Boiling Eggs in Your Pool (While in Debilitating Pain) July 31, 2007March 8, 2017 SiCKO V SiMPSONS The Simpsons movie has slipped from 9 stars to 8.7, while SiCKO remains firm – and out-starring anything else – at 8.5. I think you’ll enjoy them both. (And don’t miss Hairspray. Lots of fun.) HONEST TEA So, you can’t drink diet soda any more if you care about your health (according to this) and you can’t drink bottled water any more if you care about your planet (according to this) . . . so all that’s really left is Honest Tea. You haven’t lived until you’ve tried Peach Oo-La-Long.* (And it may even be good for you.) *As long-time readers know, I get a millionth of a cent for every sip you take. Drink up. HEATING YOUR POOL (SOME MORE) Rob Biniaz: ‘We may have to wait some time for the practical application of Richard Factor’s ‘nuclear option‘ for heating pools, but here‘s a method I stumbled across that also converts an unwanted heat source into warmer swimming water.’ ☞ Well, it sounds kinda silly and kinda brilliant at the same time: run the pool water through your attic. Heats the pool, cools the attic. Hmmm. Beth: ‘Solar covers also (1) minimize evaporation, saving gallons of water and (2) keep leaves and other debris out of the pool.’ ☞ And it’s not either/or. You could have an $89 pool cover and a SolarAttic pool heater and boil eggs in your pool. SiCKO SOME MORE Charles went to his back surgeon in debilitating pain last month and his back surgeon told him to go for an MRI so they could see what was happening and Charles’s assistant called his health insurer to get prior approval for the MRI but the health insurer said it would take three days to get approval so (did I mention Charles was in debilitating pain?) Charles got it anyway, at a cost of $2,480, which the health insurer will not pay because it was unapproved. It’s a good system. H: ‘Why is PNHP not mentioned on your site or by Michael Moore? They are physicians for a single-payer system.’ ☞ Because the current system is so good? Doug Jones: ‘One of your old columns has only a little to do with healthcare, but I think it is relevant. I’m talking about the November 15, 2000, column entitled ‘Views from Abroad.’ It got me thinking so much seven years ago that I printed it out and STILL know where it is today.’ ☞ Please note: Like all the best stuff in this space, the column was written by one of you, not me.
I’m Back June 25, 2007March 6, 2017 DINNER Dave Neal: ‘You wrote: ‘We have 250 people coming for dinner.’ So what’s so hard about opening 250 cans? You do have a Swing-A-Way, no?’ ☞ The dinner was good. The theme was COME WRITE HISTORY – AGAIN (let’s repeat in 2008 our success of 2006), so we had some best-selling writers join Governor Dean, and I brought a six-foot pencil I acquired in the Seventies from a store that specialized in Very Large Things. We began with salad ‘as green as WALT WHITMAN’S LEAVES OF GRASS,’ followed by an entree ‘as historic as GREAT-PLAINS-ROAMING PIT-ROASTED BUFFALO STEAK’ (but we had filet of beef, with vegetarian available on request), followed by dessert ‘as American as APPLE PIE with STEPHEN COLBERT’S AMERICONE DREAM.’ (‘A decadent melting pot of vanilla ice cream with fudge-covered waffle cone pieces and a caramel swirl. It’s the sweet taste of liberty in your mouth.’) All this served by the light of a minimum of 270 electoral votive candles. Cooking Like a Guy™ this was not. (We even served wine, which is why I forgot to post a comment Friday.) SEATING PLANS Karen: “This tool is too late for your dinner – but next time.” ☞ Hmmm. The beauty of Excel is that I already have it and know how to use it (more or less). But I can see how this could be useful. HIDDEN TALENT Mark Lutton: “That British amateur tenor is great, but take a look at these amateur pianists at the Boston International Piano Competition for Exceptional Amateurs – Christopher Shih, a doctor, and Rupert Egerton-Smith, a management consultant.” MORE HIDDEN TALENT Watch this video if painting rather than piano turns you on, and if you have five minutes for a nice little surprise. (Thanks, Sid and Diane.) WAIT! STOP! DON’T DO THIS! Kevin Clark: “I have a large short term gain on the GLDD warrants and, as you point out, no way to wait for it to go long term without ponying up more money. But if I donate them to my Fidelity Gift Trust account don’t I get to deduct the full value? Seems like a better option than donating appreciated assets that are long term.” ☞ No! If you have not held the appreciated securities for a year and a day when you donate them, you get to deduct only the cost of your gift, not the market value – in this case, perhaps one-seventh as much. “Also, if I have a short term gain on GLDDW and a long term loss on some other position, how would those interact on my tax return?” ☞ If you had no other gains or losses, your short-term gain would be reduced by your long-term loss. Click here for more. REMINDER: DO NOT CALL Suddenly, the unsolicited sales calls seem to be exploding. If this is happening to you – or even if it isn’t – take a minute here to register, or re-register, your numbers . . . not least because it was probably four years ago that you last did this, and the repellent lasts only five. So it’s just about time to spray yourself again anyway.
