JayB

indeed, for a man who fears Big Gubimint micro-managing our freedoms, where do you see the rabbit-hole of deciding which human behaviors deserve coverage or not hits bottom? hot chicks have to pay ten times higher premiums b/c they're 10X more likely to get the clap? no coverage for donut-fans? no covering tendon-pulls nor rectal sores for gay sport climbers? at any rate, the big boozers, bastards, brawlers n' butt-smokers i've known over the years are/were inveterate doctor-haters and don't generally use any of the services they pay for in their youth and usually accept death pretty rapidly when it wanders their way in the form of cancer, heart-failure, etc. The alternative to "withholding care" from people who have unhealthy lifestyles or dangerous habits is a system where they pay higher premiums and the state leaves them alone. I'm surprised to learn that you prefer the alternative. And yet those most at risk of health problems associated with unhealthy lifestyles are those least able to bear the costs of higher taxes on cheap food and higher premiums. Somehow other governments have managed to nudge their people in the right direction and enforce more stringent regulations on food without succumbing to your tired stalinototalitarian nightmare fantasy. -Governments are "nudging" poor, stupid people into spending money they can't afford to lose on gambling already in order to maximize the amount of money they make. They're killing off prize-linked savings accounts that would actually "nudge" poor stupid people into saving their money instead of losing it at the scratch-card kiosk because that would cut into their take. That may not be a reality that you choose to acknowledge, but it's reality all the same. Sorry. -Arguing for "more stringent regulations on food" would be defensible from a statist/paternalist perspective if there were sufficient evidence to validate the claim that doing so has any effect whatsoever on health/obesity. There is none, because it doesn't. Ergo any "public health" argument for taxing high-calorie, low-cost food is simply a handy way to dupe a gullible cohort into endorsing higher taxes under the guise of promoting "public health" that will do nothing of the kind.

Is this an article of faith or something that you've arrived at by argument (seriously)? E.g. Is this an argument from an abstract/arbitrary notion of fairness, efficiency, superior clinical efficacy, or what?

indeed, for a man who fears Big Gubimint micro-managing our freedoms, where do you see the rabbit-hole of deciding which human behaviors deserve coverage or not hits bottom? hot chicks have to pay ten times higher premiums b/c they're 10X more likely to get the clap? no coverage for donut-fans? no covering tendon-pulls nor rectal sores for gay sport climbers? at any rate, the big boozers, bastards, brawlers n' butt-smokers i've known over the years are/were inveterate doctor-haters and don't generally use any of the services they pay for in their youth and usually accept death pretty rapidly when it wanders their way in the form of cancer, heart-failure, etc. The alternative to "withholding care" from people who have unhealthy lifestyles or dangerous habits is a system where they pay higher premiums and the state leaves them alone. I'm surprised to learn that you prefer the alternative.

Not always quite as simple as that when the state is the entrenched interest that's doing the peddling. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/oregon_lottery_agency_pushes_s.html I think the more likely outcome is clumsy attempts to determine the tax rate that optimizes revenue from ding-dongs and ho'-ho's under the pretext of promoting public health, and then finding creative ways for the bureaucracy that's pocketing the money itself to pretend that all of the naked self-dealing it's doing is in the public interest. Here's another example: http://freakonomics.com/2010/11/18/freakonomics-radio-could-a-lottery-be-the-answer-to-americas-poor-savings-rate/ The answer, in short, is no - not if state lottery boards have anything to do with it. Even Lenin, Stalin, and Mao - probably *especially* Lenin and Mao would have a hearty chuckle over the idea that people magically turn benevolent once they start getting paid by the state and wielding political power. How have you managed to hang onto your touching idealism so far into adulthood - comrade?

