And How Many People Did That Kill, Art?
From a Technology Review interview with the media's favorite bioethicist, Art Caplan of Penn: "I single- handedly held up the movement toward creating markets in organs."
Dynamist Blog
This Is Not a Drill
The WaPost's Shankar Vedantam has a fascinating, compact piece on the group dynamics of responding to emergencies. A sample:
Experts who study disasters are slowly coming to realize that rather than try to change human behavior to adapt to building codes and workplace rules, it may be necessary to adapt technology and rules to human behavior: In the narrow window between the siren of disaster and disaster itself, people always want to understand what is happening.
You can see this yourself the next time the fire alarm goes off at work, school or home. People will look at one another. They will ask each other: "Is it a drill? Shall we give it 30 seconds to see if it shuts off on its own? Can I just finish sending this e-mail?"
For all the disaster preparations put in place since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the behavior of people confronted with ambiguous new information remains one of the most serious challenges for disaster planners.
"Every man for himself" is not how people respond either. As a result, they tend to survive together or die together.
In Memoriam
Taken in late October, when the ruins were still smoking.
Ingenuity Gone Astray
It's certainly better to create a problem-solving business than merely to curse the anti-social acts that caused the problem in the first place. But I couldn't help thinking of Bastiat's famous essay when I read about a couple of ingenious new businesses: CutTheCrap.com, whose anti-dog-doo products include this sign (via Dallas Morning News) and MyWetStuff.com, which circumvents restrictions on carry-on baggage by shipping personal care products to your hotel room (via Dan Pink). As Bastiat pointed out, we see the glazier's profits from fixing the broken window. We don't see the more-productive uses the same time, talent, and capital could have gone to if nobody had broken the window.
"Wal-Mart to Taylor Stores to Customers"
So says this article's headline. Even though I knew the news already, I thought the story had something to do with Ann Taylor. (Update: Somebody fixed the headline. Screenshot here.)
Superhero Glamour
My latest Atlantic column explores the glamour of superheroes. Here's the opening:
When Superman debuted in 1978, it invented a whole new movie genre--and a new kind of cinematic magic. Today, hundreds of millions of dollars depend on the heroic box-office performances of costumed crusaders whom Hollywood once thought worthy only of kiddie serials or campy parodies. The two Spider-Man movies rank among the top ten of all time for gross domestic receipts, and X-Men: The Last Stand and Superman Returns are among this year's biggest hits.
Superhero comics have been around since Irving Thalberg and Louis B. Mayer ruled the back lot, but only recently has Hollywood realized the natural connection between superhero comics and movies. It's not just that both are simultaneously visual and verbal media; that formal connection would apply equally to the "serious" graphic novels and sequential art that want nothing to do with crime fighters in form- fitting outfits. Cinema isn't just a good medium for translating graphic novels. It's specifically a good medium for superheroes. On a fundamental, emotional level, superheroes, whether in print or on film, serve the same function for their audience as Golden Age movie stars did for theirs: they create glamour.
Nonsubscribers can read the article here for the next few days. Here's the permanent link, for those with an Atlantic subscription.
There's an interesting intellectual property story behind the column's art. The art director originally wanted to reproduce Savador Larroca's Storm image from the comic book pictured above. But Marvel dragged out the permission process until the day before the issue was supposed to go to the printer. As a condition of permission, the company's lawyer then insisted that the article treat the word superhero as a Marvel/DC trademark, spelling it Super Hero. Fortunately for me, The Atlantic declined and went with Superman.
As is so often the case, aggressive IP lawyers trumped smart business strategy--good fodder for a future Forbes column. Marvel is supposed to be promoting second-line characters, including Storm, and The Atlantic is clearly not trying to publish a superhero comic in competition with the trademark holders. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with insight on the controversy surrounding this particular trademark. Meanwhile, I'm investigating how the Sci-Fi show Who Wants to Be a Superhero? managed to use both Marvel images and the normal spelling of superhero.
The Toothpaste Threat
Blogger Jim Hu links to a detailed Baltimore Sun article on how businesses are helping air travelers navigate the liquid ban, and he wonders why duty-free perfume and alcohol are considered a threat.
Kidney Blogging Cont'd
A Presbyterian minister in New Jersey has donated his kidney to one of his congregants. According to this account from the Home News Tribune, Rick Oppelt was quick to volunteer, but his congregation was shocked by the decision.
Trapp's 60-year-old brother offered to donate one of his kidneys, but he wasn't a blood-type match. As she updated a friend about her condition after Sunday services at the Oak Tree Road [sic] Presbyterian Church last summer, the Rev. Rick Oppelt, the church pastor, overheard her say she was an O-postive blood type.
"He said, "I'm O-positive. You can have one of my kidneys, Carol.' I thought he was joking," Trapp said.
So she shrugged off the offer. But the prospect of grueling hours of dialysis kept her up at night.
Trapp called Oppelt and asked him if he was serious about donating a kidney.
"He said he was, but when I asked him if he had told his family, he said he told them "in passing,' " Trapp said. "I said you better think about this and you have to talk to your wife.' "
Oppelt's wife, Jo, called Trapp, telling her she thought her husband's offer admirable. Tomorrow, Oppelt will undergo surgery to give Trapp his left kidney....
