What The Olympics Decision Means for President Obama

Jack Squat.


This wasn't his bid for the Olympics. It was Chicago's and also in a way the whole country's pitch to let us have the games for another round. And out come the headlines that Obama is human. Where'd that come from. If he wasn't human, he wouldn't need secret service people to investigate nutty people inspired by talk show hosts to do harm to public officials.

This is all about ego, but it's not what we think. President Obama has an overinflated ego, that's for sure; but the fault lies not with him, but everybody else in this country. Whether conservative or liberal or none of the above, people give him the ego because they are all interested in watching him. What is an ego besides a sense of self-importance. And the media and us have given it to him. He can't do anything without creating a media circus. It's not his fault that he can't get a burger or meet a dying colleague without a hundred cameras in tow. The nation is obsessed with him, and whether he likes it or not, he knows that people listen (selectively in some cases) when he speaks.

The hilarious part of it is that Obama gets more conservative press than liberal. The conservative media doesn't just report that he's getting a burger, they focus on the mundane details like if he asks for dijon mustard. Then that ties into some circumspect logic that he hates America. Matt Drudge pumps up Obama's ego by constantly obsessing about him and how every unfortunate turn of events is somehow his fault. Lou Dobbs does it by declaring Chicago's loss as "Obama's defeat." Town hall screamers do it by declaring health care reform "Obamacare," when really, we've been talking about similar and more liberal reform for four decades.

The irony is that the liberal part of America just wants things done. They aren't obsessing that Obama is doing it. Of course, the more left leaning of us cheered that Obama stood up and told us we need health care reform. That's because we want him to put in an effort for causes we find just. Of course we want to hear what he has to say on a number of issues, we are most likely to agree--though in many cases we do not.

It's the people who don't like him that prop up his ego, so that they can criticize him for it. If he gives a speech, and the media turns to report it, it's the media who is helping him. If every story on Lou Dobbs mentions President Obama, that's him trying to tie Obama into everything under the sun. Obama has never declared interest in controlling everything. That was Bush when he famously said, "it would be easier if this were a dictatorship." Somehow Obama is an oppressive leader by suggesting things he'd like to see in legislation, then letting congress draft the legislation (they are doing such a shoddy job, I'd like him to step in again, but I'm sure he would just like a bill that he can sign). Bush was the one who force-fed legislation to the rubber stamp Republican congress.

I have no doubt that President Obama gave the Olympics his best shot because he thought it was in the interest of the nation to host them. I was never under the illusion, and I'm sure he wasn't either, that his word would guarantee the Games for Chicago. People who don't like him make him out to be an arrogant dictator so that they can hate him further; and they can also laugh when things don't go his way, under this strange impression that he had until then gotten everything he's wanted. If that were the case, we would already be reaping the benefits of an organized, humanitarian, option rich, and fairly priced health care system.

Insurance Reform Now, Part I

As the deadline approaches, many are questioning why we need to rush to pass reform. Make no mistake, our perilous financial state demands that we reform how we pay for health care. Why has this debate shifted from health care reforms to insurance reform? Because it’s in the financing where our system is failing us. What you pay for health care services is more like roulette than accounting. And insurance is at the heart of our system’s financial failures in addition to the uncertainty and care denials that give health care consumers a raw deal.

In the US, we spent about 15% GDP on health care. This is the highest figure in the world, and almost 50% higher than runners-up Switerland and Germany. Estimates show that this year the US will spend 18% of our GDP on health care. The startling figure is that in terms of overall health outcomes the United States does no better than the countries that cluster around the 11% GDP range like Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany…So in fact, somebody is getting a raw deal here.

We know that the US has many of the most advanced health care centers and the best technology available. We also have rigorously trained doctors who work long hours and are devoted to their practice. Given those facts, we should either have less expensive, more efficient care, or better care that results in better outcomes. Some people probably do have great outcomes, when they can afford to get the care they need, it turns out to be really good. But for others, they are getting sub-standard care or are getting ripped off.

Why should Americans, who live with the “freest” market, with no organized care, be getting the worst deal in the world. The prices for most other goods are set by market forces: food, restaurants, gas, property, electronics. These prices are generally the same in terms of quality except where there are some subsidies, of which there are a few in 1st world countries. However, the free market has failed for health care and health insurance.