Well, Bahrain has an obesity epidemic (almost 30%!) and rates 5th in the world in diabetes -- 15% of the population has it, and it accounts for 5% of all deaths. Cardiovascular deaths account for a third of all other deaths. But I suppose you're right, it's probably their great lifestyle that accounts for their long lives, and not their universal healthcare coverage. Excellent point! I learn so much on cc.com, I hope you guys can tell how appreciative I am I agree with you, we should probably try to model our society after Bahrain -Bahrain has a way higher percentage of young people than the US. Most of the morbidity/mortality associated with obesity materializes decades after the person becomes obese. It's possible to correct for this via age-indexing, but it's not perfect. When you compound obesity with smoking, drinking, stress, etc the specific mortality associated with obesity is difficult to tease out. Without more information it's very hard to figure out if the health care system in Bahrain is way better than our own system when it comes to keeping fat people alive, if our fat people have additional health risks that fat people in Bahrain don't, or some combination of the two. There are probably pockets of super-high mortality for fat people - most likely in places where "suga diabeetus" is part of the lingo, and other places in the US where fat people don't die off as quickly (I'd guess that Utah is probably in that category). -Even in places with single payer, there are significant regional variations in virtually every measure of health, longevity, etc. How do you personally account for/understand that kind of variability in a single payer system? Regional variations in cardiovascular mortality in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Significant regional variations in age-standardized CVD and IHD mortality were noted both at the provincial/territorial level and the health region level. Efforts to reduce CVD and IHD mortality in Canada require attention to both traditional risk factors (eg, smoking) and broader determinants of health (eg, unemployment rates). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14571309

Interesting comparison of the variation life-expectancy, morbidity, disability, etc by county in the document below. The idea that variations in how doctors and hospitals practice medicine explain the county-by-county variations better than variations in diet, exercise, smoking, drinking, etc, etc, is fascinating. http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/sites/default/files/policy_report/2013/IHME_GBD_US_FINAL_PRINTED%20070513.pdf

That's only one undesirable outcome, but - yes. The reason is that the underlying realities that change the costs of producing things - ranging from X-ray machines to gauze - change so quickly that bureaucratic price-control regimes can never keep up and it becomes impossible to coordinate supply and demand. Even Friederich Fucking Engels understood this point, however dimly, in the 19th century: To desire, in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, to establish the determination of value by labour time, by forbidding competition to establish this determination of value through pressure on prices in the only way it can be established, is therefore merely to prove that, at least in this sphere, one has adopted the usual utopian disdain of economic laws. Secondly, competition, by bringing into operation the law of value of commodity production in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, precisely thereby brings about the only organisation and arrangement of social production which is possible in the circumstances. Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish. And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser buttons flood us by the million." I'll leave that point aside for the moment, though, and simply ask you to ponder what would happen if someone was able to wave a magic-wand and impose medicare/medicaid for all tomorrow? What percentage of care that's currently delivered, and clinics/hospitals currently in operation would stay open? -International comparisons: 1) you can't just point to a given country and assume that it's a strict single payer system. Most countries have mixed public/private systems. 2)A statistical survey comparing the health of Swedes or Japanese with Americans tells you way more about how well Swedes and Japanese take care of themselves than it does about how well their doctors and hospitals take care of them. If someone told you that people in Alabama are in significantly worse health, cost more to take care of, and tend to die sooner than people in Utah or Vermont on average would you uncritically attribute the differences in morbidity and mortality to differences in their respective health systems? Or would you say to yourself "People in the South tend to be fatter, poorer, dumber, and more reckless than people in Vermont, on average so it stands to reason that they tend to be sicker and die sooner since there's limits to what doctors and hospitals can do to counteract unhealthy lifestyles."?

