Americans Living Longer, Report Finds

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- Americans are living longer, a new report shows, with the average life expectancy going from 78.6 years in 2009 to 78.7 years in 2010.

Meanwhile, U.S. death rates dropped half a percent between 2009 and 2010, and hit the lowest rate ever, at 746.2 deaths per 100,000 people, according to the latest set of data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

And while both heart disease and cancer stubbornly remain in place as the nation's leading killers (together accounting for 47 percent of deaths in 2010), death rates here declined as well. Mortality from heart disease went down 2.4 percent, while it dropped 0.6 percent for cancer.

The report is based on 98 percent of death certificates from 50 states and the District of Columbia available to the NCHS.

"In many regards, I think the health of the nation is improving and people are living to an older age so that's good news," said Dr. David McClellan, acting regional chair of family and community medicine at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine. "But we are starting to see age-related diseases have more prominence."

For instance, pneumonitis (aspiration pneumonia) often happens when people get old enough and debilitated enough to where they can't swallow. This could be due to dementia or as the aftermath of a stroke, he explained.

There's also "a long way to go in terms of combating the epidemic of smoking, obesity, poor diet and exercise," he said. "If we could get the smoking epidemic under control, we'd probably see the numbers improve even more."

Another expert was more optimistic.

"This is good news. We're making major progression in cancer and heart disease through decreases in smoking," said Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La.

Statins are also playing a part in reducing the death toll from heart disease, while cancer screening is also helping to save lives, Brooks added.

There were slight shuffles in the rankings of other causes of death.

Homicide fell out of the top 15 category for the first time since 1965, replaced by pneumonitis.

Kidney disease and pneumonia/influenza switched places, with the former now 8th and the latter now 9th.

"Pneumonia and influenza have really dropped a lot. Several years ago, they were the sixth leading cause of death," said Dr. Michael Niederman, chairman of medicine at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y. "To me, this is very encouraging because we're dealing with older populations where many patients frequently have pneumonia, but this affirms the national priority on immunization, both influenza and pneumococcal."

The other leading causes of death (in order) were: chronic lower respiratory diseases, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), accidents, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, kidney disease, suicide, septicemia, liver disease, hypertension and Parkinson's.

Many of these are clearly diseases related to the aging population, Brooks noted.

Death rates also declined for influenza and pneumonia (by 8.5 percent), septicemia (3.6 percent), stroke (1.5 percent), respiratory diseases (1.4 percent) and accidents (1.1 percent).

Meanwhile, death rates increased for five of the top 15: Parkinson's disease (4.6 percent), pneumonitis (4.1 percent), liver disease and cirrhosis (3.3 percent), Alzheimer's disease (3.3 percent) and kidney disease (1.3 percent).

The death rate for HIV/AIDS (which was not among the 15 leading causes of death) declined 13.3 percent between 2009 and 2010. But the virus remains a significant concern, especially for people aged 15 through 64.

There was also good news in infant mortality, with rates in 2010 down 3.9 percent from 2009.

But Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum, a preventive cardiologist with Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City cautioned against getting too excited over the findings.

"This is good news. I don't think it's great news," she said. "With the increased incidence in obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, we're going to start seeing people getting sicker younger."

Read More..

Glam Slam: The Friday Five -- Ways To Get Even Sexier

The number one hit "Sexy and I Know It" makes me laugh (I work ouuut!) and with Valentine's Day just around the corner, you may be looking for a little "get sexy" inspiration.

InStyle magazine shares five ways we can all get even sexier!!!!

PLAY IT NOW: 2012 People's Choice Awards Fashion Report Card

Apply Bold Color There's power in your pout. One study showed that both red and pink lipstick hold a man's attention for five seconds longer than a neutral lip. But a high-impact hue has to feel right--to you. Experiment with different shades of crimson and fuchsia and combine it with a subtle, smoky eye.

Master the "Bed-Head Bardot" For touchable waves (like J.Lo's!), start with a volumizing spray or powder. Loosely gather hair into two low ponytails and secure with rubber bands. Twist each pony around its base; pin and leave in for two hours. Shake out and voila--goddess bed head. Create waves on shorter 'dos by wrapping strand vertically around a 1-inch curling iron; begin at the top of your ears and continue down to the ends.

