Where There's Smoke There's No Fire

Laws that restrict smoking in public places represent good public policy.  Beyond the obvious health benefits associated with reducing exposure to toxic fumes, these laws promote basic civility: Even if second-hand smoke were completely harmless to other people's health, non-smokers should not have to inhale the noxious by-products of those who do not have the common courtesy to refrain from inflicting their vices on others.  That being said, recent legislative efforts to ban electronic cigarettes from public places are completely misguided.

E-cigarettes are essentially nicotine delivery devices--not much different from patches or nicotine gum (although not generally regarded in as positive a light as those other "smoking cessation" tools).  They look more or less like "real" cigarettes, and people "smoke" them in much the same way.  Instead of smoke, though, e-cigs release harmless--or even pleasant smelling--water vapor into the air, thus posing no health risks to nearby non-smokers.  E-cigs even have a little light on the end that "flares" when people puff--and as an added "bonus," these tips, unlike the glowing tips of cigarettes, can come in a variety of colors not necessarily  found in nature.

Lately, in various locales including New York City, lawmakers have pursued legislation to ban e-cigarettes just like their more tobacco-y cousins.  The basic argument seems to be that e-cigarettes cause confusion among people who may take offense when they see someone "lighting up" in a movie theater or restaurant or any other place from which cigarettes have been banned--which is to say, any other place.  Furthermore, lawmakers fear that e-cigarettes send a "message that smoking is socially acceptable."

Well, we can't have that!  Outlaw them immediately!

Look, I don't have a problem with government officials discouraging smoking.  If they want to ban cigarette advertising from television, fine.  Want to impose high taxes on tobacco products?  OK.  Use tax dollars to sponsor public information campaigns warning of the dangers of cigarettes? I'm down with that.  But banning electronic cigarettes goes too far.

Before I go on, it is de rigueur at this point to mention that e-cigarettes have not been evaluated by the FDA and that they may, for all anybody knows, be extremely dangerous.  Perhaps they are highly carcinogenic.  Perhaps they cause gout.  Perhaps prolonged use promotes the growth of extra toes.  Fair enough.  But while these products might cause problems to those who use them, it is clear that they cause far fewer problems than traditional cigarettes do to the people who don't use them.

One could rightfully worry that people who see e-cigarette smokers will be tempted to pick up the habit--especially when they see an e-cig glowing a cool, light-saberish shade of magenta.  But then again, if lemming-like souls are going to follow the herd of cool kids over the cliff of smoking, wouldn't we prefer they take up this less lethal variety thereof?

Might these newly-recruited smokers move on to tobacco products?  Sure they might. Anything might happen.  But making harm-reductive smoking more difficult for those who are not ready to quit but are trying to mitigate the negative effects for everyone else is flawed policy at best and downright destructive at worst.

The NRA Does It Again!

Regular readers of this blog--all both of you--know my position on gun control: The more the better.  So you might expect I would favor disarming those gun owners against whom courts have issued orders of protection.  Relieving perpetrators of domestic violence of their violent paraphrenalia just makes sense.  Still, as I read an article today, about states' efforts to legislate or enforce such disarmament, I found myself wondering....

First, how useful is such legislation?  Don't get me wrong, in terms of strategy, I think gun-control advocates should flood state legislators with as many proposals as possible: As I mentioned in an earlier post, making the NRA and like-minded groups battle on as many fronts as possible is a good way to sap their resources and/or their will to fight against more mainstream, acceptable proposals.  At the same time, though, when questioning the effectiveness of this particular type of legislation, gun-rights advocates make a reasonable point.  By definition, those against whom orders of protection are issued are not exactly model citizens.  They have presumably manifested disregard for law and order.  Requiring these people to give up their guns is a fine idea, but are these people truly going to feel constrained by such laws?  Are they likely to hand over all their weapons--even the ones the cops may not know about?  Will they not just go out and buy another gun, assuming that is their weapon of choice.  (Arguably, laws against gun purchases by this population would be a sounder idea, from a prevention standpoint.)  By all means, pass these laws, but at the same time understand that this is just one of many possible remedies for gun violence.

