If you get a Swine Flu shot and your boyfriend breaks up with you....

Authorities are getting ready for massive Swine Flue vaccinations, and are apparently attempting to educate the public on the concept of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I.e., just because one event precedes another does not mean that that event caused what followed.

You're walking down a street. You sneeze. In front of you two cars crash into each other. Just because you sneezed and then two cars crashed does not mean your sneeze CAUSED the cars to crash.

Same problem with the Swine Flu. Lots of people are going to get heart attacks, strokes, miscarriages, and more right after they get their Swine Flu shot. Many would have gotten those things anyway. How do we tell whether the shot caused those things, or whether they were destined to happen, even without the shots? In 1976, a lot of people freaked out when things happened after their shots, and eventually the shots got shut down. How do we know what reactions are truly linked to the shots? Read the rest of this post...

Don't always trust the polls

I admit to trust polls a lot. Sure, people poo-poo them, but I often get the sense that it's a more populist kind of response (you can't trust those darn polls) than an intellectual one. Well, Nate Silver does an analysis of a recent poll showing Oklahoma high school students to be awfully dumb, and he does a very good job of debunking it. Of course, the post is classic Nate - don't read it unless you've put on your Stephen Hawking thinking cap first, or you'll be very very sorry :-)

I guess what I mean by posting this is the following. Don't trust individual polls, especially when they shock. It's better to look at the aggregate of polling, so that the good tend to even out the bad. That's why we like the way Pollster.com looks at numbers - they often aggregate all the poll results, like with Obama's approval rating, so you can see not just the trend, but you can also see which polls are a bit goofy. (Speaking of which, I though his approval had gone up - not doing so well, again.)

Read the rest of this post...

Did 5,000 year old farmers start global warming?

Some say yes, some say no. Interesting article nonetheless. Read the rest of this post...

Coulter says it's really liberals comparing Obama to Hitler

(H/t JoeMyGod) Read the rest of this post...

World Bank warns against handing over more power to Fed

And the World Bank is right to be concerned about giving more authority to the Federal Reserve. Even if it wasn't Bernanke, handing over more power to the Fed is a bad idea. Why would anyone outside of Wall Street want to give more power to any group that is so cozy with banks?

It should not be a surprise that American democracy is hesitating about authorizing the Fed to supervise systemic banking as well as operating monetary policy, adding to its power," World Bank President Robert Zoellick said.

In a speech prepared for delivery at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Zoellick said the U.S. Congress had a long tradition of viewing banks with suspicion that made it a challenge to beef up the U.S. central bank's power after last year's financial panic.

Read the rest of this post...

Reich: "Political operatives in the White House have quietly reassured the industries that [the public option] won't be included in the final bill"

Robert Reich:

Big Pharma and big insurance hate the public insurance option even more than they hate big Medicare discounts. And although the President has sounded as if he would welcome it, political operatives in the White House have quietly reassured the industries that it won't be included in the final bill. At most, the bill would allow the formation of non-profit "cooperatives" that wouldn't have the scale or authority to squeeze the profits of private industry, or a "trigger" that would allow states to form public insurance options eventually if certain goals for cost savings and coverage weren't met.

I'm not posting this to be gratuitously mean to the White House. I'm posting it because Robert Reich is someone I trust. And I think it's important that all of us have a full picture of what's going on behind the scenes. Read the rest of this post...

Secret Service investigating Facebook poll asking if Obama should be assassinated

But seriously, it's not because black. Read the rest of this post...

Who cares what Olympia Snowe thinks?

Here we go again.

For some reason I can't totally fathom, it's terribly important to get one GOP Senator to vote for health care reform. Why? Well, no one can quite tell us why. Other than some bizarre notion of - there's that word again - "bipartisanship."

Well here's a news flash. It's not a bipartisan bill when it passes with 59 Democratic votes, one Independent, and one Republican. That's a Democratic bill, with one Republican who for whatever reason abandoned her party. It's not bipartisan.

Don't listen to me, just look at recent history.

Remember the stimulus bill? The one we gave 40% away to the Republicans, in the form of relatively useless tax cuts, in order to woo GOP votes? How many GOP votes did we get out of the entire Congress of 535 members? Three, all Senators.

And that's three times more than we'll get if Olympia Snowe ends up voting for the bill.

What did we get for those 3 Republican votes? Did Republicans stop accusing Obama, Reid and Pelosi of breaking the bank and wasting the stimulus money on pork? No. Are all the angry Teabaggers protesting around the country focusing their ire on Republicans and Democrats for passing the stimulus bill? No. Does anyone in America outside of Washington, DC actually think that the stimulus package was a bipartisan coming together of both parties? No.

Then why are we repeating the same old charade and willing to make the health care reform plan less effective in order to get a single stupid Republican vote?