VIEW THE PHOTOS: Hollywood Stars Who Take The Plunge!

Customize Your Curves When it comes to turning up the heat, a tailor can be a miracle worker. Alterations to the bust, waist and hips of a sheath dress can highlight your shape easily giving you a day-to-night look. Add definition with a thin or wide belt.

Work on Your Wink Fluttery fringe on the red carpet (like Eva Longoria's) is often achieved with false eyelashes or extensions, say pros. For DIY lashes at home, use these tips. Begin with a primer and secure your lashes to the bottom of your eyelid. Gently heat your lash curler with a blow-dryer before crimping. Finally, brush on waterproof mascara to seal the lash.

Embrace Lace A lacy stocking shows off your seductive legs in a seductive way that's not edgy or overt. Pair with an LBD and platform pumps for a saucy retro vibe.

VIEW THE PHOTOS: Kristen Stewart's Best Red Carpet Looks

For more beauty tips, pick up a February issue of InStyle on newsstands today.

Instyle is also hosting its annual Beauty Lounge today and tomorrow at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills.

VIEW THE PHOTOS: Stars Step Out For GQ's 2011 'Men Of The Year' Party

To celebrate the 2012 Awards Season, stars like Malin Ackerman will get pampered at the lounge's complimentary hair and makeup touch ups by L'Oréal Paris and mini manicures by OPI! Good times!

Copyright 2012 by NBC Universal, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read More..

9 Things You Shouldn't Buy at Grocery Stores

Grocery stores offer plenty of conveniences to make food-buying as simple as possible. Most of us head to the grocery store  to pick up fresh produce, meats, cheeses, snacks, and other convenience foods, and you can pick from dozens of brands and generic items that fit your budget. Still, there are a few things you don't want to pick up at your local supermarket. Certain types of produce are full of pesticides and you'll be better off heading to the local farmers market or buying organic. Buying non-grocery items at the supermarket usually means you'll spend much more than the average price in your area.

Here are nine items you shouldn't pick up from the grocery store:

[See 50 Ways to Improve Your Finances in 2012.]

1. Cosmetics and skin care items. Even though many grocery stores are stocked with popular brands of cosmetics and skin care products, you'll probably pay a premium for every item. Head to your nearest chain drugstore, Wal-Mart, or Super Target if you want to stock up on or sample makeup, moisturizer, cleansers, and scrubs.

2. Pre-ground coffee. Some grocery stores offer great prices on coffee beans that you can grind right in the store, but buying pre-ground coffee could put a dent in your grocery budget. The mark-up on pre-ground coffee is relatively high and you could get a much better deal on large coffee cans at your neighborhood big-box store. Remember you can also track down coupons and vouchers for certain brands.

3. Party supplies. As convenient as it is to pick up candles, balloons, and other party supplies for that last-minute get together, you'll end up paying a high price solely out of convenience. Plan to make a pit stop at the local dollar store or party supply store to take advantage of lower prices.

4. Kitchen appliances. Whether you're in the market for a new toaster, blender, or food processor, do your homework and track down a great price on kitchen appliances online. Grocery stores typically carry a very small stock of these items and you probably won't even find a quality brand. Stick with big-box stores and online merchants for your kitchen appliances and other small electronics.

[See 10 Kitchen Tools That Will Save You Money.]

5. Hardware. Light bulbs, extension cords, nails, and small tools don't come cheap at the grocery store. Again, these are considered to be specialty goods at a grocery store and most will only have a very small inventory of hardware items. Stick with big-box retailers, the dollar store, or even your local hardware store when you need to stock up.

6. Cookware and bakeware. If you're suddenly inspired to cook a banquet-style meal when shopping at the grocery store, make sure you pick up your basic supplies elsewhere. Cookware and bakeware items are usually heavily marked up at the grocery store and you could end up paying almost double the price for your items. Make a list of what you need then head out to a store that has a larger inventory of these specialty items.

7. Some fruits and veggies. PBS put together two lists of fruits and vegetables that are worth buying-and not buying-at the grocery store, based on the level of pesticides and chemicals present in each items. The recommendation is to stick with organic varieties of apples, bell peppers, peaches, strawberries and potatoes. Grocery stores are your best bet for fruits and vegetables like asparagus, sweet peas, eggplant, cantaloupe, sweet potatoes, and onions.

