Borat's Kids - So Iodized Now

This is an interesting example of how much progress can be made in a public health effort in a short time.
----
In fact, Kazakhstan has become an example of how even a vast and still-developing nation like this Central Asian country can achieve a remarkable public health success. In 1999, only 29 percent of its households were using iodized salt. Now, 94 percent are. Next year, the United Nations is expected to certify it officially free of iodine deficiency disorders.
-----

So, why is this important?
-----

Worldwide, about two billion people — a third of the globe — get too little iodine, including hundreds of millions in India and China. Studies show that iodine deficiency is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation. Even moderate deficiency, especially in pregnant women and infants, lowers intelligence by 10 to 15 I.Q. points, shaving incalculable potential off a nation’s development.

The most visible and severe effects — disabling goiters, cretinism and dwarfism — affect a tiny minority, usually in mountain villages. But 16 percent of the world’s people have at least mild goiter, a swollen thyroid gland in the neck.

“Find me a mother who wouldn’t pawn her last blouse to get iodine if she understood how it would affect her fetus,” said Jack C. S. Ling, chairman of the International Council for Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders, a committee of about 350 scientists formed in 1985 to champion iodization.

-----

It costs about $1.15 to iodize a ton of salt. This is a great example of some of the low hanging fruit out there for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's billions.

Padilla - Maybe Not So Dangerous

You'd hope that if the government held a US citizen for 1300 days without charges that you wouldn't then read things like this in the Washington Post.
------
A Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government's case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina......

But some legal scholars and defense lawyers argue that the government's case is so fundamentally weak, and its legal options so limited, that Padilla could draw a relatively minor prison term or even be acquitted. The trial has already been postponed once, until January, and is almost certain to be delayed again......
--------

It sure looks like Judge Luttig's anger at, and loss of confidence in, the Bush Administration was pretty well founded.

China's Development

Those interested in China should check out today's (ridiculously long) article on development along the Yellow River.

A Better Barry

I've never liked Rick Barry's radio show. He has that annoyingly condescending take that the only people that can comment on sports are people who were professional athletes. Best example of this was his stance that the media in SF couldn't call TO a jerk because they didn't understand what it took to be great. This was dumb of course because 1) A brain damaged K-9 could tell TO was a jerk. 2) It was pretty obvious this view sprang from Barry having been considered a jerk at time.

Anyways. I DID like his son Jon when he played for the Kings back when I was at Davis. And Jon is now doing games with Tirico and Walton and, at first glance, seems very good. Very good in the sense that he seems able to spar with Walton when he makes his ridiculous and hyperbolic statements - which, really, is all that I want from a broadcast. For example: Last week Walton made the innane comment that the Lakers could win the division and Barry pointed out that, despite the presence of Luke Walton on the Lakers, the Suns would still be much better. Then when Walton was talking about how shrewd Red Auerbach was Barry objected with something to the extent of "I don't know that he was always shrewd. He did trade ME for Alaa Abdelnabby." If you can rebut Bill Walton and use Alaa Abdelnaby at the same time then you are pretty much my favorite commetator.

The only bummer about Barry is that it reminds me what a failure Tom Tolbert was in this role. On his KNBR show Tolbert was consistently excellent in mocking Walton. Then after he ended up working next to him he was pretty much a relative failure in effectively sparring and checking Walton's excesses. Of course, I've always thought Tolbert in no way lives up to his potential on TV relative to his excellence on the radio. (Which I guess says a lot about his radio skills as I think he did win an Emmy for his TV commentary).

The thing that makes Tolbert great on radio does not really work on TV and is not conducive to quick rejoinders with Walton. Tolbert is at his best when he spends like 3 minutes going off on some seemingly totally irrelavent metaphor, story or simile that is enjoyable and seemingly unrelated to anything being discussed until he finally pulls it through at the end and you end up thinking "Yah, that's totally true." That sort of thing is great with radio, but doesn't work when doing color on TV, or even on a studio show when you are still limited to 20 second bits.

Should the Yankees Cut and Run with A-Rod

This is an amazingly clever op-ed. To give you a taste:
-----

TRADE A-Rod’s continued failure to deliver in the clutch is diverting critical resources and dividing our team. He must go. We need to move on, now!

KEEP Trading A-Rod would lead to a disaster in the American League East. It would embolden other teams and threaten future Yankee clubs. To cut and run is not an option.

TRADE Neither is “Stay the course.”........

TRADE We’re sending our kids to fight an endless war in Boston, when it’s Detroit that attacked us. After we swept the Red Sox in August, you hung out your Mission Accomplished banner, but nothing has been accomplished.

