February 7, 2016 6 Comments
1) In Madison, Wisconsin they actually invested in replacing in lead pipes before they caused any trouble. Alas, most cities are not willing to make the investment until it’s too late.
2) Terrific interview with a food safety expert. I especially resent the way in which public health is held hostage to interest group politics in this area:
If salmonella is so problematic, why hasn’t the government protected consumers from it?
There’s a case that goes back to the 1970s, American Health Association (AHA) vs. Earl Butz, who was the secretary of agriculture under President Nixon. The AHA didn’t even know about E. coli 0157, the kind that gets people really sick, back then. They were focused on salmonella, and they wanted to put a label on it that said ‘hey consumer, you need to cook this,’ and the meat industry went nuts, they said no way we’re not going to do this. So the AHA sued the government because they thought it was necessary, and the government sided with the industry, and in essence said it was a naturally occurring bacterium on meat, which is untrue, and housewives—this is actually in the case, I swear—know how to cook it, what to do to make this food safe. That mentality is just below the surface in the meat industry, whether it’s the beef, chicken, or any other facet. That sort of mentality that there’s really nothing we can do about it, and it’s really the consumer that is at fault if anybody gets sick, it’s their problem. This is exactly the argument that the industry waged in 1994, with E. coli, but there the government changed its tone because there were 700 people who got sick and 4 children who died, and it was kind of hard to ignore that.
3) On the “ag gag” law in North Carolina. Damn it, business should be free to do any sort of horrible thing they want without fear that somebody might surreptitiously record them doing so and thereby possibly face accountability. Thanks to NC Republicans for standing up for important values.
4) You don’t need me to tell you how amazingly unserious Republican presidential candidates are on foreign policy. But Fred Kaplan will.
5) Just some social science showing that men are (not surprisingly) absurdly over-confident, as compared to women.
6) Howard Dean and Iowa will remain one of my favorite anecdotes to explain the role of expectations and media coverage for years to come. So many people just don’t get what happened. Nate Silver and friends do. Good stuff.
7) Republicans seem to think high-deductible health plans are cure-alls for health care costs. Evidence strongly suggests otherwise (when has that ever affected Republican legislators?). That said, we can be much smarter about how we use deductibles. Nice piece in the Upshot:
Some health economists say the solution to the problem may be smarter but more complicated forms of health insurance that provide patients with important care free, but charge them for treatments with fewer proven benefits. Mr. Chernew, for one, argues that ordinary deductibles are too “blunt” an instrument, but smarter insurance plans could harness economic incentives to reduce wasteful health spending without discouraging needed care. If such plans held down costs as well as deductibles, they could keep insurance affordable without as many risks. The theory behind such plans is compelling, but given how bad people are at shopping for health care, more empirical evidence is needed to know how well it works in practice.
8) What were the people at Simon Fraser University in Canada thinking when they thought this video was remotely appropriate?
9) Digging into the Iowa polls suggests trouble ahead for Ted Cruz.
11) Interesting essay on how we shouldn’t judge people with “tramp stamps” and how we definitely shouldn’t call them that. Am I a bad person if I’m not convinced? Anyway, this statistics was really suprising:
For the first time in decades, women are more likely to have tattoos than men. In 2013,47 percent of women under 35 reported having a tattoo, compared with only 25 percent of men. And this rising demographic isn’t solely due to the trendiness of tattoo culture.
12) Lee Drutman reviews Rick Hasen’s new book on campaign finance and suggests we really need to move away from “corruption” and re-think about how we conceptualize the problem.
13) On how Hillary Clinton actually properly used social science in her get-out-the-vote efforts in Iowa (unlike Ted Cruz).
14) This summary of evidence on learning says highlighting and re-reading is a waste of time. I’m very familiar with the evidence that says testing yourself is the best way to study (and I emphasize this to my students), but I cannot imagine pulling off the grades I did without marking (in the margins, actual highlights take way too long) and re-reading key passages in texts.
15) Vox interviewed some political scientists on the electability of Cruz and Trump. Masket says Cruz is more electable than Trump, and I’m with him:
Masket said he recognized that Trump is more moderate on some issues than Cruz. But while Cruz may have more extreme policy positions, he is the better candidate, because Trump could really drive away Republican elites and voters.
Masket pointed to several issues in particular on which this group regards Trump as fundamentally unreliable: the social safety net, the military, abortion, and taxes.
“A large number of more ‘establishment’ Republican elites may bolt the party and support a third party candidate should Trump win a majority of delegates. Even if that doesn’t happen, a sizable number of Republicans might simply not vote,” Masket said in an email.
He didn’t argue that Cruz is a great general election candidate. But since Cruz has proven consistently conservative, he would at least be able to unite the Republican Party and ensure that its voters go to the ballot box.
“[Cruz] is basically in line with the party on most of its key issues,” Masket said. “Nominating him could put them at a slight disadvantage due to his extremism, but there’s little chance of him actually splitting the party.”
I sure would love for it to be either of them, though, because no doubt they would fare worse than Rubio (or anybody else from the “establishment” lane).
16) This Vox article on potential mosquito eradication frames it as bad news that the best estimates suggesting we could have the biotechnology for widespread mosquito eradication in 3-5 years. WTF? That kind of technology within even 10 years would be unbelievable awesome and save so many lives.
17) Beautiful example of motivated reasoning in action. Somehow, most all Democrats are better off than 8 years ago today and most Republicans are worse off. I actually am better off. Or maybe I’m only imagining it because I’m a Democrat.