BLOG.NEVERODDOREVEN.US

the evils of the nanny state

NOOn — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:56:00 GMT

Everyone has heard of laws that they think are stupid. One thing that many of these laws have in common is that they are over-the-top examples of the government trying to protect us from being stupid. One wonders how often something happened before the government felt the need to pass the law against it. Even more, though, one has to ponder why the government feels that it has to protect us from ourselves in the first place.

Now, everyone loves this topic, because everyone can point to “nanny state” laws that were passed by or are favored by their opponents, and they seem unable to recognize the ones that their own side has pushed. For example, blue laws seem silly to those on the left who think that religious rules out never apply to those who don't subscribe to that religion, but seem perfectly natural to those on the right who see it as preserving the heritage of our country. On the other hand, the left is pushing for more restrictions on unhealthy foods, which the right sees as interfering with personal choice. Meanwhile, libertarians are upset about both ideas, because all they can see is government interference.

Now, I want to shift the story a little bit. We all knew a kid when we were young who couldn't do anything fun because his mom was afraid of him getting hurt, or even worse, dirty. I myself knew a family where every kid had every food allergy or sensitivity you could think of, but they all grew out of it as soon as they were old enough to eat what they wanted, without control from their mother. What everyone but their mother could see was that it was her fear that created the sensitivities and allergies.

Likewise, some kids couldn't playootball f because their mothers were afraid. Some parents would go a step further and prevent their kids from engaging in any kind of active play. Now, if a kid doesn't want to play some particular sport on his own, that's just fine, but a parent ought not make the decision. That's easy for us all to see, at least those of us who have raised our own kids, when we think of other people's kids. Being overprotective gets in the way of success. Now let's go back to the government.

I'm not here today to argue for a libertarian viewpoint. We see, though, that a parent who prevents their kid from doing anything active to prevent them getting hurt is damaging their health. Being overprotective is as counterproductive as being underprotective is risky. So what exactly is government being overprotective of? If you go to Huffpo, you can see a slideshow of overprotective laws, but what they are really protecting too much is their power.

It's obvious with the Democrats. They are so concerned with maintaining their majority that this influences every vote they take. Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid use the need to maintain the majority as a stick to motivate the rank and file to fall in line, and the giveaways in the Senate's health bill are a clear example of Mr Reid trying to guarantee the continuation of his party's power.

The Republicans are just as bad. They are being branded as the party of no, but they are behaving that way in order to shepherd what power they still have, and to try to make it grow. They are obstructing the work they are being paid to do because they believe it will push them back into power, not because they don't like the legislation.

Most of all, though, they are overprotective of the two-party system. Nothing would threaten their power more than a viable third party. If you don't believe me, think about the reaction to a strong challenger from the outside. They are attacked as a spoiler, meaning that they will siphon off votes from the major party candidate most closely aligned with them, guaranteeing a victory for the other. There is some truth to this, but there is also a lie. It implies that it is not really fair for a third party candidate to get any votes at all, because those votes rightfully belong to one major candidate or another. And if an independent does get elected, what happens? He or she is expected to caucus with a major party. The entire system is rigged to divide the populace into two sides. All this protection of power gets in the way of legislators actually paying attention and voting on the strength of a bill.

So what can we do about it? It's simple. There's an idea out there that we can get rid of the “to big to fail” banks by simply taking our money out of them and depositing it in a local bank. It's a good idea. Similarly, it's a good idea to break up the monster parties by voting for a third party candidate unless you just can't find one you can stand behind, instead of only if he's your brother. Spend a little time. It won't take long to rule most of them out. When no one is getting 50% of the vote, and lesser known parties are getting more than 15% of the vote, then the big boys will be running scared. It could happen if those who are disgusted with politics voted small party instead of not voting.

And also, if you feel up to running for office, and you are going to run independent, run for a smaller office than president. No one became president without some kind of political experience, and you stand a better chance of winning. It always amuses me that there are more than half a dozen parties on the ballot for President, and sometimes only one for local office.

climate change and terrorism

NOOn — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:29:00 GMT

    Usually I try to write on a single topic, so that in the future you can find interesting, relevant blog posts more easily. Today, though, what I'm seeing is a juxtaposition of two topics that alone ae interesting to me, but together aought to be interesting to everyone.

    There are two long-term threats to the political stability of the world that we are in a position to do something about right now. The one that everyone is talking about today is global warming. I'm not going to talk today about whether we have had any effect on global climate change. The fact is, our climate is warming, and this will bring changes to our geopolitics. At the same time, and whether or not it's related, depandance on carbon fuels is lessening, and this is going to change our world. We need to be prepared for a new balance of power, one where the traditional energy producers of the last 50 years fade into less significance, and new players emerge. We also need to be prepared to cope with mass migrations as the parts of the earth most desirable for inhabitation change. It may be as simple as a move from east Texas to west Texas, or it may be as dramatic as a move from New York to Adak, AK, and that's just movements inside the US. There will be dramatic population shifts outside as well.

    The second is terrorism. Right now most of the terrorists are cloaking their actions in the language of Islam, but that does not make them Islamic, any more than the KKK represent christanity (If yhou think the KKK are a good example of christanity, please stop reading my blog. Now.) If we were to convince enough of the Islamic world to repudiate them, theu would not go away, they would just change their rhetoric. We need to win the war, and to do so, we need to better understand the war. We can't win by giving them what they ask for, because that will teach those that feel disenfranchised that terror and violence are reasonable ways to get what they want. We also can't kill every last one of them, because who they are changes so quickly. It would be like fighting a hydra.

    So what's the connection between the two, besides both of them being bad? Here's the connection. Our president of hope and change is not doing enough about either of them. He gives himself a B+ for the job he's done so far, but the next day, it is revealed that he is denying the military the ability to use it's most successful weapon, the predator drone, against some targets. He talks about the need to do something about climate change, but the treaty he is trying to bring back to the US does not do the necessary job. He's a good speaker, and he puts on a good show, but there doesn't seem to be anything behind the show. That won't win him the loyalty he will need from the Democrats to hold the white house in 2012, but if it's the best he can do, that's a good thing.

climategate: the cover-up is worse than the crime

NOOn — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:24:00 GMT

In the carbon cycle, natural fluxes are the biggest, accounting for about 330 gigatonnes per year, and are in near equilibrium

The roughly 7.5 gigatonnes coming from all human sources may be sufficient to tip this system out of balance, warming the Earth

The above quote, from a BBCarticle on new data about CO2 uptake by the ocean, is the most concise factual statement about one of the most politically contentious issues surrounding global warming I have seen to date. As it is stated, no scientist would disagree. The human-generated carbon may or may not warm the earth. Pretty hard to argue with that.

