State government mandates and favorable tax treatment in Washington have so distorted the market for health insurance that a generation of Americans now look on medical coverage as something very different from other kinds of insurance that we buy. While we will pay several hundred bucks out of our own pockets to have a plumber come repair a leaky pipe, we'll balk at deductibles and a $50 co-pay for a doctor's visit. We've been schooled in this attitude by politicians who have mandated that health insurance do things that we'd never expect from other kinds of insurance, and by consumer advocates who will demand our legislators do something about a health insurance company that doesn't cover some optional procedure that has nothing to do with life and death.

Next, Charles Krauthammer on the promise of savings through universal preventative medicine:

The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment -- that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them -- is simply nonsense.

If you instinctively think he's wrong, please read his article, and follow his links to the CBO.

Also, Robert Samuelson asks readers to "Just imagine what the health care debate would be like if it truly focused on controlling spending."

Incidentally, Samuelson's proposal to use vouchers to cut costs--"Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality,"--steps directly into the larger conversation about the problem conservatives and libertarians have in fighting the expansion of government programs. A lot of people are afraid of being ripped off in the free market. They don't want to hear that they paid more than their friends for a plumber or auto mechanic or cell phone service. They don't want to compare plans, when they could just demand a "fair" plan that would apply to everybody. To some voters, the thought of a health care voucher is just a nightmare. They want to be able to go to a doctor when they are sick, without having to think about the cost. They want a mom, as noted on NPR's Morning Edition today.

Free market advocates just don't have a nuanced answer to that. We can keep telling people to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, but while we do that they'll keep voting for politicians who offer to take care of them. It is possible that there is no way out.

A few weeks ago, Bob Dylan--yes that Bob Dylan--was taking a walk in the rain while on tour in Long Beach, NJ. According to reports, he entered the yard of a house that had a For Sale sign out front. This very alarming behavior prompted the occupants of the house to call the police, apparently without interacting with ol' Bob one bit. I confess I don't understand that. But what I really don't understand is the behavior of the officer who responded to the phone call for help. It seems she (politely) asked Bob Dylan who he was and what he was doing, and made the determination that he was indeed suspicious lookin'.

Says the officer, "You know, it was pouring rain and everything."

Based on the suspicious act of walking in the rain, the officer put Bob Dylan in the back of her cruiser. The articles I've read make it sound very amicable and voluntary, but I have to wonder how this would have played out of Bob had tipped his hat, thanked her for her concern, and walked away. And maybe it wasn't so voluntary after all, given what else the officer had to say:

"He was really nice, though, and he said he understood why I had to verify his identity and why I couldn't let him go," Buble said. "He asked me if I could drive him back to the neighborhood when I verified who he was, which made me even more suspicious."

Officer Buble, I don't understand why you had to verify his identity. I don't understand why you couldn't let him go. I bet most Americans would be outraged if this had happened to them, but of course most Americans don't think it could happen to them, so the outrage does not take hold. What's the big deal? He looked like a homeless man, and it's not like they tased him or arrested him (this time).

For a variety of reasons, Americans have developed a relationship with their police departments that is best categorized as "It could be worse". It's not the Gestapo, or frontier justice, and yes this situation probably would have been worse for Jay-Z than for Bob Dylan. But I have the feeling that George Washington would have run you through with a sword if you tried to take him into custody for walking in the rain without identity papers. If that doesn't give you pause for thought, then I think you've missed the point of what this nation was supposed to be about.

To quote Bob Dylan, "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do." May you someday find that kind of success, Bob.

They're calling it a "blob". On the one hand, I think I hear Newton turning in his grave. Blob? Seriously? But on the other hand, I like the way that word immediately communicates to the layman (and to children) that we don't know what the hell it is. Sure, Newton is dead, but science is alive. Contrary to what some would believe, you don't have to know everything to be a scientist. We're always finding stuff we don't know. And we dig that. You can just about hear how excited Dr. Masami Ouchi of the Arnegie Institution is in this quote:

"There are two possibilities: the standard scenario of galaxy formation is wrong, or this particular object is showing something unique,"

But as is often the case, this mystery has a mundane answer. I know exactly what this "blob" is:

After a century of communism/collectivism causing unprecedented suffering and death, it's startling to have such unabashed, modern-day, 21st century (albeit cartoonish) communists still advocating its sickness. At a state-funded university, nonetheless. As an American, who ought to know better. And in Texas, the heartbeat of rugged individualism.

I also love the way that—in this blog entry—she places the words [American] democracy and founding fathers in quotes, but fails to put historian in quotes when describing Howard Zinn. Ha!

