A Bar In Amsterdam

Back from my trip. Short version - it rocked.

I'll post pics when I have my act together. In the spirit of my Norwegian interlude (and at the suggestion of Penguin) - here's a video from an offbeat Norwegian band called Katzenjammer.

Good fun.

A Better General vs. the Army of Death

Atul Guwande writes another thought provoking article about the state of health care:

The simple view is that medicine exists to fight death and disease, and that is, of course, its most basic task. Death is the enemy. But the enemy has superior forces. Eventually, it wins. And, in a war that you cannot win, you don't want a general who fights to the point of total annihilation. You don't want Custer. You want Robert E. Lee, someone who knew how to fight for territory when he could and how to surrender when he couldn't, someone who understood that the damage is greatest if all you do is fight to the bitter end.

(H/t Atlantic)

Some Great Resources on Global Warming

POD passed along this article from The Big Picture -
Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes - Jeremy Grantham

Which rocks, but TBP had a follow up that says it with video.

Climate Change: The Scientific Debate

I especially like video 3 - because it chases a lot of the global cooling bunk back to their source material. (Spoiler: global cooling evidence in the 70's is a total joke)

Random Sip From the Firehose, III

Krugman: Conservatives can quit Bush - just not his policies.

Salmon: Obama will nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Me: Seriously?)

Ritholtz (well, Katsenelson actually): Japan is worse off than the PIGS?

Plait: Savage? Hyneman? I'm coming for you!!

Pigford

TPM has a fascinating look at the timing of the Shirley Sherrod hit job - tying it to the pending grant of $1.25 billion dollars to compensate black farmers for past USDA discrimination.

While I don't see a line of effect from Sherrod's ouster to opponents of the grant getting what they want, I'd certainly be interested in hearing more about this story.

Looking into the Pigford case (Pigford v. Glickman PDF) I ran across this rather grim story on Salon - Black Wednesday

Check this out:

Virginia farmer John Boyd describes a scene from a painful past: a white U.S. Department of Agriculture loan officer only allows black farmers to apply for loans one day a week. "Black Wednesday," the farmers call it, and they line up outside the USDA office in Richmond, Va. The loan officer, James Garnett, leaves the door to his office open so that all the farmers in the hallway can hear the loan requests of their colleagues be summarily, and vehemently, denied.

...

What happened between you and the USDA loan officer in Richmond?

Mr. Garnett had made 147 farm loans in Mecklenburg County, Va. Only one of those loans was to a black farmer, and he was the minority advisor to the USDA county committee. When they investigated Mr. Garnett, they asked him, "Do you have a problem making black farm loans?" Guess what he said? He said yes. He said yes, I think that they're lazy, and they're just looking for a paycheck every Friday.

Mr. Garnett took my loan application and tore it up and threw it in the trash can while I was sitting there in front of him. And he said he wasn't going to lend me any of his money. When I asked him why he wasn't going to make the loan, he said, "Well, I don't have any money now. If you want to come back again next year, that's up to you, but I think you need to go ahead and just sell your farm. I've got a farmer, Mr. Blaylock, and you can milk cows on his farm. I think that would be the best opportunity for you and your family."

I was mad. I was looking for a $10,000 operating loan to plant my crop. After nine years in a row I'd only gotten one loan from the USDA farm services, and I would apply every year.

I said, "Mr. Garnett, I don't think I can go back and tell my wife that I'm not going to get an operating loan again." And he said he didn't care. And when he said he didn't care, I told him to go to hell in a handbasket, and he began to use profanity, and he spit tobacco on my shirt.

When the investigator asked him, "Did you spit chewing tobacco on John Boyd's shirt?" He said, "Well, yeah." He claimed he accidentally missed his spit can.

When was this?

This was in 1994.

What was the result of the investigation?

In my case, they found Mr. Garnett guilty of discrimination. But they didn't terminate him. They allowed him to move to the sister county, which is Greensville County, Va., and they let him retire after two months in Greensville. He didn't see anything wrong with that.