Yeah - there's lots of situations where command and control production works better than the alternative. Pretty much every complex production process takes place in a command and control environment. Think Henry Ford's factory vs a process where every rivet you pop into a piece of sheet metal requires a separate transaction between two separate businesses. The critical mistake lies in thinking that something that works when it's embedded in a market economy can work just as well on it's own. There are lots of zoos that work very well in a particular context, but scaling them up to encompass the entire ecosystem would be a bit more challenging. Worth thinking about when you're trying to decide if it makes more sense to give people food stamps, or turn the entire food growing/buying/selling/distributing enterprise into a vertically integrated monopoly run by the same sort of folks who oversee the corn ethanol program. What are you trying to say, Jay? Seriously. It is not as if we are talking about some new idea. Where has the free market or some competitive private business model proven better than a more centralized approach when it comes to medical care? How have public health outcomes been shown to be better? -In developed countries, variations in aggregate public health stats are a reliable indicator for how well a given population takes care of themselves, and tell you very little about the clinical efficacy of specific interventions delivered by doctors and hospitals, such as treating cancers, strokes, heart-attacks, etc. When you look at clinical efficacy, the variation between hospitals within a given country is often higher than the variations between different countries, and even demographic cohorts treated within the same facilities can have significantly higher rates of mortality/morbidity after identical clinical interventions. Within the US there are massive variations between cities, counties, and states and every conceivable demographic cohort that simply can't be accounted for by provider or payor variations. The point being that the variations in payor regimes simply aren't reliably associated with outcomes in any meaningful way because they are so massively confounded by intra-country variations, cultural and behavioral variations, etc. -Most countries have a mixed public/private systems. Can you identify any other than Canada in which the collection and disbursement of funds to pay for care is a prerogative exercised by the state alone? One could just as easily ask why the rest of the world hasn't done away with private health care delivery if the benefits of doing so are so tangible and unambiguous, no? -Neither of the two most significant studies to look at the issue (the RAND study from 1971-1982 and the recent Oregon Medicaid Study) found a consistent/significant association between insured status and health status, though there were some minor exceptions. ' RAND http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9174/index1.html OMS http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321

Yeah - there's lots of situations where command and control production works better than the alternative. Pretty much every complex production process takes place in a command and control environment. Think Henry Ford's factory vs a process where every rivet you pop into a piece of sheet metal requires a separate transaction between two separate businesses. The critical mistake lies in thinking that something that works when it's embedded in a market economy can work just as well on it's own. There are lots of zoos that work very well in a particular context, but scaling them up to encompass the entire ecosystem would be a bit more challenging. Worth thinking about when you're trying to decide if it makes more sense to give people food stamps, or turn the entire food growing/buying/selling/distributing enterprise into a vertically integrated monopoly run by the same sort of folks who oversee the corn ethanol program.

"Three thousand kilometers east it is already night… Leonid Vitalevich [Kantorovich] is sitting by himself optimizing the manufacture of steel tubes. Five hundred producers. Sixty thousand consumers. Eight hundred thousand allocation orders to be issued each year. But it would all work out if he could persuade them to measure output in correct units …" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kantorovich

I'm glad you're amused, but I don't need FOX News to tell me the first part of your post is true. My wife and I received our cancellation notice from United Health Care last month telling us that our coverage ends this Thursday. Well done, Democrats; we're much happier now. Could be worse - you could be this person: "Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law. "She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said." http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027,0,4888906,full.story#axzz2j9WlVHuP

The actual reason behind the overwhelming majority of the policy cancellations in the individual and small-group market is that they don't satisfy the ACA's coverage requirements. The coverage they offer isn't comprehensive enough to satisfy the ACA, the cost-sharing features (deductibles, copays, etc) are too high to satisfy the ACA, etc. Most estimates I've seen put the percentage of individual/small-group policies subject to cancellation because they don't satisfy the ACA mandates at something like 50 to 80%, which IIRC works out to something like 8-14 million people or thereabouts. Most ACA fans that I've spoken to or who have written opinion pieces that I've read think that on balance, this is a good thing, since they didn't think catastrophic coverage was "good" coverage, and also generally thought it let the young and/or healthy play in their own risk pool and skip out on their obligation to cross-subsidize the obese, sick, old, chronically-ill, etc through their premiums. E.g. to them getting rid of or significantly reducing the availability of catastrophic plans is a desirable feature of the law, not a design flaw.