The problem is that there are two widely different guesses that could be made from the facts as presented. One is that, as stated, the fact that human activity has pushed it out of equilibrium will result in a continual net gain in the carbon entering the air, increasing the net greenhouse gas every year and causing irreparable harm to the earth.

The other is that the earth will readjust the carbon cycle to account for human activity, and thus there is no looming disaster from increased atmospheric carbon. This idea seems to be supported by the article I took the quote from, but it was an extremely non-technical article,so I don't think that means much.

If climatologists want to get a better handle on how much the earth is going to warm over the next 50-100 years (as well as win over sincere skeptics, as opposed to the knee-jerk reactionaries who will oppose anything they say no matter how self-evident) they would do well to put some time into resolving how much the carbon system can adjust to the enlarged human footprint, so they could then say “look, the earth is able to cope with this much carbon from people, and no more,and it can change how much carbon it's handling this fast, and no faster, so let's stay within the limits of our planet.” instead of the current statement of “OMG carbon is going to kill us all we must stop using any carbon at all!”

I'm willing to bet that a thousand years ago humanity wasn't carbon neutral, so carbon neutrality seems like the wrong goal for humanity now. Instead, we ought to be living within our means, except those who ought to know won't tell us what those means are. They just keep saying that we are so far in debt that we will have to work all our lives, and still won't be on the plus side of the ledger. Is it any wonder that there are still a few skeptics?

Now, I have no doubt that the earth is getting warmer. I find it highly unlikely that the carbon imbalance, as small as it is, didn't play some role in that warming. In the final analysis, though, we need to be looking for water, and not screaming that there's a fire. And we need to demand from our climatologists a real answer as to what our budget is, so we will know when enough has been done. I want to know, for example, whether it really would be better to be at AD 1700 levels of carbon than AD 1900, or has the carbon cycle ramped up to absorb the amount of carbon we were spewing in AD 1900. What really should our target be, and how do they know?

This is the biggest problem to me of the CRU fiasco. The stolen emails are embarrassing, but that's all. But not having the original data? One of my jobs in college was transferring data from reel-to-reel tape onto more modern storage, because the original data might be needed sometime. I have a hard time believing that, in an emerging field like climatology, where the shortness of the record is a perennial problem, that data could be accidentally lost, and even if it were,it makes them look much less credible as an institution.

And NASA is starting to look like it may be in the same boat. There is a skeptic, Christopher C. Horner,who wants to look at their original data, presumably because he thinks that by massaging it just right, he can make global warming look like a fraud. Now, I will grant that it is not in NASA's interest to promote the twisting of data to advance an agenda, but the longer they refuse to comply with what is after all a legally binding request for information from a government agency, the more they look like they are trying to hide something, and they have been pretty unipolar in their view of manmade global warming, so they are starting to look pretty untrustworthy.

And that's the problem now. The leading centers for studying the climate are trashing the chances that the average non-scientist has to believe in global warming, and thus to take any action at all. After all, why should I sacrifice anything for an idea that can only be defended by scientists who won't tell anyone how they know what they know? Why should I believe your conclusions when it looks like you are hiding something? This really looks like a case where what will get us all in trouble is the unnecessary cover-up by some scientists who were afraid that their data might not stand up to the light of day.

Or maybe the critics are right. Maybe the case for manmade global warming is overstated, and they are hiding that, for political or financial reasons. Maybe they think they can reverse natural global warming if they back down the carbon numbers fast enough, and so theylied to us about the equilibrium point, to manipulate us into doing the right thing. I can invent conspiracy theories all day. The point is that without the original data being widely available, wecan't really know. And we need to know, if we are to make wise decisions.

thoughts on the president's speech

NOOn — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:03:00 GMT

I just got done listening to the President's speech on Afghanistan, and while it's true he gives a good speech, he left out some specifics that I want to know. He listed three main thrusts of our strategy there, and the second one is the most vital, I think, to actually winning the war there. It was to pursue civilian strategies to stabilize the country, to root out corruption and get the Afghan society running on all cylinders. As this is what will ultimately win the war for us (as I said in an earlier post, victory will not be achieved by out-killing the Taliban, but by out-recruiting them), I wish he had given more specifics. Who is going to do the work? Is he going to be relying on the military? Is our JAG corps going to be tasked with rooting out corruption? Or is he going to have civilians doing the work? I still think it's time for the Peace Corps to start working for peace in places that really need it, like Afghanistan, and then for the workers to be compensated like they were in the military.

He explained his case pretty well for a surge, and for giving a timetable for getting out, and I think he's right on both points. I know that Afghanistan is not Iraq, but it is important to note that the Iraqis didn't start really taking responsibility for themselves until we set a timetable for leaving. We need a sense of urgency not just to spur us to work, but more especially to spur the Afghanis to work. I just hope the Taliban decides to sit back and wait for us to leave, so we can work unimpeded while we are there, and leave with the Afghanis competent to recognize the bad deal the Taliban are offering them.

His third point was even less clear than the other two, but I suspect there were operational reasons for that. He talked about the need to root the Taliban and al Qaeda out of Pakistan, but he said very little about how he plans to do that. I suspect that some of the methods won't be very palatable to Americans (aid?), some to other countries in the region (military sales?), and some to the Pakistani government (cross-border pursuits?), but what do I know? I'm just a blogger.

