Help, I've Fallen And the Government Came!

Here's something to do for the next month

2009-08-13T17:39:00.000-07:00

Read HR 3200 - the US House of Representatives' version of the Health Care bill. Search "hr 3200" as the bill number, and pull up a chair and a case of 5 hour energy.

Enjoy.

Stupid, or Evil?

2009-03-16T19:37:00.000-07:00

AIG was given a bailout of billions of dollars without having to drastically restructure their company; it was rather given as funds to keep them afloat.

As it turns out, it wasn't just Major League Baseball that made terrible contractual decisions over the last decade (Juan Pierre, Sidney Ponson, Barry Zito, Albert Belle, Kevin Brown, Darren Dreifort, FOX, and I can go on forever...), nor merely homebuyers who got mortgages on houses they couldn't afford. There were also companies that gave executives huge pay packages, most of which was in the form of bonuses, most of which were practically guaranteed bonuses.

But now is the time to get upset that they make so much money. Because they're getting bailed out, damn it. Why should these people make more than the President, after all? Are they more important? Do they do more good for the world?

This is not how things work, though. The market values people for certain reasons. And the fact of the matter is that without a significant market correction, those true values cannot come out. Home prices are crashing because they were too high. The housing market has been a bubble waiting to burst, particularly with incentives towards malinvestment through the tax code. When we shield ourselves from market corrections, we delay the inevitable, and that makes things much worse. After all - the bonuses AIG is paying out amount to something like .1% of the bailout money they received. This is like paying someone who writes grant proposals for a non-profit organization that get it $50,000,000 a year in funding being paid $50,000 per year, except that's for the whole department of grant writing. Those who are disgusted by the executive compensation should be disgusted with their elected officials - they gave in, giving billions of taxpayer dollars to companies despite their poor handling of business. Not despite, BECAUSE OF their poor handling of business. If there is anyone who should be the subject of public outrage, shouldn't it be those in office who would insist on such bailouts without requiring a serious restructuring of the companies?

So enter Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, and his remarks on executive pay:

“The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”

Go committ suicide.

Go kill yourself.

For a United States Senator, who help to shape policies to create this economic environment as a longtime member of the Senate Finance committee, even serving as Chairman in 2001 and from 2003-2006, to suggest that corporate executives should kill themselves can only be classified as stupid, or evil. Either stupid, because he hasn't the brains to realize the role of government in creating the current economic environment, or evil, for suggesting others must die for something he was complicit in, while demanding to walk away.

If we all had more money, we could eliminate poverty

2009-02-21T10:50:00.000-08:00

False. If we all had more money, that doesn't solve the problem of there not being enough Ferraris in the world, so all we would have would be inflation.

Perhaps the only thing I've heard that's stupider is the idea of paying for mortgages of people who couldn't afford them. But the question is, why do we feel sorry for people who couldn't afford them? Some people lost their jobs due to a company's poor performance, and had difficulty paying their mortgages - and this is something we can feel compassion for.

Then there are people who just got themselves in over their heads. People who got in on adjustable rate mortgages when they were low, bought SUVs as gas prices continued to soar, bought houses with interest only loans, lied on their mortgage applications, etc. That banks didn't care that they were approving loans to such people is shocking, and that anyone would buy such loans without looking is even more shocking. These are the people that pose the greatest problem to the US.

Further, it should be noted that there are two sides to the coin of compasion - there are people who were saving their money, developing good credit, ready to buy now. This move to bail out individual mortgages would essentially price many of these people out of the housing market by reducing the supply of available houses, raising prices. Given the current state of the economy, this would actually lead to fewer homes being bought, as the majority of what is going on is merely those already in their homes staying there at a discount, their reward for taking such an arrogant risk. But I guess this is America.

Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing is the unwillingness to realize that regardless of what is done now, the most important thing to do is to ensure this won't happen again, by actually examining the root causes of the problem. Here are a couple of policy ideas:

1) If you do not abandon the mortgage interest tax deduction, at least do not grant it to more troublesome loans. The idea of an interest only loan is that if you can flip the house for more money later, so all you're really paying in the meantime is just tax-deductible rent. Ending the tax incentives will increase the cost of the risk.

2) Make it easier for banks to offer own to lease agreements with people in homes nearing forclosure. Why not start making money now instead of waiting until you've foreclosed and they've destroyed the house?

Compact Fluorescent Cloture

2008-11-02T21:02:00.000-08:00

A line in this video gave me an idea:

What if to break up a fillibuster, instead of voting for cloture, all someone had to do was "accidentally" drop a light bulb? Or what if a student wanted to get out of a class, possibly one having a test?

The presence of enough responsible adults would require for everyone to evacuate. Carrying lightbulbs would face stiff legal penalties. Chaos would ensue.

But here's the question one must always ask:
If ________ is so wonderful, why on earth would the government have to mandate it?

If it is worth saving money to use these squiggly bulbs, the market would reveal that. Not many dot matrix printers are sold in the United States, because nobody wants them. They didn't produce good printouts. Inkjet and laser printers are much better, so people buy them instead. If CFLs provide a good enough cost savings, they will attract consumers and win out.

That CFLs contain mercury makes the government mandate particularly laughable - why not at least require that they be free of mercury before such a mandate? The enforcement of proper disposal will be impossible - is the government going to track your trash to see if you threw away a CFL to go after you? Not even Washington would waste time and money quite like that. Realistically, you'll see more people throwing these bulbs in the trash, which will prove bad for trash collectors and landfills, reducing public safety. The benefits of adoption are in reduced energy consumption, but the majority of electricity is not spent on household lightbulbs - it is in heating and cooling. There will be minimal energy savings due to decreased demand - likely it would be less significant than keeping tires properly inflated.

The only real benefit of mandating this stuff would be to satisfy a preference of some individuals to meddle in the lives of others, and we tread on dangerous ground when that becomes a basis for policy.

The Power of Failure

2008-09-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Bailout Packages. Ron Paul made the remark back in November 2007 that we're not going to solve anything simply by adding more bailouts, that ultimately we would have to let the market run its course and get rid of the bad debt. Paul predicted that we wouldn't let that happen actually, because politicians wouldn't let it happen.

For a minute, it really looked like the US Government would really engage in at least a $700 billion bailout, possibly costing a trillion dollars. Trillion. $1,000,000,000,000. To compare the cost, imagine another Iraq war, minus the dead people. And it really looked bleak for a couple days. We were socialists now.

But then George W. Bush saved us from socialism. By being the most unpopular President in the history of ever, Bush found the most brilliant way to stop a massive bailout package from happening - he proposed it himself. Now, nobody wants it, although it did take a while. Economists predictably railed against it, but even more amazing, 68% of Americans think we should hold off on doing anything drastic. If Barack Obama had suspended his campaign to go to the senate to propose it, it would pass and Bush would veto it because it would be terrible, and people would think Bush was doing the wrong thing, and Congress would override and pass it. Or Bush might go along with it because he doesn't veto anything. But this will die in Congress, they'll bicker and not get things done.

McCain has pretty much clinched me not voting for him by suspending his campaign to try to get something done - what the hell is he going to do in 2 days? At most, he will help convince people to compromise and pass something immediately - basically the worst thing possible. Look, this is a huge mess in the financial sector. Heads must roll, CEOs should be fired and probably should go to jail. Shareholders in bad companies will take a hit. But what happens then? Housing markes can correct and take a normal course. Bad loans will not happen again because they won't be worth the risk. The Federal Government has its own credit problems - a national debt approaching $10 trillion, understated by the lack of a Social Security trust fund and inevitable rising health care costs.

For right now though, I breathe a sigh of relief in knowing that our President is not too proud to know that nobody likes him or wants to hear what he has to say. I'm sure after his speech tonight, even more people will oppose the bailout.

Whoopi Goldberg, Constitutional Scholar

2008-09-13T14:50:00.001-07:00

Here's the clip:

Now, this is amazing. Whoopi Goldberg apparently sees applying the founders' intent to interpreting the Constitution as equivalent to ignoring everything after the Bill of Rights (or perhaps even including the Bill of Rights). Goldberg's fear that John McCain would appoint judges that would overturn the 13th amendment is quite possibly the most retarded thing any human being has said on television in the past decade. If anyone else felt that way, he would have immediately started getting heat for wanting to get rid of women's right to vote. Other things Whoopi Goldberg fears McCain will change about American life (we'll assume she thinks he'll keep the original 10 amendments):

Women's right to vote gone
The Due Process clause gone,
Return to senators appointed by state legislatures.
End of Presidential Term Limits
Unlimited salary increases for congress (to be fair, it's expensive as hell to live in DC)
End 18 year old voting age
End of the federal income tax
Stop DC's electoral college votes
Re-instate poll taxes
Change the inauguration date back to March 4 (I personally favor this - it would enable me to run in 2020 if I really wanted to)

Fish-Pig 2008

2008-09-10T07:17:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama took heat for this one:

"You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig."

Now, look, this is the kind of line that Joe Biden should have delivered. Heck, this is the kind of line Obama should have delivered if he was making a joint appearance with Dr. Phil, or Robert Byrd. But really, how many corny expressions do you expect from Obama? This isn't a guy who talks like this. To be fair, race is coming into play here too - that sounds more like a white redneck phrase, so that makes it harder to buy the figure of speech thing.

Of course, I think he might have had a shot at getting away with it were it not for this line:

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ it’s still going to stink.”

It seems like that's a shot at John McCain, because he is also very old. So it makes sense that correspondingly, he probably called Sarah Palin a pig. Sure he didn't mean it, but neither did this guy.

We're getting older now!

2008-08-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

Showing that regurgitating press releases is a hallmark of journalism worldwide, there is this story about the rising birth rate being bad for the economy (a link I found via Drudge). I like how the report points to the problem of an aging population as an immediate problem.

"And the women having the babies would be exacerbating the financial impacts on the government of the ageing of the population because the tax breaks offered to parents to have children occur up front, while the cost savings of a bigger
working population and bigger tax base from extra children are deferred until
they are of working age."