It's easy to think that this kind of virulent racism is a thing of the past - but here's the USDA barring farmers from financing because of their race less than 20 years ago.

Drone Wars

The BBC had an interesting blob of data about the US drone strikes in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Here's a sample:

Nuclear Detonations 1945-1998

(Via Bad Astronomy)

Here's a video representation of the first five decades of nuclear detonations - by location and country responsible.

It starts slow - but picks up rather dramatically.



As Phil Plait rightly asks, What the hell were we thinking?

Ratings Agencies Will Be Held Accountable?

(Via the WSJ and CJR)

Surely that's a misprint.

Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings are all refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond sales, each said in statements in recent days. Each says it fears being exposed to new legal liability created by the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

The new law will make ratings firms liable for the quality of their ratings decisions, effective immediately. The companies say that, until they get a better understanding of their legal exposure, they are refusing to let bond issuers use their ratings.

Or, more likely - that's something that will be swiftly reversed in some non-accountable way.

Still, fun to watch them squirm.

And Chittum's right - nice to know this little element got pretty much zero press up until now. Why do we have a media again? Yeesh.

The Phantom Menace of Social Security

There's an oddly comforting discussion posted at Columbia Journalism Review.

Yale Professor Ted Marmor lets the air out of a few of the more common depictions of Social Security.

Trudy Lieberman: What do you say to young people who believe that Social Security won’t be there for them?

Ted Marmor: They are being misled. If the proportion of Americans living beyond sixty-five is rising, as is the case, and if their voting strength will increase, as will be the case, why should their promised pensions be endangered? Put another way, if Social Security is a sacred cow, why will it be sacrificed when its worshippers are more numerous?

Interesting stuff.

The verdict on 'A Whale'

Uber oil skimmer "A Whale" is a flop.

Subprime Goes to College

---

Are we going to do this all over again?
-Steven Eisman, Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, June 24th, 2010

---

Steven Eisman has a J'accuse moment with the for-profit education industry. He's talking about the excesses and misdeeds of the federally backed student loan industry (Title IV loans).

The for-profit education industry accounts for 9% of the students, 25% of all Title IV disbursements but 44% of all defaults. And the President of the largest for-profit institution is paid nearly 25x the compensation level of the President of Harvard. There is something wrong with this statistical progression....

Here is one of the more upsetting statistics. In fiscal 2009, Apollo, the largest company in the industry, grew total revenues by $833 million. Of that amount, $1.1 billion came from Title IV federally-funded student loans and grants. More than 100% of the revenue growth came from the federal government. But of this incremental $1.1 billion in federal loan and grant dollars, the company spent only an incremental $99 million on faculty compensation and instructional costs – that’s 9 cents on every dollar received from the government going towards actual education. The rest went to marketing and paying the executives. One major reason why the industry has taken an ever increasing share of government dollars is that it has turned the typical education model on its head. And here is where the subprime analogy becomes very clear.

There is a traditional relationship between matching means and cost in education. Typically, families of lesser financial means seek lower cost institutions in order to maximize the available Title IV loans and grants – thereby getting the most out of every dollar and minimizing debt burdens. Families with greater financial resources often seek higher cost institutions because they can afford it more easily. The for-profit model seeks to recruit those with the greatest financial need and put them in high cost institutions. This formula maximizes the amount of Title IV loans and grants that these students receive.

With billboards lining the poorest neighborhoods in America and recruiters trolling casinos and homeless shelters (and I mean that literally), the for-profits have become increasingly adept at pitching the dream of a better life and higher earnings to the most vulnerable of society.

He also beats plenty hard on the for-profit education served up after families dive deep into debt.

If the [for-profit education] industry provided the right services, drop out rates and default rates should be low.

Let’s first look at drop out rates. Companies don’t fully disclose graduation rates, but using both DOE data, company-provided information and admittedly some of our own assumptions regarding the level of transfer students, we calculate drop out rates at most for-profit schools are 50%+ per year.