I hope that, if you didn't get to hear the president speak, that you will take the opportunity. He's quite a good motivational speaker, but if you can look past that, to what he is and isn't saying, there are some real gems. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the speech is that he has put a lot of effort into making the best decision he can, and hasn't ignored any of the main arguments. If he would put that kind of effort into some of the pressing domestic problems we have, he could be a really great president.

a short one on health care

NOOn — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:25:00 GMT

I'm not going to write a lot today, but I just wanted to point out that the drug makers aren't doing us any favors with their kickback. Remember this when it comes time to vote next year. It's not just those who took money from Big Insurance to kill any reform that need to be held accountable. We also need to hammer those who took PhRMA money to ensure that the bill, when passed, would still let them screw us over.

the fight to be neutral

NOOn — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:49:00 GMT

There's getting to be more chatter about net neutrality, with those on the left and right picking sides that really don't make much sense, except that most Americans seem to want it, and so the President is behind it. This lines the Democrats behind it and theRepublicans against it. Other than that, there is no logic I can see behind the decided positions. Most unions that are involved in the fight are on the same side as the Republicans, and it's unusual to see them make common cause against the Democrats.

In another way, though, it makes sense, because net neutrality could be called more government regulation. This is the position taken by those who oppose the concept.

The facts are somewhat different. The goal of the FCC, as I see it, is to establish rules so that internet companies are not dependent on case law to tell them what is or isn't allowed when it comes to controlling content. I'm personally in favor of that, as I think it will bring clarity to the law, and bring the law out of the courts and back to the legislative branch. Of course, the big telecoms may put it back into the courts by challenging the law, but as long as the courts uphold the law it the power will stay where it constitutionally belongs.

The recent 5-0 vote has been called by some a vote for net neutrality. What they really voted on was to start talking about it at the FCC, to start crafting a policy that could then be voted on. If the opponents of net neutrality want to prevent passage, they will have to arrange for a bad policy, one that the public won't support, and then hope that the two Republicans on the FCC will be able to stall until the end of the 2010 session, and that further, there will be a change in majority party in 2010.

If you look at their arguments, you will see that one of their arguments against the policy is that the FCC is rushing to craft a policy. In fact, they've been considering doing so since 2007, at least. This is hardly the rush job that the health reform bill has been. Those opposed are simply trying to delay, if they can.

The big argument that is being used against it is that it favors some companies over others, in that it allows some, like Google and Youtube, to profit at the expense of others, like AT&T, who simply want to be able to charge for their fair share. This is why I support net neutrality, because in the end, if we don't have it, it will allow and even encourage those with monopoly or near-monopoly control over the hardware of the internet to force what are now free and needed services on the internet to become paid services. They claim that they need this as an incentive to keep moving into small markets, but I live in a small market, and they have flat told me they will not come here now, for financial reasons. My internet choices here are limited to satellite and dialup, and I can only have satellite because I live on a hill.

Now, AT&T claims they will not restrict content, but they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They have also said that they have to have money from those that are profiting from them. In order to do that, they have to restrict the content of those who don't pay, like me. I don't make enough yet from the ads on this site to pay them. It would mean that Facebook would have to start charging, because otherwise it couldn't afford to stay in business. And can you imagine having to pay to google something?

Everyone should be supporting net neutrality. It is good for the free flow of information, which is good for our democracy. Yes, it does let a bunch of crap stay on the internet too, but that's the price of free speech. It makes us personally responsible to turn off the hate. The Republicans especially should be pushing for a quick passage of these rules, so that they can fight for an overturning of power next year with gusto and not have to keep defending a position on this issue contrary to all common sense (but not contrary to hundreds of lobbyists).

A false argument on Afghanistan and Iraq

NOOn — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:21:00 GMT

I have been hearing a lot of chatter about the war in Afghanistan these days, and one argument I hear raised over and over again against the war is that if we had not spent the money on the wars we wouldn't be in the recession we are right now. This is completely and utterly wrong.

If we hadn't spent the money on Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not have gone into some magical “save the country” fund, nor would it have gone into the pockets of every day Americans. The recession was caused by the criminal or criminally stupid behavior of a relative few. I believe it was criminal, because those actors made a lot of money even while the crisis was unfolding, and ordinary Americans were losing their collective shirts.

If we hadn't spent the money on the wars, then, the vast bulk of it would have gone to two places. Much of it would have gone to the military anyway, because maintaining a professional standing army is expensive, and also because we need to do a better job of controlling cost in the military. Most of the rest would have ended up in the pockets of the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who are the ones got most of the money that was available. If this would have stopped the recession, there would be enough now to stop it.

This isn't to say that the war is justified. It takes more than just discrediting one argument to justify the hell that is war. But it does make me wish I had enough clout to stop people from using stupid arguments to support otherwise intelligent positions.

Why some people are conservative and others are liberal

NOOn — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:12:00 GMT

There is an interesting blog here that I read this morning. To summarize, if you believe in social mobility, you don't believe in government-sponsored wealth distribution and vise versa. I have been thinking about this as I went through my day today, and it occurred to me to look up the income statistics of the different parties. What I found was that while those with more money were likely to vote Republican, their votes weren't likely to matter, because they were overwhelmed by the masses of poor people that live in relatively close proximity to them. This also explains why, when you look at state elections, high income areas no longer track for Democrats as closely as they do in federal elections.

Which is interesting, but it has been analyzed, and it isn't what struck me. If we accept both premises, and also accept that Republicans are about letting people keep the money they earn, while Democrats favor social welfare programs (a position that is thrown into question by recent history, I know, but let's assume that the party rank and file still generally feel that way even if their elected representatives don't support them in it), then we come to the conclusion that Democrats, especially the more progressive wing of the party, believe that there is little social mobility in America, while Republicans, especially the anti-tax crowd, believe that there is great social mobility.

Now, it is an established fact that some regions are blue while others are red in our country. I would be interested to see what the real social mobility index is for the different parts of the country. If it turns out that in heavily Democratic areas there is less ability to change class based on ability than in Red areas, then this would tell us that the reason an area is conservative or liberal is because of the aggregate experience of the local populace. If the opposite is true, that would tell us that something else than personal experience is causing us to form our view of the world. Either way, we could learn something about why some people are conservative while others are liberal.

If, on the other hand, there is no statistical difference between social mobility in deep blue and bright red and any point in between, then we get to look at what the mobility factor is here in America and make a determination: Does the amount of social mobility in America warrant an aggressive, a mild, or a non-existent wealth redistribution program? Really, that is one of the central questions between conservatives and liberals these days.

