And then wonder whether the NY Times ever gets anything right.
Spanish productivity: night and day, day and night
They’re trying to make Spain into Germany or something, to increase productivity. I don’t think they’ll succeed in changing the clock, but even if they do, will it change “productivity”? And are Spaniards any less productive than much of the rest of Europe, anyway?
“We want to see a more efficient culture,” said Ignacio Buqueras, the most outspoken advocate of changing the Spanish schedule. “Spain has to break the bad habits it has accumulated over the past 40 or 50 years.”…
Whether an earlier, more regimented schedule will translate into higher productivity is a matter of dispute. Mr. Buqueras’s group says Spanish workers are on the job longer than German workers but complete only 59 percent of their daily tasks. Measuring productivity is an imprecise science, and while many experts say Spanish productivity is too low, Spain actually outperforms many European countries in some calculations, according to Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical agency.
“These three-hour siestas don’t exist,” said Carlos Angulo Martén, who oversees social analysis at the National Statistics Institute in Madrid. Nor are habits uniform across the country, he said…
I haven’t been to Europe in quite some time, but it seems to me that Spain is hardly alone in this. I seem to recall that Italy used to have a similar schedule, and that France was the land of the leisurely lunch.
But in my not-very-extensive world travels, the country I’ve spent a bit of time in, and which I remember as having a fairly extreme version of the Spanish schedule, is Argentina. I have no idea what it’s like now, but several decades ago one could stroll on the boulevards and in the parks of a summer eve (our winter) at 11 PM and see families with young children all spiffied up and on their way to dinner at one of the ubiquitous steak houses (more like arenas) that seemed to be everywhere.
And the long leisurely lunch offers food, if not for thought, then for relaxation and conviviality:
One friend, Miguel Carbayo, 26, was appalled at the notion of a nap-free lunch. He had worked as an intern in the Netherlands, where his co-workers arrived at 8 and left at 5, with a half-hour to munch on a sandwich for lunch, a regimen he found shocking.
“Reduce lunchtime?” he said. “No, I’m completely against that. It is one thing to eat. It is another thing to nourish oneself. Our culture and customs are our way of living.”
But over time the world is becoming more and more homogenized.
Avoiding the re-education camps at McGill
How? Apologize:
Oppression, as outlined in SSMU’s Equity Policy, means the exercise of power by a group of people over another group of people with specific consideration of cultural, historical and living legacies. The image in question was an extension of the cultural, historical and living legacy surrounding people of color””particularly young men””being portrayed as violent in contemporary culture and media. By using this particular image of President Obama, I unknowingly perpetuated this living legacy and subsequently allowed a medium of SSMU’s communication to become the site of a microaggression; for this, I am deeply sorry.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.
Trolls just want to have sadistic fun
They take pleasure in your pain.
Well, of course. It takes time and effort to be a troll. And it takes a bit of time and effort to get rid of them. That’s their sport: annoying you, trying to hurt you, and distracting you into the bargain.
I learned early in my internet experience—way way before I became a blogger—that there are online sadists. I observed one of them do his intensely destructive business on a website that dealt with various illnesses, a discussion board type thing.
I was there because of my arm injury. At the time (mid-90s), it was one of the few places I could find information about it and compare notes with other people who had a similar chronic problem. This troll terrorized people (and “terrorized” is not too extreme a word) who were in a different section of the forum, one that dealt with mental health problems. His m.o. was to befriend them, start a personal email correspondence with them and get them to bare their souls to him, and then after being helpful and kind for a long time—in some cases, years—slam them in an unmercifully abusive fashion and reveal the deepest secrets of their wounded hearts to others on the board.
The forum wasn’t properly patrolled at the time by its administrators, so a few of us set out to try to deal with the troll. Ultimately that campaign was successful, at least online: he was banned. But the destruction he had already done was incalculable.
And that’s why I have no trouble thinking that some trolls are sadists.
Not spambots, though. Spambots are helpful.
Spambot of the day
Bot who’s only doing it to help you:
STOP! Don’t delete this post. Google is actually rewarding you for the traffic you are attracting.you may not realize this fact but comment and URL posted on your site will help us both improve our Search engine performance. Some people call it spam but Google is looking at all that traffic coming to your site and is actually rewarding you by upping your search engine position. Google is thinking you must be important. Take a look at your stats and you will see what I’m talking about.