This is also a great read: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~dcloud/academicfreedom.pdf from someone who's clearly unsure of herself:

Another problematic assumption [made by David Horowitz]: Students can’t think for themselves. Try telling my students here at the University of Texas that! They’ll tell him where to get off.

Biting retort! You really showed him! It's hard to imagine that this is an undergraduate course syllabus.

But, perhaps I'm too harsh on Ms. Cloud. She's proving an excellent argument for homeschooling and private schools.

Transportation Department officials say that because so many contractors want a share of stimulus money, competition is driving down costs by about 15 percent to 20 percent.

So before the stimulus money, when Transportation Department money was "scarce", there wasn't competition for the money? But now that there is a lot of money available, there is competition that drives down costs?

Hrm. It sounds to me that the government should definitely spend money on infrastructure during a recession. Not because Keynes said so, but because the contractors will scramble for any job and do it on the cheap. I mean, government has to attend to infrastructure anyway, so I guess the cheapest time to do it is when workers are down and out and will do anything for a buck.

The trick to that, of course, is getting government to stop spending money when the economy is booming, because then it's expensive again.

Anybody following that logic?

Photo Credit: Kelly B.
Model: Ginger D.

The last time that I agreed with a Democrat was in 1861, when the Republican North invaded sovereign Democratic Virginia and declared war on the fledgling secessionist nation. It’s amazing just how much Lincoln changed our nation. We give a hard time to FDR and Wilson, but no one has impacted this nation more than Abe, honestly. The famous expression goes that before Lincoln we referred to ourselves as “the United States are” as if that were a bad thing. It’s interesting when you think about it, and I’m finally starting to get clarity on this topic after my Civil War phase last year. Here’s the analogy I’ve drawn:

If a person immigrates to this country, that new citizen retains the right to visit other countries (mostly) and to renounce his or her citizenship at any time. One of the greatest aspects of this country is that – if you don’t like it – you have the ability to leave it…at any time. This, to me, pretty much sums up the definition of a free country. Similarly, a union of federated states should operate in very much the same way. The United States of America didn’t conquer Texas, or Alaska, or Hawaii. These states joined voluntarily because the United States represented a mode of federated government to which these states desired to belong. Likewise – a state should be free to leave the Union at any point that that state feels the government is not aligned to how…well, actually, a state shouldn’t even need to give a reason. If a state doesn’t want to be a member of the union anymore, then so be it.

If we hold a free, law-abiding citizen here against his or her will, then we are living in a non-free country. We would be living in an authoritarian government. Yes, fascism. So what does that make us when we hold a state here against its will? So when Texas or Alaska secedes because the U.S. government has been radically bastardized from the nation they voluntarily joined (even 50 years ago), what is our “freedom” loving country going to do? March in there with the 4th Infantry Division? (Whoops…that’s already based in Texas, let’s try the 3rd Infantry Division). And would we be able to look ourselves in the mirror and honestly call our nation “free”?

That’s the problem with Lincoln. This didn’t have to come to bloodshed and war. When you have a number of states arguing about peacefully seceding, it’s a pretty good indicator that somewhere along the line the federal government has gotten seriously out-of-whack. I know that there are some logistical issues that make difficult – say – a Kansas seceding from the nation. They’d be isolated from the rest of the world. But again, instead of marching into Kansas with an army and overthrowing its state government, why not work on revamping the federal government to cater to the state? After all, what purpose is a federal government but to serve its constituent states (Not its people)? This is why Lincoln failed so miserably, in my opinion, and why – as distasteful as this may be to me – I believe the Democrats were right. And now 150 years later, the political party names have swapped but the heart of the issue remains the same.

Well, one thing’s for certain, the Democratic South would have fared much better had Lee had Chuck Norris under his command.

The arsenal in accused gunman Terry Sedlacek's room included two 12-gauge shotguns, a rifle and a box of 550 .22-caliber bullets,

A pair of shotguns and a .22 rifle is an "arsenal"? This piece is full of sensationalism, which is typical of the media when it comes to guns. I don't know how they can even pretend that their job is to report and inform, when they are so willfully uninformed themselves. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I did write to my senators (Webb and Warner) on the issue, encouraging retrocession. I also wrote my Representative (Eric Cantor), for good measure. I pointed out to them that allowing DC to be the only non-state to have a voting member is not in accordance with the Constitution. I also pointed out to them that it sets a precedent that I do not support. Any territory or district that wants full representation should attempt to attain statehood, as has always been the case.

That's what I told them.

