Growing Inequality

Today, the wealthiest 1% of Americans account for 24% of the nation's income, up from approximately 18% toward the beginning of the 20th-century. Slate's Timothy Noah is writing a series of articles exploring this growing inequality that is worth a read.

Not Drinking

I know exactly how she feels.

Three years after quitting drinking at the age of 27, I've accepted my role as the non-drinker at any given dinner party or social event. I'm happy with my decision to teetotal, but some of my peers are less so -- for example, my friend's roommate.

"So you're not drinking? At all? Really?"

I have never had alcohol, but I have never begrudged anyone else the choice to do so. Drink and drive? Yeah, that's dumb. I'll judge you for that. Drink until you puke and have a nasty hangover? I'm not going to feel sorry for you. But if someone wants to drink, that's their choice; I really don't care. So, I guess it puzzles me why me not drinking would make people uncomfortable.

It must be an insecurity thing. If people were completely comfortable with their decision to drink, then it wouldn't matter if someone else chose not to. Drinking alcohol is such a huge part of our culture that you would think there wouldn't be as much insecurity about it as there is.

The best comment (of all time!) in regard to me not drinking was a coworker years ago. "I'd respect you more if you drank." No comment necessary.

"He was one of us."

Read this moving story about a young Iraqi boy who worked with our military as an interpreter and guide. Things like this are worth keeping in mind whenever we debate military action. The costs are many and they are born by people far from the decision makers.

Cosmic Ghosts

Scientists have discovered the remnants of a black hole eruption equal in power to a billion supernovas. Makes us seem sorta small, doesn't it?

Should the Social Security Retirement Age be Raised?

Ezra Klein changes his mind and says, "No."

Start with the basic rationale for raising the retirement age. As Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has argued, when Social Security was signed into law, the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 63. "The numbers added up pretty well back then," he said on Fox News. But that's misleading. That figure was driven by high infant mortality. If you were a white male who'd made it to age 60 in 1935, you could expect 15 more years going forward. If you're a white male who lives to 60 today, you can expect 20 more years going forward.

Moreover, those averages conceal a lot of inequality. In 1972, a 60-year-old male worker who made less than the median income had a life expectancy of 78 years. By 2001, he had a life expectancy of 80 years. Meanwhile, workers in the top half of the income distribution shot to 85 years from 79. Insofar as the argument for raising the retirement age is that "Social Security beneficiaries live a lot longer today than they did in 1935," it should be restated as: "Social Security beneficiaries tend to live somewhat longer today than they did in 1935, and that's much more true of rich beneficiaries than poor beneficiaries."

And so what? Lurking beneath this conversation is an unquestioned assumption: We live longer, so we should work longer. That's pretty intuitive to members of Congress, who seem to like their jobs and don't seem to like the idea of retiring. It's also pretty intuitive to blogger/columnists, who spend their time in air-conditioned rooms opining about pension programs. But most people don't work in Congress or in the media. They work on their feet. They strain their backs. They're bored silly at the end of the day. By the time they're in their 60s, they want to retire.

The bizarre thing about this debate (as with many other policy debates) is that the outcome of this debate will have a large impact on many poor people. Now, how many poor people are involved in the decision-making process? How many members of Congress would be negatively impacted by raising the retirement age or reducing benefits? That's not to say some of this might be necessary, but it is something to keep in mind whenever these people come back to us, the American people, and say that something needs to be cut.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Many of the secrets on PostSecret are sad and this one is no different. Here we have someone who seems to love someone else wanting that someone else to lose weight so that his/her family will love them as much. If these family members don't love the person with their extra weight, who says they will love them without it? And can the author of the postcard really love this person if they want them to do something shallow to gain someone else's love?

It seems more likely to me that the author wants the person to lose weight and is using his/her family as an excuse which is sad. Helping and encouraging someone to lose weight for their health is a good thing. Doing the same because you find yourself loving someone less for their weight is just sad.

Breaking News!

Glenn Beck is a liar. In other news: water discovered to be wet and the Pope is actually Catholic.

The Beauty of Math

One of the reasons I so enjoy math is because I find it beautiful.

The Problem With Getting Sick Is That It's Expensive

In addition to talking to my doc about depression, I also needed to talk to him about the stuffy nose I've had for eight or nine weeks now. It's severity comes and goes, but every day I've had a little bit of congestion. I've never had allergies, but it seems I may possibly could be sort of coming down with 'em. Or it's something else. Hard to say at this point. But he gave me a script for Nasonex. I've never used it before or known anyone who has which made for a wonderful surprise when the pharmacist asked me, "Did your doctor tell you that this costs $108?"

