Wasting Money On Women

 

Perhaps it's the liberal in me speaking, but I'm convinced that we waste too much money on “Women's Health.”

Yes. I know that sounds perverse. And yes, I know that it sounds more like sexism than liberalism, but that's not the case. You're feeling, not thinking. The usual message is that women have been ignored too long when it comes to medical research. All the medical studies have focused on men's diseases and those of women have been ignored. And even when ills are studied that affect both sexes, women are under-represented in the study populations. It doesn't matter whether I may personally agree or disagree with the premises, the conclusion represents emotionalism, not rationality. It is certainly not the message of liberal theology.ⁱ

But what does liberalism teach? Wikipedia (a sometimes reliable source) defines it as “the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.” And “Classical Liberalism” was “committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.”

Well, we can dispense with the latter statement. No one believes in limited government or free markets anymore. Certainly not liberals. But the idea of equal rights remains a hallmark of that philosophy. In addition, it is the goal of liberals to help the poor and needy, the underdogs, to achieve that equality. Money should be spent on programs that bring equality, and that's the point.

Mortality rates are higher among males than females in almost all species, including humans, according to a study completed for the Society of Actuaries in Schaumburg, Illinois.

The study cited (which is not unique, but indicative of facts worldwide) tells us that this has been the case at least since the 1300s. It is even true of fetuses. And another study tells us that a white girl born in 2005 has a life expectancy of 80.8 years while a white boy can anticipate only 75.7 years. The difference is even greater for African-Americans.

Interesting, but diseases like breast cancer – “women's diseases” – are the real scourges and we have ignored them for too long. Well that's the mantra. But men can get breast cancer too, and we haven't ignored it, anyway. The American Cancer Society, which funds much of the research into breast cancer, was founded in 1913 by men, and men head it today. And breast cancer – which affected 119.3 women per 100,000ⁱⁱ – isn't nearly as frequent as prostate cancer (which never affects women) whose incidence the same year (2006) was 152.6 per 100,000.

And the same is true of other diseases. For the most part men are more frequently affected than women and, consequently, die younger. Look around any senior citizens' center and you'll find a shortage of men. So they're at a premium. Lengthening their lives will not only benefit them, but the women who are looking for them.

The bottom line is that men are not equal to women in length or quality of life. Our liberal values, therefore, dictate that preference should be given to them when funds are disbursed for health care. To achieve equality, therefore, and to live up to a true liberal philosophy, less publicⁱⁱⁱ health care funding should be given to “Women's Health,” and more to men's.

Not the teaching of the times or the “correct” point of view? Sorry about that.

Next episode: “The Best And The Brightest” – The failure of democracy.

i    For too many, liberalism (or conservatism for that matter) is a knee-jerk reaction – a set of beliefs – rather than a considered and well thought-out philosophy. It commands the same unswerving loyalty as a religion.

ii     CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) figures.

iii  Private funds, of course, should go wherever the donors want. Public funds, though – taxpayers' money – should be used in a manner that will contribute to equality. That's what America is all about.

Hot Flash

 

There are those who hold that global warming results from a regular cycle the earth goes through periodically, while others attribute changes to human behavior, such as damage to the ozone layer. As the story goes, they're both right.ⁱ

For some the only way to end the world's problem would be to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and chemicals that may destroy ozone, and if we don't follow those principles we are all doomed. For others, the perceived crisis is a political contrivance, the result of “junk science”; the measures proposed will destroy industry and take us back to the nineteenth century. And, of course, they are both wrong.

But what they have in common is a belief – or even stronger, a conviction – that Truth is on their side.ⁱⁱ They loudly proclaim the virtue of their positions and reinforce the values of their supporters, claiming that they are the path to salvation. They decry the views of their opponents as self-serving, and rally their forces to pursue the only policies that can save our planet. They denigrate the words of those whose ideas are contrary to their own. They are both deaf.

