Brooks Casts His Vote

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html I agree with his conclusion and most of the reasoning behind it. But, I wonder that he is so reluctant to vote no. The fundamental problem is cost control, and he explains why this bill is likely to do nothing at best on this issue, and may make it worse. The uninsured are a secondary problem because the vast majority (probably about 80%) fall into one of several categories who do not deserve handouts: illegal immigrants, the voluntarily uninsured, the voluntarily poor, and those who would like insurance but who, by placing other discretionary priorities above it, have too little money remaining to pay for it.

Another Emissions Problem

This is another harmful effect of carbon dioxide emissions and it is not controversial. The only question is how quickly it will destroy the oceanic food chains. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/cbd-20091216.html

The Climate Summit

This "deal" is a disappointment and a major failure if there happen to be future generations of humans. I attribute this mainly to the current economic problems: no one wants to pay more than a nominal price to solve this right now.

 

As to the Chinese, they have good reasons to play hardball on this. They are relatively poor still, and have done relatively little to contribute to the underlying problem, even though they are now the largest annual contributors to it. On the other hand, in 2010 they will snatch from us our lead in wind power generation, currently the most viable alternative energy. Also, they are making a huge effort to become the world leader in solar energy. Thus, for reasons of pride and economic competitiveness, they are engaging on the climate change issue on their own terms just as we are. They despise international coercion about as much as we do since they consider themselves the other superpower.

Limits of Climate Science

The problems presented by climate modelling are very serious and are known to be very serious. It is mathematically impossible (and always will be) to create precise climate models because there are too many unknown and estimated variables involved in the equations (it is called a chaotic or nonlinear system). Only probabalistic estimates are possible. Note that this is why anyone who professes certainty about the future of the climate is a liar or hopelessly ignorant about the issue, regardless of which side he is on--these mathematical issues are not points of contention, they are an obvious fait accompli. Some question how accurate these probabilities are and this is a legitimate (perhaps the most legitimate) line of skepticism. Most climatologists believe the probabilities incline toward the theory that certain gases warm the atmosphere and they primarily focus on trying to calculate how much warming is likely to result, not whether warming will result. The balance of evidence I have seen leads me to agree with these scientists.

Capitalistic Climate Change Mitigation

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228779/new-socialism/charles-krauthammer

There is no necessary connection between reducing GHG emissions and increasing socialism. In principle, a low carbon economy can be just as capitalistic as a high carbon economy. The difficulty presented arises from the fact that the republicans have ceded leadership on environmental issues to the democrats, who are inclined to adopt socialist solutions to every issue they encounter. The cap-and-trade program created by Bush the First to limit sulfur emissions from coal plants was an efficient, free market solution to an environmental problem. A cap and trade system for carbon and methane emissions could be designed in a similar way--but it will not be unless republicans get involved and exert some influence. At this point, climate change mitigation appears to be ultimately unavoidable in this country. Instead of abstaining from the process and playing at populist denialism, republicans would be well-advised to make efforts to de-socialize the legislation so far as possible.

More on the Climate Change Email Issue

Some of the emails posted as evidence of horrendous immorality are merely casual banter between close colleagues. Others betray the possibility of unethical activities and intentions. Much of what seems offensive to readers results from the fact that people do not understand the way science works. It is a competitive enterprise. It always has been. In the heat of competition some competitors exercise poor judgement to gain an advantage over their adversaries. The presumed ethical lapses here displayed represent an excessive zeal whose momentum apparently carried several individuals outside the boundaries of the game.

 

What concerns me more is the scientists and (more often) politicians who stand before the public and tell outright lies. The habitual liers seem more frequently to fall in the "denialist" camp, though both sides are prey to this temptation. Both sides are tempted to dogmatize on an issue which is too complicated by far to be susceptible to the simplifications and stupidities inherent in any dogmatic stance. Both dogmas being necessarily false, their prophets speak falsehoods. To assume either the certainty that global warming is occurring or the certainty that it is not--is to be an absolute fool and an ass. But, this is what dogmatic tendencies lead to.

 

But how does dogma arise? I believe it proceeds along two parallel paths. First, scientists must construct interpretive analyses based on the data they collect. Otherwise the data would be random and meaningless. This the beginning of scientific dogmas or theories, and the scientists in the field then attempt to use new data to continuously improve the theory. If some scientists do not think the first established theory is the best fit for the raw data, they may formulate another theory in opposition to it. From this point, the scientific process becomes explicity competitive between the adherents of the two theories. Competition can lead to such excesses as the emails seem to reveal. But, on the whole, competition is as salutary to the progress of science as it is to economic progress: it is a motivator that uses selfish priorities of vanity and ambition to promote social benefits.

 

The second parallel path of dogma follows upon the advent of competition between scientific theories and essentially amounts to a vulgarization of those theories for popular consumption and to political ends. The adulteration and distortion of the science in the course of this secondary process often becomes so extreme, as in this case, as to lead to results completely at variance with the underlying science. Result: the public is either misled or confused, and the competition between the two dogmas becomes indistinguishable from a propaganda campaign.

Only intelligent people, who invest some time in learning about this issue and who are willing to take the threat seriously, are even capable of arriving at a minimal understanding of the its nature and implications. Popularization of such an issue is impossible in any meaningful sense. Most people are not fit for it because they are too stupid, too lazy, and too malignant.  

How to One-Up Bush

Obama has apparently approved drone strikes in Baluchistan, which is part of Pakistan proper and which has not been hit previously. It looks like Obama wants to demonstrate that he has bigger balls than Bush. This move will widen the war and presents the clear risk of creating more enemies in Pakistan and destabilizing that nation. But, if you really intend to win in Afghanistan, this is a necessary gamble. Bush never took it. He was content to park a division over there and claim the situation was improving (which it wasn't). I give credit to Obama for decisive action and follow-through--if you are going to fight a war, do not fight it half-assed. It remains to be seen whether still more troops will be needed--if they are, Obama will have to send them to avoid falling into the half-assed trap. I said this with Bush's Iraq war for years, and he finally authorized a decisive surge that led to military (though not political) success. The same was true in Vietnam. We did not do and were not at any time willing to do what was necessary to win--therefore we should not have gone in or, at the very least, once we determined that the requirements of victory exceeded our appetite for risk, we should have pulled out expeditiously. Now, despite all this commendation, I retain serious misgivings about our likelihood of success in Afghanistan. The great obstacle to our goals is the prevalence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and the near impossibility of eradicating them from the border regions. Thus far, Obama is pressing forward with the strategy he has chosen without any weakening qualifications of consequence. Unfortunately, I think he chose the wrong gamble--we should get out of there and try to finance the best political groups that remain behind and press hard on Pakistan to use its influence to prevent a Taliban reconquering. Here's a discussion: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/al-qaeda-in-the-crosshairs/?hp