In most states, for the private consumer of insurance, there are one or two choices. Imagine having just two parties to choose from when deciding on elected officials… Heh, well there you go. Hold your nose and choose the one you think is “best,” and prepare to be disappointed. When you end up with a broken leg or get cancer, you may or may not get what you thought you would to cover your medical bills. If you are lucky, you will have your care covered, but maybe the wheel will come up double zero and you get the “pre-existing condition excuse.” Maybe you thought you could use your doctor, but he turned out to have gone out of network, and you get to pay 50% of the bills for your orthopedic surgery. How can one make a good decision if they don’t even know what they are getting? Can Adam Smith’s invisible hand operate if it is also blind?

If the system worked well, you would submit your bill for services that a doctor said were essential to bring you back to health, and an insurance agent would quickly look to see that it was signed by the doctor and quickly pay off the bill. Instead, there is an entire bureaucracy using your premium dollars to make your service as bad as possible. Once you get an expensive malady, the insurer has no reason to care if you are satisfied or not. Now, with a choice of many insurers, one could read reviews of different providers and there would be competition in customer service if they wanted anybody new to sign on. In reality, with virtual monopolies (or duopoloies), you don’t have a choice, both can collaborate to be equally stingy in payouts, and if you become an unsatisfied customer, you can switch providers but if you manage to succeed in changing, you will never get coverage for anything related to the now “pre-existing condition” that was so poorly treated by the other insurer.

Let’s go a little further shall we. Many of us have coverage through our employer. Here, your health care is subsidized by the government by virtue of it coming out of pre-tax employment benefits. If you are unfortunate and have to purchase coverage for your and your family, give Uncle Sam his due first. Here, there is probably not much consumer choice as you are stuck taking what your employer gives you. It’s probably better insurance and a better deal; but don’t get fired, or you will only be able to keep that great deal for 15 months under COBRA. And you will have to pay through your nose to commission the help of an evil terrorist organization bent on taking over the world. And once it’s over, hope that you don’t have any health problems when you want to pick up one of the privately available providers or you will be denied. Great choice there.

So the market for health insurance doesn’t hold a candle to a free market. There is low consumer mobility, lack of choices, and light competition. There is also a lot of uncertainty in the services that are provided, a lot of subsidies, and a lot of overhead. Remember, health insurance is like paying for services before they are rendered, so the financier benefits by paying out as little as possible.

This is only the insurance part of health care financing. In the next installment we will look at the free market failures of pricing, billing, and compensation.

Dear Opponents of Health Care Reform

I was wrong. You are right. Although I still believe that our medical system is the biggest threat to our solvency as a nation, you are right; I admit it. Those few “plants” in town halls--whether self-motivated by “good intentions” to ask questions about a subject they thought relevant while misrepresenting themselves, or being part of the Big Brother Obama Fascist Communist Anarchist Peacenik Surrender-monkey Death Squad--were so heinous that I now believe that we, as pro-reform advocates, must now withdraw our grievances against the current health care system and wait at least 16 years before failing to pass health care reform again. This is the appropriate recourse, despite the victory of a presidential candidate who ran on a platform including health care reform, the fraction of one percent of people who have disrupted the debate are so heinous that we must abandon efforts to bring the system and it’s costs in line with other industrialized nations with similar outcomes. The savings of trillions of dollars, the shoring up of our already socialized medicine for seniors, the promise of everybody paying their fair share for insurance but no longer facing the threat of bankruptcy, the assurance that doctors and hospitals will be paid more for the services they provide, and the hope that our emergency rooms will no longer be primary care clinics for the uninsured; it can in no way justify the actions of a few people who dared to make false statements for political gain.

I give up. In fact, these trespasses are so outrageous, that I even give up my past complaints about Republicans and all of the Bush policies. Taking softball questions from planted reporter Jeff Gannon? Forgiven. Lying and exaggerating to drum up support for a war against a non-terrorist-harboring regime that was a natural enemy to a nation that was harboring terrorists? Forgiven. $5 trillion more in debt, growing government to record levels, while government itself provided less? Forgiven. The largest expansion of socialized medicine, Medicare part D, while standing against socialized medicine? Forgiven. Throwing anybody out of presidential speeches who dared wear a T-shirt that supported the troops but not the war (bring them home, etc…)? Forgiven.

Yes, because of this, and because it happened in support of Democratic policies, you are right, I am wrong. We democrats must now climb into holes for the next two-years, nothing we do is correct, no matter how many people agree with the public option, or how necessary we believe it to be.