I personally expect that you would find a direct correlation between blue areas and areas of limited social mobility. The poor are the ones voting Democrat, and not only have they failed to move themselves up socially, but they have the least opportunity for themselves or their children. Their children are more likely to be stuck in bad schools, where the only second language available is gangsign, and where there aren't classes in test prep to get them ready to take the SAT or ACT, but rather tests to improve the school's NCLB score.

Certainly, if you follow the links at the bottom of the first link at the top of the article you would see that there is a low amount of social mobility in the US, especially for blacks. He doesn't carry out enough analysis to assure me that it's true for everyone, but he does have enough evidence that it's worth looking into. I wish that he would show the error in the data, but then, I love statistical analysis. I would definitely be interested to see a state-by-state breakdown of his data.

Also, Republicans often make the argument that social programs make minorities less socially mobile, not more. While that is clearly not true of all laws (EEO comes to mind) it may be true of others, so we should be as wise as we can when addressing the problem where it does exist, because whether it is a nation-wide problem or not, it is certainly a large problem in parts of the country.

What to you think? Is there greater income mobility in red states? Or is it bad across all states?

local elections matter

NOOn — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:31:00 GMT

So it's the middle of October, and everyone in America that cares about politics is focused on the health care debate raging in Washington (I wonder whether reconciling the two bills will make the final bill more likely to pass the Senate than the HELP bill alone would have been, or less), and maybe also on the financial reforms that are working their way through the congress, or the troop increases that are or are not happening in Afghanistan.. What most people seem to forget is that election day is coming up.

People don't care about elections in odd years. There may only be initiatives on the ballot. If there are offices on the ballot, they are strictly local. Local elections often aren't well funded, so people may not even know who the candidates are. Now, I live in Kentucky, and this year, there are no elections. This happens from time to time. There have been special elections throughout the year in different parts of the state, though none in my county. Some of these have been issue elections, like when a city had about 10% of it's population decide that it would remain illegal to sell liquor in the city. Others have been to fill vacant seats in the state senate, where the governor, a Democrat, has been whittling away at the Republican majority by granting appointments to Republican senators, and then campaigning for the Democrat in the special election.

The problem with these local elections is that people don't vote in them. I regularly hear the complaint that people feel their vote is wasted or useless in a presidential election, and largely they are right (this could be fixed by reforming or doing away with the electoral college, but that's a topic for another day). The fact is that unless you live in a swing state, it's pretty well already determined which party your state is going to vote for. That's why so much attention is focused on the swing states, and even on swing areas in those swing states. The same holds true on a smaller scale when electing a governor, but not as much because there is no electoral college in a governor's race.

It's interesting that these same people who despair of getting their guy elected to the white house because their vote doesn't really count, and yet are passionate about who should be or should have been elected, often don't know who is running for the mayor's office. Let me clue you in on a secret. Unless you live in New York or LA, or a similarly large city, the difference in a mayoral election will likely be less than 100. I've heard of them being less than 10. I could change an election that close with the readership of this blog most days. Remember that vote on alcohol sales? 10% got to have their way, because they outnumbered those who turned out in favor of the proposition by less than a hundred people. Less than 20% turned out to vote, in an election that was decided by less than a hundred votes.

The point of all of this is that while it's hard to have much influence on the presidential election by voting, it's easy to have a huge effect on a local election. Unfortunately, no one pays much attention to local elections. I had thought this was because people thought they were unimportant, but someone suggested to me that it might actually have more to do with how hard it is to find out about local issues and elections. In order to test how hard it was to get a sample ballot, I just googled Lincoln County Clerk, because most states probably have a Lincoln County. I took the first six, and went to the clerks' websites. In exactly half of them, I was able to get a sample ballot in three clicks. I think this is evidence that it is indeed too hard to get information on local elections.

We live in the digital age. The New York Times has declared the age of email to be over, because people are switching to facebook and twitter. I don't know that I would go that far, but it is a fair bet that most Americans have at least one email address, just as they have at least one phone number. There are some who don't, but they are getting to be fewer every year. So here's the plan. Why can't the county clerk gather an email address from each registered voter for the purpose of emailing them the sample ballot? Or, if that is seen to be too much an invasion of your privacy, contract with a webmail service to provide an email address just for politics, where not only could the clerk send the ballot, but you could be contacted about local issues from both sides? Exactly what is allowed to be emailed could be debated and decided at a state or even a precinct level.

Then, as part of registering as a candidate, we could require one to provide not only a website but a social networking page (facebook, twitter, maybe a new politics-only network will show up for this, but it's not really needed. Most politicians are on facebook, if you know how to find them.) It would be to the advantage of the candidates, as it would increase their exposure. The clerk could then email, just once, the contact information for the candidate to each registered voter. If each candidate has to submit the same information, and each email gives out just that info, it can hardly be considered an endorsement of any one candidate. That way the voter has an easy way to find the basic information about each candidate, and can make something closer to an informed decision. And that's the plan.

Would this disenfranchise those without access to email? No, but it would mean they would have to work harder to figure out who to vote for. This is a small part of the population, though, and it is a part that already has the highest representation in the voting process, so I don't think it's a problem. What I think it is is a way to increase not only the number of voters, but also the quality of their voting. I'm not expecting that they will all vote the way I will, but they will be voting for a reason, and not, hopefully, just for a party.

This is something that would have to be implemented locally, though. We are talking about getting more people to vote in local elections, because they matter, and it would be wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, for the federal government to mandate local election policy. It is a good idea across the country, though. I don't have readers in every state yet, but with your help we can get this idea to every state election board in the country. First, send the plan to your state's board of elections. Then, send this link to friends in as many states as you can. Maybe we can start to see a movement toward better politicians getting elected at the local level, because these are often the ones who then get elected to higher office.

Pelosi is a liar

NOOn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:02:00 GMT

My respect for the speaker of the house has reached an all-time low. I base many of my voting decisions on the honesty of the candidates,and if everyone voted like I did, they'd be screaming for a recall right now in California.

I have used the phrase “put one in one's place” many times in my life, and the place I was referring to never had anything to do with the covering of ones feet, the contents of (or even existence of)ones womb, or the room in which one stands. It has everything to do with reminding someone of who has been getting too uppity of exactly who they are and who they aren't.