Cauliflower and Your Prostate June 6, 2007March 6, 2017 THINK THERE’S TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS? I do! Click here to help fix it. THE EXAFLOOD From the Sacramento Bee, by Bruce Mehlman and Larry Irving (thanks, Peter): The impending exaflood of data is cause for excitement. It took two centuries to fill the shelves of the Library of Congress with more than 57 million manuscripts, 29 million books and periodicals, 12 million photographs, and more. Now, the world generates an equivalent amount of digital information nearly 100 times each day. The explosion of digital information and proliferation of applications promises great things for our economy and our nation, as long as we are prepared. DNDN So I got a lot of blowback from yesterday’s post, as you might expect. It hit three themes (plus one email saying the drug isn’t needed anyway – just take aspirin and eat curried cauliflower): 1. Two of the doctors recommending against approval of Provenge have big conflicts of interest. 2. The question was changed, yes, but to CORRECT it for what FDA standards say it should be. 3. The second trial people lived shorter than the first trial placebo people, but the second trial people were sicker. Apples to apples, Provenge beat placebo both times. I guess there are two issues here: a) In an ideal world, should the FDA approve it? b) In the real world of current law, WILL the FDA approve it? A much narrower question, and maybe heartless, but certainly relevent to the stock price. Here’s a sampling of the emails, only one of which, in red, was positive . . . followed by my friend’s response. Kerry: ‘Provenge works and the FDA only denied it do to politics and the Conflict of Interest Doctors, Scher and Hussain.’ Richard Lake: ”Substantial Evidence’ IS the FDA standard and if you don’t know that you have no business writing about it and if you did know that you are no better than a paid basher on the DNDN message boards. I personally believe you are ‘short’ ethics.’ Richard Berman: ‘You stated that the FDA changed the efficacy question in the Advisory Committee panel on Provenge. That is correct, however, they changed the question to fit the statutory and regulatory language and to be consistent with the language used for virtually all other cancer drugs. The original language, ‘establish efficacy’ appears no where in the statute or regulations. It is a very high standard, and to scientists is even higher. Remember, these are people to whom gravity is still a theory. The changed language ‘provide substantial evidence of efficacy’ is the statutory and regulatory language and is the language used in other cancer advisory committees. The question was corrected, not changed.’ Richard: ‘I agree with your conclusion regarding DNDN but not with your reasons (or, I guess, your friend’s reasons). For example, he mocks the company for not knowing how its drug works. In fact we don’t know how many drugs work. Phrases like ‘the exact mechanism of action is unclear’ appear with frightening frequency in drug applications. The head of Genetech describes oncology research as a series of ‘semi-rational leaps of faith.’ I try to remember that the FDA is not a drug testing organization but a statistics analyzing one. Provenge’s box score is not too good. FDA Standard: Two trials meet predefined targets with 95% level of significance each, resulting in a composite level of 99.5%. Provenge results: Two trials, neither of which met predefined target. So, after special pleading: Two trials, one of which met post hoc defined target with 95% level of significance but the other still didn’t so, after special pleading: One trial and a meta-trial which combined the two trials into a single data set (sort of like copying from the person sitting next to you) meet the post hoc defined targets with 95% level of significance each resulting in a composite level of who knows?’ Thomas H. Jones: ‘Please go read Dendreon’s 10K per 2007 for the REAL facts about Provenge (access at dendreon.com 10K from SEC filings on website). And please suggest that ALL your readers do the same so they have the facts for themselves. ALL the trial results your ‘friend’ referenced are there for the viewing and they are all POSITIVE . . . The average Overall Survival was 4 1/2 months, with some patients living for years. Eduardo Garcia, who spoke at the FDA advisory council meeting, is a 6+ year survivor.’ Trond Hildahl: ‘You are probably going to get a lot of hate mail – there are some fanatical Dendreon fans. Not all of us are foaming at the mouth, please believe me – but I do want to respond to a couple of your ‘shorting’ points. The FDA’s own requirements state the proper wording should be ‘substantial efficacy.’ Yet the question was worded ‘establish efficacy.’ . . . Maha Hussein, who you mention, actually fell asleep during the patient testimony session! This is not knowable from reading the transcript. Also, Hussein and Dr. Scher, 2 of the 4 NO votes, both have enormous conflicts of interest. Information that has come out since show that both never should have been allowed to serve on the advisory committee. These Drs. BOTH set a new low also by writing letters to the Cancer Letter and then ‘leaking’ them to the press. I could go on and argue a number of your other points, ESPECIALLY regarding the second trial and the number of deaths in the Provenge arm versus the placebo – I think you are flat out wrong in your conclusions . . . but I am not a statistician and this is already too long. Keep in mind the FDA recently advised that they will accept interim trial data from 9902B which will be available in mid 2008. Don’t stay short too long!’ Kevin M. Ward: ‘Maha Hussain – deep conflicts of interest, both from funding for her investigative work AND personal investments. Also, an expert in CHEMO, but NOT in immunotherapies. Should not have been on the panel. . . . Good luck with your short position. As of right now, it’s moved 23 cents against you. The day all this gets resolved and Provenge gets its approval, any short will be toast.’ Matt Kim, MD: ‘The second trial was indeed supportive of the first, the skewed data on first read was shown to be caused by the Provenge group having sicker patients than the control untreated group, on later analysis which the FDA accepted as proper and requires the same analysis for the ongoing trial the second study again like the first showed clear evidence of longer survival . . . I obviously don’t know your Harvard friend, but he is talking out his rear and that is verifiable if you have the integrity to check. I realize this statement is harsh but you put absolute lies in print on your website. Please don’t let your name be associated with lies.’ ☞ Get the gist? Well, here’s the thing. It’s possible these folks are right in buying the DNDN line, and that my friend is wrong. But he wasn’t born a DNDN short. He goes long drug stocks from time to time, also, and could have gone long this one. Before he goes long or short, he does a lot more analysis than most investors . . . and he has a great deal of experience understanding FDA procedures. Confronted with the emails above, he offers the following: (1) There were two doctors who were on the panel and who voted no (among the 4) who subsequently published letters to the FDA in a trade journal known as the Cancer Letter. One was Maha Hussain, the chair person of the Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee. The second is Howard Scher, head of prostate cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering. That speaks for itself. The third doctor who published a letter opposing the approval was a statistician who was asked by the Biologics division to be on the Provenge panel, but was unable to attend the meeting. All three of the letters explain in detail why the data for show no evidence of efficacy, citing lots of data. (2) The question “Establish Efficacy” was worded by the FDA. It is published on the website. The original testimony from the division director, Celia Witten, is that this is the question the FDA wanted. What actually happened is that three doctors voted “no,” so then the chairman asked if the question could be changed. Dr. Witten said that, well, this was the question they wanted answered, though the committee could also answer a different question. They then went back and asked the fourth doctor, who voted “no.” Then Dr. Witten said that the law uses the words “substantial evidence of efficacy,” so she and the chairman changed the question to “substantial evidence of efficacy.” All of this can be found in the last 20-30 pages of the transcript. The FDA has a technical definition of “substantial evidence of efficacy.” There is a difference in what this means from a regulatory standpoint and what a guy on the street (or an orthopedist–look at the background of the people on the panel, found at the beginning of the transcript) might think it means. (3) The entry criteria for the two trials were the same. Thus, the outcomes should be the same. It also turns out that the patients who received Provenge in the first trial were much healthier than those who received the control, and this difference could easily explain the apparent difference in survival in the first trial. (4) In order for a trial to make a claim, it must demonstrate statistical significance on the primary endpoint. Dor Pharma [a different company with a different drug recently rejected] did not do this. IDM [ditto] did not do this. Dendreon did not do this. IF you do not do this, then, as noted for Dor (and all other companies), any additional data that might be generated from the trial is useful only for generating hypotheses and planning additional trials. It is “post-hoc” analysis. Richard Feynman in The Meaning of It All has an excellent discussion in the second lecture about why post-hoc data analyses are never valid in statistics. The FDA is following Feynman (the Nobel prize winner) in this regard. In reviewing IDM, the FDA concluded that since it did not meet its primary endpoint, it did not show “substantial evidence of efficacy.” Ditto for Dor. Ditto for Dendreon. Ditto for Pharmacyclics (PCYC), which received a rejection letter from the cancer division