Yes, you see, aging is a real problem now. Because we're old. Sure we're still working and being productive, but we're old. This is ridiculous - the problems of the aging population are much larger when the percentage of the population that's retired increases. This is when these new people will become productive members of society.

But it gets better with this brilliant rebuttal by a commenter.

"This is rubbish - as usual, the "experts" regard paid employment as the only real job to have. With more women out of the workforce having babies (an assertion I challenge anyway), there are more jobs for our young people who actually need a job and a start in life. Stop attacking women who know that what is best for their families and therefore the society we all have to live in is to be active in bringin up their own children. Provide your proofs." - Celia of Melbourne

This is what we call the lump of labor fallacy. Bad argument against bad argument. It's election season, all right.

Republicans Distance Themselves Further . . . From Reagan

2008-07-05T17:37:00.000-07:00

Some analysts have suggested that Republicans need to distance themselves more from Ronald Reagan. It seems, though, that George W. Bush would be a better person to distance themselves from. The ideology that the Republicans hold the greatest advantage in representing was that of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Bush does not have an ideology, or any rhyme or reason for half of what he does. Bush blew receiving the most votes for a President in history by pushing Social Security reform, and then did nothing else to gain support from his base. The fact is that Bush is no conservative, but his lip service to the right is just enough to enrage the left. George W. Bush seems to be that awkward guy that wants everyone to like him, but as a result is not all that well liked. It worked for him in Texas a decade ago.

But that aside, there's one other part of Reagan that the Republicans have moved from - oratory skills. From 1988 on, no Republican presidential candidate has been able to talk well. Bush Sr is known for saying he doesn't like Broccoli, and the "read my lips" gaffe. Bob Dole is known for Viagra commercials. Dan Quayle has the same problem as George Bush with coming up with quotes that make for punchlines of jokes.

The Democrats have in the meantime had two inspirational speakers (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama), and in the middle two of the dullest people on earth - John Kerry and Al Gore.

John McCain is not in the line of Reagan.

But when McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, came to
the intended sound bite of his speech -- the part about reducing America's
dependence on foreign oil -- he hit a slick.

"I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lex-eegton
Project," McCain said, drawing a quick breath and correcting himself. "The
Lex-ing-ton Proj-ect," he said slowly. "The Lexington Project," he repeated.
"Remember that name."

Best Paragraph I read Today

2008-06-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

Our real choice is between two candidates who don't understand economics. And they both want to govern a country full of people who also don't understand economics while thinking they do. That makes the old, senile guy the only person in this scenario that isn't deluded or lying. He tells you up front that he doesn't understand economics.

From Scott Adams on the Dilbert Blog. The man does not get enough credit as an economist.

Do you really want people in Florida to be able to vote?

2008-05-29T06:19:00.000-07:00

A great lesson in how democracy is tyrrany of the majority here.

I will not cease talking about this

2008-04-18T08:43:00.000-07:00

Good McCain:

Through his lack of support for ethanol, a fuel made from corn that benefits Iowa's farm economy, McCain, who has not campaigned in Iowa, made it clear he would take a stand for his issues. This was true whether or not the issues favored Iowa--making him look as if he was trying to appeal to his New Hampshire supporters more than gain the support of Iowans.
"I'm here to tell you that I'm going to tell you the things that you don't want to hear, as well as the things you want to hear, and one of those is ethanol," McCain said. "Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer."

And over time, he has gotten worse. Click that link. Read it.

No really, read it. And here is McCain being flat out hilarious.

But here's what's frightening: I agree with Jeff Sachs.

The issue of spiralling food and energy prices is also fueling an emerging debate over how much the rising prices can be blamed on ethanol production. The basic argument is that because ethanol comes from corn, the push to replace some traditional fuels with ethanol has created a new demand for corn that has thrown off world food prices.

Jean Ziegler, United Nations Special Rapporteur On The Right To Food, has called using food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity".

"We've been putting our food into the gas tank," Sachs of Columbia University said.

I mean, damn. I don't buy the right to food thing, but crime against humanity isn't so far off. Here's some of the details from a great editorial by David Ridenour.

Never mind that ethanol is helping spike food prices. Corn prices have already increased by 70 percent since 2005, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects they will rise an additional 10 percent to 20 percent this year.

But that's not the half of it. Corn-dependent livestock are also increasing in price. The USDA estimates that corn feed price increases added nearly 9 percent to the price of beef last year. But this doesn't include the indirect costs. U.S. beef cattle herds declined by 338,000 in 2007, increasing beef prices further, in part due to higher prices for feed, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Ethanol advocates claim that rising corn costs have contributed only modestly to the overall increase in food prices. They're not being entirely honest, as they're only counting the direct costs of ethanol. They don't count, for example, increases in soybean prices resulting from farmers switching to the more lucrative corn crop. Soybean crops dropped by 11 million acres last year — much of it used to produce corn.

Here am I discovering an initial supply shock and one of the problems of ethanol - it takes fuel to transport ethanol since you can't pipeline it. Here I note congress tries to punish gas makers for charging more with the new ethanol regulations. And finally, I play the role of the silly optimist, thinking that since these problems are so simple, why not just fix them like this? You could even pay the corn growers a subidy if you'd feel better, because at least it wouldn't screw with world food prices as much. Is that too much a price to pay to make food more affordable?

Booze!

2008-04-10T10:19:00.000-07:00

Patchy video from Foxnews posted on townhall here:

http://www.townhall.com/video/FoxNews/2176_080403-220254_040308_fr_2gallagher_F1200

Now I host a class discussion for both of my readers. Questions:

1) Why are there more alcohol-related traffic fatalities for underage teens in the US than in Europe, etc?

2) Is alcohol connected with binge drinking more in the US than Europe? Why?

3) Why are the big brand American beers so terrible?

4) What other effects would lowering the drinking age to 18 have?

I'll answer these after I write my paper due in three hours.

Schools

2008-04-10T09:18:00.001-07:00

So a charter school in Minnesota drew fire because it's basically a Muslim school. From the local news (HT Drudge):

Being a charter school Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, or TIZA, is supported by tax dollars. The teacher told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS the presence of religion she observed at the school took her b surprise.

TIZA Executive Director Azad Zaman insisted the school follows with state and federal laws.

"TIZA does not endorse any religion," he said.

However, TIZA Academy is sponsored by Islamic Relief USA, based in California.

Based in California! Gasp! The story gets interesting here:

The questions came after substitute teacher Amanda Getz taught at TIZA last month and told the Star Tribune about things she observed that day that shocked her.

"I've been in a lot of schools and I've never been in a school where they had washing rituals, or they had prayer, or where they had a room where you had to take your shoes off," Getz said.

"It is most likely that this substitute teacher was sadly mistaken," said Zaman.

He said the school follows state and federal guidelines when it comes to religion.

Granted, one can certainly argue the merits of the word ritual, especially since this is a TV news story so there is very little content. And rituals are a good way to make sure kids actually to remember to wash their hands, to be fair (maybe they should do something similar for doctors) But the blanket denials by Zaman (whose full name, Azad Zaman, is worth 31 points in Scrabble) are just plain hilarious. 'What? Washing rituals? This teacher is mistaken.' My favorite part:

State law requires the school to fly an American flag during school hours, however no flag flies outside of TIZA Academy.

Zaman told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he didn’t know how to work the flagpole.

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SCHOOL! If you don't know how, you learn how. Any 8 year old cub scout could tell you how. You hook the flag on and pull the rope. Not hard.

But speaking of learning, I figured I'd actually look this school up on Wikipedia, to see what I could learn. It's not that controversial, because no Wikipedia entry exists, so I went to the school's website. The school lunch menu doesn't contain any bacon, ham or pork. The school does not have a week long spring break, just the Thursday and Friday before easter, although it does offer a week long break during Ramadan. There is a break for Christmas as well as Eid-al-Adha (Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son). They also teach the kids Arabic.

But really, this is not a religious school. The school is designed to cater to Muslim Students, who then make up more of the student body. Nothing wrong with that. But regardless, I'm still laughing at Zaman.

Local governments and sports stadiums

2008-02-14T09:44:00.000-08:00

Lately, professional sports stadiums have been paid for through public financing more and more. Sports economists, though, have repeatedly stated that this is not an efficient use of taxpayer funding.

JC Bradbury has said a good bit over at Sabernomics about this, and he has a guest blogger, Frank Stephenson, talking about the Gwinnett Braves. Here's the traditional argument:

Adding together the $15,000 annual fee, the season ticket revenue split, and the naming rights, the Braves have paid $671,429 for their first five years in the stadium. A sensible way to compare this figure to the $14.9 million cost of the stadium is to think about the opportunity cost that taxpayers incur by having their $14.9 million tied up in a stadium rather than having it available for other uses. Economists typically measure such opportunity costs via an interest rate. Taking a conservative interest rate of 3%, taxpayers are sacrificing about $450,000 per year in interest in order to construct the baseball stadium. (Higher interest rates would imply a larger opportunity cost.) Since the Braves annual payments have averaged about $134,000 per year, they’ve paid a bit under one-third of the taxpayers annual cost of the stadium. Of course, the taxpayers aren’t really being repaid since the Braves payments go into the capital maintenance fund.

The "no, it does not pay for itself" argument, but something is missing. Fundamentally, there is the issue of the benefit derived from having a local team in terms of attracting and retaining people in the city. People who are more in demand have more options, and if given comparable salary packages when considering cost of living as well as similar advancement for oppurtunity, they may decide to go where the local amenities are more in their favor. Richmond has a symphony orchestra, a ballet company, colleges and universities, good roads, and it is within 2 hours of the beach or DC. But it is possible that someone may look at Richmond and say, there's no professional baseball team, so I will go to some other city instead.