A Techno Renaissance

These guys came from no place in the world of commercial technology to this: "Israel has the highest density of tech start-ups in the world. More importantly, these start-ups attract more venture capital dollars per person than any country — 2.5 times the U.S., 30 times Europe, 80 times India, and 300 times China. Israel has more companies on the tech-oriented NASDAQ than any country outside the U.S., more than all of Europe, Japan, Korea, India, and China combined. But it’s not just about start-ups. Scratch almost any major tech company — Intel, Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Motorola, and so on — and you will find that Israeli talent and technology play a major role in keeping these multinational companies on the cutting edge." Rest of the interview: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/how-did-israel-become-start-up-nation/ The last bit, where he talks about the spark provided by immigrants, goes a little too far in its recommendations; he fails to differentiate between the cultures of the source countries. European Jews, the Ashkenazi, are a special breed and have repeatedly demonstrated that, given a competitive and properly financed environment (eg, prewar Germany or postwar America), they succeed in a variety of intellectually competitive fields of endeavour at extraordinary levels.  Silicon Valley has a heavy immigrant footprint throughout the hierarchy of power, but these immigrants tend to originate in just a few source countries: India, China, Russia, and a few others. What you do not see in Silicon Valley is even a modest number of Latins or blacks--and the former constitute, by far, our largest source of immigrants. In this matter, too, differentiation and discrimination must be understood and employed.

Climate Change Politicking

Contrary to hardcore denialist claims China announced emissions targets the day after Obama announced that he would target reductions for the U.S. India followed shortly thereafter. As I have said for years, America must lead on this issue if it is to happen. The rest of the world is either weak or evil. This is not a socialist conspiracy: it can be accomplished through market mechanisms--that is the only way anyone in the world has proposed to handle it. An increase in regulations, however, is likely to be inescapable.

 

I have read hundreds of articles on the climate change issue, and it has long been obvious to me that the overwhelming balance of intelligence is on the side of those who support emissions controls. This may be considered significant of something. It usually is.

A Criminal Enterprise

The fact that two thirds of the Catholic bishops in Ireland were involved in the cover-up of paedophilia ought to suffice for the Catholic church in Ireland to be deemed a criminal organization--and outlawed. The Catholic church, already in terminal decline throughout most of Europe, can hardly afford to have its truths revealed. But, even after this process is complete and Christianity in Europe finally rendered extinct (since Protestantism is in similar decline), what will become of the moral life of these peoples remains a mystery for intellectuals and artists to guess at. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/the-tragedy-of-irish-catholicism/

Neutered

 http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm

These are the qualifying scores for various tests to join MENSA, the "high IQ" society. Notice how the current versions of the SAT, ACT, and GRE are no longer considered representative of intelligence. This is because the socialists watered them down into feel-good tests. Result: admittance into college and grad school no longer takes intelligence directly into account. The calculation by the socialists is that if you don't measure intelligence, you shouldn't have to apply affirmative action preferences to stupid minorities since the stupid will be almost indistinguishable from the intelligent. Thus we arrive at the point the socialists have been pursuing all along: promotion by political connections and considerations instead of by merit.

If you look at the bottom of the page, the military has also dropped IQ measurement from its aptitude tests.

Stripping IQ measurements from society reduces economic efficiency by failing to sort people into different professions according to their abilities. Of course, it also deprives individuals of this form of self-knowledge, which may lead them to pursuits above or beneath their natural aptitudes; in other words, it impedes their paths to realizing their full potentials. But, it's like every other form of political correctness. It's a lie. This time the lie is in the form of concealing the truth. Lies lead to more lies, and to inefficiency, and to the corruption of societal morals.

I wonder how many people are even aware of this development or have any sense of its implications. I suspect few professional educators know of it. Consider: our prime geopolitical, economic, and military competitor, China, is heading in the opposite direction, raising standards in its educational system, requiring the demonstration of both effort and intelligence for admission into its professional programs. The U.S. is decadent, eaten away from inside by weakness of will evidenced in endless give-aways that encourage dependence, weakness, stupidity, irresponsibility--led by the socialists, but passively tolerated by the capitalists and the independents.

Our only hope geopolitically is that China will follow Japan and implode. This appears unlikely. China possesses a more primitive psychology which manifests in shameless, unthinking nationalism. It also remembers past imperial power and desperately seeks the high respect that imperial power once commanded. Nor is it a dependent nation, as Japan has been for two generations. Also, it believes it has won its last five wars (against Japan, the Kuomintang, the U.S./"U.N."/S. Korea, India, Vietnam).

Confrontation merely enkindles its self-confidence. The Chinese are engaged in a highly disciplined attempt to raise their nation to the first position--not just in the region (already achieved), but in the world. And they seem to understand that strength of will is as important as any other factor in the competition among nations. This is the decisive difference between the U.S. and the pretender to the throne: strength of will. Here the will is directed at the "end of suffering", physical, psychological, spiritual. In China, for its leaders at least, it is the will to power that trumps all other priorities. But, power can only be achieved through struggle, and struggle means pain. And it can only be sustained through struggle, and struggle means pain. "Therefore," say the socialists, "all struggle must be abolished, and all competition too." Nor would Mr. Hu object if America were to lose its place by forfeit. 

Climate Scientists' Email Scandal

There may well be some ethical lapses on display in these communications, but most (of the random few I read) appear to be demonstrations of the way science works, especially in the case of a rapidly developing field with high stakes politically. Scientists become political and combative when there are major points of contention in their field. This is normal. Kuhn’s “The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions” lays this out in several examples. Why does this process nevertheless result in scientific progress? Probably because there are different scientific camps, each with their own biases, in competition with each other. As more knowledge accumulates, the camps shift in relative power, and, most importantly, as someone said, the older generation eventually dies off and the newer generation can fashion ideological commitments more in tune with current data. The question here, and the risk, is whether the unusual interest in climate change from the non-scientific world will corrupt this process by exerting excessive political and financial pressures.