of the drug division of the FDA earlier this year for a product to treat brain mets. Ditto for Neoprobe (NEOL), which got a rejection letter for brain cancer for the same reason. The FDA has not approved Provenge, will not approve Provenge, and should not approve Provenge. If Provenge would like an approval, it should demonstrate statistically valid evidence of efficacy, like all other approved drugs. ☞ He believes DNDN has nothing, sadly, and will gradually fade away. I, obviously, have no clue. I just know he could be wrong – but generally is right. Certainly, very little ‘smart money’ expected the advisory committee to recommend approval, or the stock would not have been at $4 for so long just before it did (and jumped to $24). And, at least so far, that smart money has been right: the FDA – headed by a prostate cancer expert – has not approved the drug. Meanwhile, from PeterK: ‘Provenge’s ineffectiveness against prostate cancer is no loss except to DNDN and its investors. Aspirin and turmeric are already proven effective in the prevention and treatment of prostate cancer. Aspirin and other NSAIDS help prevent cancers, heart disease and possibly Alzheimers by reducing inflammation, which researchers believe causes or promotes the spread of these and other diseases. Click here. (‘Among daily NSAID users, there was a 12% reduced risk of prostate cancer in those aged 50 to 59, a 60% lower risk in those 60 to 69, and an 83% drop in risk for those 70 and over.’) And here. (‘Rutgers researchers have found that the curry spice turmeric holds real potential for the treatment and prevention of prostate cancer, particularly when combined with certain vegetables.’) Said vegetables include cauliflower, which when fried is delicious with turmeric. Be careful though; turmeric stains things yellow!’
This Bank Will Throw Your Dog a Bone May 31, 2007March 6, 2017 BERRY BURST CHEERIOS Hey, Cheerios are . . . reborn! Forget the milk, you can eat ’em right out of the box. I was always more of a cornflakes guy, so this was as much a surprise to me as I imagine it is to you. (Just 100 calories per serving, which they describe as 27 grams, confident no American consumer has any idea what 27 grams is – an ounce. An ounce is not a lot. I’ve gotten letters that weight more than an ounce. But then again, Cheerios, like donuts, are all about the holes, and those don’t weigh a thing.) A GOOD PLACE TO BANK Our investment in Commerce Bank (CBH) has gone no place fast, up barely 12% in what is now closing in on two years, even as everything but its earnings per share – a big ‘but’ to be sure – has been rising sharply. (Earnings have been stunted by the extended ‘inverted yield curve’ – namely, short-term interest rates being higher than long-term rates, when ordinarily the reverse is, for banks, profitably true.) The bank is all about winning fans by dazzling customers with service. Imagine a bank open 361 days a year, from 7:30 in the morning to 8 at night – where the doors open ten minutes before the posted opening time and close ten minutes after the posted closing time. Free checking. ‘No stupid fees.’ Twelve million lollipops (and 2 million dog bones) handed out. J.D. Powers, in its inaugural Retail Banking Survey last year, ranked Commerce Bank #1 – as did Consumer Reports. Greenwich Associates ranked the bank’s call center #1. (Live reps are standing by 24/7 at 888-751-9000.) Even if you’re not a customer, you can go into one of its 500 branches to dump a jar of coins into their ‘Penny Arcade’ machine in return for cash. (Imagine: a preference for paper money over metal, but that’s another story.) They counted $425 million in coins that way last year – at no charge. If you live near a Commerce Bank branch – mainly in New York, Philadelphia, Washington and, increasingly, South Florida – and if your current bank makes you crazy over some insane little problem or charge, you have an alternative. I don’t know whether or when earnings per share will pop back up to the trend line. And even then, the stock may not pop commensurately. Even so, I am happy holding on for the long-term. PINCHOT Ed Shoben: ‘The other five timber-related stocks are (were): Rayonier (RYN), Potlatch (PCH), Pope Resources Units (POPEZ), Timberwest (TWF.UN) and Longview Fiber which has recently been taken out. An interesting column and the Pinchot system is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket. About as wise as putting it all in Las Vegas Real Estate.’ ☞ Like Plum Creek, Rayonier and Potlatch have doubled in the last four years. Pope Resources is up more than fourfold. It might have been an even better retirement plan to invest in these stocks four years ago. Paul Berkowitz: ‘They are all REITS except Pope, which is a master limited partnership. They all seem decent investments, but the clever advertisement for the newsletter conveniently neglects to mention that a large part of the dividends claimed were special dividends paid only when a timber company converted to a REIT. The Graham Investor has a Pinchot FAQ.’ KEITH OLBERMANN IS NOT SUPPORTING GIULIANI In case you missed it . . . here.