If you think that sounds crazy, ask yourself if you would be willing to attend a large university, say more than 15,000 students, that does not have an NCAA division 1 football team. How much of Virginia Tech's reputation is based on the quality of their students, and how many of their students chose to go there at the margin because schools of similar cost and academic reputation did not have such a successful football team? If you compare schools with similar costs, reputation, often the tiebreaker will be a matter of which one looks like it will be more fun. By the same token, George Mason's applications drastically increased in 2006 during their Final Four run, and what did that do to average SAT scores and high school GPA? But what of their lack of an NCAA football team; how many musicians and music education majors were lost because they wanted to do marching band in college (although to be fair, how many were attracted because they hate marching band?)?

Bill Clinton Plays Hardball - Chan Ho Style

2008-01-31T07:03:00.001-08:00

Bill Clinton hung a curveball that gives the Republicans something to utterly destroy if they're smart enough:

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other
industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just
have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause
we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

Bill Clinton, campaigning harshly and actively for Hillary Clinton has not only hurt his wife's campaign, but now he's given the Republicans some ammo. "Bill Clinton thinks we need to slow down our economy more, because he doesn't support ideals of freedom." Maybe something about how John Rockefeller got rivers to stop catching fire. Maybe something about how fire insurance is private and flood insurance is public, and how unusual it is that we now live in a time where floods are a greater threat to cities than fires. The Republicans, armed with this, can then propose another more affordable solution to cutting our dependency on foreign oil: ending the sugar tariff.

Bill Clinton's mention merits a "sex" label.

Barack Obama Wants My Vote

2008-01-17T10:39:00.000-08:00

Observe:

I have to say that I did not expect a Reagan analogy, and neither did Ben Smith at Politico, when I stole this. But it makes sense.

Obama has going for him not so much being the man of change, but the unwavering optimist. For those on the right, he is the Democrat that probably scares them the least - Edwards is the class warfare guy, and Hillary's attempt at government-controlled healthcare still frightens those who fear death while waiting in line. Of course, he still believes government is the solution rather than the problem, but hey, he has a positive outlook.

Getting down and dirty!

2007-12-08T13:38:00.001-08:00

Shockingly, more people attend orgies in this man's house than view this website ever. The AP reports:

The most popular address on Cedar Ridge Drive is Jim Trulock's split- level home, which has a group sex room and attracts as many as 100 people to swinger parties featuring "Naked Twister" nights.
But the festivities could soon be over. In response to neighbors' complaints, the city has outlawed sex clubs in residential areas. Citations have been issued, and search warrants may be next.

Just when you thought consenting adults could be free in their homes. But what are the complaints?

So are those who complain of the noise, traffic and parking problems that occur in their otherwise quiet, upscale neighborhood every Friday and Saturday, when Trulock's home is transformed into "The Cherry Pit."

Ok, so basically the question is whether this dude should be allowed to be hosting these things at his house as opposed to building some sort of clubhouse or something.

The following come to mind:
1) If you had as many cats as this man does copulating adults in his house, your home would be condemned or something.

2) Even if you put 4 adults in a car, that's an extra 25 cars now in your neighborhood. That's a AAAA high school marching band, minus equipment (or anything else, really). Unless they all park in his driveway (ha!) or his yard (HA!), this becomes an aggrivation as the street around his house becomes a 1 or no-lane road. Parking half a dozen cars on the street takes up a lot of space and can bottleneck a road to one lane.

3) That's a lot of naughty noises, and that's definitely bordering on disturbing the peace. In fact, I'd be amazed if such a charge hadn't been repeatedly filed.

4) This guy needs at least 100 acres to really pull this off. You need a huge chunk of land in a resort like area. This is just plain silly, not to mention a health and safety hazard.

5) There's no way that dude's house has more than 4 bathrooms.

I'm not the only one thinking this:

Arthur Leonard, a New York Law School professor who studies sexuality law, said the size of the parties might be a legal obstacle.
"It seems to me when you have that number of people involved, it becomes more like a public event," Leonard said. "It seems unlikely that a court would find privacy protection for an event this large."

Additionally, you have this:

The case against the swinger parties "does appeal to a lot of people's sense of morality," said Lewis, the city spokeswoman. "That's been a lot of complaints we've gotten from residents: 'I came to Duncanville to have a family. I didn't come here to live next to a sex club.'"

Now moral issues aside, the issue of whether that brings down property value is a fair one. I think it's safe to say that it does.

That said, banning orgies is not the answer, but limiting the number of vehicles that a house can draw is one thing. Further, frequent parties of this nature suggest the house is not really a home but more of a clubhouse or perhaps a business, and as such zoning law rightfully would not permit such goings on.

Social Security

2007-11-11T18:07:00.000-08:00

Well, it turns out that Bush was right that this was a problem, but it still hasn't been fixed. Barack Obama had the following to say:

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

"That is the option that I will be pushing forward." Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from higher payroll taxes, he said.

Uh huh, uh huh. WHAT?!! Now raising the cap on social security taxes makes sense, as Social Security would be better as a flat tax than a regressive tax as it currently is. What I want to know is when will Social Security honestly be declared not to be a pension system, but rather, just "welfare for old people?" Because that's what it is.

But the doughnut hole is basically a very open invitation for not just company cars, but company-provided housing, helicopters, etc. Sound silly? Well come on - this is the stuff tax accountants dream of.

Any other ideas?

On the Republican side, candidate Fred Thompson last week unveiled a Social Security proposal that calls for reducing benefits to future retirees and creating a system of voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan is similar to one put forth by President Bush that ultimately stalled in Congress.

Gee, why does that sound familiar? Maybe Because George Bush already tried it and fell flat on his face. The government doesn't need to get involved with private accounts - because they're private. Private accounts already exist. This is as mind-boggling as the need to hire a scout to find out if Greg Maddux can pitch.

Privatizing Social Security is something that the US simply cannot do because it was put off far too long. To pull it off, it needs a more comfortable position, and the only way to get there is to raise the retirement age at an astounding rate.

Most importantly, the Minimum retirement age, which Bill Bradley has pointed out before, should be raised. Getting that up to 65 in the next decade and 70 by 2030 is not an unreasonable goal with the full retirement age rising along with it up to 70 and ultimately 75. After all, the program was created when the retirement age was 3 years in excess of life expectancy; it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that if the retirement age slips to more than 10 years below life expectancy, then you have a problem. If you get the retirement age back up to life expectancy minus 3, you're in excellent shape.

At that point, Social Security stops being a source of income for a generation of people living off that and their savings for 20 years. Then you can talk privitization, because you'll reduce the impact it has on people's lives. Getting there would be harder, but it's a good start.

Franken, My Dear, I don't Give a Damn

2007-09-07T18:12:00.000-07:00

Al Franken is running for Senate in Minnesota, and the Republicans are going to counter by making the point that he told jokes that wouldn't make a Disney movie:

Mr. Franken is known for "the kind of trash talk and potty mouth that people find offensive," he adds. "I can imagine a whole line of attack ads," Mr. Jacobs says, and "all of a sudden, the challenger is on the defensive."

Mr. Franken has a ready response. "People should give Minnesotans credit for knowing what a joke is and what it isn't," he says before launching into examples of what a joke isn't, including the Iraq war, veterans' care and congressional earmarks.

The Republicans trying this should smack themselves upside the head with a sledgehammer for being so idiotic. They tried the same thing with Jim Webb, after George Allen forgot a kid's name, and it didn't do anything except get them reprimanded by Bill Buckley.

Perhaps the Republicans should ask whether campaign staffs have been infiltrated by Democrats. Or maybe they're just really that dumb. Nonetheless, there are better ways to defeat Al Franken.

Rudolph the Red Nosed Republican

2007-07-30T16:18:00.000-07:00

Rudy Guliani wants to win a primary. Speaking in New Hampshire, the first primary state, Guliani said the Democrats want a nanny government. Scrolling down in the article, you see something that has to do with an actual policy proposal. You have to scroll down for those things.

On Tuesday, Giuliani intends to outline his health care plan. Giuliani's goal is to give individuals more control over health care decisions and to encourage state officials to come up with innovative solutions.

Key to his plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, instead of getting insurance through employers. Any leftover funds could be rolled over year-to-year for medical expenses, under Giuliani's plan.

"That cash allows you to go out and buy cheaper and cheaper policies; you can have higher and higher deductibles," Giuliani said earlier this month in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

He compared private health plans to plasma TVs, saying the plans would come down in cost as demand grows.

If you were to read just one sentence, the last one makes Guliani look like a complete retard, and the next to last one makes him look like he really gets it. What's more encouraging is that the good one is a quote and the bad one is not. If more people are simply given greater access to health care, that will not make it cheaper, but rather more expensive. That's the freaking LAW OF DEMAND, that's like day 2 of Economics, after Day 1 of "what is scarcity?" and the difference between positive and normative. The reason plasma TVs get cheaper is that they're a new technology - most of their expense is in research and development, and as more are made they are just made more efficiently.

What is key is for unnecessary health care actions to be eliminated. If you've ever gone to the doctor for a cold (I'll admit I have), you're part of the problem. But you won't go to the doctor for a cold if it will cost you $250 instead of just $25. That will reduce demand, and thus lower the price. For that matter, what value are visits to the dentist? If you brush your teeth and floss and use Listerene regularly, you're fine anyway. You don't need to go to a dentist to do that, and anyone can count your teeth or stab you in the mouth. About all you get out of a trip to the dentist is an x-ray of your mouth. Woo-hoo. And a toothbrush. It's really quite a waste, unless you don't take care of yourself and need fillings, or you need teeth pulled.

Obama Gives Up on Parents

2007-07-18T20:19:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama, a man whose positions on issues must be searched for, has the following to say.

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

Age-Appropriate? God Dammit Obama, what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway? Who is going to decide what is age appropriate?

If you asked me seriously what a kindergartener ought to know about sex, I'd say what's age appropriate for kindergarteners is knowing that there are places they're not supposed to be touched by anyone, and that's the stuff under their swimsuit, and then maybe show the classic cartoon drawing of a kid in a swimsuit. You can also tell kids that when they grow up their body changes.