The Welfare Graph

Why the poor work so little: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/11/is_there_a_poverty_trap.cfm From a graph like that you might think that there aren't any poor people in this country. In any case, it would appear that the welfare machine does not allow too many families with children to slip into poverty--and not a single senior. For poor women, a child produces a shower of government largesse for herself plus free food, education, medical care, etc for her child. Result: no sense of individual responsibility and rampant single motherhood. But, the socialists presume that the world was an intolerably cruel place before all these corrupting handouts were instituted.  It was not. People adapt to their circumstances. They had other buffers to guard against misfortune and deprivation: responsibility, foresight, fortitude, reasonable expectations, religion, family, private charity. All of these natural buffers, cultivated and strengthened and refined by our civilization for centuries, have been badly undermined by the massive socialist-bureaucratic leveling machine. The only real comfort at this point is that the text of our Constitution has been so little altered in the course of the revolution wrought by FDR. But, still, isn't it strange that the government should have suffered such gross alterations as to be rendered unrecognizable--without changing the Constitution? The letter remains, but the spirit is gone.

Big Government

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/02/tony_tether_has_1/

We need more agencies like DARPA and ARPA-E. They give quality people a long leash, think long-term, and understand the concept of risk-reward. Result: breakthroughs and high return on capital.

 

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Tony Tether (TT), DARPA head, from the article above:



TT: There’s one that’s really over the horizon, the fact that it goes back to the testing part, too. There’s always been this notion of the "golden hour." If you can get somebody to good medical care, where they can be given blood and all of that stuff within an hour, the survival is greatly enhanced. Well, when you have these small units out there, and especially in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s really six hours before someone can be evacuated. So a person with great blood loss, which is what happens in wars, will die.

We had a guy with an idea. He said, why is it that people die with
60% of their blood gone? Is there any reason for that? What happens, what is going on? So we started an effort. We went out in our normal way and challenged the community. Look, here’s the problem: Is there any way we can keep a person alive with 60% blood loss for six hours as opposed to an hour? And we have found two amazing techniques.

NS: Tell me about them.

TT: These are techniques that could be given by a medical on the spot. One is giving somebody a shot of estrogen. I know that’s sort of strange, isn’t it? And it’s the typical Darpa fashion. Somebody said, "You know, women in general survive blood loss better than men."
And what is one of the chemical differences between a male and a female?  Estrogen. Think about what had to happen in order for us to have survived for all this time and evolve. Childbirth is a very bloody process.  If a woman had a baby 5,000 years ago, and if she couldn’t handle that blood loss and take that baby and go to a safe spot and all the rest of it, we would have gone away. And if you look at what happens with a woman at childbirth, she gets a big shot of estrogen from her own body. So we tried it. By the way, the one difference between Darpa and the National Institutes of Health, for example, is that Darpa will take a bet on an idea to go get the data to see if the idea is worthwhile, whereas at the NIH you typically need to have the data before they give you the effort to get the data. I’m sure you’ve heard those stories.

NS: Yeah.

TT: So we went out and gave this fellow a contract. And, by
God, with a shot of estrogen — the control group is made of rats, mind you –

NS: Yeah, I’m assuming.

TT: The IRB on rats is a little bit easier. [laughs] First we bled all of them 60 percent. The rats that didn’t have the estrogen all died within three hours. Of those that were given a shot of estrogen â??
which, by the way, is very safe â?? right after 60 percent blood loss, 75
percent of them were living after six hours. Now that is not as good as the next technique. One fellow had another idea. When you have severe blood loss, your cells pass electrons. And when you have full blood, this electron passage is somewhat tampered. The doctors will call these the ions. You will take vitamins to try to get rid of –

NS: Yeah, free radicals.

TT: Yeah, get rid of these free radicals. Well, these electrons cause these free radicals. But when you get 60 percent blood loss, these electron passages still go up. And, he said, you know, it’s probably the electrons that are causing the people to die because they are really destroying tissue, and there’s nothing there to stop them, because you’ve got only 40 percent of the blood you had. He found that if you gave a small amount of hydrogen sulfide — this is a poison –??

NS: Oh, right, this is [Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center biochemist] Mark Roth, right?

TT: Yeah. If you give a small amount of hydrogen sulfide, it inhibits the electron generation. So his rats, OK, you bleed them 60
percent. The control group all dead within three hours. The group that you just give a little bit of hydrogen sulfide to, after 10 hours, 90
percent of them are still living. And, by the way, in both of these cases, to resuscitate them you just give them water. I mean you don’t have to even give them blood. You just give them water.

NS: It’s amazing. And also they’re not hibernating — I mean these aren’t hibernators.

TT: They’re not, no.

NS: It is really amazing.

TT: Yes, it is amazing. That’s a typical Darpa type of thing.

 

Illiberal Indoctrination

A blog post from halfsigma below. Between the "indoctrination advantage" possessed by leftists and the continued influx of Mexicans, it's hard to see how the Republican party, as currently constituted, can sustain its competitive position. Recovering power in at least some of the institutions mentioned ought to be one of the highest priorities for conservatives. Also, the recession ought to be used to blacken the perception of illegal immigration and thereby reduce Mexican immigration to the reasonable levels permitted by law. And there is no reason why conservatives cannot capture a significant number of religious Hispanic voters, if they formulate a real strategy to do so.

Permalink

Proofs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtJJaudlxVM&feature=related

A new trailer which proves that not only is LOTR a chick flick--but Led Zeppelin is soft rock.

A rather beautiful instrumental reinterpretation of one of my favorites.

Reality Dares to Poke Up Its Head

One of the 2 or 3 premier scientific journals in the world published an audacious editorial discussed on Steve Sailer's blog:

 http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/lahn-lets-celebrate-human-genetic.html

Note the label at the article's end. This ought to throw the commy-pinko-fags into a fine fit.

Solar's Future

It seems that Washington state (otherwise known as the cloudiest state) has decided to subsidize some large solar installations within its borders. Unfortunately, because solar power initiatives are still the province of state government subsidies, the efficiencies that could be gleaned from the operation of competitive advantages among the states are being wasted. If there were federal subsidies instead, Washington state would not be building solar power installations at current prices: it would focus on its strengths, hydro and wind. The solar power build-out would commence in the most cost-effective locations first (the Southwest), and then gradually radiate out across the country as solar prices fell. If prices stopped falling before the nation was thus blanketed, the electical grid could be expanded utilizing DC current to provide low loss, long distance transmission from cheap producers of renewable energy of all kinds to areas that cannot produce such energy cheaply.