Conservative Arguments for Rail Transit

Anybody who knows me knows that I am an advocate of mass-transit over vehicle traffic. Many though think that this is a liberal-conservative issue. A smart interview with William Lind should end that notion. Among many interesting points, Lind suggests that the conservative-liberal divide has more to do with geographic placement than relative transit choices. Rural and suburban areas tend to be more conservative, and they also have almost no access to transit, nor are those areas well served by the same mass transit that is advocated for cities. Meanwhile, city dwellers can see an immediate need, and/or already experience mass-transit and usually want more of it.

I have always been surprised that my conservative friends actually like rail transit when the option is competitive with cars, and people these days are getting hooked on any form of transit that allows one to take his eyes off the road.

Many have argued that with the advent of the automobile, rail transportation became obsolete; the changes in our infrastructure grew out of conscious consumer choice. Lind has the money quote to allay any misconceptions:

Another idea that’s pervasive is that public transportation is subsidized but the gas tax fully pays for highways.
That’s a powerful argument the libertarians make to conservatives, and it’s bunk. The current dominance of roads is due to massive subsidization by government which through most of the twentieth century competed with privately owned, privately operated railways including streetcar systems that had to pay taxes. Every conservative understands very quickly what happens when you tax one mode and subsidize the other. The taxed mode disappears and the subsidized mode becomes dominant. Nothing about our current imbalance in transportation is a free market outcome. Not in the slightest.

The notion that the gas tax covers all highway expenses is a notion that will send any state Governor into fits of laughter. The highways require enormous support, local state and federal, that goes well beyond what gas taxes bring in. So it’s not a question of a subsidized mode versus an unsubsidized mode.

Government subsidies for the auto industry were and continue to be the problem. Lind even goes so far as to suggest that the gas tax can be raised. He points out that gasoline and our automobile dependence is a national security issue; one that the previous administration paid little attention to, and one that our current administration is not paying enough attention to.

Some other things to keep in mind. Electric cars are not going to save us either. It will take a huge amount of money and continued subsidies to get electric cars out there, and we are still going to have to generate the electricity for them. So far, there are almost no electric cars, and we've been told for the last 15 years that the electric car is just around the corner. Electric cars still don't address the other costs of roads, and the traffic problems that are never solved by adding lanes.

Lind discusses high-speed rail as, "icing on the cake." It supplements a good passenger rail system, but can't substitute for one. It's most important for people to have a competitive alternative to cars, which means a robust network in urban areas, and inter-city trains that run at the 79-90 mph range. HSR is not economical, and will take a lot to compete with airlines for medium and long-hauls.

Transit systems are inherently social. You can meet people on the train. And you don't have to pay attention to the road. Plus, people will always be more attracted to rail transit than for buses. Rail makes sense, the train has to follow the lines and stop at the stops. It's predictable and comfortable. And it usually has it's own right of way.

Cell phone driving says a lot about our interpretation of risk

This Sunday's New York times had an interesting article: Dismissing the Risks of a Deadly Habit. Neither Drivers Nor Lawmakers Want to Stop Cellphone Use Behind the Wheel. The article summarized a variety of studies and anecdotes involving driving while chatting or texting on mobile devices. A most important conclusion involved the statistical equivalent of risk:

Extensive research shows the dancers of distracted driving. Studies say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol lever, the point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated. Research also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe.

Consider that carefully. First, chatting on the cell phone is a lot like the influence of alcohol. Second, people think that they can mitigate the risk, but in fact it doesn't work. As for the distraction, most people will say that it doesn't affect them. This is analogous to how people often deal with alcohol and driving, saying that they are already a good enough driver, or that they are better drivers than other people, so it's OK.

The point it, us humans are very bad at judging risk, chance, and economics. Risk is viewed through statistics and their correct application to situations. Actuaries are very good at this, the layman is not. As individuals, we tend to weight risks based on experience, wishful thinking, deductive reasoning, emotions, and societal standards. We also don't extend the risk inherent in one action to ancillary actions.