The day Venezuela died
Hugo Chavez is dead, but his legacy lives on.
And that means that Venezuela is in a heap of trouble:
The suddenness of Venezuela’s collapse should have come as no surprise because downfalls are inherently abrupt…Imagine there’s no money to keep up the sovereign bond payments, the only source of money to keep power plants going.
Welcome to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, a country with the fifth largest oil reserves in the world and absolutely broke. It’s a remarkable achievement for Chavismo. A just-wow moment. Socialism is useless at everything except for smashing things in record time.
As Margaret Thatcher famously said: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. “Eventually” seems far away—until it arrives.
So, what happened? This:
High oil prices funded Mr. Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution” over the past 14 years. He made massive investments in health and education; because the government releases almost no reliable data, it is debatable how much impact these had on human development, but they did inspire a belief in redistribution and justice, and ensured his huge popularity.
But since Mr. Chavez’s death nearly a year ago, it has become apparent that his hand-picked successor, Nicolas Maduro, lacks his charisma. Meanwhile, the safety net is starting to tatter. Production by the national oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A, or PDVSA, is declining, although the government won’t say by how much. The company is crippled by debt, has no cash to invest in operations, must operate on the posted exchange rate, and has been turned into a bizarre do-everything organization that makes jam and processed chicken, builds houses and runs neighbourhood health clinics.
As uncertainty grows, Venezuelans must adapt to an ever-shifting reality. In the middle and upper class, this means cultivating friendships with grocery store clerks who text you when a shipment of butter comes in; shopping on credit cards, because the bolivare, the national currency, will be worth even less when the bill comes due; and sinking cash into hard assets such as a used car, if you can find one (the official waiting list at dealerships is years long.)
Even before President Obama was elected in 2008 I wrote that he was showing Chavez-like tendencies. I have never seen any reason to revise that notion; it has only strengthened. Reading the Globe and Mail article I quoted above, I am struck in particular by this seemingly unimportant quote, “the government releases almost no reliable data.” That’s been especially true of Obamacare and the present administration, as I pointed out last Thursday. Far more than ever before in my memory, domestic statistics released by the government have become almost pure propaganda, and few on right or left trust them.
But bluffing can only get you so far. Sooner or later economic reality comes to call.
Can Venezuela right itself? Richard Fernandez thinks it may have reached a point of no return:
The problem with Venezuela is that Chavismo has left people with nowhere else to go. It’s burned the bridges. There’s no reopening the car plants or restarting the factories, or even repairing the power plants. The engineers have all emigrated to Alberta, Canada.
Fernandez then notes that something similar has happened in Syria, for different reasons. And in Detroit:
Detroit had posted the lowest math scores in the history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
“These numbers are only slightly better than what one would expect by chance as if the kids had never gone to school and simply guessed at the answers,” said Michael Casserly, executive director of the Washington-based Council of the Great City Schools, which represents large urban school districts. “These numbers ”¦ are shocking and appalling and should not be allowed to stand.”
“Should not.” But what’s to be done? Has Detroit passed some point of no return?
It is easier to destroy than to build. Much easier. That’s true whether destruction is your goal or not. And if you’re blinded by the need to stick to your ideology and declare it a success no matter what the truth is, you may not even know what’s going on until Humpty Dumpty finally takes that tumble.
[ADDENDUM: See also this.]
I’m so excited…
…to see that the two original Pointer Sisters here in 2012 (the ones in orange and turquoise) can manage to wear fringed go-go minidresses at their ages. They’re both over sixty, and they seem to have those Tina Turner-esque genes. And boy, they still sound awfully good.
By the way, the purple Pointer is Issa, 35, “the daughter of Pointer Sisters member Ruth Pointer and former Temptations member Dennis Edwards, from their relationship in 1977.” And if you think the audience is a little—ummm—atypical, this was a performance in Utrecht, the Netherlands:
Now let’s go back in time a bit, shall we? Say, thirty-odd years? The night was hot, and so was the song. Note how amazingly un-PC it was, as well as the lack of bras in those days (but they were slender enough to pull it off quite nicely), and the sisters’ exuberant joy in performing. I’m wondering also – could the keyboard player be the same guy in both videos?:
You older folks may remember the sisters’ earlier, retro incarnation. They were always loaded with talent and flair:
A defeat for organized labor in the South
Workers of the South, unite:
The workers at the VW plant in Chattanooga voted 712-626 to stay out of the union after a lobbying fight in which Republican politicians warned unionization could lead Volkswagen and automobile companies to leave the state.