Sexual Education is really a vague topic of discussion. If you want to try to tell kids about having sex and that sort of thing, that's stupid because they're too young for such bodily functions to even work there anyway. Besides, you risk getting the kids into trying stuff they shouldn't at too early an age, because they're too dumb to know better, and at the same time they're too young to be able to discipline and correct.

The question is, what does Obama think to be age appropriate? Let's look at this convoluted answer:

When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"

So in other words, beats the shit out of him. No word on whether Obama told his daughters the Disney princesses and all fairy tales were fake in order to save money.

I have a real hard time taking this story all that seriously, because Obama admits that in practice anything he does is entirely irrelevant. I see nothing wrong with the teacher just outsourcing that question to their parents, because if a kid asks "where do babies come from in school?" I'll bet you the teacher was talking about something else entirely. Besides, parents are supposed to do that sort of thing, and there's no sense the government absorbing more of the parental role - it just lets the parents get lazier.

Maybe the Voters aren't that stupid

2007-07-15T14:14:00.000-07:00

They know that state politics have no influence on the Iraq War.

But seriously, the real reason this article is dumb is that it does not address the real reason that the General Assembly will not be changing parties. First of all, overall public opinion doesn't matter, but rather, opinion by district and county. Secondly, most state legislature elections, particularly for delegate, are unopposed. Mostly because people don't care about a job that only lasts for two months. And that's probably a good thing.

Chinese Crackdown

2007-07-14T09:34:00.000-07:00

After a few Chinese sources delivered unsafe products, the Chinese government has decided to take action, by saying that American products are bad.

From the Washington Post:

Investigative reports in the state-run media delve into the case of an exploding cellphone purportedly made by U.S.-based Motorola that allegedly killed a young man. They warn consumers not to use contact-lens solution produced by U.S.-based Advanced Medical Optics, which has been linked to rare cases of blindness. And they play up recalls of U.S. beef.

Faced with mounting international concern over the safety of some of the products it exports, the Chinese government -- often perceived as defensive and clumsy in how it handles public relations -- is firing back.

In Washington, China has put together a team of lobbyists who have been practically living on Capitol Hill for the past few weeks. In Beijing, the government has taken the unusual step of seeking advice from outsiders, including public relations powerhouses Ogilvy and Edelman, about how to get positive messages out to Chinese and American consumers.

Of course, because the Chinese government has not altogether abolished communism in China, it makes sense that the government would concern itself with PR. But yeah, that's the setup. Then there's this paragraph right after it:

The result has been an aggressive campaign to save the "Made in China" label by presenting an alternate view on consumer safety and globalization. The message is that China isn't the only country that has had problems with the products it exports. China, as government officials have been pointing out in recent days, rejects U.S. imports at a rate that is just a little less than the 1 percent of Chinese products rejected by the United States.

But look at this. The Chinese government is trying to argue that their products are safe because the US makes stuff that gets rejected too. The question of safety, though, is not which ones are rejected, but rather which accepted products cause harm, if one is concerning themself with product safety. Here, it seems that China is stating that they are better at regulating imports than the US, although I don't think they're offering to scrutinize their own exports further.

Then a professor said this later on in the article:

On the other hand, Shi Anbin, an associate professor of media and cultural studies at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said that trying to turn the tables and focus attention on problems with U.S. products is "not a wise strategy."

"We need to face our own problems rather than pointing an accusing finger at a scapegoat," Shi said. "I believe Chinese officials still need to learn some PR and communication skills."

Yes, that is correct that what the Chinese government did does not address the initial problem. I'm glad that Ariana Eunjang Cha was able to get an expert to state the painfully obvious.

Right after, there was this bit:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, which has been pushing for punitive trade legislation against China, described the execution of the former head of the Chinese food and drug administration and the country's new ban of a chemical that was mixed in toothpaste as "surreal actions."

These "prove that China just doesn't understand the real problems," the New York Democrat said

Senator Schumer, your advocacy for punitive trade legislation against China proves that you don't understand the real problem. That would make Chinese products more expensive for consumers, so to compete, they'd have to get cheaper and take more shortcuts. And to be technical, that doesn't prove that China doesn't understand the problem, only that China is not interested in solving the real problem. And that the communist method of dealing with problems - killing people - is stupid.

But I'm going with the Chinese government being stupid, especially after reading this gem.

Nevertheless, the incident has brought out hostility in some Chinese consumers. The headline on one online bulletin board posting blares, "America's Motorola is following Bin Laden's example, killing Chinese with explosion." It quotes from the official New China News Agency in giving examples of past quality problems, though its main purpose seems to be complaining about Motorola's after-sales service.

Yes, an accident where someone died in an explosion makes someone like Bin Laden, but firing squad, that's just how you take care of business. But if you want to know how bad the Chinese government is at defending themselves in an argument, this one guy states, perhaps rightly, that this is an improvement.

Dan Harris, a U.S.-based attorney who runs a popular China law blog and represents small to mid-sized companies doing business with China, said the shift in the government's public relations strategy "is definitely smart on their part. They are not going to convince Americans that everything is okay just by denials."

Heh. They're trying to distract people, but at least they aren't completely denying problems, and they don't have to fix anything. An improvement, but barely.

Yay, Failure

2007-07-14T00:35:00.000-07:00

The surcharges did not receive much attention when lawmakers approved them Feb. 24., but the reaction has been overwhelmingly negative since Virginia residents learned about the fees this month.

At first glance, you think, aha, the legislature enacts this law under cover of darkness. Doesn't it also come to mind, Why the hell didn't anyone report on the damn fees until when they went into effect? It does for me.

But seriously, it is absolutely criminal the disregard the Virginia legislature shows for the Constitution of the United States, by enacting what is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment, as it does not grant equal protection under the law.

Virginia Republicans and Democrats demonstrated in the spirit of bipartisanship how opposing factions can agree on something and both be wrong. Boo.

How to get kids to care

2007-06-11T14:46:00.001-07:00

Pay them. So says Roland Fryer, Harvard economist.

Roland G. Fryer, a 30-year-old Harvard economist known for his study of racial inequality in schools, is back in New York to again promote a big idea: Pay students cash for high scores on standardized tests and their performance might improve. And he has captured the attention of Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

The reaction from educators is predictable: dumb.

“It makes me really nervous,” said Maggie Siena, the principal of Public School 150 in TriBeCa. “I suspect paying kids for achievement in any way tends not to work.”

This rival's Ron Washington's statement about Eric Gagne, "He has knowledge, you can't teach that," as the stupidest thing that I've heard all year. So apparently, all scholarships based on merit are failures. To be fair, maybe she means elementary school kids, but seriously, let's think about what this means for elementary schoolers.

There are two different types of standardized tests: the subject based test (Virginia's SOL exams) and IQ tests (the SAT, more or less). Now, currently, there aren't any incentives provided by the school system for kids to do well in elementary school - that's all up to the parents. It's not really until high school that the SOL exams impact whether a student can graduate, etc. The IQ type tests, the most you can hope for is honesty and a full effort.

Now, at least when I was growing up, rewards would come from my parents for good report cards, but not necessarily good standardized tests. Maybe this is appropriate, since parents and students just don't care about these tests.

Congressmen shouldn't wear "For Sale" signs

2007-06-05T08:05:00.000-07:00

Congressman William Jefferson was indicted on charges of not only receiving bribes, but soliciting them. The New York Times reports:

The indictment said that from 2000 to 2005 Mr. Jefferson sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, sometimes in the form of stock and retainer fees, from nearly a dozen companies involved in oil, communications, satellite transmission, sugar and other businesses, often for projects to be carried out in Africa.

In return, the indictment charged, Mr. Jefferson used his official position in Congress, as a member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade, to promote the companies’ business ventures — without disclosing his own financial stake in the deals.

The fight is on, then, to see if he gets to remain a Congressman.

A representative of Mr. Jefferson said the lawmaker would not comment on the indictment, though an aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case said Mr. Jefferson had no intention of resigning his seat.

Mr. Jefferson’s lawyer, Robert Trout, said in a statement that his client was innocent and planned “to fight this indictment and clear his name.”

And the Republicans are willing to expel him if he's guilty, which would seem to be the case, unless he just likes keeping money in his freezer.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Monday that he would ask the House to vote to refer the indictment of Mr. Jefferson to the House ethics committee. His resolution would call for the ethics panel to report back to the House within a month on whether Mr. Jefferson should be removed from Congress.

“If the charges against Congressman Jefferson are true,” Mr. Boehner said, “he should be expelled from the House of Representatives or he should resign to spare his constituents and colleagues any further indignity.”

Now the first thing that amazes me is, as the Y101 news brief pointed out, is that Jefferson was re-elected despite having $90,000 found in his freezer. Granted, Louisiana does those weird runoff elections, but still, that's just dumb.

The next part is that you'd have a Congressman actually openly whoring himself out like that, er, allegedly whoring himself out like that. It's one thing to accept campaign contributions, it's another thing to accept bribes, and it's even worse to seek bribes. I really don't know how the guy gets out of this one, though; $90,000 in his freezer?! I don't think even the Chewbacca defense will help him now.

Really Sick

2007-05-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

Ok, the TB guy is either evil or demented. He had TB, then left on a flight overseas from Atlanta, then came back to the US to get treated. Now, why would he put others in harm's way, traveling with a communicable bacterial infection in an enclosed space?

The man, however, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that doctors didn't order him not to fly and only suggested he put off his long-planned wedding in Greece. He knew he had a form of tuberculosis and that it was resistant to first-line drugs, but he didn't realize it could be so dangerous, he said.

Basically, he would put his bride-to-be in danger. Sure he's on drugs, but it's tuberculosis! Wouldn't it be more sensible to put off the wedding for a bit if you come down with some sort of disease like this if it's treatable?

What if he had more dire predictions of the severity of his own tuberculosis? What if he figured he was doomed to die, and he wanted his wedding, his wedding night, etc before everything was over? I'm inclined not to buy this fellow's account, and no way in hell he didn't think that TB was such a big deal given what he knew about. And while I don't see any point in prosecuting him if he's going to die anyway, clearly you've got to make some sort of policy considerations here. At the very least, release his name and the flights he took so that the other passengers can sue this obviously very wealthy man who put their lives in danger.