Let's come back to drunk driving. Alcohol has always been viewed as a moral transgression. Most people believe it is completely natural to consume, but medical evidence, childhood upbringing, and laws impress in us a sinful element to alcohol. Thus, it followed quite naturally that laws were passed against its consumption by minors, and against its concomitant use in daily life (driving, working, public drunkedness, etc.). There was, of course, lots of statistical evidence that drunk driving increased the risk of accidents and fatalities. But it took what was basically a second temperance movement (MADD) to bring the current DUI legislation. Before, driving under the influence was a slap on the wrist type of offence. With an advocacy group playing on our fears and cultural undertones, were we finally able to restrict this practice. And with it, laws were enacted that went far and beyond impaired driving to include the National Minimum Drinking Age act, and tightened control of liquor control boards. It took a series of emotional pleas that played on our moral upbringing and fears to bring about change. I submit that the statistics alone could not have affected it.

So we come back to cell-phone driving. Currently, there is great evidence that talking on mobile devices impairs driving, and leads to unnecessary injury and death. The practice applies to many more people than DUI. But only a handful of states have any legislation to deal with it. Most are only slaps on the wrists of offenders. There is no moral stigma against talking on the phone while driving, nor is there in most situation. At the most, a person talking on the phone is an annoyance. But we all use phones, and in fact, there is much more pressure to use a phone than to not use it. Imagine if you don't pick up the phone and it is your boss asking you where the copy of the investor report is located. Imagine if it is your wife calling you to pick up the kids at soccer on your way home. Besides, most people would rather be on the phone than repeating the traffic laden commute for the thousandth time. Everybody recognizes that being on the phone, even a hands-free requires some attention, and may require removing a hand from the wheel, or looking to the floor underneath the passenger seat where the iPhone slid off and is blaring away Thriller because it's the honey on the other end. Most people will say, on the margin, that the increased risk is negligible, and therefore take it each and every time. But it does add up, and eventually something happens. The question we have to ask ourselves with any riskis: is it worth it? Because answering the phone has many more immediate and concrete benefits--or fewer drawbacks, we answer it. The potential for an accident is never in our minds, and carries no weight whatsoever until we have T-boned an unsuspecting driver because we missed a red light.

So are the benefits of using that time in your car to communicate great enough to offset overall the risks that we take to do it? We got along before without cell-phones. Maybe it's time to shorten our two hour commutes.

"I'm on the phone from when I leave the Capitol to when I get home, and that's a two-hour drive," said Tad Jones, the majority floor leader in the Oklahoma House, who helped block the legislation [to ban cellphone use on the road]. "A lot of people who travel are used to using the phone."

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones' job requires him to travel quite far, but for most of us we should think about how we commute if we then need to make up for it by zoning out while we operate 3 tons of lumbering steel. It's just another reason to use mass-transit, to advocate for transit in your area, to carpool, or to move closer to work. The American dream, to own a home, in fact restricts us from moving when jobs change every few years. We've made up for it with cars, and by trying to use the time in our increasingly long commutes, but that time can never be as good as being home, and it just makes us poorer drivers.

But before long, if we don't address the problem itself, we are going to let emotion and greed get the better of us, and then we will have one positive change come along with ten negatives.

Limbaugh Blames Obama and Democrats for Sanford's Bizarre Affair and Neglegence

This is Rush also acting quite bizarre. I got this from DKos, and Media Matters I wonder if he's got a South American somebody too. What does he do with all those cigars...



My transcript:

Obama wants you, he...The best way to put it, and it's working: He’s trying to kill spirit. All this hope and change; he’s trying to kill it. Do you know how many frustrated Americans there are out there at what's happening? This Sanford business, I'm going to tell you one of the first thoughts that crosse my mind, with Mark Sanford. This was the first thought. What he did defies logic. This is more than being 180 degrees out of phase because of lust or love. To split the scene for five days. And we know he’s been separated, and he knows, by the way, that the newspaper in his state has the e-mails between his concubine down there in Argentina . He knows this. He knows that somebody knows what’s going on. He knows his wife knows. So he ups and leaves for five days, doesn’t leave anybody in charge of the state in case there is an emergency. This is, this is almost like, “I don’t give a damn. Country’s going to hell in a hand basked and I just want out of here.”

He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to SC. He didn’t want nay part of it. He had just lost the battle. He said, “what that hell, I mean I’m, the Federal Government is taking over. What the hell, I want to enjoy life.”

One of the first things I thought, now today he’s saying he doesn’t want to give up, he wants to stay in office, but I mean even Charles Krauthammer said, this is like self-inflicted political suicide, and it certainly appeared to be. The point is, there are a lot of people who’s spirit, is just, they’re fed up and the hell with it. I don't even want to fight it anymore. I just want to get away from it.

