What news?  - Posted On: 2008-01-29

In case you can`t tell, I`m not really updating this site any more. For the time being, you can find me on the social utility of your choice.

Teddybears for Everyone!  - Posted On: 2007-08-01

There`s a show coming up in Brooklyn to benefit the wholesome goal of achieving universal healthcare. I`ve been toying with the idea of doing a satirical rally at the show just to see what I can get away with. Possible slogans: Q: “What do we want?” A: "More governmental involvement in national healthcare policy!” Q: “When do we want it?” A: “Eventually!” “Make Laws Not Incentives” “Keep Your Laws On My Body” And, of course, “Mandatory Substandard Healthcare for Everyone!” If you have ideas, send them to me: maxwell at maxwelledison.com.

A Theme?  - Posted On: 2007-07-07

In keeping with the previous post, there`s a line from the Great Gatspy that I dug. It`s in reference to man`s first encounter with undeveloped long island. "Face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to man`s capacity to wonder."

The Movie Not the Band  - Posted On: 2007-05-05

I saw that Johnnie Depp movie, The Libertine, last night. At least that`s what I think it was. Yesterday was a long day. The writing was fantastic, but one line in particular stuck out. "Life is not a constant series of urgent `nows,` but a steady stream of `why should I`s."

YES, YOU MAY HAVE ANOTHER  - Posted On: 2007-04-16

I`m not exactly sure why, but I can`t stop watching this Waxinpoo clip that Sara showed me. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Economist Keeps On Taking It  - Posted On: 2007-02-02

A month or so ago, the Economist ran a story about airplane safety that is a must-read for anyone who loves debunking namby pamby crossing guard-types. Here`s an excerpt: Your life-jacket can be found under your seat, but please do not remove it now. In fact, do not bother to look for it at all. In the event of a landing on water, an unprecedented miracle will have occurred, because in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero. Read the whole thing here.

Hey Maybe I`ll Post Again  - Posted On: 2007-01-06

This is too good not to post. It`s a movie made out of old nintendo clips, especially Kung Fu. clip. You will laugh out loud or I will email you a series of inappropriate jokes.

NYC Bans Trans Fats  - Posted On: 2006-12-06

Surprise: "The New York City Board of Health voted yesterday to adopt the nation`s first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking..." The rest of the NY Times story is here. When asked what the city will do with all the surplus trans fats, one health official responded, "We`ll use it to further lubricate the slippery slope of totalitarianism." Chalk one up for Nanny-Statists and bureaucratic busy-bodies!

Okay  - Posted On: 2006-10-12

This clip is pretty good. It`s John Stewart making fun of both the Minutemen and Minutemen protesters alike.

It`s All Happening!  - Posted On: 2006-10-07

So, NYC is considering a ban on trans fats in restaurants. That`s all you really need to know, but you can read the CNN story about it if you like. I had an email exchange with a friend of mine about this, so I thought I would post it here! On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Eric Burger wrote: yo, somewhat in the vein of our last emails... what are your thoughts on the transfat ban in the city? i assume your response is let people decide what to eat on their own. As long as they are fully aware of the prices, taste, health consequences, etc., a competitive market will give us the right amount of transfats. but if the health risks associated with eating transfats will be distributed through health insurance, there might be an externality problem. individuals can get the goodness to themselves, but spread around the health risk through insurance. would a transfat tax be preferable? the money would go to hospitals that perform heart surgery/diabetes care. but there would be the usual govt inefficiency/administrative costs. the ban does away with the externality problems and is cheaper to administer than the tax, but reduces liberty. my preferences are 1. fat tax 2. fat ban 3. fat free for all you? From: maxwell.edison Subject: Re: regulation of yumminess Date: October 7, 2006 5:05:56 PM EDT To: eric.burger Eric! Thanks for the email. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I wanted to make sure I could address this thoroughly b/c I think you raise a good point. With the trans fat situation, I think it`s important to note that not all the harmful effects of consuming trans fats can be externalized. And, of the effects that can be externalized, not all of these can be completely externalized. First, a person who consumes excessive trans fats suffers a variety of harms. The medical expenses associated with possible hospitalization are only one of these. Such a person might feel fatigued, have less social life, be less productive, might have to purchase new clothes, etc. Even in the event of hospitalization, a person would suffer lost wages and the value of their time in addition to their medical bills. Also, of the effects that are externalized through insurance (i.e., hospital bills), not all of this cost is actually externalized. The individual presumably pays a premium for their insurance coverage, which may fluctuate relative to their burden on the insurance carrier. Thus, if the cost of covering heart surgery or diabetes care was significant, an insurance carrier would have an incentive to screen potential customers for trans fat consumption and adjust their premiums accordingly. Thus, a person who engages in excessive consumption of trans fats, is still subject to many of the costs, and disincentives, of this behavior. But you`re right, if the cost of this medical care is not significant, insurance carriers would likely write it off as part of their liability. That insurance companies don`t screen for trans fat consumption (to my knowledge) is probably telling of the insignificance of the cost of related treatment. I`m sure there`s an alarming "total cost of fat-related treatment" number making the rounds, but I suspect when it`s averaged on a per-consumer basis, it doesn`t warrant much concern. That insurance coverage is optional makes this less of a concern to me. However, I think your point is even stronger when accounting for the expense of fat-related treatment on the public health system. The cost to programs like medicaid, medicare and publicly funded hospitals is more concerning because we don`t have a choice as to whether or not to participate. Of course, to me, this is more an argument against public health care than for the regulation of fat consumption because the extension of the latter has no bounds. By the same token, wouldn`t it be advisable for the state to enforce daily exercise routines? I see the risk of authorizing the state to tax or ban behavior as private as what food we eat to be the bigger risk to our health. Also, I doubt the expense to insurance carriers is really what`s at the heart of a campaign to tax or ban trans fats. More likely, it`s the age-old endeavor of punishing those who engage in behavior that others find offensive. That to me is more repulsive than any amount of carotid arterial wall plaque.

Sign up or unsignup to my news right here...

Sign up | Unsignup