"Imagine that you have a wife who is dying of renal failure, and that you would give her one of your kidneys, but you are not a biological match. Now imagine that another couple is in the same bind. The kidney exchange locates and matches the couples: you donate your kidney to the stranger's wife, while the stranger gives his kidney to your wife; the operations are performed simultaneously to make sure no one backs out. Although this system has yielded only a couple dozen transplants so far, it illustrates an economist's understanding of incentives: if you can't get someone to give an organ out of altruism, and you can't pay him either, what do you do? Find two parties who are desperate to align their incentives."
This was proposed by a Harvard economist, Alvin Roth. WHAT A GREAT IDEA. It seems people can only see the negative side in these sensitive topics. A big thank you to the neoconservatives for instilling unjustified fear and anger into our culture because of their need to have markets converge to claimed "efficient levels"; moreover, thanks for your unyielding, seemingly unstoppable need to 'commodify' ever necessity of life. Let's leave this job to the specialists of the field. And only them. The collaborative effort between economists and medical specialists are producing significant results to support their claims. My do they put up a good fight!
Another method to increase participation in the donor system is practiced in Europe today. They designed a donor system with "opting in" as the default choice. An economist, Richard Thaler points out the default option is often the most attractive option, especially as the number of options increase -- of which he goes into explicit detail in his book "Nudge" on behavioral economics; a really good read.
There are amazing proposals to replace the waiting list. Don't listen to the radical nutsos. Because if I end up on that list of which 11 people die a day waiting for a kidney -- my acupuncturist said I have bad kidney energy -- there will be hell to pay, either in the afterlife or when reincarnated.
In the spirit of all the health care spat: People who lack health insurance are about 20 times more likely to donate their liver or a kidney for a lifesaving transplant than to receive one, a new study shows. Of course more poor people are going to want to sell their organs, but they will also receive the opportunity to actually get an organ vital for survival. A market for organs is definitely a debatable subject; not one I would like to delve into. Bottom line: It's about time to align the incentives!
Friday, November 14, 2008
TRUE BLOOD
I have always been fascinated by the idea of vampires. And zombies. I will gleefully discuss that on another rainy day because that would require hours of dedication. The first vampire movie I saw was The Lost Boys. Kiefer Sutherland's best role. I've never seen 24; if I did, I still don't think it would change my mind. It's hard to describe- some people just have that 'vampire face.' Vampire movies coupled with the belief that they lived in Transylvania feeding off homeless people made my childhood years quite fulfilling. As you may have guessed, I had an insatiable imagination back then.
MY TOP 3 (because "top lists" seem to appeal to restless readers):
1) Interview with the Vampire
2) From Dusk Till Dawn
3) The Lost Boys
Naturally, this new series True Blood caught my eye. I'll admit I didn't give it a chance at first. The problem is these new adaptations have been monotonously bland. To name a few: Underworld, 30 Days of Night, Queen of the Damned, Van Helsing. They weren't horrible movies per say, but they do not do justice to the genre. True Blood has the perfect mix: a dark, shadowy plot that can also be funny at times with HBO limitations (aka none).
This review may be a bit premature having only seen the first few episodes. Nonetheless, I am hooked. In the world of True Blood, based on a series of books by Charlain Harris, vampires and humans coexist in a small town in Louisiana. With the invention of synthetic blood, vampires are now able to "come out the coffin." What happens is a world of parasitic beings attempting to adapt. Vampires are estranged by humans. Humans are afraid of vampires. Vampires crave human blood and strangely vice-versa. Vampire blood can be sold for money because of its sexual-enhancing properties when ingested. And of course, the story can't go on without the sexual curiousity between the two beings. The story begins with a telepathic waitress, Sookie Stackhouse, who believes in civil rights for vampires. Things get messy as she chooses to exercise her beliefs after meeting Bill Compton, a vampire she lusts at first sight.
MY TOP 3 (because "top lists" seem to appeal to restless readers):
1) Interview with the Vampire
2) From Dusk Till Dawn
3) The Lost Boys
Naturally, this new series True Blood caught my eye. I'll admit I didn't give it a chance at first. The problem is these new adaptations have been monotonously bland. To name a few: Underworld, 30 Days of Night, Queen of the Damned, Van Helsing. They weren't horrible movies per say, but they do not do justice to the genre. True Blood has the perfect mix: a dark, shadowy plot that can also be funny at times with HBO limitations (aka none).
This review may be a bit premature having only seen the first few episodes. Nonetheless, I am hooked. In the world of True Blood, based on a series of books by Charlain Harris, vampires and humans coexist in a small town in Louisiana. With the invention of synthetic blood, vampires are now able to "come out the coffin." What happens is a world of parasitic beings attempting to adapt. Vampires are estranged by humans. Humans are afraid of vampires. Vampires crave human blood and strangely vice-versa. Vampire blood can be sold for money because of its sexual-enhancing properties when ingested. And of course, the story can't go on without the sexual curiousity between the two beings. The story begins with a telepathic waitress, Sookie Stackhouse, who believes in civil rights for vampires. Things get messy as she chooses to exercise her beliefs after meeting Bill Compton, a vampire she lusts at first sight.