This is President Obama's plan that's going to pass a Democratic Congress. Come next year, if our rates still go up and insurance companies continue to stonewall when we ask them to pay our medical expenses, the only people anyone is going to blame are Democrats. I sure hope getting Olympia Snowe on board is worth it, because come next January, no one's going to remember that she was involved at all. Read the rest of this post...

Patriotism and the Economics of Climate Change

Paul Krugman recently wrote about the relatively cheap cost of addressing climate change compared to the fears that many seem to have of smothering growth. As he points out, many of the barriers to actually doing something about climate change are related less to how much these measures cost us as a nation, than to exactly who would gain and who would lose. More to the point, he correctly notes the political problem: Many of those who would suffer if we did things like discouraging energy use with new taxes have up-and-running lobbying organizations, while many of the would-be-winners don’t. For example, the oil companies and the entire state of Texas (among others) are opposed to measures to make oil products more expensive, while the new industries that might be expected to spring up (more efficient engines, solar collector manufacturers, etc.) have yet to grow and become rich and powerful enough to have any political clout at all.

Krugman is certainly right about that, and most economists who look at this area would put it even more strongly: There are dozens of reasons to do things like tax oil consumption, as the Europeans have long done, and we economists have been advocating since the first oil shock in 1973. But it never really happens, and the blame is usually fixed on what I think of as “fake” reasons rather than the real political reasons. “Fake” reasons include things like our lower population density, which supposedly makes mass transit investment less viable in the US than in more densely populated Europe (though this isn’t true everywhere in the US), and the fact that poor people are disproportionately disadvantaged by an oil consumption tax because they spend a lot of money on gas to get to work (they do, but that would change if they drove smaller cars and besides we can give the money back some other way, e.g., through their paychecks). The list goes on, but it is mainly a rehash of arguments we have had for the past three or four decades.

What are the “real” reasons we don’t take measures to address climate change? Krugman is certainly right about the existing lobbies. But there is a bigger political reason: In Europe, a decision to tax, e.g., gasoline, is not as controversial as it is in the US because everyone in Europe is a consumer of oil, and nobody’s income is tied to increased production of it. In the US, the debate always ends up being some version of Texans vs. New Yorkers, or name-your-producing-state vs. name-your-consuming-state. Even those Europeans who have oil (UK and Norway) had their tax policy in place before their discoveries started flowing, so they haven’t had this problem.

But there is a still bigger context. We economists have no doubt that, with enough insulation in our houses and enough of a tax on gasoline, we could have drastically reduced our oil consumption after 1973. We never did either of these, but don’t think you haven’t paid the price. Rather than paying at the pump via a gas tax, we have been paying for our oil through the Defense Department. How many trillions have we spent on Middle East wars and Rapid Deployment Forces and patrolling the waters in that region? Would we be doing ANY of this if we weren’t so dependent on their oil? Not only that, but if the US consumed significantly less oil, the price would be way lower than it is today.

But wait a minute you say – if we were to pay a gas tax instead of paying through consumption, we would still be paying the same amount in the end, right? Well, no. If we pay a tax we are paying it to ourselves. As it stands now, with the price of oil around $70/bbl, the producing countries get all the money. But really, how patriotic does anyone feel when paying a gas tax? Compared to paying for our sons and daughters to go in harm’s way there really is no contest. Many people feel completely gung ho about anything military and even Dems are too scared not to be as hawkish as they can. But wouldn’t we all rather pay a tax and drive a smaller car than continue to care, about and militarily intervene, in the Byzantine complexities of Middle East politics? Read the rest of this post...

US considering "crippling sanctions" for Iran

Wash Post:

Amid growing international pressure in advance of highly anticipated talks this week, Iran displayed its defiance of Western threats against its nuclear program by announcing Sunday that it had test-fired at least two short-range missiles. Senior Obama administration officials, meanwhile, said they had the international support necessary to impose crippling sanctions if Tehran does not stop construction on a new uranium-enrichment plant and allow immediate inspections.

Read the rest of this post...

Whitman in CA GOP governor's race didn't vote for 28 years

Ben Smith has more. Read the rest of this post...

"I started volunteering for the Obama campaign as soon as there were means to do so in our area."

Kit, from Louisville, CO, is a regular reader of the blog. Do you agree with Kit? Disagree? Is she spot on, or not appreciative enough of the good things the Obama administration is doing?

John,

Half of me says this’ll end up in your junk / trash bin, but the other says you seem to care how and what regular folk think and feel about Obama’s work thus far. Either way, I apologize for filling your box, and also think it’s rather telling that people, myself included, are again feeling this way.