A bit on gas prices

2007-05-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives voted a few days ago to blame someone else for their idiocy by passing a bill to stop "price gouging."

"This is a first step in addressing the outrageous prices we are seeing at the gas pump," said bill sponsor Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat. Prices in recent years have peaked at about the Memorial Day start of the summer driving season, but they could climb higher this year if hurricanes or conflicts in the Middle East or Nigeria disrupt supplies.
"This bill is all bark and no bite, and will do nothing to lower gas prices," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "No American likes paying high prices at the pump. ... This bill could make the pain felt by consumers at the pump considerably worse."

Boehner also stated the immigration bill proposed was a piece of shit. No really, he said that. Boehner also knows what the hell he's talking about, and hell, he's almost making me feel good about the Republican party. But perhaps it's worth examining why gas prices might go up.

The stupidest explanation is greed. Look, people are greedy, all the freaking time. That's normal. You're greedy for wanting that gas to cost as little as it can, for wanting everything on the internet to be free, for wanting there to never be any traffic congestion on the highway, for wanting to have your cake, eat it too, but not have to deal with the caloric intatke (not to mention the carbs). If greed raises prices, then what the hell causes them to fall? When gas gets down to $2 a gallon, does that mean the oil execs feel guilty or something? Maybe they're less greedy? If you actually believe that, I'm frightened you are reading this. Anyone that stupid shouldn't be given anything as powerful as a computer, or for that matter, a spoon.

But seriously, what harm could an anti-gouging bill do? Well, if there are shocks to the supply or the demand for oil, the market could not respond as it normally would, so it would force oil companies and gas station owners to either lose money or not sell, and guess which one they'll pick. This is called a price cap, and it creates shortages. Look at the 1970s - people cyphened gas from other people's cars, and they made locking gas tank caps. I mean, you thought Monica Lewinsky had low standards for what she put in her mouth! The president will wear sweaters and tell us we shouldn't have Christmas because of all the lights - Jimmy Carter actually did that. I mean, doesn't this strike you as a little silly?

But what else could cause high gas prices, if not for some conspiracy? Well there's the cost of crude oil itself, then it has to be refined, then it has to be delivered, then the gas station sells it, and the gas station owner and the oil companies have to make a profit, or else they wouldn't be in the oil business. Now, what happened in the last couple years to cause gas prices to rise? Let me think . . . Here's a key reminder of why ethanol is expensive:

Ethanol is a solvent that picks up any gunk in tanks and readily blends with water.

Those properties could ruin a 9,000-gallon tank of gasoline at a huge cost to a retailer.

It costs up to $1,500 to clean tanks, said Kevin S. Kan, president and chief executive officer of American Auto Wash Inc. in Malvern, which operates 18 stations in the region, including 13 BPs that have converted to the ethanol blend.

Ethanol is logistically more complicated than the petrochemical it replaced - MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether. Refiners could blend MTBE into gasoline at the refinery and send the finished gasoline through pipelines to terminals.

But ethanol must be blended into gasoline at the terminal because it would mix with water if it were sent through pipelines, ruining the fuel. So, fuel terminals have to go through a similar process of cleaning tanks to store ethanol before it is blended.

They must also install blending equipment.

Yeah, that alone is going to make gas a lot more expensive. And keep in mind that Ethanol doesn't have nearly the pipeline network available for gasoline (in fact, the oil companies are trying to lobby Congress for it). So really, these ethanol additives are not a good idea right now; maybe a few years down the road if you're gonna complain about gas prices to consumers.

Another idea: just stop all the bullshit around ethanol that makes it so expensive. You've got a lot of regulation in the economy regarding how much corn people can grow, etc, as well as tariffs on foreign goods to raise the prices of domestic goods. You've gotta be kidding me if you think we need the government to tell farmers how much they can grow, etc. Ignore the caps, and people will grow more corn, partly for ethanol, partly for food, whatever will make money. People make good decisions when it's their own money in business, generally. Further, you can get sugar ethanol to do the job cheaper, or at the very least you could allow regular sugar to replace high fructose corn syrup. The tariffs on foreign sugar are the culprit here, believe it or not, and if you reduce or eliminate that, you'll see a reduce in demand at home, lowering the price, and more corn will be exported for those of you who think the trade deficit matters.

A Sick-Minded Idiot

2007-05-17T18:30:00.001-07:00

Michael Moore talks to Time about his new movie, Sicko. Moore's goal is a state-run health plan. Let's go FJM-style on this article.

TIME: A portion of your audience is pre-sold on your politics, but another portion is undecided. Is your finger-in-the-eye style the best way to change minds, or does it give people a reason to tune you out?

Michael Moore: I’ve already moved the needle on some things. In March 2003, I stood up at the Oscars and said we’re being led to war for fictitious reasons, and I was booed. Only 20% of the country agreed with me. I should have learned my lesson and gone away quietly. Instead, I made Fahrenheit 9/11. I did that because I believe that the majority of Americans are not only persuadable but that they have a generous heart and ultimately want to do the right thing. Now I am in agreement with 70% of the country about Mr. Bush. So it took a while.

Question: does this help convice people?
Answer: Well, now more people agree with me on Iraq. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, whatever that means.

No, people were on Bush's side after the 2004 election, and he lost support after taking on Social Security. What made a difference here was the disaster of the new Iraqi government. The removal of Saddam is not what is viewed as the problem, but the futility of the nation-building in Iraq. So basically, you didn't help convince anyone, you just happened to pick something that turned out poorly and attach a conspiracy theory.

TIME: With Sicko, do you think you picked an easy target? After all, you can’t find a whole lot of people who are happy with their HMO.
Michael Moore: This film does cut across party lines. Everybody gets sick; everybody has had a problem with insurance or the prescription drugs they’re supposed to be taking or an elderly parent who needs care. On the surface, it does seem that the only people who are going to be upset are the executives of insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Question: did you pick an easy target?
Answer: I have bipartisan support.

Ok, so stuff is expensive and annoying. A lot of things are. You have yet to really prove anything here.

TIME: So if there’s no argument that the system is broken, why use your energies to start one?
Michael Moore: Because what’s even more broken is the fact that our Congress and White House are bought and paid for by these two industries, which rival the oil industry in terms of money and influence. They have a vested interest in maintaining their control. But they’re not dumb. They know which way the wind is blowing and that this is the No. 1 domestic issue with Americans. Their job now is to try to control it so that universal health care is run through them, so that they can still skim the money, make the obscene profits and keep their investors happy.

well he actually answered the question. Way to crush a fastball down the pike.

If you actually look at it, the insurance industry is not particularly good at getting the government to do what it wants. A fellow by the name of Kenneth Meier wrote an article on this back in December 1991 in the Journal of Risk and Insurance. The insurance industry has some of the lowest levels of expenses spent on lobbying expenses, and it has a rather poor strategy, which is basically hope that nobody cares, and just try to make things complicated. The problem with this is that people use Occum's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best), and so they'd rather listen to the angrier, easier to understand guy. Basically the insurance company strategery is the same as the Republicans during the 1995 government shutdowns.

The issue with HMOs is that they still deny care, etc, for some things, but not all things. One is fooling himself if he believes we have some sort of free market insurance program; what we have is a subsidy program that is in some ways competitive and private. We then lay back and become ignorant of our health care for the most part, and we'll get most of what is recommended for us. If you're gonna attack anyone for having a powerful lobby, how about doctors and the American Medical Association?

TIME: Of the declared presidential candidates, down to the Dennis Kucinich level, say, who do you think has the best health-care plan? Including Kucinich? We could include him.
Michael Moore: Then Kucinich, but he doesn’t go far enough. He supports what he’s calling a single- payer nonprofit plan, but from my read, it would still allow [private] entities to control things, as opposed to the government. What’s wrong with the government? The right wing and the G.O.P. have done a wonderful job brainwashing people that government doesn’t work, and then, as Al Franken says, they get elected and proceed to prove the point. [Laughs.]

answered the question, but asks a monumentally stupid one.

What could the government possibly do wrong? The government can make people think that health care is free, and then make us stand in line for care (it takes forever to get treatment from socialized medicine). Of course, we could spend more and get all the healthcare we wanted, but as it is we're already spending a very high percentage of GDP on our health. Maybe we should try something that will help solve that problem.

But why did you include that last part? You joked, but at the same time acknowledged the failings of government. Dumbass.

TIME: So you think Washington could handle a program this big?

Michael Moore: Ask anyone on Social Security if their check comes on time every month. Like clockwork. And it comes through the so-called dilapidated U.S. mail. My dad’s check literally will come on the same day every month. The government has been quite good and efficient at creating a number of systems. If I tell people the administrative costs for a private health plan —advertising, p.r., executive pay —are 20% and ask them what Medicare’s administrative costs are, they’ll guess 50%, 60%. The fact is, for Medicare/ Medicaid, it’s 3%. The last figure I read for Canada’s [government] system is 1.7%.

Can a government program work?
They can mail checks on time!

Social Security is a worthless piece of shit that will go bankrupt in about a decade, largely because the so-called trust fund has already been spent in accounting that would make ENRON piss their pants. The system uses a retirement age that was past life expectancy when created, but is now over a decade past current life expectancy. But they mail checks on time. Well good for the post office.

As for overhead costs, those are not the costs in question really. The costs in question are caused by what is called moral hazard - will people act differently once they have insurance? If you had to pay for it, would you go to the doctor when you only had a cold? I doubt I would, but I have gone to the doctor with a cold before. I also went to a doctor because I had acne in my teenage years, and then I took a controversial prescription drug for it; I think the pills probably cost over $500-$600 over a 5 month period, and I had to get a blood screening too (add another $100). I could have just tried over the counter stuff and then gone with "suck it up and deal with it," but I didn't (mostly because my parents made me take the drugs, but whatever). Finally, aren't you about a million times more likely to get generic or perhaps over the counter alternatives to the name-brand prescriptions if you have to pay the whole thing yourself?

