Canadian Health Care

If the Canadian model of health care is so poor, why do they live longer than us (81.2 vs. 78.1, according to the WHO)?

First let me say that living longer doesn't necessarily living a GOOD long life, but the chart above shows that Canadians also have more healthy years than US residents.

Perhaps the disparity is because although many US residents may get slightly better treatment for their ailments than they would in Canada, ALL Canadians get the treatment they NEED. Maybe - maybe not.

The answer probably is more true that Canadians live healthier lives, NOT that their healthcare is any better (or worse). See the graph below, which shows the percent of citizens who are obese.


According to Carrie Dalhberg of the Sacramento Bee, we might get better longevity results if, instead of putting attention on extending medical care to everyone, we put our attention on more systemic problems:

When taken all together, the other factors that play a bigger role [if health] include education, income, toxins in the environment, crime, violence, family structure, stress, obesity, nutritious food and exercise.

It's no surprise that the people who don't have health care in the US also are more likely to suffer from the systemic challenges Dahlberg refers to.

Income disparity in the US is a prime reason for the lack of access to health care, but again that is not the real issue (but please don't hear me saying that I don't desire reform). A typical US view is that buying the "thing" will solve the problem. If we could just get more people to get access to this special "thing" that is so valuable (because it costs money), then we can solve our problem.

But it's not so much a thing we can acquire so much as it is a list of behaviors we should engage in:

• Exercise
• Eat healthier foods
• Quit smoking
• Minimize stress
  

To a large extent these are choices we must make. For example, I have eaten the large part of three King Cakes this Mardi Gras season. My bad. They taste good and they are oh so accessible thanks to modern food processing. I am programmed to eat more of that stuff than I should and it's just a battle we must all fight. Personal responsibility is a huge piece of this.


To another extent, the above problems are created/exacerbated by the income inequality in the US. The cheapest food is the "fakest" food - chock full of artificial ingredients and chemicals. The cheapest food is highly processed and highly calorie dense and makes people fatter faster than unprocessed food. We know that more educated people smoke less. That's not to say that education necessarily stops smoking, but I believe the socioeconomic link is very strong.

To sum up: Put down the doughnut, be less stingy with your tax dollars, and vote to ensure those tax dollars are spent on smart, robust, and equitable educational programs (in my view, the key to socioeconomic equality).

Obesity Data - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Taylor Swift VS Lady Gaga

Having been a Lady Gaga fan, I was somewhat stunned that someone I viewed as immature and less sophisticated would win the best album Grammy. So, I grabbed my wife's copy of Taylor Swift's Grammy winning Fearless album and began to listen. Here's what I figured out.


The Vitals

Swift: 20 years old Gaga: 23 years old. Both women are young, precocious songwriters and performers, and grew up in financially stable - if not affluent - home environments. Both play instruments with skill (Gaga - piano, Swift - guitar).





Voice

Taylor Swift has a powerful, rich voice. She demonstrates is on a range of songs in her music and it is prominently featured in the mix.

Lady Gaga has a powerful, rich voice (see "Speechless"), but she doesn't flex that power as much on her dance tracks.

Winner: Taylor Swift. Their voices may be equally amazing, but Swift shows hers off more on her album.

Persona

Taylor Swift has a wholesome appeal. She has a good deal of innocence and although she is 20 years old, she comes off as very young and for me it's not hard to imagine her as a high school student. Her attire is typical of someone her age. In interviews, she seems to be an ordinary person who appears very grounded.

Lady Gaga falls on the other side of the continuum - her lyrics can be jaded, emotionally inert, and somewhat aggressive. Although she is 23 years old, it's not hard to imagine her lyrics coming from a 30-something bitter divorcee. She doesn't need men - they need her. As an artist, she projects a very progressive image with her attire being exceptionally creative. It also contributes to the idea that she is inaccessible emotionally. She appears to be very devoted to her wardrobe creativity. She can show more of her body than is commonly accepted in US culture. In interviews, she appears to be fairly down to earth and opens up much more than you'd expect based on her music, giving much affection to her fans, and downplaying her fame and demonstrating modesty in her talent. She occasionally uses her fame to discuss social issues such as gay rights.

Winner: Lady Gaga. As an artist I find her much more interesting. However, this would not factor in a Best Album vote.

Songwriting

Both artists are the primary songwriters on their albums.

Taylor's songs nearly always relate to romantic relationships, and often specifically relate to cheating, breakups, or some other love triangle. The lyrics often reveal a story. Her musical arrangements are fairly simple. Instrumentation involves a fairly routine cast of sounds - strumming guitars, some electric guitar, piano, organ, and violin. Swift's music can be upbeat, touching, or plaintive. Lyrically, Swift wears her heart on her sleeve. Her songs have a lot of variety across songs (fast/slow, happy/sad, upbeat/slower) but not a lot happening within each song.

