Displaying posts published in

December 2016

If You Like Your Longevity, You Can Keep Your Longevity By Claudia Rosett

After decades of improvement, life expectancy in America is no longer on the rise.

Over the past few years, the increasing longevity that was once the norm has stalled out. In 2015 American life expectancy actually declined, year-on-year, by about a month, shrinking to 78.8 years. So we read this week in the Wall Street Journal, under the headline “Nation’s Death Rate Rises as Progress Against Heart Disease Stalls,” and in USA Today’s dispatch, “Has U.S. life expectancy maxed out? First decline since 1993.”

Similar alarms have been clanging for some time now, including three stories in the New York Times last year: “Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans, Study Finds”; a report this June on the broader trend, “First Rise in U.S. Death Rate in Years Surprises Experts”; and a story this September titled “Maternal Mortality Rate in U.S. Rises, Defying Global Trend, Study Finds.”

In story after story, we read about demographers and medical experts puzzling over what’s gone wrong. They point to heart disease, obesity, drug use, stroke, Alzheimer’s, suicide. The USA Today article notes that since World War II, it’s been rare to see a rise in U.S. mortality rates, and such spikes have usually been linked to highly specific events such as the spread of AIDS in the early 1990s, or a “nasty flu season” in 1980. By contrast, what we’re seeing now are rising mortality rates involving a broad range of causes, especially among middle-aged Americans.

Missing from all these accounts is a single word that ought to command unblinking attention: Obamacare.

Or, if you prefer the full title: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as the signature achievement of Obama’s first-term. It is a big part of his legacy, a cornerstone of his 2008 campaign promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” It is a big part of the legacy Obama is now urging President-elect Donald Trump to preserve.

Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Veterans Affairs There is no better man to clean up the shocking problems at the VA. By Deroy Murdock

President-elect Donald J. Trump should nominate soldier and veterans advocate Pete Hegseth as his secretary of veterans affairs. The VA bureaucracy has devolved into a deadly mess, and this energetic, telegenic, passionate reformer is exactly the man to upend it.

Hegseth is 36, and his age would put a spring in the step of a Cabinet that, so far, has more than a touch of gray around the temples. Millennials and Generation Xers should be heartened to see a contemporary advise Trump. But his youth notwithstanding, Hegseth has seen plenty since graduating from Princeton University with a degree in politics in 2003.

As a major in the U.S. Army National Guard, Hegseth battled the Taliban in Afghanistan, helped liberate Samarra, Iraq, and kept his rifle at the ready as he guarded radical Islamic terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For his outstanding service as an officer, he earned two Bronze Stars and a Combat Infantryman’s Badge.

Out of uniform, Hegseth has been a voice for vets. He served as Vets for Freedom’s executive director. And as its CEO, he grew Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) into the nation’s largest center-Right vets group. Concerning those still deployed, Hegseth presses for policies to help GIs win military engagements, rather than those that merely stop them — as did President Obama’s ISIS-creating, premature withdrawal from Iraq.

At CVA, Hegseth inspired his members to demand a better deal for vets. Decrying the lethal delays at VA hospitals in Phoenix and beyond, Hegseth wrote in 2014:

In the military, such a pattern of command failures would be met with decisive action — the underperforming leader would be replaced, period. But that strong performance standard doesn’t exist at the VA, and thus executives can be shifted from one post to the next, with little regard for performance or results.

From rallies to TV interviews to congressional testimony, Hegseth pushed the Veterans Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act and the VA Management Accountability Act. Congress approved both measures with broad, bipartisan majorities, and Obama signed them into law.

“No one has been more effective than Pete Hegseth in advocating reform of veterans’ health,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich told American Military News. CVA’s Dan Caldwell said, “Pete was tireless in working with Congress and other stakeholders, holding countless meetings with House and Senate members, staff, and organizations around the nation to push VA reform to give veterans more choice and better health care.”

