The Reason I Forgot Michael

I know Giraffe was wondering

Why regulation always fails

and always will:

The dozens of insurance companies that make up the American International Group show signs of considerable weakness even after their corporate parent got the biggest bailout in history, a review of state regulatory filings shows...

Over time, the weaknesses could mean trouble for A.I.G.’s policyholders, and they raise difficult questions for regulators, who normally step in when an insurer gets into trouble. State commissioners are supposed to keep insurers from writing new policies if there is any doubt that they can cover their claims. But in A.I.G.’s case, regulators are eager for the insurers to keep writing new business, because they see it as the best hope of paying back taxpayers.

The conceit of government regulation, especially regulation done "to protect the consumer," is the idea that if those in power can just come up with a wise enough set of rules, bereft of those nasty loopholes that the greedy always manage to find, then life will be fair and fun and all the children will be above average. That people still hold to that idea in the face of the short history of government regulation is evidence of mental illness.

It does not matter who writes the "rules," and it matters even less what those rules are, because they are not going to be followed anyway. And it won't just be those greedy businessmen finding loopholes that allow them to go on with business as usual, much to the frustration of noble but powerless regulators. It will usually be those regulators themselves who allow, and often force, companies to go against the rules, for reasons of their own.

When AIG fails again, and it will, that will be taken as evidence of the need of more and better regulation for the entire industry. Well, they'll certainly get more.

What happened to my birthday?

This is my niece, Ms. January*, who last fall gave us a 2009 calendar. It's a really nice one, autographed by about a dozen bikini-clad KU co-eds. In January, we hung it in the kitchen, where it hung, on January, until this week.

But earlier this week the question arose as to which day of this week my birthday, July 31, would fall on this year. So being too lazy to look at my cell phone and make a calculation, I flipped forward on the calendar to July, and you'll never guess what I found. Or didn't find.

July has only 30 days. Seriously. The 30th is Thursday, the next day is blank. Turning another page reveals the fact that August starts on Saturday. So I guess, according to the bikini-clad lovelies of the University of Kansas, I don't get a birthday this year.

So now the lovely and gracious Rogue will be 2 years older than me instead of just 1. And if she complains about the injustice of women getting older and men remaining the same age, I can just tell her to take it up with her niece.

* My sister-in-law told me that while she was proud of her daughter, she was very glad when January was over. While I am likewise proud of her daughter, I am glad that it was her daughter and not mine.

Don't know if I'll cry

I don't know if I'll die laughing:

Brett Favre, the Hamlet of Hattiesburg, finally made a decision, finally told the Vikings that, after teasing them for months, he intends to remain retired...

Proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is the best decision Minnesota could have asked for. He was at best a one-year fix, at worst, he re-injured his arm in the second game and the Vikings replayed last year.

But I've been thinking about one thing since PiffordT broke the good news to me via text message this afternoon, and it's something mentioned in the article. See if you can find the contradiction:

Jackson and Rosenfels will sheepishly take first-team snaps early in camp, knowing the Vikings preferred a 40-ish serial retiree coming off arm surgery over them*.

Vikings fans, instead of dreaming of a Hall of Fame quarterback running a dynamic offense, will have to go back to hoping that Jackson or Rosenfels will miraculously become decisive readers of defenses and leaders of men.

The reason that Thing 2 and Thing 1 should be sheepish is not because of Favre, but because of the fact that neither of them have shown the ability to read defenses or consistently lead a team. It's not a question of confidence, but of ability and experience. Jackson Experiment II last year should have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that placing garland wreaths on Jackson's head before training camp opens does not lead to completions. As far as Rosenfels goes, if he was brought in to start, he should be relieved. If he was brought in as #2, he should be relieved. In either case, given that he's started but a dozen games in his 7-year career, the idea of playing behind Favre for a year should not have kept him awake too many nights. The reason fans do not expect either of them to be the Missing Piece** is not because of Favre, but because neither of them ever has been.

If the Vikings do not have a quarterback, that's not Favre's fault because that's not his job. I for one am glad that it never will be.

* Who just happens to be a multi-time All-Pro, a league MVP, the holder of half the NFL's passing records, and the owner of more Superbowl rings than the rest of the Vikings team put together.

** The Vikings have long been a team that was one player from the Super Bowl. Eternal hope, thy name is "Herschel Walker."

Politically incorrect

I'm convinced

But WND is not:

The announcements of Barack Obama's birth printed by two Hawaii newspapers in 1961 do not provide solid proof of a birth in the Aloha State because of uncertainties over the policies and procedures that apparently were being used at the time.

They may not provide "solid proof" or legal proof or irrefutable proof, but they do provide reasonable proof.

