A Critical Issue
THE NEWS
By David Eaton
GOOD JOURNALISM MATTERS... We are pet owners. My wife and I have had a couple of dogs, a cat or two and the occasional fish or hamster for the entirety of the 30+ years we’ve been together. A few years ago we tried Bravecta, a prescription anti-flea and tick medication, on our dogs. Big mistake. It nearly killed one of them. We subsequently learned of a long history of dogs suffering harm, including death, after being given Bravecta. None of this was shared with us when our vet prescribed the anti-flea medication which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are similar stories about Seresto, another popular anti-flea and tick product. Unlike Bravecta, which is taken internally by the animal, Seresto is a collar the pet simply wears. But, like the drug that nearly killed our dog, Seresto has been the subject of numerous complaints, including more 100,000 cases of injury or death, since its introduction in 2012. According to Investigate Midwest, a website that does exactly what its name implies, Seresto “has been the subject of more incident reports than any other product in EPA history.” You read that correctly—EPA. As in the Environmental Protection Agency, the same agency responsible ensuring our water is safe to drink and our air to breathe. Why you might reasonably ask is the agency tasked with keeping the environment safe regulating a product meant for pets? The FDA ensures all medications—including the Bravecta that nearly killed our dog—are safe, but the EPA regulates the pesticides that are the active ingredient in Seresto collars. That’s about to change. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to relinquish its oversight of pet pesticide products in the wake of criticism for its handling of a popular flea and tick collar…” You can read the full Investigate Midwest story here.
Perspective: Seresto was the subject of an Investigate Midwest/USA Today investigation published in March 2021. The EPA says it “has been conducting a formal review of Seresto for nearly two years.” (You can decide if the two are related.) While that review has yet to be formally concluded, an EPA administrator told Investigate Midwest “compared to FDA, we at EPA have far fewer resources, which means staff, expertise, infrastructure and funding, to evaluate animal safety and carry out the ongoing monitoring of products in the marketplace.” Good journalism matters. #perspective
EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE... Peter and I are still a few years away from eligibility for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people 65 years and older. But we are both well aware of our aging and, as he wrote last week, the need be realistic about our mortality and health care requirements as we grow older. It was with this in mind that I read a recent North Carolina Health News story about Medicare Advantage, a version of the health insurance “offered by Medicare-approved private companies that must follow rules set by Medicare.” The idea behind the program we know today as Medicare Advantage was two-fold: to give beneficiaries “a choice of health insurance plans beyond the fee-for-service Medicare program”; and, to help Medicare realize “the efficiencies and cost savings achieved by managed care in the private sector.” Today the program that that was supposed to help Medicare’s efficiency “threatens the financial health of the entire system,” according to NC Health News. An analysis by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that oversees Medicare, found “the privately managed versions charged taxpayers $15 billion more in 2019 for the same level of services as those provided by fee-for-service Medicare.” You can read the full NC Health News story here.
Perspective: National Healthcare Expenses (NHE)—a measure of all health care spending in the US—totaled $4.3 trillion in 2021. Of that Medicare accounted for $900 billion or about one of every five dollars spent on health care nationally. $4.3 trillion equals $12,914 spent on health care in 2021 for every man, woman and child in the US. Nearly twice as much per person as any other developed nation. And for that huge amount of money we enjoy lower life expectancy and die more frequently from avoidable causes than residents of every other developed nation. #perspective
SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM... Back in January we told you about an effort in Texas to ban foreign ownership of land. The proposed legislation would prohibit citizens of North Korean, Iran and China from purchasing land in the Lone Star State. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Lois Kolkhorst (R), called it an effort to prevent “adversarial countries from acquiring land before it becomes widespread.” That struck #Perspective as a disingenuous attempt to temper the bill’s anti-Chinese bias—Iranians own just a few thousand acres of Texas and North Koreans none. A revised version of the bill introduced this month would permit land ownership in Texas by “dual citizens and lawful permanent residents,” but efforts to prohibit foreign nationals from buying land are spreading. High Country News, a non-profit, reports five states across the West—California, Arizona, Washington, Utah and Montana—are considering legal restrictions on foreign ownership of land. And it doesn’t stop there. Fivethirtyeight.com, a website owned by ABC News, reports 24 states are considering restrictions on foreign ownership of land. You can read the High Country News story here.
Perspective: As of the end of 2021, just 3.1 percent of all privately held agricultural land in the US was owned by foreign investors, according to the US Department of Agriculture. The majority of US property owned by foreigners is held by Europeans and Canadians. As we wrote in January, this whole issue is a solution in search of a problem. #perspective
NO WHERE TO SLEEP... Trucking is vital to the US economy, contributing nearly $370 billion to the nation’s GDP in 2019, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency. And it’s not easy. You can’t just wander down to your local Department of Motor Vehicles, take a test, get your picture taken and start driving a big rig. Trucking requires specialized training and licensing and comes with its own set of rules, including limits on how many hours a day one can legally drive. All of this is done with safety in mind. We’d all agree that ill-trained and fatigued people driving 80,000 pounds of truck down the highway is not ideal. The rules governing trucking, however, do not account for any place for drivers to rest. Commercial truck drivers are required to stop driving after 14 hours; they must rest for at least 10 hours before getting back on the road. But where are they supposed to sleep? Yes, long-haul trucks have integrated sleepers, but drivers must have a place to safely park 70+ feet of truck. “There is one parking space for every 11 trucks on the road," Todd Spencer, President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) told St. Louis Public Radio. "One for 11, 11 trucks.” You can read the full STLPR story here.
