But of course he didn’t mean to. Some people cite The Law of Unintended Consequences like it’s always a bad thing. But it isn’t. Often discoveries derive from the most unexpected backgrounds and the results of one innovation can lead to another and another in the most marvelous ways. Check out the shows Connections, Connections², Connections³ or The Day the Universe Changed all hosted by James Burke. Or maybe you could find the books. What does any of this have to do with Gary Gygax? Just read this piece in the New York Times by Adam Rogers, a senior editor at Wired.

Some people never understood anything about the appeal of D&D. But while I was never heavily into playing I did play a few times and understand the appeal. Consider what happened one time when playing with a friend who was running an “introductory” dungeon for some people who had never played the game or only played once or twice before. I was playing the character of a sorcerer and our group had been tossed into a dungeon. Our first task in this adventure was of course to escape our prison. Being a very low level sorcerer I had very few spells in my arsenal and none of them were very powerful. But I decided to give something a try anyway and cast that old standby, the magic missile, at a bar of our jail. The dungeonmaster rolled the dice to see what would happen, blinked at the results and said in a surprised voice “It worked. The bar has broken apart and you can escape between the remaining ones.”. It was an unexpected action that forced the DM to adapt in an instant to an entirely new set of circumstances and change his plans accordingly and granted the group an unexpected advantage. That sort of thing and the getting together of friends with a common interest is one of the appeals of what Gary Gygax helped create and that he still enjoyed, hosting D&D sessions at his home as recently as January. He wasn’t a saint, more of a curmudgeon in some ways from what I hear, but at a minimum even if you don’t buy some of what Rogers wrote, he co-created a game system that still entertains millions to this day along with its progeny.

Gee, does anyone else think that Senator Clinton’s campaign keeping money from IPA might cause some problems? If it gets more into the public eye I think it certainly will.

The New York Times reports on an investigation by New York state AG Andrew Cuomo that has uncovered what appears to be a rigged system to determine the “reasonable and customary” rates charged by health care providers. The determination is made by a company named Ingenix and is used by insurers to determine payments made by insurance companies when customers have to see doctors outside of the insurers’ networks. The problem is that Ingenix is owned wholely by UnitedHealth Group. Golly gee, there’s no room for a possibility of abuse, is there? Cuomo not only thinks there is but has done investigations that seem to show that abuse has been taking place. What a shock.

Snow day today, so to speak. Sipping coffee and reading the February issue of Popular Science. It has lots of stuff about airline fuel consumption and the search for more fuel efficiency and alternative fuels that would work for aircraft, an entirely different proposition than fuel for cars. One thing that struck me is a sidebar about the Boeing X-48B blended wing aircraft design that can be 23% more fuel efficient and why it won’t ever be a commercial passenger liner. Simply put, no one wants to fly in a passenger plane that doesn’t have windows in the passenger compartment and readily available emergency exits. Sort of reasonable. So current plans call for only military versions of the plane. But then I wondered just how many planes UPS, FedEx and other dedicated air freight carriers use. Aren’t there enough of them to form a fairly hefty niche by themselves? And if you’re building the craft for the military you should have the capability in place to build a civilian version even if it’s not going to the passenger carriers, shouldn’t you?

You’ll notice that Dispatches from the Culture Wars is on my small blog roll. How can you not love someone who starts out this article on a Circuit Court decision like Ed Brayton starts this one?

While it’s true that we’re only stuck with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania for another 11 months or so he hasn’t lost his ability to annoy. The amount of “say one thing and do another” that George W. Bush accomplishes is truly amazing. Here is a section this year’s SOTU.

To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. (Applause.) Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

OTOH, here’s an analysis of what he actually proposed in the FY 2009 budget for energy. And then of course the funding for FutureGen was pulled with the only replacement being nothing but vague proposals. I’ll be so glad when Dubya’s gone. But the cleanup from the disaster that has been the Bush Administration will be long and difficult.

 Minor update: Just after I wrote this I ran across a Washington Post editorial about the funding cut for FutureGen.

When I heard about ABC’s new show, Eli Stone, I thought it sounded like an interesting premise that could be fun to watch so I tuned in for the premier the other night. But as the New York Times notes today the case that attorney Stone finds himself switching sides on is a really bad example to use when it comes to representing the underdog as justice for the average person over the large corporation. It’s so bad I couldn’t bring myself to watch the whole show because they are pushing an idea that has been disproven multiple times. The case involves a woman convinced that the mercury in the preservative of the vaccine that her son received is responsible for his autism. This idea has been researched to death and not, as happens in some cases, purely by the manufacturer. Some of the most prestigious health care organizations in the world don’t agree with this belief. In fact, as the NYT piece points out, the rate of autism has continued to increase even as vaccine manufacturers have phased out the use of mercury in childhood vaccines. But the writers and producers of the show ignored facts, ignored logic and chose to fan the flames of finger pointing that has lost any connection to reality. I just don’t know if I can reward that kind of bad taste by ever watching their show.

After thinking about it a great deal I’ve decided who will get my vote on “Super Tuesday”. Barack Obama. I don’t appreciate the direction that the Clinton campaign has taken lately and as much as parts of what John Edwards says appeal to me I don’t consider his campaign to have a realistic chance at this time. But…should the worse happen I still think Senator Clinton is a better choice than any Republican.