Now, this started with what I see as a mischaracterization of General McChrystal's remarks by the Speaker. That's fine, or at least,that's politics as usual these days, for which the leader of the house of representatives bears some responsibility. But it's nothing unusual, and many people will disagree, mostly because they haven't read the General's speech. Ms. Pelosi has just found a convenient way to look anti-war while she passes the defense funding bill. That's all I think she was going for.

But then the RNCC said something stupid. It wasn't sexist, but it was stupid. It was stupid because it is precisely the place of the highest ranking representative in the land, the member of the legislative branch closest to the Presidency, to call out what she sees as extremely inappropriate behavior by a leading general. Put her in her place? She was (sort of) doing her job.

But then someone on the left decided that the Republicans were haters,and so could only mean the kitchen when they talked about putting someone in their place if that person was a woman. They then coupled this with a couple of real sexist things that Republicans have said recently, and called it proof that this was their intent. Now,either the left side of the press are stupid (sometimes I wonder, but no) or they are knowingly pushing a scandal that doesn't exist,hoping to make it into something real (Tell me, Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?)

And now Pelosi, who of all people should just walk away, is actually helping fuel the “scandal”. That's why I call her a liar.

Why we need the expanded hate crime law

NOOn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:02:00 GMT

There's been a new law passed on hate crimes. It was attached to the military budget, and this was pure politics, although the ramifications of it have yet to be seen. It extends the definition of a hate crime to include new groups, including gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also has a provision to make it a crime to persecute the troops for being troops, so I guess you can add military status to the list. The thing to know about the list is that only one of those groups are regularly persecuted, or maybe two. Statistically, most hate crimes are racially motivated, which was already covered. The most common crime covered by this law is sexual orientation, which is the third largest by percentage. Hate crimes against returning troops I'm guessing aren't tracked, but are probably still low.

Now, the Republicans, pretty much to a body, voted against the bill. Remember, this is a war funding bill with an unpleasant amendment tacked on, not a civil rights bill standing alone, so a number of people who normally would have voted enthusiastically for it voted against it, while those who might normally have tried to defund the war to control foreign policy instead voted for it. Many of the Republicans who voted against it did so on the grounds that it is essentially a thought crime; that is, we are punishing someone for what they were thinking when they committed a crime.

This is somewhat true, but it misses the point. The point is that a hate crime victimizes a whole community. I know many very intelligent black people, and also African Americans (some seem to prefer one term while others prefer the other. I don't personally mind either way) who have been so affected by racism that it affects all their relationships. Even the ones who are able to recognize that not every white person they meet is a racist still expect to see it around every corner. One has to wonder what horrible experiences have made them think this way.

The same holds true for gays. I mean, the word they stole to describe themselves quickly became a pejorative, and it remains so. Every homosexual I know has a fear of persecution, and a chip on his or her shoulder as a result. It's not because every one has been so persecuted. It's because some have been so severely and publicly persecuted. When there is a pattern of hate crimes against a group, we need to protect that group.

Now, let's look at the argument from the Republicans, that this is a thought crime. It does have some validity. After all, how can you really know what a person was thinking when they committed a crime? Also, does someone's motivation really make a crime worse? As to the second question, I think the answer is yes and no. No, if it were the same crime, but yes, because the intent of a hate crime is to express the hatred for and intimidate the community, and usually to keep that community in a powerless position, which makes it really a different crime, a crime plus terroristic threatening. But the first question? That's a little harder.

We need to be very careful when prosecuting a hate crime to be sure that the motivation really is racism, or anti-gay sentiment, or religious bigotry (the second largest source), and not simply greed, or personal vengeance, or one of the other common motivations for crime. This is very important for two reasons. First, we as a just nation do not want to wrongly convict someone of a crime. Second, a conviction for a hate crime can have some of the same effects as the crime itself (this should not be used as an argument against hate crime laws. The net effect is still positive). So we want to tread carefully.

Now, just like affirmative action, which is intended to correct problems of perception based on prejudice, there should be a periodic review of hate crime laws, to see if they are still necessary, or if they have outlived their usefulness (this might be a good idea for all laws, for that matter). However, unlike affirmative action, which is already running it's course as regards race, we need a very long time scale for hate crimes. The reason for this is that hate is generational, that is, it is often taught by parents to children, and grandparents to grandchildren. It takes a long time to overcome prejudices. It has been fifty years since the civil rights movement began, and there are still a lot of racially motivated hate crimes (I think part of the reason it's at the top of the list is because it's the largest of the tracked groups, but that's probably not the only reason).

So, what's long enough? I don't know. It might take a hundred years. Obviously I hope not. I think the best thing would be to start with fifty and then review every ten or so. It may be that we can stop hate crimes faster where there isn't such a long history of it. That would be a good thing.

the path to victory isn't what it used to be.

NOOn — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:32:00 GMT

The mainstream media doesn't get it, and neither, apparently, does Congress. There is a war on in Afghanistan, and they can see that, but what they can't see is what General McChrystal has proposed as the path to victory. The General sees it, and I think the President can see it too, though they may end up disagreeing on how best to follow the path.

They both recognize that the enemy is Al Qaeda, and I think they both recognize that the contest is not to see how many enemies can be killed, but how many Afghans can be recruited. The talk show hosts and bloggers on the right all see this as a contest to kill the most people. The reporters and bloggers on the left see it as a contest to see who can have the fewest people killed. Neither of those strategies will bring us victories over worldwide terrorism, nor will they lead to a more stable Afghanistan.

The good thing is, neither of those strategies is what's being suggested by the General, or considered by the white house. Hopefully we can get the press to recognize this soon, on both sides, so they will stop fueling this silly, needless, and self-defeating argument about a policy that isn't even under consideration, and the nation will be able to support the President in whatever he concludes is the best way to win the recruiting war in Afghanistan.

the unconstitutional constitution

NOOn — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:35:00 GMT

In what is a very controversial move, a Texas judge has declared an amendment to the Texas constitution unconstitutional. I wonder if this judge doesn't understand the meaning of the word, or if he thinks there is a statute of limitations of some kind, so that if an amendment is young enough, it's not really part of the constitution yet.

