The End of the NFL?

No, it's not very likely, at least in my lifetime, but who knows? I happened to catch some CNN on an airport TV while waiting for a delayed flight yesterday, and saw some coverage of (congressional?) hearings on concussions in football. CNN is a bit behind, as usual, because it ran this as 'breaking news' when these studies have been ongoing for a while, and Mr. Tipping Point wrote a very interesting article about it in the New Yorker recently.

Is watching tackle football really akin to dogfighting though? Not so sure about that conclusion. But I do know that while most societies consider themselves to be civilized, eventually some future culture looks back at certain aspects of said society and thinks, "those barbarians! how could they live in a world where _____ passed as entertainment! I'm glad we're more enlightened than they were back then." Is tackle football going to fill in that blank one day?

Is Nothing In This City Sacred?!?

Four young geniuses were arrested downtown last night after they were seen driving around in a pickup truck with the large #8 statue last seen on Eutaw Street, outside of Camden Yards. 

Did they really think that they could get away with it?

Lockerbie Ugliness

We know how the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber is playing here - understandably, not well at all - but how's it look from the other side of the Atlantic?

This BBC article hints that the whole thing could be about oil. There's a shocker.

This piece in The Scotsman refers to a "Deal in the Desert" meeting in 2007 between Gaddafi and Tony Blair, but doesn't elaborate.

Most importantly though, there seems to be quite a divide between the U.K. and U.S. victims' families as to whether Megrahi is actually guilty. The trial was apparently controversial for a number of reasons.

Still, the whole thing looks really bad. Megrahi dropped his appeal when, due to a legal issue, it stood in the way of his "compassionate release". Scotland's justic system screwed up; they should have heard his appeal properly or kept him in prison. His release carries the stench of a minister who was swayed by prevailing U.K. opinion that the convicted got a raw deal. That should have been for the courts to decide during the appeals process. Sure, there would have been outrage from victims' families if he had won his appeal, but unlike the apparent capriciousness of his release, it would have carried some legitimacy.

Another Perspective on Health Care

This article from The Atlantic is certainly thought-provoking. Now, I can't vouch for the veracity of the author's statistics or other claims, but at face value it's a compelling article. A few items that I zeroed in on while reading it:

• This excerpt below reminded me of Bjorn Lomborg's take on global warming, that's it's really not so bad, when compared with all the other bad stuff that we could be spending money trying to mitigate:
  

  As a nation, we now spend almost 18 percent of our GDP on health care. In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1 percent of total government spending; now that figure is 20 percent, and quickly rising. Already, the federal government spends eight times as much on health care as it does on education, 12 times what it spends on food aid to children and families, 30 times what it spends on law enforcement, 78 times what it spends on land management and conservation, 87 times the spending on water supply, and 830 times the spending on energy conservation. Education, public safety, environment, infrastructure—all other public priorities are being slowly devoured by the health-care beast.
  
  By what mechanism does society determine that an extra, say, $100 billion for health care will make us healthier than even $10 billion for cleaner air or water, or $25 billion for better nutrition, or $5 billion for parks, or $10 billion for recreation, or $50 billion in additional vacation time—or all of those alternatives combined?

• Why does health insurance work so differently from every other form of insurance?:

  Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.
  

  Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

  Is this really a big problem for our health-care system? Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance. Much of this enormous cost would simply disappear if we paid routine and predictable health-care expenditures the way we pay for everything else—by ourselves.

• We hear a lot about how other nations' citizens have it better-off because of universal coverage. That might be true, but evidently they're struggling with rising costs too (of course, their care costs, on average, are still much cheaper than ours):
  

  Whatever their histories, nearly all developed countries are now struggling with rapidly rising health-care costs, including those with single-payer systems. From 2000 to 2005, per capita health-care spending in Canada grew by 33 percent, in France by 37 percent, in the U.K. by 47 percent—all comparable to the 40 percent growth experienced by the U.S. in that period. Cost control by way of bureaucratic price controls has its limits.

So what does it all add up to? Should we ("we" being the government, in theory, anyway) not even bother to attempt any incremental fixes, since they probably won't work? Will this round of supposed reform set the stage for a future, more positive round, or leave the public too frustrated or indifferent to try again?

The author's proposed solutions (on page 6 of the article) are attractive and certainly seem to make sense, but I suspect that we're already stuck too far down in the system; if people are up in arms about relatively modest changes, how would we ever succeed in so fundamentally changing the way that health care is paid for?

Health Care Town Hall Hysteria Goes Local

Ben Cardin held a "town hall" meeting on health care in Towson last night, with predictable results. Yes, the polarization of this country continues, with lobbyists and interest groups pulling strings (on both sides) and opponents of reform - any reform - hoping that volume alone will win the day.

O.K., so maybe you think the government plan is socialized medicine. Could even be true, depending on which form the final plan takes, but is that the best you've got, roll out the specter of scary socialism and hope that it sends everyone running for the hills? Now go one step further, and tell us why that's so terrible. Can't do it? Words escape you? Too hoarse from shouting down your senator/congressman recently? How about you make an actual argument or shut up. There's enough real data out there to argue for or against health reform, but if you're too lazy to do so, by all means continue shouting. Eventually though, you'll lose your voice, so it's win-win either way; a meaningful discussion, or blissful silence.

Will Defense & Baserunning Get Their Due?

Maybe, thanks to this very cool technology. Although limiting release of data to the public because of teams' "competitive concerns" is just plain dumb. Trust me, MLB franchises; if your shortstop sucks, the fans (especially the stat geeks) will already know it. This system will just act as confirmation.

Still, no matter how quickly technology progresses, the best fielding still has to be seen to be believed.

A Modern McNamara?

With the death of Robert S. (for Strange! seriously) McNamara, I've seen a few online pieces comparing the Iraq War's own Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, with the infamous "architect of Vietnam". In the future, will Rumsfeld be universally reviled, as McNamara evidently was? I don't think so. Sure, there are similarities: both presided over wars that were seen as disasters of planning and of execution, both were notorious micro-managers, both had put their stamps on war plans. But whereas Kennedy and Johnson were never able to sell their quagmire (sorry, but I'm legally obligated to use that word, since this is about Vietnam) to a skeptical and eventually outraged public and press, Bush, Cheney, and the neocons did a fantastic job of duping a complacent public and a lapdog press corps.

Sure, there will be moments when Rumsfeld feels the wrath of the public [aside: explain to me what a multi-millionaire is doing riding the bus? Part of me is impressed that he's willing to take public transportation, part of me wonders if he's really just incredibly cheap]. But I think that those moments will be few, compared to the many public excoriations that McNamara faced. And while I admire that this father confronted Rumsfeld at that bus stop, I wonder how much good it does, other than making the guy feel better (after his blood pressure returned to normal). Rumsfeld was already an old man, long-bereft of any idealism or sense of justice after various roles in government, when he assumed his last government post - very different from McNamara, who was 44 when he became Secretary and was, by all accounts, broken by the War.