Isebrand.com

The 10 Most Underpaid Jobs - Yahoo! Finance

To identify the most underpaid jobs, U.S. News analyzed data provided by the compensation experts at PayScale to highlight occupations in which people earn far less than median pay. We further sorted those jobs to isolate those in which workers say the stress is high (a proxy for how demanding the work is) and their work makes an important difference in the world. (See a full methodology note at the bottom of the story.)

Read the article at finance.yahoo.com

(Image via Tumblr posts tagged "assisted living")

Assisted living coordinator (median mid-career salary: $36,900).

Daycare director ($32,100).

Police, fire or ambulance dispatcher ($39,300) -- "one of the most stressful jobs you can have while sitting at a desk".

Office nurse ($42,700).

Medical insurance coordinator ($34,600) -- "When there's a problem, they're the first to hear about it. But when everything goes smoothly, nobody knows they're there".

Lead pharmacy technician ($34,900) -- "pharmacies...are under constant pressure to cut costs".

Veterinary technician ($32,800).

Social worker ($42,300).

Emergency medical technician (EMT) / paramedic ($39,600).

Artistic director [of a theatre, concert hall, performing arts company] ($48,200) -- "grueling lifestyle sacrifices.... Cutbacks in public funding".

The Invention of Political Consulting : The New Yorker

The field of political consulting was unknown before Leone Baxter and Clem Whitaker founded Campaigns, Inc., in 1933.

via www.newyorker.com

Jill Lepore's "The Lie Factory" in the September 24, 2012, issue of The New Yorker is facinating. Baxter and Whitaker were California Republicans. They represented many clients, not just politicians. They used their knowledge, savvy, and insights to successfully thwart attempts to create government administration and expansion of health care. 

Camapign operatives and political consultants, take note! Here are some nuggets from Campaigns, Inc.

• Begin every day with a two-hour breakfast to plan the day.
• "Every voter, a consumer."
• Harper’s later reported [about the successful campaign to defeat California's Proposition 1]

“In a typical campaign they employed ten million pamphlets and leaf-lets; 50,000 letters to ‘key individuals and officers of organizations’; 70,000 inches of advertising in 700 newspapers; 3,000 spot announcements on 109 radio stations; theater slides and trailers in 160 theaters; 1,000 large billboards and 18,000 or 20,000 smaller posters.”

• Lepore continues:

In 1940, they produced materials for the Republican Wendell Willkie’s Presidential campaign, including a speaker’s manual that offered advice about how to handle Democrats in the audience: “rather than refer to the opponent as the ‘Democratic Party’ or ‘New Deal Administration’ refer to the Candidate by name only.”

• Save seventy-five per cent of your budget for the month before Election Day.
• Campaigns, Inc. created an ad agency, a newspaper wire service that sent a political clipsheet every week to "fifteen hundred 'thought leaders.'"
• Make it personal: candidates are easier to sell than issues.
• If your position doesn’t have an opposition, or if your candidate doesn’t have an opponent, invent one. "You can't beat something with nothing," [Whitaker and Baxter] liked to say. 
• Pretend that you are the Voice of the People.
• Attack, attack, attack. Whitaker said, “You can’t wage a defensive campaign and win!”
• Never underestimate the opposition. 
• Keep it simple. Rhyming’s good. (“For Jimmy and me, vote ‘yes’ on 3.”)
• Never explain anything. “The more you have to explain,” Whitaker said, “the more difficult it is to win support.”
• Say the same thing over and over again.
• Subtlety is your enemy. “Words that lean on the mind are no good,” according to Baxter. “They must dent it.”
• Simplify, simplify, simplify. “A wall goes up,” Whitaker warned, “when you try to make Mr. and Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think.”
• Never shy from controversy; instead, win the controversy.
• Whitaker: "if you can’t fight, PUT ON A SHOW! And if you put on a good show, Mr. and Mrs. America will turn out to see it."
• Turn your liabilities into assets!

An example of that? Campaigns, Inc. had a candidate who was "a grave, resolute man." So, their strategy involved stressing that such qualities are strengths at a time of war.

• Try not to speak for more than fifteen minutes—people get bored—and never for more than half an hour.

The 4th Bin - Please help combat the world's growing e-hardware / e-waste problem

The 4th Bin [offers] pickup of e-waste "for ethical reuse and recycling from local residents and businesses." According to the EPA, over 2,000,000 tons a year of discarded electronics leach heavy metals into landfills and pose health problems to workers in developing countries where some e-waste is sent for processing.

You can find a list of things [The 4th Bin] takes here. For residences or businesses, schedule a pickup and get a price quote here.

What happens to your stuff? It's either refurbished and resold or, if it can't be used, broken down for recycling of parts. Since February 2010, the company has collected over 1.2 million pounds of e-waste.

via manhattanusersguide.com (Manhattan User's Guide)

Also via MUG: Yes, New York State passed a law that requires free collection and recycling of e-waste. But read 4th Bin's FAQ to understand why you might well want to use them instead.