Oppelt said he only announced his decision to donate his kidney recently.
"The whole congregation let out a collective gasp," he said.
In the near future, I hope such decisions will not produce gasps. Kidney donation is not only a life-saving act but, compared to many other risky things people do, a reasonably safe one. Donors with O-positive blood like Oppelt's are especially needed.
Unfortunately, as is all too common on the kidney-donation beat, there were many stories about Oppelt's donation before the surgery but so far I haven't seen any followup reports. UPDATE: According to this news story, both Oppelt and Trapp are doing well--despite a nurses' strike at the hospital where the transplant took place.
The Rocky Mountain News argues for incentives for organ donors.
The medical establishment has long considered it anathema to allow donors or their survivors to "profit" from their beneficence. The worry is that poor people will sell their organs out of financial desperation and thus in some cases compromise their health. But there are ways to minimize the risk that such a fully open market might pose.
For example, Washington could alleviate the shortage by considering pilot programs. One idea is federal income tax relief along the lines of laws operating in eight states, including Utah. Those states offer up to $10,000 in income-tax deductions to repay donors' travel expenses and lost wages.
Another possibility: "futures" contracts, in which recipients would pay up front some of the funeral expenses of those who elect to donate organs at death.
And the medical establishment should drop its objections to organizations like MatchingDonors.com. This site lets organ recipients find willing live donors and make transplantation arrangements privately.
We're certainly not comfortable endorsing a full-fledged market in organs, a regime that would allow donors to auction kidneys on eBay. But the current system is not compassionate; it amounts to a death sentence for thousands of Americans each year.
Ethicists and medical professionals need to acknowledge that fact and consider life-affirming alternatives.
On a lighter note, my three-kidneyed friend Sally Satel passes on this link to a transcript of a very funny fourth season South Park episode featuring less-than-voluntary kidney donation and a spoof of quack medicine.
Price Check, Aisle 3
This A.P. feature profiles a price checker for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, giving just a few hints of the difficult issues involved.
She enters the price for each item into her computer. In the case of the bologna, Gaffney is perplexed. She took down the price as $2.49. But her computer tells her that on her last visit the price was $1.99. After some investigating, Gaffney realizes she grabbed the wrong item this time -- the higher-priced all-beef light bologna.
The price of Boston lettuce had increased from $1.69 on Gaffney's last visit. She hunts down one of the store's produce workers to find out why, but he does not have any insights.
Stores let Gaffney and others collect price information on a confidential basis.
What are some of the more challenging tasks for the price hunters? They include the price for a pair of eyeglasses, for leasing or repairing a car, or for anything related to health -- because of all the details involved. Clothing can be complicated, too.
"If it is a seasonal item, most likely it is going to be gone the next time you go there. You got to look all over for it and make sure you got it," Gaffney says.
If the store is out of the item, Gaffney has the tedious and often time-consuming task of finding a substitute product that is as close to the original as possible.
For instance, Gaffney might be forced to find a substitute for a woman's blouse with the following specifications: sleeveless, 85 percent cotton, 15 percent rayon. Made in Malaysia for a national brand. Does it have any special features, such as appliques, embroidery or beadwork? What's the hip length?
Determining the inflation rate requires a lot more subjective judgments than the precise numbers you see in the paper might suggest. I discussed some of the complexities, especially regarding quality improvements, in this NYT column and, more recently, in this Forbes column.
Free Agents Have Job Security
As journalists all over the place face layoffs, Cathy Seipp explains the advantages of diversifying your employer portfolio:
But I've always felt more job security as a freelance writer than I did as a newspaper staffer. And even [Barbara] Ehrenreich admitted at the PBS press conference that as a freelance writer, she's probably better off now than most of the traditional media types in the audience.
I know how she felt. If I were to lose one of my regular gigs, for instance, I'd be unhappy; but unlike the laid-off staffer, my income wouldn't suddenly plummet to zero. In a world of constant corporate downsizing, anyone who doesn't realize this is sadly out of date.
Several years ago, as it happens, a veteran editor doing some consulting work at a local mid-sized newspaper offered me a staff job. Knowing the paper's legendary cheapness, I explained that I doubted they'd be able to come up with as much money I made freelancing - and it would have to be a LOT more for me to even bother thinking about it.
"Why would it have to be MORE," he asked, sounding genuinely shocked. "What about the SECURITY?"
Now I was shocked. This guy had been in the business half-a-century, witnessing God knows how many tanking media enterprises and in-with-the-new, out-with-the-old staff reorganizations, and he still could use the words "security" and "newspapers" in the same sentence without laughing?
I guess so. But as I explained, he'd have to count me out of that particular deadpan club.
The job market is tough on people who've relied on their employer's brands for security. Tom Peters gets mocked a lot for his rhetorical excesses, but he got this one very right: "We are CEOs of our own companies: Me Inc. To be in business today, our most important job is to be head marketer for the brand called You." If you're indistinguishable from every other potential employee, why should I hire you? And if I do hire you, why should I pay more than the bare minimum? On the flip side, if you've got a desirable brand, why should you stay in a lousy job situation, especially when the bosses are encouraging "voluntary" departures?