AIDS and Privacy

A source of true anger among the health care professions has been the management of the HIV testing. It is illegal to test for AIDS without written permission of the patient and is illegal to include the question in a routine exam. And it has been accepted to lie about exposures and infection.This distortion in common sense has haunted the populace and medical personal ever since the paranoid homosexual community used the sacred constitutional right of privacy to risk the health of the entire community to satisfy their delusions of night riders and quarantine.. Now, it seems, things are changing. After 25 years of exposing nurses and doctors to the virus, after years of depriving fetuses of curative--curative--therapy in an infected mother, one can whisper the truth without having a huge condom burned in effigy in your front yard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120503361.html?nav=rss_opinions
Imagine people with polio refusing testing. Or rubella. Or suspected Ebola. No, the HIV patient/carrier has become a protected species.

risk and the american character

There is a recent article about the American character, how risk is inherent to it, how the history of the settling of the west symbolizes it and how federal regulations endanger it. The author's point is that regulation in the future will inhibit a successful aspect of the American character and impair our recovery. I, on the other hand, think the damage has been done; the current problems are directly attributable to the markets aversion to risk. There are countless factors in the economic disaster we are experiencing, and about to experience. The obvious are expanding credit/debt, the purposeful loaning of money to less than credit worthy people and the tremendous leverage that has developed in the economy (by that I mean using less and less assets to support more and more debt.) But I'll bet when the final assessments are written there will be a more basic culprit: the attempt to eliminate risk. This "risk" concept is essential to free markets. Every economic encounter should contain risk because risk is a proxy for responsibility. If you can buy a house with no money down and get 125% from the bank, you can walk away from the mortgage with 25% of the loan and put it in your pocket. No risk. No responsibility. On the other hand, the creditor is completely dependent on the good will of the borrower, as vulnerable as a woman in the street. Such thinking makes investment closer to theft. No wonder the creditor runs to homogenize the risk. And I will bet it is the underlying problem in the "illiquidity" of the economy: no one wants to give money in a culture that holds irresponsibility in such high esteem. Everyone wants to be as safe as possible but transactions that are risk less, like
other efforts, are worthless--or will prove to be. Life cannot be seen as
risk less. Nothing in, nothing out. The real question is if the risk aversion nature of our economy will supplant the the older pioneer quality of the country. That would be real change.

market

This market is beginning to scare me. There is a strange mood abroad, as if everyone knew this was coming and will now just work happily into their 80's with no other demands on the world. It's like that relaxed fatalism one sees in illness: a wry smile, a shrug. There is an element of disbelief in this I think but there is no anger, no outrage towards those who brought this on us through their unbridled greed and their dismissive social disinterest. In Germany, the money-changers' homes would be cinders by now. It is true that everyone is to some extent to blame but many people are just hard working, unassuming family and business people and their culpability is little. Maybe I'm just overestimating what is coming.

republican Hilary

I still am worried by this Obama thing. I have no idea what these people will do. The senate is already in an uproar. I expect they will start investigating the republicans immediately for misdeeds and generally poison the post election honeymoon. And I wonder about Hilary; she has become a tragic character, ambition thwarted by ambition. I see an opportunity for her but it is drastic for ideologues (but not for the practical). She cannot become president under the current scenario. Her only hope is some national calamity that involves the leadership. But she has a choice: she could pick a public fight involving money, patriotism and xenophobia and use it to define herself as a leader above the fray, as an American leader. When she is rejected by the runaway democrats she could switch in moral outrage to the republican party and run against Obama in 2012. The Global Poverty Act is the perfect scenario: strained American taxed for foreign countries, American soldiers under foreign leadership, treaties approving gun control (trumping the constitution), approval of the disastrous Kyoto treaty. She could oppose it, implore her party to see the error of its ways and, rejected, desperately turn to the republicans as the nation's only hope for salvation. Lieberman in drag.
Palin could run as V.P..

The Art of the Possible

Now the election. Amazing in so many ways. A guy from nowhere. A guy with no
real history. A black guy. A guy nominated because of his party's opposition
to the war only to have the war recede as a major factor in the campaign. A
guy with associations that would have sunk many campaigns single-handed. A
guy who has stimulated a new coalition that will have to be dealt with in
the future. A guy who stands for....change. Well, he is change. By his very
identity he is change. And this is going to be exciting.
Wm. Buckley once was asked why he held a certain position that his
philosophy did not seem to include and he said "reality". I think this is an
important thought in politics, the distinction between what was attainable
and what was limited by the nature of things. This is at the core of
Bismark's quote "Politics is the art of the possible." But the "possible"
as an ideal is difficult. How much should you invest in "the unlikely?" Or
the "totally outrageous?" Or the "illogical?" We are in for some really
exciting times. If Obama is the calculating guy I think he is, this could really
be incredible.
A quote from Galbraith: "Politics is not the art of the possible. It
consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

