Just trying out an iPhone app that allows posting to the blog remotely.
If things work as expected, there should be a photo of some light summer reading below:
Update: Yep, looks like it worked. And yes, Herodotus is next on my reading list after the latest Theodore Dalrymple.
Several years back, Elizabeth worked as an office manager at a vet clinic. She enjoyed the work, although it didn’t pay well. One of the most frequent complaints from the customers was the high cost of vet care. This graph from The Enterprise Blog shows that the rates of increase in healthcare costs are intriguingly similar between pets and their owners (note the different scales on the left and right side of the chart):
The chart [. . .] shows spending on veterinary care, which I pulled from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, and national health expenditures (for people) from the National Income and Product Accounts. Two things are interesting here: first, the rate of growth of spending from 1984 to 2006 wasn’t all that different — and in both cases, spending grew faster than the rate of economic growth. As new technologies are developed for humans, we adopt them for Bowser and Fifi — because we can afford to and we think it’s worth it.
Here in Canada, where we almost never know the actual costs of the healthcare services we receive, the stark reality that healthcare costs money is a nasty surprise. We don’t spend anything like the same real dollars on our dogs, cats, and other pets as on ourselves or our family, and the fact that we don’t have a clue how expensive it is fuels the constant political demand that we provide more “free” healthcare.
On the other hand, in much of Canada, it’s possible to get X-rays, MRI, CT scans, and other diagnostic tests done in hours or days . . . for your pet. For you, weeks or months before you’ll get your appointment. If only there were some obvious conclusion we could draw from these data points . . .
I wrote about the pet health/human health disconnect all the way back in 2004.
American debt levels are hugely out of line with other countries. I’m a big fan of American exceptionalism, but in this case, I’ll say that we’re at least partially in error. We need to take the downside of leverage much more seriously, starting with our nation’s business schools. OF course, I don’t expect people taking on $100,000 worth of debt to be too easy to persuade of the dangers of leverage.
Megan McArdle, “Asymmetrical Information: Learning to (un)Love Leverage”, The Atlantic, 2009-07-17
BBC News has an article today on some recent photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), showing the site of the Apollo 14 landing:
Science instruments (circled left) and the lunar module lower stage (circled right) are connected by a footprint trail
A US spacecraft has captured images of Apollo landing sites on the Moon, revealing hardware and a trail of footprints left on the lunar surface.
The release of the images coincides with the 40th anniversary of the first manned mission to land on the Moon.
The descent stages from the lunar modules which carried astronauts to and from the Moon can clearly be seen.
The image of the Apollo 14 landing site shows scientific instruments and an astronaut footpath in the lunar dust.
It is the first time hardware left on the Moon by the Apollo missions has been seen from lunar orbit.
Brian Doherty links to this totally unfair and hilariously funny flowchart on how to succeed as an Ayn Rand character.
True Randians will find that “red curtain of blood” descending by step 5 . . .
I wasn’t really a TV news-watcher during his heyday (actually, it was a habit I’ve pretty much avoided all my life), but Jesse Walker sums up my feelings nicely here:
It [Cronkite running for president] was a joke, of course. But it was a wistful what-if of a joke, and it resonated. Time soon ran letters hailing the idea. “He knows more about national and international problems than any other two candidates put together,” declared one reader, “and, as a duty, I think he would accept the miserable job.” Four years later, the newsman was still fending off suggestions that he run for the office and “make a difference.” Can you imagine anyone spouting such a fantasy about any of our anchors today? Maybe Stewart or Colbert, but not someone who delivers the news with a straight face.
And that’s good. Cronkite’s influence was a product of the three-network era, a time we should be happy to have put behind us. I’m sorry to see the man die, but I’m glad no one was able to fill his shoes.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005594.html.)
Powered by WordPress