Volkswagen actually offered some support for the UAW in its effort, which deepened the blow to UAW.
Union officials praised Volkswagen but blamed politicians who had warned workers that by joining they union, they could hurt their own economic interests.
…UAW officials vowed they would not give up in their effort to organize workers in the South, a region that historically has been much more difficult to unionize.
Give up? Never. They are patient.
Here’s an interesting statement:
“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”
The article goes on to add that the UAW president said the union is contemplating legal action about this “interference.” So, who “interfered,” and exactly how? Is telling workers how unions might function in a way that’s counter to their interests “interfering” with the union’s own campaign to woo them?
Further research on this question came up with this:
UAW President Bob King sharply criticized Tennessee politicians who he said scared workers away from voting in favor of union representation.
How did these scare tactics occur? This is the best I’ve been able to do so far in terms of locating the specifics:
Tennessee Republican leaders suggested that the union might limit chances for a plant expansion and make the GOP-controlled Legislature less willing to help the German auto maker expand…
More here about what those Republican leaders said. Apparently the governor said something about the likelihood that if the plant didn’t unionize, an SUV-line might be brought in. I can’t seem to find any actual quotes, though, either from the governor or those other Republicans, so it’s hard to evaluate what’s true. The quote from Senator Corker, however, appears to be this:
Corker, a Tennessee Republican who helped negotiate the incentives package to bring Volkswagen to Chattanooga, said he has talked to VW leaders numerous times and “there’s not a push by the executive leadership or the board toward the UAW.”
“I know for a fact that at the highest levels of VW, they’re aware that if the UAW became involved in the plant, it would be a negative for the future economic growth of our state,” he said.
So Senator Corker’s telling people about the economic effects on the state of Tennessee’s reputation as a place that doesn’t encourage unions is scare tactics, I guess. At least, according to the unions.
Some of the union’s angst – and another significant part of the back story – seems to be the fact that “a majority of workers at the Chattanooga plant [had] signed cards supporting being represented by the union in a European-style works council.” Apparently that led union leaders to believe they had this in the bag. Funny thing, though, a secret ballot is different than signing a card – remember card check, one of Obama’s original goals?
Your friendly neighborhood IRS
In the past, I can’t say I’ve liked the IRS. Who does? My attitude has always been that they’re a nuisance, and a cause for mild anxiety. The tax laws are the tax laws, but the IRS was not responsible for them. They just administer them, and for the most part they seemed to do it competently as far as I was concerned, anyway.
Now I find that I regard them as not-so-secret agents of the Obama administration. This is not paranoia. As Ed Rogers wrote yesterday in the WaPo, it is fact:
Encouraged by the lack of a public backlash, an uninquisitive press, cover from the White House and an eager-to-please bureaucracy, the Democrats are boldly counting on the IRS to be their political and policy enforcer.This statement isn’t an overreach by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” or a phony crisis created by hecklers (like me) on the right ”” it goes back to the early stages of President Obama’s reelection campaign.
Rogers goes on to list some of the more egregious examples of what has occurred and how the administration has been emboldened by the fact that so far there have been no negative consequences to them for their actions. The hue and cry that was expected – and to a certain extent came at first, when some of the revelations about Tea Party harassment were revealed – has been muted and blunted. So now the excesses are being further and more openly institutionalized:
Last week, we learned President Obama unilaterally gave the IRS the mandate to monitor the thinking and attitude of any business that might be trying to circumvent the negative impacts of Obamacare, and punish them accordingly. And presumably the punishment isn’t limited to civil fines, but includes criminal perjury charges as well.
Anyway, the blatant use of the IRS as the Democrats’ cat’s paw has clearly taken root within individual Democratic campaigns. An article in The Hill quotes several vulnerable Senate Democrats ”” such as Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) ”” who are openly demanding the IRS increase their intimidation of organizations that may oppose them. Obviously, the Democrats expect more from their team members at the IRS in the months leading up to the 2014 elections.