 

Another interesting fact is that PV solar has consistently fallen in price by about 5% per year since it was invented in the 50s. At this rate, in SoCal, with low cost financing (like an unsubsidized home equity loan) and without subsidies, PV solar should become market competitive around 2020.

 

An article on solar's future from an economic perspective (second article on the page): http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html

The key is the third graph.

Liberal Fascism

A word about a recent book titled Liberal Fascism (which I do not recommend actually reading--I agree with its basic argument, but its quality is sub-par). The book's thesis is that "progressives" have sought since Wilson to create soft fascism in this country, otherwise known as the nanny state. This consists in the government gradually depriving the people of their liberties in return for (politically selective) welfare cushioning, (mandatory) regulatory guidance, and the general relief of the populace from the terrible burden of personal responsibility. And this leads to the end of capitalist meritocracy as the ruling principle of socioeconomic selection. The unmitigated triumph of political manouevring takes its place.  Of course, those who do not benefit from meritocratic competition tend instinctively to support this fascistic program--and many who sympathize with the uncompetitive underclass emotionally support the program without rational consideration of its effects--only thinking through the lens of their emotionalized vision of its effects. Is it surprising that blacks have become the "moral core" of the Democratic party?

Faster

http://www.physorg.com/news174031552.html The cost of getting into space remains the largest obstacle. This helps with that problem by reducing fuel and supplies for interplanetary journeys.   The second largest obstacle is survival time in space given the excessive radiation exposure. Again speed helps here.

This falls short of a "paradigm shift," but rates as perhaps more than incremental.

Criminal Psychology

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04kimmelman.html?ref=weekinreview The competition in Europe today is to determine which nation is the most passive/submissive. The Muslims think this fits well with their competition to determine who is the most dominant.

How Deep is the Deep End

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/09/dual-discipline-systems-in-tucson.html This is pretty impressive, I didn't know you could go that deep. Maybe this concept should be tried with our criminal justice system: not to the victims of crime or the taxpayers who fund the system, but, more importantly, to the misunderstood criminals themselves. Second degree murder? 4-6 years for blacks, 10-15 for whites--until whites succeed in achieving a ten-fold increase in their convictions for murder to match the rate of blacks convicted of murder. In all spheres, be it remembered, the burden is upon the white race to match black achievement, not the other way round--that would be racist.

Packer's Take

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2009/09/reading-the-mcchrystal-report.html This is a good summary and analysis of the McChrystal report and its implications. As with Iran, and Iraq, and Pakistan, in Afghanistan too the President has no good options. He cannot be seen to retreat in face of terrorism. But, if he commits to victory he faces grave costs on many levels and the distinct possibility of failure to achieve victory by 2012. A contradiction in our first premise (ie, that our withdrawal means victory for the Taliban and a consequent increase in the terrorist threat): the Taliban already have a sanctuary in the North-West Provinces of Pakistan--what does it matter if their sanctuary is enlarged to include Afghanistan, or the Pashtun part of Afghanistan?

An Old Favorite Back on His Hobbyhorse

It appears barney frank is actually trying to expand the CRA--I guess he thinks the cure for poisoning is to administer more poison. This guy is one of the lowest, most shameless scumbags in Congress. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dems-push-expanded-Community-Reinvestment-Act-dismiss-evidence-that-CRA-contributed-to-financial-meltdown-Republicans-cite-ACORN-connection-59501737.html   And here's an analysis of Congressional failure to do due diligence on CRA efficacy: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/09/cra-does-anybody-really-want-to-know.html   The handling of the CRA by both parties sounds conspiratorial to me, the lack of any transparency or analysis seems deliberate. Perhaps the idea is to throw trillions of dollars at the poor, especially poor minorities, in order to soften them and civilize them and thereby give them an incentive to stay out of prison. But, is it even working? Is it worth the cost? How can we tell without some analysis?

Fight or Flight

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228250/spreading-wealth/stephen-spruiell
The key line here is "This is welfare for the middle class." That is Obama's goal. Once the middle class is sufficiently swaddled in a comfortable little welfare blanket, the road to socialism is cleared and paved--and the American tradition is fled.

The Tradition of Improving the Truth

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228267/does-he-lie/charles-krauthammer
Obama's guerrilla warfare form of mendacity reminds me of Clinton's moment of apotheosis: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Krauthammer here presents a quality expose of the Obama style of persuasion. He is too clever to lie outright, but deliberately misleads that part of his audience susceptible to being misled--which is the great majority of it. A far left President and a far left House leadership are the wrong people to reform our health system. Obama's rhetorical efforts cannot conceal this socialist reality.

President of the Rest of the World

BO has come up with a new justification for blanket legalization of all illegal immigrants: they have to be legal to benefit from Obamacare. This is nuts. We're already far too generous with illegal immigrants. This would certainly increase the flow of illegals and thereby increase the tax burden of citizens. We have the most generous legal immigration system in the world: why should we reward these illegals whose first act, invading our national territory without legal permission, was a crime?

Indulgences

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/40-Fanatics-Go-Free-From-Jail_20179.html

The problem is not just lax sentencing, but the fact that the legal system evolved with British citizens in mind. These terrorists are citizens of the Caliphate of their fantasies.  I believe the British will adopt harsher measures in proportion to their experience of terrorist incidents--they have only seen a single, relatively modest, incident thus far.

A Better Way

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care This article provides the best (by far) diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plan for health care in America that I have yet seen. It is what the republicans ought to have attempted when they had the chance, but were never bright enough nor bold enough to leap after, and instead submitted to Bush's idiot idea to expand Medicare.

The Meaning of American "Poverty"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJiMDE5Y2M1OWNmNDFhMDIwNWMxYTA1Mzk5ZDkxMTk=&w=MA==

 

Welfare does not count as "income" for determining whether a household is defined as poor by the government. This greatly diminishes the relation between its definition of poverty and the reality of poverty. But, of course, the Left considers close relations with reality too painful to contemplate, much less seek out. Hence, this rather successful propaganda campaign that brays about the high "poverty" level and the need to increase welfare spending (though the poverty determination formula prevents even a tripling of welfare spending from impacting the "poverty" rate). What we have here is another number without a comprehensible meaning to the vast majority of Americans. But, who can compete for public legitimacy with the propagandizers of the Census Bureau who churn out these lies?

Another important reality rarely noted is the incentive structure the government foists upon the poor to not work too much or get married: both work and marriage reduce the various forms of welfare payments.

