Doctors willing to say that the electronic medical record emperors have no clothes

“Death By A Thousand Clicks: Leading Boston Doctors Decry Electronic Medical Records” (WBUR) gives the practitioners’ perspective on our country’s trillion-dollar(?) investment in computerized medical records (how do we get to $1 trillion when a typical hospital seldom spends more than $100 million on the initial implementation of a system?; I’m factoring in years of typing by personnel as well as the ongoing support and service costs for these IT systems; we’ll get to $1 trillion soon enough!).

My perspective on this has always been that most of the value of a DBMS comes from situations where comparisons across records have a lot of value. So an electronic medical record (EMR) would be most valuable if a doctor treating Patient A wanted to see what happened with Patients B through Z or what happened with all patients having the same condition who were treated in that hospital. These turn out not to be common queries.

Are we budgeting to pull out of this financial dive when full artificial intelligence is developed? An AI assistant will listen to a doctor or nurse speaking and then fill out the screens of a $100 million electronic health record system that has its technological roots in the 1960s?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Medical School 2020, Year 1, Week 33

Auditory week began at 8:00 am with some classmates upset because the room was different than stated on the shared Google Calendar that is our primary source of scheduling information: “Ugh, now I have to pack all my things up.” We moved across the hall and Doctor J tried to reassure the class by promising it wouldn’t happen again.

The ear is involved in hearing and balance. The pinna (outer ear flap, also called auricle) funnels sound into the ear canal to strike the tympanic membrane. On the other side of the tympanic membrane is the middle ear, an air-filled cavity that is connected to the oral cavity through the eustachian tube. We practiced using otoscopes on each other in a clinical workshop led by a female otolaryngologist in her 40s. It hurt! Every few minutes we would hear a shrieking “ouch”. The worst was when a student from one group hastily grabbed a new tip to practice the technique lurched over and hit another group’s otoscope wielder. The otoscope twisted in the student’s ear. Despite these mishaps, we learned a great deal. After you get past the ear wax and hair, the tympanic membrane comes into view. The malleus, one of the three ossicles (ear bones), is attached at the umbo, a small white spot near the center of the tympanic membrane. In a normal ear you can see the pale outline of the malleus through the transparent membrane.

The otolaryngologist went over some commonly diagnosed ailments using the otoscope. A more opaque tympanic membrane suggests fluid, instead of air, is behind the tympanic membrane in the middle-ear. The fluid is typically from a middle-ear infection, which can cause temporary hearing loss and pain. She explained that we can also diagnose pierced ear drums and grossly malformed ossicles. A student asked, “What are the common procedures you do?” The answer was removing the broken ends of Q-tips from the ear canal. He followed up with “Do ENTs promote the use of Q-tips for business reasons?” She laughed and responded, “Oh, God, no! Those visits are so boring.” Her passion is performing cochlear implants to restore hearing in children (see below).

When a sound wave hits the tympanic membrane, the membrane transmits the vibration to the the ossicles. The malleus (“hammer”) rotates the incus (“anvil”), which in turn displaces the stapes (“stirrup”). The stapes is the interface between the middle ear and the cochlea, a fluid-filled, snail-shaped bone of the inner ear. The stapes lies in the oval window, described as a “bony defect” of the inner ear, that interfaces the stapes with the encapsulated fluid (note that if you didn’t have this “defect” you wouldn’t be able to hear). The stapes transmits the mechanical energy to propagate a pressure wave through the tube to the exit at the round window (a “bony defect” of the inner ear interfacing with the air-filled middle ear). The cochlea is U-shaped, with the oval window opening into the scala vestibuli. The 360-degree turn is called the heliotrema, and the scala tympani ends at the round window.

