All three kindof rock. I like Al Jolson’s the best. But Johnny Mathis is pretty great, too. Plus Mathis has the best acting. Best to all my friends and families for an easy and reflective holiday. I always find the caffeine deprivation the most difficult part.
Continue Reading…
Brutal Clinton-Trump exchange on ACA’s 1332 waiver thing
I’m sure many viewers found the detailed health policy conversation boring in Sunday night’s presidential debate. Trump’s waving off a question about Monica Lewinsky to name-check Dan Diamond’s Andy Slavitt interview didn’t go unnoticed among health wonks. Who knew that Trump was so into the details of MACRA or the various efforts to stabilize marketplace risk pools? I’ll have to do some digging to figure out if Trump got all the details right.
Oh, you watched a different debate? One in which one candidate evinced no basic familiarity with any aspect of health policy? And in which the other candidate was never asked what she might actually do to improve ACA’s challenges given the reality of a polarized Congress? This guy did, too, more here at healthinsurance.org
PS: bonus footage of Betsey McCaughey, the Trump campaign’s most visible health policy voice. (h/t @AllyRoche).
THIS. REALLY. JUST. HAPPENED. pic.twitter.com/LiTbQnMYrL
— ally (@AllyRoche) October 11, 2016
The new Berkeley Aquatic Center
At least every few months, the Intercollegiate Athletics (IA) enterprise at my school gives us something new to be ashamed of. This fall, it’s the opening of a new aquatic center, for about 120 letter athletes only, that commits a whole catalog of the typical sins of that firm [sic: it has it’s own .com website], and the injuries it inflicts on the university.
To start with, it’s in the wrong place, a large lot on a corner close to downtown that badly needs street activation, across the street from land uses (a track stadium and the existing aquatic center) that also don’t generate any foot traffic. The city fathers are furious that the university used this valuable lot for something that could have gone anywhere. For more on the location mistake, see Sam Davis’ takedown.
It has been touted, at a time when the cost of the IA program is attracting serious criticism, as being completely funded (about $15m) by the generous donors, and here we confront one of the most persistent qualities of IA, which is its insouciant, arrogant, mendacity, especially about money. A building like this needs to be cleaned, heated, repaired and maintained. It is actually rather expensive to keep a great big pool of water warm enough to swim in, outdoors in the climate of the Bay Area, and there are light bulbs to change, etc. A rule of thumb some institutions use for planning this is that maintaining a building requires an endowment approximately equal to the cost of the building itself. At 5% return on such an endowment, the new pool will cost the campus about $750K per year to keep the lights on and the doors open, or about four full professors. Those light bulbs and gas bills will be paid for with real money. You might think IA would pay for this, but that operation is already costing us about $30m a year in net subsidy, so even the part they might pay for directly just comes right back to the campus.
Completely funded by the donors? Let’s look at this again:
Donors gift (thank you) $7.5m
State and federal funds* 7.5m
Campus gift of land (10m)
Operation and maintenance (15m)
Total net ( $10m)
So “completely funded” actually means “paid less than a fifth of the cost, reached into our pocket and the taxpayers’ for about $17.5 million, and put a $750k/year tapeworm in our lunch.” Talk about leverage! Don’t you wish you could muscle your public agencies to house your hobbies at better than 5:1?
Just to add insult to injury, IA is going to give about a third of their exclusive time at our existing pool back to the other 40,000 citizens of the university for recreational use and physical education.
*the gift is a charitable deduction against state and federal income, and the donors are certainly in top brackets.
Liveblogging Trump-Clinton II
Summing up Maybe less one-sided than the first debate, but Clinton seemed to come out ahead once again. Halperin, who always says what is conventionally believed, says Clinton won on points but in any case Trump didn’t do nearly what he needed to in order to catch up. But probably good enough to prevent a complete melt-down.
10:13 Q to Trump from African-American audience member: will you be devoted to everyone?
Yes. NAFTA. Inner cities are a disaster. 45% poverty. Jobs are essentially non-existent. What do you have to lose? It can’t get any worse. All talk and no action. Nothing will change.