Uhm...WTF? He most certainly did not telling me I would be shelling out triple digits for some stuff to spray up my nose. Is it made out of cocaine or something? Is there any chance I could get instructions off of the GoogleTubes and cook some of this stuff up at home?

So, I shelled out over one-hundred dollars that I do not have for some spray crap that may or may not help. I'm sure it's hard for docs to realize how much money that is for a very poor single dad. It's human nature to slip into thinking that our life is normal and that everyone lives pretty similarly.

Understanding this, though, doesn't make me feel any better about paying $108 for a small bottle of stuff to spray inside my nose. Cocaine is probably cheaper.

The Problem With Depression Is That It's Depressing

I've been struggling lately. It's funny to me how most people who have been around me for the past few months undoubtedly have no idea. My daughters and mother probably do because they see me more often and at home where I'm more likely to relax and display my "true" feelings. Everywhere else I go I put on a face, the best face I can, because how can I say to my coworkers, my boss, and other people I interact with, "Sorry. I'm feeling really depressed right now so I'm not inclined to work on that project"?

I've had bouts of depression here and there before, but nothing like it's been lately. Many days I come home from work and sit in my room doing nothing. I come up and eat dinner and then go back to my room doing nothing. I get up and get something to snack on and then I sit...doing you guessed it, nothing. When I go to work I somehow manage to put forth a modicum of effort, but not enough for the growing work load I have. What this adds up to is that I've flunked the last two classes I took, gotten behind at work, haven't made a number of the doctor appointments I should have, haven't really cleaned my room in awhile, not taken care of a number of small things around the house, not gotten the oil changed on my vehicle, and a whole host of other things that I really should because I...just...don't...care.

This sucks. Mind you, I don't have any sort of suicidal ideations. I just have no will to do anything.



So, I finally got around to seeing my primary physician today. Do you know how hard it is to talk about stuff like this? I suppose you do if you've ever felt like this, but if you haven't, let me tell you, it's damn hard. I've been seeing this doc for four years now and I like him a lot, but that doesn't make it much easier to rip yourself open and spill your guts. I haven't hardly talked about this to my friends or my mother. And today I had to tell this doctor that I needed help, that I was crashing and needed him to help me come in for a smooth (or at least not so rough) landing.

He gave me a script for Prozac. This did not really make me feel better. In fact, I found it...depressing. I'm already taking three pills a day, one injection a day (two on Saturday), and I'm hooked up to a machine 24/7 that pumps stuff in me to keep me alive. The last thing I want is another goddamned med to take every day. A small part of me also can't help but think, "You mean to tell me you're taking a pill 'cause you feel sad? Man up, sissy! Get over it!" I know this isn't logical. I know that these drugs have a good purpose. I know that I won't necessarily be taking it forever. I'm sure once I'm taking it (or some other similar drug if this one doesn't work) I'll feel better, but right now I'm just feeling depressed about taking drugs for feeling depressed.

Expanding the Home to Make Room for More...Books

I like these people.

When the Ainsworths met their breaking point, they did something even bibliophiles might consider drastic: They bought the house next door, added a two-story atrium to bridge the 15-foot gap between the houses, and converted most of the neighbor's house into a two-story library with cherry shelves, a mezzanine, fireplace and a rolling library ladder.

"It's the pièce de résistance of the house," says Sue.

I must admit to some jealously. Check out the pics of their beautiful home/library.

Epistemic Closure

As usual, the best news source around nails it.

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

Added Gentries, "That really put things back into perspective."

Panhandlers With Credit Cards

A journalist hands out prepaid credit cards to panhandlers and documents the results.

Diet Pop and Diabetes

Several years ago before I started getting sick I made a conscious decision to try to start eating healthier. This included drastically reducing the amount of pop I drank. I drank a lot, mostly Pepsi (or as a I like to call it "nectar of the gods"), probably about a six-pack a day on average. As much as I loved it, it actually wasn't that hard for me to cut back. In fact I probably had one can a month if that.

Fast forward to May 2008. I'm diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and now I have no choice in watching what I consume (well, I suppose I do have a choice, but I digress). Beverages I must be extra careful with. Grab just about any drink nearby - milk, juice, tea, pop - and check out the label. What does it have? Carbohydrates. Carbs are the thing I have to count when I am eating anything to ensure I am giving myself the correct amount of insulin. The problem with carbs in liquids is that they are processed much more quickly than carbs in solids (which is why diabetics who are getting hypoglycemic are directed to drink something like orange juice). That means a diabetic's blood glucose level is going to spike up drinking something like this unless he or she is very careful.