The two divisions of the tube (scala tympani and scala vestibuli) are separated by a space, the scala media, another fluid-filled tube. This turns out to be the actual source of all hearing sensation. The scala media changes in thickness along the length of the tube, making it sensitive to different sound frequencies. For example, one frequency might lead to a high pressure in the scala vestibuli 1 mm from the oval window, and a low pressure in the scala tympani 1 mm from the round window. This signal would cause the scala media at this region to bend towards the scala tympani. Along the length of the scala media are hair cells, receptors that excite neurons when the scala media deforms as little as a few nanometers. The sensation of sound occurs when signals travel through the brain stem into the primary auditory cortex, part of the surface of the brain that happens to be near the ears. A cochlear implant works by turning the varying voltage from a microphone into nerve signals corresponding to what would have been the movements of the hair cells.

As will become important in the patient case below, the scala media is continuous with another fluid-filled bone, the vestibular apparatus, an accelerometer critical for balance. This tube is divided into three thin canals (sensing rotation) and two sacs (sensing linear acceleration). Due to inertia, the fluid inside the tube will tend to stay put as the head moves, enabling hair cells to sense a change in pressure within any of the five compartments.

I ate lunch outside with Straight-Shooter Sally. She is the first person in her family to go to college, let alone medical school. Her father is a mechanic. She worked for three years after college as a social worker with adolescent drug addicts in a poor urban neighborhood. “These kids quickly get involved with the drug scene,” explained Sally, “Drugs are the easiest avenue to create friend groups and to avoid attack by the gangs. When kids get arrested they are given the option of going to juvy or rehab. Everyone choses rehab.” Does rehab work? “Every summer I would come back and see the same kids. It was a revolving door and we did not have any tools to make a difference. The three-month rehab was nothing for them. Their father went to jail for three years—what’s rehab speaking to a counselor for a few months?” She continued, “These kids go to failing schools, come home to disorganized families, and the only thing they aspire to is what they see in the community. The drug dealers are the ones who have the snazzy cars, women, and money.” She concluded, “I don’t know the answer, but these kids need help—education, role-models, jobs, anything. Counseling was not going to solve it. I had to get out of there.” She switched jobs and became a health coordinator before starting medical school at age 28.

Our patient case: Giorgio, a 50-year-old salesman who developed right ear pressure and diminished hearing after an evening shower. When he woke up, his ear felt like it was about to “pop” and he had lost all hearing on that side. Two common tests with tuning forks, the Rhine and Weber tests, suggested that the hearing loss was due to a sensory-neuronal deficit rather than a conduction deficit. In other words, he had damage to the hair cells, cochlear nerve, or brain cortex, rather than a mechanical blocked ear or perforated tympanic membrane. An MRI revealed an acoustic schwannoma, a non-malignant tumor of the supporting Schwann cells of the vestibulocochlear nerve as it exits the internal acoustic meatus into the cranial cavity. The tumor had begun to squeeze the cochlear nerve. “Most acoustic schwannomas grow less than one millimeter per year,” said the neurologist. “Some years they just lay dormant. For whatever reason, they might spike for a few months then go back into a dormant state.” Georgio’s tumor was removed by a surgical resection through a retrosigmoid craniotomy approach (incision behind the ear).

The neurosurgeon (not Giorgio’s surgeon) explained the risks. “It all depends if the tumor has facial nerve involvement.” The facial nerve exits the cranial cavity in the same hole, the internal acoustic meatus, as the vestibulocochlear nerve. If you touch these fibers, it can lead to ipsilateral facial paralysis.” During the surgery they insert electrodes into the facial nerve to verify, after each layer of tumor is removed, normal conduction from the surgical site to the facial muscles. “There is not a consensus on whether the whole tumor should be removed if there is facial nerve involvement. If you can get, say, eighty percent of the tumor, you might be able to resolve the hearing deficients and decrease the risk of facial nerve damage. But, the tumor could slowly grow back.” My classmates and I watched a Youtube video on the surgery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBE5rQ7B0Ls). “This is wild,” exclaimed an aspiring female surgeon.