After reading your post on the underground garage concert in France, and the more politically minded post about public ire towards Obama et al should the Baucus bill pass, I found myself reflecting on my reaction to Bush winning his second term. I wanted to leave the country – period. See, I lived overseas as a teenager for a couple years, and sandwiched that between years spent living far below the poverty level. Having grown up seeing both sides of the aisle so to speak, I tend to get nostalgic over my time in Europe and Japan.

When Bush defeated Kerry, my son (then 8) cried himself to sleep, and I seriously contemplated moving my family overseas. My nursing career made this a viable, though difficult and un-American, option. It was particularly appealing given that I barely made ends meet on a daily basis given my children’s chronic health issues, the cost of living, and the cost of daycare in our country. Instead, I found myself at a local DfA meeting, listening to Howard Dean’s post election call to action via conference call. I re-evaluated my urge to flee, and realized I had a duty to myself, my family, and our country to fight for progressive ideals, social justice, and true equality.

So, I put that urge to rest and threw myself into volunteering and advocacy work. I started volunteering for the Obama campaign as soon as there were means to do so in our area. In my precinct we raised democratic primary attendance from 17 people in 2004 to 120 attendees in 2008, from barely 50 people at our ten precinct super site to well over 1000. We didn’t stop there, and even though my family hovered near homelessness due to an unfortunate work injury, I kept working and fighting to see Obama elected.

Today, in a rather puzzling change, I find the urge to leave this country returning stronger than ever, and it’s more difficult to quiet.

When Bush won his second term, I reached deep within for the small bud of hope that remained, and built on that. Throughout the primary and general elections, many of us within the Obama volunteer team felt we’d proven that one person truly can make a difference. Now, after merely 10 months in office, the lack of action on the part of team Obama (DOMA, DADT, etc.), the bizarrely run health care reform effort combined with the subsequent willingness to kill the public option, the Obama administration’s approach to education have led me to a breaking point.

I sense that they don’t uphold any of the progressive ideals for which we fought, or on which he campaigned. That hope he told us to find, to rekindle – he and his administration have killed it more fully than Bush and his cronies ever did. Moving out of this country, where it appears a select few ‘haves’ control the outcome regardless of public opinion, suddenly presents a most palatable option. I’ve asked around, and it turns out that applications for nurse abroad and teach abroad programs are up over 300% in Colorado. That isn’t the least bit surprising to me, and I don’t think it’s economically motivated.

In terms of public ire, sure people are going to be angry; more worrisome though is the idea that many will simply give up on ever restoring our nation or on effecting meaningful change. I’d love to dig in and work hard towards that, but I just tried that, putting energy and time towards Obama’s election that I should have put toward protecting my family’s livelihood. I did so because of the implicit promise by him and his to protect and improve the livelihood of our nation’s citizenry – a promise many wonder if he ever intended to keep.

Until recently, I was one of those who argued for people and blogs to give Obama a chance. For me, between health care, equality issues, and education he’s blown that chance. Obama may have built on Dean’s bottom up volunteer / work for change corps., mobilizing hundreds of thousands of us to give of ourselves financially and otherwise, but the truth is he’s losing us faster than he managed to build us up.

Kit
Louisville, CO

Read the rest of this post...

Senate Democratic Aides: Olympia Snowe rules our world

As I noted below, there is a growing sense that among some Democratic Senators that there can actually be a strong Democratic health insurance reform bill. Given that no Republicans are supporting reform legislation, there's no need to just compromise with themselves. But, that thinking is not prevalent on Capitol Hill -- yet. Today's New York Times reports that Senate Democratic aides are already saying their bill won't include the public option. And, despite the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they're ceding great power to Maine Republican Olympia Snowe:

Senate Democratic aides said they believed that the combined Senate proposal would depend, to a large degree, on Ms. Snowe, whose vote is seen as crucial because it would provide evidence that Democrats have tried to work across the aisle, and it would bolster centrist Democrats who are reluctant to vote for a purely partisan bill.

Olympia Snowe rules the world of the professional Democrats here in DC. It's just astonishing how much power they give away to her. And, even if Snowe is critical (and she shouldn't be), do "Senate Democratic aides" need to broadcast that in the New York Times? By doing this, the Democrats not only give away power to one GOP Senator, they're ceding good policy.

It's time for the liberals in the Senate to assert some authority. Senators Brown told us last week that the Senate has the votes to pass reform with a strong public option. He also said Rahm Emanuel was "wrong" for thinking there weren't enough votes for the public option in the Senate. Seems too many "Senate Democratic aides" are heeding the conventional wisdom of Rahm and not the Senators in their caucus. This is a very critical time in the debate about reform. It's important to rebut inaccurate "conventional wisdom" about the health insurance reform legislation. I'll trust Senator Brown over unnamed "Senate Democratic aides." Read the rest of this post...

