Category: Uncategorized

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

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:

• video from Alaska Airlines eclipse flight (FL350 and therefore a different perspective)
• compilation of aircraft-intercepting-eclipse efforts (links to photos and videos)
• AOPA’s compilation of some airport-related ideas for eclipse-viewing (but not while in flight)

Full post, including comments

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

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:

• “Shake Shack’s Financial Shenanigans” (June 2016): “Shake Shack’s insiders are manipulating net income growth with private LLC conversions and sales. Management continues to hype the numbers with ‘adjusted’ and ‘non-GAAP’ figures.”
• “Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit” (April 2017): “a one dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit [shutdown] for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating)”

Full post, including comments

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

“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

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: 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

In October 2008 I wrote “Will Obama be a friend to the poor once in office? Would you?“. Excerpts:

Barack Obama’s campaign has been damaged to some extent by quotes from his days as a community organizer. He sounded like a socialist back then. …

Suppose that Barack Obama arrives in the White House and reminds himself that he still has about 40 years to live, only 8 of which will be spent as President. Those 32 post-presidential years could be spent being celebrated by welfare recipients or as the guest of Fortune 500 CEOs. Those 32 post-presidential years could be spent living on a government pension or as billionaire.

…

My prediction that Obama will win stands, though I fear that my 5 percent margin of victory may be understated now that the Republicans have nominated a candidate who is 90 percent dead. My new prediction is that Obama will be the friendliest president ever to the rich and powerful and that Obama will be the richest person ever to have been president.

Now it seems that Obama is “speaking truth to power” at $400,000 per hour (USA Today).

What do readers think? Did I call this one correctly? Stepping back and taking the long view, was Obama reasonably friendly to the one-percenters (including those in the health care industry!) during his Presidency?

Full post, including comments

Eye week started off with a two-hour dissection of the orbit (cavity of the eyeball). We used bone chisels to open the orbit and remove an eyeball by cutting the various ligaments and nerves anchoring it to the skull and brain. A human eyeball feels squishy but not delicate.

The eye comprises several layers: eyelid, cornea/sclera, iris, lens, retina, sclera (again). The eye lids contain conjunctiva epithelia which is continuous with the white outer sclera of the eyeball. The sclera is a white, fibrous connective tissue. The sclera merges with the cornea, a thin transparent convex protrusion that provides much of the optic refractive index of the eye. Behind the cornea is a cavity filled with aqueous humor, a watery secretion. The iris (colored portion of eye) is actually a muscle with radial and circular fibers that control the size of the pupil. The pupil is literally a hole in front of the lens. Light hits the cornea, enters the anterior (front) chamber, traverses through the pupil into the posterior chamber, and hits the lens to be focused on the retina, which is at the back of the vitreous chamber. Classmates, including myself, tended to hear the term “posterior chamber” (in front of the lens) and erroneously identify the much larger vitreous chamber (behind the lens).

Most of my anatomy group left early, but one classmate and I stayed to open the eyeball. We cut open the sclera with a scalpel and held the lens in our hands. It felt like a marble with an opaque yellowish tint. Several cadavers had artificial lenses, which felt surprisingly similar. The vitreous humor, inside the vitreous chamber, felt gelatinous. The retina looked like a white transparent sheet, except for a small protrusion on the medial aspect (closer to the nose) of the retina. This was the optic disk, where nerve fibers merge to exit the eye and the retinal artery enters the eye to supply the retinal layers with blood. The retina peeled off with forceps. We put the eye back together and placed it back in the orbit.

The retina, except at the optic disk, contains photosensitive compounds that transduce light into electrical signals. Rods, cells with the pigment rhodopsin, are sensitive to small amounts of light (as small as a single photon) and line most of the retina. Cones, cells with different photopigments excite depending on the specific wavelength (color), require larger amounts of delivered energy to activate. The density of photosensitive cells increase in an area of the macula with the highest density of cones in the fovea. Rods are important for night vision, while cones enable us to see color and detail.

A student asked, “What is the resolution of the eye?” Doctor J said this is hard to define. Each eye has 150 million photosensitive cells (rods and cones) [compare to 100 megapixels for the highest-resolution cameras circa 2017]. These signals converge onto 1.2 million ganglion cells that transmit the information via the optic nerve to the brain. Most of these ganglion cells originate from the fovea, a region the size of 1.5 mm. Image details are integrated by the primary visual cortex and visual association cortex. If you’re looking for something small at night, try scanning with your peripheral vision because the density of rods is higher outside of the fovea.

Our eyes have six extraocular muscles that provide the extraordinary range of motion of the eye. To support binocular vision and depth perception, the eyes have elaborate mechanisms to maintain foveation through the horizontal and vertical gaze centers in the brainstem. Strabismus (“cross eye”) is a misalignment of each eye causing an image to hit different parts of each retina. Strabismus causes diplopia (seeing double). Compression of one of the nerves that innervates these extraocular muscles can lead to diplopia when they gaze a certain direction.