The other thing this article makes clear, though, is the continuing tone-deafness of the National Rifle Association.  Seriously, if MoveOn.org or some other liberal advocacy group does not, within the next 24 hours, create an ad promoting the NRA as the "Wife Abusers Rearmament Society," then someone should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Halfway Educational

Today I learned about the "51% Law," a California state law which requires school districts to spend at least 50% of their budgets on instruction (strictly speaking, it's the 50% Law, but we want to be on the safe side).  My first thought: That's all?  My second thought: This is a PROBLEM for some school districts?

Including mine, apparently.

To be fair, some of the things schools provide--like counselors and tutors, for example--which seem directly related to student success and even, in the case of tutors at least, instruction-related, don't "count" towards this 50% threshold.  Still, though, it raises questions.  I hate to provide fodder for right-wing critics, but the fact that this law exists would seem to open schools up to a reasonable query:  What the hell are they spending money on?!?

To which, of course, there are any number of reasonable answers.  In addition to the aforementioned counselors and tutors, there are admissions personnel, librarians, secretaries, lab technicians, etc., etc., etc.  And while it's reasonable that a school spend at least half its budget on direct instructional services, we should also recognize that no college could function without substantial contributions from these "ancillary" personnel.

It does make one wonder, though, in this age of rampant privatization, and the ongoing Randian celebration of all-things-capitalist, about the ratio of instruction to "other" at for-profit educational providers.  I hope that some kind of 50% Law is keeping these folks honest as well.

It's Enough to Make a Liberal Scream "Big Government!"

Studies have revealed a new element in the "digital divide": While more and more children from lower socio-economic backgrounds have access to technology, researchers have found that these children spend more online hours on "time-wasting" activities than children in more affluent households.  Leaving aside the value-laden judgment of what constitutes "wasted time" (if I don't download pornography, all those buxom women will have been exploited for nothing!), I was struck by the following:

The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.

Hm.

Today, the Times reported that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to enact a proposal to ban the sale of large (over 16 ounce) sodas in movie theaters, restaurants, and many other venues throughout the city.  This is Mayor Bloomberg's latest attempt to improve the health of New Yorkers; previous efforts have included widespread smoking bans and restrictions on foods containing trans fats.

Ah, progressive public servants!  What else can I say, but. . .  ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!  These are precisely the kind of big-government, nanny-state programs that drive conservatives up a wall, and, frankly, they have a point. 

The fact that low-income kids are "wasting" too much time on non-productive online activities--assuming that even IS a fact--is not a government problem; it's a parenting one.  And between you and me, I'm fairly certain that plenty of one-percenter children spend what could only be considered excessive amounts of time playing Angry Words with Diablo II.

So, there, I just solved THAT problem: Can I have $200 million?  Tell you what, just give me 100 grand and we'll call it square.

(DIGRESSION: In "Angry Birds," why do you need a slingshot to shoot the birds at the pigs?  Can't birds fly?  Or is that why they're angry?  EOD)

As for Bloomberg's ban on large sodas: Really Mike?

Look, smoking ban? Good idea: Non-smokers shouldn't have to inhale second-hand smoke.  Trans-fat legislation kinda makes sense, too: Restaurant patrons have no real control (or often knowledge) of what ingredients are being used.  Requiring city restaurants to eliminate trans fats reduces citizens' exposure to a dangerous substance and levels the playing field so that no restaurant is being unduly penalized.

But what, exactly, is this ban on large sodas supposed to accomplish?  All these places that sell large sodas already sell sodas in smaller sizes: People simply choose to buy the large drinks because they want more soda.  And as Bloomberg even points out himself, nothing will stop people from buying more than one soda.  In fact, someone who currently buys a 20 ounce drink may actually end up drinking MORE soda under the new policy: If  a 16 ounce drink doesn't satisfy, this person will have no choice but to buy ANOTHER 12-16 ounce drink to quench his 20-ounce thirst.