KEEP The Yankees never said it was over. The news media said it was over. And I acknowledge the challenges. We must adapt. We must heed the experts. Joe Torre and his coaches have said they believe A-Rod should come back. We must listen to them.

TRADE Those are the same “experts” that batted A-Rod eighth!

KEEP You would stoop so low as to attack Joe Torre? Have you no shame? Have you no shame?

-------

Frum's Astounding Take On Haggard

I'm going to have a hard time ever taking David Frum seriously after this:

--------

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

---------

I'm not quite sure how this shouldn't come across as ridiculously offensive to homosexuals, people who support gay rights, or L/libertarians. So, if you publicly vilify homosexuals you can: snort meth with hookers, cheat on your spouse with prostitutes, wreak havoc and upheavel upon the lives of your five children, and engage in hypocritical acts which will seriously damage your sides cause? And you are morally superior to someone who is openly homosexual? Or someone with libertarian leanings who doesn't feel it is the government's role to interfere with the interaction of consenting adults? Wow.

On a positive note, after noting the irony of this graphic, Matt Yglesias has an interesting and positive wish for how the affair could play out:
------
Shadenfreude and hypocrisy aside, though, it's be nice -- unrealistic, perhaps, but nice -- if people took this as an opportunity to learn something. Obviously, the other men in that image with Haggard -- Tony Perkins, James Dobson, etc. -- know him, get along with him, and have worked with him as a colleague, like him, think he's a good man, and so forth. And Dobson and Perkins aren't alone. Lots of people have worked with or for Haggard over the years. He's a widely respected man in this country. Should all those people who know him, and have followed him really so sharply revise their views of Haggard, or should they revise their views of gay people? The latter, I think, though I'm not optimistic that's how it'll play.
--------
I tend to agree with that sentiment - that it would be nice, and that it is unlikely.

Elizabeth Dole Awful on Meet The Press

No video or transcript is available yet, (will be here later) but Senator Elizabeth Dole is about the most unlikeable personality I can think of on today's "Meet the Press." She completely filibusters and butts in at every opportunity, though never actually answers a question. Russert spends about 45 seconds trying to get her to stop filibustering to talk about Iraq then just gives up. If I were him I would not have gone back to her - all the other three on the panel were all fairly reasonable with time and topic.

But the highlight is when he finally gets her to talk about Iraq and she says something to the extent that Democrats seem "content with losing the war" in Iraq. Russert tries to follow up with her but she continues to speak. Emanual tries to as well but she just continues to go on. When she finally stops Russert gives Emanual time to retort and he gets about two sentences in when Dole begins droning on in the background until Emanual finally looks at Russert as if to say "get ahold of your program, what's going on?" then finally shrugs and gives up trying to talk.

Picking on Realtors

So yesterday The National Association of Realtors had a full page ad in the WSJ proclaiming "It's a great time to buy or sell a home." The slogan also shows up in other ads and from individual realtors. Here's what I don't understand; do people really believe that a particular time can be great to buy AND sell the same thing. I mean, if it is a great time to buy something then shouldn't, by definition of what makes it a good time to buy - namely, price, it be a bad time to sell that same thing? And vice versa. I mean, if it is a great time to buy gold, then doesn't that mean it's a bad time to sell it? That has always annoyed me.

How Not To Prove You Are Middle Class

I enjoy Rich Karlgaard's column and, to a lesser extent, blog. But I can't help but think this sort of thing gives ammunition to those who would accuse "capitalists" and such with being out of touch.
------
Yesterday I flew my Cirrus SR22 from Palo Alto, Calif., to Santa Monica, Calif., on a perfect autumn afternoon. I'm just a middle class dork from North Dakota--it astonishes me everyday that I work at a great company like Forbes.
------
I'm all for people enjoying their success. And I'm all for the tendency to self-identify as middle class even when you probably aren't. But. Note to self: If trying to convince people of middle class creds, don't lead into it with stories of flying in my personal plane.

That may not be viewed as middle class by a machinist or teacher whose highest powered mode of transport is a 1997 F-150.

Bush and Rove Just Using Evangicals?

So there is some excitement about a new book by a Christian Republican who worked in the White House that claims Evangicals are just being used by the administration.
-----
He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

------

If true, I find this to be pretty disengenuous and cynical. I also find it to be really, really comforting, given the alternative is that they are taking the Faldwell/Robertson sect seriously.

Oregonian Endorses Republican As Well

It's a trend amongst the Left-leaning West Coast Cities. The Oregonian endorsed Ron Saxton over incumbent Dem. Kulongoski.