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has slow-walked the new rules that should expand vets’ health-care options and ease the dismissal of inept, obstructive, sadistic VA functionaries. Consequently, too many VA facilities remain macabre:

• An unidentified dentist at Wisconsin’s Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center resigned on December 3. Rather than treat patients with sterile, disposable equipment — per VA regulations — he improperly cleaned and sterilized his own gear. Hence, he may have infected 592 veterans with hepatitis and HIV. (Tomah also was dubbed “Candy Land” because of alleged opioid over-prescription by its doctors.)

Sorry Mad Dog, Waterboarding Works I respect Gen. Mattis, but he has never employed enhanced-interrogation techniques. I have. By James E. Mitchell

While meeting with the New York Times last month, President-elect Donald Trump was asked about waterboarding. He explained that Gen. James Mattis, his choice for Defense secretary, said he “never found it to be useful.” The general reportedly advised, “Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that.” At the risk of making a man nicknamed Mad Dog mad, I have to respectfully disagree.

Gen. Mattis, a retired Marine four-star, is by all accounts a gentleman, a scholar, and a hell of a warfighter. I have the greatest respect for him, and the full nuance of his views might have been lost in the retelling. But on the subject of questioning terrorists, I have some practical experience. In 2002 I was contracted by the Central Intelligence Agency to help put together what became its enhanced-interrogation program. I spent much of the following six years at “black sites” around the world, trying to extract lifesaving information from some of the worst people on the planet.

It is understandable that Gen. Mattis would say he never found waterboarding useful, because no one in the military has been authorized to waterboard a detainee. Thousands of U.S. military personnel have been waterboarded as part of their training, though the services eventually abandoned the practice after finding it too effective in getting even the most hardened warrior to reveal critical information.

During the war on terror, the CIA alone had been authorized to use the technique. I personally waterboarded the only three terrorists subjected to the tactic by the CIA. I also waterboarded two U.S. government lawyers, at their request, when they were trying to decide for themselves whether the practice was “torture.” They determined it was not.

I volunteered to be waterboarded myself and can assure you that it is not a pleasant experience. But no one volunteers to be tortured.

Waterboarding was never the first, nor the best, choice for most detainees. We started out with the “tea and sympathy” approach and only escalated to harsher methods when it became clear that the detainee held vital information that might save innocent lives and was determined not to provide it. We quickly moved away from enhanced interrogations as soon as the detainee showed even a little cooperation.

The people I dealt with were not run-of-the-mill battlefield detainees, but hardened terrorists. Men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. These people were hellbent on bringing about further devastation.

I would ask Gen. Mattis this: Imagine being captured by America’s enemies. Would you give up important secrets that could get fellow Americans captured or killed in exchange for a Michelob and a pack of Marlboros?

Trump’s Federalist Revival The president-elect’s EPA pick will restore balance to the federal-state relationship. Kimberley Strassel

Donald Trump had barely finished announcing his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency before the left started listing its million reasons why Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was the worst nomination in the history of the planet: He’s an untrained anti-environmentalist. He’s a polluter. He’s a fossil-fuel fanatic, a lobbyist-lover, a climate crazy.

Mr. Pruitt is not any of those things. Here’s what he in fact is, and the real reason the left is frustrated: He’s a constitutional scholar, a federalist (and a lawyer). And for those reasons he is a sublime choice to knock down the biggest conceit of the Obama era—arrogant, overweening (and illegal) Washington rule.

We’ve lived so many years under the Obama reign that many Americans forget we are a federal republic, composed of 50 states. There isn’t a major statute on the books that doesn’t recognize this reality and acknowledge that the states are partners with—and often superior to—the federal government. That is absolutely the case with major environmental statues, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Congress specifically understood in crafting each of these laws that one-size-fits all solutions were detrimental to the environment. Federal bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency traditionally and properly existed to set minimum standards, provide technical support, and engage in occasional enforcement. States, with their unique knowledge of local problems, economies and concerns, were free to innovate their own solutions. CONTINUE AT SITE

Donald Trump Cabinet Picks Signal Deregulation Moves Are Coming Business leaders predict changes may come in everything from overtime pay to power-plant emission rules By Nick Timiraos and Andrew Tangel

Business leaders are predicting a dramatic unraveling of regulations on everything from overtime pay to power-plant emission rules as Donald Trump seeks to fill his cabinet with determined adversaries of the agencies they will lead.