The announcements are found in the August 13th editions of two papers, and the announcements come from the state government, which I can only assume gets it information from the hospitals. Since that's just 9 days from birth to printing, it seems to me that WND's contention that "The newspaper's 'proof' of birth, therefore, could be based on a state-issued Certification of Live Birth" stretches credulity no little bit.

Anyone who has ever tried to get a state government to issue any kind of paperwork in a week's time, much less issue it in time to get it into a report for the press that quickly, will likely demand a little more evidence than might-haves, could-have-beens, and a lady down the street doesn't remember Barack O'baby ever living there.

Hard Questions

It's hard to argue when there are no answers:

...we've reached the point where we don't have a system of health insurance anymore. Having health insurance is kind of like having property tax insurance -- you're know you're going to get a big bill every year, so the idea of purchasing insurance for it is kind of silly when you come down to it... I think the issue isn't so much an issue of "health insurance for all," so much as moving to a more rational health care financing scheme. But all the talk of health insurance reform increasingly strikes me a pounding a square peg through a round hole.

Indeed. In fact, I think that the power and the cost of modern medicine have combined to create a problem that is literally intractable.

Of course, it is several separate problems rolled into one, and the author is perfectly correct that it would work better (or did work better) if it were more like auto insurance. Or even better, we can illustrate its "badness" by comparing it to gasoline insurance.

All of us must fill up our tanks when they are empty just as all of us ought to go to the doctor when we are occasionally sick. Now, imagine a system where you were not expected to pay for your gasoline at the pump, but were rather expected to pay a $10 copay for all the gas you want, the balance to be paid by your insurance company, to which you paid monthly premiums based on how often all of the people in your pool (e.g. your thousands of co-workers) used gas, plus all the costs - buildings, salaries, office supplies, executive bonuses - of the company. Can anyone imagine that this arrangement would be a better way to buy gas than just paying for what you put in the tank? Would it deliver more gas to more people at less cost than just paying at the pump? I cannot imagine any circumstance under which it would.

But that's just one part, the "routine" part. In the old days, because we did not have all the drugs and machines we have today, if you got sick, especially when you were old, you died. Maybe the doctor could give you some codeine or morphine for the pain, but it wasn't his fault, those were just the only tools he had. Today we have the ability - though it comes with incredible costs - to extend life almost interminably. We have machines that flush the blood, that keep the heart pumping - it is possible to keep a person on life support for years and years. It's estimated (though I'm too lazy to find the link) that a person will use 30-50% of their total lifetime medical expenses in the last 6 months of life. When we combine that with the modern idea that whatever it takes to keep someone alive, that's what should be done and damn the price, we have a recipe for incredible, unimaginable costs. Yet such machines and drugs are necessarily limited. We don't produce chemo pills like we do Tylenol. Perhaps we should, but we don't.

So since these machines and drugs are necessarily limited, how do we ration* them? We can do it by price, let everyone pay for themselves. We can do it by access, let those with the "best" insurance have as much as they want and spread the costs. We can do it by queue, get in line and wait. We can do it by politics, give the connected the best care. We can do it any number of ways, and yet the bottom line is that someone is going to get better care than someone else**.

So it seems to me that we have no solutions, only a choice of problems. In regards to the first set, I think the best way to get the most care for the most people at the least cost is to treat "regular" health-care like gasoline. If you want it, you pay for it. If you want a tooth filled, you can expect to pay the full price, and yet you'll be able to find whatever dentist is cheapest. If you want premium, expect to pay more. That means insurance would absolutely not pay for "routine" care, whether prostate exams or childbirth. But some people then might not go routinely and small problems would become bigger ones. I know that, and I don't have a solution for it.

However, when it comes to end of life care, where the real costs are, such a scheme fails, because the result is that every family will be wiped out by the bill of any single person who dies a lingering death. Who wants to say, "Well, Uncle Tom just needs to die because I'm not going to pay half a million dollars to keep the old fart alive in ICU for 6 more days or weeks or months"? Besides, the costs come after the emotional trauma of sickness and death - when we are deciding on care, we are simply trying to keep Tom among the living.

So what are the choices? A Logan's Run system where only the young and healthy get any care at all? A government scheme where people get to die while waiting on a list because some bureaucrat decides that colostomies are more important than bypasses? I don't know, but I do know that the "financing" scheme is intractably tied to the distribution and use scheme; there is no sense in deciding what people besides the patient are going to pay, and for how much while ignoring the realities that if people don't have to pay themselves, they are going to demand all they can.

Obama's system where everyone gets insurance that pays for everything does not solve the problem; all it does is introduce another level of deciders between me and the gas pump. It makes the same care *less* efficient and *more* costly. While that's everything I expect from government intervention, I do not know how to make it better.