the vote

A big day, bigger than anyone imagined last year. This terrible campaign, from primary to final, is coming to an end. All the vindictiveness, the lies, the embarrassments of a nation are winding down to one eight (mostly) hour period where the citizens judge. Not just decide. Judge. This election is especially difficult because amazingly, despite the numerous serious problems facing us, both candidates are unknowns and the vice president candidates are both symbols, not leaders. Who could have imagined that both candidates, chosen by their respective parties because of their position on the Iraq War, would spend the entire campaign debating, not the war, but the economy. And not very clearly, either.
The winner will have quite a job and the loser may find himself relieved. The economic problems are huge and expanding every day. The war is a cipher compared to them. The country's very independence depends on our managing them. (Does anyone think the initial bailout was not directly the result of the foreign holders, not the American citizens, who made threatening demands upon the government?) Our sovereignty is at stake here.There must be a systemic approach to these problems but I see no such approach in either. But we are going to life with the results today. But, first, put this deranged contest out of its misery and VOTE.

The downside of tolerence

"ACORN had been given a compelling incentive, as CRA allowed the organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee had estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of the organizers."
This from a review of the history of the sub prime disaster. It is a small part but nonetheless surprisingly accepted. This may well be what these candidates mean by spreading the wealth.
Tolerance has become indifference. This huge scandal has blended in with all the discrepancies, outrages and disasters that the democracy metabolizes in its days and weeks. That any culture can blink at such behavior, behavior that strikes at its roots, is compelling evidence for its decline. This bizarre manipulation of finances, demographics and now voting--a huge sweeping effort at social restructuring conjoined with considerable personal gain--is unpleasant only, like bad weather, as people submissively adjust their lives in their passionless economic worlds. We shrug these events off like minor wounds and slog on. At its heart this indifference comes from despair, the despair of the soldier in the trench who knows the decisions that will decide his life have slipped beyond his control and he must survive within the limits applied to him from above, by his superiors. This country has always had a defiant independent quality in its genes; that may be thinned out.

spreading the wealth

The notion of my giving my money to someone else is indeed neighborly and kind should I do it. But to have a third person give my money to someone else is neither. It certainly is no reflection on me. And, of course, it is taken forcibly from me, most likely by the same people who thought they would benefit from the idea in the first place. If the government becomes a benevolent power in our lives, it will be the first time ever. Ask Iraq. Ask New Orleans. Ask the pensioner with the ever changing social security goalposts. Even the church has a spotty record. And the government is a notoriously inefficient and dishonest middleman. This enthusiasm is just beyond me.
The only good thing about this election is it will be soon over.

the series and life's lottery

Watched the game last night 'til the 6th. I was astounded to hear the umpires' union had negotiated a deal that forbids umpires from working consecutive series. Regardless of how good an umpire is, he cannot be brought back for the series next year. These men are clearly Obama voters. Spreading the wealth. Not a surprise the umpiring has been the story of the series for the first time ever. There is a terrible, irrational quality in the thinking of these people; they believe in "life's lottery". It implies that all life is random; places, people and events can be exchanged. Likely this comes from reading a course syllabus on introductory science. Had they read a bit further they would start talking about Heisenberg. Certainly there are biases in life. There is a wonderful line about George Bush "who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple." But distinctions among people are more than silly vanities. Pujols has certain qualities of vision, coordination and power that differentiate him from me. That differentiate him from the leadoff hitter and the pitcher, too. I would never be able to compete with Jorden or Bettis or Crosby, regardless of my work ethic. Nor could I displace Steven Hawking, or even hold his attention for a minute. While I recognize these biases I do not recognize them as unfair. I would love to be a great athlete with lots of money and adoring fans but I do not feel that the fact that I am not is unfair. Nor do I think wealth is unfair. Wealth is one of the truly fair distinctions in life: somebody earned it. Crosby, Jorden, Sandy Koufax-none of those guys earned their distinctions although they certainly worked harder than any politician to develop them. (Larry Bird wasn't his high school team's best player, Jean Auel was not her writing group's best writer nor was Turow).
One of the reasons we watch the game is to see the distinctions play out. Giving a lousy umpire his chance is unfair, unfair to the better umpire who is being passed over, unfair to the hitter and the pitcher who have to accommodate to his erratic calls, unfair to the third baseman who must swallow the injustice, unfair to the fan who must put the game in the context of his errors and unfair to the game which makes demands on everyone else.
There is no error for the umpire.

the series and life's lottery

Watched the game last night 'til the 6th. I was astounded to hear the umpires' union had negotiated a deal that forbids umpires from working consecutive series. Regardless of how good an umpire is, he cannot be brought back for the series next year.