The president-elect’s pick Thursday to head the Labor Department, fast-food executive Andrew Puzder, is an outspoken critic of the worker-pay policies advanced by the Obama administration. Mr. Trump’s choice for the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is a primary architect of legal challenges on President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations.

Other cabinet nominees critical of regulations advanced under Mr. Obama include Rep. Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, financier Wilbur Ross Jr. at the Commerce Department and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. All will require Senate confirmation.

Those picks suggest the Trump administration, backed by a Republican Congress, is determined to advance labor, environmental and financial regulatory policies more favorable to many American corporations, though not all will back his proposals. Business leaders say all Americans stand to benefit from a lighter touch that would boost profits, growth and hiring, particularly for small and midsize businesses.

“If government can stimulate business to hire more, rather than vilify us, that’s going to be a better milieu,” said Andrew Berlin, CEO of Chicago-based Berlin Packaging LLC, which makes glass and plastic bottles for consumer products.

“The continual onslaught of regulation over the last eight years—that probably has been pretty much our No. 1, overall concern as manufacturers,” said Jason Andringa, CEO of the Vermeer Corp., a Pella, Iowa-based maker of construction and farm machinery. “That there may be some relief from that is very appealing to us.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Tony Thomas: Gaia Can’t Stomach Spagbol

Where would we be without climate science — or, more particularly, what of carbonphobic academics if the global warming scam were ever de-funded? Why, researchers who devote their energies to the planet-despoiling peril of pasta with meat sauce would need to find something productive to do!
Fight global warming by reducing CO2 emissions from your spaghetti bolognaise! This is the recommendation of two academics associated with Melbourne’s RMIT University whohave found that the farm-to-fork “Global Warming Potential” (GWP) of pasta with meat sauce can be significantly reduced by eliminating beef and substituting kangaroo. They recommend that for an even greater impact on global heat, rising seas, coral bleaching, tempests, bushfires and ocean acidification, you should dispense with the kangaroo too, and make your spagbol topping with lentils and kidney beans.

The Journal of Cleaner Production study, reprised at The Conversation, is by RMIT Principal Research Fellow Karli Verghese and Stephen Clune, senior lecturer in sustainable design, Lancaster University and formerly an RMIT Research Fellow. The authors say, “We hope that chefs, caterers and everyday foodies will use this information to cook meals without cooking the planet.”

A Conversation commenter, William Hollingsworth, self-identifying as “a Marxist monarchist”, suggests another planet-saving refinement to our favorite family fare. “Reduce the footprint for spaghetti bolognaise even further by cooking it in one pot, not by boiling the spaghetti separately which doubles the amount of energy needed for cooking and adds another pot to be washed up. Tastes just the same,” he says.

The true hero of RMIT’s spaghetti bolognaise-led crusade against global warming is not Skippy the Kangaroo but Oscar the Onion. The carbon footprint of onions, say the researchers, is so low it would take 50 medium onions (5.8kg) to generate 1kg of greenhouse gases. By contrast, a mere 44gm of premium beef spagbol topping generates a similar 1kg carbon footprint.

The authors, who are clearly not silly, stop short of recommending 50 medium onions for dinner. “Due to different culinary and dietary requirements,” they explain, “it is hard to argue that you can replace beef with onions.” (Insert flatulence jokes here.) A commenter, possibly a Scot[i], remarks that he would much rather eat 2.6kg of oats than 5.8kg of onions for the same greenhouse emissions.

From the paper, we discover that the five cloves of garlic in a spagbol recipe generate a mere 10 grams of harmful emissions, and the grated zucchini only 20 grams. There seems no need for either the Turnbull federal or Andrews state government to include garlic and zucchini emissions in their CO2 reduction targets. Nor do garlic and zucchini emissions bulk large in the global annual emissions tally of 42 billion tonnes.

