Your results:
You are Spider-Man
| You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility.  |
CDs listened to today:
- Per Norgard: Symphony No. 3
- Sam Phillips: Martinis & Bikinis
- Wolfgang Rihm: Jagden und Formen
Created with neither humility nor labor, this blog has no purpose. You should bring neither expectations nor critical faculties. Reading skills, however, may prove useful.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
I couldn't resist this. Spider-Man was always my favorite as a kid. I just wish I had "great power."
Your results:
You are Spider-Man
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz (hardly a requirement)
CDs listened to today:
Your results:
You are Spider-Man
CDs listened to today:
Friday, December 30, 2005
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Monday, December 26, 2005
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Friday, December 23, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
CDs listened to today:
- Benedict Mason: String Quartet No. 1
- Witold Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra
- Morcheeba: The Big Calm
- Sam Phillips: Fan Dance
- Marie Barker Nelson: Culinary Concerto for Clarinet
- Sam Phillips: The Indescribably Wow
- Wolfgang Rihm: Jagden und Formen
- Christopher Rouse: Concerto for Trombone (Christian Lindbergh, soloist)
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
CDs listened to today:
- Various Artists: Heartbeat Soukous
- Andrew Bird: Andrew Bird & The Mysterious Production of Eggs
- Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies (disk 1)
- Was/Not Was: What Up Dog?
- Luigi Nono: Como una ola de fuerza y luz
- Ludwig van Beethoven: The Piano Trios, disk 1
- Alice In Chains: Dirt
- Ted Leo & The Pharmacists: Shake The Sheets
- Alban Berg: Neun kurze Stucke fur Quartett, Sextett oder Violine und Klavier
Monday, December 12, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
I had lunch with my friend Andy today. We usually shoot the breeze and our conversations tend to be rambling, enjoyable affairs. Today was also enjoyable, but the conversation was a little more focused 'cause I had the need to hold forth on the state of healthcare in the United States.
I've been alternately concerned or alarmed about the topic for a few years now, but a recent news report I heard felt like a tipping point for me. I don't recall the source, but I think it was ABC News and the item was this:
46% of the children of Wal-Mart employees don't have health insurance and rely on public assistance for their health care.
To me, this amounts to a subsidy for the business. Our governments are paying to make up for the shortfall in wages and benefits offered by our friends from Little Rock. I imagine that other businesses are similarly taking advantage of the fact that they can offer deficient pay and rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference. I know my own employer employs contract personnel and those people don't get health insurance as part of their pay.
The problem is, the business might get off without the expense, but somebody pays when these folks are sick or hurt. that expense is made larger by the fact that these folks rarely get preventive care and only see a doctor when they can no longer avoid it, leaving chronic conditions unmanaged and more expensive in the end (that's a bit of an article of faith, but nobody seems to gainsay it). That greater cost is borne by us, the taxpayers.
Why don't we just go ahead and tax employers (head tax, perhaps), and then give every American a fixed health insurance subsidy. For example, $200/month that is transferred to the insurer of their choice. Everybody gets a fresh subsidy at their 18th birthday and everybody under 18 is covered under their parents' policy (with childrens' subsidies paid as well). Then we require every insurer to offer a health insurance policy for that basic subsidy rate. The insurers would not be permitted to refuse coverage for anyone, but could offer a competitive plan, so long as it met a minimum standard. In addition, people could pay extra in addition to the subsidy amount for better insurance or a supplemental policy. Insurers and health care organizations could compete however they wanted, withing that basic framework.
Meanwhile, the last presidential election was about the stupid war and they ignored the fact that nearly everybody is watching their health insurance costs skyrocket.
CDs listened to today:
I've been alternately concerned or alarmed about the topic for a few years now, but a recent news report I heard felt like a tipping point for me. I don't recall the source, but I think it was ABC News and the item was this:
46% of the children of Wal-Mart employees don't have health insurance and rely on public assistance for their health care.
To me, this amounts to a subsidy for the business. Our governments are paying to make up for the shortfall in wages and benefits offered by our friends from Little Rock. I imagine that other businesses are similarly taking advantage of the fact that they can offer deficient pay and rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference. I know my own employer employs contract personnel and those people don't get health insurance as part of their pay.
The problem is, the business might get off without the expense, but somebody pays when these folks are sick or hurt. that expense is made larger by the fact that these folks rarely get preventive care and only see a doctor when they can no longer avoid it, leaving chronic conditions unmanaged and more expensive in the end (that's a bit of an article of faith, but nobody seems to gainsay it). That greater cost is borne by us, the taxpayers.
Why don't we just go ahead and tax employers (head tax, perhaps), and then give every American a fixed health insurance subsidy. For example, $200/month that is transferred to the insurer of their choice. Everybody gets a fresh subsidy at their 18th birthday and everybody under 18 is covered under their parents' policy (with childrens' subsidies paid as well). Then we require every insurer to offer a health insurance policy for that basic subsidy rate. The insurers would not be permitted to refuse coverage for anyone, but could offer a competitive plan, so long as it met a minimum standard. In addition, people could pay extra in addition to the subsidy amount for better insurance or a supplemental policy. Insurers and health care organizations could compete however they wanted, withing that basic framework.
Meanwhile, the last presidential election was about the stupid war and they ignored the fact that nearly everybody is watching their health insurance costs skyrocket.
CDs listened to today:
- Dizzee Rascal: Boy In da Corner
- Howard Hanson: Symphony No. 7
- Jellyfish: Bellybutton
- Benedict Mason: Quartet No. 1
- Torbjorn Lundquist: Landscape for Tuba and Strings
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Monday, December 05, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
I pulled this quote from a web discussion on MySpace--some philosophy club or other. Interesting bit of calculation. the underlying assumption is that the only risk to execution is that we may kill murderers. Professor McAdams would seem to believe that the justice system is infallible and that the capitol punishment process never inadvertantly kills an innocent. The cost of his "former" proposition actually includes that risk as does the "latter." Now the cost is higher and his argument is specious and shallow.
CDs listened to today:
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
I pulled this quote from a web discussion on MySpace--some philosophy club or other. Interesting bit of calculation. the underlying assumption is that the only risk to execution is that we may kill murderers. Professor McAdams would seem to believe that the justice system is infallible and that the capitol punishment process never inadvertantly kills an innocent. The cost of his "former" proposition actually includes that risk as does the "latter." Now the cost is higher and his argument is specious and shallow.
CDs listened to today:
- Charles Wuorinen: Genesis
- Frederic Chopin: Nocturnes, disk 2
- Ben Folds Five: Whatever and Ever Amen
- Dizzee Rascal: Dizzee Rascal