Then a check into e-mail.

Rush, are you kidding, this theory of yours about Sanford?

No, I’m not g… My first thought was, he said the hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country, we can’t do anything to stop it, I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina, my wife’s left me, the hell with it, I’m going to enjoy life, what little time I’ve got left. Folks, there are a lot of people looking at life and they’re saying “screw it.” They're saying, "screw it." And before Obama takes away their money, before Obama takes away their house, before the economy takes away their house; there are people who are simply saying the hell with this, they are tuned out. “The hell with it, I’m just going to try to enjoy this as much as I can.” And they’re thinking about, what, of course, have you…, Clinton was in Argentina the other night from what I’m told. I frankly think that this is what’s wrong with the economy today. I frankly think a whole lot of people just lost their spirit.

Wow, Rush, talk about a leap of logic. I suppose the Democrats are responsible for your weight gain too. They are stressing you out and making you eat a ton of jelly doughnuts.

Strange Baseball Metaphors

I was watching the highlights of the latest improbable Mariner victory on mlb.com--all Mariner victories are improbable--when Ronny Cedeno, filling in for an injured Yuniesky Betancourt at shortstop made and amazing spinning play to throw out the runner and end the game. The announcer said, "dollar seventy-five gets you that spin-cycle to end the game."

I must say, I've never heard that one before. Granted, I'm sure Cedeno got paid a lot more than fourteen bits for that play.

Baseball is Boring Until it's Not

For two and a half hours today, I was privy to the most boring baseball in modern history. Ok, that's an exaggeration; the game featured a few paltry hits by the opposition and an error by the pitcher, Jarrod Washburn, that allowed an extra run to score. The most exciting play came when Seattle Mariners left-fielder Endy Chavez was flipped head over heels by Yuniesky Betancourt. A lazy man's lazy man, Betancourt had a terrible day, striking out several times with runners in scoring position and failing to communicate so that he may have cost his teammate the season. It doesn't look good for Endy Chavez. He came off the field on a stretcher, writhing in pain. Tentative diagnosis: ligament damage to the knee. We will have to wait for his MRI so the magic of nuclear spin can be exploited to view his maligned joint.

As with a typical boring game, I took the opportunity to get up from my seat and make a few phone calls. No dice. Everybody was out doing something too important to rescue poor Alex from the banal spectacle before him.

One of the advantages of Safeco field is the people. It's like the crowds of Paris backed into a multilevel green and gray superstructure, but instead of dog-doo and crepes, you have peanut shells strewn everywhere and the wafting odor of garlic fries. I swear, people holding a hot-dog and those fries are like Pied Pipers and I'm the rat. I made a circuit around the 100 level. The cool thing about the 100 level is that it is open toward the field so I could see the game as I walked all the way around the stadium. I made a circuit over an inning. For the opposition, a fly out and two strikeouts. Washburn settled down and started throwing the ball in the strike-zone and not in-between the shoulder blades of the runners. Next up, the Mariners: fly out, single, single, got something going there. Then newbie Chris Woodward squelched the rally with a double play ball. It was time to retake my seat in the nosebleeds.

The game went like that until the bottom of the 8th inning. Arizona brought in a lefty to face left-handed slugger Russel Branyan. Branyan nullified the same-handed strategy by depositing a 2-2 curveball into the right-field seats faster than a government bailout deposits $80 billion in an ailing financial insurance company. Finally, the crowd woke up, but almost nobody even stood up for the 375 foot blast. It was going to take a lot more to rouse that crowd. The lefty left in disgrace, and in came the righty to protect the 3-1 lead. Not four pitches later, Adrian Beltre was on first with a seeing-eye single. A strikeout, wild-pitch, and fly out allowed Beltre to advance to third base, but he wasn't the tying run, so people were still sitting on their hands.