Our patient case: George, 74-year-old white male with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia presents for blurry vision. An eye exam reveals intact extraocular muscles with decreased visual acuity. Inspection of the macula with an ophthalmoscope reveals the characteristic geometry of drusen (lipid deposits in the choroid vascular region deep to the photopigment layer).He is immediately referred to an ophthalmologist for Age-associated Macular Degeneration (AMD).

[AMD is the leading cause of vision loss for individuals, with white Americans being at high risk starting around age 65. Fifteen percent of white Americans over age 80 have AMD (https://nei.nih.gov/eyedata/amd). Type-A Anita muttered “white privilege” when we went over a clinical trial of a drug to treat AMD. Reflecting the higher prevalence among whites, the study had 93-percent white enrollment.]

The ophthalmologist performed an Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), shooting low energy light (infrared) into George’s retina to create beautiful micron-resolution images of the retinal layers. The study revealed detachment of the macula due to wet AMD. The choroid plexus (blood vessels on the exterior of the retina that supplies the pigmented cells) began to grow into the photopigment layers causing microhemorrhages. George was fortunate to get this diagnosed before his whole macula became detached.

Every six weeks, George goes to his ophthalmologist for a shot of Bevacizumab (Avastin), which contains antibodies against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). This drug is injected into his vitreous chamber to prevent the growth of the invading blood vessels. “These drugs have saved my vision. I am able to drive, read, really do everything I want to do.” George was going in this week to get his shot before departing on a cruise next week.

“VEGF treatment has really been a godsend,” explained the ophthalmologist. “It prolongs patients’ vision for years. For the unfortunate few who do not respond, there are some other options.” One was a telescope implant to replace the lens with a magnifying telescope that focuses an image on a different part of the macula that is healthy. Students dubbed this “going bionic”. A more drastic treatment option is macular rotation. Surgeons detach the retina and rotate is to have a new, more healthy vascular choroid plexus.

A student asked about the difference between Avastin, originally developed as a treatment for colon cancer, and Lucentis. Lucentis, FDA-approved to treat wet AMD, is a cleaved form of the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody Avastin, at roughly 1/40th of the dosage used for colon cancer patients. Lucentis may be able to penetrate deeper into the retinal layers because of the antibody’s lower molecular weight. Lucentis costs $2,000 per dose, whereas the amount of Avastin necessary for wet AMD therapy costs $50. The ophthalmologist explained he always starts with off-label Avastin. “I have only anecdotal evidence that a few of my patients respond better to Lucentis.” [This makes sense given that the drugs are essentially chemically identical.] Genentech makes both Avastin and Lucentis. “Why would the company fund a multi-million dollar trial to approve a drug that costs less?” If all Medicare patients were prescribed Avastin instead of Lucentis, Medicare Part B is estimated to save $18 billion and patients save nearly $5 billion over a 10-year period (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/6/931.abstract).

That evening, I spoke with some fourth-year medical students going into surgery about the match process. I learned that many general surgery (“Gen Surg”) residencies are trending towards the “5 + 2” option. Gen Surg residencies had typically been five years. After residency, you could then get a job, or apply to a 1-2 year fellowship (e.g., cardiothoracic, vascular, etc.). In order to make graduates more competitive when applying for fellowships, some prestigious surgery residencies are now requiring two years of research in the middle, hoping that the publication record will appeal to fellowship admissions committees. Thus what had been 4 years of medical school, plus 5 years of residency, plus up to 2 years of fellowship (11 years) might now turn into a 13-year training process.

An attending repeated his wish (see Week 8) that regulations would allow him to teach us more. “LCME caps the number of formal class hours at about 26-28. There just isn’t enough time to do extra projects, especially if they do not advance LCME-designated areas.” He told administration that he would even volunteer his time for optional events. “Administration responded by saying, ‘Students would complain that they feel obligated to go…’ Don’t we have capitalism? Instead of stooping to the lowest denominator, you work harder, get better, and make more money.”

At lunch, Type-A Anita lamented the loss of Obama. Several students agreed, but added, “Trump’s election is actually a blessing. Now we have unprecedented activism against racism and sexism. In the long run this will be good.” Type-A Anita agreed, “But honestly, if we blow up the world?” They ended by saying how much they missed Obama’s dogs and looking at a Pinterest account of Merkel Faces.

Statistics for the week… Study: 10 hours. Sleep: 7 hours/night; Fun: 1 night. Example fun: Afternoon drinks at recently opened brewery. There must be six new breweries planning to open by the end of the year.

More: http://fifthchance.com/MedicalSchool2020

Full post, including comments