[See 5 Ways to Stretch Your Grocery Budget.]

8. Gourmet cheese. The deli section of most grocery stores is stocked with pricey items that also have a very short shelf life. If you're looking for cheese, head to the dairy section where you'll find processed varieties for a fraction of the price of the fresh, gourmet options. If it's gourmet cheese you're after, keep an eye out for deals on offerings from daily deal sites at local wine and cheese stores in your area. You can also get better pricing on cheese at your local warehouse club.

9. Name-brand spices. Fresh spices are another gourmet food item that you're probably paying a premium for at the grocery store. Your best bet? The ethnic food markets and local ethnic food stores. Some big-box stores also tend to stock a large spice inventory and will price these at lower price points than your neighborhood grocery store. Consider buying in bulk from the ethnic market to save even more.

Read More..

65-and-Older Population Soars

There are now more Americans age 65 and older than at any other time in U.S. history. According to a new Census Bureau report, there were 40.3 million people age 65 and older on April 1, 2010, up 5.3 percent from 35 million in 2010 (and just 3.1 million in 1900).

"The population age 65 and older has increased notably over time," says Carrie Werner, a Census Bureau statistician and author of the report. "It is expected to increase more rapidly over the next decade as more baby boomers start to turn 65 in 2011."

[See 10 Cities With the Most People Over 65.]

The 65-and-older population jumped 15.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, compared with a 9.7 percent increase for the total U.S. population. People age 65 and older now make up 13 percent of the total population, compared with 12.4 percent in 2000 and 4.1 percent in 1900.

Females significantly outnumber males at older ages, but the gap is narrowing. In 2010, there were 90.5 males for every 100 females among people age 65 and older, up from 88.1 males per 100 females the same age in 2000. "Women outnumber men in the older population at every single year of age," says Werner. "Males showed more rapid growth in the older population than females over the past decade." In the 2010 Census, there were approximately twice as many women as men beginning at age 89. This point occurred about four years older than it did in 2000, and six years older than in 1990.

Read More..

Why Some People Live to 110

SUNDAY, Jan. 8 (HealthDay News) -- People who live 110 years or longer have as many disease-associated genes as those in the general population, but they may also be blessed with protective genes that help them live so long, researchers report.

The team of U.S. scientists noted that supercentenarians, as they are called, are extremely rare, with only one per 5 million people in developed nations. There is growing evidence that genetics play a major role in living to such an old age.

In what they describe as a first-of-a-kind study, the researchers analyzed the whole genome sequences of a man and a woman who lived past the age of 114 and found that they had as many disease-associated genes as other people.

For example, the man had 37 genetic mutations associated with increased risk for colon cancer.

"In fact, he had presented with an obstructing colon cancer earlier in his life that had not metastasized and was cured with surgery. He was in phenomenal cognitive and physical shape near the time of his death," study senior author Dr. Thomas Perls, director of the New England Centenarian Study, said in a Boston University Medical Center news release.

The woman had numerous genetic variations associated with age-related disease, such as heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's disease. She did develop congestive heart failure and mild cognitive impairment, but these conditions didn't become evident until she was more than 108 years old.

"The presence of these disease-associated variants is consistent with our and other researchers' findings that centenarians carry as many disease-associated genes as the general population," Perls said. "The difference may be that the centenarians likely have longevity-associated variants that cancel out the disease genes. That effect may extend to the point that the diseases don't occur -- or, if they do, are much less pathogenic or markedly delayed towards the end of life, in these individuals who are practically living to the limit of the human lifespan."

The study was published Jan. 3 in the journal Frontiers in Genetics, and researchers will be able to access the information at the U.S. National Institutes of Health data repository.

Read More..

The daily gossip: The plan to unite the Senate with a Lincoln screening, and more

1. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell attempt to unite Senate with a Lincoln screening
The real Abraham Lincoln united the nation once before, and Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are counting on a Senate-only screening of Lincoln, hosted by director Steven Spielberg and star Daniel Day-Lewis, to do it again. The Hollywood Reporter says that Reid and McConnell invited Senators to see the film together, arguing that it's particularly relevant because it "depicts the good which is attainable when public servants put the betterment of the country ahead of short-term political interests" and/or use their political clout to score an exclusive screening.