The Bull about the Bully Pulpit - George Edwards and the Powerless Presidential Bully Pulpit : The New Yorker

When you’re running for President, giving a good speech helps you achieve your goals. When you are President, giving a good speech can prevent you from achieving them.

via www.newyorker.com

Ezra Klein wrote an interesting piece in The New Yorker, "The Unpersuaded," about the work of George Edwards, the director of the Center for Presidential Studies, at Texas A. & M. University, outlining a strong argument that presidents--even those considered good communicators--have far less power to persuade with public speeches than many Americans realize.

Consider the following about presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt:

Between his first inauguration, in January, 1993, and his first midterm election, in November, 1994, [Clinton] travelled to nearly two hundred cities and towns, and made more than two hundred appearances, to sell his Presidency, his legislative initiatives (notably his health-care bill), and his party. But his poll numbers fell, the health-care bill failed, and, in the next election, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than forty years. Yet Clinton never gave up on the idea that all he needed was a few more speeches, or a slightly better message. “I’ve got to . . . spend more time communicating with the American people,” the President said in a 1994 interview. Edwards notes, “It seems never to have occurred to him or his staff that his basic strategy may have been inherently flawed.”
.....
Reagan succeeded in passing major provisions of his agenda, such as the 1981 tax cuts, but, Edwards wrote, “surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities”—all programs that the President opposed—“increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure.” Meanwhile, “support for increased defense expenditures was decidedly lower at the end of his administration than at the beginning.” In other words, people were less persuaded by Reagan when he left office than they were when he took office.
.....
[P]olitical scientists Matthew Baum and Samuel Kernell...found that [FDR's fireside chats] fostered “less than a 1 percentage point increase” in his approval rating. His more traditional speeches didn’t do any better. He was unable to persuade Americans to enter the Second World War, for example, until Pearl Harbor.

In fact, Edwards' evidence suggest that many presidents achieve their policy goals most efficiently without publicly advocating for them. For a president to publicly address a policy goal, according to Edwards, is often to solidify partisan opposition against it. But it can also strengthen support  among the president's own party. Presidents' public persuasion attempts often have a politicizing effect--whether they like it or not.

Edwards:

“Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to transform the political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he succeeded in achieving major change, it was by mobilizing those predisposed to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a party-line vote.”

Of course, this is not to say that presidential attempts to persuade cannot effect the rhetorical landscape. Jeffery L. Bineham, a rhetoric professor at St. Cloud State University, notes in a letter to the editor of The New Yorker that "death tax," "wars" on poverty, drugs, terror, and mottos like "government is not the solution but the problem," are all examples of presidential speech entering the political lexicon.

Next Week's Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care Law

The Supreme Court is set to hear three days of arguments next week over challenges to the health reform law President Obama signed two years ago. Here's a viewer's guide from The PBS Hews Hour as well at a summary by Jeffery Toobin of The New Yorker.

Watch A Viewer's Guide to Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Toobin:

The legal challenges to ACA, which the Supreme Court will hear next week, center on its key provision, the individual mandate. The mandate essentially requires all adults to obtain health insurance, either through their employers or by buying it themselves. (There will be subsidies for those who cannot afford it.) The idea of a health-insurance mandate first came to wide public notice in 1989, in the form of a proposal from the Heritage Foundation, one of Washington’s venerable right-wing think tanks.... For decades, no one suggested that an individual mandate was unconstitutional.
.....
The main argument that opponents of the health-care law have come up with is that the mandate regulates economic inactivity—i.e., not buying insurance—and the Commerce Clause allows only the regulation of economic activity. In the first appellate review of the law, last summer, the Sixth Circuit demolished that argument. The court pointed out that there are two unique characteristics of the market for health care: “(1) virtually everyone requires health care services at some unpredictable point; and (2) individuals receive health care services regardless of ability to pay.” Thus, there was no such thing as “inactivity” in the health-care market; everyone participates, even if he or she chooses not to buy insurance. Indeed, the choice to forgo insurance imposes a direct cost on the taxpayers, who wind up footing the bill. Those choices by consumers, especially in the aggregate, represent an economic matter that Congress may decide to regulate.

The first January 1st New Year's Day - Calendar Act 1750

The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (c.23) (also known as Chesterfield's Act after Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield) is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. It reformed the calendar of England and British Dominions so that a new year began on 1 January rather than 25 March (Lady Day) and would run according to the Gregorian calendar, as used in most of western Europe.

via en.wikipedia.org

Priorities, Values: Plastic Surgery Is More Popular Than Ever - The Daily Beast

Between 2009 and 2010 the average US income fell 0.6% to $62,481, and Americans spent:

1.4% less on clothes
3.8% less on food
2.0% less on housing
7.0% less on entertainment, but
1.3% more on breast augmentation
5.1% more on lipo
8.1% more on eyelid surgery
24.4% more on butt lifts (yes, you read that percentage correctly).

Those increases are because the rich are spending, right? Yes they are, but not in the realm of cosmetic surgery like you might assume they do.... Of cosmetic-surgery patients, 33% make less than $30,000 a year and c. 70% make less than $60,000, according to a 2009 study.

via www.thedailybeast.com

(Image: Oscar-winner Jim Broadbent (as Dr. Jaffe) goes to work on Katherine Helmond (as Mrs. Ida Lowry) in Terry Gilliam's 1985 film, Brazil.)