Giorgio underwent a full resection. He quickly regained most of his hearing. “I have worse hearing in my right ear, especially in the higher frequencies. For the most part, I hear fine.” He does have persistent tinnitus (ear ringing). “Right now, focusing on it, I hear it, but I get used to it.” He experienced terrible balance issues for months after the surgery. “I had to completely relearn how to walk. My whole balance seemed to have just reset to a new normal. I was completely dependent of my family for three months.” He also experienced a poorly healing wound on the skull behind the ear. “I was taking airline trips for my job with an open wound on my head. Not the most sanitary environment. One day in the car, my wife looked at my wound, and forced me to go see a plastic surgeon.” The plastic surgeon performed a skin graft to revascularize the infected wound. The wound healed shortly thereafter. The neurosurgeon added, “I see these occasionally. It’s not a petrid, ozzy infection. It’s a lingering infection.” Despite this complication, Giorgio was very satisfied with his care. He is slowly getting back into playing competitive tennis, although he still experiences balance issues.

We learned that Giorgio immigrated to the US as a student. He still maintains citizenship from his Scandinavian birthplace. A classmate asked what kind of treatment he would have received under the socialized medicine system of his birth country. “Completely differently,” explained Giorgio. “I would not have been allowed to get operated on. If it is not considered life-threatening or malignant they would not pay for it.” One classmate, a Canadian citizen and US green card holder joked, “I keep my Canadian citizenship for a Get Out of Jail Free card. If I get cancer, I’m packing my bags and heading to Canada.”

I shadowed my physician mentor for an afternoon. It was a busy day so he saw some patients without my assistance. In 4 hours, I saw 7 of the 14 patients. The first patient was a 45-year-old gentleman, overweight but certainly not obese, presenting for follow-up after hospitalization with a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA). He was in disbelief after losing half of his left foot (including the toes) due to a foot ulcer. The physician delved into how he was managing his diabetes. His last sugar readings were off the chart and from over a year ago. He had not been taking his medications for several months. “It was too expensive,” he explained. This was typical of our patients who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford Obamacare health insurance. Our patient’s motivation: “I will do anything you tell me. Just let me have two legs when I see my thirteen-year-old son graduate college.”

The next patient was a thirty-year-old mother presenting for follow-up for a prescription opioid refill indicated for joint pain. We informed her that the state has a new law requiring an annual recreational drug test for prescription opioid recipients. She responded, “Yeah, I smoke weed.” She will come back in six weeks for her drug screen. The physician told me that this doesn’t always work out: “One of my patients failed the drug test for marijuana. I gave him a second chance six weeks later. He remarkably tested clean for weed… but positive for cocaine.” He did not get the refill. My attending also mentioned that these new rules will be costly for patients. “Insurance companies generally do not pay for drug screening. Patients have to pay $200 out-of-pocket unless they’re on Medicaid.”

The next two patients, a 40-year-old man and a 70-year-old woman, both presented for follow-up due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Both smoked a pack a day. The doctor told each, “If you keep this up, you will eventually be on oxygen.” Both had

Full post, including comments

Family law (divorce, custody, child support) summer media round-up

Barbara Whitehead’s The Divorce Culture (1996), quoted in “A Brief History of Divorce in America”:

Before the mid-1960s, divorce was viewed as a legal, family, and social event with multiple stakeholders; after that time, divorce became an individual event defined by and responsive to the interests of the individual. … divorce moves from the domain of the society and the family into the inner world of the self.

Let’s take a look at some articles readers have sent in this season and compare them against the above-noted trend.