Leftist Bias

An interesting explanation for the left-wing opinion that racism persists in America: http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/08/david-alexander-gets-it.html HBD refers to human biodiversity, that neither individuals nor groups are equal. The second comment is also interesting and to some degree true: the elite does want to neutralize the talented poor, but it usually does this by means of assimilation into the ranks of elite service workers (accountants, lawyers, doctors, managers) rather than employing methods of crude repression.

Illegal Health Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/health/policy/06immighealth.html?hpw Illegal immigrants are supposedly not subsidized for low income under the Obama plan, but they can enroll in the "public option"--which is by definition subsidized. This will not only effectively legalize illegal immigrants, it will clearly encourage more to illegals to come so to avail themselves of their "legal" rights as illegals. This proposal is especially audacious (or shameless) in the current economic circumstances. Who does this guy work for? Something like this doesn't even benefit the blacks (BO's favorite recipients of nepotistic patronage), except indirectly insofar as more Mexicans may abett long-term Democratic political power.

Parasitic Contagion

http://www.slate.com/id/2227082/

This is an excellent article. It points to the fundamental divergence that the payment methodology creates between the priorities of doctors, patients, and the economy as a whole. The angioplasty example demonstrates this: doctors generally recommend angioplasties for stable chest pain because they are paid much more for that procedure than for counselling the patient to alter his lifestyle, which is just as effective--the doctor increases his income, the patient's outcome is the same, and the economy overpays for the result. This is not defensive medicine, it is offensive medicine.

 

But, I wonder about the implication that more GPs are needed to increase preventive care. Would this really have a significant impact (of course, the angioplasty scenario implies that it does in some cases at least)? And, if what this mainly entails is basic advice on a healthy lifestyle, do we really need $150/hr doctors to be the conduits of this advice? Wouldn't nurses or physician's assistants or even social workers be sufficient, especially if they had the explicit imprimatur of a physician to invoke greater authority?

 

In the end, so long as the cost-benefit trade-off is not accounted for in medical decisions, and technology continues to improve, and no one has sufficient motive to institute rationing, the medical sector's costs will continue to rise, there being no natural limit to its size and scope.

 

600,000 doctors control a sixth of the American economy--that is, 0.2% of the population controls 16% of the economy. Possibly this is a harmful concentration of power, particularly given that their profit corresponds to some degree to how much of the economy they control. Not coincidentally, they pay themselves about 3% of national income--also rather concentrated. Of course, they make almost no effort to restrain medical costs, since there are no incentives for them to do so. Shockingly, this essentially non-market system of exchange has proven to be highly inefficient and flagrantly corrupt--high costs, mostly mediocre outcomes.

A socialist system can only function at all when supported by a capitalist system. But, when the socialist sector grows too large it begins to distort the private sector with excessive tax burdens and unavoidable "economic" interactions with the socialist sector. At some point, the relentless logic of ever-greater socialization cannibalizes the private sector, that is, the private sector begins to shrink in absolute terms. In course of this process, economic growth declines and faith in capitalism follows, due to popular misunderstanding of the causal relations involved. We are now not far from this threshold--perhaps only 10 to 20 years.

Palestine

http://www.factsandlogic.org/outstanding_hoffer.html

This Jewish-American "thinker" has a point about the refugee issue, but not an especially strong point. His examples of refugees who did not become problems are examples of refugees who had no religious stake in their homeland, only an economic stake. By contrast, the Palestinians, and all Muslims, deem certain sites in Palestine holy. Forcible removal from habitation in a holy land incites holy war. Times past, the Christian nations also fought for control of Palestine because of its religious significance. Religion is the difference. It is the reason the Jews chose Palestine to establish a new nation and it is the principal reason for continued Palestinian resistance to the state of Israel. And religion is not rational, has only the most tainted relationship to logic and reason. Therefore, this holy war for Palestine persists without benefit to either party as the imaginary tribal deities of these madmen, Yahweh and Allah, smile malignantly from above, and their puppets enact the ancient tribal morality play of "an eye for an eye." To no end and without end.

These are two religions with essentially the same moral code: old Mohammed, the thief, stole this, amongst so much else, from the Torah, stupefied and corrupted it, then jammed it into his "divine dictations", Al Quran. The clear fundamental difference is in the relative advancement of their civilisations, which corresponds with their tolerance for cruelty and brutality--the Muslims have a higher tolerance level mainly because their civilisation is still organized along pre-industrial lines, creating both material and mental poverty. But, Israel is no innocent in this game, merely less brutal than its enemies--it owes its inception to a spasm of war and terror against both the British colonial authorities and the native Palestinians.

For the rest, this article is not visionary but idiotic: typical Jewish self-pity and self-aggrandizement, adorned with lies and deceptions. Apparently, the "chosen people" want to be permitted their own "necessary evils" without reproach from others, while passing contemptuous moral judgment upon these same others: a patent double standard.

I'm inclined to believe that any intelligent Jew would be embarassed by this crude propaganda, possibly the worst I've ever read on the Israel issue.

Bono's Appreciations

This guy can  write. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5940035/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_3_elvis_presley

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/24161972/page/7

Educational Mishaps

This is so absurd as to be comical: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/08/inanity-of-teacher-training.html

A New Known Unknown

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?ref=science
I should think the committed conspiracy theorists ought to find this development most exciting. And, if they can reincarnate DNA, how hard could fingerprints be?

Teacher's Unions

This book review is about as clear and concise as it gets on this issue: http://www.vdare.com/pb/worm_review_19.htm

The double monopoly system inflicted upon all Americans is particularly unfortunate for the primary clientele of the Democratic party (the poor). Yet, ironically, that is the very party defending the status quo with religious fervor. The middle classes also find themselves largely at the mercy of this tyranny--but, predominantly middle class public schools perform much better than those the poor typically find themselves shipped off to. The result is a trap of mediocrity for the middle and a trap of idiocracy for the poor.

End the monopolies that make our education system a trap for the majority of children. This is not difficult in concept or in execution. It simply requires the will to facilitate upward mobility by encouraging and supporting merit. In other words, outlaw teacher's unions and permit families to choose their preferred schools (whether they be public, private, parochial, home, or otherwise). A voucher valued at a level comparable to public school spending ought to be offered for those not attending public school. Also, it would be needful to impose reasonable regulations on all schools to safeguard the children and taxpayer's money.

A Democrat Contra the Democrats

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/camille_paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls

This is a better critique (and certainly a livelier one) than I can remember seeing from a Republican.