Look at Medicare in the US now, and notice how much the cost has risen. Also note that seniors can get Viagra on this. VIAGRA. Well, back to the article.

TIME: Your movie paints an almost utopian picture of the Canadian system. You do show some American critics arguing that there can be long waits for treatments north of the border, and you refute them simply by interviewing a handful of happy, satisfied Canadians. Pretty unscientific, no?

Michael Moore: Canadians as a whole are pretty happy with their system. Yes, it’s a flawed system, and the main flaw is that it’s underfunded. The [in-depth] answers exist in articles and essays, and I’ll have them up on my website.

Isn't your movie a bit unscientific?
Canadians as a whole are happy with their system.

How have you determined this? You could point to public opinion polling statistics, you could describe some other phenomena, but no, your answer actually reveals the answer is "well, yeah." Nice.

The main flaw is that it's underfunded? So basically you're of the opinion that government should treat any sort of health option we can even remotely think of. I guess this means no "the US spends too much on healthcare compared to other countries" thing.

TIME: You also speak rhapsodically about the French and Cuban systems and travel to Cuba, where you interview Che Guevara’s daughter. France, Cuba, Che. Are you going out of your way to annoy the right?
Michael Moore: I give people more credit than the media and the political machine running this country do. The story line is: France, bad; France, cowards. What crime did France commit? We wouldn’t have had this country without their support in the Revolution. They gave us that statue that sits out in New York Harbor. They responded immediately after 9/11. And they remain eternally grateful for what we did during World War II.
As for Cuba, yes, when I’ve got a film crew there, they’re going to show us their best. But there’s a reason the World Health Organization ranks their health-care system [among] the best in the Third World and that people from Latin America come there for their health care. There’s also a reason Cubans live on average a month longer than we do. I’m not trumpeting Castro or his regime. I just want to say to fellow Americans, “C’mon, we’re the United States! If they can do this, we can do it.”

Among the best in the third world and Latin America? Um, isn't that like saying that they're one of the best hitting pitchers in baseball? I mean, I'd still take Juan Pierre in my batting order over a pitcher, unless you're saying they're like Carlos Zambrano in 2005. But still, no pitcher's gonna be batting cleanup for me.

As for life expectancy, we're a nation where the poor are fat. A whole discussion can follow from this, but I'll just leave it at that for now.

TIME: What was the hardest thing about making this movie?
Michael Moore: Getting insurance. How do you convince an insurance company to insure a film about insurance? I finally found this guy who’s got a little company out in Kansas City. I think he’s the only Democrat who owns an insurance company.

I would have never guessed.

But really, what does one insure here?

TIME: Do you think people will accuse the movie of inaccuracy?
Michael Moore: I offered $10,000 to anybody who could find a single fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 that was wrong.
TIME: Have you had to pay anything?
Michael Moore: No, of course not. Every fact in my films is true. And yet how often do I have to read over and over again about supposed falsehoods? The opinions in the film are mine. They may not be true, but I think they are.

Yay, way to use the old tautology, dumbass! Every fact in my films is true. Well no shit, facts are by definition true.

TIME: How do you entertain people at the same time you’re trying to get them to think about hard things?
Michael Moore: When I’m shooting a movie, I’m always in an invisible theater seat. I respect the fact that people have worked hard all week and want to go to the movies on the weekend and be entertained. But the struggle for me does not come between politics and entertainment, because I know that if I succeed in making an entertaining and funny or sad film, that the things I want to say politically will come through very strong. If there ever is a struggle, making a good movie will always supersede the need to be noble.

Ok, so you just don't think it's all that hard. Good for you.

TIME: Yet you don’t shy from showing some pretty stark scenes in your movies. Anything you’ve ever decided to cut because it was just too unsettling?
Michael Moore: In Bowling for Columbine, we used the videotape in the cafeteria, but I’m not going to show students being killed. In Fahrenheit 9/11, I felt that the media had shown the images of the planes flying into the towers more than enough, so the screen goes black for over a minute during the attack. So I’m always thinking about this sort of thing.

That doesn't say if there's anything you've ever decided to cut, just what you've blacked out, etc, for theatric effect.

TIME: After taking aim at so many big targets, who do you plan to go after next?
Michael Moore: I don’t know. I’m going to wait and see how people respond to this. After that, I think it’s time for a romantic comedy

I agree. I hope it's as good as this movie.

Moore has some talent with regard to making movies. He's just not good at actually making honest documentaries, that's all, but maybe that's just because he's not very intellectually honest with himself.

Fat Sweedish Kids

2007-04-23T08:27:00.000-07:00

A study on obesity in Sweeden concluded the following:

Stockholm schools that banned sweets, buns and soft drinks saw the number of overweight children drop by six percentage points in four years, a Karolinska Institute study published on Monday showed.

A bit more in this brief regurgitated press release, I mean article, about the study:

The number of overweight or obese six-to-10-year-olds dropped from 22 to 16 percent in the 10 Stockholm schools that participated in the study by banning sweets and introducing healthier lunches, the Swedish research institute said in a statement.
A control group of schools that did not introduce specific food regulations saw the number of overweight or obese children rise from 18 to 21 percent.
The results of the project were to be presented on Monday in Budapest at an international conference on obesity.

So the number of fat kids decreased in the schools in the study. But you, the reader will think, aha, those kids must have slimmed down. But remember that the first paragraph told us that the number dropped after 4 years, considering a group of 6-10 year olds. Basically, this is an almost entirely different group of young people, but the impression is given that this is a matched pairs experiment. These kids don't necessarily have to be from the same families after four years.

One of the chief problems is that participation in the study was voluntary, so schools would consciously decide whether or not kids would be in the low-carb group or the control group. Those who would choose the restriced group would presumably want to be in this group to impress the parents, who would largely (ha! largely) want to be in this group. Likewise, those who want the freedom to drink sodas, etc, may not be as concerned with their health, or at least concerned enough that they would be effected. There would also be, presumably, parents moving into the districts of the other schools, based on their position, if they wanted better regulations.

The last sentence makes sense for parents who don't have the spines to be the ones deciding their kids' lunches instead of their own kids. For most people though, that sentence points out the futility of the regulation argument. Kids can certainly still get sweets, etc at home and elsewhere away from school, and at that age, it's entirely a function of parental controls.

As far as food that is provided by the school, it should absolutely be designed to be healthy, and good too. Kids who buy lunch at school should get something reasonably healthy, and there's not really a good argument for selling soft drinks in elementary schools. But if parents are going to decide what to give their kids, then why mess with that? I can see justification in saying no sodas for the young kids, but banning buns? One has to draw the line at some point.

Stupidity in the face of tragedy

2007-04-17T11:11:00.000-07:00

You knew that it would happen. Right after the brutal massacre at Virginia Tech on Monday, April 16, the guns would take the blame.

There is a time to laugh, though, especially at the argument this genius is makin g.

Ready to admit that it's madness for any psycho to be able to saunter into a gun shop and acquire firepower capable of killing 32 innocents?

You can make a bomb out of household chemicals, and you can make meth from cold medicine. Is it madness to sell ingredients for pipe bombs or cold medicines? Is it madness to sell box cutters, for that matter?

Feel different now that the blood is the blood of so many of your most promising young people?

I think this guy is asking if people are getting caught up in emotions and likely to act on them without making a reasoned debate. Yep, he's trying to guilt his audience and make an emotional appeal. Emotions are nothing to base policy on, ever. Ever. Ever. You don't make rash decisions unless there exists a genuine "ticking time bomb" type scenario. But don't BS around.

later on, I'm not gonna waste my time with the entirity of this idiocy . . .

You seemed to think it was no big deal when an aide to your junior U.S. senator got caught carrying an automatic pistol into the Capitol, you having voted Sen. James Webb into office as an avowed opponent of gun control.

Ok, this is where you lose me. You actually think that Jim Webb won that election because he convinced voters that he was right on the issues? Hell, I bet 95% of people couldn't tell you anything Webb stands for other than opposition to the Iraq war and the word "Macaca." Virginia may have voted in an avowed opponent of gun control, and that would be news to damned near everyone if that's the case, but that wasn't why he was voted in, as you imply. Can you get any dumber?

Never mind that there are so many guns lying around that an escaped jailbird managed to get hold of one and kill a cop and a security guard at the edge of the Virginia Tech campus at the start of the school year.

Now, if you weren't a total retard, you could have at least glanced at Wikipedia to discover what happened here. But wait, you write for the NY Daily News, so you know everything. Wrong, dumbass. Let's go to Wikipedia to figure out how this guy got the gun:

While in jail awaiting trial for attempted armed robbery, Morva was taken to Montgomery Regional Hospital on August 20, 2006 for a sprained ankle and wrist. After using a hospital bathroom, he assaulted and knocked a deputy unconscious using a metal toilet-paper container. He seized the deputy's gun and shot Derrick McFarland, a hospital security guard who was running to the deputy's aid. McFarland died from his wounds.

Well, guess what? He got the gun from a deputy. Maybe we should ban sheriff's deputies from carrying guns too (or should we require that they put the bullets in their shirt pocket?). Maybe there's a serious need for toilet paper container control, since that's how he got the gun.

What do you say now, Virginia?

I say you're a shit-for-brains hack who's too goddamn lazy to even get facts straight. You're going on your damned gun control rant, but you know what, that's just asinine.

I would be happy to actually discuss this issue seriously, next month. At that point it might be possible; Virginia Tech will have finished classes for the semester, life will have approached greater normalcy, and we can all think rationally. But don't ask me to undermine the Constitution because it will make you feel better.

Election Bracket

2007-03-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

Can I be any worse at this than my NCAA bracket which only has 1 final four team? Let's see. I'm going to go ahead and pin down the four most viable candidates for the Republicans and Democrats:

Democrats:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Bill Jobber (lets face it, there are no other democrat candidates who have half a chance).

