onparkstreet

Do you ever feel like this?

by

Fellow, sometime-and-in-some-fashion, academics or others dabbling in paper writing?

Dixon looked out of the window at the fields wheeling past, bright green after a wet April. It wasn’t the double-exposure effect of the last half-minute’s talk that had dumbfounded him, for such incidents formed the staple material of Welch colloquies; it was the prospect of reciting the title of the article he’d written. It was a perfect title, in that it crystallized the article’s niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems. Dixon had read, or begun to read, dozens like it, but his own seemed worse than most in its air of being convinced of its own usefulness and significance. ‘In considering this strangely neglected topic,’ it began. This what neglected topic? This strangely what topic? This strangely neglected what? His thinking all this without having defiled and set fire to the typescript only made him appear to himself as more of a hypocrite and fool. ‘Let’s see,’ he echoed Welch in a pretended effort of memory: ‘oh yes; The Economic Influence of the Developments in Shipbuilding Techniques, 1450 to 1485…’

Lucky Jim, by Kingsley Amis.

I never tire of this book – it’s one of my favorites – even as I pretty much dislike the main character and the object of his affection, the tepid and colorless Christine. What are your favorite campus, or academic, satires?

Update: David Foster and Jim Bennett, in the comments section, both voice the same thought I had on re-reading the above excerpt: an article on the economic impact of shipbuilding techniques sounds pretty darn interesting, actually. I think the scene says something about the main character, Dixon, and his lack of interest in the very topics he is meant to research and study. In short, his heart’s not in it. Either that or Kingsley Amis had zero interest in economics and the title struck him as the most vapid imaginable. Anyone know?

On the changing relationship between doctor and patient and that element of distrust

by

Jonathan highlights an Instapundit discussion that caught my eye, too. The discussion is about mammograms and the latest proposed guidelines for screening: do the guidelines represent good science, or are they simply meant to save money (these are not mutually exclusive goals)? I don’t know the science, and don’t have any reason to distrust the health care professionals proposing the guidelines, but I understand that an element of distrust is introduced by the current health care debate.

Anyway, the above linked discussion brings up many interesting points. One is the Public-Health fallacy that Jonathan discusses. Another is the changing relationship between doctor and patient in a system where the federal government intrudes so heavily. Guidelines become suspect. Who is the real beneficiary of the guidelines – the individual patient, or the ‘greater good’ of the population as designated by a government official? The government guidelines, or official, become a third party between the patient and the doctor. The relationship is altered. To some extent, this is already the case with third-party payers and the current level of regulation, but the proposed health care bills take it to another level, entirely.

You see the same phenomenon of distrust when a patient talks about ‘greedy’ doctors and drug companies. I think that distrust will be transferred to Washington under the ‘D.C.-centric’ health-care bills that are being considered. And, in the political fight between constituent groups (patients and others), we may end up with a system where large public health bureaucracies will need to be placated first – a bit like California and the public service unions, or the British NHS*. The entire nature of the doctor-patient relationship will be changed. What do you all think? I’m a physician, and like many physicians, have my own levels of distrust. They are currently being directed at the government takeover of health care.

*I recently watched an old “Yes Minister” (Brit sitcom from the 80s) in which a government minister tries to shut down a hospital with no patients (it has a very large staff). A funny joke, yes? Well, the running joke of the show is that the unions resist by making the following claim – who cares if there are no patients? The greater good is served by all those public sector jobs. So, who “owns” the doctor-patient relationship in that sitcom scenario? Soon, alas, to be ours, perhaps?

Update: Think I used the word distrust enough in the above post? It’s like I’m trying to make a point, or something….
Another Update: Hey, a belated thanks for the link, Instapundit!

“An Evening of Counterinsurgency at the Pritzker Military Library”

by

Hearts and minds? Overrated. If you want to run a successful counterinsurgency, it all starts with the person at the top.

On Thursday, December 3rd, Mark Moyar will appear at the Pritzker Military Library to discuss his new book, A Question of Command: Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq.

Small Wars Journal

I’m not sure that I’ll be able to make this program at the Pritzker Military Library (Chicago). It’s always touch-and-go with me and early evening talks – work and all that. Hopefully, some of the chicagoboyz readership will be able to attend!

Update: Thomas Rid reviews the book here, “Mark Moyar pitches his book as a challenge to that thesis. Counterinsurgency must not be just population-centric. Nor can it be merely enemy-centric, as conventional wars against opposing armies were. No, successful counterinsurgency is “leader-centric.”

A Planned Society and the Rule of Law

by

To say that in a planned society the Rule of Law cannot hold is, therefore, not to say that the actions of the government will not be legal or that such a society will necessarily be lawless. It means only that the use of the government’s coercive powers will no longer be limited and determined by pre-established rules. The law can, and to make a central direction of economic activity possible must, legalize what to all intents and purposes remains arbitrary action. If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. – F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.

Health Choices Commissioner, “pay czars”, the Kelo decision, bail outs! To this layperson all of it seem so, well, arbitrary. It’s as if we in the U.S. are moving toward a system where just about anything can be justified because some government official says that it should be so. It’s all for the greater good, right? What are pesky little things like individuals and predictable rules in the face of all that wonderful greater goodness?

Veterans Day: Project Valour-IT

by

Project Valour-IT helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries.

Please consider donating to Project Valour-IT here!