There is no disputing the general worsening of our weather. In some instances this results directly from a warmer climate and the melting of icebergs, while in others the problems seem to be based on other severe weather conditions resulting – floods, winds, waves, and the like – which our meteorologists tell us are themselves all based on the global warming that we are undergoing. There does not seem to be any dispute of the contention that warming is occurring, but there is disagreement about the cure. So I'll answer the question once and for all.

There is no cure.

That's not to say that we should throw up our arms and ignore what is happening around us, only that we recognize that much of it is beyond our control, and rather than overreact to what we cannot master we are better off preparing as best we can for the problems we realistically anticipate. To the degree that we can minimize the human contribution to global warming by lowering fossil fuel use and converting to other energy sources, we should do so. But we should have no illusion that this will solve the problem. And because it will not provide “the cure,” we should not view it as the stick to break the back of the “evil” ones.

What can we do? Apart from seeking what are usually called “alternative energy sources” – and it will be decades before they are of significant help if that ever happens – are we powerless to govern our fate? It's hard to know. Our understanding of the earth's normal cycles – cycles which may last hundreds or thousands of years – is tentative. We may have been through it all before, but there was no analysis of it at the time. We're left with the views of our scientists – views that are at times more political than scientific – that things are going to get worse unless (that itself is political – things are going to get worse even if) we take immediate and draconian steps to avert the crisis. And we should not lament a missed opportunity in the belief that had we taken such steps earlier everything would be fine now. Nothing momentous would have changed. Things are bad and they're going to get worse.

We're left with the knowledge that our best defenses against the inevitable involve improved prediction of problems while putting better warning systems in place, and steps aimed at the prevention of some of those effects. Following Katrina, levees are being constructed in Louisiana, but shouldn't such barriers be built wherever flooding reasonably can be anticipated? And shouldn't building codes be upgraded before stronger buildings are needed? The current economic downturn has resulted in limited construction, but perhaps some of the money being invested in saving industry and creating jobs would be well spent in the building of places to which large numbers could retreat at the time of severe storms or other disasters. Such buildings should be designed to have alternative uses – offices, factories, schools, meeting halls – during the majority of the time when there is no disaster. In the meantime, however, the construction industry would benefit as would those who would get construction jobs. And perhaps there should be an attempt to relocate people away from areas where damage from nature is recurrent and can be anticipated. Right now all we do is subsidize their insurance.

The placement of power lines and other cables underground, in addition to minimizing the likelihood of power losses during major storms, would provide additional jobs, as well as enhance the appearance of areas now decorated by those lines. It is also likely that car radio reception would improve and that people who fear radiation would feel safer if power wires were no longer visible.

It's a start but it's not going to eliminate the difficulty no matter what we do. The planet is warmingⁱⁱⁱ and the weather is changing. Turning the problem into a political one – one designed to gain points for the next election – helps no one. Neither does struthious^iv inaction, but we may be able to mitigate some of the effects if we build for the future rather than bury our heads; if we act rather than accuse.

Next episode: “Wasting Money On Women” – Health care costs cost us all.

 

i    You're right, too.

ii   “Green” is not a color but a religion. But so is its opposition. No evidence is as important as the belief each side has, and evidence that disputes the belief is of no importance. Indeed, it must have been falsified.

iii    At least for now.

iv   Look it up.

Blow-Up

 

I was watching preparations for the Macy's Thanksgiving parade recently. They were busy inflating Sancho Panda. (Or was it Sponge Boob Square Bra, Spaniel Boone or Lady Kaka. I'm not sure. But I know it wasn't Richard Reid, who didn't need inflation by others – he'd be happy to blow himself up. In any case, I remember that it was one of those bloated, larger-than-life cartoon characters.) It was a red-letter day, just before “Black Friday.” And Macy's was preparing for one of its two major events of the year.

It struck me that the other major event Macy's sponsored also involved blowing things up, only the subjects of our awe were not balloons but exploding fireworks, with exploding colors far more impressive than the cardboard, paper, and powder objects from which they had been made. They were full of sight and fury, but their significance, apart from spectacle, escaped me.