“11 Questions to Ask Before Getting a Divorce” (nytimes). The word “children” appears twice in the article, published by a newspaper in a winner-take-all jurisdiction (see the New York chapter), and once it is in the sentence “If there are children, who will take the lead in keeping track of their activities calendar?” (not, “How will they go to college if 100 percent of the family’s savings are spent on divorce litigation?”). The paper tells adult readers that the important stuff is adult happiness and emotions: “Do you still love him or her?”; “Would you really be happier without your partner?”; “What is your biggest fear in ending the relationship?”; “Are you letting the prospect of divorce ruin your self-image?” There seems to be no question that if one adult can become happier or better off, a unilateral (initiated by one partner against the other partner’s wishes) divorce is a good idea. Part of the “better off” calculation is financial and the Times wisely advises people considering suing for divorce to meet with financial advisors and litigators, with the implication that it might make sense to stay married if divorce isn’t sufficiently lucrative.

The cash aspects of family law are buried pretty deep in the Times article. Perhaps New Yorkers aren’t mindful of the cash implications? “Hamptons bachelors are getting vasectomies so golddiggers can’t trap them” (New York Post) suggests that perhaps at least some are (maybe the Post and the Times are actually in two different cities that share a name?). Some excerpts:

“There’s a spike in single guys” who get the procedure in spring and early summer, said Dr. David Shusterman, a urologist in Midtown.

“They don’t want to be in the situation of being accused of fathering an unwanted baby,” said Dr. Joseph Alukal, a urologist at NYU. “That’s their fear — being told you’re paying for this kid until it’s [an adult].”

“This extortion happens all the time. Women come after them. [They get pregnant and] want a ransom payment,” said Shusterman. “Some guys do an analysis of the cost — for three days of discomfort [after a vasectomy], it’s worth millions of dollars to them.

“It’s not that they don’t want kids [someday],” he said. “They don’t want kids on other people’s terms.”

Manhattan matrimonial attorney Ira Garr said of such unplanned, paternity cases: “I deal with this every year. There’s potential to [have to] pay out a lot of money.”

Child support is 17 percent of the father’s salary up to $400,000, after which the amount is at a judge’s discretion, according to Garr. For someone who makes $1 million a year, Garr estimates annual payments of $100,000 — a total of $2.1 million until the child turns 21. Meanwhile, a vasectomy is typically covered by insurance or costs $1,000 out of pocket. [see also Burning Man: Attitudes toward marriage and children for a quote from a man who considers the internal rate of return on a vasectomy]

Here’s a detail I’m pretty sure that the New York Times won’t be covering…

She offered to dispose of the used condom, but when she was in the bathroom for a while, John got suspicious. He found the woman seated on the toilet and inserting his semen inside of her.

[One thing I learned on my most recent trip across the Atlantic: the above situation is covered in an annual lecture to schoolboys at an elite English “public school”, complete with references to caselaw in which an appeals court held that a plaintiff’s entitlement to child support was not impaired by her use of “a syringe”. (See also the Boris Becker case in our chapter on England, et al.)]

This obituary of a divorce lawsuit defendant (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) is a dog-bites-man story (see the “Children, Mothers, and Fathers” chapter for some statistics on the correlation between being an American divorce lawsuit defendant and committing suicide). Nonetheless it is interesting that a mainstream U.S. newspaper would publish it. Excerpts (daughter’s name elided for privacy):

The cardiologist, researcher and educator at UPMC devoted his life to curing disease, doting on his children and making life better for those less fortunate. … After spending the first half of his life in a communist country, Dr. Nemec built what most would consider a successful life, admired by his colleagues and patients and an expert in complicated heart procedures.

But, even in the face of this happy and accomplished existence, Dr. Nemec refused to submit to what he saw as oppression and took his own life at his Swissvale home on May 8. He was 54.

Dr. Nemec’s daughter, …, 25, a psychologist from Sydney, Australia, said her father wasn’t depressed, but chose to end his life rather than pay nearly half of his annual income for spousal support as he was ordered to do in a recent divorce order.

What courts in Minnesota — where her mother filed for divorce four years ago — saw as fairness, he saw as injustice that he could not tolerate, said [the daughter], who received an email from her father on the day after he died, detailing his heartbreaking decision.

“He was always very, very anti-communist. This was definitely about his moral principles,” [the daughter] said. “He thought this was a poorly designed system and just didn’t want to be a part of it and would rather give the money to a worthy cause.”