I like the essence of Senator Obama’s health care ideas but I think we just need to go farther. Comparisons to the system in Canada and Great Britain are always made by conservatives but they ignore other countries that have more government involvement than we do, including single payer systems that work much better than those two countries. This of course includes the rest of Europe. But in the real world it is questionable whether even any of those variations would be politically achievable in the United States. So I tried to think of something else. If anyone stumbles across this blog opinions and input are something I’d love to read.

First, nothing beyond current regulations except for consumer protection legislation would be passed limiting private insurance companies. But they’re still going to have to adapt to the existence of a new type of insurance organization. This organization would have a closer relationship to the government than the Post Office, but like it not be an actual agency of the government. It would be a purely non-profit health care organization like no other.

Next, I think that all current existing government health providing programs should be consolidated into this new organization, with special needs getting their own division, such as Veterans Health. Does anyone really think that the states would mind seeing Medicaid become a purely federal program? States are hurt more in bad parts of the business cycle and also occasionally suffer from purely regional downturns. In addition you see things like Missouri, where Governor Blunt and the Republicans who control the state completely cut 100,000 people from Medicaid in the name of budgetary considerations but refused to restore the cuts even when state funds were more than adequate to do so. They have put forth a new plan which they consider a great new way to go. I’m not going to go into details here but I see a disaster looming on the horizon because it will probably cost more than they think and not do that good a job, resulting in the poor and disabled being even worse off when they refuse to fund it adequately. Frankly, the so-called laboratory of the states doesn’t really work that well fairly often. Medicare shouldn’t need any other considerations, though the current system of withholding from payroll checks should go away under this idea. Part of what is currently withheld for Medicare should go to Social Security with the rest just staying with individuals and employers.

All funding for this would not come from the government. People would be charged a sliding fee depending on their income. One of the first things that really needs to be done is establish a meaningful measurement of what it takes to live in this country that allows for regional variations. The current one doesn’t cut it. Only then can a reasonable fee schedule be established. These fees can be subsidized as an employment benefit, but no one would lose their coverage if they lost their job. In addition this organization would recognize that health is health, for the mind and all parts of the body. While much effort has been put into having existing insurance systems provide mental health benfits it has been only partially successful. Although most don’t realize it people have died from untreated dental health issues. Recent studies have even shown that bad dental health, such as untreated or poorly treated infections can affect heart health. In addition to fully function in our society and to be employable one needs good vision and dentistry. Try reading the small print on job applications without good vision or getting a decent job if your dental work isn’t halfway presentable. It sounds silly to some people but that’s the real world we live in.

The system should start with an extensive planning stage that would still try to take as little time as possible to complete. The current private insurance companies would not be involved in this planning but health care providers would. There needs to be an honest dialog minus the kind of political name calling (socialist, communist, etc.) about what works and what doesn’t in both public and private plans. The finances of this cannot be settled by putting the burden on doctors by constantly cutting compensation they receive. Having a system like this would mean that there would no longer be the number of uninsured we currently see which should help with the bizarre billing systems that we currently see where those who can pay wind up subsidizing the poor. That subsidization would be spread out to the nation, not just the people who are treated at that hospital.

This is of course a very basic skeleton plan that would have to be filled out a great deal but I’ve never seen any plan like it. Opinions?

David Brooks writes of the recent problems in the financial sector of which the subprime mortgage mess is only one part. His column says that there are two narratives and only two narratives used to explain it. The Greed Narrative or the Ecology Narrative. He closes with this (emphasis mine).

The lesson of the Ecology Narrative is that, in most cases, the market corrects itself. Maybe this year banks will change their pay structure so there’s not so much emphasis on short-term results. Maybe companies will change their boards to improve scrutiny over complex new instruments. In short, markets adapt.

People who embrace the Ecology Narrative don’t like the offensive bonuses that get handed out on Wall Street. They just don’t see any way the government can curtail them without rending the fabric of the ecosystem. They don’t like the periodic crises, but don’t see how government can prevent them without clamping down on innovation. The challenge is to give people the means to withstand the perturbations.

The Ecology Narrative is not morally satisfying. I wouldn’t bet on its popularity as a backlash against Wall Street and finance sweeps across a recession-haunted country. But the Ecology Narrative has one thing going for it. It happens to be true.

I just haven’t seen any signs that there is anything in the financial services sector that would correct the problems with the compensation structure. I haven’t read anything anywhere that indicates I’ve missed something that would indicate there’s any demand building for a system less destructive of the long term good. After all, the people who make a mint with the current structure are the ones in charge and there is no motivation for them to change things and the incestuous relationship between company management and boards pretty much guarantees there is no force influencing them from the “outside” to encourage repairs. There is no magic wand, spell or potion that guarantees that “markets adapt”. Not so long as over-compensated executives and traders have people like Brooks shrugging and saying that they and the damage they do to our economy must be tolerated because of unproven claims about the good they do.

But his claim is too simple. His last sentence precludes the possibility that while the Ecology Narrative has a lot going for it, it just doesn’t explain a lot of what is seen in the real world. Frankly, Mr. Brooks, someone got a lot of their Greed Narrative in your Ecology Narrative. And the narrative that includes them both is the one that is true.