Without even getting into the rightness or wrongness of the amendment, let's just think about precedent here. If an amendment can be found to not conform to the original sense of the the document, and hence be unconstitutional, it opens a whole can of worms. I know this is a Texas issue and not a national issue, but I am not familiar enough with the Texas constitution, and I'm just guessing that you aren't either, so let's pretend it was a federal district judge who did this to the U.S. constitution. Let's say that in a few years a district judge in Chicago decides that the 22 amendment goes contrary to the sense of the original document, and so is an unconstitutional amendment. The accusations fly, that he is only doing this because he is an Obama appointee, and wants to see him elected for a third term. The case goes up to the supreme court, where at the end of eight years, four of th nine justices are Obama appointees (I'm just playing what-if here. If he doesn't bring back jobs before then, he won't even get a second term, I'm betting)

You can see where this goes. You can play this game with many of the amendments. I can think up lawsuits that I would be unwilling to pursue, and maybe a couple that I would be, to challenge most of the amendments, if I wanted to, some from either side. But the constitution is the constitution. The only way to get rid of the 18^th amendment was with the 21^st. If a federal judge had said that the state constitution violated the U.S. constitution, it would have been a very controversial ruling, but one he had authority to make, if he could point to something in the U.S. constitution to back it up. But a state judge is bound by the state constitution as the measure of constitutionality, and something cannot be other than what it is. This is a bad decision, whether you support gay marriage or not, because it undermines the very idea of law by constitution, and replaces it with a system where the law is whatever the judge says it is.

A brilliant bit of writing that I didn't do

NOOn — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:22:00 GMT

This ran a couple of days ago in the New York Times. I don't fool myself that I have more readers than they do, but what Mr. Freidman says, I have been saying for years, and it needs to be heard, so I am linking to his piece here, and including an excerpt.

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work.

There is more at the New York Times. Go read it.

some thoughts on the tenth amendment

NOOn — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:26:00 GMT

I have been looking at some of the news stories tonight, and there is a common theme in a couple of the stories that I see. In one story, we have a local school board telling it's students that they cannot ride or walk to school. Now, if you aren't keeping score, this leaves two choices. They can be driven in by parents, or they can be bussed. If I lived close enough that biking or walking was an option (and I used to walk 3 miles to and from school, mostly because I like to walk) I would certainly not want to be forced onto a bus, and as a parent of four, I can assure you that it is no trivial thing to drive a child to school. I suspect that the first choice of the district would be to have all the children bussed to school, because that gives the school more control. The thing schools want more than anything else is, of course, money, but in my experience control over as much of the kids' lives as possible ranks a close second. Often these go hand in hand.

In another story, Michigan has decided that a woman who is keeping some friends' kids safe and out of trouble for a little while before school, while waiting for the bus, for free, is actually running an unlicensed day care, and must be stopped. Let me put this in further perspective. The woman, Lisa Snyder, had some friends with a problem. They each had to leave for work about an hour before the bus came to take their kids to school. Mrs. Snyder, out of the goodness of her heart, offered to allow their children into her home in the morning before the bus came, so they wouldn't be home alone, because children are generally better off in social settings with adult supervision than alone unsupervised. Now, it was a neighbor who reported the situation to the authorities. I don't know what motivated this neighbor to get involved, but as there is no evidence of any real harm from Mrs. Snyder, and in fact evidence that she was helping people in need during this tough economic time, I think the neighbor's motives deserve looking into. Does this neighbor work for or perhaps own a day care, and is trying to drum up business?

To further put this into perspective, the bus stop where the children will eventually be picked up is at the end of Mrs. Snyder's driveway. Now, I lived in Michigan years ago, and I remember being outside when the wind chill was 60 below, and if you were sheltered, it was a mild 20 below. Are you telling me that on a day like that, that she should keep her own kids inside to wait for the bus, but watch everyone else's kids risk hypothermia? It's not like she gets anything from the deal, other than stronger community ties. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the state wants to control under what circumstances we are friendly with other people.

Now on to the connection between these two stories. I have talked a lot about reforming health care, and one of the objections raised to the various bills before congress is that they all, all five of them, mandate that every American, carry health insurance. This is seen by some in the libertarian crowd as an unwarranted intrusion of government into the private lives of citizens, and many on the right have begun to assert the tenth amendment as an argument against this part of the reform package. However, since the civil war, we have become increasingly a single cohesive nation, rather than a loose confederation of states, and so some things now are better handled at the federal level that the founders didn't even consider as issues, and health care was one of them.

The tenth amendment, though, says that some powers are reserved to the states, and others to the people. At the same time that we need to recognize that some things are federal issues and stop being stupid about them, we also need to move as much power downstream as we possibly can. In the case of the students bicycling, this is a school board decision, and they are revisiting the decision, and in the meantime are not preventing students who really want to ride from riding. It's a fairly local, small bureaucracy, and so it is somewhat nimble. In the case of the state of Michigan, though, the laws are being handed down from too high a point to be flexible enough to allow for common sense or reasonable judgment, and all that is left is fear of the government and oppression by the state. We need to revisit the tenth amendment, so that it more accurately reflects what we as Americans want: a single unified country with control localized as much as possible, rather than a patchwork of laws with power concentrated at a single relatively high level.

A different way of reaching 60

NOOn — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:08:00 GMT

Today is International Blasphemy Day. I'm not an Atheist, or even an atheist, but I do think that beliefs should be questioned, and thoughtfully.

However, I am a political Athiest. I not only do not belong to a political party, I actively think that political parties, at least as they operate here in the United States, do more harm than good. In fact, what little good they do only rectifies a situation that exists because they do.

This isn't a rant about political parties, although I can feel that coming soon. This is about the votes that happened yesterday in the finance committee of the US Senate, on the public option. It was defeated twice, in different versions, by votes of 8-15 and 10-13. In both cases, ten of those voting against were Republicans. Not coincidentally, ten is the number of Republicans on the committee. I say not coincidentally because they had decided that it went against their party doctrine to vote for the bill, and I'll wager that at least five out of the ten didn't put any more thought into it than that.

Let's examine that statement. If we threw out those five votes as invalid, then the vote on the first amendment would have been 8-10, still a loss, but the second amendment, the one proposed by Senator Schumer, would have been passed with a vote of 10-8. Why does this matter? Lets say these last five senators had researched the issues, or listened to their constituents (I'm not naming names here on purpose, but the ten should all examine their consciences). Let's say they split roughly down the middle, 2-3 against. Schumer's amendment would still have passed, and when the finance committee merged their bill with the HELP bill, there would be some kind of public option in the Senate bill. If Ms. Pelosi follows through with her promise to ensure that there is a public option in the house bill, that would mean that everyone voting would be voting on, among other things, a public option.

