banks have been in their buying, sometimes paying higher prices than competing bidders are willing to pay. Totally unintended, yet thoroughly expected -- it's government meddling at its imprecise, unwieldly best.
See, these banks were given TARP funds to stimulate the economy by making new loans to safe borrowers. Instead, Bank of America and Citi are spending money to buy up the old, bad loans. Why? Because they know that the Geithner plan will create renewed demand for mortgage-backed securities. Actually, they are betting on it ... with your money. We have created a moral hazard here where the taxpayer will bear all of the risk (and the burden), and big banks really won't quite have learned any lessons. Remember, that the purpose of TARP was to help big banks rid themselves of these assets. Instead, they are aggressively buying them back up in the secondary market.
One Wall Street trader told The Post that what's been most puzzling about the purchases is how aggressively both banks have been in their buying, sometimes paying higher prices than competing bidders are willing to pay. Totally unintended, yet thoroughly expected -- it's government meddling at its imprecise, unwieldly best.
Donald O'Connor, in 'Singing In The Rain': Origins of Hip Hop Dance in the US?
Donald O'Connor in Singing in the Rain is amazing! Check out this youtube video:
I know that hip hop dance allegedly originated in New York during the 70s, but O'Connor undoubtedly shows hip hop moves like the worm (when he dives on the floor), the centipedespin suicide flip (self explanatory), and the makeshift swipe he does when his one leg was locked under the other.
To be honest, the choreography for these moves probably has its origins from Capoeira. Capoeira is not Brazilian in origin, but was brought to Brazil via African slaves. Watch people play Capoeira, and it's pretty easy to see the similarities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdZXp0Tq6Jk
Bottom line: hip hop dance has been around a lot longer than the 1970s. (when he swings his one leg under the other), the
I know that hip hop dance allegedly originated in New York during the 70s, but O'Connor undoubtedly shows hip hop moves like the worm (when he dives on the floor), the centipedespin suicide flip (self explanatory), and the makeshift swipe he does when his one leg was locked under the other.
To be honest, the choreography for these moves probably has its origins from Capoeira. Capoeira is not Brazilian in origin, but was brought to Brazil via African slaves. Watch people play Capoeira, and it's pretty easy to see the similarities: http://www.youtube.com/wat
Bottom line: hip hop dance has been around a lot longer than the 1970s. (when he swings his one leg under the other), the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