A Basketball Game that Put Israel ‘On the Map’ Dani Menkin’s new documentary, ‘On the Map,’ recounts how the Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball team’s 1977 triumph galvanized Israel By Matthew Futterman

Sports and sports movies are at their best when the players involved understand something far larger than just a game is on the line.

Israeli filmmaker Dani Menkin proves this with his documentary “On the Map,” the story of the 1976-77 Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball team. The team won for Israel its first European basketball championship and forever changed Israelis’ view of their country and its sporting prowess. It opened in Los Angeles last month and premieres in New York Friday.

Menkin was a boy in Tel Aviv when former U.S. collegiate star Tal Brody led Maccabi to the pinnacle of European basketball. He watched Israelis pour into the streets to celebrate the shocking win over Russia’s CSKA Moscow team.

“Everyone remembers where they were when Tal Brody said we are on the map and we are here to stay,” Menkin said in a recent interview from Los Angeles, where he lives now. The exact quote, delivered by a delirious Brody after the 91-79 beatdown of the Russians on February 17, 1977, in a small gym in Belgium, was: “We are on the map. And we are staying on the map—not only in sports but in everything.”

Brody chose Israeli basketball over the NBA in 1966. On a post-college trip, he learned firsthand that the country, especially Tel Aviv, wasn’t a desert backwater but rather a soulful and hedonistic oasis.

“The social life was very attractive,” said Brody, who has lived in Israel for most of the past 49 years.

Cyberattacks, Terrorism Pose Grave Threats to the U.K., Spy Chief Says Head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service says cyberwarfare, antidemocratic propaganda must be countered By Jenny Gross

LONDON—The head of the U.K.’s foreign intelligence agency warned Thursday that cyberattacks and the militant group Islamic State pose grave dangers to Britain and its allies.

In rare public comments, MI6 chief Alex Younger said that to protect itself and friendly nations from these threats, the U.K. must expose the magnitude of cyberwarfare and propaganda operations that subvert democracy.

“The risks at stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty. They should be a concern to all those who share democratic values,” Mr. Younger said in his first major speech since his appointment as spy chief two years ago.

Mr. Younger didn’t specifically say Moscow had been behind a recent wave of cyberattacks, but his comments come as Western governments warn of Russian meddling in U.S. and European politics.

The U.S. intelligence community has accused Moscow of interfering in the U.S. election by leaking emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in Washington and from other organizations and government agencies.

U.S. officials say the Russian-backed hacking effort is likely to continue as Moscow tries to influence U.S. politics and key elections in Europe. The Kremlin has denied the allegations.

Russian interference could be particularly aggressive in Europe, where Moscow has forged ties with euroskeptic political parties, which could make it harder for Europe to keep up sanctions on Moscow, White House officials and other experts say.

Mr. Younger described the threat from terrorism as “unprecedented,” singling out Islamic State. He said the Sunni Muslim militant group was plotting violence against the U.K. and its allies from Syria, and that the U.K. couldn’t be safe from terror threats until the Syrian civil war was brought to an end.

Since June 2013, he said, intelligence agencies have disrupted 12 terrorist plots.

Mr. Younger specified Russia by name for casting all groups that oppose Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s government as “terrorists” and refusing to differentiate between rebels working with U.S.-backed allies and Islamic State fighters.

Russia began airstrikes in Syria last year at the request of the Assad government. Residents, antigovernment activists and monitoring groups have for months accused Russia of bombarding the eastern, opposition-held neighborhoods of Aleppo and worsening the humanitarian crisis there.

Rebels have suffered a series of staggering losses in the northern Syrian city, and Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S. issued a joint statement on Wednesday condemning the violence.

“In Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace,” Mr. Younger said. “The human tragedy is heartbreaking.”

Mr. Younger also tried to soothe worries that Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president and the U.K.’s exit from the European Union will affect the close security ties among Britain and its allies.

“I will aim for, and expect, continuity,” he said. “These relationships are long lasting and the personal bonds between us are strong.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Copying Singapore’s Math Homework The world needs a network of organizations to help countries learn from each other’s education systems. By Wendy Kopp

Ms. Kopp is the founder of Teach For America and CEO and co-founder of Teach For All, a global network of independent organizations working to expand educational opportunities in 40 countries.