Then, the manager called upon Ken Griffey Jr, old Mariner hero and merely a shadow of his former self, to pinch hit. The sight of the aging "kid" roused the crowd. This year he was getting a hit once every four at-bats, so I was not convinced that anything will come of it. Nevertheless, the daunting image of a man who has hit more than 600 home runs in his career necessitated a trip to the mound by manager A.J. Hinch to discuss strategy with pitcher Tony Pena. With nobody on first or second base, they could walk Griffey and go after the rookie who ended the last rally in the 6th. Instead, they went after Griffey and Pena laid him a fat (hold the spice) meatball that he crushed into left-center field. It was a homer that everybody recognized right off the bat. The crowd jumped to its feet, fists pumped into the air, and a roar erupted from all present. After 8 innings of boredom and typical Mariner failure, the old hero, the comeback kid, hit it out, proverbially raising the retractable roof. From that point on, there was no doubt the Mariners would emerge victorious. Baseball is like that. They've blown games before after miraculous comebacks. But who cares, victory was in the air. Another two hits gave them the lead, and David (arrrrr like a pirate!) Aardsma slammed the door in the Diamondbacks faces.

That's the old game for you. Make sure you have something else to entertain you: a lively crowd, a bundle of cotton-candy, a board game, an iPhone, a copy of the New York times if the AT&T 3G network goes out of service. Wait patiently, and the agents of fate will make the spectacle on the field worth watching.

Driving in France

We enter the Périphérique at la Porte des Lilas. There are no freeways (autoroutes) through Paris proper, but the Périphérique rings the city and it's many portes. It is jam-packed but moving as we meander south, avoiding cars entering and exiting the road. We are looking for L'autoroute de soleil. The sun highway. The very same freeway under which I passed countless times on my bike heading toward Bois de Vincennes. The road forks 5 km (3 miles) south of the Périphérique, so in fact, I passed it twice. "When you come to a fork in the road, take it," Yogi Berra famously. I exit the Périph, relieved to have taken the correct off ramp and we proceed south toward the junction. I take the fork. L'autoroute de soleil. the yellow-brick road. We're not in Kansas anymore.

I keep right, the vehicle available to us having perhaps 50 horses. I wouldn't know, there's no users manual to be found. At the gas station, a quick phone call to the generous owner informs us that it takes regular unleaded, and not diesel. We only get about 7 liters / 100 km (35 mpg). Surprisingly bad for such a small car. It may be due to my inefficient choice of gears. A five-speed manual, after becoming acclimated to the sound of the engine, it seems that I can shift into 5th at 50 kph (30 mph). I guess freeway driving is not it's cup of tea. It has no tachometer too boot, and the speedometer is displayed dimly and digitally in the center of the dash. I glance to the right to check our speed; 130 kph (80 mph). We've finally reached the speed-limit.

If I keep going with the Wizard of Oz analogy, I have to revise the image of a joyful gaggle of newfound friends, arm in arm, skipping toward the Emerald City in the distance. The road in fact would curve to the right of the city, and the emerald skyscrapers would be replaced with low stone buildings a few modern office towers, and a few spires of churches and cathedrals. Unlike America, France decided not to build their roads straight through the cities, but rather between them. As we proceed toward Orleans, we curve about 10 km (6 mi) around the city. If we wanted to drive in, we would have to get off and take the local roads.

The stark contrast in infrastructure development could not have been clearer. France, followed a different path than America; roads mostly go around and between major cities instead of through them. Despite several fights from residents of small and big towns alike, the interests of quick and easy car access to the centers of the major cities won out, and our cities were bisected, quartered, and butchered by impassible concrete strips that fractured them into disparate neighborhoods. The Santa Monica Freeway (I-10 between L.A. and the ocean) was an disaster for the neighborhoods it bisected, though development afterward has masked some of it's effects.

Yes, after the completion of the super-highways, we could get from the suburbs to our workplaces quickly, in the comfort of our five-person vehicle. Changes in urban structure, lower density, increased our tactical advantage in the face of nuclear war. But the system suffers from it's own success. Cities became dependent on these asphalt tracts for their everyday needs. Locals take a freeway to go a mile. The additional general vehicular traffic necessitating stop signs and traffic lights everywhere; the city streets slow us to the pace of molasses. There's a reason the freeways get clogged to 10 mph during rush-hour. The old alternatives are no better. Our freeways now serve both city traffic and through traffic. If either one is too great, both modes suffer. Furthermore, cities have become victim to, and dependent on, the extra vehicular traffic. The increase in traffic requires installation and maintenance of traffic control devices, and additional maintenance of streets buckling from the traffic. Cities are now also dependent on the freeways for operations, but these roads are maintained by state funds, and expanded by state or federal funds. How a city chooses to develop is no longer up to the city, and for our decisions, we all foot the bill. San Diego is a prime example of a city dependent on it's freeway system. Full of steep canyons, the mesas have become like islands, and the freeways like bridges. For many the difference between the freeway and the city streets is an extra 5 miles--think about going from University City to Sorrento Valley without taking one of the two 8-lane interstates. Even bikes are encouraged to use the freeway for this route; rider beware of the cars zooming by at 75 miles an hour. An entire city whose development was dictated by the freeway system. And people complain about pork when municipalities ask for federal funds for mass transit.

