My Tweets

    follow me on Twitter

    Jeff's shared items

    Summer New York

    The best season in New York is the summer. The heat and humidity build to 'Californian Unbearable' levels, but it makes people charmingly goofy and spontaneous. When you can't sit still, it makes more sense to stomp around a bit more and get rid of all the sweat. 


    I choose summer to do all my outdoor activities, mostly because it just feels like I don't want to miss a bloody thing. I anticipate the 90-degree temps like Christmas, and feel lethargic when it is 72 or 60. Plus the city clears a bit in July and August so there is more room to swing your arms around. 

    Don't get me wrong, though, air conditioning is miraculous. The one time I don't want to be restless is at night after lying down. A nice, rational 78-degree room is great to keep me sleeping. Any cooler and the carbon (and money) flying into the air would throw me into obsession. Any warmer and I'd go over my to-do list all night.





    Game On.

    Google Transit has graduated from Google labs. Nice touch with the cost comparing transit versus driving. Wonder who's going to come up with something better? Yahoo? Nokia? Let the transiting begin.

    Blogged with Flock

    This American Life: The Detectives

    Probably my favorite David Sedaris story ever, the mystery which strikes the Sedaris home, is on This American Life last month. 22 minutes long and worth every second.

    This American Life (free stream, or $.95 download available)

    Blogged with Flock

    Don't buy that extra widget.

    A report came out today about environmental issues and consumption habits in Australia. Turns out that wealthier households consume more (what?!) but the real news is that inner-city households are consumption hotspots. Transit use and energy-efficiency are offset by higher rates of consumption on goods, rather than services. (Something to think about in the big-box argument?)

    Some great recommendations that are easy(ish) to put into action:

    · Shifting consumption from high impact goods to lower impact services;
    · Consuming sensibly rather than carelessly, while enjoying life more;
    · Cutting down on waste and unnecessary expenditure;
    · Purchasing efficient and environmentally sound products.

    On top of it, this report lays it all out in a clear, understandable manner with really lousy type. Worth a read. PDF attached.

    Also, look at the index in web form. Pretty:
    http://www.acfonline.org.au/consumptionatlas/

    Report PDF

    Blogged with Flock

    Moyers v. Rove: Round 4

    WARNING! Lenghthy read follows link below:

    Bill Moyers had a pretty amazing rundown of the offenses set forth by Karl Rove on a recent episode of Bill Moyers Journal. He has come under fire for being partisan and biased as a journalist. Perhaps the best response the PBS had (outside of its transparently conservative Ombudsman, to whom the answer was directed) is:

    "As we stated last month in our reply to your (previous) inquiry, 'the title of the series, Bill Moyers Journal, signals to viewers that they can expect to encounter the strongly reasoned viewpoints of Bill Moyers and his guests.'"

    Oh, and don't forget to read the letters that follow. I'm writing one, and soon.

    PBS | Ombudsman | The Gift That Keeps on Giving

    A letter to a Vermont newspaper in response to the sins of homosexuality, 2000.

    Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people. I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

    My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

    He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called “fag” incessantly, starting when he was 6.

    In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn’t bear to continue living any longer, that he didn’t want to be gay and that he couldn’t face a life without dignity.

    You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn’t put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it’s about time you started doing that.

    At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won’t get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don’t know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

    If you want to tout your own morality, you’d best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I’m puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that’s not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

    A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I’ll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for “true Vermonters.”

    You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn’t give their lives so that the “homosexual agenda” could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

    He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn’t the measure of the man.

    You religious folk just can’t bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

    How dare he? You say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

    The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about “those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing” asks: “What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?”

    Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

    Blogged with Flock

    Cash Cab comes home!

    We recently learned that four friends were out on the town, caught a cab and ended up on the Cash Cab game show. Well, it aired last night and was hilarious. Carlton made certain to speak directly into the camera like a good boy and Sandy kissed the money they won. All familiar behavior from this group of wonderful people. As an added bonus, Sandy's picture made the front of AOL's TV section.

    Congratulations to all of them and thanks for a jolly great time.

    I totally want to make a little mouse fatter.

    A mouse (pictured on the left) engineered to overproduce the hormone adiponectin weighs 100 grammes – five times as much as a normal mouse (pictured on the right) (Image: Ja-Young Kim/Dave Gresham)Though this diabetes-breakthrough news is interesting, I can't help but dwell upon the process behind fattening up the mouse – putting out little, tiny cheesecakes, leaving thimbles full of macaroni and cheese lying around, mixing up a fresh bottlecap of white russians.

    "It's probably the most obese mouse that's ever been reported," Scherer says of their particular mouse strain.

    Fun.

    ‘World's fattest mouse’ appears immune todiabetes - health - 23 August 2007 - New Scientist

    Nurdles are not cute.


    Charles Moore is the single person on the planet screaming his lungs out about this problem of little, tiny pieces of plastic COVERING our oceans. Read this all the way through. Look at the images. My hope is that you will not look at the world the same again.

    And for everyone (including the turtle in the article), pass it on to others.

    Best Life Magazine: Health & Fitness: Our oceans are turning into plastic...are we? and
    Another personal story with great images.

    Blogged with Flock

    This election's best issue

    We sit around talking about whether or not Michael Moore made a good movie or not, but what we should stick to is the real topic: upgrading our mediocre healthcare system.

    An editorial in the NYT today:

    August 12, 2007
    Editorial

    World’s Best Medical Care?

    Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.

    Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, “Sicko,” when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.

    Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

    Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.

    Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.

    Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

    Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.

    Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

    Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor.

    Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada.

    That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected.

    Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines.

    Top-of-the-line care. Despite our poor showing in many international comparisons, it is doubtful that many Americans, faced with a life-threatening illness, would rather be treated elsewhere. We tend to think that our very best medical centers are the best in the world. But whether this is a realistic assessment or merely a cultural preference for the home team is difficult to say. Only when better measures of clinical excellence are developed will discerning medical shoppers know for sure who is the best of the best.

    With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has “the best health care system in the world” and turn instead to fixing its very real defects. The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. The world’s most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best.


    World’s Best Medical Care? - New York Times

    Blogged with Flock