I was reading about Iran's admission that they have a second uranium enrichment facility yesterday and as I read the article, I looked up to the top where there was a picture of President Obama.  I assume that he was saying something like, "those Iranians had better shut down this facility or we will write them a very angry letter."  But what caught my attention was actually in the background of the picture - two people standing behind him.  I recognized the guy immediately behind him and slightly to his right as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which is not surprising, since we tend to call on the Brits for support any time we need to look legit in the international scene.  What confused me was the next guy standing behind him, who I identified as Timothy Geithner, our Secretary of the Treasury.  It seemed really strange for President Obama to have the Secretary of the Treasury standing behind him while he talked foreign policy, but I figured that maybe the picture was taken on the way to some economic meeting at the G-20 (a primarily economic forum), so I kept reading without thinking too much into it.  It wasn't until I read another article about the same enrichment site today that I realized that it was not in fact Timothy Geithner, but rather, it was French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  Well, that made much more sense being that the French were in on the intelligence gathering which led to the discovery of this second enrichment facility.

So this is where the point of this blog comes into play.  I think of myself as a fairly in-touch, nerdy type when it comes to politics and I found it a little embarrassing that I had made that mistake.  My conclusion: I think that it is unfair to have two major figures in the news that look so much like the same (in my head I said that last line with an accent).  One should have a scar across his face so we can tell them apart like in the movies, preferably the more evil one so as top avoid further confusion.

Check this out - both white guys with medium length brown hair brushed straight back.  Both skinny with high cheekbones and pointy ears.  They even make the same "I might be about to molest you" hand gestures!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy	Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner

I just got done watching President Obama's speech to congress and I found it, at some points very inspiring.  Occasionaly, it was even comical, as in when a congressman shouted out "lie!" after Obama said that his plan (which has not yet been submitted as a bill) would not insure illegal immigrants.  Really what amused me was the collective "whoah" that rose up from both sides of the isle at this very unstatesman-like action.  Since no bill has been submitted, though, I am not sure how one could verify or discredit that claim.

In general, I found myself agreeing with his principles.  Certainly there were points where both sides showed agreement, such as banning heath care insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions or from dropping plan-holders just when they are sick and in need of treatment.

Then there were times when I found myself wondering if an idea were feasable or even a good idea.  One that comes immediately to mind is the plan to require those with the means to buy their own plans.  I have been trying to watch the fallout from Massachusetts in their similarly designed plan, and I haven't heard much in the way of hard numbers backing that idea.  I have, on the other hand, listened to anecdotal (and therefore only limited in its value) evidence that some are upset about having to buy insurance, even when it is subsidised.  Further, I have heard of some who are on the one hand too wealthy to be able to get into subsidised insurance, while at the same time, they are unable to afford much more than a very basic and by some standards inadequate plan.  So I am not entirely convinced that the Massechusetts system works, but I wouldn't say that I am against it either.  There isn't enough evidence yet to call that one.

The most important point that President Obama made, however, did not need to be made because nearly everyone already agrees on it.  That is the fact that there is a looming health care crisis and idealogical politics without practical cooperation must be set aside for the betterment of this country.  Of course that is a platitude because no one in congress could possibly disagree with cooperation and the betterment of the country.

Maybe in this case, though, our representatives and senators will actually live up to the challenge.

I find this article very rational and refreshing. I hope that one day soon, this kind of story will be accepted as legitimate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/fashion/30love.html

Thank you Paul.  Your love for bikes has triggered my nerdiness and has thereby helped me get in touch with my cultural tradition of crunching numbers.

Paul's recent blog on his efforts in bicycle commuting over the last year got me wondering.  What if overweight Americans commuted by bicycle instead of cars?  No Paul, I am not calling you fat.  My mind just tends to wander toward public policy and one of the big issues on Capitol hill right now is health care reform.  Stop crying.  Please.

So anyway, here are some numbers:

122,000,000 overweight Americans x 9.7% unemployment rate x 90% rate of car commuting = 99,000,000 overweight, employed, Americans.

99,000,000 overweight, employed Americans x 32 mile average daily round-trip commute = 3,168,000,000 overweight, employed, American miles per day.

3,168,000,000 overweight, employed, American miles per day x 5 work days per work week x 49 work weeks per year (vacation time subtracted) = 776,160,000,000 overweight, employed, American miles per year.

77,160,000,000 overweight, employed, American miles per year x 47.1 calories per mile (assuming 190 lbs and 11 mph) = 36,557,136,000,000 overweight, employed, American calories per year.

36,557,136,000,000 overweight, employed, American calories per year / 3500 average calories per lb = 10,444,896,000 overweight, employed, American lbs per year.

10,444,896,000 overweight, employed, American lbs per year x 19.39 dollars per overweight, employed, American lb = 202,526,533,440 dollars per year saved by a hypothetical switch to bicycle commuting.

Ok, this is clearly very inexact, which is especially apparent when one sees that estimates for the cost of obesity in our health-care system only total up to about $127 billion per year.  I am sure that the numbers would be much less, possibly due to people eating more to compensate for lost calories during cycling, or to the fact that some people are not that overweight and would only continue to lose excess fat to a certain point.  Nonetheless, the numbers are compelling to me (and that is really what matters here - me).

Less difficult to estimate accurately, though, is the gas-savings:

[(32 mile average daily commute x 5 workdays per work week x 49 work weeks per year) / 20 miles per gallon] x 2.53 dollars per gallon x 99,000,000 overweight Americans car commuters = 98,184,240,000 dollars saved per year by fat American bicycle commuters.

Judge from this what you will.

Sources:

Evidence shows that having a vegetarian diet may significantly reduce the chances of getting cancer.  According to this research, the reduction is about 12%.  This perked my nerdy interest, so I did a quick internet search, which revealed that cancer treatments cost about $34,000 over 10 years, though treatment costs vary widely for different types of cancers.  Multiply the population of the US (about 300 million) by the average rate of canter (33%) and you get 12 million for a number of people that might be saved from cancer through vegetarianism.  Granted my analysis is all very unscientific, but if it is at all close to reality, it means we could be saving millions of lives and about $41 billion per year in medical costs.  Might that make a dent in this nation's health care cost problems?  And this is not even including the economic benefits that this might have from reducing obesity in the population.

On a personal note, cancer and heart disease run strong in my family medical history, so this is an especially pertinent issue to me.  I have been thinking for a while about either going vegetarian or at least curtailing severely my consumption of meat and this, along with the economic and environmental impacts of raising meat, might just be the last push that I need to send me down that road.