Clinton: I’m proud of 30 years of public service. Defending rights of minority children and disabled children. Lots of people are afraid they won’t have a place in Donald Trump’s America. 10-year-old adopted from Ethiopia afraid of being sent back. Trump effect on bullying.
Q to Clinton: “Deplorables.” Took it back within hours. “My argument is not with his supporters, but with him.” Trump has never apologized.
Trump: “We have a very divided nation.” Increase in murder. “Because people like her.” “She’s got tremendous hatred.”
Q to Trump: Self-discipline. How about tweeting out about a sex tape? A It wasn’t about a sex tape. Amb. Stevens sent 600 requests for help, and “she” only talked to Sidney Blumenthal. Tweeting is wonderful.
Q to Clinton: Does Trump have the discipline to be a good leader? No. And lots of other people say so, too. Brags about her husband’s economic record. Talks about working with GWB. Proud of work with Obama.
Audience question: Supreme Court justice.
Clinton: Need some more Justices with real-world experience. Citizens United. Voting rights. Stick with Roe v. Wade and marriage equality. Trump’s list includes people who would reverse both. Need a court that doesn’t always side with corporations. Too bad Senate hasn’t done its job with Merrick Garland.
Trump: Justice Scalia, great judge. Looking to appoint judges very much in his mold. Second Amendment. I’m self-funding. Why isn’t Hillary putting some of the money she made by exploiting her office?
Clinton: Respect Second Amendment, but background checks, closing gun-show/internet loophole.
Audience question: How to make us energy indepdenent while protecting environment and the jobs of fossil-fuel workers?
Trump: Clean coal. Obama is putting energy companies out of business. China is dumping steel. It’s a disgrace.
Clinton: China is dumping steel illegally, and you’re buying it. Need a trade prosecutor. Need to remain energy independent, but need to worry about global warming Clean energy superpower. Revitalize coal country. Those coal miners powered our country; I don’t want to walk away from them.
Last audience question: Can either of you name a positive thing you respect about one another?
Clinton: “I respect his children.” Moves from there to how important this election is.
Trump: “I’m very proud of my children.” Hillary doesn’t quit, doesn’t give up. I dislike what she’s fighting for, but that’s a good trait.
10:04 What about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?
It’s a disaster. Russia isn’t interested in fighting ISIS. They want to keep Assad in power. No-fly zone. Pressure on the Russians. “Russia has decided they’re all in in Syria, and they’ve also decided who they want as President of the United States. And it’s not me.” War crimes trials.
Trump: Red line in the sand. (Clinton interrupts to point out that she had left by then.) “Russia has gone wild with their nuclear program. Russia is new; we are old.” “She doesn’t even know who the rebels are.” “We wind up arming people, and we don’t even know who they are.” [Still snuffling.] Iran deal. “I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS, Russia is killing ISIS, Iran is killing ISIS.” Moderator reminds Trump of what Pence said about military action in Syria. Trump says he hasn’t talked with Pence, but he disagrees.”
Q What will happen if Aleppo falls? “It’s already fallen.” Why did we telegraph our punch on Mosul? How stupid is our country? Moderator says the military has reasons for doing those things. Trump says he has generals and Medal of Honor winners supporting him. Patton and MacArthur wouldn’t be pleased.
Q to Clinton: Nothing is working. Would you use American ground forces?
A: No. Don’t want to be an occupying force. Enablers, trainers, Special Forces, are different.
Q: What would you do differently? A: By the time Obama leaves, we might well have taken Mosul. Points out that we announce targets as part of a strategy to rally locals to our side. Arm the Kurds. [Remarkably competent-sounding answer.]
[Trump bitching about the moderators not being nice to him.]
9:54 Q from the audience to Trump: what provisions in the tax code would you change to make the wealthy pay their fair share? A Carried interest. Hillary was a Senator; she should have changed all those things. I will cut middle-class taxes; Clinton will raise them.