At least without telling people that their insurance lapses once they reach some predetermined age - no pacemaker batteries or MRIs after, say, 90 - and they need to just go away and die quietly. And that's not something I wish to do for anyone but myself.

* All limited goods are rationed in some fashion, whether by price or fiat. The only useful thing my communist econ teacher ever taught me was that scarcity is the only reality in economics.

** Even under a completely socialistic system, senators and the president are going to get better care than I, so there is no such thing as "fairness" under any scheme.

(Hat tip: David Craft)

The problem gonna rise again

This time, in the area of firearms:

A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution...

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of ... the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Let me start this off with two caveats. The first is that ATF is absolutely incorrect in its interpretation of the Constitution. Whether one wants to approach it from the angle of the Second Amendment, which specifically circumscribes the federal government's power in relation to firearms, or from the angle of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which similarly negates the power of the Feds to interfere with commerce WITHIN a state, Congress and its bureaucratic creations like the ATF have absolutely no lawful authority to regulate production or distribution of firearms or anything else that does not cross state lines. The second, however, is that that doesn't matter a bit: the Feds will do what they wish unless their captive courts say differently, which they won't.

Not that "nullification" of Federal Law is a new idea, mind you. As early as 1828, South Carolina, which would later lead the nation into Civil War using it as a pretext, was arguing that states could negate federal laws that they considered unconstitutional*. But the fact remains that in the minds of the Feds federal law always supersedes that of mere states***. States, under our modern system, are mere administrative districts of the Federal government and must do what it says.

But the problem is going to rise again. And again. Whether it's the O-Force's stimulus boondoggle or its coming health-care disaster, or whether it's the toilet bowl ring left by Bush's ludicrous No Child Left Behind which is built on the same faulty premise, the states are going to find that the Feds constantly overstep their legitimate authority and force the states to go along. And the states go along, mostly quietly, because none of them can live without the Feds' underwriting of their own budgets.

The Feds are not going to back down; they have too much monetary power and institutional arrogance to do so. The states have only the choice of actual - they must consciously take themselves back to 1828 and play history forward from there - not symbolic resistance, which they are presently unwilling to undertake.

I'm of the firm belief that once we stopped adding states to the Union - and we have - the next step will be to lose them. But it will not be a pretty nor painless process. The states can squawk all they want about their "autonomy," but to get it, they must take it from the Feds by force. And when they try, really try, all hell is going to break loose.

A people, however defined, has the right to secede, as Jefferson said, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [their government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." But history dictates that the price of secession is the blood of the people; it always has been and probably always will be.

Just something to consider when the libertarians, Rick Perry, the AIP, and the Second Vermont Republic get too excited about the idea.

* in all fairness, SC was fine with nullification so long as it related to the tariff. But when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act**, they were the first in line to pillory various northern states who refused to abide by federal law in that respect.

** Which is why I find myself in such a hard place when it comes to interpreting the Civil War. As one who believes that the South had every right to secede - in that sense it truly was a "War of Northern Aggression" - and that abolitionists had a moral right and even duty to forcibly free slaves - in that case I cannot condemn Jennison and Anthony for "stealing Negroes" at gunpoint - I find myself in nearly the exact opposite camp of all of those who went to war, the south to preserve slavery and the north to preserve union. I guess me and Lysander Spooner make a majority.

*** That's what makes Sarah Palin's signing of a "sovereignty" resolution resolution this week so laughable. Unless a state is willing to refuse to enforce Federal laws, rather than just passing resolutions complaining about them, it is simply spitting into the wind.

This one time, at band camp...

Enough stupid to go around

Now that Obama has chimed in:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama said Wednesday that police acted "stupidly" in the arrest of prominent black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and that despite racial progress blacks and Hispanics are still singled out unfairly for arrest.

So on top of a tired, traveling black scholar with a racial chip on his shoulder* and a white cop who didn't have it in him to simply walk away once it was established that Gates owned the home, we now have the O Force boldly going where, wisely, no president has gone before. Hey, I do think the police acted stupidly. I also think that the professor did. Now, it appears that Obama has as well.

Now that he's had to "qualify" the statement, had the police union criticize him for it, even had Bill Cosby shocked at what he said, and managed through it all to completely distract everyone from whatever it was he was trying to say**, I wonder how long it will take before BarryO realizes that, you know, just because the press is asking the question doesn't mean you have to answer it. "That's a matter for the Cambridge police and Professor Gates to work out" is all he has to say.

UPDATE: The Congressional Black Caucus has added their 2 decibels' worth, and I wonder if anyone is surprised to discover that they loudly assert that the arrest of a wealthy black scholar outside his beautiful home in one of the most elite cities in America for being an asshole is "proof of the racism that continues to exist" in America.