Serious question: do you really believe that millions of people actually get their policies get cancelled when they actually get sick, for no reason other than they got sick? That seems quite improbable for dozens of reasons - not the least of which is that in addition to all of the state laws prohibiting rescission, the fact that doing so violates the terms of virtually every health insurance contract in existence and courts can and do enforce the terms of contracts, the contracts only permitted rescission in the case of deliberate and material fraud, virtually all rescission cases were subject to outside review...as of 1996 or 1997 the Health Portability and Accountability Act prohibited it at the Federal level for the rare cases that weren't covered by other statutes. If you meant people with pre-existing conditions who could not get insurance, people who failed to disclose pre-existing conditions and were subsequently denied coverage, people who let their insurance lapse, etc then it's plausible that the number could range into the millions, but it would be interesting to see the actual data.

Fixed the above paragraph; ironically the conspiracy paradigm you highlight is the standard conservative talking point regarding climate and pollution. Agreed. It's ironic when people that appeal to this set of arguments in the realm of genetic engineering completely abandon the principle when it comes to climate change, vaccinations, fluoridating water, specific claims about the clinical efficacy of homeophathy, naturopathy, reiki, therapeutic touch, supernatural beliefs of all kinds, or whatever the case may be. It's easy to engage in motivated reasoning when doing otherwise would compel you to abandon or reconsider a deeply held conviction. That's a fair point, and I suppose it's worth establishing that it's easy to stick with science when it on your side and abandon it when it isn't, but it doesn't make the particular case for labeling food crops produced with recombinant technology any more valid or compelling.

1. It seems only those who oppose their view dismiss them as a "political organization". It's headed by James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University, staffed by scientists, and advocates a more tempered and reflected position at the nexus where politics and science meet, imo. 2. not sure what you weren't "impressed" with specifically. And also not sure what your point is about "giving more weight" to a particular organization vs another. If an argument is valid (show where it isn't), the issue isn't about any organization. 3. one might care because it's a neat pr trick to collate a bunch of sound bites from various organizations to paint a picture that looks much rosier than after the makeup comes off. 4. I did peruse. Didn't find a whole bunch. Just the defense of a bunch of conclusions based on short term safety studies. thanks tho cuz i did enjoy the reading, and where the links took me. the following quote in particular rang a nice tone (bonus points if you name the author without the google): Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition. A spectrophotometer that I need is busy so I have a moment for your quiz. The answer is Thomas Kuhn. What do I win? I read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" back in the early 90's en route to a history of science degree to round out the other stuff I was working on. I don't mean any particular offense to you, but since the day of its publication I don't think there's been a single crank or charlatan who hasn't proclaimed that the reason that no one who has the formal training, technical competence, and mastery of the literature/empirical findings to properly evaluate the merits of whatever jive they're slinging under the banner of a "new paradigm" does anything but roll their eyes and get back to whatever they are working on, if they respond at all. In the real world actual new discoveries or claims that run counter to the previous consensus prevail as soon as there's sufficient evidence (that last bit matters quite a lot) to back them up. When there's a robust association between cause and effect, or an experimental finding that conclusively validates a novel theory, the overwhelming majority of the folks who are actually practicing comes around fairly. Anyhow - if you want to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in all of the disciplines who actually have the formal training, technical know-how, mastery of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical knowledge to evaluate the risks and benefits of GMO crops are all simultaneously wrong and engaged in some kind of a vast collaborative conspiracy to harm humanity by...developing higher yielding, drought, pest, and disease resistant food crops...or are trapped in some kind of a mental-prison/Kunhian paradigm that you have the special qualities necessary to see but they are blind to, go right ahead - but let's not pretend that either your motives for doing so or your conclusions are grounded in science.

No hay muy tiempo so: 1)Political organization rather than a scientific organization. 2)Not impressed with the expertise or the argumentation. Even if I was, giving more weight to a single professional advocate/organization over the combined weight of the scientific institutions above and the known universe of high-quality scientific literature is not the way to go if you are want to have an ethically sound basis for your beliefs. http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf 3)No idea who is behind the poster. Unless someone has evidence that demonstrates that it misrepresents the central findings of the institutions identified in the image, who cares? 4)Won't have any more time to dedicate to this thread. Enjoy perusing the literature if you get around to it. ~Toodles.