How good could the product be if drop out rates are so stratospheric? These statistics are quite alarming, especially given the enormous amount of debt most for-profit students must borrow to attend school.

But what about default rates? Eisner is convinced the industry manipulates the default rates, but he paints a truly horrifying picture with what information is available.

The federal government is covering defaults for the Title IV loans, so the lender has every incentive to write crap loans. After all, they're not stuck with the bill. This is awful for lots of reasons, but wait! There's more...

The companies who offer Title IV student loans also offer their own private loans as well. The loan loss provision for these loans is 50%-60%. That's money the bank is setting aside to cover defaults. When you're setting aside more than half the the amount you're loaning out to cover defaults - you're expecting a massive default rate. Under 10% is what you're looking for if you're planning on getting money out of your loans.

But why are Title IV lenders reporting that their private loans are tanking so hard?

According to Eisner, this is why:

There are two key statistics. No school can get more than 90% of its revenue from the government and 2 year cohort default rates cannot exceed 25% for 3 consecutive years. Failure to comply with either of these rules and you lose Title IV eligibility. Lose Title IV eligibility and you’re company’s a zero.

With respect to the default statistics, it is my belief that they are manipulated. Since the rule currently revolves around the 2 year default rate, the companies have every incentive to keep that statistic below 25%.

Isn’t it amazing that [leading Title IV lender] Apollo’s percentage of revenue from Title IV is 89% and not over 90%. How lucky can they be? We believe (and many recent lawsuits support) that schools actively manipulate the receipt, disbursement and especially the return of Title IV dollars to their students to remain under the 90/10 threshold. And again, unprofitable private student loans is also a way to keep below the 90/10 threshold.

Incredibly, it gets worse from there. Read Eisman's testimony (PDF)

(H/t Felix Salmon)

Late edit: Eisman's presentation is also available on Marketfolly.

A sample:

The Bitter End

Iniesta: Suck it, Villa

In any tournament that begins with a large pool of teams - the early rounds are the most exciting.

The World Cup encourages this - with rules that reward teams for winning big. Teams commit to attack, because a big win is more valuable than a marginal one.

In the knockout rounds, any will will do - even a penalty crapshoot. So percentage play shifts to cautious play - and scorelines usually trend towards marathon struggles that end in 1-nil.

Sooner or later, the stakes catch up with the game - and you get a total crapfest like this cup's final match.

I've said before that soccer played well is amazing, captivating even. But soccer played badly is about the worst thing you can watch.

This was the final, so people hung in there to see every last godawful moment. If you could have gotten 700 million football fans to screen this game without context, as if it were a friendly - I doubt a tenth of them would have kept watching past the half.

It was horrid.

Dutch hacking vs. Spanish diving vs. the English ref.

I started the match rooting for Spain - and by the end was wishing that the Dutch would send Spain home in a bucket. Naturally, the Dutch disappointed. Clear shots on goal, and Robben couldn't get it done over and over. I'd criticize Van Persie - but I honestly can't be sure he was on the field. FIFA says he was - but I'll need to review the tape.

I still believe the ref was over the top, but it's fair to say the Dutch were trying to hack their opponents into submission. John Nicholson points out this was a deliberate choice:

Had they played an open, attacking game, they'd have got creamed senseless by Spain. Yes, that would have been fun for the neutral but the Dutch don't owe ...commentators or anyone else anything. They're there to win and win by any means possible. It wasn't some sort of gross, immoral attitude they took to the game, merely a pragmatic one born out of knowing exactly what would suppress Spain most successfully. I admire that.

He's right, but I don't admire it. I had to watch that crap.

Two highlights of the night for me:

1. The Dutch coach receives his second place medal - and then takes it off and pockets it before he even gets off the podium. Nice.
   
2. The American booth minder, Bob Ley, trying to convince his audience that they have witnessed a "celebration of soccer" - right before they cut to Ruud Gullit who denounces the match in terms usually reserved for acts of genocide.

Oh, there was a goal, too - but whatever.

Spain gets the trophy, Holland gets the shaft (again) and the soccer gods smile down at the evil they have wrought.

