re: "Yankees Suck"

I don't like admitting it, but the Sox acted like children today. Pedro throwing at Garcia because he was bleeding hits and then publicly threatening to bean the Yankee bench, Manny taking offense to a fastball that he couldn't have been hit by if he had lunged for it, Pedro shrugging a 72-year-old to the ground...

But at least they didn't team up on a groundskeeper, and none of them are facing criminal charges. Yankees suck.

[add.: Somewhere between the writing of the headline and the writing of the second paragraph, the story changed from the Yanks facing charges to possibly facing charges. The police spokeswoman "backed off earlier police statements that charges will be filed."]

- posted by Bob at 11:38 PM; link

 
"Yankees Suck"

Those of you who have never lived in Boston may not be aware of this phenomenon. Boston fans chant "Yankees suck" at every possible moment. When the Sox play the Yankees, it's one thing. But it doesn't even begin to stop there. At a mid-August game against Toronto, I heard a "Yankees suck" chant. In the Division Series against the A's, after every Boston run, there were chants of "Yankees suck." At the Patriots' Super Bowl parade in 2002, the most prominent chant was "Yankees suck." (which, by the way, proves decisively that Boston will never be anything but a baseball town)

The past few days, of course, it's been brutal, though now it's more focused. I can't walk down a city block without hearing someone saying "Yankees suck" or seeing a T Shirt bearing the same phrase. My NY plates set off a "Yankees suck" chant when I was driving Monday night.

People say that Boston fans don't really want to win the world Series, because then they couldn't go on pitying themselves. I think that's hogwash. But if they ever do win the World Series, I wonder whether "Yankees suck" will fade. I doubt it.

- posted by Erik at 5:29 PM; link

 
The race is not to the swift

The New York Times has finally declared their official position on Arnold Schwarzenegger's acting abilities:

"During the campaign, Mr. Schwarzenegger had a huge advantage in the low expectations that everyone had about him. In politics, it is better to be lucky than to be good. But Mr. Schwarzenegger already knew that from his movie days."

- posted by Mark at 6:19 PM; link

 
What the?

"Black leaders are outraged over a new board game called 'Ghettopoly' that has 'playas' acting like pimps and game cards reading, 'You got yo whole neighborhood addicted to crack. Collect $50.'"

- posted by jay at 12:22 PM; link

 
New Report on Costs of Iatrogenesis

The Kaiser Foundation Health Policy Report has a nice summary of a new study on the scope of iatrogenesis that says that, "Medical injuries in U.S. hospitals in 2000 led to about 32,600 deaths, at least 2.4 million extra days of patient hospitalization and additional costs of up to $9.3 billion"

- posted by Ethan at 3:06 PM; link

 
3-man Staffs

The evidence going into the post-season this year that pitching on 3 days rest is not a good idea was already overwhelming: since 1994, pitchers going on short rest in the playoffs are 6-16 with an E.R.A. of 5.32. This is amplified by the fact that it's generally the best starters on a team that are asked to go on 3 days rest. But maybe this fact will change the minds of managers next October: of the 8 teams in the playoffs this season, 3 used a 3-man rotation. All three of these teams (Oakland, Atlanta, and San Francisco) lost to teams using 4-man staffs, and all lost while they had home-field advantage. Now that three teams that won a total of 297 games this year lost in the first round of the playoffs, hopefully the idea of a 3-man staff in the division series will finally be put to rest.

- posted by jay at 1:59 PM; link

 
Living the Dream

"Eating junk food is probably every 18-year-old's dream, but for me it's more than that - it's a passport to a normal life."--Ashley Clarke in the Telegraph

- posted by Mark at 12:01 PM; link

 
Iatrogenesis – Tort Reform And Medical Malpractice

If you're driving along and you have a seizure and crash into my car, hurting me badly, then, generally speaking, your damages are your own and mine are my own. If, however, you failed to take your prescribed epilepsy medication on the morning in question, then you have arguably been negligent and I can file what is called a "tort" claim against you (that is, sue you) to make you pay for my damages.

There are, or course, a number of things I'd have to prove to win my case, some of which would be difficult, and one of these things is that you were negligent. Negligence is generally defined as "conduct falling below the standard of care that a reasonable person would demonstrate under similar circumstances." This definition is a little silly in a number of respects, but it is clear what it is trying to get a jury or judge to do, namely, hold the actions of the person being sued up against the behavioral norms of the community and decide whether such actions were up par.

It is easy to see why this would fall apart in medicine. Juries and judges are not members of the medical community and have no idea what the norms are, much less have the capacity to evaluate the actions of a doctor in comparison to such norms. Thus, for medical malpractice torts, most jurisdictions use a different standard for negligence. Any doctor who departs from "custom" is automatically negligent (of course, such a doctor can only loose a tort suit if his negligence provably causes provable harm). Custom is usually defined as what the majority of doctors think is the best procedure. Some jurisdictions allow custom to also include what a "respected minority" think is the best procedure.