2. Taylor Swift doesn't know how to make relationships last
Watch out, Harry Styles: Your days as Taylor Swift's beau may be numbered. In an interview with Cosmopolitan, Swift admits that when it comes to relationships, she "doesn't know how to make them last," reports Taste of Country. One small piece of advice: Stop writing vindictive songs about your ex-paramours.

3. Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen have a baby
Today in celebrity babies: New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and supermodel Gisele Bundchen have a new daughter, reports the Los Angeles Times. As Bundchen announced on her Facebook page, "She is healthy and full of life" — which is code for "She is full of awesome DNA."

4. Dan Aykroyd says he "can't wait forever" to make Ghostbusters 3
Warning to Hollywood: Dan Aykroyd is really serious about Ghostbusters 3 this time, and if you don't make it soon, he'll walk. "We can't wait forever," Aykroyd, who has already waited over 20 years, tells Esquire. "It's time now to sit down and make this movie, or you will lose your main principals" — a powerful threat given that no one is more in demand in Hollywood right now than Aykroyd, Rick Moranis, or Ernie Hudson.

5. A&E earns record ratings for Duck Dynasty
A&E's Duck Dynasty — a reality series about a family who makes duck calls in Louisiana — has set an all-time ratings record for the network (6.5 million viewers), despite the fact that the show doesn't qualify as either "arts" or "entertainment." Entertainment Weekly reports that Duck Dynasty outperformed ABC's Nashville and Fox's The X-Factor, proving that Americans prefer even the squawking of ducks to another show about people singing.

Read More..

WEATHERMEN AND CLIMATE SCIENTISTS LIVE ON DIFFERENT PLANETS

Here in Atlanta, we've had a string of days in which the temperature has hovered around 70 degrees -- more representative of late spring than late autumn. The balmy weather has left me in a funk.

Sure, I've enjoyed the chance to put my toddler on the back of my bike and take her out for a ride. Yes, it was pleasant to don a short-sleeved shirt to put up my outdoor Christmas lights. Of course, I like the long chats with my neighbors, who walk their dogs at a leisurely pace instead of rushing to get out of the chill.

But I fear the unseasonable temperatures are a harbinger of a slow-moving disaster -- a serious threat to my child's future. What will it take to get people focused on the crisis of climate change?

It would certainly help if TV weather forecasters at least noted the possibility of a link between the un-December-like weather and disastrous global warming. They are popular figures who are embraced by their local viewers as climate authorities. If they helped the public understand the dangers of global warming, the voters, in turn, would demand solutions from their elected officials.

But there's a troubling dynamic that helps to explain why you're unlikely to hear about global warming when you're watching the weather report on the 6 o'clock local news: Many TV weathermen -- and weather women -- dispute the science of climate change, believing it's a "scam," according to a recent study. Their ignorance has contributed to the public's apathy.

Even though cooler weather is expected soon, 2012 is still on track to be among the hottest years on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency. With the exception of 1998, the hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, climate scientists say. The longstanding consensus among scientists is that greenhouse gases are warming the Earth, melting the polar ice caps, raising sea levels and creating untold environmental havoc.

Yet, many television weather forecasters -- who are not climate scientists -- remain skeptical. Only about 19 percent believe that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, according to a 2011 study by George Mason University and the University of Texas. A similar fraction -- 18 percent -- knows that scientists have concluded that human activity is warming the planet, the study said.

Quiet as it's kept, you don't have to know much science to be a TV weather forecaster. Those with science degrees tend to be meteorologists with expertise in short-range climate models. They can predict the weather a week from now with relative accuracy, but they know little about long-term climate trends.

By contrast, climate scientists usually have graduate degrees and are associated with research institutions and universities. They use complicated models to study long-term weather patterns.

But there is hope the two groups can come to a consensus that elevates the discussion: TV weather forecasters are often members of the American Meteorological Society, which represents a broad range of experts in atmospheric sciences. Marshall Shepherd, the group's president-elect, wants to help to educate "our colleagues in the broader community," including TV weathermen, he told me.

A former NASA researcher who currently heads the atmospheric sciences program at the University of Georgia, Shepherd said: "We want to forge an environment where all viewpoints are welcome. At the end of the day, though, our position will be based on the science."