Consistent with her persona, Lady Gaga's music represents a large difference from Swift on many dimensions. Lady Gaga's songs often relate to aggressive pursuit of relationships with men, whereas Swift is more pleading and hoping. While shallower than Swift's lyrical content, I often find it more enjoyable because it is simple and catchy. Unlike Swift, her lyrics rarely tell a story or take you on any kind of journey. Occasionally she touches on personal topics such as relationships. Her arrangements are a bit more complex than Swift's and she uses a wider array of sounds in her music. However, across her songs, Gaga's sound is more consistent, where Swift shows a good bit of variety from song to song. Gaga's music tends to be more upbeat and energizing - like most good dance music. Unlike Swift's heartfelt lyrical sentiment, with Gaga, you're probably just seeing a protective outer coating - not the real Gaga.

Winner: Swift wins on lyrics, song structure, and song variety. Lady Gaga's music is more interesting sonically, the songwriting is very strong, and I would actually prefer to listen to Gaga's music because it's more fun and interesting, but critically I understand that Swift's album may be a greater collection of songs.

Lyrical Sample

Taylor Swift: "You be the prince and I'll be the princess" "She wears high heels I wear sneakers, she's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachers"

Lady Gaga: "Cherry cherry cherry boom boom" "Loving me is like chewing on pearls"

Conclusion

The fact is that right now I would prefer to listen to Lady Gaga because of the upbeat energy, sonic variety within each song, and the depth of her persona. But, I really do appreciate Taylor's talent, personality, and the results of her effort, which are usually very enjoyable.

This leads me to the question - why does a given person prefer one type of music to another? What accounts for musical taste?

Agriculture is Killing Me

Was humankind's shift toward agriculture a mistake?

This article suggests that our transition from a hunter-gatherer society to a society bound by agriculture was actually detrimental to us in many ways.

It seems as though we traded a relaxing existence of relative equality and happiness for a stressful, competitive, oppressive, divisive, and biologically harmful way of life.

I would think our lives are certainly longer thanks to our economic development and we have been able to answer many of our age-old scientific questions thanks to innovations which were only possible because of industrial productivity. But are we happier? Do we have a net gain in quality of life?

I got started on this line of thinking thanks to a great profile of a current-day hunter-gatherer society living in Tanzania I read in National Geographic.

I work 40 hours a week. I spend 5 more hours away from my home eating lunch. I spend another 5 hours each week traveling to and from work. Add another 5 hours each week preparing for my office job, which requires shaving, ironing, careful selection of attire, and preparation of each day's lunch. That's 55 hours each week devoted to work. That total could easily approach 80 if I had a more demanding job, my home were in the suburbs, and if I required more time to primp myself for work.


Does having an iPhone justify all that labor? How about a flat-screen TV? Don't forget about the added health problems that come along with sustaining the cycle of work and consumption.

I'm not saying I want to gather nuts and live outdoors, but it gives one pause.

Cash Influence in Democracy

Democracy is terrific. You get a vote, your neighbor gets a vote, every person gets a vote.

But every day money is pumped into the democratic system without your active participation.

If you own corporate stock, are a union member, or are a member of a professional association (e.g., Association of Realtors, Society for Human Resources Management), then your membership dues or ownership dollars are being used to fund political candidates and issues which you oppose. I guarantee that.

Of course, such organizations advocate on your behalf and many of the issues they promote are in your interest. But do you agree with all the issues on their respective agendas? Independent of your membership in the organization, would you have sent money to a political candidate, party, or PAC to support issues you oppose? Is your professional association or corporation pushing only issues that you agree with? No. No. No.

Money Gets a Vote


Candidates and issues that are the best financed get on the ballot. Elected officials, who plan on keeping their jobs, depend on money for re-election. While in office, those officials behave in ways that help ensure the steady flow of cash for their next campaigns. In fact, they spend time away from their official jobs raising those necessary funds.

Clearly, the deepest pockets will be able to flex their influence far more powerfully than less well endowed folks.


(See Open Secrets for the rest of this list and info on top donors - http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)

I think it's time to severely curtail the influence of money in the political process.

Reasons to End Corporate (and Many Other) Financial Influences in Democracy

There are five reasons I can think of that for-profit corporations should not be permitted to influence the democratic process in any way and/or heavily regulated in doing so. Many of these reasons also apply to labor unions and professional organizations. To the extent that these reasons apply to any organization, I believe money should not be permitted to flow to political donations.

(1) corporate democracy is an illusion
(2) the choice that people have when investing is a false one
(3) owning corporations/joining an organization is not an inherently political statement/action
(4) for a large segment of the population with very specific and related characteristics, there are barriers to participating in corporate ownership
(5) corporations have un-democratic advantages in the political process

Corporations are Not Democratic

As an owner of many corporations, you have a vote. But there are large institutional investors with much more important votes. Therefore, you can hardly expect any corporation in which you invest to be responsive to your needs. So you could take my money elsewhere, right?

"Just Take Your Money Elsewhere" is a False Choice

Corporations all play by the same rules. Don't you want to invest in the biggest, strongest corporations that play as close to the rules as possible without violating them? I sure do. My future financial security is at stake here and that is serious business (especially when you consider that my middle class is losing ground each day). However, that does not mean that I want the rules by which all corporations play to be relaxed in such a way that violates my values. I want the democratic process to set the rules, and then I must invest in the for-profit corporations who take the best advantage of those rules.

