Context.

What brings me back to the blogging fold? Yep, it’s the title of this post. Context is obviously important, and especially essential when quoting other people. I’ll start with an excerpt of a review I posted online about the restaurant Wingnuts in Athens, GA: “The price was relatively cheap, so I wasn’t expecting the best wings ever, but I was still sorely disappointed. The wings’ claim was that they were “fresh and never frozen,” but somehow “tasty” eluded them entirely…Terrible experience and absolutely NOT recommended.” How to take it out of context? Here goes: “The price was relatively cheap…best wings ever…tasty…recommended.” Sure, I’m using an extreme example here, but I think it does a serviceable job of showing that context is integral to quotes. Considering that today (at least for my generation) is the golden age of sarcasm, it’s easier than ever to miss out on context, especially when all auditory markers are missing. How poorly sarcasm is visually identified is arguably another post for another day, so I’m going to leave that be for now. Moving on, it seems that all too often, people to go gallivanting around without context, brandishing quotes and statistics that perfectly back up their point…at first glance. Honestly, it’s impossible to carefully consider every quote you hear, and sometimes you just have to take on faith that the person who’s writing isn’t full of it (or to be more charitable, simply mistaken), but that’s no excuse for omitting healthy skepticism. Sometimes I read a statement, it strikes me as wrong, and I feel compelled to place it in context and find out what the real meaning is.

There is a specific example I’m thinking of at the moment. I’ve been seeing some tax-related quotes from John F. Kennedy making the rounds on Facebook the last few days. Here’s one that I remember specifically:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

- Nov 20th, 1962

So what started my research/Googling spree to figure out the bigger picture? There was a link to a website that has a list of a dozen or so similar quotes, if you care to read them₁, all of which ostensibly call for lower taxes. Ergo, were Kennedy alive today, he’d be all for extending the Bush-era tax cuts! Or not. I don’t have the slightest idea what JFK would say about the ideal tax burden in the United States today, given the current economic situation, and I don’t care to speculate here (if I were to go there…definitely the subject of another post). Still, I have a feeling that the picture is not at all as clear as the quotes make it seem.

Before the quotes can be taken at face value, there is a bit of context to be added. Let’s look at what was going on, tax-wise, at the time Kennedy made his statement. In 1962, the top corporate tax rate was 52%, and the top individual rate was 90%, while today both top rates are at a much lower 35%_{2, 3}. Considering the tax situation in 1962 isn’t analogous to today, it’s not really honest to claim that JFK would be advocating a further tax reduction now. Suffice to say, a major difference exists between 90% and 35%. Well, that’s the highest rate, what about the lowest? Checking the lowest rate, in 1962 it was 20%, double the 10% in 2010₄. Also, there weren’t any minimum standard deductions in 1962 (added in 1964)₅, no Earned Income Tax Credit for children (1975)₆, and…well, I think I made my point. It may be a solid claim that the tax rates of the 60′s were too high for JFK, but in 2010? There’s a big difference between the tax atmosphere then and now, and I can’t see how it’s honest to tear Kennedy’s quotes away from their original context and try to shoehorn them into today’s debates.

I’ve provided links to all of the sites I used to grab my quotes and statistics, if anyone cares to factcheck me. I’m certainly not averse to holding myself to the same standard I’m applying to everyone else. Actually, I have more to say about context, but I’ll get to that next time. It’s good to be back.

1. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517
2. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=65&Topic2id=70
3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=474&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=38
4. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf
5. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1960.cfm
6. http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html

Cerebral NEATLinks: Defective Yeti

It’s time for me to roll out my new blog series: Cerebral NEATLinks. This is a rip-off an emulation of other bloggers who have similar features, usually once a week or so. It’s a brilliant idea, since it allows us bloggers to be lazy and unmotivated in the guise of “giving props” or “providing support” to other blogs/sites that they “greatly respect.” Pro tip: we just don’t want to have to do any real work in thinking up and writing something original, intelligent (Q: How can you tell it’s Friday afternoon? A: You need spellchecker to catch the fact that you misspelled “intelligent”), and thought-provoking. Ok, not really. I personally do enjoy the other sites I’ve linked to in the past (and if you haven’t visited Layer Tennis lately, do so and check out their season 2 compilation video).