Every three years, hundreds of thousands of teenagers in dozens of countries take an exam that tests their knowledge in science, math, reading, collaborative problem solving and financial literacy. The most recent results, issued this week, provide rich data for determining whether countries’ education systems are high-performing, making progress, or lagging behind. The PISA test is administered by the Program for International Student Assessment, a project of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Here are a few of the success stories from the current report: In Australia, immigrant students perform as well as other children. In South Korea, students from lower-income families perform on a par with wealthier peers. In Vietnam, the academic performance of girls and boys is roughly equitable. And Qatar experienced the fastest progress in math, while Georgia experienced the fastest progress in science.

Unfortunately, experience shows that most countries, including the U.S., fail to make the most of the PISA data. Even though PISA shines a light on policies and practices driving high performance and meaningful progress, only sporadic, ad hoc and generally bilateral opportunities exist to carry knowledge of what’s proving successful in one country to other parts of the world. Most countries write off the opportunity to learn from the highest-performing countries, since they are far away and seem very different. What can the U.S. or Chile, for example, learn from Singapore or Estonia—and vice versa?

The answer is almost certainly a great deal. For an issue like education—which is of enormous importance to global development—this absence of a global approach for fostering the exchange of ideas and best practices is an anomaly. Other global issues such as public health and the environment have robust channels and funding mechanisms for spreading best practices. In education, innovative ideas and new approaches that could benefit students on the other side of the world rarely see the light of day beyond a particular place. CONTINUE AT SITE

Shortcuts to Addiction Big Pharma, the author argues, has inflated the number of Americans with chronic pain to 100 million when 25 million would be more realistic. Sally Satel reviews “Drug Dealer, MD” by Anna Lembke. By Sally Satel

Psychiatrist Anna Lembke, chief of addiction medicine at Stanford University’s medical school, has spent her career helping patients battle their addiction to opioid drugs, from Vicodin to heroin. Out of this experience comes “Drug Dealer, MD,” a short and feisty book in which, among much else, she calls out practitioners for overprescribing painkillers and censures a scamming subculture in which patients abet their own addiction and suffering.

The “prescription drug epidemic,” as Dr. Lembke calls it, encompasses several trends, the most dramatic being a spike in overdose deaths. Prescription-drug abuse, she explains, began to be a problem in the 1990s, when campaigns for improved pain treatment gained ground. In 2001 the powerful Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations established standards for pain management in response to the widespread problem of under-treating pain.

Few experts would deny that the inadequate treatment of pain had long been a challenge for American medicine, and the new standards were not in themselves misguided. But the pendulum has since swung in the other direction. Too many well-meaning doctors use long-acting, high-dose narcotics to treat nasty toothaches and minor injuries when such drugs are really meant to relieve the agony of cancer and other severe, unremitting conditions. The more opiate medications in circulation, the more opportunities for patients—and non-patients—to abuse them.

Part of the blame for the epidemic, Dr. Lembke says, rests with the pharmaceutical companies, which have been heavy-handed in their promotion of narcotics to doctors. Meanwhile, she argues, Big Pharma has exaggerated the number of Americans with chronic pain, inflating the figure to 100 million when 25 million would be more realistic.

Users themselves, of course, must assume some responsibility too, and one can only applaud Dr. Lembke for wading into these politically incorrect waters, given that any discussion of the role of the user is construed as blaming the victim. There are patients, Dr. Lembke writes, who “visit a doctor’s office not to recover from illness but to be validated in their identity as a person with an illness.” She describes how patients finagle pills out of doctors and, in an amusing riff, labels their strategies by user type. “Senators” will “filibuster” the doctor with unrelated problems until the final few minutes of a visit and then make a plea for narcotics; the doctor is now so short on time that he relents. “Exhibitionists” writhe in fake pain. The “Dynamic Duo”—a patient and his crying mother (“the commonest co-dependent”)—present a team too pitiful to refuse. CONTINUE AT SITE