Borealis, Mud, and Cauliflower May 7, 2007March 6, 2017 CAULIFLOWER It is amazing how long a head of cauliflower stays good in the refrigerator – especially if it’s Andy Boy cauliflower* – and I have learned that you can just ignore those brown ‘scuff marks’ that begin to appear; they’re entirely harmless. Or have been, so far, to me.** So to vary the pace, consider having a head of cauliflower in the refrigerator from time to time, and just breaking off a lobe or two every so often as a healthy, palate-cleansing snack. Ketchup never hurt, either. (Don’t worry about the inevitable cauliflower crumble that will wind on the floor. So bland is this food, neither ant nor roach nor rodent has any interest, and it doesn’t smell as it dehydrates and, under foot, gets ground to dust. It will just blow away, most likely into the adjacent carpet, to await the semi-annual vacuuming and permanent residency in the vacuum cleaner bag no one knows how to replace.) _______________ * Oh, the potential tie-ins! ** This may be an opportune moment to share with you the first few paragraphs of the first chapter of my long-awaited work in progress: Chapter 1 – These Recipes Could Kill You Seriously. Nothing in this book has hurt me — but that’s me. None of the recipes in this book, nor the general disregard for hygiene they embrace, has been tested for safety by any private lab or government agency, and I hereby disclaim any responsibility — I mean, ANY responsibility — for stomach cramps, mental disorder, loss of sleep, loss of friends, or even DEATH that could ensue from following any of the advice in this book. I have a pretty strong stomach. You may not be so lucky. Seriously. MUD So we bought the GLDD warrants at 70 cents and 38 cents in the past year or so, and Friday they closed at $3.29, so if you bought 10,000 of them for, say, $6,000, they’re now worth $32,900 on paper. Think of the money you now have available to support the DNC. But wait – I wouldn’t necessarily sell until, at the earliest, your warrants have gone long-term. And with just a 5-cent premium over their intrinsic value Friday (they give you the right to buy GLDD at $5 and GLDD closed at $8.24 Friday), I wouldn’t necessarily sell when they go long-term, either. Anything can happen, of course, and I know nothing, really, about mud, sediment, dredging, or barges. (GLDD is Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, the nation’s oldest, largest company in this field.) But for someone who does want to own the stock, at $8.24, the warrants essentially do two things for that extra nickel: First, they save your having to put up $5 of each $8.24. With nearly two years to run on the warrants, that’s like being able to borrow $5 for two years for just a nickel in interest. Which works out to a rate of about half a percent a year. (The wrinkle – see below – is that if the stock rises much higher, the warrants may not have 2 years to run after all.) Second, if something awful happened and the stock crashed to $2, you’d have lost 100% of your $3.24 . . . but not the full $6.24 drop from $8.24 if you had bought the stock. (Admittedly, one can argue that it’s worse to lose 100% than “only” the 75% or so drop from $8.24 to $2. But not necessarily. In this unlikely scenario, you could then buy the shares at $2, if you wanted to, giving you a total cost for each one of $2 plus the lost $3.24, or $5.24 in all – versus the $8.24 it would have cost you to own the shares buying them outright today.) So the warrants are not overpriced relative to the stock. But how good a value is the stock at today’s price? I have read research reports making the case for significant further gains in the years ahead. One of them argues that the nation’s normal level of dredging activity has been halved because of budget constraints from the Iraq war, and that at some point soon it will need to be restored to traditional levels, which would be very good for GLDD’s sales and profits. But who knows? The company is releasing earnings before the market open Wednesday and you are invited to listen to management’s conference call later that day, at 11am Eastern Time – details are here. If the news Wednesday is discouraging, the stock will drop. If it’s good – but no better than investors were expecting, the stock may also drop. If the news exceeds expectations, the stock could continue to climb. Which raises one last important wrinkle with the warrants – namely that, as described here (see paragraph 6), the company has the right to force conversion of the warrants if the stock hits $8.50 and stays there for 20 consecutive trading days. Which means that, for those not in a position to, or inclined to, pay an additional $5 to own the actual stock and hold it for the long term, it will be advisable to sell the warrants once the stock begins trading at or above $8.50. Which could be as early as this week or as late as . . . never. But when if and when it does begin to trade at $8.50, I’d expect to write about this in more detail. (One advantage of spending the extra money to exercise the warrants if that you could then enjoy whatever future appreciation might remain. But the other is that you would be deferring the tax that would be due if you closed out the position and took your profit.) BOREF I know, I promised. Well, I have posted that tomorrow. Which, because I work very late into the night, you can read today.
