Those Drones Explained

Zeynep Tufekci has a piece in The New York Times trying to explain the “drone panic” that has (supposedly) overtaken New Jersey. I live and work in central New Jersey, and have neither seen any drones nor encountered any panic, but am only too happy to borrow the premise.

Tufekci attempts a couple of explanations for the drone panic (and the drones), but conspicuously fails to mention one of the most prominent ones out there. About a week ago, South Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew vehemently suggested that the drones had been launched by an Iranian mothership, the implication being that they were imminently about to attack us, and constituted a major national security threat. He cited no real evidence for his claims, accused the Pentagon of covering up the threat, doubled down for awhile, and then retracted the whole thing. Van Drew is a standard-issue right-wing imbecile, but the explanation for making such claims is obvious. It’s called a guilty conscience. A belatedly guilty conscience.
Continue reading

UHC, Denials, and Wrongful Death Revisited

The questions you ask determine the answers you get. If you ask the right questions, you have some hope of reaching the right answers. If you ask the wrong ones, you’ll likely reach the wrong answers. If you give up on asking, you get nothing but what you started with, so that if you begin in ignorance, you end there.

The debate about the killing of Brian Thompson threatens to begin and end either in misdirection or reinforced ignorance or both. Stuck between two competing brands of outrage–one exulting in Thompson’s death, the other outraged at the exultation–we’re in danger of losing the denials/reimbursement plot altogether. I know I’ve posted on this issue already, but think I’ve found a better way of saying what I was trying to say in that post, one that does a better job of asking the right questions than my last post did.* So here is UHC, Denials, and Death, Take 2. Continue reading

Divestment at Yale

Well, they say it’s kinda frightenin’
How this younger generation swings
You know it’s more than just some new sensation
Well, the kid is into losin’ sleep
And he don’t come home for half the week
You know it’s more than just an aggravation

–Van Halen, “And the Cradle Will Rock…”

Yale Daily News, December 8:

Yale students overwhelmingly pass divestment referendum

The Yale College Council announced today that the student body has passed the divestment referendum by a large margin.

Continue reading

UHC, Denials, and Death

This post has been superseded by a new and improved version written a few days later (Dec. 18, 2024). 

Let me just get straight to the point: I have a real worry about how people are reacting to the UHC killing. It’s not the usual worry that we’re being mean to Brian Thompson. It’s that a lot of what people are saying shows a misunderstanding of how the health insurance denials process works. I work in health care denials management on the provider side, and have in fact dealt with UHC‘s denials reps. I have no sympathy for them or for the insurance industry generally. UHC is the apex predator in an industry of predators. But on the whole, I don’t think it makes sense to say that insurance denials kill people. I’ll grant that excess mortality and morbidity are possible through an insurance denial, but death-through-denial is not the modal case of premature death or even close to it, and it’s a mistake to suggest otherwise. Continue reading

Divestment and Complicity

I’ve reproduced a comment of mine below the fold from the website of Princeton Alumni Weekly, responding to critics of the student divestment campaign described in my previous post. One critic had said: “I fail to see why students on campus should vote on how the University invests its funds.” Another had said: “Students shouldn’t be ‘running’ the University any more than alumnae/alumni should. Leave investing to the experts hired by the University to manage the endowment funds.” Continue reading

Divestment at Princeton

Princeton’s Silence Is Our Weapon

I’m happy to report that Princeton University’s undergraduate student Referendum #5 has passed by a margin of 68% to 32%. A referendum has to win at least 65% of the vote to pass, so this one did. The referendum calls on the University to disclose and divest all direct and indirect holdings in companies involved in weapons development, manufacturing, or trade, giving first priority to disclosing and divesting direct holdings in Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and General Dynamics, weapons manufacturers with documented ties to human rights violations. It also calls on the university to increase communication and accountability on socially responsible investments with the student body and campus community. Continue reading

Pete Hegseth is (Half) Right

Everywhere one looks, commentators are aghast at Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense. But as usual when it comes to defense matters, everyone is wasting their energies on the wrong questions. Hegseth has become notorious for his view that women should not play combat roles in the US military. This pointless red herring has now become the centerpiece of opposition to him. How could he believe such a thing? How could he say it? What kind of cretin rejects the universal belief that women should serve in combat roles in the US military? Continue reading

No Questions, No Justice

I have no interest in professional sports, much less boxing, much less the life and times of Mike Tyson. So I have nothing of substance to say about his recent bout with Jake Paul or much of anything else about him, but I was stopped short by a sleeper of a Mike Tyson story, his interview with Jazlyn “Jazzy” Guerra, a thirteen-year-old online journalist (scroll all the way down for it). Continue reading

The Hard Domination of Everyday Life

In a bunch of recent posts (here, here, and here), I’ve been piling on employment-at-will, mostly from the perspective of the aggrieved employee. Employment-at-will, I’ve argued, has problematic consequences for employees who are terminated at will, without cause. Terminations-without-cause incentivize arbitrary, unaccountable exercises of power in the labor market of the sort aptly described as “dominations” by Philip Pettit in his account of republican freedom.

Continue reading

Whether, How, and Why I Plan to Vote

To the best of my recollection, I haven’t voted since 2004. I’d been a reliable LP voter since 1988, but the LP’s nomination of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root in 2008 soured me on the LP; and though the LP has had better candidates since (particularly in 2020 with Jo Jorgensen), by the time those campaigns came around I was no longer enamoured of electoral politics and was committed to non-electoral strategies for political and social change. (I even have a video on my YouTube channel from 2020 that blathers on for a mind-numbing 45 minutes about my non-voting policy; I’m not sure why I needed more than ten.) I expect I’ll most likely continue to be a non-voter in future elections. But I’m planning to vote in this one – though perhaps not for the reasons you may imagine.

Continue reading