Perspective: The American Transportation Research Institute, a non-profit research arm of the trucking industry, reported drivers spent an average of 56 minutes a day looking for “safe, available truck parking.” That was in 2016. Since then the number of trucks and truckers has grown; the number of places for them to park has not. The reason is pretty simple says George O’Connor of the OOIDA: politics. “So truck parking is competing with bridge projects. I mean if you're an elected official, are you going to go cut a ribbon in front of a bridge? Are you going to cut a ribbon in front of a truck stop?” #perspective
A CRITICAL ISSUE
By Peter Glenshaw
Consistent readers of Perspective know we try to focus on the issues that are most likely to affect the life of our readers in the next few years.
Though the title of this essay might feel a bit click-baity, I assure you it actually does point to something significant.
Imagine you’re sitting in a nice seat in a theater, getting settled in to watch a performance. In my town, most of the audience is adults like me: over 50 years of age and white. Heavy coats remain on long past the start of the performance. We've all brought our cellphones.
Just as the performance is about to begin, a kind and enthusiastic staff member reminds everyone not to record the performance and, please, turn off your cellphones.
A few people make moves that appear to demonstrate compliance with the request to silence cell phones.
So far, so good.
Inevitably, some 10, or maybe 20, minutes into the play the vibration or chimes of a cellphone disturbs the performance. Maybe it was a phone call. Maybe it was an email. Who knows or even cares. The bottom line is that some audience member chose not to silence his/her phone. All 300 or so people in the audience know what had happened.
The actors continue with the performance.
The skill required to silence the cellphone eluded the audience. This points to a larger truth, further illustrated by my next example.
At a theater performance this past weekend, I sat next to a lovely, older couple. They seemed to be on a first date. Their conversation referenced previous spouses—divorce, death? I'm not sure. Both were nicely dressed. They appeared to be well into their 70s.
When the call came to re-silence cell phones at the end of intermission two things happened: the male half of this couple managed to turn on the flashlight to his phone. An accident, perhaps. “I’m not very technical,” he said to his date as he futility tried to turn off the flashlight. Eventually he gave up and just turned off his phone.
His date, meanwhile, simply shoved her phone deeper into her purse. Despite her best intentions to bury the phone, it buzzed and vibrated a couple of times during the second act.
Leaving aside the question of whether anyone over the age of 50 should have their phone confiscated at a theatrical performance—and before you accuse me, at 58, of ageism—I think these illustrations point to a larger, more significant reality of our lives today.
At a certain point, we all age past technology and other examples of currentness in the world.
At some point we are all left behind—wanting and wishing we could silence our phones but, like that couple sitting next to me in the theater, we cannot figure out how.
Last week the US Senate began to wrestle with artificial intelligence (AI). The challenge for the legislators, according to the lone member of Congress with a master’s degree in the subject, is that most of the them do not understand the very basics of AI. [1]
This is, arguably, the primary reason the US lags much of the rest of the developed world in developing rules and laws governing AI. The elected officials charged with making laws do not understand the technology sufficiently well to figure out how to regulate it.
Does age have anything to do with this? Perhaps. The average age of Members of Congress is 57.9 years. [2] Senators are even older, averaging 64.3 years. [3] Our president is 80 years old. His predecessor is 76.
Is this the group you would choose to debate artificial intelligence, let alone figure out how to silence a cell phone before a theater performance?
I will turn turn 59 later this year, making me slightly older than the typical Member of Congress. I fully recognize I have aged past currentness. I don’t recognize today’s pop stars. I could not sing their songs. I could not tell you who won an Academy Award last week. New computer software is intimidating.
And it's not because I don’t care. Or that I simply gave up.
I just got old.
I stopped caring about what is current. Instead I ask what matters.
I let go of cool, and focus on what lasts.
And, I let go of perfection, preferring to embrace imperfection—mine and that of everyone around me.
That’s the critical issue facing anyone my age (or older). How to let go of the importance of knowing how to silence our cellphone, and instead embrace what matters.
At times, it feels like a weird trade-off. And maybe it’s for the best.
ICYMI
By David Eaton
A LONG, NOT QUITE AS STRANGE TRIP... Thirty years ago Christopher Reynolds, long-time travel writer for the Los Angeles Times, drove the Baja Highway for the first time. The 1,000+ mile road runs from the California-Mexico border in Tijuana all the way to Cabo San Lucas at the tip of the state of Baja California Sur. Recently he made the trip again. You can read it ,here.
Perspective: To give you an idea how much the journey has changed in 30 years, ,here is a link to Reynolds original piece published in 1992. Enjoy.
NOTES: [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/03/technology/artificial-intelligence-regulation-congress.html [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/01/30/house-gets-younger-senate-gets-older-a-look-at-the-age-and-generation-of-lawmakers-in-the-118th-congress/ [3] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705