From Lincoln to Lettuce to Lamb (to Paradise) February 16, 2007March 5, 2017 If some monumental event occurred yesterday, whether financial, political, or volcanic, please understand I am ignoring it only because this was written the day before yesterday. Yesterday I left to visit paradise. If there is no column Monday, it means Broadband access is not yet working in paradise and I wasn’t able to post one. Or – wait! Isn’t Monday a holiday? I don’t have to post one! If there is no column Tuesday, it means I simply could not tear myself away. LINCOLN’S WORDS Who but me has such a wonderful readership? Monday, I made a throwaway reference to the Gettysburg Address barely one step above ‘the dog ate my homework,’ and even that elicited a serious (and worthy) response: Ralph Mason: ‘With all due respect for the Gettysburg Address, which by itself would have established Lincoln’s reputation as an orator, let me suggest, along with a great many others, that Lincoln’s most impressive and sublime speech was his Second Inaugural. First, in a little over a paragraph he dispatches all the arguments of the apologists for the Confederacy to the dustbin where they belong. Then he embarks on a rumination on the large currents of history that culminates in the most astounding words any President has ever leveled at his own people: ‘Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.’ That statement must have hit his audience in the chest like a cannon shot after four years of our bloodiest war. But Lincoln was not done, because he had one last ‘turn’ to make. ‘With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.’ Read the whole thing if you haven’t recently.’ A SMOKE DETECTOR COMPROMISE Gary Diehl: ‘Of course you should change out the smoke detector batteries twice a year. Just don’t throw those batteries away. Save them and use them up in something less critical. I keep a small box of partially used batteries from several sources and every Christmas the grandkids get something that sucks them dry. Also, a battery that barely registers a charge will still operate certain items, like a remote control, for months. Unless of course that remote is for your Tivo, in which case I give it three days.’ ☞ Four, at the outside. FOOD FOR THOUGHT Let them eat Veggie Patch jalapeno cheddar meatless gourmet sausages. With enough ketchup, they’re not too bad. (Charles says I will eat anything.) But my real point is to get you to read this, on the environmental case for vegetarianism. I’m not a vegetarian, but I list that way. Ms. Freston’s post makes me want to list even further. You don’t have to be ‘all vegetarian all the time’ to make an impact. Perhaps her post will make you want to move a notch or two to the left on the continuum from lettuce to lamb. THE LAST WORD For now, anyway. John M.: ‘Home Depot has superb CFL bulbs by N:Vision. UL listed, Energy Star rated, 8000 hour life. If you get ‘soft white’ type the light is indistinguishable from incandescents; only difference is they take about 30 seconds to get to full brightness. They only cost $10.00 for a pack of 4, and come in 60-watt and 100-watt equivalents (using only 15w and 23w, respectively). N:Vision is Home Depot’s captive brand and has gotten good reviews. If people need bulbs for lamps and fixtures that are indoors and not on dimmers, there really is no need for further research or discussion.’ ☞ Lotta my readers will be grateful for that.