Today, I present Defective Yeti, brainchild of one Matthew Baldwin. Matthew is a brilliant and incredibly funny writer, and though his updates have been sporadic as of late due to a massive internet project involving David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest,” his blog is your go to site for humor, board games, and random nerdiness/snark.  Most of the people who read my blog would certainly appreciate the (unofficial) screenplay he wrote for The Office. It captures the spirit of the show amazingly well, and if you enjoy The Office you should take a look. Why pick Defective Yeti as the day’s NEATLink? It’s Friday, and everyone could use a laugh for the weekend. Enjoy!

-Josh

I Heart dictionary.com

***Code Red Level 10 Maximum Danger Nerd Alert***

For the first time since I started this blog, I actually have a backlog of posts queued up to be posted. To start the (relative) deluge, I present Exhibit A that I, Joshua Richard White, am a nerd. Hearing mispronounced words irks me. It’s even worse if I pronounce a word incorrectly and am called on it. Strong verbal skills are a pride of mine, so the flub indelibly etches the memory of ignorance in my brain. I still recall vividly when, at age 7 or 8, in an Olive Garden I incorrectly believed the soup “minestrone” was pronounced ‘MINE-strohn.’ Of course, the waiter and my parents found my inadvertent misstatement adorable and appropriately childlike, but I genuinely felt affronted by my own lack of knowledge. Maybe I was a strange kid. It’s as if I’ve been in a lifelong fencing match with the English language (certainly a tough opponent). Though I can never quite keep its’ épée from slipping though my defenses (seriously, who can?), each time I’m struck, I redouble my efforts to remain untouched in the future. Maybe I’m a strange adult.

So I started a new job Monday working as a (I kid you not about the title) “Customer Account Executive.” Read: Tech Support/Sales/Phone Operator. The name of my service line group is “Cavalry,” and I noticed that people in my training class repeatedly mispronounce the word as ‘cal-vary.’ See above if you wonder how much this might bother me. Come to think of it, “cavalry” gets mispronounced that way quite often. Let’s dig into the differences here, shall we? “Cavalry” refers to (classically) military troops on horseback or (modern) motorized military units organized for maximum mobility. “Calvary,” on the other hand, is known as ‘Golgotha,’ a.k.a. the place where Jesus was crucified. Also consider that the secondary definition of “calvary” is “. . . an experience or occasion of extreme suffering, esp. mental suffering.” I hope that’s not a bad omen for my line group. I highly doubt that people are mispronouncing “cavalry” as “calvary” to be funny, but I’ll just assume that they are in my head for the purposes of my own amusement.

While I was mulling over the differences between “cavalry” and “Calvary,” I was struck by the fact that the name of this very blog could be pronounced in multiple ways (ok, just two, but still . . .). I initially assumed that “cerebral” had two acceptable variants, ‘suh-ree-bruhl’ and ‘ser-uh-bruhl.’  As a self-described “word nerd,” I figure it behooves me to get it right. A quick check of dictionary.com revealed my hypothesis to be correct. Now you all know, and yes, you are welcome.

-Josh

Busy=Productive?

So I’ve spent somewhere in the ballpark of zero hours blogging/writing blog rough drafts/thinking about my blog in the past two months. Sad, especially since it’s been at or near the top of my to-do list for a while. However, I just started a new job on Monday, my classes are picking up in intensity, and I have several other engagements of various kinds lined up over the next week. Naturally, I’ve managed to write this, get two blog post rough drafts ready to be polished up for posting, and I’ve had a host of new ideas for future topics effortlessly flowing out of my mind. I imagine that if I start doing volunteer work, or pick up another major commitment, I’ll be posting once or twice a day. On a related note, I’ve even stuck to my exercise routine well while out of town in Orlando last week.

