by Chris Bodenner
But rather NIAC:
Amid concerns over health conditions and treatment of Iran’s post-vote detainees, an aide to the Iranian president moves to defuse the controversy by saying that serving time in prison helps you understand the importance of keeping your weight under control.
by Conor Clarke
I guess I will beat the dead horse of death panels once more. On "The Week With George Stephanopoulos," John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, had this to say about the Sarah Palin death-panel rumors (via Steve Benen):
MCCAIN: Well, I think that what we are talking about here is do — are we going to have groups that actually advise people as these decisions are made later in life and …
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's not in the bill.
MCCAIN: But — it's been taken out, but the way that it was written made it a little bit ambiguous.
"Ambiguous." Thus do we witness McCain joining the prestigious Michael Steele school of literary criticism. You see, a health-care bill is really a lot like Hamlet or The Wasteland. Interpretations may vary. Where some scholars find an utterly innocuous and optional expansion of Medicare coverage, others might see a program akin to mandatory government euthanasia.
I have expressed my frustration with this tactic many times before, and I know it is getting tedious. But, to recap, the tactic is this: (1) Make a preposterous and false claim about a bill. (2) Have the claim disproved. (3) Avoid defending the original claim, but instead observe that the controversy reflects "a legitimate difference of interpretation" about what might happen in the future. Effective opposition in three easy steps!
And so we have a conundrum: Ignore the tactic, and let the falsehood persist, or engage with the tactic, and play into the false appearance of legitimate debate. I do not have a good solution. The best I can do is repeat, with endless tedium, that the bill is not ambiguous and the original claim is still false. I can further add that people who hide falsehoods behind the smokescreen of an equally false ambiguity are doing a fabulous job of destroying legitimate public discourse.
by Patrick Appel
Bryan Walsh takes on cheap food:
[W]hat's wrong with cheap food and cheap meat — especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don't receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories — some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s — but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it's no surprise we're so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin.
by Conor Clarke
Fox News reports that the Cash For Clunkers program, which is due to end tomorrow, has probably benefited foreign car makers more than American car makers. I think this is interesting news. But since the Fox article proceeds from the implicitly sinister premise that we are "turning the already dwindling number of American car owners into the growing ranks of foreign car drivers," it's worth making three points.
The first is typical and predictable free-trader-ism: If the number of American car owners is dwindling because Americans are buying more foreign cars, I'd say American consumers are probably better off, because the foreign cars must be better or cheaper or otherwise more desirable. But this also seems like one of those situations where the wonders of free trade extend only so far, especially as they pertain to the domestic stimulus benefits of the Cash for Clunkers program.
So here's the second point: The fact that a lot of the cars being purchased are foreign should affect how we tally up the stimulus benefit. Economic stimulus present a coordination problem for the nations of the world. If one nation hands out deficit-financed stimulus dollars to its citizens, those citizens will almost certainly use some of those dollars to buy foreign goods. The whole world shares the benefit. But only the nation handing out the stimulus dollars bears the cost — namely, increased debt and higher future taxes. So if we are judging the success or failure of the Clunkers program based on how cost-effectively it stimulates the American economy, the fact that a lot of the cash is going to foreign companies is probably a strike against it. (Paul Krugman wrote a series of great posts about this subject back when the original stimulus bill was being debated, and I think Krugman's word on this subject — his true expertise — is close to gospel.)
But a third point: The fact that a lot of the dollars are going to foreign companies does not mean the program hasn't been successful. We don't live in a zero-sum world, and the simple fact that a law benefits foreign companies and foreign economies doesn't mean it's bad for America, too. It can be good for both!
Update: In response to a couple of smart emails I should make something clear. One issue I do not consider in this post is what makes a company "American." A lot of car companies that were founded in America produce cars abroad, and a lot of car companies that were founded abroad produce cars in America. Both kinds of companies have shareholders in America and shareholders abroad. There is, furthermore, a difference between GDP and GNP accounting, and those differences will become more pronounced depending on the ownership and production structure of a company.
So I'd say this: my post starts with the assumption that a greater proportion of revenue at an "American" company ends up in the pockets of both American domestics and nationals than does the revenue at a "foreign" car company. I believe that is correct. But, this being the blogosphere and all, I'm not totally sure.
by Patrick Appel
Americans are more tired than horny.
by Patrick Appel
Charles Kenny brings it to development. William Easterly sums up a few of the successes Kenny is highlighting:
Global infant mortality has halved since 1960. The poorest countries are steadily catching up to the richest on other critical measures of the quality of life: life expectancy, literacy, political and civil rights – not to mention beer production per capita.
Kenny's thesis:
Realistic optimism is the right attitude with which to face the issue of development… a recognition of the challenges still facing the world – significant progress to be made, limits to the likely speed of that progress…. But we should also acknowledge that the rapid and unprecedented improvement in global quality of life over the past fifty years provides some significant grounds for hope about the future.
by Chris Bodenner
For my pregnant ballerina sister, Betsy (and fans of Beirut):
Duet from Robin Cantrell on Vimeo.
by Patrick Appel
Most people don't understand sarcasm:
[T]he majority of people — 55 percent — who responded to this survey thought they were giving an example of a sarcastic remark they made, when in fact what they gave was a non-sarcastic remark! A couple of examples — “You really need to stop letting things blow your head up because you’re not that cute” and “I coach a girls’ softball team and during a game I yelled at a girl jogging to the base, ‘My grandmother can run faster than that.’”
by Patrick Appel
Newsweek looks at the psychology of the calling customer service lines:
[C]allers who were given information about their place in line reported more positive experiences—and hung up less frequently—than those who were played background music. And as for recorded apologies? They can make the situation worse, said Rafaeli. Given that apologies often interrupt background music without providing any useful information, she suggested it is possible that “you sort of drift into the music, and go with the flow, and forget that you’re really waiting, or wasting your time. But then this apology awakens you to this unpleasant effect that, hey, I’m waiting!”
(Hat tip: Sager)
The Dish 