More on privatization

Krugman, in today's column, laments privatization of everything (well, healthcare) more articulately than I've been doing of late. Of note:

Never mind the huge expense, the low life expectancy, the high infant mortality; it's a market-based system, so it must be good.

...

... even though all the evidence suggests that we would be much better off under a system of universal coverage, any such move will be fiercely opposed, on principle, by conservatives who want us to move in the opposite direction.

On the one hand, capitalism is fine and dandy. The big downstairs room in my house may not be worth $600, depending on how you slice it, but its current occupant is willing to pay that for it, so that's its market value, and all's fair. On the other hand, I try not to be dogmatic about things -- privatizing health care just because "capitalism is good" doesn't seem like a rational strategy by which to approach the problems ("low life expectancy"; "infant mortality").

He also uses the word "Panglossian." Heh.

The White House v. Network TV

Isn't it the media's job to cover, let alone commentate, newsworthy events? I guess that only holds true if they don't conflict with high-ratings programming. Wow. Turns out that this is the fourth prime-time news conference Bush has held -- and the implication is, ever, not just in the 99 days of his second term -- and, instead of rejoicing that he's finally deigning to address not only the gritty details of his moribund Social Security plan, but to do it at a time when Americans would be willing to listen, networks grumble that he'll preëmpt their high-ratings programming. Yo, what is wrong with this country?

The Great American Dream, for a fee

A pet peeve of mine is the lack of federal funding for public transportation in this country. Trains don't run on time, if at all, and it costs less to fly than to take them. This is ludicrous, and if I don't post about it often, I at least mean to.

Colin, in a recent conversation, pointed out that half of the problem is mindset -- many people view their cars as their birthright, guaranteed to them somewhere in the Bill of Rights along with freedom of speech, religion, and the press; to wrest them away from them would be fundamentally un-American. To this I say, Oy.

But, it's appearing that, while they can keep the cars, the price for using them will just continue to rise. In today's paper, an article about converting freeways to toll roads to avoid congestion. Yes, the statistics are appalling. From the article:

• "The average commuter now loses 46 hours a year sitting idle in a car."
  
• "Average peak hour speeds on the 91 Express lanes [the new toll lanes] were 60 to 65 miles an hour last year, versus 15 to 20 m.p.h. on the free lanes, according to federal officials."
  
• "'Californians can't get from place to place on little fairy wings,' said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."
  

Still, while the Governator is right about that fact, he could be proposing public transportation alternatives, rather than pushing a plan that promotes more pollution, congestion, and everything evil and baby-killing.

This is wrong on so many levels:

• New quarter-mile wide highways are being proposed in Texas, to cut across swaths of farmland
  
• It's inherently classist -- the lanes are priced according to how much congestion there is, so to escape a 10-mph commute, you end up paying $11ish on a round trip. Those who can't afford to live nearer to their jobs are the ones commuting anyhow, and probably won't be able to afford this extra surcharge. Arr.
  
• The general trend towards privatizing everything. Health care, then Social Security -- now highways? Like I said above, I'm way more pro-public-transportation than I am pro-cars and the gas they consume, but I have a feeling that the government (and both federal and state, at that) could be spending money on highway improvements instead of just outsourcing it all. Call it a hunch.
  

The only possible way this trend could be good is that it's forcing more people to carpool -- apparently, these new toll lanes (at least in some implementations -- not sure about in general) are free to HOVs, or high-occupancy vehicles (a term one can't escape while living within the Beltway, as I've done for the past two years. This is good.

Part of this, I'll acknowledge, is just the fallout from urban sprawl. I've been lucky to have been at a job for a while to which I could commute by bike or or foot; now, the awesome job for which I'm interviewing is 40 miles away, and I would be using the highways to commute. Yes, I'd be on a company-run shuttle, and therefore carpooling; yes, there would be free wifi on the shuttle(!), and so I wouldn't lose work time if I didn't want to. But it sucks that, to get down there for my final interview today, I'll have to take three separate rail systems, which will cost me about $7 each way, and then a cab from the station to the site (paid for by the company, but still) -- the entirety of which will take me a little over two hours. I hate that this is the situation, and acknowledge that part of this is just going to be the reality of a mobile lifestyle. But I still think that more energy could be being focused on public, non-polluting transportation than on charging for highway use. Sheesh.

"The decision ... should rest with the parents."

I know I haven't been following the news closely enough when I read a bill has passed that I didn't even know was coming up for a vote. Specifically, yesterday's House bill tightening parental rule for abortions.

First, the facts. It will now be a federal crime "for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents," with penalties up to $100,000 and a year in jail. Ignoring for the sake of brevity how false the supporters' claims that this measure is "pro-family" are, let me just focus the word "parent."