[When Clinton speaks, Trump scowls horridly. When Trump speaks, Clinton smiles serenely.]
Clinton: Trump lies again.
His tax cuts would give the rich even more than Bush’s, and hit the middle class.
I’ve pledged that no one who makes $250,000 or less will have a tax increase.
Buffet rule. Surtax over $5M. “People like Donald who pay zero in taxes …”
Q to Trump: Did you use that tax loss to avoid federal income tax? A: Of course I did. Moderator wants to press him on whether he ever paid personal income tax, but he ducks. Accuses Hillary of want to keep the carried-interest loophole. Why didn’t Hillary do anything about it in 30 years? All talk, no action. Sanders: bad judgment. Syria, Iraq.
Clinton points out a Senator can’t change the tax laws alone. Trump says if she’d been more effective she could have done it. Clinton responds that the Constitution gives the President a veto. Then launches in to a bio of her accomplishments. “For thirty years, I’ve produced results.”
Trump gets tired of interrupting Clinton, starts interrupting moderators.
9:49 Q from the audience to Clinton, from WikiLeaks: You said you need to have a public and private face. Should politicians be two-faced? Clinton replies that she was describing Lincoln’s strategy in passing the Thirteenth Amendment, using different arguments with different audiences.
Then doubles back on WikiLeaks and Russian hacking. Why do the Russians want Trump become President? Trump should release his tax returns.
Trump: She lied, and she’s blaming the lie on Lincoln. “I don’t know Putin. It would be nice to get along with Russia.” “They” blame everything on Russia. I have no loans with Russia. Balance sheet. Audit. Other people took massive deductions: Soros, Buffet.
9:39 Q from audience: there are 3.3 million Muslims in the country. How are you going to deal with Islamophobia.
A from Trump: There’s a reason for Islamophobia. Muslims need to report evil people. “Radical Islamic terrorism.”
Clinton: Yes, there’s Islamophobia. Trump Muslim-baits. We’ve had Muslims in this country since George Washington. Inclusive community. What Trump says is dangerous. We need American Muslims to help us against terrorists. We need Islamic countries to help us against jihadists.
Q to Trump: You called for a Muslim ban. Pence says no. Was that a mistake?
A: Captain Khan would still be alive if I were President. Shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. Policy morphed to “extreme vetting.” Moderator tries to ask about how that morphing happened. Trump doesn’t respond. Hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria.
Q to Clinton: You’ve called for more Syrian refugees. Vetting isn’t perfect. Why take the risk?
A I won’t let anyone in I think is dangerous. Vetting as tough as it needs to be. Four-year-old Syrian with blood on his forehead. How does a country based on religious freedom impose a religious test on visitors? If you look at terrorist websites, they use Trump’s word. Points out that Trump is lying about the war in Iraq. He lies some more.
Trump: Criminal illegal aliens. Home countries won’t take them back; Clinton acquiesced. I’ll force them back. Drugs pouring across the border at an unprecedented clip. She doesn’t understand the border. Wants amnesty for everyone.
9:25 Moderator to Clinton: what about the emails? Clinton apologizes, insists she always treated classified information seriously. Trump says she didn’t know what “c” meant. 33,000 emails.
Trump interrupting. Moderator points out that Clinton didn’t interrupt him. Trump snarks back.
Question from the audience: Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is not affordable. What will you do about it? Clinton agrees Obamacare needs fixing, says it needs fixing to rein in costs. But not by repealing it. 20 million people now have insurance who didn’t. Everyone who gets employer insurance also gets big benefits: no pre-existing conditions, no lifetime cap, no sex discrimination, kids can be insured up to age 26. If we repeal Obamacare, as Trump wants to do, all that gets wiped out.
Trump: Obamacare will explode in 2017. “Their approach” is to go back to Congress for more money. Repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive. Cross-state insurance markets. “She” wants to go to single-payer, like Canada.
Q to Clinton: Was Bill wrong to say Obamacare is a crazy system? A: No, we’re stuck with employer-based insurance, which isn’t ideal. Need to fix Obamacare.