Round 1

Clinton defeats Edwards, Obama defeats Jobber

This isn't much of a stretch. Edwards couldn't win his home state, and has the repulsive feature of being a sleazy lawyer. Hell, when Katie Couric blasts you for campaigning while your wife has cancer, and you're a Democrat, then you've got nothing; the 9 old people who watch the CBS news will be pissed at you. Obama will not fall to some jobber, because he's eloquent, intriguing (by which I mean nobody knows what the hell he stands for on anything), and not Hillary.

Round 2

Toss up

There is a serious problem here in deciding who the nominee will be. Hillary Clinton seems to be the frontrunner, but electability concerns matter (note the fall of Howard Dean). Hillary Clinton will inspire Republicans to go to vote as much as George Bush did for Democrats, and I can't see but so much excitement for Hillary. Obama is more exciting, presents himself as an easier guy to get behind, and hasn't tried to nationalize the US healthcare system yet. Not much of a bracket, but hey. If you told me to just pick one, though, I'd say Hillary.

Republicans

Overall pool: Mitt Romney, Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and face it, if I can't name 'em, they're not gonna be nominated for President.

Top 4
Rudy Guliani
John McCain
Newt Gingrich
Tom Tancredo

I put in Tancredo because I saw his name somewhere else. While I like Ron Paul, he isn't gonna get it.

Round 1
Guliani beats McCain, Newt beats Tancredo

The fact is that McCain isn't getting the GOP base well. As for leadership against Terrorism, Rudy sounds like a guy to go with. Newt, though, is the smartest guy who could potentially be a candidate, and he has the potential to provide the Republicans with actual intellectual and ideological leadership, which they have not had since, well, since Newt was the Speaker of the House. . . .

Round 2

Tossup again

This isn't much of a prediction, really, I know, but hey, I think it's gonna be Rudy or Newt, and right now it looks more like Rudy since Newt hasn't jumped into the race yet. But Newt can drum up support and actually sound intelligent, not to mention get the base behind him. In a recent interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gingrich talked about some of his personal misdeeds, mostly extramarital affairs. Now against Rudy, this won't be that much of an issue, but even then, Gingrich was clever enough to go ahead and discuss it on his own terms. If Gingrich enters the race, though, I think he wins the nomination.

I will say further that Gingrich and Obama would probably have the best debates out of the possible candidates.

Reading the Bible for School?

2007-03-14T19:53:00.000-07:00

Stephen Prothero, the chairman of Boston University's religion department thinks that public schools should teach Bible literacy.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. How can citizens participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment without knowing something about the Bible? Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim — often incorrectly — that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.

One solution to this civic problem is to teach Bible classes in public schools. By Bible classes I do not mean classes in which teachers tell students that Jesus loves them or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but academic courses that study the Bible's characters and stories as well as the afterlife of the Bible in literature and history. Last week, the Georgia Board of Education gave preliminary approval to two elective Bible courses designed to teach religion rather than preach religion. As long as teachers stick to the curriculum, this is a big step in the right direction.

He concludes with a more concrete proposal:

What makes sense is one Bible course for every public high school student in the U.S. This is not a Christian proposal. It does not serve the political left or the political right. It serves our young people and our public life.

What is perhaps the most striking is that the author of this particular story thinks the only people who would be alarmed about public schools teaching their kids about the Bible are people who are not particularly religious. It is in public schools more than universities that it makes a difference whether or not you agree with a teacher's stance on an issue, because that teacher has some genuine authority over you, including the capability to give you detention or get you suspended. If you were to present the Gordon Tullock line that you have a better chance of dying on your way to the voting booth than for your vote to actually make a difference in a high school civics class, that would not go over so well. Conservatives already have a hard enough time with schools teaching macroevolution and global warming, so if you contradict what they believe about the Bible, they'll certainly not take it lightly.

What would conservative Christians argue about if the Bible was taught in schools? Well, try David's relationship with Jonathan; it's been argued that the two had a homosexual relationship, particularly in light of 2 Samuel 1:25-26. will the curriculum mention that Jonathan's willingness to risk his life for David was what he was referring to, as Jesus said "Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13)? Or for that matter, will it mention the cultural differences in showing affection?

Further, if an entire course is taught on the Bible, that can certainly cover a lot of ground. It's not inconceivable that a student could read the entire Bible during a full-year course. Were the course to mandate that, then it would certainly be difficult to impartially teach the Bible, particularly with such verses as, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16, ESV) among others.

Frankly I don't think this will ever happen (and incidentally, doesn't this just look like a ploy to find jobs for religion majors?). I would favor it only for one reason: because it's so divisive and personal an issue, it will likely make an excellent conversation starter for parents to take interest in what their kids are learning, and that is one of the most important keys to success for kids who aren't already motivated enough. For the most part, though, I'm pretty sure it won't happen, and I'm not disapointed at all by that.

NY Times: ManBearPig isn't real

2007-03-13T23:01:00.000-07:00

The Times did not deny that global warming exists, far from it (but were that the case you'd just have to get a little bit suspicious). What they did say, though, was that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was not entirely, well, true.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

How weak is the science of global warming?

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

That last sentence basically said that forecasters predicted 9 out of the last 5 hurricanes. That's the standard joke about economists - they've predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions. Heck, if this stuff isn't better than macroeconomic theory, then screw it.

On that Most Fascinating of Topics

2007-03-12T15:15:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama. And Tort Reform.

So apparently now Al Sharpton has decided he's not going to endorse Obama that easily. This story reveals a little more about an issue Obama supports, tort reform. Sharpton thinks that victims of police brutality need to be able to sue the police department, and this limits their ability to do that.

On the subject of tort reform, it just strikes me that the benefits of such practices is that lawyers will not have nearly the incentive to attract clients, from ambulance-chasing to charing nothing except for a portion of winnings in court (that is to say, if they lose, all their work was for free). Now of course, if a lawyer cannot get $10,000,000 in tort damages that way, their expected payout surely decreases. This will reduce the number of some of the more frivolous lawsuits; even the ones that fail are costly to businesses because their lawyers do not work for free, and of course, business costs are part of what is covered by consumers in the price of goods and services. Consumers are a demographic of all people, sexes, races, and creeds (well, maybe not the Amish, but you get the idea), after all.

***

The most bizarre part of the story came right at the end.

Does Sharpton's endorsement matter? CBS 2 polled some New Yorkers and the
results were mixed, but the majority appeared to lean toward the side that
believes Sharpton's endorsement will make a difference.

The very premise of such a question seems absurd. It probably went something like this:
"Will Sharpton's influence matter?"
"Well, not for me, but I can see that it might matter, sure."
I wouldn't be surprised if the above exchange happened with a lot of white people polled. The point is that you don't conduct opinion polls by asking people what they think other people think, if you want anything useful anyway; what you ask is what they think and then you get a representative sample and judge from that. Therefore, the question should have been, Do you care what Al Sharpton thinks?

HA!

2007-03-08T10:20:00.000-08:00

Don Boudreaux makes a great point, which I think a lot of people were probably thinking.

Connecticut to Ban Internet

2007-03-07T11:26:00.000-08:00

Lawmakers in the state of Connecticut seeing child predators as having too many options feel the answer is to keep kids off the internet. From the AP

Under the proposal, any networking site that fails to verify ages and obtain parental permission of users under 18 would face civil fines up to $5,000 per violation. Sites would have to check information about parents to make sure it is legitimate. Parents would be contacted directly when necessary.

...

The bill, which is scheduled for a public hearing on Thursday, would apply to any organized online networking organization, including chat rooms.

Note from this first that the incidence seems to fall on MySpace, AIM, etc under this provision. So for every user on MySpace under 18 in Connecticut, it will cost MySpace $5000.

The problem with this law is of course enforcement. Lawmakers see no reason why it can't be done. Note the irrefutable logic explained here:

"The technology is available. The solution is financially feasible, practically doable," he said. "If we can put a man on the moon, we can check ages of people on these Web sites."

Don't you get it? Putting a man on the moon is hard, so that means that nothing is impossible if you think about it!

That the technology is available does not mean a whole lot. The law, to be truly enforce, would require spy technology not just on the computer screen, but also in the child's home. This act would require lawmakers to say private companies have a duty to be Big Brother. The child could easily lie and claim to be older than he or she actually is, then change profile information after signing up for an account, or even keep erroneous information there, or just not display a lot of that info.

But to prove parental permission is absurd. The concept of calling the house is one idea, but to do that for thousands of kids would require some sort of telemarketing service, the type of thing that would never leave a message on an answering machine. Further, they have no way of knowing whether or not the parents are speaking on the phone; I can't tell you how many times I've answered the phone and been mistaken for my father, especially by those who don't know either.

As the law currently exists, pornography is illegal for minors to view, but as it is set up, all that can be done about it is to put up a front page that says do not enter if under 18. (Porn sites also do not face $5000 fines, nor is there any mounting pressure towards such action; MySpace has the unfortunate position of being owned by NewsCorp, which is not the most politically viable organization in the state of Connecticut, if you can believe it.) Nonetheless, minors can still manage to view quite a bit of pornography on the internet, partly by lying. A lot of stuff can be blocked by only allowing members to access it, and this would generally involve credit cards, but not all.

Now what if MySpace decides they're going to charge new members to join? Well, since ex post facto laws are unconstitutional (although that hasn't stopped Superfund, but that's another story entirely), this would apply only to new accounts. When this new law goes into effect, MySpace will start charging members a signup fee, figuring that if everyone pays, since not everyone will be an unauthorized underage user, then that can cover their losses to this new law, or at least offset them to some degree. This means that Connecticut has the potential for a law that will have to be paid for by all new MySpace users across the US, sadly making its passage seem more likely. What would happen, of course, is that MySpace would have to set a date for when to start charging people, and the day before, everyone would sign up to skirt not only the $20 joining fee but also the new law, rendering this new law nearly useless.