I’m moderately surprised that I’m not lying on the floor in exhaustion, stressed and feeling overwhelmed, or conking out in bed as soon as I walk through the door after a busy day. I joke about continuing to cram my schedule, but as long as I don’t give myself more to do than I could possibly manage in my waking hours, there’s a bit of a sweet spot here for productivity. The last two months have felt like a holding pattern in my life. The house has been under construction, school hasn’t started up quickly, and I haven’t had a job. Paradoxically, all the free time I possessed was not exactly conducive to blogging, baking, exercising, or the like. Perhaps now that I have less time to burn, I feel compelled to use it more wisely. Funny how that works (also, quite favorable). I never thought I’d be saying this, but may I remain relatively swamped for at least the near future!

-Josh

I’m a columnist?

I’m a columnist. I’ve been asked by Tyler to write for the Athens Vineyard Church website. Now that I’m fully somewhat barely moved in to Pensacola, I’ll have a chance to focus more on my blogging. Maybe it’s more like I’ll use blogging as an excuse to put off unpacking (it’s a pain). Blogging or boxes? I’ll take blogging! You can check out my Athens Vineyard columns here.

Stripped of Justice: The Aftermath

I’ll be extensively discussing the deaths of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson, assessing their impact on our society, and looking forward to what rising stars in their respective fields could possibly rise to inherit the gargantuan influence of these departed cultural titans. If there’s the time, hopefully I can briefly touch on the rising  (in popularity) yet falling (in stability) marital meltdown that is Jon and Kate Plus 8.

……just kidding. Yeah, this is never going to be a pop culture blog. Also, how am I supposed to care about some celebrity deaths and a reality show kerfuffle when there’s Supreme Court news to be had? That’s right, the nine biggest celebrities in the land are driving the news cycle today! The case of Safford United School District v. Redding has been decided, and much to my (pleasant) surprise, the Court held in favor of Redding, 8-1. Unanimous save for the lone vote of one Clarence Thomas–I’ll get to him shortly. As a recap, Savana Redding was a 13-year old student who was strip searched in school for ibuprofen. See here for more background. During oral arguments, it seemed distressingly likely that the Court would decide in favor of the school district. Justice Stephen Breyer saw the search as no more traumatic than changing for gym class, and even David Souter (usually on the liberal side of the Court) sounded more concerned about the possibility of illegal drug use instead of the invasiveness of the search. In looking at the questions asked of the lawyer for the school district, I was hard-pressed to find anyone other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg who acted disturbed by the search. Perhaps Ginsburg made a compelling argument to her colleagues in the interim, as almost all of the Justices agreed that the search was unconstitutional. Interestingly, this was the first school-based case decided by the Supreme Court in many years that did not simply side with the school district’s actions due to (what I see as an unrealistically powerful) fear of substance abuse by students. In my opinion, a good call!

On to Justice Thomas! I read in one blog that the writer liked to skip the majority decisions and go straight to Clarence Thomas’s dissents (if there is one). The blogger stated that it was akin to skipping to ice cream during a meal, which is accurate to a point. I would modify the analogy thusly: it’s just like eating ice cream, except that the ice cream is two heaping scoops of delusion-chip cookie dough topped with hallucinogenic sauce. I was pondering Thomas’s opinion, and wondered if the 4th Amendment ran over his dog and set his house on fire, since searches and seizures shouldn’t ever be limited in his book. Well, that’s unfair, really. Thomas only thinks that *schoolchildren* should have no rights. He essentially stated in another case that he felt schoolchildren have no rights once they enter school grounds, equating them with prisoners as far as privacy goes. Thankfully, nobody else in the Court (including all the other conservatives) thought that he was on the right track.