Forgive me if I find the wording in this whole story ironically ambiguous:

Supporters characterize the measure as pro-family, saying it will prevent abusive boyfriends and others from taking vulnerable young women across state lines to receive "secret abortions" against their will. They say that the decision to have an abortion should rest solely with the parents.
[Emph. added]

I believe that, too -- that the decision to abort a fetus should rest with the people who conceived it -- that is, the parents.

Jesus.

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Baltimore buffalo

This account of bison escaping in Baltimore is, mostly, just like the recent news about exploding toads in Germany -- silly animal news.

Note at the end, however, the reaction of their rancher:

Gerald Berg, who raised the bison on his cattle farm in Stevenson, started his day by jumping on an all-terrain vehicle and chasing the escaped animals. Mr. Berg has been raising bison for about eight years, he said, but no more.

By midday, as the last of the bison were being herded into the trailer, Mr. Berg had decided their fate.

"It's out of hand," he said. "They're going to the slaughterhouse, and they're going to be buffalo burgers."

I don't know how long people usually try to raise buffalo for, but something tells me it's a skill that might take a little longer than eight years to master. Sending them away to be turned into buffalo burgers seems a little impatients. Vegan Porn would eat this up (no pun intended, har har).

Catch-22, anyone?

No new government is really being formed in Iraq. Note two salient excerpts from the article:

... Shiites .. make up a majority in Iraq but nearly three months after national elections have yet to form a new government -- a failure that American officials fear is giving strength and confidence to the insurgents.

...

Many American officials say the political slowdown in Baghdad is hurting the ability of Iraqi security forces to repel and pursue insurgents.

Wait a sec -- the failure to form a government is strengthening the insurgents, but they can't "repel and pursue" them until they form a new government? Oy.

I love, by the way, the actual purpose of this article: "Rice and Cheney Are Said to Push Iraqi Politicians on Stalemate". "Uhh, just so you know, guys, it's bad to not have any government. I know we destroyed your old one, but now you're not ruled by evil, and so anything's better than that, right? Just ... get your shit together."

Also, how cute:

Ms. Rice on Friday telephoned Massoud Barzani, a leader of one of Iraq's main Kurdish parties, a senior State Department official in Washington said. The official stressed that Ms. Rice did not tell him how to work toward forming a government, just that the process needed to be concluded. [emph. added]

I bet this was news to Barzani. "Oh, we need a government? So that's what's been wrong!" Holy crap. And how patronizing this makes Rice -- and, for that matter, our entire position in Iraq -- seem.

I don't follow this issue as closely as I should, but every time I read about it (it was above the fold today), I get sick. Saw a bumpersticker on Telegraph Ave. yesterday: What's our oil doing under their soil?!"

Schönheit muß leiden

Ever since I started picking up German about four years ago, I've always thought that language's version of our "No pain, no gain" expression is more accurate. "Schönheit muß leiden" literally means "Beauty must suffer." Not that I agree with this particular idea -- but it appears that a lot of women in New York do.

Friends have often thought it a bit weird that I mutter under my breath every time I see a woman coming down the street tottering on three-inch stilettos. The more I ran last year, though, the more I became attuned to the damage people do their feet by wearing the wrong shoes -- and it's clear that if you can't balance on a pair of shoes, you probably shouldn't be ruining your Achilles tendons trying.

Lacerating your feet is in the same ballpark, though one probably does less long-term damage to one's feet just by wearing shoes that have straps "like little knives."

"In the past four days we've been treating mobs of people, most of whom are exiting the winter without having done anything to get their feet ready for spring," said Anika Haynes, the spa coordinator for the Aqua Beauty Bar in downtown Manhattan.

"All the women who come here," Ms. Haynes said, "need emergency rescue. They're swollen, they're callused, and they're pleading, 'Can you buff, buff, buff?' "

Ouch! And I complain because I got a blister on the side of my ankle from wearing low-cut tennis shoes to a hip-hop class Wednesday, and more on the balls of my feet from doing barefoot salsa on a carpeted floor at a party last night. Apparently, real women's pedal pain is always sartorial.

Finally, adding insult to injury, is the amount people pay for these instruments of torture:

Ms. Gajzer faults the shoemaker, not the wearer. "When you're paying between $300 and $600 for a pair of sandals, you expect them to be remotely comfortable," she said. "Otherwise the designer should be smacked."

Ms. Korb, for her part, is resigned to her fate. "It's crazy, I know," she said with a mixture of pride and chagrin. "I just bought these shoes for $600. They're Valentino. They hurt, but I love them so much I even had a pedicure - another $50 - just so I could wear them."

The conclusion? Clearly, the women of New York are all self-hating, masochistic Imelda Marcoses.