In the comments section to Rogers’ post, I find a smattering of liberals arguing the old, disproven, “liberal groups were targeted too” approach to the subject. It demonstrates once again how the Big Lie works, and how in the case of the IRS scandal (no longer a scandal, apparently) it soothed the liberal troops, at least some of whom might have otherwise become alarmed by what had occurred.
I wonder, though, how much the IRS scandal has affected Obama’s and the Democrats’ ratings with the public. I can’t find any polls about the subject since last summer, but my guess is that it has had some part in the downturn. I certainly hope so; all Americans of any political stripe should be highly alarmed, although of course that isn’t happening. One of the most pernicious reasons is ignorance of history; some people say, “Oh, all administrations do this.”
No, they don’t; not like this in terms of extent and success. Nixon was excoriated for wanting to do it in the Nixon tapes, and the assumption has been that he did do it. But in fact for the most part he failed at it. Why? Because the heads of the IRS at the time would not cooperate (see this for a background discussion).
Here’s a very short history of the efforts of other presidents. You can see that, except for the Nixon example, it seems that most of the presidents who were involved with any small success in such undertakings were Democrats. That’s no accident because, as “Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained,…the IRS was a ‘monstrous bureaucracy”¦dominated and controlled by Democrats.’”
So Nixon is convicted in the eyes of the public for what appears to have been largely thoughtcrime, whereas the Obama administration and its handmaidens such as Lois Lerner get off seemingly free (so far) for the actual crime. Obama’s much greater success compared to earlier efforts appears to be due to several factors: greater drive, boldness, and scope; public ignorance/apathy; the coverup attempts by much of the MSM; and the simpatico political persuasion of much of the IRS.
Happy Valentine’s Day!
So, you think you were admitted to MIT?
Not so fast, kids, not so fast:
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent an e-mail to prospective students, erroneously telling them in a line at the bottom that they had been admitted…
The mix-up happened when MIT combined two separate lists for an electronic mailing about financial aid. At the bottom was a footer that said “You are on this list because you are admitted to MIT,” according to Peterson. By merging the lists in a program called MailChimp, admissions officers mistakenly imported the footer from a list of students accepted under early admissions.
Hey, it’s not as though MIT should have any special knowledge about how to work computers or computer programs, is it?
My favorite sentence in the article is this one:
Such mistakes are occurring more often across the country as university and college admissions offices rely more on electronic communication with prospective students.
Computers can do wonderful things. But their very ease can sometimes make it easy to slip up. I am reminded of the fact that in all my recent encounters with doctors and the health care system, everyone has groaned and made a face when discussing the new requirement to keep electronic records. Not to mince words about it, everyone basically thinks it’s not only a royal pain in the butt but also a total crock of BS. Garbage in, garbage out, and very time-consuming garbage at that.
[Hat tip: College Insurrection.]
The mammogram study and the NY Times
Here’s an article in the NY Times about a new mammogram study that’s gotten a lot of attention.
And here’s the study itself.
Compare and contrast.
The first sentence of the Times article:
One of the largest and most meticulous studies of mammography ever done, involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century, has added powerful new doubts about the value of the screening test for women of any age.
From the study’s abstract:
Objective: To compare breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening…
Conclusion: Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available.
There were many more details, of course. Both articles are long, especially the study. But the Times article never even mentions the age limitations of the study, and that first sentence in the Times implies that women of all ages were part of the study, which they were not. The study explicitly dealt only with woman between the ages of 40 and 59.
I wonder what the Times’ agenda might be here, although never underestimate the possibility of mere shoddy and slipshod reporting.
The study itself offers some evidence that annual mammograms in those age groups don’t reduce mortality significantly as compared to regular breast examination (not as compared to nothing). There are the usual problems with methodology in large epidemiological studies of this type, and there are other studies of the subject that agree and disagree. But this one should certainly add to the amount of information that we have, as well as the amount of confusion.
Why does age matter so much? Breast cancer is not a unitary disease. There are many types, and the disease in younger women often works somewhat differently than in older women. Let’s not forget, by the way, that 1 in 100 cases of breast cancer occur in men.