Portraits, Power, and Patronage in the Late Roman Republic

Recent work in ancient art history has sought to move beyond formalist interpretations of works of art to a concern to understand ancient images in terms of a broader cultural, political, and historical context. In the study of late Republican portraiture, traditional explanations of the origins of verism in terms of antecedent influences — Hellenistic realism, Egyptian realism, ancestral imagines — have been replaced by a concern to interpret portraits as signs functioning in a determinate historical and political context which serves to explain their particular visual patterning. In this paper I argue that, whilst these new perspectives have considerably enhanced our understanding of the forms and meanings of late Republican portraits, they are still flawed by a failure to establish a clear conception of the social functions of art. I develop an account of portraits which shifts the interpretative emphasis from art as object to art as a medium of socio-cultural action. Such a shift in analytic perspective places art firmly at the centre of our understanding of ancient societies, by snowing that art is not merely a social product or a symbol of power relationships, but also serves to construct relationships of power and solidarity in a way in which other cultural forms cannot, and thereby transforms those relationships with determinate consequence

The Perils of Government Investing

The current Social Security system is unsustainable. As President Clinton has pointed out, the only alternative to tax increases or benefit cuts is to increase the rate of return to investment of Social Security funds. That means either allowing individuals to invest their own Social Security taxes or allowing the government to invest them. Supporters of government investing claim that it would allow the government to reap the benefits of the higher returns available in private capital markets, incur lower administrative costs than individual accounts, and allow the government to spread the risk of poor investment performance. On the surface, that approach may have some appeal; in reality it is fraught with peril. It could potentially make the federal government the largest shareholder in American corporations, raising the possibility of government control of American business. In addition, there are serious questions about what types of investment the government would make. Political considerations and "social investing" are likely to influence the government's investment decisions, allowing the government to manipulate economic markets

Bioactive composites for bone tissue engineering

One of the major challenges of bone tissue engineering is the production of a suitable scaffold material. In this review the current composite materials options available are considered covering both the methods of both production and assessing the scaffolds. A range of production routes have been investigated ranging from the use of porogens to produce the porosity through to controlled deposition methods. The testing regimes have included mechanical testing of the materials produced through to in vivo testing of the scaffolds. While the ideal scaffold material has not yet been produced, progress is being made

Obamacare to Come: Seven Bad Ideas for Health Care Reform

President Obama has made it clear that reforming the American health care system will be one of his top priorities. In response, congressional leaders have promised to introduce legislation by this summer, and they hope for an initial vote in the Senate before the Labor Day recess. While the Obama administration has not, and does not seem likely to, put forward a specific reform plan, it is possible to discern the key components of any plan likely to emerge from Congress: At a time of rising unemployment, the government would raise the cost of hiring workers by requiring employers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize government coverage. Every American would be required to buy an insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even individuals who are currently insured -- and happy with their insurance -- will have to switch to insurance that meets the government's definition of "acceptable insurance." A government-run plan similar to Medicare would be set up in competition with private insurance, with people able to choose either private insurance or the taxpayer-subsidized public plan. Subsidies and cost-shifting would encourage Americans to shift to the government plan. The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results of that research to impose practice guidelines on providers -- initially, in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually extending such rationing to private insurance plans. Private insurance would face a host of new regulations, including a requirement to insure all applicants and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk. Subsidies would be available to help middle-income people purchase insurance, while government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be expanded. Finally, the government would subsidize and manage the development of a national system of electronic medical records.Taken individually, each of these proposals would be a bad idea. Taken collectively, they would dramatically transform the American health care system in a way that would harm taxpayers, health care providers, and -- most importantly -- the quality and range of care given to patients

A Better Deal at Half the Cost: SSA Scoring of the Cato Social Security Reform Plan

The Social Security Administration's Office of the Actuary has officially "scored" the Individual Social Security Investment Program Act (HR 530), introduced by Reps. Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). That legislation is based on the Cato Institute's 6.2 Percent Solution. (There are slight differences between the Cato plan and the final draft of the legislation, but these would not significantly change the scoring.) According to SSA's actuaries, the 6.2 Percent Solution would eliminate Social Security's long-range actuarial deficit and restore the system to permanent "sustainable solvency." The legislation compares very favorably to other Social Security reform plans. In terms of giving workers more control and ownership of their retirement funds, the 6.2 Percent Solution clearly provides the most "bang for the buck." By 2046, the system would begin running surpluses, allowing any short-term debt to be repaid. Indeed, by the end of the 75-year actuarial window, the system would be running surpluses in excess of $1.8 trillion (in constant$2005). The SSA analysis shows that the 6.2 Percent Solution can provide large individual accounts while restoring Social Security to permanent sustainable solvency, and can do so in a fiscally responsible manner