Ugh.

One thing to look forward to - we start qualifying matches in two years.

Switzerland, You Suck

Letting Polanski go because the US hadn't filed an extridition request "for years."

So, Polanski went to Switzerland because he "trusted that the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him."

And that would not be fair.

So, Swiss extradition law requires that fugitives get advance warning that they are subject to arrest and extradition?

More like Switzerland screwed up and arrested a man who clearly is not subject to law - then found an excuse to let him go.

BP's Turf War With the Media - Not Even Close

You read stuff like this (from ProPublica) and you seriously wonder what the hell is going on in this country. Here's a freelance photojournalist describing what happened to him when he took photographs near a BP refinery in

I parked my car on the shoulder of Hwy. 197 near the Texas City sign that is in the pictures, on the south side of town and the refinery. I walked onto the median where the sign is and took the pictures. I walked back to my car and drove a couple of miles to a gas station that is on the way to my hotel. I noticed that what looked like a security truck, which had a light on the top, was following me, although he continued on when I pulled into the Valero gas station. I got out of my car to fill the tank and moments later two Texas City police cars pulled in next to my car, essentially blocking me in, although I wasn't trying to go anywhere, I was trying to get gas.

The first police officer asked me what I was doing and said he had gotten a report that I was taking pictures near the [BP] refinery. I told him I am a photojournalist and had only taken some pictures of a Texas City sign. He asked to see the pictures and I told him I didn't think I had to show them, legally. Another police officer walked up and again asked to see the pictures. I told him the same thing, but assured him that they were just pictures of the city sign, taken while I was in the public right of way.

He said I could show him the pictures or he could handle this another way, including calling Homeland Security and taking me in.

Read the rest.This crap just keeps happening. Limiting access in the name of 'Safety Zones'? Are we really that passive? Surely there are ways around this kind of stupidity.

Also: AUL sent me this link -which details the lengths some journalists have to go to get visuals of the BP mess.

Completely nuts.

Ultimate Betrayal

Just adding these two items up in my head.

One:

The US and Russia have taken part in the biggest spy swap since the Cold War, in an exchange at Vienna airport. One plane brought 10 Russian agents deported from the US after a court hearing at which they admitted being agents for a foreign country. The other was said to have brought four people convicted of spying in Russia but given a presidential pardon after they signed to admit their guilt. Both planes took off again after about 90 minutes.

and two:

It is not clear what will happen to ...the 7- and 11-year-old daughters of Vladimir and Lydia Guryev (Richard and Cynthia Murphy)...

Cripes. If the BBC is right, these kids were not on the plane - so their parents were (suprise!) spies - and they've been flown out of the country. If Elian was any example - we can expect these kids to join their parents - but wow, talk about paying for your parents sins...

That's just sick.

Nailed It!

With a few strategic edits...Pretty much as I predicted*.

That's a huge step up from my prior calls.

So the soccer gods have decreed that there will be a new champion. In their limitless evil, they have allowed two virgin nations to the final.

Presumably, this is so the crushing letdown of defeat will be completely unbearable for the loser. THIS was going to be the year!! We were SO close...!!

Good times. No Germany, No Italy, No Brazil or Argentina.

This has been a pretty solid cup.

*Assuming you ignore the fact that I started with the round of 16 set and that I was hopelessly wrong about the US and Argentina. And a few other things.

@Twitter

Proof that tweets can make anything lame...

God tweets the creation of the universe

God: @adam @eve I am the LORD your God who separated the light from the darkness. You shall have no other God before me for I am the LORD your Go
2 days ago

God: &#$%ing character limits. Point is, yay! I made you! Hi! Do what i say.
2 days ago

And so on

BP's to-do list

Poison water? Check. Poison the air? Check.

TEXAS CITY — At BP’s Texas City refinery, more than 400 pounds a day of benzene — 40 times the state reportable levels — was released during a 40-day period while a subunit of the refinery’s ultracracker unit was offline, according to a company filing with the state’s environmental agency Friday.