Trump: Everything is broken about Obamacare. Sanders said Clinton had bad judgment; this shows it. Competition will solve the pre-existing condition problem. The whole thing was a fraud. We’re going to block-grant Medicaid to take care of people without funds.
9:00 Made it home just in time.
First question from the audience: last week’s debate should have been R-rated? Are you providing a good model for children?
Clinton: We’re great because we’re good. Here’s my laundry list. I want to be a President for all Americans, heal the country.
Trump: “I agree with everything she said.” This is a great country. Make America Great Again. Obamacare. Iran deal. [Utterly ignoring the question, as Clinton mostly did.] Trade. Law and order. We need justice. Making our inner cities better for blacks and Latinos.
Moderator tries to bring it back to the question. Links it to Trump’s tape. Calls it sexual assault. Does he understand that. Trump shrugs it off. “Locker-room banter.” ISIS. (?) Moderator tries to nail him again: did you kiss or grope women without their consent. Trump ducks and weaves, finally says “No I have not.” Back to his rant.
Over to Clinton. I’ve disagreed with previous Republican candidates, but never thought them unfit. Donald is different. “I think it’s clear to anyone who heard it it that it represents exactly who he is.” Hammers Trump’s sexism. Segues to nativism, racism, hostility to POWs, people with disabilities, Muslims. America is great because we are good. We will celebrate our diversity.
Trump wants to respond. “It’s just words, folks.” Inner cities are a disaster in every way possible. Hillary has done a terrible job “for the African-Americans.” [He’s sniffing again.] Moderator cuts him off.
Question from FB. “Trump says the campaign has changed him. How was that?” Moderator adds: have you kept doing what you were doing at age 59? “Locker-room talk.” Bill Clinton was worse. [Still sniffing.] Trump has the victim whose rapist Hillary defended in the audience, along with three people he says were Bill Clinton’s victims. “I think she should be ashamed of yourself, if you want to know the truth.”
Clinton quotes Michelle Obama: “When they go low, you go high.” Everyone can draw his own conclusions about whether the man in the video, or the man on the stage, respects women or not.” On to the Khans and Judge Curiel and the disabled reporter and birtherism. “He owes the President an apology, he owes the country apology.” Accuses Clinton of having started birtherism. Obama made rude campaign ads against Clinton, in “an election you lost fair and square,” by contrast with having beaten Sanders “not fair and square.” [still snuffling] 33,000 e-mails. “I hate to say it,” but if President I’m going to have the Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor.
[If you had any worries that Trump would turn over a new leaf, relax.]
Clinton says it’s good we don’t have someone with Trump’s temperament in charge of the law in this country. Trump says “Because you’d be in jail.” His fans in the crowd cheer raucously, against the rules.
Southwest Chicagoland, as viewed from my Southwest window seat
It’s fun to carry one’s camera on a routine airline flight. These are just mundane photos of the southwest Chicago suburbs approaching Midway Airport on Tuesday afternoon. Lightroom’s “dehazing” feature is especially enjoyable.
These pictures also remind us of the amazing scale of civil engineering we easily take for granted.
Continue Reading…The Paris Agreement enters into force
As of today (7 October) 76 signatories have ratified the Paris Agreement, well over the 55 required. The European Union ratified on October 5th, along with seven of its member states (Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia). Counting just these seven, that takes the percentage of declared emissions comfortably over the 55% required. The Agreement will therefore enter into force on November 4th, in time for the next assembly of the parties to the framework Rio treaty in Marrakesh, and also for the US elections.
This news will not change anybody’s assessment of the value of the Agreement. If it’s well-meaning hot air, entry ino force does not make it effective. But if like me you think it is an epochal achievement, entry into force – with nearly unprecedented speed, only the original UN Charter having been faster – is a historic moment.
Now for the work.