I haven't yet heard from the offices of Cantor or Webb, but today I did receive an email from the office of Senator Mark Warner, and I thought I'd share with you all exactly what it said:

I believe that the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act takes a fair and balanced approach to granting District of Columbia residents the representation enjoyed by other citizens of the United States. In addition, we have received assurances that the bill will not open the door to any commuter tax or otherwise infringe on the rights of Virginians. I understand that some have raised concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation. While I appreciate these concerns, in my view, that matter is better left to the courts to address.

(Emphasis added.)

That's your plan?

I realize that legislators often pass laws that don't make sense and/or require a torturously loose interpretation of the text of the Constitution. But it seems to me that it cheapens the process to say Well, it might be constitutional and it might not... let's pass it and wait for somebody to file a suit and let it work its way through the courts and eventually see what SCOTUS says.

That's not what we Virginians sent you there to do, Mr. Warner.

I believe that Limbaugh wants the President to fail because he loves the country...

A fantastic piece that encourages us to focus on our actual differences, and not on shallow propaganda like calling our opponents "traitors". I wish more people (of every political stripe) felt this way. Please read it.

An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to England’s tea taxes.

Tea, although natural and quite tasty, is considered a pollutant that can’t go into a body of water without a permit, said Mike Wade, a senior environmental specialist at the DNR’s [Department of Natural Resources] Manchester field office.

A few quick thoughts:

1) Tea is not naturally found in the river, and depending on the amount and the flow it could theoretically have an adverse effect. If you were to dump in tons of it, that is. I suspect they weren't planning to dump that much. DNR is not some kind of environmental hero on this case.

2) It's a fantastic credit to Cedar Rapids Tea Party founder Tim Pugh that he actually took the initiative to contact the DNR and ask about it ahead of time. Honestly. That's a responsible leader who is looking to keep his group's members out of legal troubles. Clearly this guy is an earnest political activist, and not a rabble rouser. I wonder if he realizes that the guys at the original Boston Tea Party were, in fact, rabble rousers?

3) The DesMoines Register article really does say that you can't dump tap water into the river because chlorine is a pollutant. Yes, it says that. Go back and read it again.

4) For some reason, I suspect I know who runs the DNR. This guy.

The 11 minute long video is interesting not only because it attempts to define some fairly complicated financial terminology and processes, but also because of how it attempts to do so. Jarvis says, "This project was completed as part of my thesis work in the Media Design Program, a graduate studio at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California." Sure, it looks and sounds a bit like a PSA filmstrip from half a century ago. But even ten years ago, what adult would have exposure to that sort of thing?

I find it fascinating to see this project specifically designed for the internet and aimed at adults. As print newspapers are dying and the entire media industry is evolving to the new conditions of connectivity, this type of video may represent a large part of the future of educational journalism.

I'll now allow our resident economists to weigh in with their criticisms.

I am sharing it here because it seems to support my point in an ongoing debate with Rammage about intellectualism vs gimmick in the present and future of the Right. Glenn Beck identifies himself in this clip as a libertarian, and then proceeds to display a complete inability to have an intellectual conversation about legalization of marijuana. He just does cartoon voices and tries to belittle anybody he doesn’t agree with. He is bereft of facts, and he is a bufoon. In contrast, Kampia is dull and dry and not entertaining, but he’s got an intellectual argument about the topic at hand. Personally, I find that much more valuable. I see nothing redeeming in Beck’s performance here, and I don’t understand why people who care about the future of the Right would want to encourage Beck-like behavior.

Sorry, Rammage. I think the Right needs Joe the Plumber as a panelist on a CPAC Conservatism 2.0 Conference (“Activists, bloggers, students and scholars discussing new media strategies to shape the future of conservatism”) about as much as we need a William Buckley, Jr. to fix our leaky faucets. It’s not that Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck are bad people, or even that they are necessarily wrong on the issues. It’s that the anti-intellectualism that fuels their popularity is as unnecessary and non-compelling coming from the Right as it is coming from the Left.

When the Right embraces anti-intellectualism, it signals to young aspiring intellectuals that their home is in the Liberal Elite. Is that where we want our brightest young people? What message do you think they get when they see the Right championed by the likes of Glenn "there's two brain cells up in my head" Beck?

Yes, there is certainly a place for the average Joe, and in fact the Right should arguably mostly be average Joes. But they shouldn't be the ones at the vanguard of policy debates or even necessarily running for high office. To suggest that the average Joe is the best option is to suggest that he has something that a conservative or libertarian intellectual does not, and I reject that argument. Ought we not to find the people who have that something, plus intellect? Isn't that the best future for the Right?