The underlying model of medical practice that this definition of medical negligence assumes is ridiculous. Only the most routine and dumb kinds of negligence are accurately distinguished by this definition. Much of medical care, especially emergency medical care, is done under conditions that limit the amount of research that can be done to determine what the majority of doctors would recommend. It ignores the fact that even today the majority of the medical practice has not been proven to be beneficial to patients by means of a controlled double-blind scientific experiment. It ignores that, in order to train future generations of doctors, we must allow students of medicine to attempt some procedures (practice) on real patients. And, perhaps most importantly, it ignores the fact that no human being who has ever lived could possibly know everything needed to uphold this standard all the time or keep up with the blindingly fast rate of scientific advancement in medicine through continuing medical education.

Reform of the Tort system has focused on putting limits or "caps" on "non-economic" damages, such as "pain and suffering" and "punitive" damages, or by putting limits on the contingency fees that lawyers can charge in med mal cases as a way of discouraging an injured person from being able to find a lawyer who will take the case. In my last post I noted some evidence that there is little correlation between who sues and who was harmed through negligence, and that there is even less correlation between who actually wins compensation and who was harmed through negligence. Often this lack of correlation is due to the difficulty of proving that medical malpractice has occurred. The tort system is supposed to do two things: 1) promote safety by encouraging careful behavior (or at least economically efficient the level of care), and 2) compensate victims of negligent behavior. The reform methods I just mentioned above fail to improve the accuracy of the tort system, and that lack of accuracy is the main problem because it leads to a failure to incentivize careful behavior (even careful doctors get sued) and it fails to compensate real victims (lack of correlation between awards and negligence).

For the last 30 years scholars have been proposing that we abandon the negligence standard altogether and adopt a "No-Fault" system instead to attempt to solve the definitional problems of negligence and the accuracy problems of the tort system for med mal.

No-Fault systems have been around for a while. There are two major examples. First, there is the Workers Compensation model. Under this system, any work-related injury suffered by an employee must be paid for by the employer regardless of whether the employer was negligent. The rate of compensation is determined by a chart legislated into existence by the state that tells you how much you get for a certain kind of injury (if your leg is permanently destroyed or severed, then you get an amount of money determined for such a category of injury by the chart). The second example is No-Fault automobile system. In a no-fault auto state, you are required to buy auto insurance if you own an automobile, and you pay for your own damages in the event of a wreck, regardless of fault.

No-Fault systems are generally more expensive than negligence systems, but they have significant advantages. One advantage is that insurance companies can predict with great accuracy the number of claims they will have each year. Employers tend to have a predictable number of accidents per year and there are a predictable number of car wrecks each year. This makes the insurance market much more stable and less risky for insurers. Thus, the cost of purchasing insurance is more predictable. All this predictability is great for business planning and makes the economy run more smoothly and profitably.

Another advantage of No-Fault systems is that people with small injuries have a way to be compensated. In the tort system, if your damages are not great enough, then it will be either more expensive to hire a lawyer than it is worth, or no lawyer will work for you because he would not make a profit working on a contingency fee (that is, where he gets paid a percent of you winnings only if you win).

A third advantage of No-Fault systems is that there is very little litigation about it. People get their compensation very quickly, and, even though it is less than they might sometimes deserve (a common criticism), it is rare that anyone finds something they can sue about.

A forth advantage is that No-Fault systems maintain a similar economic incentive to avoid harming others to that found in the traditional tort system. In the tort system, negligence can result in lawsuit which will either cost you money or make you insurance premiums go up, encouraging you to be careful. In the No-Fault system, you are equally encouraged to be careful because you must pay for all injuries (to yourself in no-fault auto, and to your employees in workers comp.) or your insurance does, again resulting in higher insurance premiums. Some scholars argue that there is less incentive to avoid negligent harms because health care professionals and hospitals would be motivated to reduce all iatrogenesis in the most economically efficient way possible, rather than focusing just on negligence. Unless there is less incentive to avoid injury over all under no-fault systems than in tort systems, then this is not really a problem.

In a medical no-fault system, all health care workers and institutions would be required to carry iatrogenesis insurance, which would pay for all health-care-caused injuries, regardless of negligence. This would be done just like the workers compensation system.

The potential disadvantages are clear: Injured people would be under-compensated, there might be less incentive to avoid negligence, and the system as a whole would be more expensive (as has been repeatedly shown with regard to the workers comp system). It is also unclear how such a system would work with relation to solo doctors in rural practices who may not individually be able to afford such insurance (though they arguably wouldn't have to pay much more than they do now for med mal insurance). Nevertheless, this system has been endorsed by the American Medical Association (the main doctor association), the America Trial Lawyers Association (the main trial lawyer association), and the Harvard Medical Practice Study Group (the main medical malpractice scholar group). When you've got the doctors, lawyers, and scholars all agreeing on something, I think it is time to seriously consider it.