Then I realized, of course, that both events were really fancy, though not overly sophisticated, advertising efforts which turned out to be money-makers on their own, what with television rights and the value of the publicity itself. People on-site, and sitting at home on their couches,ⁱ got their jollies from watching things blown up or, at least, out of proportion. And they would be grateful to Macy's for providing the entertainment.

And I also realized that both were really representations of advertising itself. Both were intended to enlarge on whatever it was that they were showing, and to make more of it than was really the case. They were making something out of nothing. That's advertising.

You start by finding some sort of minor problem or condition, or even a non-problem, and blow it up into what can be marketed as a major catastrophe which the consumer desperately needs to address. The recognition of the very existence of what is a newly discovered “problem” suggests that some other creative merchandiser hasn't thought of it first. The next step is to “discover” a solution to the problem, or a cure for the condition. And, fortunately, your store (in this case Macy's) is selling it. You don't even have to identify a product if you've indoctrinated your audience as to where they should look first for anything they need – the remedy to any problem. It's important to inflate the value of the remedy since you're sure to inflate the cost far beyond what it costs to produce or obtain. And consumers know that you get what you pay for. If the price isn't highⁱⁱ the product is probably not very good.

Sometimes the product is the latest version of one that already exists. Clothing is a good example of this situation, and a department store is likely to be a major vendor of such products. In this case it's important to expand the importance of change for the sake of style, or even for its own sake. Either way, though, the seller will make a big issue of it. The consumer is gullible and profits are more important than honesty. One of the major reasons why profits are high – especially for some women's clothes – is that “less” is often “more” – the less material used, the higher the price.

But back to the metaphor. The parade and the fireworks show were nothing more than advertisements for Macy's that had become annual events which advertised New York City as well as the retail store. The more people talked about the shows – and that was a lot – the more Macy's benefited. And the images of happy, appealing, and excited New Yorkers, both adults and children, had the priceless effect of countering all the negative images which allege the coldness and aloofness of Metropolis's citizens. Prime-time publicity. A boon for both store and city.ⁱⁱⁱ

It's obvious, as well, that the balloons themselves have another resemblance to the advertisements, and especially to the sales which will take place the next day. Let out a little of the helium and Derek Cheetah and Betty Burp will still fly high. Similarly, if you overprice your product, you can afford to cut back on the price and still make a good profit.

So if you sponsor an event of this type you get lots of good will, international publicity and a boost in sales. Blow things out of proportion and it's easy to satisfy the dreams of those mesmerized by the images. Don't believe me? Ask Greta Garbanzo or Tiger Wolf or Miss Twiggy.^iv

Next episode: “Hot Flash” – The universal bane.

 

i    That's not what I originally wanted to say, but it will have to do. Referring to an expanding part of the anatomy – one on which people sit – would probably be viewed as indelicate.

ii   That is, the list price. I'm sure you can get it at a discount or in a generic form at a lower price.

iii   The lighting of the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is another annual event that New York City uses as an advertising too. It also brings in the tourists and, with them, the money.

iv   Actually she's underblown, not overblown.

Out At Home

 

Now that the season's over and the various awards have been made, consider a baseball team.ⁱ

A winning team.ⁱⁱ

An amazingly winning team – way in front of the league, more than any team has ever been at this point in the season. And every day getting even further ahead. Sure there are problems, including rowdies and ticket scalpers, but the bottom line is a record unlike anything that has ever preceded it.

So what should be done? Over the manager's protests, the front office fires some of the old team and hires new players so that there is now a majority of new players, both position players and pitchers. Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, the existing players are doing well, so why keep them – a change is certainly advisable. Still the momentum continues for a while, with the team's lead lengthening.

For a while, but only for a while. Then, with the new team in place, the bottom falls out.ⁱⁱⁱ There is loss after loss, and a point is reached where the team has forfeited a good deal of its advantage. It's still far ahead of where it was at the beginning of the season, but not as far as before, and the losing is continuing.