An Old Problem

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14165460 The arm of the law seems to sweep a bit wide here. Largely, I agree with their prescription--except that I would leave the information on the internet (esp for serious offenders), though the trade-off is that some will respond by going underground. Also, more of the serious cases ought to be given swimming lessons, sharks being the preferred instructors.

Check out the story in the first few paragraphs: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 Further on it notes that in 13 states public urination puts you on the sex offender registry--do you know a male who shouldn't be on such a registry? Who the hell writes these laws?

Racial Politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/nyregion/11settle.html?hp This is really a warped line of reasoning: because minorities cannot afford to move to Westchester county, the federal government forces the county to pay for affordable housing that must be marketed primarily to minorities. Essentially, the local taxpayers are forced to give handouts to minorities because segregation by wealth has resulted in segregation by race. Once again group rights trump individual rights, federal power overwhelms local government, and welfare cases get priority over taxpayers. At the end of the day what the socialist regressives now running the government really want is pure equality of result: equal numbers of blacks, whites, asians, hispanics; equal income for all paid out through a federal clearing house for GDP; equal educational results (which means allocating the most resources to the worst performers); equal housing with perfectly proportioned racial mixing; equal health outcomes (not equal health care); equal rights among nations (ie, U.S. = Liberia). In other words they want the Soviet Union, but neutered. The problem is that all this affirmative action and social engineering has swung the pendulum from the modes of injustice prevalent in the Jim Crow era to new modes of injustice: rather than simply shedding the snake skin altogether, before quite slipping their tail out these socialists return to it again headfirst slithering into the nasty rotting thing--a sick, stupid, back-tracing snake self-hindered and crippled by its own device and trick of perception. I call them socialist regressives because their instinct to increase equality at all costs is fundamental to the socialist ethic. The regressive aspect is found in the consequences of this instinct run amok: it acts as a leveler, devaluing the importance of the individual and the achievement of excellence in every field; also, their perpetual search for new invidious distinctions and perceived inequalities between groups (not individuals, about whom they do not care) engenders greater divisions among them and increased consciousness of group identity--the result of which is destructive envy and resentment rather than the creative powers and positive incentives that would result from an emphasis upon individual competition.

The Left and Reality: Another Missed Connection

Apparently 10-20% of blacks and 2-3% of higher IQ races are exempt from execution by virtue of extreme stupidity. So, according to the socialist regressives, IQ tests only count when they benefit minorities. Otherwise, they are clearly baseless pseudo-science and racist to boot. http://www.isteve.com/2002_IQ_Supreme_Court_Death_Penalty.htm

The Fifth Column

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/books/review/Ajami-t.html?pagewanted=all
This sounds like a useful book, and timely. Some good lines from Ajami's review: "In its original habitat, there could be an honest reckoning with Islam. Men and women could wrestle with the limits it places on them; they would weigh, in that timeless manner, the balance between fidelity to the faith and the yearning for freedom. But it isn’t easy in Amsterdam or Stockholm. There, the faith is identity, and the faith is complete and sharpened like a weapon."

Europeans Muslims have a separate identity and want a separate identity. Like any proud, yet beleaguered culture, they want to play the master. And their need for mastery steels the will, and the steel scythe of it harvests for their spirits growing contempt for the wavering realms of Christendom. Mastery waits only upon their achievement of full consciousness of their victims' will to submit.

Shipbuilding

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300482236378974.html
I agree with both the criticisms and the recommendations. Yet they come up short. There are at least two major lapses here: he does not indicate how to reduce frivolous lawsuits without threatening meritorious ones and he does not really address the incentive for doctors to order unnecessary tests and procedures to line their pockets. Also, though the "pay for performance, not activity" recommendation would help to some degree, there seems little else here that would constrain the explosion of the costs of Medicare/Medicaid. Cost/benefit analysis and imposition will be unavoidable. Jindal's program would make a start (and I mean a start at building a better ship with lower running costs, unlike the Obama plan to invite a bunch of new passengers aboard from Mexico and turn over the ship's operation to the ship's treasurer)--but it does not suffice.

This I Like

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/07/becker-20090714.html The conclusion of this paper (which I read and found persuasive) suggests that within 3 years electric cars will be fully cost competitive with conventional cars without subsidies. The condition necessary to achieve this cost competitiveness is that electrification of the fleet must occur through a battery switching model such as the one being implemented as we speak in Israel, Denmark, Australia and Hawaii by the company Project Better Place (which has already raised $400 million in venture financing) and its partner Nissan-Renault (which has a $600 million program to develop the cars). The idea is to have stations spread around the country that can quickly (3 minutes) switch out used batteries for new for those drivers who have signed up for this service in the form of a monthly payment plan. Drivers would therefore only have to pay up front for the electric car (which costs the same as a conventional car), but essentially lease the batteries through the company operating the switching stations (instead of paying for gas). This company, of course, has access to much cheaper financing than consumers, effectively making the battery cheaper. It makes electric vehicles vendable by solving the problem of their high upfront costs and the problem of limited range. There will also be public and private plug-in stations as a supplement to the switching option. The bottom line is that electric cars will be cheaper because their fuel (electricity) and maintenance costs are cheaper and this price advantage outweighs the disadvantage of building the switching stations and manufacturing the batteries. I think the key is the roll out, which will have to saturate one region at a time--otherwise there will be too few charging and switching stations in a given area to motivate consumers to buy electric. This is the plan: Israel first in 2010, then Denmark, then Australia by 2012. A 5-10% increase in electricity demand would result if the entire car fleet converted to electric.And this demand would be temporally flexible, a form of demand highly compatible with the intermittent production of electricity by renewable sources. Once this is demonstrated, other countries and other car manufacturers are likely to jump on the concept--especially given the relatively low investment cost the manufacturers would face to sign up. Israel might be the best place to start given how determined they are to escape the oil trap. Deutsche Bank's analysts concluded that this approach may represent a "paradigm shift." Considering the paper's conclusion that 64%+ of all vehicles sold in 2030 will be electric, that's an apt description. So shall we see. This is the kind of audacity the private sector flashes out at its best: it's too bad that many of the sources of greenhouse gases do not appear so amenable to a purely private sector approach. Government is slow, inefficient, and incompetent--but the tragedy of the commons scenario presented by climate change necessitates its involvement in many aspects of mitigation.