Off: I don't have the time to hyperlink to the vast compendium of publications issued by institutions ranging from the NSF to the European Food Safety authority that have surveyed the known universe of credible scientific literature on the specific risks that arise from inserting DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal that humans eat and haven't found anything even remotely worrisome and/or plausible enough in terms of risks to warrant prohibiting the practice - but hopefully it will suffice to say that they have issued their judgments and determined that the risks to humans, the greater biosphere, etc fall somewhere between infinitessimal and zero for the set of actual food crops that actual companies have generated for that purpose. The science simply doesn't support imposing significant (in the aggregate) costs on everyone who consumes or produces food in the state of Washington or anywhere else on the basis of any scientific standard of safety. It just doesn't. If you have other objections - such as disliking Monsanto, modern agriculture, large farms, etc, etc, etc that's all perfectly fine, but those are all objections rooted in philosophical/ideological grounds - not science. I have no problem with anyone who has ideological, spiritual, or other reasons restricting their diet in any fashion they like as long as they're willing to do so without imposing the costs on people who don't share their particular ideological commitments. Folks who want to restrict their diet to kosher/hallal foods - which is a set of beliefs about food safety and purity that has equal scientific standing with the concerns that you are raising about GMO crops (sorry man, but it's true) - have every right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is force everyone who chooses not to abide by their taboos to slap a "Non Kosher" "Non Hallal" or "Non Whatever" label on every food product that they grow, buy, sell, or eat. Anyone who wants to confine their diet to non-GMO crops for political/ideological/philosophical/spiritual reasons should do the same. I don't see you addressing anything specific that offwhite wrote, since he wasn't addressing gm safety per se, But: out of the vast compendium of publications issued, can you link to one that you have found to be the most rigorous in its methodology for ascertaining GMO safety? I can't make an informed comment on which is most rigorous since and I haven't read any more than a handful of them, but the link below is a good place to go if you want handy access to a big chunk of them. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html This paper is probably also worth reading: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf It's not comprehensive, but this guy's explanation of what BT crops are, how they work, and why they aren't a hazard to humans and/or the environment is worth reading. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1135 This is a good, concise visual summary for people who aren't motivated enough to subject themselves to death-by-PDF.

Off: I don't have the time to hyperlink to the vast compendium of publications issued by institutions ranging from the NSF to the European Food Safety authority that have surveyed the known universe of credible scientific literature on the specific risks that arise from inserting DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal that humans eat and haven't found anything even remotely worrisome and/or plausible enough in terms of risks to warrant prohibiting the practice - but hopefully it will suffice to say that they have issued their judgments and determined that the risks to humans, the greater biosphere, etc fall somewhere between infinitessimal and zero for the set of actual food crops that actual companies have generated for that purpose. The science simply doesn't support imposing significant (in the aggregate) costs on everyone who consumes or produces food in the state of Washington or anywhere else on the basis of any scientific standard of safety. It just doesn't. If you have other objections - such as disliking Monsanto, modern agriculture, large farms, etc, etc, etc that's all perfectly fine, but those are all objections rooted in philosophical/ideological grounds - not science. I have no problem with anyone who has ideological, spiritual, or other reasons restricting their diet in any fashion they like as long as they're willing to do so without imposing the costs on people who don't share their particular ideological commitments. Folks who want to restrict their diet to kosher/hallal foods - which is a set of beliefs about food safety and purity that has equal scientific standing with the concerns that you are raising about GMO crops (sorry man, but it's true) - have every right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is force everyone who chooses not to abide by their taboos to slap a "Non Kosher" "Non Hallal" or "Non Whatever" label on every food product that they grow, buy, sell, or eat. Anyone who wants to confine their diet to non-GMO crops for political/ideological/philosophical/spiritual reasons should do the same.