The following season the decline continues, although after a while there is a reversal of the team's fortunes. Several changes are attempted but they don't seem to have much effect.

So what should be done now? Clearly the problem is that there are still too many members of the old team – the one that was winning. The front office fires some more of the pitchers. That makes sense too. The new team wasn't doing well, but maybe more of them, with an inexperienced manager who claims he can solve all the team's problems, will change everything so the front office fires the old manager and brings in a new one as well as more of the the new players. – both position players and pitchers. However to the front office's surprise and consternation, the losses continue. For a couple of years.

So they get cold feet. And wish for the “good old days.” They fire many of the players to bring in some additional ones – mostly from the old group but with a few others who are new – so they anticipate, for the following season, an old-school majority among the position players though the majority of pitchers are still newbies. The manager, who has an unbreakable long-term contract, stays on. The post-season games remain though, during which the previous players still predominate in all positions. The newly chosen players are barred from the action because they came onto the roster too late. But those still there are confident that they can battle back and achieve all their goals before the season ends and they're traded away.

That's where we are now. Only it's in government.^iv The year it started was 2006. The stock market was more than 2,000 points higher than it had been in on Election Day of 2004 (12,105 on election day 2006 versus 10,054 in 2004. A Republican was President and the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. At that point, in the November elections, the electorate decided on a Democratic House of Representatives (233 – 200) and a Senate, which, while equally split (49 – 49), was effectively Democratic controlled because two independents voted with them. The market continued upward and reached a high in early October of 2007, but then began to fall. It had gone down to 9,324 on Election Day of 2008 when the voters gave the Democrats large majorities in both the House (257 – 178) and Senate (57 – 41, with two independents who voted with the Democrats) and selected a Democratic President. And they had the Vice President (the President of the Senate) on their side in situations that required it.

The next two years, 2009 and 2010, with a great deal of stimulus, have brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average back to about 11,000 – higher than the previous low, but lower than when the Democrats took over Congress. The reasons were obvious to true believers. The greedy Republicans were answerable for the losses (their policies, a few years earlier, were the cause of all that ailed us) ; the gains were generously bestowed by the Democrats.

There are, of course, other measures of our economic situation. Unemployment on election day in 2006 was about 4.3%. With a Democratic Congress it had reached about 6.5% by election day 2008 and the most recently available figure at the time of the election – for October, 2010 – was 9.6%,^v having come down from 10.6% which it reached in January. It will be interesting to see what it is next January when the “post-season,” the lame-duck Congress, is over and a final attempt has been made by the party currently in power to right the wrongs of our situation. They claim that they'll pass all the legislation that they put off until after election day. It's not clear that they'll be able to deliver on their promises.

Are the Democrats to blame? Certainly not. But neither are the Republicans. It's too easy to put this all into a political context and start pointing fingers. Nice guys may not finish last, but this isn't a baseball game. We have to understand that the economy is a complex issue and to look for “good guys” making hits and “bad guys” making errors is to trivialize it – to use it as a vote-getting device rather than a springboard for national unity and action.^vi

We'll recover. We've been through cycles like this before and whatever happens will not be based on the greater wisdom of one set of politicians over another. Perhaps some day we'll learn to treat the economy with greater respect than a national sport. But I doubt it. We're too enamored of looking for someone to blame. So if our team isn't winning of course we won't blame them, but we can always kill the umpire. No. Wait. That's us.

Next episode: “Blow Up” – The inflation explosion.

i      Not the Mets.

ii     Now you know why.

iii   The Mets don't need a change of personnel to collapse.

iv   I don't suggest this is a perfect analogy. There's no such thing and this one is far from perfect. But perhaps it will provide the opportunity to consider the rationality of our actions by comparing this national exercise with the national pastime.

v   In November it reached 9.8% but this was after the election.

vi  Actually sports events have better headlines, so the media prefer a competition to an accomplishment.