Shocking Figures

I consider all of the these numbers shockingly low. Note the consistency of the cognitive gaps across different socio-economic and educational backgrounds. Remember, the numbers below are misleading in the sense that the higher the income or education of their parents, the higher the percentage of people take the SAT. If 50% of each group took the test, the differences in scores would be larger. This misleading element is also true of the racial categories--they systematically underestimate the IQ differences because the higher the race's IQ level, the higher the percentage of people take the SAT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png More idiocy in action: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/education/04education.html

This is just another move in the socialist levelling agenda.

A Strange Lapse

DNA Not The Same In Every Cell Of Body: Major Genetic Differences Between Blood And Tissue Cells Revealed

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715131449.htm I wonder how these scientists could be so foolish as to make an assumption of this sort. Was it groupthink? Was there some persuasive, if implicit or inferential, evidence? On the surface, it does not appear to be a normal part of the scientific learning process. It is a very expensive mistake, in time and money.

Reasons for Unreason

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/white_pride_is_uncool/ The second half of the article is especially interesting and, because the problem is systemic, difficult to correct.

AA

This is interesting methinks. Have a gander at yer Congressmen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G._K._Butterfield,_official_photo_portrait_color.jpg He is a self-identified black man and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. If this guy qualifies for full-on affirmative action (blacks have the advantage of the lowest standards of admission, hiring, promotion...etc), who the hell doesn't qualify? Next time I apply for something, I'm going to "self-identify" as a black hispanic Polish American Indian gay woman who had a sex change operation to become a man. I count 7 diversity points there. A Harvard MBA might be nice (preferably graded on the black curve).

Legalizing PC

The Ginsburg dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano, most of which I read, is one of the worst Supreme Court opinions I've ever read for sheer illogicality. It's embarassing, and the problem isn't that she's stupid: there simply isn't a coherent set of arguments available to defend her preferred form of social engineering. Of course, most organizations evade this Title VII issue with more political acumen than New Haven evidenced. For example, Chicago's fire department makes its promotions by administering a test designed to achieve an 85% pass rate. They then award promotions by lottery from this pool of "qualified" firefighters. They get racial diversity, but they do not get the best leaders since they don't weed out the witless and the lazy.

I wrote a reply to a NY Times editorial on this issue (guess which side they took). They never posted it. Here it is:
 

Apparently the city leaders in New Haven and their supporters at the NY Times think that the most important criterion in selecting leaders for the fire department is "well-balanced racial diversity." Not competence, not leadership, not commitment--instead they prioritize racial politics above all these things and thereby sacrifice lives and resources in the line of duty.  In the end they're letting political corruption and political correctness corrode the city government’s efficiency at one of its most crucial junctures—where people’s lives are actually at stake.

Are the supposed benefits affirmative action contributes to social cohesion in this country worth the economic, social, and psychological costs of this transparent lie? The implicit premise underlying these policies is that certain races cannot engage in intellectual competition on an equal footing with whites and Asians--and, if this is the case, the choice faced by decision-makers is whether to lower the standards for the uncompetitive races or effectively exclude them from those positions which confer the most power upon their holders. Unfortunately, as noted in the editorial, most cities have opted for what the NYT deems “better tests”—which really means tests that are simple enough for virtually everyone to pass, allowing HR to base hiring and promotions on “other factors” than actual demonstrated competence and thereby to achieve a preconceived notion of racial balance.

The Western world, in its moral and material successes, is founded on the concept of the value of the individual as such. This much elaborated concept, with accretions of depth and meaning extending over millenia, has invested mankind with a dignity never conceived, much less attempted, by any other cultural tradition. From the Greco-Judaic source-springs, and all heirs and contributors to them, we have in our possession--in our minds and, maybe, in our souls--the grandest of all inventions: the idea of the human individual as an end in himself--no longer deemed dirt and manure for a tyrant's whimsical gardens, whether he plants by socialist or royalist or any other plan, cultivated to secure Leviathan's moral and practical predominance over the individual. And they want to sacrifice all this to some socialist fantasy? Reinvent the sort of state machine that necessarily reduces man to what is contemptible? And perfect this pulverizing machine? What? And the effort, even the mere thought, does not resolve them into puddles of self-contempt? Human bio-diversity indeed!

Dumb and Dumber

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/obama-health-care-reform-opinions-columnists-public-option-medicare.html

This is a quality breakdown of the great Obama conspiracy. Of course, it begs the question: what have the republicans to offer as a counter? Assuming systemic reform is unnecessary is head-in-sand stupid. The single government action on this issue in the last 8 years only made things worse. But, as bad as throwing a couple of extra rocks in our backpack was, Obama now wants us to divert into the socialist swamp.

I do side with Obama on the cost-effectiveness initiative--despite clear risks, it is one of the few things anyone has proposed that might actually provide a rational route to cost control.

Precedence

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/steve-martin-michael-jackson.html Now we know where Jacko got those moves! This is pretty impressive, especially if you remember the original. Or is this the original?

This Looks Serious

http://www.physorg.com/news165512266.html For some years I've expected a cure or near cure for cancer to resolve out of research into improved diagnostics. But, here we have an article leads me to question this, despite continued progress in diagnostics. The ability to clear the entire organism in 15 days might be sufficient--though in some cases a few cancer particles might remain in the bloodstream, requiring another round of nanorod treatment. And there was always a fundamental practical difficulty with the diagnostic route, which seemed likely to prevent it from becoming a cure-all (though it might be 90-95% effective): virtually all of us have multiple cancerous or pre-cancerous tissues in our bodies at any given time, almost all of which are benign--and if we can detect them all, this creates the dilemma of deciding which of these tissues to treat, since treating them all would do more harm than good for most patients. There would have to be a way to distinguish metastatic cancer from the body's many other non-threatening instances. A perfect cancer-killing treatment regime eliminates this dilemma.

Obama's Israel Dilemma

This article sets out the settlement issue quite clearly: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/opinion/22judt.html?_r=1 The price we have paid (and go on paying) for Israel's sins seems sometimes even to exceed the price the Israelis pay. Is it possible for an ally to also be our greatest foreign policy liability?

Trade-Offs

The Waxman-Markey bill is an inefficient and deceptive response to a real problem. But, the republicans did nothing when they had their chance, and foresight trails consequence. Instead of the less intrusive, more market-based and more transparent type of emissions mitigation plan that the republicans could have mustered and passed we get the democratic plan: Bureaucratize It!

Some New Animals

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/new-air-force-drones-in-pakistan-061709 I do not believe exploding flies and exploding snakes are necessarily good things to have in the world. They may eliminate the possibility of successful guerilla warfare--a form of human liberty that birthed this nation. And, as weapons increase in power, freedom is leeched away either by the government or by the condition of anarchy.