LA Times Endorses Schwarzenegger

Read it here. Main reasons they cite:
1) He embodies CA center of political gravity.
2) He will serve as a check of the excess of the Democrat Legislature
Both of those make sense.

Conservative Talk Show Hosts - Not Conservative, or Just Whores?

I found this this argument about conservatives who shill for brands on radio to be interesting.
-----

When I'm driving along in the afternoon, I often turn on my radio and hear Sean Hannity shilling for Ruth's Chris Steak House. Frankly, he's pretty convincing. I've never been to a Ruth's Chris Steak House, but when I hear that spiel right before dinner time, my mouth starts to water.

But after dinner when I turn on my TV there is that same pitchman posing as a journalist. Sean Han nity is not a conservative. He just plays one on TV. The same goes for Bill O'Reilly. The man who claims to work in a "no-spin zone" in the evenings spends his afternoon not just spinning but pitching.

None of this would bother me if these characters didn't purport to be conservatives. We conservatives have principles. We don't say things because people pay us to say them. We say things because we believe in them. That doesn't seem to apply at Fox. There may be some code of behavior there, but only in the sense that there is some code of behavior at those brothels outside Reno. In both cases, no law is being broken but someone's honor is being traded for a price.

What makes it worse is that these guys often pose as journalism critics. Listening to Hannity or O'Reilly critique honest journalists is like listening to a hooker critique the Miss America contest. It may be entertainment, but it sure ain't journalism.

-------

By interesting, I guess I mean thought provoking - but entirely unconvincing. I'm not sure I buy the whole "we conservatives have principles" argument. It seems to allude that liberals don't have priciples, something I don't buy. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they don't have principles. In fact, you probably disagree with them them because of some of their principles. I tend to think it is more accurate to say that both sides have principles, and both sides have shown a willingness to stray from them when politically expedient. I think you could make just as strong an argument that - given views on markets, business and wealth - it should be more expected that conservatives would be willing to shill for dollars.

But I do agree in the sense that their is something unseemly about any radio personality - left, right, sports, etc - seeming willingness to shill for whoever will pay them. The one that has always bothered me are the personalities that promote investing (read: speculating) in gold.

Just to establish something, there is about zero reason for 99.99999% of people to put money into gold. In the long run, it is nothing more than a store of wealth that barely keeps up with inflation. To give this some perspective over the very long run, $1 invested in gold in 1802 is now worth $1.24 adusted for inflation. That same dollar invested in stocks is worth over $100,000 adjusted for inflation. Putting money into gold is really speculating - a speculation that has paid off at certain times in history, including recently (though not very recently)- but still speculation. With just about any precious metal, I would imagine you are usually better served to purchase the stocks of companies in the industry than you are to buy the metal itself. The price is correlated with the underlying commodity (if that is what you want) long term returns should be better, you have current income from dividends, it is easier, and transaction costs are significantly lower (which is why all these people selling gold can have radio personalities shilling for them).

So just about any financial advisor worth their salt is going to tell the average person they should not invest directly in gold. But you still find a number of radio personalities preaching to listeners that gold can be part of a well rounded portfolio (defined as whatever % the salesman is going to be able to convince you to invest with them) and you should call Company X now to discuss how they can help you invest in gold (and capture exorbinate fees in the process).

This does not sit well with me. These guys are trading on their credibility, and using it to convince people to do something not in their best interests. I am especially amused with Dennis Prager, who has one ad talking about mortgages or life insurance where he says "You don't know how carefull I am about what I endorse" The message being that he is so carefull about what he chooses to endorse that you can trust whoever he speaks about. Yet, he then encourages listeners to call a company to learn about investing in gold.

To that extent that is not impressive, I agree with the author. I know that the argument many people will use to justify it is that people only promote products the really believe in, use anyways, or were aware of already. I can see the logic of that argument.

But I have my doubts as to how often that is the case. Last year I shopped for some radio ads for my business and the salespeople immediately suggest having an on-air personality do the commercial. They said it would lend credibility, etc. etc. And I'm sure it would. Of course, the personality in question had never used our service, and probably had never even heard of us. Which would seem to put to rest the idea that personalities only shill for companies they know, use etc. (though that is not to say there may be individuals for whom this is the case - just that it in no way seemed to be the norm).

I can understand why the stations and personalities like to push this though. You pay extra to have an on-air personality do the commercial. The extra money is split between the personality and the station. So the station is getting extra income for their talent (which means they can pay them less, everything else equal) and they are getting more money for that 30 or 60 second spot vs. just having a normal ad. It is a win/win on their part, which is why the salespeople push it so hard.

Just keep that in mind though the next time your decision making process for a product or service includes "well, X highly recommends it."