These men are clearly Obama voters. Spreading the wealth. Not a surprise the umpiring has been the story of the series for the first time ever. There is a terrible, irrational quality in the thinking of these people; they believe in "life's lottery". It implies that all life is random; places, people and events can be exchanged. Likely this comes from reading a course syllabus on introductory science. Had they read a bit further they would start talking about Heisenberg.

Certainly there are biases in life. There is a wonderful line about George Bush "who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple." But distinctions among people are harder to assess than that. Pujols has certain qualities of vision, coordination and power that differentiate him from me; that differentiate him from the leadoff hitter and the pitcher, too. I would never be able to compete with Jorden or Bettis or Crosby, regardless of my work ethic. Nor could I displace Steven Hawkings, or even hold his attention for a minute.

While I recognize these biases I do not recognize them as unfair. I would love to be a great athlete with lots of money and adoring fans but I do not feel that the fact that I am not is unfair. Nor do I think wealth is unfair. Wealth is one of the truly fair distinctions, differences, in life; somebody earned it. Crosby, Jordan, Sandy Koufax-none of those guys earned their distinctions although they certainly worked harder than any politician to develop them. (Remember, Larry Bird wasn't his high school team's best player, Jean Auel was not her writing group's best writer nor was Turow). Giving a lousy umpire his chance is unfair, unfair to the better umpire who is being passed over, unfair to the hitter and the pitcher who have to accommodate to his erratic calls, unfair to the third baseman who must tolerate his injustices, unfair to the fan who must put the game in the context of his errors and unfair to the game which makes demands on everyone else.

There is no error for the umpire.

representantion without taxation is tyranny

In 2006:
1. About 300 million citizens in the U.S.
2. 136 million tax returns
3. 93 million returns paid taxes.
4. Gov't revenues were 2.57 trillion dollars, 70% from individuals.
5. 1% of taxpayers paid 39.9% of the individual taxes (vs. 34.4% in 2003.)
6. The top 5% paid 60.1% of the individual taxes (vs. 54.4% in 2003.)
7. Top 10% paid 70.8% (vs. 65.8% in 2003.)
8. The top 25% paid 86.3% (vs. 83.9% in 2003.)
9. Top 50% paid 97% (vs. 96.5% in 2003.)
10.The bottom 50% of taxpayers, TAXPAYERS, paid 3% (vs. 3.5% in 2003.)
11.This election, 30% of voters will not pay any federal income tax this year.

Palin and the election

Palin was in town last night. I'm beginning to feel some real sympathy for her. This woman is not a professional politician. She ended up governor of a big state by a series of circumstances and, by all accounts, is an attractive and compelling woman. Is she an expert on the Middle East? No. Is Biden? No. Is she as goofy as Biden? No. Is Barney Frank a guy you would put in charge of anything? No, not even a male prostitution ring. But I think the savagery she has inspired means something: I think people I dislike are afraid of her and that interests me. And they--that is the republicans, the democrats and the press--have been cruel to her. The republicans have thrown her to the wolves because it doesn't matter; she attracts a voter she will not alienate under any circumstances. The democrats hate her because she makes women and abortion complicated, and the press hates her because the democrats do and she is popular with a group they disdain. That stunt on CNN was unforgivable. The cruelty is unforgivable. It is beyond anything I imagined people in the public space would do.
That said, I really dislike the two presidential candidates and hope that whoever wins has enough judgment and humility to pick good advisers and listen to them. This period of time is too important to us to have such uncertainty in our leaders (although I must admit Obama acts the part). At any rate, I am done with this election; I'm voting for Palin. I know she won't win but she needs a friend.

social security day

I have met a milestone: I have signed up for Social Security. This has been troubling. First, I can not believe I am this old. This is clearly an emotional and not a reasonable conclusion. After all, a woman younger than I -I knew her as a child - has Alzheimer's. But there is something about this age that feels a bit like turning the third corner of the 400; there is a finishing feeling. Many people I know think that people are in much better health than people used to be and generally I think that is true. But illness is more than a weight that grows like a wart with age, it is a sniper in the trees. I've never thought much about my health or my limits until just recently but milestones are reminders. For some they become millstones. On the other hand, I bought some o.r. shoes two years ago and thought wistfully at the time they would be my last. Now, with this economy and the idiots running for office I have decided to buy another pair.
The other discomfort was the office itself. My experiences with these bureaucracies are usually bad. From the inevitable surly cop to the stunningly disinterested postal worker, the professional government employee always meets my low expectation. And it started badly; my first effort to register--after taking time from work with great effort--was yesterday. Columbus Day. Of course they were closed and I walked away cursing that most of the government wanted to abolish the day--or at least the name--anyway. On my second try every preconception I had was initially confirmed. The room was filled with tough looking, badly dressed people. There was a lot of loud talk and some clearly undiagnosed problems loosed on an unsuspecting world. On the other hand they were uniformly polite, concerned and social. The employees were helpful to everyone; even with the obvious lunatics late in the day they were all smiling and good natured. I was sorry to have prejudged them all, clients and employees, so harshly.