[Illustrating the critical importance of venue, note that Dr. Nemec’s plaintiff wouldn’t have suffered any financial hardship from her defendant’s suicide had she lived in Massachusetts. The family courts there would have ordered the cardiologist to purchase life insurance with his plaintiff as the beneficiary. She actually would have been better off as a result of his death because she would have gotten all of her alimony entitlement in one lump sum. Note further that Dr. Nemec would have been better off (and perhaps still married) if he had stayed in almost any European country (not the U.K., though) due to the fact that the financial incentives for divorce plaintiffs are comparatively limited there. If he had been determined to emigrate to the U.S., he would probably still be alive if he’d read Real World Divorce and settled in a state that disfavors alimony (e.g., Alaska) or simply doesn’t offer it (Indiana).]

Meanwhile, in Italy the courts have essentially done away with alimony (Business Standard; see also The Local), bringing that country into line with where Germany went in 2009 (with child support limited to less than $6,000 per year, the only way to make a profit from marriage in Germany is to stay married).

Full post, including comments

Watch the Great American Eclipse of 2017 from a light airplane?

North Americans will enjoy a total eclipse on August 21 (will my Facebook friends blame this one on Trump?).

Supposedly hotels along the route are fully booked already.

What’s wrong with this idea…

  • reserve an air-conditioned Cirrus SR22 from East Coast Aero Club (the plane is fast enough to get anywhere in the Continental U.S. within one long day of flying; A/C will help with the fact that the eclipse arrives during a summer afternoon)
  • watch the weather forecast a few days in advance and plan to fly to a location that is forecast to be free of clouds, thunderstorms, etc.
  • land the night before at an airport about 100 miles away from the centerline (should be easy to find a hotel; 100 statute miles takes about 40 minutes to cover in an SR22)
  • fly at about 6000′ into the eclipse centerline with autopilot engaged
  • watch eclipse from the reasonably panoramic windows
  • twist autopilot knob to return to Bedford, Massachusetts

?

Nashville seems to be about the closest point along the route of the eclipse. It is 800 nm from our home airport. That’s about 5 hours of flight time in an SR22, depending on the winds. So if Nashville were clear the above could all be done in one moderately brutal day (maybe stop in scenic Pittsburgh on the way back?).

[Of course nothing beats flying commercial. JetBlue departs Boston at 7:40 am to land at BNA at 9:23 and then returns at 6:30 pm for $533 per-person round-trip. On the third hand, a reservation to Nashville won’t be of much use if the weather turns out to be cloudy on August 21.]

Related:

Full post, including comments

Paris agreement debacle shows that we don’t need the Great Father in Washington as much as we thought?

The Great Father in Washington has withdrawn from the Paris agreement. Investors are so terrified about the Earth turning into Venus that the S&P 500 is up 1.75 percent in the last month.

For those of us who advocate for a smaller and/or more decentralized U.S. government, I wonder if this embarrassing spectacle has a silver lining. “Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord” (nytimes):

Representatives of American cities, states and companies are preparing to submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate accord, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

A lot of cities and nearly all of our states have a larger population than the world’s median-sized country (about 5.5 million). Most have lavishly funded governments (sometimes so lavish that they need to declare bankruptcy!). It now transpires that they don’t need the Great Father in Washington to make a diet pledge on their behalf. (In retrospect perhaps this should have been obvious. If Denmark and Greece can independently set their CO2 output, why not Indiana and Florida?

Readers: Could this reverse some of the trend toward Americans looking to the federal government to solve all of their problems? Could it actually be more effective in reducing CO2 emissions? (People are more likely to comply with a pledge made locally with their neighbors rather than one made by a politician thousands of miles away?)

Full post, including comments

Short Shake Shack?

Shake Shack in Harvard Square hasn’t been adapting well to the higher Massachusetts minimum wage, which was $8/hour when they opened in 2014 and is now 37.5 percent higher ($11/hour as of January 1, 2017).