Your morning pick-me-up
Weekend Film Recommendation: Bone Tomahawk
For a few years now, Keith and I have made a point of running a themed month of horror films during October. We’re kicking off horror season this year with an utterly ghoulish and gory flick that is guaranteed to leave you feeling queasy. Think Eli Roth gets lost in the Wild West, and you’ll be on track to understand S. Craig Zahler’s debut film Bone Tomahawk. Continue Reading…
FOX News actually broadcast this
Unbelievable, even for the O’Reilly Factor.
Jiayang Fan provides better analysis than I can here.
Giving management a bad name
My graduate school at UC Berkeley has raised some funds and we are embarking on a new building. This morning a group of staff and I met to kick off the programming process, the critical stage in which what we want to do in our new space, and how we want to do it, gets translated into something we can give an architect to start with. Inevitably, this needs to specify named functional spaces with sizes along with narrative material describing how we want to do our work.
There is an office high up in our organization chart called “Space Management and Capital Programs”. As an architect who has been at the intersection of building users and designers more than once, I would welcome guidance from such a unit such as “How to decide whether you want cubicles plus a lot of small conference rooms, or private offices” or “New options for classroom design: thinking outside the lecture hall box.” No such luck; instead we were provided this remarkable document, new since our last building project more than a decade ago (that has been widely admired as a big success). Apparently the campus administration intends it to be regulatory, not advisory. Not surprisingly, no-one was willing to put his or her name on such an ill-informed, incompetent exercise of mindless bureaucratic pound-foolishness.
The authors obviously hail from a ruthlessly hierarchical private sector culture, where the size of one’s workspace must precisely indicate one’s place in a pecking order. One would think the right question would be “how much value would an additional square foot of space for someone doing job X add to the organization”, but one would be wrong. Professors are all alike (not to be confused with adjuncts and lecturers, who do more teaching and actually meet with more students in office hours), they all do the same thing, and what bricks and mortar are for is to indicate precisely how much better and more important they are (50%) than than the staffer who manages their research funds or gets students enrolled in their courses.
This document describes a world in which all meetings are held in the office of the senior person attending, are populated in proportion to his rank, and in which peers never need to collaborate; don’t even ask about faculty meetings with student groups. That is not the world we live in, Mr. Space Management bean counter.
The rigidity of this absurd effort by central administration to tell us how to do our jobs — jobs that differ widely across individuals, departments, and units — and its insistence that we use the precious resource of physical space to pointlessly signal status are not, however, the worst part of this fiasco. The worst part is its relentless, insistent, ignorance of the real benefit-cost facts that reasonable people would use to make decisions like, duh, “how big should whose office be?” I railed about this a few years ago, and see no reason to revise the analysis. All of these standards are — put aside their mindless rigidity — much too stringent. Building space by these rules sabotages everything we do, from research to student learning. If there is such a thing as government waste, and abuse of personnel and citizens, this is what it looks like.
I haven’t seen the corresponding classroom design standards document, if there is one, but I await its appearance with real alarm.
We are currently under really severe financial pressure owing in part to some reckless, foolhardy, and uninformed investments in intercollegiate athletics facilities and in part to our failure to educate our legislature about how central higher education is to the welfare of the state, now and in its future. One meme constantly rolling through our discussions is that our senior administrators seem to be paid an awful lot, and there seem to be more and more of them. I teach management and I do not tolerate mindless disrespect for public officials and people who make organizations work, but a document like this is a problem for me, because it makes a prima facie case that at least some of those very well-paid senior administrators suck at what they do.
It’s apparently news to at least some of our managers that the purpose of overhead agencies and administrators is not to save money! If that’s what we are about, we can just shut down and save it all. Guess what, folks: your job is to help shop-floor workers create the most possible value for the resources we consume, and when you get this mixed up, you do a lot of damage. And another thing: this is a research university, and our duty to society is not to see what everyone else is doing and copy it (“based on …space guidelines from other higher education institutions and the private sector”), it is to learn from others (of course), and do our own thinking and push boundaries of habit and convention. If you don’t like that duty, please go work somewhere else, and if we’re stuck with you, well, I’ll quote Randy Newman:
“…if you won’t take care of us
Won’t you please, please let us be?”