Senate Dems could (and should) actually pass a Dem. health insurance reform bill

On Friday, Greg Sargent picked up on a quote from Chuck Schumer in this New York Times

“One of the strongest arguments against a public option has been that the Republicans will never go for it,” Mr. Schumer said. “Well, the Baucus bill doesn’t have a public option, and they’re still not for it in any way, with the possible exception of Olympia Snowe,” a moderate Republican senator from Maine, who has not ruled out supporting the overhaul that Mr. Obama is seeking.

Greg made a point that bears repeating as this week unfolds:

Schumer has been admirably lucid about this process throughout, and this gets at, I think, an interesting paradox about the current impasse. The GOP’s refusal to back even the dramatically watered down version of reform that’s emerged from the Senate Finance Committee makes it more likely that the final product will look a good deal more like what many Dems originally wanted.

The Times piece, by the way, is worth reading, since you rarely see such lucid reporting on why many Dems sincerely think the public option isn’t dead. The piece even mentions all the polling that constitutes empirical evidence of its popularity!

Here's what the Times mentioned about polling;

The second development that has encouraged liberals is recent polling, including some done for The New York Times and CBS News in the last week, that gives Democrats a clear edge over Republicans as the party favored to deal with health care issues. The same polls show significant support for a public option despite months of criticism from Republicans, who describe it as a government takeover of health insurance.

So, let's review: 1) No GOP support for real reform, even the weak Baucus bill; and 2) even after the summer of the teabagger protests, there is strong public support of the public option. Now, anyone with an ounce of common sense would suggest moving ahead with the strongest reform bill possible, including a public option. There were some glimmers of common sense last week from Schumer and Senator Rockefeller. But, common sense isn't a virtue on Capitol Hill. Conventional wisdom is. And, the conventional wisdom isn't reality-based. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Today, until sundown, is Yom Kippur, the day of atonement.

Because of the holy day, Congress isn't in session. The President has a low-key schedule, too.

The action picks up again tomorrow on health insurance reform in the Senate Finance Committee. Senators Schumer and Rockefeller have stated their intention to add a "public option" amendment to the Baucus bill. The whole point of having a weaker bill was to attract GOP support. There is NO GOP support -- and the Democrats do have that filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats should actually pass a bill that reflects Democratic principles. What a concept. Stop letting Olympia Snowe rule the Senate.

Thread the news, please... Read the rest of this post...

US airlines adding fees for international luggage

Americans could stand to travel with less luggage but still, this is a move in the wrong direction. So many of these extra fees were slapped together when the cost of fuel went through the roof and as expected, now that fuel prices are lower the fees are not going away. If anything, there are now more of them. The airlines want to nickle and dime customers to death and the routine is getting old. It's also encouraging more people to drag even more into the cabin which is going to make for even longer (and more miserable) boarding.

Squeezing more out of fewer customers is now the approach by the consultants in this industry but hopefully someone out there will eventually tap into customer anger and think about winning over customers again instead of kicking them. Finding a pricey business consultant that has an ounce of common sense might be asking for too much though.

Fees to check bags on international flights are creeping in and may be here to stay. In the past three months, all the big U.S. carriers have added $50 fees to check a second bag on flights to Europe. Delta and Continental are charging second-bag fees for flights to Latin America, too.

We've flown this route before, with domestic bag fees. United Airlines started with a fee to check a second bag last year, and other carriers followed. The wave of international bag fees got started July 1 when Delta began charging to check a second bag between the U.S. and Europe.

Read the rest of this post...

Water bottles banned from town in Australia

Is it just a matter of time before this goes everywhere? For the environment, it makes perfect sense though it would be a pity to not be able to enjoy the various waters out there unless you traveled to the distant region. Less plastic and no costly shipping.

Plastic bottles were ceremoniously removed from shelves in the sleepy Australian town of Bundanoon at the weekend as a ban on commercially-bottled water – believed to be a world first – came into force.

The ban, which is supported by local shopkeepers, means bottled water can no longer be bought in the town in the Southern Highlands, two hours from Sydney. Instead, reusable bottles have gone on sale, which can be refilled for free at new drinking fountains.

Read the rest of this post...

Robert Mugabe's 10,000 acre farm

It's good to be the king. The Telegraph, of course, is obsessed with the white farmers but the real issue is not the skin color of the farmers. The more important issue is that again, Mugabe is behaving as though it's his kingdom and his disastrous agricultural policies that have left people starving. (h/t Cat)

The discovery of the 10,000-acre holding worth £2 million is the first evidence of how he personally benefited from the land seizures programme which started in 2000.

More than 4,000 commercial farmers had their land taken in the drive that destroyed Zimbabwe's agriculture industry, the bedrock of the economy.

Even in the Mugabe-created failed state of Zimbabwe, these farm holdings are worth over $3 million. Read the rest of this post...

Making tipping easier?

The Atlantic Food blog has a suggestion. Read the rest of this post...