That rankles some in the ranks. Earlier this year, when the AMS issued a strongly worded statement on human-caused climate change, Glenn Burns, the popular weatherman for the Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB, was flippant in response to a question about it.

"Our climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Only the civilizations that adapted to it have survived. That should be our goal," he said. And Burns is by no means alone in downplaying climate change.

Here's hoping that Shepherd and the AMS can persuade TV forecasters to accept the scientific consensus. If they engaged their viewers on the subject, they could help to elevate climate change as a political concern. We're running out of time before those balmy December days prove costly.

Read More..

ANOTHER OVERTIME ELECTION

This is a peculiar season in American politics. The big game is over, the score is in the record book, yet there are more innings to be played. A lame-duck Congress and an exhausted president cannot leave the field.

This is the eighth time since the Nixon years Congress has gone into overtime to address pressing budget issues. Each time the crisis was described as the worst ever, though rarely has that been true. But with so much at stake, so much contention in the political system and so few easy options, it may actually be the case this time.

Yet there is a sense of unreality surrounding the pas de deux in which the principals are engaged, much like the ones the Prince and the Sugar Plum Fairy are undertaking in holiday productions of "The Nutcracker" this month.

For now, the White House and the Republican House are playing to the wrong audience. They are behaving as if they are trying to win an election, rather than sculpt a solution. The beginning of wisdom in this crisis is that neither side should win. The goal is political resolution, not political absolution.

Maybe this is the time to take a deep breath and dig deep into the fiscal Cliff Notes, using this sober time of reckoning to take on the vital national questions we almost always skirt. For we need to recognize that even after the election, the big national questions have not been answered. In fact, they have not been asked. Since this is going to be a wrenching season anyway, here are some questions we would prefer to evade but shouldn't:

-- Should the budget be framed as a moral balance sheet or a financial balance sheet?

This question prompts important debates about income inequality, social mobility, financial rectitude and national economic health. The greatest dodge in American civic life is the facile view that good economics are good politics. How do we know that will be true in the current case -- not a garden-variety contretemps but a raging crisis -- even in the unlikely event that it was true in the past?

Elements in both parties believe the tax system should be an expression of American values, but they have vastly different values. Some liberals believe -- though they deny this is their view -- that the purpose of the tax system is primarily to foster fairness. Some conservatives believe -- they're in denial, too -- that the tax system should be designed only to create jobs and foster entrepreneurship. Again, neither side should win, or lose, completely.

-- Is the tax system designed to raise revenue or shape economic behavior?

This question is seldom raised, never answered, in part because the pugilists want to answer one way some of the time, the other way the rest of the time.

Some want to use the tax code to shape behavior, whether to conserve energy or encourage home ownership, almost always with phony arguments that distort the economy but please powerful interest groups. Others want to use the tax system to spur growth or, while lowering rates, to promote freedom -- although four of the five nations with the highest tax rates as a percentage of income (Belgium, Germany, France and Sweden) arguably are as free as we are.

-- Have the legal definition of "entitlements" and the popular meaning of the word been so confused that we are on a path to economic disaster?

Tens of millions of aged and infirm Americans are legally entitled to Social Security and Medicare benefits as currently constituted. But just because these social benefits are called "entitlements," does that mean everyone has to be entitled to them or that they have to be distributed at current levels, even if the ratio of money being diverted into the system already is out of whack with the money pouring out of it?

Medicare has not strayed much from its 1965 moorings. And it is not surprising that, with the population aging and medicine advancing, Medicare costs are growing. But these costs can be contained -- by adjusting reimbursement formulas and eligibility requirements. Changing conditions require changed regulations.

Social Security is a slightly different matter, though Democrats are chary of acknowledging that. Its role in American life has changed substantially since 1935. It was designed as an income supplement, not a pension, though today that difference has been lost. During the salad years, the county was happy to ignore that distinction. Now, the notion that Social Security is an entitlement in any way other than in the legal sense needs a full debate.

If nothing else, the country needs to recognize that if it were permissible to enhance these entitlements, as they have been with cost-of-living adjustments, then it's also possible to reduce them.

-- Has our political rhetoric so perverted our political system that our words get in the way?

We have just completed a presidential campaign in which the Democrat employed the most virulent class-warfare language of any major-party candidate at least since Franklin Roosevelt, perhaps since William Jennings Bryan. Obama partisans inevitably will argue that the high pitch of the president was promoted by a shocking, dangerous level of income inequality in the country. Perhaps so.