The time for musing and daydreaming comes to the end. We turn off the freeway, I commission the assistance of my passengers to help me find change to pay the toll, and we are on the country highway, headed toward the Loire river. Ahead are the châteaux and the small towns that sprung up around them. One thing can be said about the highways: They are gargantuan concrete structures through which our wealth flows and now our country's lifeblood for better or for worse. As I visit the old castles, I am reminded that 300 years ago it was through these gaudy stone structures that flowed the wealth of a nation.

Obama has discriminating taste. So what? STFU already!

Last week, President Obama had the audacity to ask for spicy or dijon mustard with his hamburger.  Somehow, a trip to the burger joint made the news.  "How dare the man of the people try to fit in and then act like such an elitist," cried conservative commentators across the nation.  Clearly, conservative commentators and politicians are no strangers to the finer things in life.  Newt Gingrich, the Newtered one himself, had a very unpatriotic tweet just recently:

Callista and I had a great dinner with greta van susteren and her husband john at one of my favorites l'auberge chez francois in great falls

L'Auberge Chez Francois?  Sounds French.

What the heck was the point of it anyway? The take home message I get from it is as follows:  Normal Americans should not be discriminating in their tastes (don't fuss if there's no arugula or mustard).  That's where I get up in arms.  As Americans, we have the right to request whatever the hell we want on our burgers.  They don't have to have it, but we can still ask for it.  Why should we be one size fits all?  Why should we dip our fries in only ketchup?  Why should our burger by slathered in ketchup, mayo, and "special sauce?"  To accept the status quo; to not desire something greater sounds much more like communist Russia than America.  It sounds like difference is to be crushed, new ideas are to be shunned, demanding customers are to be shown the door.

Imagine if the first person who wanted ranch dressing with his chicken nuggets was deemed haughty?  We would all be deprived of this staple condiment.  The President has discriminating tastes and he likes mustard.  It may even be French mustard.  This is how the free-market works.  When the population desires some product, the market adapts to provide it.  Far from an abomination, the desire for personalized and tasty food is a hallmark of the American dream.    

Evidence Mounting That AIG is the Money Black Hole

AIG is at it again.  I had written previously that AIG is throwing your money into a sinkhole by using taxpayer money to realize the value is hastily written derivatives that should have little or no value.  In doing so, AIG has helped to prop up other banks by paying out handsomely on insurance policies to cover their losses in the sub-prime debacle.  From an AIG source of TPM:

Our source says it "is becoming assumed throughout the industry that AIG FP finding new ways to roll over" -- which is to say, using bailout money to offer counterparties on its trades generous terms in closing out its contracts with the massive issuer of credit default swaps and other exotic derivatives options.

Thus, banks have turned in an unexpectedly good quarter with help from the taxpayer. Wouldn't it be nice if all insurers would roll over and give generous pay outs? Instead, there is the standard operating procedure of low balling blue-book while keeping your car and it's many salvageable parts and then forcing you to keep it or fight through layers of call centers (paid for by your insurance premiums) to get the actual fair replacement value.

The joke doesn't stop there though.

While he did not want to name names or go into detail about any specific transactions, he said we should watch for signs of AIG FP employees being rewarded for their generosity with jobs working for their old counterparties under eyebrow-raising terms -- "like if you have a noncompete," the source explained, "and you go to a competing firm doing something far below you for an extreme salary."

Not surprisingly, credit for keeping the banking sector will go straight to the banks, and perhaps those smart cookies at AIG who knew how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars.  The price for gambling and losing your investors money, then asking the government to bail you out so your poor decisions would not allow other gamblers to fail? A new cushy job when your unit bites the dust.  No thanks to that evil government of the people and their ill gotten bailout dollars.

Keep those eyes peeled for richly rewarded underperforming executives to continue to be richly rewarded for underperforming.