More Free Food February 7, 2007March 5, 2017 Richard: ‘You write [of your upgrade at the Washington Hilton]: ‘They also serve a free dinner every night between 5 and 7 – although in their minds I think it’s only hors d’oevres.’ I’ve been exhorting our staff for decades on this subject, and yet when they go to trade shows they eschew the ‘hospitality suites’ and instead go to restaurants. What are they thinking?‘ Gennady [to be read, please, with Absurdistan Russian accent]: ‘Your story about upgraded free stay at Washington Hilton reminded me about last fall’s trip my wife and I and two of our high-school classmates took to Germany and Switzerland. We easily found inexpensive hotels in Heidelberg, Lucerne (my all-time favorite city), Zurich, but when it came to Lausanne, we were at a loss: nothing less than 150 euros per night. So, being a member of Hilton HHonors program, I decided to check if there are places we can stay for free (e.g., points). Sure enough, Hilton’s web site came back with 1 match when I inquired for Lausanne +/- 25 miles. We quickly booked a night at 40,000 points, and off we went to our high-school reunion. Turns out, the Hilton nearest Lausanne (Switzerland) is actually located in France, on the southern short of Lake Geneva, whereas Lausanne itself is located on the northern short of same. This meant a rather enjoyable and pleasant trip around half the lake to get to hotel (plus border crossing, which for us, children of USSR, is always an amazing experience, however uneventful it maybe). When we finally get to our hotel, which is located in Evian-les-Baines, which is where Evian water is coming from, we’re smitten by great lobby, excellent six-storey hotel right on the short of this gorgeous lake – and no customers!!! Turns out, this place has just opened like two or three months ago, and there were like two rooms occupied. Amazing! My HS classmate and best friend Yakov is currently Gold with Hilton, so he gets an automatic upgrade to the concierge level. This means that for next two nights (we loved the place so much, we stayed extra night!) we were treated to the top floor lounge, empty of course since there were no customers in the place. The food (we’re in France, after all) was great; the mini-bar had every imaginable adult beverage and soft drink; and, to top it off, the place had 50″ flat screen TV, outside balcony with panoramic views of the lake, and this incredible coffee machine which made cappuccinos and espressos to die for! And the breakfast was free, too! Needless to say, we did not spend any euros at the place, except Internet service which cost a whopping 10 euros for 30 minutes. So, my 80,000 Hilton points were well spent.’ ☞ Gennady has nothing to do with Absurdistan, but I am now reading all things Russian with the thick accent in which this audiobook is being read to me. It got a rave from the New York Times, but does deserve a warning: the faint of heart or, more particularly, the delicate of sensibility, should steer well clear. ‘Earthy’ barely begins to describe this first novel. MALCOLM GLADWELL Jim Reed: ‘[With Regard to your recommendation of Blink], I am a great fan of Gladwell. If you haven’t already, be sure to listen or watch his TED talk (September 19, 2006). I particularly like the four talks released in Sep 2006 by Gladwell, Levitt, Gilbert and Schwartz. You can subscribe to the podcasts via iTunes or utilize the TED web site.’ MOLLY IVINS From the obit by Katharine Q. Seelye: ‘After Patrick J. Buchanan, as a conservative candidate for president, declared at the 1992 Republican National Convention that the United States was engaged in a cultural war, she said his speech ‘probably sounded better in the original German.’ ‘ DANIEL GORDIS Tomorrow.
Free Shishkabob at the Hilton February 6, 2007March 5, 2017 It has taken me nearly six decades – since, essentially, the dawn of commercial television – but your humble correspondent has finally made it onto the NBC Nightly News. Granted, it was the Sunday edition, which is not exactly the top-rated news night of the week. And granted, I was on opposite the Super Bowl. And granted, it was brief. (Do you ever watch the HBO series Extras, where Ricky Gervais is always trying to inch into the frame, so he can be seen?) But through the miracle of Tivo, slo-mo, and freeze frame, I can report with complete certainty that I appeared on the NBC Nightly News Sunday, February 4, 2007, for 1.3 seconds (note the decimal point between the 1 and the 3) at approximately 6:46 pm Eastern Standard Time as John Edwards swept past on the dais to take the podium and deliver his powerful speech. And you? You were chugging Budweisers watching the Bears and Colts? You were taking advantage of the game to waltz into the hottest restaurant in town without a reservation? You were reading Proust? I was writing my recap of the DNC winter meeting. The highlights: I got upgraded to the concierge floor of the Washington Hilton, which has a lounge with a machine that makes your choice of coffee or hot chocolate, which you can blend, full-strength, decaf or 50/50, mild, medium, or strong, single cup, double or carafe. They also serve a free dinner every night between 5 and 7 – although in their minds I think it’s only hors d’oevres. My favorite were the miniature shishkabobs. With the upgrade came my choice of a free movie, a free day’s Internet connection, a free shoe shine (but Corfam never needs shining), or $5 off any meal over $25 (but they were feeding me free, so that was out). I watched Flags Of Our Fathers, the Clint Eastwood, Spielberg production. Well worth it even if it hadn’t been free. I got to hear outstanding speeches by Harry Reid and 10 of our likely presidential candidates – among whom I am enthusiastically neutral. YOU can watch them all here. Those were the real highlights. LEA Hmmm. So now Carl Icahn wants to buy the whole thing at $36, as reported here, and the market expects a higher bid. The stock closed at $38.64, up from $28 when first suggested 14 months ago. Those of you who held on or bought more when it dipped to $15.60 are in fine shape, let alone those who may have bought LEAPS. But those of you who had the misfortune to read – and act on – my December 29 column would have made just a small gain on the stock (but kept your LEAPS). So this has hardly been a triumph; yet, as losers go, well – they should all end this badly.