Absurdity
"A dozen illegal immigrants hiding in the back of a truck were nabbed after the driver heard them singing to celebrate as they entered the UK." -Daily Star
You have to admit the imagery it creates is hilarious. A truck load of illegal immigrants singing and yelling in unison seconds after passing through the final checkpoint, only to be foiled minutes later. A possible scene for Family Guy?
Unrelated topic- think you have what it takes to join Obama's administration? The background check questionnaire
Yes, it's necessary to dig for details for a high-level position, but who can remember specific details from 10 years ago, let alone what happened last week? I guess that just proves I am not a fitting candidate. What we need to do is steer away from all this mish mosh. For example, question 14 asks if you've ever kept a diary that could embarrass yourself, your family or the President-Elect if it were made public? Let's not waste time and get to the point- burn your diary. Nice and simple.
To wrap things up, I leave you with this image:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/images/20081112_d-0077-5-515h.jpg
A flawless photoshop? Sadly, it's questionable.
You have to admit the imagery it creates is hilarious. A truck load of illegal immigrants singing and yelling in unison seconds after passing through the final checkpoint, only to be foiled minutes later. A possible scene for Family Guy?
Unrelated topic- think you have what it takes to join Obama's administration? The background check questionnaire
Yes, it's necessary to dig for details for a high-level position, but who can remember specific details from 10 years ago, let alone what happened last week? I guess that just proves I am not a fitting candidate. What we need to do is steer away from all this mish mosh. For example, question 14 asks if you've ever kept a diary that could embarrass yourself, your family or the President-Elect if it were made public? Let's not waste time and get to the point- burn your diary. Nice and simple.
To wrap things up, I leave you with this image:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/images/20081112_d-0077-5-515h.jpg
A flawless photoshop? Sadly, it's questionable.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"Duck and Cover!"
After reading about what is said to be America's biggest earthquake drill, in California due to the San Andreas fault line, I tossed all my work aside to do a little research.
A friend forwarded me an e-mail with excerpts from Doug Copp's "Triangle of Life" concerning earthquake survival; this challenged the widespread practice to "drop, cover and hold on." I found this new method astonishing if it in fact holds true. Copp explains during an earthquake, one should crouch down or curl up against a bulky object that would only compress slightly, like a couch or fridge- thus leaving you in a void. Those who seek shelter under a table or other objects are instantly crushed from anything that collapses onto that object. This explanation seems valid.
Red Cross and many other organizations rebutted Copp's method stating it would lead to a fatal end. They stated that buildings in the U.S. don't collapse or "pancake" rendering Copp's method dangerously useless. According to them, the majority of deaths are caused by building contents and imploding glass.
One thing that IS agreed is don't get under a doorway. It is a definite no-no and will lead to a violent death, not to mention the embarrassing and desperate attempt to stay still when the shocks throw you back and forth.
My verdict: "Drop, cover and hold on" unless you're in Turkey where Copp based his research; buildings there are more likely to "pancake." In times of disaster, it's simply common sense to be mindful of your surroundings. Scuddlin' under a flimsy beer pong table or getting in a fetal position against a $10 IKEA rack would be moronic; however, it may put you in the limelight of mass media for a good minute.
A friend forwarded me an e-mail with excerpts from Doug Copp's "Triangle of Life" concerning earthquake survival; this challenged the widespread practice to "drop, cover and hold on." I found this new method astonishing if it in fact holds true. Copp explains during an earthquake, one should crouch down or curl up against a bulky object that would only compress slightly, like a couch or fridge- thus leaving you in a void. Those who seek shelter under a table or other objects are instantly crushed from anything that collapses onto that object. This explanation seems valid.
Red Cross and many other organizations rebutted Copp's method stating it would lead to a fatal end. They stated that buildings in the U.S. don't collapse or "pancake" rendering Copp's method dangerously useless. According to them, the majority of deaths are caused by building contents and imploding glass.
One thing that IS agreed is don't get under a doorway. It is a definite no-no and will lead to a violent death, not to mention the embarrassing and desperate attempt to stay still when the shocks throw you back and forth.
My verdict: "Drop, cover and hold on" unless you're in Turkey where Copp based his research; buildings there are more likely to "pancake." In times of disaster, it's simply common sense to be mindful of your surroundings. Scuddlin' under a flimsy beer pong table or getting in a fetal position against a $10 IKEA rack would be moronic; however, it may put you in the limelight of mass media for a good minute.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