Now, I still drink juices and such with meals, but what about between meals? I'm just like anyone else in that I drink something when I'm sitting at my desk or watching TV or whatever. And I'm just like most people in that I get tired of water and want something else from time to time. But I can't just mindlessly sip on juice or pop because it usually has quite a few carbs. If only there was something other than water that didn't have carbs...oh, wait..diet pop doesn't!

Before I came down with diabetes, I never went near diet pop. Give me the real thing! I'd tell myself thinking about the wannabe-stuff with contempt. Now, however, I had to swallow my harsh words and try it out if I wanted something other than water to easily drink. It turned out to not be that bad and I became hooked. Now I'm drinking a couple of cans a day and again thinking to myself I need to cut back. It may not have sugar, carbs, or calories, but diet soda still has health risks and I'm already sick enough as it is. I don't need to have more things go wrong with me.

I guess I'll just have to learn to love good ol' H₂0.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Understanding One Quadrillion

A helpful visual guide.

The Commerce Clause

Here is a ten-minute video from Reason.tv about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and how it relates to the new healthcare bill.



Though I mostly support the healthcare bill, I do think this is a reasonable debate to have. My problem with this video is that it seems edited to make Erwin Chemerinsky come off as having wildly crazy theories while everyone else is rational and correct. Now, perhaps Chemerinsky does that on his own; but you wouldn't know it watching this video. It doesn't matter which side of a debate does this; it's wrong and it's irritating. If you obviously have the correct position, then letting the other side clearly articulate their ideas should not affect the strength of your argument.

But it seems pretty obvious that for most people, well-reasoned and polite debate is not the American way.

h/t: Radley Balko

Really Facebook?

Facebook (500 million+ users) is suing the people behind Teachbook (fewer than 20 users) over their use of "book" in their name. This is another sad example of the 500 lb. gorilla knocking the little guy around. No one is going to confuse the two or start thinking that "book" is somehow getting diluted. Which one do you think has the money for a court battle like this? Right. So, who wins nearly by default. Right. Sad but true.

Something Deserving of Protest

This is something actually deserving of protest.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

This is all sorts of fucked up. There's no other way to put such an egregious violation of basic civil liberties. As conservative (label alert!) as the current Supreme Court is, I can't see them letting this stand. God, I hope not, anyway. This and not the Muslim community center (not mosque) near (not on) Ground Zero is something that people should be up in arms about.

The Problem With Labels

Check out this discussion between Conor Friedersdorf and Conn Carroll on Bloggingheads in which they discuss labels and labeling (e.g. conservative, liberal,etc.) Specifically, Carroll likes them and thinks they are a useful shortcut. Friedersdorf disagrees.



I find myself much closer to Friedersdorf. Labels can be alright as long as people using them and reading (or hearing or whatever) them remember that they are not always accurate, that they are mental shortcuts that are not capable of fully describing a person.

Unfortunately, this typically does not happen. We divide everything into oversimplified black and white groups. As such, one label becomes a signal of good and its opposite becomes the moniker of the scary other, the bad (like...conservative and liberal). We form teams. The team you belong to is obviously the good team and so the other team is the enemy. That also means that someone supposedly part of your team who disagrees with you in some way must clearly not be on your team whatever you may agree on. He or she is apostate and must be cast out like Carroll does with Andrew Sullivan.

What this means is that a label can end up obfuscating just as often as it clarifies. A journalist or blogger or anyone writing for an online audience is typically trying to explain a topic or their views on said topic. If using a label is not going to aid in that endeavor, then it should not be used. Carroll's argument that these labels help him understand a writer and their biases and the "holes" in their arguments was just bizarre. A person's ideas should stand on their own. You shouldn't need to know what label they are in your world-view in order to judge the merit of the argument. Carroll's use of labels this way allows him to agree with anyone on his team whatever the merit of their position and disagree with someone with the wrong label in the same manner.

In fact the reason I don't like to call myself a liberal or a conservative or any other label is because it is too easy to make that a neat little box to put someone in and I don't feel like I fit in a box like that at least not politically. Some labels are okay - male (nothing confusing about that...for me), dork/nerd (uhm...I play Dungeons & Dragons, love Star Trek, read Lord of the Rings over and over, can recite quite a bit of pi off the top of my head, so there's no real disputing of that one), father (I've tried not claiming my two daughters; it didn't work). Maybe there are a few others that I can accept. But when it comes to politics, I think it's far too broad a subject and the labels far too meaningless to let one apply to me. Do I typically lean left? Yeah. Do I agree with orthodox liberals (whatever those may be) on everything? Definitely not. As Friedersdorf said, calling me a liberal would not tell you much about how I thought politically.