- posted by Ethan at 10:51 PM; link

 
Hillary 2004

Someone's got a nascent Presidential campaign going. Check it out.

- posted by Carney at 12:17 PM; link

 
An Artificial Encounter

I'm sure folks out there have heard of the Turing Test. Well each year a contest is held to see who's bot is getting the closest. The winner receives the "Loebner Prize." If you go to the homepage for said contest you can link over to one of the winners from the last few years. She's a bit ditzy as things stand but promises better results if you ante up. Speaking of which, it might interest you to click on the link for ol' Hugh Loebner. Yuck. Its all so maddeningly lonely.

- posted by alan at 9:03 PM; link

 
Boeing's Clout?

You'll see something interesting if you compare TownHall.com's Robert Novak archive page to the analogous page on the Chicago Sun-Times Website: TownHall isn't linking to Novak's broadside on Boeing.

This may or may not have anything to do with the fact that the Heritage Foundation, which runs TownHall.com, has gotten $45,000 from Boeing in the last decade.

(To be fair, TownHall ran Novak's May attack on Boeing.)

- posted by Carney at 4:32 PM; link

 
The Game

Tonight's Red Sox / A's game will be the deciding game in the famed "SABR" series. In my estimation, this is one of the biggest games ever played in the Divisional Series: Billy Beane's team trying to finally win a playoff series after a hard-luck sweep at Fenway over the weekend, and the Sox with a chance to finish off an impressive come-from-behind performance, and facing the Yankees in maybe the biggest ALCS ever.

Of course, before the series I picked the A's, so I'll stick by that, but Pedro on full rest vs. Zito on three day's rest sure doesn't favor Oakland. On the other hand, Zito pitched during a day game following Pedro's night game: the real difference in rest is far less than 24 hours, and Zito's younger and threw less pitches. Plus the A's do have home field advantage, which has been huge for both teams all season, and they won a game that Pedro started in Oakland just Wednesday.

On the other hand, the Sox are probably a better team than Oakland, and even that bullpen looked pretty good this weekend.

My pick's Oakland, but wouldn't a Sox / Yankees pennant be fun....

- posted by Erik at 3:36 PM; link

 
More troops

In the controversy about whether we need more troops on the ground in Iraq, one cost-effective solution that has been proposed is to involve troops from other countries. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in the New York Times, offers some reasons as to why that might not be a good idea.

From the Times:

"But on Iraq, differences clearly remain. Mr. Putin ruled out, for now, sending Russian troops to help there and said that although a variety of international military contingents provided political support for America in Iraq, they were not much use in other respects because they 'abuse alcohol,' 'begin to sell weapons' and only thought about 'fleeing as soon as possible.'
He declined to say which countries' soldiers he had in mind, but described the troops as 'motley' rather than multinational. Several dozen nations have contributed to the America-led force in Iraq — including Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Spain, Portugal and Mongolia — usually with small contingents."

Multinational troops are greedy, cowardly drunks. I'll have to file that fact away.

- posted by Mark at 1:21 PM; link

 
"When will it end?"

For those of you with your heads in the sand, I invite you to wake up to the desert of the real: there's a revolution going on in men's grooming, and like all worthwhile revolutions this one forces you to choose sides. For years now, the Gillette Mach 3, with its patented "third razor" shaving technology, has reigned as the undisputed king of the wet-shave. Gillette's monopoly on the best shave a man can get has helped the company control 72% of the world wet-shave razor market. But this is a power many say Gillette has abused by increasing prices without any respect to the cost of manufacture or the rate of inflation–eventually realizing what Telegraph calls "unheard-of profit margins."

As of September 19th, though, there is a new claimant to the throne, the Schick Quattro, with (you guessed it) four blades. (Perhaps you have seen the ads: "Four blades?… When will it end?") This baby was almost stillborn, though. Before its release, Gillette filed charged against Schick for patent infringement both in Britain and America. Although this was not able to stop the American launch of the Quattro, the future of the razor is in jeopardy. Apparently, there is more to the Mach 3 than merely three blades, something one spokesperson for the company has called "progressive geometry" technology (this, I assume, is not to be confused real, non-pseudo-scientific progressive geometry). Now it's up to the courts to decide whether the Quattro has copied the Mach 3's progressive geometry, or whether the Mach 3's complaint against the Quattro is just a little regressive arithmetic.

But before you choose sides in this battle there's something you should know. If the Mach 3 is realizing "unheard-of profit margins" with its $7.49 Mach 3, Schick's $8.99 Quattro is not exactly the Robin Hood of razors. You're definitely paying more for that fourth razor, and it's not at all clear that you get more. A non-scientific study by MSNBC suggests you actually get a closer shave with the Mach 3. That could be because nobody is used to handling a four bladed razor, however.

But, honestly, will we ever be ready?

- posted by Mark at 6:05 PM; link