Straight Talk About Tea and College Aid January 31, 2007March 5, 2017 HEY, LOOK AT HONEST TEA! We made the front page of the Marketplace section of Monday’s Wall Street Journal – which you can now read for free, thanks to yesterday’s tip from Rockwell Wade. If you drink Honest Tea, you will be very happy – as will I. (Full disclosure for new-comers: I own a tiny sip of this private company.) Favorite flavor: mint white. JOHN McCAIN IN HIS OWN WORDS Click here. An interesting 3 minutes. PAYING FOR COLLEGE? I have no college-age kids, so did not run this site through all its paces. But at first glance, it sure looks helpful. (I do have three nephews in summer camp. Seeing their smiles when they get back more than covers the cost.)
Strategy and Chocolate January 29, 2007March 5, 2017 STRATEGY The new maximum you’re allowed to give a federal candidate for his or her primary or general election to the House, the Senate, or the White House is $2,300 (up from $2,100) – or $4,600 (up from $4,200) if you max out to both their primary and presidential campaigns (even if they face no primary opponent), or $9,200 (up from $8,400) if both you and your better half do the same. Or $216,400 if you both do all the federal candidate and committee giving the law allows. Aren’t you fortunate? So the first thing to say is that we need public financing of federal elections (a good link to click if you’re interested in how this would work and why it would be better) . . . . . . and the second thing to say is that, yes, I know, these limits are about as relevant to your life as, chances are, my telling you about ways to save money on yacht fuel. (Easy: don’t buy a yacht.) But whether you have already maxed out to three different presidential hopefuls – as at least one of my friends already has (a total of $6,900) – or have a budget of $200, total, for all political giving this year, I believe there are some points to be made. Many of us agree on THE GOAL: Increase the Democratic majority in Congress and take back the White House, so we can move full-speed ahead toward solving our country’s (and our planet’s) problems . . . made so much worse these past six years. (It would also be very nice to go back to appointing moderate, progressive judges.) And many of us face the same CHALLENGE: Everybody and his brother is going to be calling to ask for money for a dozen different presidential primary campaigns, and – not wanting to lose a friendship (or offend a brother) – we are going to want to say yes to them all. So . . . for what it’s worth, here’s a possible STRATEGY: Give all you can to ONE candidate, if you feel passionately about him or her. That’s a great thing to do. Otherwise, though, give to NONE of them. Because whether we collectively spend 50 million Democratic dollars on the primary contest or 500 million Democratic dollars, we will still wind up with just one – great – nominee. Spending more does not change that in any way. But the number of Democratic dollars we have to build the Party and the war chest for the general election may determine who wins the White House (and how well we widen our margins in Congress). Spending more could make all the difference in the world. Thus two sacrifices are called for here. First, giving a ton of money. Second – insofar as possible – giving it logically. It’s tough to tell a friend, ‘I’d love to help, but I’m saving that money for one of the 21 red ’08 Senate seats coming up for grabs that we’ll want to turn blue.’ Or to tell your brother, ‘I need to save that money for tough red Congressional districts we turned blue in 2006 that we need to keep blue.’ Or (my favorite), ‘I’m really, really sorry, but – since I know we’ll have a presidential nominee whether I give or not – I’m putting my limited dollars where the outcome is not certain. I’m giving my 2007 political money to the DNC to fund its army of local organizers and build its war chest, to be sure our nominee WINS.’ In a world of limited resources, the team that uses its resources most logically has a big advantage. COOKING LIKE KING KONG Have you ever seen a 20-foot chocolate sculpture? If not, you may enjoy this five-minute clip of its construction.