Also, the reason given for keeping the public option out of the Senate bill has everything to do with party politics. Mr. Baucus says he doesn't believe that all 60 democrats will vote for it. Oh, he doesn't say so outright, and he hopes that Senator Snowe will vote for the bill, but there again, he knows from hours and weeks of talking to her what she will and will not vote for. He can't be sure what the bulk of Republicans will vote for, except that they are going to oppose the bill because they are the loyal opposition. Now, if every senator would stop thinking with his lobbyit-filled war chest, and start thinking with the brain they were hired to use, there would be a higher percentage of defecting Republicans. The Democrats that don't want to vote for the bill are already pretty well known, and they even have a collective name, the Blue Dogs. The Republicans are just expected to vote as a block, and maybe that is part of why they do. If they were courted by the left instead of disdained, perhaps the 60 votes would be there and then some.

But this will never happen as long as Democrats and Republicans continue to treat each other like Israelis and Palestinians.

And now on a different topic. As I have been listening to my local talk radio shows, one topic that comes up again and again is the mandate for everyone to have health insurance, with the hosts being in general opposed, but always coming back to the same reason why. They always return to the idea that it's an unwarranted intrusion into our rights, and that if we want to be uninsured, we should have that right. Well, the rule of thumb has always been that your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins, and when your decision to not carry insurance directly impacts the rates I am paying, whether through taxes or premiums (or, as is most likely after this bill passes, both), your fist has hit my face.

Immigration, Health Care, and Education

NOOn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:54:00 GMT

There's been a lot of debate about health care, and one of the contentious issues has been health care for illegal immigrants. The left likes to call them undocumented workers, but I prefer illegal immigrants for two reasons. First, not all of them are working. We are approaching a 10% unemployment rate. There are no statistics for those without unemployment benefits, but I'm guessing the number is higher, since the number is higher among other demographic groups working similar jobs. Second, they are here illegally. They have violated the immigration laws to come in. I'll give you a hint. That's like violating gun laws in Texas. The laws exist, but they are very lax, and it's not hard to be legal, compared to most places.

So what exactly is the issue with these petty criminals (I'm sorry, you'll never convince me that immigration violation by itself is a big deal)? The question, as usual with illegal immigration, is whether they should receive taxpayer help with their life here in America, where they have no legal status. Those on the far right will insist that they have no rights, and ought to be deported as soon as caught, without even a trial. Those on the far left would say that they came here out of need and desire, and should be afforded all human rights, such as education in their language, health care, and so forth. As is typical, I, and most of America, fall in between these extremes.

Let's look at health care. Under our current system, if someone without insurance needs to see a doctor, they go to the one place that they know they cannot be refused care: the emergency room. This group includes virtually all illegal immigrants. If someone doesn't pay their hospital bill, it will most likely be written off as a loss, and it is allowed to be deducted from the hospital's taxes. Thus, not only are the emergency rooms being clogged by unnecessary visits, but those visits are often being subsidized by the taxpayer.

The first liberal proposal for health care reform would have brought this out in the open, by paying for anyone who couldn't pay for their own health insurance. This was not able to pass, but the fact that it was proposed has not been forgotten, and some people think it's still on the table. The Baucus bill would require proof of legal residency before treatment could be given, but I assume that emergency rooms would continue to treat patients regardless of their citizenship status, so under the right's plan, the government would still end up covering at least part of the cost.

The Democrats, in the person of Rep. Michael M. Honda, have a new proposal, which would allow people to buy insurance, including paying for whatever public option shakes out, from their own pocket, without requiring proof of insurance. They claim that this would require illegal immigrants to pay their own way. I say that they won't have enough money, and that this is a back door to overtly buying them government funded health insurance, or at least subsidizing it.

So both sides, if they got what they wanted, would have the government paying part of the cost of health care for those who are here illegally. If we do nothing, we have the same situation. No matter what we do, we are going to pay for health care for illegal immigrants' health care. That's not really a bad thing. It's in our national interest to be sure that we take care of any infectious diseases they might catch, so they don't become a vector we can't control.

On the other hand, we already have publicly funded education. Enforcement of rules, and the rules themselves, on enrollment without documents varies state to state. In every state, though, there is not enough money for education. Every illegal immigrant child in school is a burden on the system, and I submit an extra burden compared to a child who is here legally, on average, because they are more likely to need extra services. What is more, the ROI on these children is virtually nonexistent. So we are spending taxes to give an education to these children, and receiving nothing or very little for it.

Now, our education system is far from world-class, until you get to the university level, and maybe until you get to the postgraduate level. It is in great need of reform, and part of this reform needs to include a decision about illegal children in the classroom, but I have a hunch that even in places like southern California, the percentage of young children in school who were born outside the US is small. Many of them, though, may have parents who are in danger of deportation for immigration violation.

And this is a problem. It is practically in the constitution, and specifically in the USC, that if you are born on US soil, you are a citizen. As mentioned above, an illegal immigrant who presented herself to deliver a child at any emergency room in the US would, in short order, become a near relative of a US citizen. When that child is born, he is issued a social security card, and becomes eligible for a lot of benefits such as Medicaid and AFDC. These are programs that will send benefits to children of parents without documents, as long as the child is a citizen. This gets the right steamed, because they know they can't, in good conscience, break up the family, but until the law is changed to disallow such “birth tourism” in such a way that it doesn't violate the 14^th amendment, they haven't got any other way to send the illegal immigrants home.

There is no simple answer. Citizenship should not be conferred for the price of a plane ticket. On the other hand, it is not true, as those on the right are so fond of saying, that an illegal immigrant pays no taxes. They pay the same sales tax that anyone else does, for one thing. For another, if they are working with false documents, they are paying the same payroll taxes that you are, except that I'm willing to bet that they don't file for a refund at the end of the year. It's true that many of them are working as day laborers, and are paid (or not) in cash at the end of the day, and never report this income, but People in this income bracket are not likely to owe any tax at the end of the year anyway. If you really want to ensure that there aren't illegals skimming money off the American taxpayer, improve enforcement and fines on employers.