If the Mayor really thinks soda is so dangerous, he should just be honest and ban it altogether.  (Actually, I probably shouldn't give him ideas.)

I am a firm believer in a strong and, frankly, activist government.  But I would ask the government to focus on big-picture problems like unemployment and poverty.  Until those are taken care of, for God's sake, let people drink Dr. Pepper and play Halo!

Rethinking College Sports--A Modest Proposal

I enjoy sports, and, as a semi-alumnus of Syracuse University, I can get excited about college sports, particularly during March Madness.  (Go Orange!)  At the same time, I am also a teacher, and I find the overemphasis on  sports at colleges and universities ridiculous. Sports are entertainment and an undeniable part of the college experience, but they should not overshadow the main raison d'etre of institutions of higher learning: drug- and alcohol-fueled partying.

But seriously, folks.

An article in the Times ("How Big-Time Sports Ate College Life") rehashes the by-now all-too-familiar fact that big-time college sports programs have become a driving force in higher education.  Students often choose colleges because of athletic--not academic--excellence; they neglect academic responsibilities to engage in sports-related activities; and universities spend comparatively obscene amounts of money on sports programs while treating academic programs as budgetary afterthoughts.  The article then provides the similarly familiar hand-wringing over what is to be done.

Fans will be fans, and while the tremendous media exposure of college sports has probably inspired increases in student enthusiasm, we shouldn't spend too much time lamenting the amount of energy students devote to rooting on their favorite teams.  Those are, ultimately, personal choices.  If a student fails a final because he stayed up all night celebrating Duke's victory over North Carolina, that's really of concern to no one other than the student and whoever is paying for his college "education."  There is, however, a fairly simple way to restore some balance to the financial side of the equation.

One of the things that infuriates critics of collegiate athletics--and, indeed, annoys even those like Your-Not-So-Humble-Correspondent who enjoy college sports--is the disproportionate amount of money that colleges lavish on athletics.  New Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer signed a contract worth a minimum of $4 million a year.  According to a 2010 report, Big Ten colleges spent, on average more than six times as much per student on athletics as they did on academics.  The institutions will claim that such spending is necessary to remain competitive both in athletics and in student recruitment: If one college doesn't spend the money, another one will, and the first college will suffer as a result.  So what's needed is a mechanism to persuade all universities to reduce spending on athletics.

Here's a thought: All colleges and universities, public or private, receive public money, either in the form of student financial aid or grants or subsidies or some combination of all of these.  What if a law were passed saying that any college that spends disproportionately on athletics--say, more than twice what it spends per student on non-athletes--becomes ineligible to receive any public funding?  Wouldn't it be lovely if, for every athletic scholarship awarded, a college also had to offer a full ride to a promising academic all-star?  Such requirements would go a long way towards reaffirming the importance of colleges' academic mission, and they would also provide a great incentive for universities to reconsider their priorities in a more socially constructive way.

Your Attention Please

"Medicines to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are in such short supply that hundreds of patients complain daily to the Food and Drug Administration that they are unable to find a pharmacy with enough pills to fill their prescriptions."
                             "F.D.A. Finds Short Supply of Attention Deficit Drugs"

Ladies and. . .uh, what? Oh! Sorry.  Where was I?

OK.  Ladies and gentlemen of the Attention Deficit Disorder Sufferers of. . .what IS that smudge on my note card?  It's funny.  It looks kind of like one of those clouds?  You know, one of those clouds that looks like something?  It looks like a cloud that looks like a banana. . . .So, I guess what I'm saying is it looks like a banana.  Yeah.

OK, sorry, here we go:

Ladies and gentlemen of the Attention Deficit Disorder Sufferers of America, thank you for. . . .  Uh. . . .Hel-LO?  Could I have your attention, please?

[LOUD LAUGHTER]

OK, yeah, that IS kind of funny, but, seriously!  Could you all just kind of, you know, look this way. . . yes, at me. . . great. . . .