I could arguably go on for hours picking apart the ridiculous arguments made by Thomas, but I’ll only address one. Thomas states that the Court shouldn’t try to create any rule regarding strip searches since that should be handled on a district by district basis without the “interference” of the Court. So, the Court shouldn’t rule against an eminently harmful and invasive act because it should be left up to individual groups and communities? Look, I understand that some things should be left up to individual states or smaller groups (like raising revenue through whatever types of taxes or schemes deemed necessary on a state/local level), but relying on a school-district-by-school-district push against overzealous search policies is extreme. Besides, the Court needed to set a bright line stating that schools should have to abide by the rule that searches must be both justified and reasonable in scope (and the strip search of Redding was neither) On a side note, I find it interesting that George H. W. Bush stated that he felt Clarence Thomas was an “empathetic” judge. I really have to wonder if Thomas would recognize empathy if it smacked him clear across the face. But I digress. I’ll have to tackle empathy on another day.

For now, way to go, SCOTUS! You have restored my faith for the time being.

-Josh

Tennis, anyone?

I’m not having anything to do with health care today. I felt like it was a good time to take a break from the subject after I powered through the gargantuan McKinsey report the other day. I still need to skim through it again before I make another health care post, but that can certainly wait. Right now, I feel like I should share one of the most interesting, original, and entertaining websites I’ve ever found (I put this up in the same tier as Improv Everywhere). The site? Layer Tennis. Layer Tennis is a competition where two artists take turns creating design “volleys.” Each competitor gets five “shots,” and the winner is decided by the votes of Season Ticket Holders (basically, website registrants). Occasionally, a collaborative kind of story is told, sometimes there is a form of  call-and-response, and participants always attempt to control the theme of the match (leading to plenty of conflict). The catch? Each “serve” (apart from the opener) must be created from scratch in no more than 15 minutes. Think about the logistics of 15 minute responses, working with Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, flash, video, old-school pen and paper, you name it. This takes talent. Visit and be amazed. However, be warned, as you could easily spend the better part of a morning or afternoon looking through the past seasons of layer tennis. Currently, the playoffs for season 2 are underway, and I eagerly anticipate the upcoming matches. Game on!

-Josh

Depressing Arguments

After going over the massive McKinsey health care report (it was an informative 100 pages, but still looooong) , I have to admit I’m more than a little depressed. The United States spends an impressively large amount of money (I think the technical term is “crazy-huge wads of dough”) on health care, and we don’t have that much to show for it when compared to other nations around the globe. I want to quickly address some arguments I’ve read, where commentators (such as Greg Manikiw and Gary Becker) explain how the idea of a health care “crisis” is overblown. For example, the statement that the US does better in health care metrics than other nations, how the IMR (Infant Mortality Rate) is not measured uniformly among nations, or the assertion that using life expectancy is an poor measurement of the health care system. Of the arguments, the second and third are the most compelling. The first is (in my opinion) demonstrably false. Well, IMR is measured differently among countries, with some European nations counting infant deaths as “stillborn” (plus other discrepancies I won’t get into). Really, IMR may not be the best measurement of a health care system, but keep in mind that IMR for black infants is 13.7 per 1,000 live births, nearly 2.5 times the rate of white babies (comparatively, only Mexico’s and Turkey’s kids have it worse). Life expectancy is a rather crude measure of our system of health care, but for all the money we spend, a red flag should be raised when the US life expectancy is below the average of OECD nations, including Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and Hungary (not just Sweden, Germany, Japan, and the like). Again, being black is a disadvantage, to the tune of 5 years of life. Do obesity and poor health choices factor in? Eeeeeeennh . . . maybe. Strangely, the US has a lower rate of disease (including diabetes and cancer) than European nations, possibly because Americans are on average younger and tend to smoke less, even if we are generally more obese. What about other health care measurements? We have new medical treatments approved here sooner, new drugs introduced faster (though not always with great effect), there is less waiting time to see specialists and to get elective surgery, and several cancer survival rates are higher. Does that make the system better? Faster hip replacements, more rapid cataract surgeries, and higher cancer survival rates are nice, but if we’re not living appreciably longer, is that an indication of a more effective system? I don’t really think so.