Illegal immigration is a national issue, and is going to become more of one in the coming years. It is important for us to realize that allowing little violations of the law to go unpunished is not a good way to promote respect for the rule of law, either from the lawbreaker or from others in the community. This is why unfair laws should be changed, and not just ignored by police (I have a long list of laws that are selectively enforced, because the harm is not enough to justify prosecuting everyone who breaks the law). We need to reform our approach to immigration, but we need to be very careful. We stand to lose the very essence of America if we do it wrong. I suggest that a good reform package could include fining those that employ illegal immigrants, and also those who come in illegally themselves. Treat it like the minor harm it is, and then teach immigrant how to become a citizen. Put their name on the list of those who have applied. Don't let them buy their citizenship, but maybe let them buy a work permit with an extra fee. Extend the diplomatic exception against automatic citizenship for newborns that currently applies to diplomats to include those who entered illegally, maybe even if they still have a work permit. Then they won't have to be afraid to exercise their basic rights, like the rights to equal protection under the law (the law doesn't have to say they have the same rights, but it does have to say that they have protection from things like murder). If they are not willing to pay for a work permit, they are not welcome to stay in the US while they wait for their citizenship application to be processed. Just a thought.

The appearance of evil

NOOn — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:57:00 GMT

There is a saying in Christianity that one should avoid the appearance of evil. I've heard this phrase used to justify all kinds of things, from not getting Yakuza-style tattoos to men not having facial hair. I think, though, that it applies more to one's behavior than to one's appearance, and that it is good advice, whatever your thoughts about religion.

Which is why I think that the four legislators from New Jersey ought to step down, because what they did looks so bad, no amount of talking is going to restore the public's faith in their integrity.

You see, here are the facts. A company called ReGen Biologics was having trouble getting approval to sell it's product from regulators, because scientists at the regulatory agency said the science behind it was bad. ReGen then gave money to the campaigns of four legislators in the state where the company is located. Those legislators then went and talked to the management of the agency, and the scientists were overruled, without an explanation. How questionable was the transaction? Well, the agency involved is the FDA, and as soon as it became public knowledge, they issued a recommendation not to use the product until further scientific studies could be done, which says to me that they are getting ready to reverse their decision. Oops.

Now, if the company had simply gone to their legislators and asked for help, and received help, that would be one thing. That's what we elect these people for, after all, is to represent us in Washington, and I suppose that what they did was represent ReGen Biologics to the FDA. However, the fact that the legislators received money first makes it look like they were unwilling to help unless they got money. That makes it a bribe. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that's what it looks like happened. If the four had wanted to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, they could have returned or refused the money. Instead, they are acting like this is a perfectly normal way for a legislator to behave. Maybe in New Jersey it is, but we should demand better from those working in Washington. If the four won't step down, they should be removed from the senate and the house, either as an example that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated, or as a sign that it won't be allowed any more.

And just like with children, consequences need to come as soon after the offense as possible. Are you listening, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi?

The war for hearts and minds of Americans (because Congress has neither)

NOOn — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:14:00 GMT

There's a war on. It's a war for hearts and minds. This time, it's not a war for the hearts and minds of the Afghans, nor of the Iraqis, but of the American people.

Oh, it's still being fought by the U.S. military. But the goal is to win enough support in congress that General McChrystal can get the troops he needs to win in Afghanistan, rather than leaving in defeat.

The current battle has the CIA fighting in support of the general, and some unknown congressperson and Andrea Mitchell fighting against him. The CIA has stopped three different terror attacks yesterday, with presumably more to come in the next few days. If you read through the text, you see that they took real terrorists, those people that really were plotting to kill Americans on American soil, and manipulated them into trying to attempt all on the same day. Good PR? Probably. Will it work? It's hard to say.

Because the day before, Ms. Mitchell announced to the world that she had an independent source, which if it is real has to be a member of congress, who told her that hidden in the General's report was the fact that it would take 500,000 troops to get the job done. Ms. Mitchell then editorialized that it would be impossible for the the Afghans to fulfill this kind of commitment, so he must then be talking about American soldiers.

Now, Is the CIA tactic a moral one? No, I don't think so, but it's less immoral than what Ms. Mitchell has done. First, she asks us to take it on faith that she has a single source so credible that we should trust it, without knowing what it is. Second, she is obviously interpreting the news for us, without reporting it first. If you read the unclassified parts of the report, the general uses similar numbers to describe the number of Afghans he is expecting to train, and that he is asking additional trainers to accomplish this.

The CIA, on the other hand, merely chose to arrest a bunch of terrorists the day after she said this, and make it public that in order to have an airtight case, they let the terrorists go through with their plot, except they rendered the plot harmless partway through, unbeknownst to the terrorists. The only thing the CIA did that was immoral was to adjust the timing of their arrests to achieve the maximum benefit for their presumed ally, General McChrystal. Oh, and lie and cheat when dealing with the terrorists, but that's in their job description.

Big Pharma's sweetheart deal

NOOn — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:01:00 GMT

There has been much discussion about the role of insurance companies in putting the kibosh on health care reform, but they are far from the only industry in the fight. Early on, the big culprit in the escalating cost of health care was considered to be big pharma, but they cut a deal with the politicians. That deal needs to be scrutinized.

Lets look at what the drug and medical device makers are getting out of the deal. First, they are getting double the length of time from release of product to release of generic. In an amendment that passed both the house and the HELP committee, the length of a patent for new drugs was increased to twelve years.

The drug companies were able to dictate that it would continue to be illegal to import medicines from Canada or other overseas sources. Now, they may be right that the quality is better in American made drugs. But this should mean that people will continue to pay more for them. Big pharma still gets its big money.

They also get to avoid government price controls. Now, I am not generally a fan of government price controls, but I do wish the government weren't making it easier for the drug companies to stifle competition. If big pharma gets to keep it's monopoly, then we need an equally monolithic price negotiator to keep them close to honest. I just wish there were a less corrupt one available than the government.

Perhaps the biggest benefit to the drug and medical equipment manufacturers? They get to stop being the villain. They are still donating more to congressional campaigns than any other medical industry, but they look like angels, because they “volunteered” to take a sweetheart deal.