OK.  Now, you all know why we're here today.  Drug Enforcement Administration policies and corporate greed have created a wholly unnecessary shortage of the ADHD medications that are needed by people like you and me. . . .Should that be 'you and I'?  That doesn't sound right.  But neither does 'you and me'. . . .I should just say 'us,' shouldn't I?  Or shouldn't me?  Ha!

Right.

OK, yes, so the DEA wants to make sure that people don't abuse ADHD drugs, so they restrict the amount of drugs that a company can produce.  And now a lot of those companies, since they can only produce a certain number of drugs, are producing MORE of their brand name drugs, and LESS of their generics, so even when we CAN get drugs, we sometimes have to pay ten times as much as we would normally pay because we have to buy the brand name instead of the generics and that humming is driving me crazy what the hell IS that?  The air conditioning?  Can we turn it off?  We can't turn it off?  Fine. . . . Uh. . . .

OK, so. . ..Hey, where's everybody going? . . . .No, I wasn't finished!  We haven't decided what we're going to DO yet, have we?  Exactly!  If we want to effect change, we have to organize!  Just like those Occupy people.  We need to occupy something.  I suggest the DEA.  It's one building, so there's less of a chance for us to get lost.  All in favor?. . . All in favor?. . . .I'M CALLING FOR A VOTE HERE, PEOPLE, COULD YOU ALL JUST LISTEN FOR A MOMENT?

Thank you!  Now, all in favor? . . . Oh, for God's sake!  Of occupying the DEA!  Yes, that's what we're voting on!  TO GET THEM TO LOOSEN UP THEIR POLICIES, THAT'S WHY!

OK.  So we'll meet at the DEA offices tomorrow at 9:00 AM.  I want to thank all the people that have stayed for this entire meeting.  Thanks, Larry.

Tweaking Title IX

Title IX is a piece of federal legislation designed to promote gender equality in education. Since its passage in 1972, the law has had a major impact on women in higher education; indeed, the fact that female students comprise a majority of the undergraduate population of American colleges and universities suggests that Title IX has been a success. Few people today complain about the law's intentions or its effects. One area where there have been some complaints, though, is in the area of college athletics.

Since Title IX bans gender discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal funding (which is pretty much all of them), colleges must ensure that women are proportionally represented in all aspects of campus life. What this means in practice for college athletics is that, if the student body is, say, 50% female, then females should make up about 50% of the participants in athletic programs. Many colleges, though, have difficulty reaching this level.

In the past, colleges have often eliminated smaller men's athletic programs in order to get closer to the Title IX ideal, eliminating programs being considerably cheaper than increasing the number of women's sports. Lately, though, some colleges have gotten creative. Some "double count" atheletes; for example, a cross-country runner ma7y be listed as a member of both the track and field and cross-country teams, thus earning the college double credit for one athlete. Some offer roster spots to underqualified athletes, who may never actually appear in competitions. And at Cornell, they count members of the women's fencing team's practice squad--which doesn't sound all that egregious until you find out that some of these practice-squad members are, um, men.

We suppose that's one way to meet women.

Now, seriously, we have absolutely no problem with the idea of gender equity in higher education in general or in college athletics in particular. If women want to participate in sports, more power to 'em. But if, in order to comply with federal regulations, Cornell and other colleges have to offer spots on the practice squads of women's teams to men, doesn't this suggest that there are just not that many women interested in that particular sport at that particular college?
Does it make sense essentially to force a school to undertake statistical tomfoolery simply to comply with a federal mandate that, in this case at least, is only being "violated" due to lack of interest among the people the law is intended to protect?

Solipsistography
"College Teams, Relying on Deception, Undermine Gender Equity" . . . Hmmm, that's a rather loaded headline, no?

Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid

From today's paper:

"Until this weekend, President Obama, mainstream environmental groups and large numbers of Republicans and Democrats in Congress agreed that nuclear power offered a steady energy source and part of the solution to climate change, even as they disagreed on virtually every other aspect of energy policy."

Then, of course, this weekend happened and Japan melted into the sea.


About three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the President proposed the authorization of increased offshore oil exploration.


Note to President Obama: Sir, stop talking about energy!