In all, BP officials said more than 500,000 pounds of pollutants and nonpollutants were released while the company increased flaring as they tried to repair a compressor on the faulty unit.

When did this happen? The week before the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Next up, the ground beneath your feet. Then maybe they'll waltze over to your house and shoot your puppy.


(H/t CJR)

Whose Side Are You On?

(Via the Reality Based Community)

While the recent walkbacks on financial regulation demonstrate that Congress bows to corporate pressure regardless of who is in charge - this recent DNC ad nicely demonstrates that the GOP is particularly shameless when it comes to saying who they work for on the record:



And that isn't even the highlight reel. Anybody else remember Romney's convention speech where he promised the faithful that McCain would "take a weed whacker" to excessive regulation on Wall Street (right before the economy imploded).

There's got to be an avalanche of stupid quotes out there just looking for a home in one of these ads.

Lowes: Fail (Still)

For no particular reason, I revisited a poor shopping experience I had on Lowes.com the other day.

Previously, I'd tried to use a gift certificate I had to buy a fire extinguisher for my kitchen - and it did not go well.

I could still use another extinguisher - and I figured I'd give them another shot. Trying to re-create the same scenario - I tried the exact same item the Kidde 10-B:C Kitchen Fire Extinguisher.

Now, when I call up the item from a search - I am prompted to enter my ZIP code.

This is good, but I have to do this before I even see how much the item costs. Which is odd.

(Looking back at what used to happen on the site - I'm unsure if I'd entered a ZIP code prior to seeing the item. I did get an Add to Cart button for a screenshot - but if memory serves, this was after I'd lied about my ZIP to see if the site even had the ability to add to cart).

In any event - I plug in my ZIP code and get the following:

Okay, so I'm still out of luck at my location. The nearest Lowes doesn't carry this item.

Not to worry, they're offering the ability to check other stores.

I try that:

Okay, none of the five nearest Lowes carry this item either. Not a huge deal, only the site isn't offering any other options for me. I can Shop This Store (which changes which store I'm currently "located" at) but this will only allow me to look at the inventory of another store that doesn't carry my item.

There's a help icon next to the Unavailable status. Perhaps it has more information...

That'd be a no. What's interesting here is that the store search has returned a list of 5 stores and none of them have my item. You would think a better option would be if the site knew that the status on all 5 stores was Unavailable - it would provide you with a custom message like "No Lowes location within X miles carries this item. Here are some other options you could try."

It would hardly be fair to criticize Lowes for not stocking this item in a store near me. They can't be everywhere.

I cannot fathom why they cannot ship it to me - however. There's arguably no reason why the product cannot be boxed up and sent to me for a fee. If I'm in the US, you can ship it to me, regardless of what my nearest Lowes store has in their inventory.

You would think their website would support this.

Somewhere in their business model - they've made the decision that their website will not compete with their brick and mortar stores. That makes sense from a central office mindset - but from a customer mindset, I want to buy from you - and you won't let me.

Assuming I happened to live near a store that did have this item what would I see?

I plugged in 40036 (Kentucky) at random.

Kentucky's Lowes does stock this item.

So far, so good - but let's say I still wanted this item to be sent to me. I don't want to drive to them, and the website is offering to have it delivered.

Here's what the shipping estimate is:

You have got to be kidding me. $79 for home delivery of a 3 lb fire extinguisher?

The sticker shock would drive away your average mortal.


Reality check time. Yes, a fire extinguisher is considered hazardous material, so there's an additional fee. Good user interface would explain this so people wouldn't freak out when they saw a shipping rate that was four times the price of the item.

But is that rate even fair? What should it cost to ship a 3 lb fire extinguisher?

If you check with UPS the basic ground rate is around $15, plus another $25 fee because it's hazardous. (I tried LA to Portland, ME or LA to Kentucky without much variance)

So around $40 bucks to ship a $20 item via UPS - which is reason enough to drive to the store and pick it up -

Lowes is charging almost double that rate.

Which is reason enough to try another vendor.

Weak.