The Change

So much is going on.Everyone should keep journals. These times are astonishing in their speed and change. Obama looks like a blowout. I spoke to a very conservative woman last weekend who hates Obama and she said she hoped the election would be decisive. No more of these bitter, hard fought contest with courts and challenges and outrage. I think it is a wise view. Nixon was beaten by Kennedy by gross fraud in Chicago and never considered fighting the results because of the pain it would cause the country. I think the same now. But this is going to be destructive. Obama is coming to power with a groundswell of uncertainty of the value of freedom, uncertainty that we can run our own lives and should be stuck with the results. It is a depressing view--hardly new and shopworn with failure throughout history--but seems popular enough to carry the day and decade. It is even accepted by the capitalist who fears a real social collapse without it. But it will be hard. A class of bureaucrat/managers will develop to guide the world and there will be no place to hide from their benevolence. Production will certainly decline for the more homogeneous mean and, lurking in the background, will be that gnawing threat that there are limits to growth, that innovation may not be forthcoming under such a benighted and preoccupied system and that serious sacrifices must be made by some, likely the very individuals who should step foreward. And in the face of such problems flies the overt failure of the government leaders to exhibit any competence at all in this crisis. "No one knows what to do" will echo in our minds for years. How can we possibly look to the government system--however changed--when the leaders of the new system are the same pilots that caused the initial wreck? Well, there are no guillotines, no firing squads, no racks. And we are resilient. Even in an economic revolution run by half baked politicians avowing discredited theories, hard work always survives--if it doesn't win.

financial crisis du jour

This ugly financial thing rolls on. There is little honesty in the debates and plenty of blame to go around to everyone. The main problem is that government decisions are the net result of special interests, lobbyists and personal greed. The stunted product can offer little help and often is so deformed it creates lines of ingrained bureaucracies, hard-wired stupid precedents and general idiocy. Then the battle is with the product and not the original problem.The meaning of the word "candidate" is from the same root word as "Candide" and "candid"; it means "white", "unadulterated","unsullied". The original Greek candidates wore white. These guys should wear quilts.
Incompetence is a factor too, of course. Where has Bush been? How can the senate majority leader say "No one knows what to do"? What is Pelosi doing in a national office? And how is it possible that the major nation in the western world has as its "candidates" for the nation's highest office two nonentities, each with his own person brand of dangerous uncertainty.

politics

It's fitting that these elections follow the Olympics; these elections are the Olympics of insincerity. Virtually nothing that is said is real. Energy independence is foremost--and geologically impossible. Good inexpensive medical care for all Americans is an oxymoron. Solving the sub prime mortgage problem is a bit awkward as the problem occurred with strict government oversight and appears to be aided and abetted by government policy.
And what is not talked about is very real, specifically the debt of the government and its citizens.

The core of this problem, this propaganda of hypocrisy, is our tolerance, our willingness to listen to nonsense and our unwillingness to judge, to hold opinions we may be held responsible for. But first it comes from our terrible tolerance for the truth, a disinterest in the face of serious and obvious problems. This indifference comes from conformity in a world where all the sharp edges have been rubbed off. And indifference to terrible truth makes the indifference to lies almost a relief.

politics

The democratic political process is, in its marrow, insincere. The aims, ambitions, motives, achievements, successes and failures of politicians are a twisted and irregular matrix of smallminded, egocentric and sometimes overtly evil preoccupations wrapped in a fragile shell of glitz, optimism, charity and fellowship. Atilla wearing St. Francis' cowl. We, and our media filters, view events like the current campaign with detached openmindedness and grade them like a contest or performance. We see the practiced frozen smiles of the gymnast and judge how well they "connected to the audience". We watch the paired skaters and comment how they are interpreting the music despite our knowing they would skate exactly the same without the music and the music was no factor in the performance at all. And so every four years we watch these performances and hear these sentiments with suspended judgement, openheartedly--or, perhaps, hopefully--giving these incompetent and predatory creatures a second chance.
The Clinton drama gives some spice to this year's masque. Hilary brings adult conflict to the fore. With little experience, with the ironic dependence upon her husband for her independent stature and with notable political failures she has, by force of will and personality, become a national figure and built a base of fierce support. She energized her campaign and prepared to step foreward to her position as next in line only to have her trailbreaking make way for a candidate from a more disenfranchised group than she. And last night she had to applaud his success. No one can say where she is in this play, second or fourth act, but she is no minor character and she is brave.
Unfortunately she and the rest of them--regardless of their compelling complexities-- are minor leaguers. Our nation and the world face serious problems that will require solutions that will be judged on results, not posturing. The fact that any of these ciphers want to appear responsible for our future proves they do not understand our problems well enough to be given the task.