Seriously, we're all in favor of solar, but if Obama endorses it, we'll probably be engulfed by a supernova before Memorial Day.


Also, when did Republicans decide that if something doesn't happen to Americans, it doesn't happen? Last week, Representative Peter King said the Irish Republican Army shouldn't be considered a terrorist organization because "the I.R.A. never attacked the United States." Today, in defense of the continued development of nuclear power, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "we ought not to make American and domestic policy based upon an event that happened in Japan."


Is Senator McConnell under the impression that the laws of nuclear physics are somehow different in Asia? Granted, Japan does have more Godzilla-related incidents than the United States, but we think the scientific fundamentals are generally the same.


Solipsistography:
"For Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past"
"Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time"
"U.S. Nuclear Industry Faces New Uncertainty"

The Price Is Right

A pack of cigarettes in New York City? $8.75.

A late model Trabant? 3 pairs of Levis.

Your life? Priceless.

Or, if you believe the Environmental Protection Agency, $9.1 million. At least, that was the proposed value last year. And lest you think that price too low, consider that during the Bush Administration, the number was $6.8 million.

What accounts for the 33% inflation rate? Has there been a sudden plunge in the supply of life? Something else we can blame on the abortion-rights crowd no doubt.

Government agencies monetize life--or, to be more accurate, "lives"--as part of their rule-making process. When agencies consider new regulations, they conduct cost-benefit analyses. If anticipated costs to industry are greater than the value to public health or safety, say, then the regulation may not be adopted. In order to measure the public value, the agency may look at the number of lives saved. And in order to measure comparative value, then, these lives must be priced.

Take the EPA's price of $9.1 million. Let's say the agency wants to require industries to install better waste filtration systems. Their scientists expect that these better systems would save 100 lives and cost the affected industries $500 million. In this case, the rule should pass because the value of lives saved ($910 million) is greater than industry's cost. On the other hand, if the fix would cost $1 billion, the rule should not be adopted.

Unless, of course, we're mispricing life. Businesses certainly think that's what's happening. Of course, they think the EPA is holding life too dear. You can't really blame big business for doubting the numbers. After all, the Food and Drug Administration only asks for $7.9 million per person. The Transportation Department sets the price at an even $6 million. (Wonder if Steve Austin worked for them? He was an astronaut. . . .That's like transportation. Where were we?)

Is a "life" even the right metric? Shouldn't years of life lost or gained provide a better way to measure the imapct of rules and regulations? How can there be a generic value for the continued existence of . . .anybody? Does a newborn baby have the same "present value" as a 70-year-old? What if the 70-year-old is Dick Cheney? What if it's a 70-year-old Canadian?!? You can see where this can get tricky.

In the meantime, if you ever have to sell yourself to the highest bidder, we suggest you peddle your wares over at the EPA. You'll never get top dollar from those cheapskates in other agencies. Heck, the Department of Education won't even cover the price of parts!

Solipsistography
"As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret"

Obligations

The Solipsist has had it up to here (his hand is at his chin) with people blaming the nation's economic woes on unions, particularly public-service unions. At a time when right-wingers oppose any attempt to raise taxes on millionaires, it seems disingenuous at best to claim that the main culprit behind state-budget disasters is the pensions of teachers and other public-sector employees.

Certainly there are abuses. People react with justifiable outrage to stories of retired politicians collecting six-figure pensions, but these are the exceptions, not the rule. In New Jersey, whose citizens have expressed some of the greatest outrage, the average public-sector pension is $20,000 a year; teachers earn, on average, $46,000. Pardon us if these figures don't provoke an urge to march, pitchfork in hand, to our local UFT office demanding a clawback of hard-earned tax dollars.

Obviously, the Solipsist--a teacher and son of a teacher--is a biased commentator. But we have little patience for those who claim that teachers (along with other government employees and civil service workers) should accept pension cuts in the spirit of shared civic sacrifice. Put simply, many of these folks have already sacrificed.