Hopefully there will be a point before Connecticut (and the rest of the US for that matter) bans the internet statewide when parents learn how to be parents by

Not giving their children unrestricted internet access
Teaching their children the dangers of online predators
Learning the actual risks involved with such sites as MySpace
Telling their kids not to meet strangers they meet on MySpace, especially not alone.

But until then, who knows.

Years beyond his wisdom

2007-02-26T08:45:00.000-08:00

Every so often, there will be a news report that says something like, "Really old dude still alive!" Well, it should, because that's generally all there is in the story. Yahoo! reports (link via Drudge) that Chan Chi has been living for 107 years, and the kicker is that he's been abstinent from sex since his wife died decades ago. Here's the usual boring stuff:

Chan, from Hong Kong's less built-up New Territories hinterland, was pictured looking sprightly and eating heartily at the banquet [for the city's elders].

A former chef, he said a low-fat diet and regular dawn exercises had helped him fight off the ravages of old age.

Ok, goodie for you. Nothing surprising there at all. But then there's this part:

But the centenarian, who's had no difficulty living a monastic existence for nearly 80 years, admits the pleasures of tobacco have been harder to resist.

"Now I want to quit," he was quoted as saying of his decades-long cigarette addiction. "Maybe the government should ban cigarette sales so I can give it up," he added.

Are you kidding me? First of all, I'm having a hard enough time believing a guy who can live to 107 should give up anything that he's doing. Secondly, the only way this guy thinks he can stop is to have the government ban cigarette sales? People have quit without the government banning cigarettes. He could try some program, support group, the patch, the gum, or even jelly beans.

Political Compass - You should go here

2007-02-24T22:18:00.000-08:00

Political Compass is brilliant, and it's probably the best way to describe someone's politics. This is me right here. I've taken it a few times, and I'm pretty steadily in about the same area.

The way it works is that it just trashes the left/right model used in American politics, because it's actually quite useless. Adding labels means less and less, so it uses words with absolute meaning to describe your political inclinations. What it does is put economic beliefs on the left/right axis and then other issues of state control on the up/down axis, so that way you can understand, for example, the Libertarian party.

Frankly, I think the best model would account for military and foreign relations to be on a separate axis, maybe a willingness to use military force axis. You might be an economic libertarian who's a social libertarian as well, but you feel the military needs power to do what's necessary internationally, or whatever.

But anyway, it's on the sidebar, and if any of the two people that read this blog want to comment, leave your coordinates.

What's the difference between a janitor and a maid?

2007-02-18T20:27:00.000-08:00

Let's say you wanted to hire someone to clean your house, so you decide that you're going to hire a maid (used to mean young girl, and there's all the tradition of women cleaning and that sort of thing associated with it too). If this is someone who's independent, she'll probably go for about $20/hr.

What if you have a firm and you need to hire someone to clean your office building, probably about 10 people. You could hire 10 maids (each at $20/hr), and they'd be independent contractors. Or on the other hand, you could purchase some captial stock, like cleaning fluids, vacuum cleaners, those floor buffer things that aren't quite zambonis, squeegies, power washers, etc which will last for a good while and then hire people who can clean stuff using your stuff. This will cost you about $12/hr for these workers, and that's a bit on the high end, like if they're unionized. Naturally, you'd rather go with these, and they'd be called janitors, which is from the Latin for doorkeeper.

What these two have in common is that they both are involved in hygenic maitenence; you might call them cleaning people. This entire post, I'm poking fun at Russell Roberts, because for being politically correct and calling maids "cleaning people," he confused someone who thought he meant janitors, and got labeled "Hack of the Day." Too bad, but remember this lesson: political correctness isn't free.

But don't get me wrong, I like Russ. In fact, you should all go buy this book if you haven't already read it. Don't ask to borrow my copy; it's upside down.

Valentine's Day

2007-02-12T09:55:00.000-08:00

It's about getting to be that time again when I go on my annual rant about what's wrong with Valentine's Day. To kick it off, this rather amusing article from Drudge. The Telegraph reports:

Latest Government figures show that the flowers that make up the average bunch have flown 33,800 miles to reach Britain.
In the past three years, the amount of flowers imported from the Netherlands has fallen by 47 per cent to 94,000 tons, while those from Africa have risen 39 per cent to 17,000 tons.
Environmentalists warned that "flower miles" could have serious implications on climate change in terms of carbon dioxide emissions from aeroplanes.

Now, the climate change argument from this is pathetic; even if global warming actually was going on (and the evidence tends to suggest otherwise), the idea that a few extra flights are going to make that big a difference is rather preposterous. But they do raise an excellent point that there is far too much inefficiency involved in this holiday.

It has long been my opinion that Valentine's Day is part of a greenhouse conspiracy. My parents do some gardening, and flowers do not bloom in February. We have a few rose plants, even, and they bloom in May. The only way that you can get flowers in the wintertime is for someone else to grow them, either in a greenhouse or in a country with a better climate. So it follows logically that there has to be some transport, which imposes negative externalities such as pollution, trafic congestion, etc.

When it comes down to it, though, people continue to buy flowers and candy on Valentine's day mainly because they don't know what else to buy. That's the safe bet, after all - and they jack up the prices enough that you can buy them on Valentine's Day. But if you put some thought into it, you can give something that was genuinely wanted, perhaps even a durable good (throw in some bit about how like your love and unlike roses, your gift will still be around in four days). Picking up on more sentiental gifts, perhaps those which evoke a certian memory (like a DVD of one of the first movies you two saw together) can help, because not only are they thoughtful, but also a lot more interesting to look at. Especially if you notice that your special someone isn't efficient with throwing out old flowers; there's nothing more depressing than staring at dead roses for two weeks. All that is needed is a gift that provides greater utility than flowers and chocolates, and then communicating that you would rather make this person happy by actively deciding what to give.

Obama, meet Schwartz

2007-02-10T21:34:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama, a man whom Joe Biden described as "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," is running for President, officially. Here's one thing that I frankly found amusing.

"We can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America," Obama said. His voice rose to a shout as he spoke over the cheers from thousands who braved temperatures in the teens.

Obama evokes the image of Lincoln, but how much does he wish this metaphor to extend? Lincoln, in all honesty was not a President beloved in his time, and did little to genuinely unite. His rhetoric, though, is very well preserved, and that is what is recalled by political figures of either party, really. Kind of a classic example of this, perhaps?

HPV Vaccine

2007-02-02T19:23:00.000-08:00

Merck & Co. have a drug on the market that has the potential to be a hot-button political item. The Governor of Texas decided to bypass politics, as ABC Reports:

Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order
Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated
against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The article reports that beginning in September 2008, Texas girls aged 11 and 12 will be required to get the vaccine, and further, the government would provide the vaccine to those who don't have health insurance and can't afford it. Many conservative groups are wary of the drug, feeling it will lead to greater sexual promiscuity.

There is another bit of interest burried further within this article. Specifically, the bit of interest relates to the governor's interests:

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The whole case here is quite interesting. For one thing, it interests me as a Merck shareholder. This does raise questions, though. I cannot help but think that the governor grossly overstepped his bounds to legislate a mandate on the population at large while bypassing the legislature. Why bother to have a legislature for that matter? One also cannot help but wonder whether this tells us something about the governorship of Texas as a means of ascent to the White House.

Reactions

But really, this is a bit tyrranical. The governor has dictated a law of himself which could have consequences. Interestingly, there are not only religious but also philosophical objections which are allowed for refusing vaccination in Texas, but nonetheless, it is incredibly alarming to see that the governor could make such a decision on his own. With the legislature, at least, the process ensures that the bill would be debated and discussed among state representatives, and those who objected could have made sure of such a thing. If it's that important, then couldn't parents get their kids this vaccine on their own? Or do people not get vaccines unless they are required to by law?

As for the bit regarding the moral implications, those are a bit ridiculous. For one thing, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are much more well-known in contemporary society than cervical cancer in the first place; how many people knew that this is largely caused by a sexually transmitted virus. The drug is not a birth control drug either. Further, there are plenty of other arguments that can be made regarding safe sex and abstinence, etc, that go beyond this, such as personal morality, emotional health, and the law of diminishing marginal returns.

Back to this particular case, I also find it particularly alarming that Merck is engaging in bribery as a way to do business. A politician can take a bribe - here, a campaign contribution - and be bought. But it's hard to judge Merck, though, as it is in a way getting revenge on the government. The Food and Drug Administration requires testing of all new drugs that come onto the market, requiring proof that they are "safe and effective." These testing requirements go beyond what is necessary to determine whether or not the drug is a good one, and all they give the drug maker is the right to make the drug. The FDA can screw up and approve dangerous drugs, but instead of the FDA, it is then the drug company which must pay the piper. The FDA requires extensive testing and then does not back it up at all.

So Merck just needs to make some money. So all they figure they have to do is to get the state to require it, and perhaps even pay for it. This helps to make the drugs in question far more profitable, which is after all the sole social responsibility of any corporation. This helps to offset the costs endured in the FDA testing stage, which cost not only money but also a lot of time.

The drug is a good drug, and lobbying by Merck is exactly what one should expect, as it is a very effective way to offset the research costs. I wouldn't want to limit Merck's ability to lobby, etc, without also limiting the power the FDA holds over drug companies, and I wouldn't count on either happening anytime soon. What I don't get is why Merck actually closed down a little on Friday.

Additionally

1) Here's some reading with tons of info on HPV. The Center for Disease Control has a lot of this type of information. One thing I saw:

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered
or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While
the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has
been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

Condom use can help, but it is very interesting to note that areas not covered by a condom could be so affected by the disease.

2) Here's a bit on required vaccinations. Vaccines for children are generally required, particularly for highly contagious diseases. Some vaccines, like flu shots, and other treatments for adults, are optional.

First Post

2007-01-31T17:38:00.000-08:00

Ok, So now that makes three. I've transformed stuff, so now all there is to do is to edit the old blog to change the links around and focus on what I need to there.

This blog will focus primarily on political and economic stuff. Just for that disclaimer thingie, I'm a free-market economist with conservative/libertarian political views. You've been warned.