MIT Report: How to Keep from Getting the Flu | Big Think

When MIT researchers set out to find inexpensive and household methods to slow the spread of a potential flu pandemic, they were simultaneously finding ways to stop the seasonal flu. After reviewing 40 studies of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical solutions, they recommend washing hands with soap and water for 20-30 seconds, wearing a mask if you have a virus, installing air filters, keeping temperatures and humidity levels high and installing an ultraviolet light (because UV light is antimicrobial).

At the start of their research, the MIT scientists imagined an H5N1 bird flu pandemic, perhaps on the scale of the influenza epidemic that swept the globe between 1918 and 1920, killing 50 to 100 million people. Were the bird flu to mutate and become communicable between humans, vaccines might help stop its spread, but it is possible that their production would be too slow to have much effect. The hygiene methods highlighted above are sufficient for slowing the spread of influenza among members of the same household.

via bigthink.com

Image by Karsten Schneider/Science Photo Library. (Click to enlarge.) "Spreading potentially lethal pathogens, influenza virus particles (brown) invade cilia (blue) in the airways of the human lung."

Soldier leaves legacy much larger than 'he was gay'

He was also among the smartest in the half-million force, scoring a perfect score on his aptitude test, a feat the Army says is rare.

Andrew was so well-liked his comrades named a combat outpost for the soldier with the infectious smile. COP Wilfahrt sits 6 kilometers from Kandahar. To his buddies, it is not named for a gay soldier, but for one who fought with valor.

"Mom, everyone knows [I'm gay]. Nobody cares," he told his mother in their final conversation, a phone call from Afghanistan on Thanksgiving.
.....
Andrew never denied his sexuality. But like so many, he struggled with what it means to be gay in America. Yet it was only one part of him. He was so much more. In the note on his laptop, he never used the words gay or homosexual to define himself. His younger sister, Martha, says it's the least interesting thing about him.

via www.cnn.com

A smart, wise younger sister. She gets it.

Also from the news profile:

Jeff's greatest regret is not hugging his son when he first told him he was gay. "This is how it is for an old fool of a man. This moment is the burden I carry."
.....
Republican Rep. John Kriesel, who lost his legs while serving in Iraq, sent Andrew's photo around the floor during debate in the Minnesota House. A few years ago, he said, he would have defined marriage as solely between heterosexuals. But his military service changed that.

"This amendment doesn't represent what I went to fight for," he told lawmakers."I cannot look at this family and look at this picture and say, 'You know what, Corporal, you were good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you were not good enough to marry the person you love.' I can't do that."

Andrew didn't have a significant other. If he had, the partner wouldn't have been allowed to escort his body home from Dover Air Force Base, nor would he have received Andrew's $100,000 death benefit.
.....

"We will never forget him and are honored to have served with such an outstanding person," platoon leader 1st Lt. Brandon LaMar said in a letter informing the family of the naming of the outpost.

 

The Civil War, 150 years later, still divides us; also: list of NPS commemorations

When National Park Service rangers fired a New Year's cannon shot at this Civil War battleground to hail the arrival of 2011, they also ushered in the start of a four-year commemoration of the war's 150th anniversary.

The events include a multitude of battle re-enactments, lecture series, readings, concerts and plays that will be held on the battle fields tended to by the Park Service and in private estates from the shores of the Gulf of Mexico to New York.

But the slate of commemorations is also fraught with political peril.

via aolnews.com

Laura Parker, in her article, "Civil War, 150 Years Later, Still Divides Our Nation," allowed her sources to set up the helpful contrast between "memory" and "history," and gave the article's conclusion over to a validly important source--not to herself--who expertly summarized what much of the preceding article demonstrated about memory and history about the Civil War. (There's an inset link in her article to a list of 2011's NPS Civil War commemoration events.)

Memory--in the sense used in Parker's article--is a narrative stongly rooted in collective memory. Comparatively, history is a more comprehensively evidence-based narrative founded more so on hard work by a larger number of historians aware of professional standards of historical evidence. (Which is not to say that amateur historians do not also contribute well-research work fully informed of professional standards of evidence.) Even though history is a humanity, it has standards of evidence because it has one foot in the sciences, drawing on fields such as archeology.

 

Solid historical narratives are less likely to downplay unanswered questions and ambiguities, but at the same time they are also strong narratives in the end because they reflect professional consensus based on mutually supportive findings. I dislike the fact that history--real history--is sometimes trumped in the marketplace of popular ideas and popular opinion by a trendy memory, especially one not merely skewed by politics--because history can never be completely divorced from politics--but one one largely in the service of politics, often the politics of ethnicity or regionalism.

 

It will be interesting to see if the compelling production values or storytelling of some filmmaker or cable network or channel is brought to bear on the topic of the Civil War during the 150th anniversary years in such a way as to downplay the importance of slavery as a cause of the Civil War or over-emphasize the states' rights issue...which, if one is intellectually honest, boils down to the right of a state to . . . permit slavery.

 

After all, it was done so expertly once before by D. W. Griffith in The Birth of a Nation.