Consider: Teachers are, by definition, highly educated people. They must graduate college and then either satisfy state-certification requirements or earn post-graduate degrees or both. The Solipist's FFB Emi Ha has jumped through hoops over the last year or so to prove that she is qualified to teach in her new hometown, despite having multiple degrees and teaching experience and having satisfied all certification requirements in her previous hometown. The Solipsist himself has two post-graduate degrees, as well as a BA and state certification to teach in New York.

Our point is, when one decides to become a teacher, it is not for lack of intellectual capacity or professional ambition. These are people who could easily have chosen more financially remunerative careers in law, politics, or finance. They chose, though, to provide service. They sacrificed.

In many cases, these workers continued to sacrifice. Indeed, in the face of state and municipal budget difficulties, some public-sector unions agreed to forego wage increases. The spirit of sacrifice exists in these workers. Ironically, one of the concessions that some unions made was to forego raises in exchange for pension guarantees--guarantees that are now apparently endangered.

By all means, look at abusive pension-padding practices and crack down on those. But stop blaming deficits on the people who have chosen to take a lifetime pay cut to serve their fellow citizens.

Eat, Drink, But Don't Be Merry

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has asked the Feds for permission to forbid food stamp recipients from using the vouchers to buy soda. Mayor Bloomberg, who has previously taken aim at cigarettes and transfats acids, sees the promotion of healthy lifestyles as part of his mandate, so this attempt to reduce sugar intake among the city's poor is not a wholly surprising move.



Let us stipulate that the government does have the right to do this. After all, the Department of Agriculture already forbids the use of food stamps to purchase tobacco or alcohol. There is something of a "beggars can't be choosers" quality to the proposition: These folks are recipients of public largesse, and the public thereby enjoys the right--if not the obligation--to impose certain conditions upon the recipients. Indeed, the very fact that food aid is distributed through vouchers--as opposed to cash--is an acknowledgment that the government has always sought to maintain some control over the items purchased with food stamps. Nevertheless, we find something unsavory about the mayor's proposition.



The proposal is hypocritical on two levels: First, and most obvious, it is hypocritical for any but the most fanatically disciplined eaters to cast stones at another's dietary choices. We would wager that the billionaire Mayor Bloomberg enjoys the occasional soda--to say nothing of beluga caviar and goose liver pate. And as much as solidly middle-class folk like Your Not So Humble Correspondent acknowledge the importance of eating right, we are hardly paragons of dietary rectitude. (Yes, we WOULD like fries with that, please.) What gives us the right to tut-tut the minor pleasures of others? Don't food stamp recipients have enough to worry about? Let the kid have a Dr. Pepper!



The second level of hypocrisy is more subtle. As we mentioned above, the whole premise of giving food stamps as opposed to cash subsidies rests on the idea that the government wants to ensure that food aid is used to buy food. As a result, some restrictions are a presumably necessary evil. But where do the restrictions stop? Certainly, forbidding the use of food stamps to buy tobacco makes sense: Aside from certain omelet dishes in the deepest South, tobacco does not qualify as a "food." Similarly, alcohol, while providing some calories, is of questionable nutritional value, and the government has some logical reasons for restricting alcohol use (preventing drunk driving, for example). Now, we propose restricting soda consumption because soda contributes to obesity and dental problems.



But why stop there? If the government truly wants to encourage healthy eating, why not impose more restrictions? Why not say that food stamps must be used only to buy the leanest cuts of meat? Fresh vegetables? Juice and water? For that matter, why have a voucher system at all? Why not simply mandate the type and amount of food that program participants can have and then distribute those supplies accordingly?



The reason, we assume, is that the government does not want to be seen as overly patriarchal. Program administrators want to convey the impression that they are interested solely in the public good, but that they trust the public to make the right choices when given the opportunity. Except they don't--trust the public, that is. Maybe they shouldn't. But why not just come out and say so.


************************************************


Serendipity watch:



On the same day that the article on food stamps appeared, one of the "Most Popular" e-mailed articles was all about the latest juvenile food craze: spaghetti tacos.Maybe One and a Half Cooks can publish a recipe?

(Images: soda from Water for Life Usa; spaghetti tacos from The New York Times.)