I’m concerned about rebuttals stating that our health care system is fine. You know, unless you’re black, in which case you’re most likely going to be dying earlier and in higher proportions as infants. But that’s due to a high percentage of minority teenage births (maybe). Or lower life spans due to homicides and accidents. I’m left with the disturbing conclusion that if all health care deficiencies can be explained through other means, apparently, either it’s our society that’s broken, or our health care system is markedly unequal (oh, wait–maybe both). Well! That makes me feel *much* better. Sadly, now I am more convinced that we have serious societal factors to address in the America, and that health care reform is needed. See you tomorrow.

-Josh

Apologies For Any Delay

I was doing some health care research, and lo and behold, I hit something of the motherload. The McKinsey Global Institute, an independent economics think tank, released a report in December 2008 detailing the reasons that the United States spends proportionally more on health care than other (Western, industrialized, wealthy) OECD nations. I’m in the midst of perusing the report right now, but it’s a bit over 100 pages, so it might delay any posts until tomorrow. I think that when anyone asks me what I did over the weekend, I should adjust my glasses, and reply in my best nasally voice: “I read a 100 page non-profit research paper that explained why the United States spends to much money on health care. It was very informative.” XD

-Josh

An apple a day . . .

. . . keeps the doctor away, right? In the United States, that should be worded differently: “$15.65 a day keeps the doctor away.” At least, that’s the average price of health care per person per day. After a short break, I’ve returned to the theme of health care in the United States. I will (as always, but given the divisiveness of the topic this point bears emphasizing) do my best to cite my sources, and make sure that my sources are reputable. There is a high likelihood that I’ll lean heavily on information from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), a non-profit organization that has a large focus on health care issues in the US, including Medicare, Medicaid, insurance, and costs. In fact, this post will include data lifted from . . . you guessed it, the KFF (particularly this article). My intent for the totality of my ramblings is to promote the idea of health care reform (preferably in the form of a public plan or something similar). I have heard many of the arguments regarding the fear of “socialized medicine” or “turning into Sweden.” I plan on exploring the following broad question: “Would that truly be detrimental?” The specific question for today: “How much do other countries spend, and how much does the US spend on health care?”

First, a chart illustrating total health care expenses per capita in selected OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries with high per capita income. Mexico and Turkey, for example, are excluded because they are much less analogous to the US than Canada, Sweden, or France. As you can see, our spending per person is much greater (in some cases by over 100%) than other wealthy industrialized nations with health care plans that provide insurance for everyone.

Expenses Per Capita

Perhaps you’re wondering if per capita spending tells the whole story. Well, how about spending as a percentage of GDP?

Expenses as share of GDP

Yikes. It doesn’t look a whole lot better there, either. The US is somewhere around 6% higher than the average for the other countries on the graph. In fact, in 1990, the US spent a higher percentage of GDP (11.9) than any of the other countries did in 2003. In fact, in 6 years the US will see 20% of GDP** being spent on health care! With all the immense cost,  keep in mind that the advent of HMOs and managed care held costs down below the OECD average*** (this average does include Mexico, Turkey, and others, not just the countries listed in the charts above). So despite a period of below-average growth, our health care burden is still in its’ current state.

I’m not throwing up a chart for this, but the rate of increase in health care spending has exploded in the US relative to other countries, so even on that front, we’re way behind (well, ahead, but in the sense that shooting an 85 would put you ahead in a PGA tournament). With the amount of money spent on health care in the US, should some 15% or so of the population be uninsured? Should we have fewer MDs per person than Poland and the Slovak Republic? We also lag behind many other countries in implementing quality computerized health information systems***.

The question of what the US and other countries spend on health care has been answered (answer: we spend waaaaay more). On my broad question, it’s good to know that “turning into Sweden” would save us quite a bit of money. Next, I’ll cover what we (and they) get for our respective health care dollars, such as doctors, nurses, insurance coverage, and life spans. On a purely monetary basis, I suppose we should be getting health care that’s a good two-thirds better than other industrialized Western nations. Hm.

-Josh

*Graphs and most information from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

**http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/w61

***http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/25/3/819.pdf