I'll go ahead and put you in the "boutique" column for now. Also, Dude, "boutique" is not the preferred nomenclature. Parlour Marxist, please. [video:youtube]

Can we please keep your religious beliefs out of this discussion? Anyhow, if I recall, your boy Clinton oversaw his fair share of deregulation--particularly of the banking and insurance industries. Pragmatism n' all that, you see. Fact is, most Republicans I know think government's job--beyond the military and delivering mail--is, simply, to regulate. Unfortunately, the tool you elected and his rubber-stamp senate now want to take charge of our lives. We'll see how this thing plays out. Enjoy the show. Less to do with pragmatism than the culmination of the economic liberalism pushed by the Right that had been on the rise since Reagan came to power. That by the 90's the Democrats adopted it shows the extent to which those ideas had spread across the entire political spectrum. Unfortunately, despite it's spectacular failures, those ideas are still with us. The psychic gymnastics required of you to now float a pro-regulatory stance vis a vis the federal government must be exhausting for you, I know trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about here is for me. As far as the government taking control of our lives, now's a good time to defend your right to 72oz. purple dranks and the War on Sodium. In other words, big f'ing deal... Dear god - it sounds like 2008 in here! Thoughts: 1)Holy christ did I ever have a lot of free time and energy when I was serving my three year sentence in Mass. 2)5 years of this administration doesn't seem to have brightened your mood or outlook much, comrade. What gives?!

You might want to read this one. Childhood self-control is a good predictor of adult happiness, adult IQ AND adult success. And it can be taught. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2013/5/lifelong-impact-of-early-self-control I'm already pretty familiar with the gist of the literature that the "marshmallow experiment" spawned. The fact that it can be taught is hardly news either, as doing so has been a central component of parenting in functioning civilizations forever. I think that the novel part of Tough's argument isn't that self-control matters and that it can be taught, but that that public schools teaching disadvantaged students can and should make and extra effort to do so if they really want to help them learn and have a decent life. I haven't read the book, but it all sounds much more plausible and well founded than the destructive tanker-load of BS that the self-esteem movement that education reformers in the 70s and 80s unleashed on the public school system, so if it drives out the last dregs of that disastrous experiment against reality then I'm all for it.

So we are expecting schools to raise our children now, in addition to teach them? Do we just ignore failed parenting because there is no solution? There's a longform interview where the author talks about his findings at length here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/09/paul_tough_on_h.html IIRC, he was arguing that research shows that values and attitudes are a far more reliable predictor of success and happiness than IQ, that conscientious/involved/responsible/educated parents do a way better job of instilling these qualities in their children outside of school, and this largely explains why their children tend to perform better in school and in the workforce - and then goes on to describe the studies where the disadvantaged kids who get this sort of education in "life skills" do much better than those who don't. Whether schools can actually do that effectively, or at least effectively enough to mitigate some of the damage that their parents have done over the course of their lives is an open question, as far as I'm concerned, but the author seems convinced. I mostly posted that because it's consistent with the larger idea that in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the quality of the parents that determines the quality of the schools. If you could snap your fingers and swap the students at Phillips Exeter for those in the bombed-out, gang infested hell-hole of your choosing and keep the teachers the same in both places you'd see an instantaneous reversal in their results without having changed anything else. I'm convinced that there's no set of teachers bad enough that they can't be fixed by a wholesale infusion of first generation Chinese kids, and few-to-none good enough to salvage schools populated by children unfortunate enough to have been born to horrifically bad parents.

I thought that this made for an interesting read - largely jives with your comments. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa-scores-usa.html Paul Tough also has an interesting book out where he looks at what schools can actually do to help the most disadvantaged kids. The short summary is that focusing on conscientiousness, punctuality, resourcefulness, determination, etc and all the other things that engaged, responsible parents instill in their children in addition to academics seems to yield some encouraging results. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/books/review/how-children-succeed-by-paul-tough.html?_r=0 http://www.amazon.com/How-Children-Succeed-Curiosity-Character/dp/0544104404

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/15/4840706/zookal-will-deliver-textbooks-with-drones-in-australia http://tacocopter.com/