But the Republicans -- especially the new-style, middle-class conservatives, who have nothing in common with the malefactors of great wealth that Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, deplored in 1907 -- aren't the economic royalists that FDR, a Democrat, deplored 29 years later. Obama needs to sound like a president looking for a solution to a crisis, not a candidate seeking votes in a campaign.

Obama was not alone in excess. His opponents described him as a European social democrat if not an outright socialist, which would be news to real socialists, who would instantly dismiss Obama as a feckless, spineless moderate with a hopelessly innocuous petit-bourgeois outlook.

So, first step: We need to clean up the language before we can clean up the economic mess. Then tackle these questions.

Read More..

After Hurricane Sandy: Is flood insurance bad for taxpayers?

Why does the government sell flood insurance?
When the National Flood Insurance Program was established in 1968, it was seen as a way to save taxpayers money. Instead of paying out massive emergency funds whenever a coastal area or river floodplain was inundated, the government figured it was more prudent to identify risky areas and force people who lived there to buy insurance and assume some of the risk themselves. But the insurance industry wanted no part of the tricky business of calculating flood risk — "it's like rat poison to them," says insurance industry lobbyist Tony Bullock. So the government had to underwrite the policies itself. By law, everyone who has a federally backed mortgage and lives within an area designated as prone to flooding once a century has to buy the insurance. There are currently 5.7 million flood insurance policies, covering $1.27 trillion in property. But critics say the program, part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has backfired, creating huge debt for taxpayers even as it rewards homeowners for trying to defy nature. Thanks to federal flood insurance, says Duke University coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey, "we are subsidizing, even encouraging, very dangerous development."

Why is flood insurance hurting taxpayers?
It pays out far more than it takes in. The program currently collects $3.5 billion in annual premiums — a total that falls chronically short. The cost of damage from major hurricanes can be five or more times that, and as sea levels rise, weather becomes more extreme, and the value of flood-prone properties continues to soar nonetheless, massive payouts are becoming more frequent. Many policyholders, moreover, still pay subsidized premiums that reflect less than half of the true risk value. Even for vacation homes with prestigious addresses like Hilton Head Island, S.C., annual premiums are capped at $3,300. Flood claims from Hurricane Katrina alone totaled $21.9 billion, putting the U.S. flood insurance program $18 billion in the hole to the U.S. Treasury. That was before it began processing claims from Hurricane Sandy.

How does it pay for Sandy?
Only by taking on more debt. Sandy is expected to generate up to $12 billion in claims, but only $2.9 billion remains on the flood insurance program's line of credit. That makes it almost inevitable that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will soon have to ask Congress to bail the program out again — at a time when all federal expenditures are under intense scrutiny. When Congress voted in July to extend the program through 2017, it eliminated some subsidies and authorized premium hikes of 20 percent per year in high-risk areas, and up to 25 percent per year for vacation properties. But many critics say those reforms are inadequate, and that the government should get out of the flood insurance business altogether.

What's their argument?
Subsidized flood insurance, they say, is a classic example of moral hazard: encouraging people to take foolish risks by relieving them of the cost of bearing those risks. "If we allowed market forces to dictate at the coast, a lot of the development in the wrong places would never have gotten built," said Jeffrey Tittel, head of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a longtime critic of FEMA and no friend of the Sierra Club, agrees. "The market would never provide insurance in flood-prone areas at an affordable price," he said. "If it's a losing proposition, should taxpayers subsidize the inevitable losses?"

What are the alternatives?
One would be to strategically retreat from flood-prone regions in a major way. "Get appraisals for their homes, write them a check, knock the homes down, and just let it go back to its natural state," said Steve Sweeney, president of the New Jersey state Senate. Not surprisingly, Republican Gov. Chris Christie has spurned that approach. "I don't believe in a state like ours, where the Jersey Shore is such a part of life, that you just pick up and walk away," he said. Without insurance subsidies, he and others argue, lower- and middle-class families simply could not afford to live on much of the Jersey Shore, and coasts and riverbanks elsewhere would become even more exclusive enclaves of the ultra-rich.