Even if investing my money elsewhere WERE a fair option, who has time to research and verify which corporations even match my values anyway (assuming that could even be known or possible)? Partly because of the lack of transparency and accountability mentioned above, and partly because we are all busy people, forcing me to research my investments this way is not reasonable.

The choice we should be discussing is how the rules of business are defined, not forcing investors to use their investment dollars to both secure themselves financially AND figure out how to make a political statement.

Owning a Corporation is a Private Financial Action, not a Public Democratic Action

If I buy a hot dog, I don't do that because I want money going to the hot dog industry. Of course the hot dog shop owner can use his profits however he wants. And when I buy a piece of General Electric, I also do not want the money going to loosen environmental laws or weakening labor organizing regulations. That's especially true since in these examples I am consuming the hot dog but I am OWNING the General Electric. These are things I do privately and I don't expect them to have political ramifications. Nor should they.


For Many, Barriers Exist to Investing

Barriers to democracy should not exist. It's fairly easy to vote (especially if you have a cushy desk job and a car to bring you to the polls). Every citizen (felons excluded) gets to vote and everyone gets ONE vote. However, some people simply cannot afford to cast another vote by investing in for-profit corporations. Some might have the extra loose change to invest, but they may have no clue how to go about doing that or they may not understand what it means to own stock. Some may have the extra funds AND understand investing but they may need more immediate access to their money since they live on a tighter budget. Many people are not lucky enough to work for employers who contribute EXTRA money into retirement funds, which are usually corporate investments. There are people don't receive stock options in their jobs.

Our poorer, less educated citizens tend to be the people described above. If corporations are allowed to influence the political process with their powerful resources, those citizens are at a democratic disadvantage.

Corporations Have Other Advantages

The corporation has one goal - to make money. And the corporation becomes an actor in the democratic process through lobbying, political donations, etc. The for-profit corporation shares a singular goal -- profit -- with its fellow for-profit corporations, so they bring an enormous influence in the direction of some similar agendas which are not necessarily in the best interest of a majority of citizens:

- Minimal regulatory oversight of environmental issues
- Minimal rights for people to organize to improve their bargaining power as employees
- Minimal product oversight
- Minimal rights for employees in general

But Doesn't Money Help Challenging Candidates Get Name Recognition?

Yes. But if the incumbent is performing satisfactorily, what is the problem?

Closing

I wish I had a solution to this problem. It appears that legislation or constitutional admendments may be required to movie this issue forward.

Contact the White House with your feedback. Contact your elected officials. Contact the organizations you are members of and the corporations you own. Sadly, one feature of our large, complex society is that access to decision makers is very difficult. I believe that unless change is effected, the larger and more complex society becomes, the less democratic it will be.

Fruitless Human Pursuit #2: Business Attire

Why the tie?

I like ties in part. They add color to men's usually boring stock of tan, blue, and grey.

But couldn't we adorn ourselves in a more comfortable manner? It even looks like a metaphor for being under "the man's" control. I mean, what better way is there to signal that you've given your weekdays over to a master institution for the promise of a (hopefully) consistent paycheck than to tie a snugly fitting knot around your neck and letting the remaining fabric hang down like a leash for easy manipulation.

Silky and Delicate Fabrics

They resist wrinkles, but are they much protection in the cold? If they get a stain, are they inexpensive to replace? If you bump into something rough, are they durable to resist scuffing or tearing? Do insects enjoy eating them (as in the case of wool, a common suit fabric)? Do they look good if they aren't ironed? Do they make sense for humans to wear?

The answer to all of the above is "no."

Shiny Leather Shoes

Our office lives are very cushy. They don't challenge us with physical activity. Why not embrace the sedentarianism by donning footwear that has no other function than to shine and to thereby reflect the wearer's affluence?

A good shoe needs:
(1) a sole for gripping walking surfaces
(2) arch support
(3) a durable exterior
(4) cushioning adequate for walking moderate distances

Rare is the business attire shoe which meets these criteria. (I wear Rockports with SuperFeet aftermarket insoles.)

Anyone take umbrage to these remarks? Lemme hear a shout out.

Fruitless Human Behavior #1: Ironing

I spent 20 minutes ironing a pair of pants for work yesterday.

Why do we subject ourselves to this? We either waste time ironing or waste our time working to earn the money to pay someone else to do the ironing. Why do we do this? So people won't laugh at us behind our backs at work. So people with think we're "with it."

"Did you see Mike? His pants had a wrinkle. He looks like a street person."

I suppose if you can wake up early, iron your clothes, make them look like they are fresh off the sweatshop floor where they were made and pressed, then you must be a good worker. It's a signal that you can make it in this world.

Is this the best use of our 21st century lives? Is this even a good use of our 21st century lives? I say unto thee: it is not.

I could have spent the time sleeping, or reading, or working, or bettering myself.