First they cut their late-night hours.

On Saturday night we went there with another family. The trash can next to the front door was overflowing. The line was long (positive sign for investors) but there were a lot of empty tables, suggesting that the long line was more about slow service than high volume. (It took about 20 minutes for them to make our “fast food”.) My friend took her daughter to the bathroom and reported no toilet paper in any of three stalls plus a “disgusting” overflowing trash can. Another mom commented “You would never see anything like this at McDonald’s.” The handful of workers that were in the restaurant were charging pretty hard to keep up. The inability to empty trash cans or service restrooms seemed to be due to a lack of sufficient staff. (And in fact, it would be economically irrational for anyone in Massachusetts to work for less than about $24/hour (2013 data; see Table 3) if there were a way to collect welfare instead.)

As minimum wage trends up to $15/hour and labor force participation consequently trends down toward Puerto Rican levels, is a business like Shake Shack especially vulnerable? Their business is more labor-intensive than McDonald’s. They operate on a smaller scale so they can’t invest in robots as efficiently as McDonald’s can. They can’t raise prices too much before people notice that actually the fries are a lot better at McDonald’s.

I was impressed with Shake Shack as a business (see my 2015 posting), but now I think that I didn’t appreciate how vulnerable they were to higher labor costs. I guess the market is smarter than I am because the stock has done poorly compared to the S&P 500. The gross and operating margins don’t seem to follow any pattern from year to year, but the major push for higher minimum wages is fairly recent.

Readers: What do you think? Is this one headed to zero?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Is the market being rational regarding wages for women?

Back in 2010, in “MIT failing to meet its race-based hiring quotas“, I wrote the following:

If a professor of a particular sex or race has more value to the school, why shouldn’t he or she be paid more than a white or Asian male?

Companies express unhappiness about the number of female executives on staff. Why don’t they just offer higher salaries to attract and retain women? The Wall Street Journal suggests that this may in fact be happening. From “Though Outnumbered, Female CEOs Earn More Than Male Chiefs”:

… female chief executives at some of the largest U.S. companies repeatedly outearn their male counterparts. Last year, 21 female CEOs received a median compensation package of $13.8 million, compared with the $11.6 million median for 382 male chiefs, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of S&P 500 leaders who held the job a full year. Women in the corner offices of the biggest U.S. firms made more money than men in six of the last seven years…

Three out of 10 of the highest-paid CEOs are women, two at tech companies (Meg Whitman at HP; Ginni Rometty at IBM).

The option packages are kind of interesting. Ginni Rometty has 10-year options where some are at a strike price of 25 percent above the current IBM stock price. Assuming that IBM’s stock price remains constant, in real dollars, she gets nothing from these options in a static or deflationary environment. If there is a lot of inflation, however, her options will be worth a fortune. (See also the “Profits from Marriage and Child Support Depend Heavily on Inflation Rates” section within the Quirks chapter.)

Readers: What do you think? Does the higher pay of a sought-after category of worker show that the market is working? Or does the higher pay simply reflect that particular women are doing an awesome job (see HP and IBM versus the S&P 500 during Whitman’s and Rometty’s terms as CEO)? Or in a world where salaries are set by golfing buddies on the Board, is it nonsensical to talk about market pay?

Full post, including comments

Is it time to invest in Greece? (not the bonds, though)

“Greek debt rallies to 2014 highs after key budget target hits 4.2% surplus” (Financial Times) says “Greece’s primary budget surplus – which measures the country’s public finances when excluding debt repayments – hit 4.2 per cent last year, swinging dramatically from a deficit and far outperforming a creditor target of 0.5 per cent for 2016.”

So the Greeks are actually spending a little less than they collect in taxes? And the creditors are demanding that they keep this up? But if they keep this up they will never need to borrow again, right? So why wouldn’t they default on the old debt and just keep the surplus for themselves?