Don't coastal residents get sick of rebuilding?
They do, but they forget. After Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida in 1992, property values even in "near-miss" counties dropped sharply, but with time the sense of danger faded. Now far more people live in its path than did 20 years ago. "If you look at it over the long term, people will still be attracted to the water," said Terence Beaty, a real estate market researcher. That eternal attraction will continue to lead people to build close to the shoreline, with or without government insurance. "I certainly love shoreside living," author and Long Island, N.Y., coastal resident Carl Safina recently wrote. "I love walking the beach in the morning with my dogs. I have federal flood insurance, thank you. But really, it's time you considered cutting me off."

The payouts that never stop
Over the years, the federal government has shelled out a total of $2 million to repeatedly rebuild a flood-ravaged home in Humble, Texas, assessed at just $116,000. Another home, in Wilkinson County, Miss., worth $69,900, has been flooded 34 times since 1978 and collected $663,000 in insurance payments. The National Flood Insurance Program has made efforts to stop paying out on such "repetitive-loss properties," which account for more than a third of its costs. But somehow they keep showing up on the books, especially in the Gulf of Mexico states from Texas to Florida. For David Conrad of the National Wildlife Federation, such outlays are the purest example of the folly of flood insurance. "It does seem to fit Albert Einstein's definition of insanity — to somehow expect something different when you do the same thing over and over again."

Read More..

Microsoft is back: Why the dorky Apple rival is suddenly cool

Oh man that new commercial for Internet Explorer 10  has me dorkily cackling at every pixel in it, and then replaying the ad to laugh again, and harder. OK, maybe you’re too cool for it. But I am not.

Here’s what happens: A trolly commenter dude—he looks like the old groovy Apple kid turned puffier, more caffeinated and housebound—keeps trying to tweet and post about how IE sucks until he’s overwhelmed with the realization that Microsoft’s new browser might be kind of good. The way the brilliant actor’s pupils register his increasing coffee intake and his excitement at his holy mission (typing “IE sucks” at every opportunity) is lovely—a great new archetype for the Internet 2013.

It’s been a long time since a commercial worked so well. The promo does true magic: It sends up IE’s critics, by exposing the OCD fury of the smug hacker pose. The anti-Microsoft type as no longer that neato Apple guy standing with the middle-aged PC nerd, but a shut-in maniac who has long since lost sight of his would-be artsy path. That lil’ hipster, when we last saw him in Apple’s anti-PC campaign, was supposed to be blogging about indie bands. But now he’s rapping out “IE sucks” the way Jack Torrance wrote “All work and no play” in “The Shining.”

Furthermore, the ad sets the stage for a comeback for Microsoft. AdAge gives the “work”—I love how ad people reverently call advertisements “the work”—high-enough marks, though it points out that the troll’s conversion from IE-hater to IE-agnostic pivots on a “very thin plot device.” (This high-handed critical judgment made the ad all the funnier, in my view.) AdAge also files the ad, titled “Do you know this guy?,” in the TV/Video category, though the Web video also directs to a robust website called browseryoulovedtohate.com that really introduces the specs and features of IE 10.

Now I can’t even remember what I used to hate about Internet Explorer. I dimly recall font sizing being chronically off, and developing an entirely superstitious resistance to that “e” logo. Years ago, while I was still using it, someone told me about Firefox—and then Safari—and then Chrome, which I use now. Internet Explorer, down to its lumpy literal name, just became an uncool thing of the past. It, I guess, “sucked.”

Like Microsoft Word. And Microsoft Office. And the whole PC scene, embodied in that middle-aged schmo. But now the Internet is middle-aged, and the Apple/Google war is starting to seem like a more grueling showdown for consumers than whatever happened between Microsoft and the federal government. (What was that again?) And Microsoft is Xbox now, and Seattle seems kind of sleeper-cool again: not drippy Portlandia or cutthroat NorCal. People have always said Microsoft is an amazing place to work, and it won World’s Best Multinational Workplace last year, which does not—to put it conservatively—happen at Apple. Microsoft is greener than most electronics companies, too.

The company got a new logo in August. It has Bing, Xbox, Windows 8, the Surface tablet and that indispensable no-matter-how-you-slice-it Office suite. And now it has a winning new ad campaign. Maybe a comeback really is possible. After a decade of the hip-ification of the Internet, it might be time to root for the squares.

Read More..