Insanity Unloosed

Notes from a professor at the Naval Academy: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/opn/2009/06/14-47/Guest-Column-The-cost-of-a-diverse-Naval-Academy.html Apparently the military brass thinks that the most important aspect in the training of Navy and Marine officers is well-balanced racial diversity. Not competence, not leadership, not patriotism--instead we prioritize racial politics above all these things and thereby sacrifice lives and treasure and, perhaps, victory. Also, I think this program has been unconstitutional since 2003. Part of the problem is that the guys at the top of the military hierarchy these days are just spineless bureaucrats who never saw combat--they all came in after Vietnam and they're just careerists--not leaders. And they're letting political corruption and bullshit political correctness corrode our military efficiency. Not only do they fail to fight this trend, they boast of it as if it's a success. Success for whom? Worthless bureaucrats and convocations of resenters. And neither political party makes a peep in face of it. I wonder which would be the better option: secession or Australia? I might prefer secession since that way I'd have a chance to shoot some of the people who rendered secession necessary. Hey, maybe the Palins aren't as dumb as I thought--after all, they have been known to show up at meetings of the Alaska secession movement.

Iran Policy

http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2009/06/19/hope_and_change_-_but_not_for_iran/page/full/

 

Apparently Krauthammer has forgotten what happened to Iraqi Shia and Kurds when Bush I encouraged them to rebel against Saddam. They rebelled, Saddam crushed them, Bush I sat stupidly watching. The same would happen here, and our overt support would provide Khamenei with the excuse that he wasn't merely crushing Iranian rebels--he would claim that he was crushing American puppets. This latter excuse would fly high among Iranians, and dissent from the regime would be discredited for a generation. Krauthammer is simply dead wrong on this question. He is ignorant of Iran and making cheap, shallow criticisms of a careful and considered policy posture.

 

Here is a discussion of the issue on Charlie Rose which includes Bush's Iran expert making essentially the argument I make above:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10385

Obama's Foreign Policy

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090616/OPINION01/906160319/1008/opinion01/Earnest-goodwill-doesn-t-substitute-for-foreign-policy

This doesn't seem especially coherent to me. He calls Obama a Wilsonian idealist, but then says that he hasn't changed Bush's foreign policy except at the margins. In other words, he talks like an idealist and acts like a realist? And this means he lacks a foreign policy? Reagan talked of abolishing nukes. Was he an idealist without a foreign policy? Bush II tried to democratize the Middle East (surely an idealistic notion). Was he an idealist without a foreign policy? In the end, most ambitious presidents discover that they have less power to alter the course of world history than they would like to think or boast of.

Israel is not an ally. It is a disease our political system has contracted from the Israel lobby. Unless that nation can demonstrate symbiotic characteristics with respect to our body politic, it ought to be flushed out of our system and left to seek some other host.

 

Neither Clinton nor Bush accomplished anything with N. Korea either--it is a virtual protectorate of China. On Iran a little discretion is advisable since our interference is unlikely to help the opposition at this juncture (as Bush's Iran expert Mr. Burns argued on Charlie Rose recently).

 

Just because certain ideologues in this country are shrieking that Obama is weak does not make it so--and hopefully their misguided efforts will be properly dismissed by our adversaries as those nations reformulate their strategies in face of the new administration. But, BO really should give up on the "apologize for America" shtick.

Obamite Moderation

Here is what the Left would like to hear from Obama: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090629/dugard He has declined to bow to either the left or the right on Israel thus far, but has taken a harder line than Bush in areas (especially the settlements) where the Israelis are clearly lying and cheating.

More Health

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/14/george-will-tells-dirty-little-secrets-universal-healthcare

Pretty clean counter-arguments from Mr. Will. My only disagreement with him is relatively minor: most people actually are too stupid to determine what a competitive health plan is. However, this is of limited consequence since the vast majority have their plans selected for them (or narrowed down) by their employers or the government.
 

Obama knows that even the smallest, most modest "government option" on health insurance opens the door to an almost inevitable socialization of the system, however gradually it may occur. A government option will destroy competition and grow ever larger--and the larger it gets, the more people it covers, the more voters will support it, creating a self-sustaining cycle of continuous growth. Entitlements last forever because none of their natural predators can match them--their vicious cycle of growth and influence confers immortality.  

 

The AMA knows this and is running hard against it. Their problem is that the status quo sucks, with no good options to rectify it. Between greedy doctors, greedy lawyers, incompetent bureaucrats, and patients with no incentive to restrain costs--we spend an enormous amount on health care for results that, on the whole, are no better than countries that spend half as much and which, as a result, have a competitive advantage in business. But, you can't bring doctors under control without second-guessing them or putting them all on salary. The lawyers, at least in theory, keep a lid on the problem of incompetent, dangerous, and negligent doctors. Bureaucracies attract incompetent, unmotivated people, then fail to incentivize them properly--and are never efficient in managing complex systems. Most patients are too stupid to respond effectively to incentives even when they're in place. It's very difficult to do much about any of these four problems, and very little has been done. Obama has talked about restricting doctor's options through cost-effectiveness analysis, and about reducing legal costs and defensive medicine costs by limiting malpractice suits--a good start if he can make it happen. But, his plans will make the bureaucracy problem much worse and probably do nothing for the incentive issue.

On Health Reform

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/business/economy/14view.html?ref=health I think this paragraph is key to the problem, and the main reason why reforms of the health system as a whole have yet to happen, despite the huge cost burden the system now inflicts: "Of course, we have not made such Medicare spending cuts yet, and there are few signs that we will. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe that they do not receive enough treatment and that only 16 percent believe that they have received unnecessary care. If the Obama administration covers more people with government-supplied or government-subsidized insurance, the political support will broaden for generous benefits, their continuation and, indeed, expansion of current expenditures." Essentially, people become dependents and develop a dependency psychology--they come to prefer safety and ease to freedom and power. At the end of the process, you get Europe, that is, stagnancy and weakness. Europe has been ripe for conquering and eager for submission ever since it was socialized in the 30's. Most of the continent transitioned directly from a class-determined social system in which the great majority had neither power nor responsibility directly to socialism in which the same basic conditions prevail--the lack of freedom and responsibility. Only America saved it from itself: we reversed the tide in WWII (which was a socialist tide), we held the line against full socialization during the Cold War, and the ongoing Muslim influx simply represents a new opportunity for Europe to surrender.