What do folks think? Is it time to invest in Greek assets (other than the bonds on which it would seem to make sense for them to default)?

Full post, including comments

Why is Trump bothering to withdraw from (or even mention) the Paris climate deal?

According to my Facebook friends, the world is ending yet again. A few months ago it was Jew-hatred, inspired by the Trumpenfuhrer (see “Donald Trump is threatening Jews?“) and manifested as phone calls to Jewish schools and community centers. Now that the perpetrators turn out to have been an Israeli Jew with an autodialer and an anti-Trump journalist here in the U.S., my friends have been posting like crazy about the dire planet-melting consequences of an American withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. Here are some samples of their posts and shared posts:

As a parent, as a global citizen, as a human being, as a life form sharing this planet, I cannot fully describe how upset I will be if our ignorance-pandering President does what he is apparently likely to do and exits the most promising global compact of any sort in recent years.

Ugh. Ashamed of my country that made such blind idiocy possible.

Jackass. Pulling out: idiotic. Toying with it arrogantly, omnipotently, to keep the world in suspense: disgusting.

Be there if you can to protest should Trump make good on his reckless promise to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. The rest of the world is aghast. This is no longer just about us or about stupid Trump voters — this decision affects the entire planet. [Regarding an Emergency Rally at the White House.]

I’m embarrassed to admit that, though perhaps I once did know what this agreement was (and in 2015 even asked about it here, with Dumb climate change agreement question: how is it different than a diet pledge?), I’d completely forgotten about it until this Facebook frenzy. I’m trying to reeducate myself on what friends tell me (shout at me, actually) is an item of cataclysmic importance to the planet’s future. So far I’ve read “Q. & A.: The Paris Climate Accord” (nytimes):

Unlike its predecessor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal was intended to be nonbinding, so that countries could tailor their climate plans to their domestic situations and alter them as circumstances changed. There are no penalties for falling short of declared targets. The hope was that, through peer pressure and diplomacy, these policies would be strengthened over time.

So this is like my daily visits to the gym that I conduct annually? And my strict all-organic steamed vegetable diet that I alter as circumstances change, e.g., when bacon is available?

While the current pledges would not prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the threshold deemed unacceptably risky, there is some evidence that the Paris deal’s “soft diplomacy” is nudging countries toward greater action.

Countries are sending each other positive vibes?

Because the deal is nonbinding, there are no penalties if the United States pulls out.

Now I’m more confused that ever. If I go to the Big Texan with friends and chow down on a 72 oz. steak (never beat Molly Schuyler, though, sadly), how would they knew whether or not I am still officially adhering to my steamed vegetable diet?

This agreement seems hardly more than an excuse for a lot of highly paid bureaucrats to gather periodically in beautiful resorts at their respective taxpayers’ expense. (Was it ever approved by Congress, the way that a treaty would be? Is the agreement reflected in any U.S. laws?) So the only arguments that I could see for withdrawing are to save money and to save the planet by keeping these folks from flying around to meetings. But here in the U.S. the government spends $4 trillion per year. Cutting expenses at this level is not a Presidential matter.

So why would Donald Trump even bother to mention this nonbinding penalty-free agreement to make, essentially, New Year’s resolutions? And why do my friends think it makes a difference? If they’re interested in keeping up with things that might affect atmospheric CO2, why wouldn’t they be looking more at solar cell production and innovation, windmill design and installations, etc.?

 

Full post, including comments

Chelsea Clinton: it is sometimes funny to joke about killing people?

“Chelsea Clinton: Kathy Griffin’s Trump-beheading photo ‘vile and wrong'” quotes Chelsea Clinton as saying “It is never funny to joke about killing the president.”

Let’s accept this as true. But isn’t the necessary implication that it is at least sometimes funny to joke about killing people who are not the president? When are those occasions? And why would it be funnier to imagine the death of a non-president versus imagining the death of a president?

Full post, including comments