So how about adding that the fact that in a not so long ago age, Mr. Gates might have been enslaved, whipped with a bullwhip, forbidden to learn to read, lynched by a mob, rented out as prison labor, shot by confederates, pushed to the back of the bus, forced to drink from a separate fountain or eat at a separate counter, hunted by dogs, and had the Supreme Court declare that he had no rights that a white man must respect and that he could not be a citizen of this great nation, could never, ever, be a citizen, because he's black? They won't do that, because that's only proof of the racism that DOESN'T continue in exist in America. And there's no free press in that.

UPDATE the SECOND:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Trying to tamp down an uproar over race, President Barack Obama said Friday he used an unfortunate choice of words in commenting on the arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and could have "calibrated those words differently."

The president said he had telephoned the white policeman who arrested Gates, and he said the conversation confirmed his belief that the officer was a good man and an outstanding officer...

"Calibrated?" Dude. Seriously.

* instead of calling the police, next time his neighbors should call the waambulance. My suspicion is that, should they ever see someone breaking into his house, they will go make a sandwich and to hell with his house.

** The press' coverage of Obama speaking is often strangely like the press' coverage of itself covering a story. People are talking, but there is no communication taking place. The talk is about the talk and nothing else.

I'd rather be a rogue

What D&D character class are you?? Your Result: Rogue A.K.A. thief. honesty makes a poor man, and you never want to be poor. Nor do you want to work for what you get. Quick feet and quicker hands are the tools of your trade. Shadows hide you so your foes are defeated before they see you.
Monk
Barbarian
Wizard
Bard
Fighter
Druid
Cleric
What D&D character class are you?? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

... which is weird, since I did not answer the obvious rogue question "correctly." And it's a shame when I have to pick Eminem as my favorite anything, if only because he's the only choice I actually liked a single song of*. Why couldn't Bruce Dickinson or Ronnie James Dio make the list?

But I do dislike the "A.K.A. thief." A proper rogue is not a thief, or rather, while he can steal, stealing-for-stealing's sake is neither his mode nor his purpose. His objective is simply to accomplish his primary purpose via stealth and dexterity rather than via strength or magic. The rogue may pick a chest's lock to liberate its contents, but does that make him any more a thief than the fighter who bashes the lid off to do so?

The proper rogue cultivates a plethora of unusual skills; pickpocketing is just one of them and a very rarely-used one at that**. The rogue is a master of scouting, of seeking and finding, of the quick, critical attack. He is often the first into battle (though seldom the last out), and while he usually dishes out less total punishment than other members of the party, he can consistently administer blistering damage, quickly, and precisely where it is most needed. He is the quick-witted, quicker-fingered jack of all trades and he learns more of them faster than anyone else***. He develops an eye for quality and a taste for the finer things, but he is less obnoxious in his acquiring of them than most others.

My first D&D character was a fighter, perhaps not surprisingly named El Borak. My second was a ranger. But once I discovered the rogue class, I never wanted to play anything else.

* Well, actually I liked the Weird Al version of whatever that one song was. And sure, Al did some good covers of that other guy, but it was too, too many and they were far too easy.

** Seriously, what's a 0-level squab in a 2cp-a-night tavern going to have in his pocket? The Ring of Gaxx?

*** One reason mine usually "cover" as itinerant scholars.

...and I don't want to be a teacher*

So my first assignment HIST699 is to find a "real job...for which your history skills would qualify you," then write a resume and all that jazz. Man, am I glad I'm not getting a history degree in order to find a job.

They should make history majors do this assignment before they can become history majors, not when they're on the way out the door. Other than people who become teachers, I suspect that 99% of history grads get a job not because of their area of study, but in spite of it.

* not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not me.

UPDATE: The numbers just got a lot bigger:

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Of course, the Treasury Department immediately said that the numbers are "flawed," because, well, they're all going to pay that money back, and if they don't, then the government can take all those assets that no one wants that caused the trouble in the first place*. Or something. But they're flawed. Really.

And the Treasury Department ought to know. They've been on top of this problem since the beginning and have it contained.

* "...they don’t take into account assets that back those programs or fees charged to recoup some costs shouldered by taxpayers."

Spiritual lies

If there's one question I hate to hear most of the time, it's "How's your spiritual walk?" It's not at all like being asked, "Hey, how's that hamstring?" or "How's your mom doing?" which can be* blown off with a quick "fine" and a handshake. How's your spiritual walk is a far more intimate and, frankly, judgmental question, because it carries powerful moral overtones.

It's a very spiritual-sounding question, and it immediately establishes the asker as a spiritual expert and maybe even a spiritual better. If you say, "fine," it gives the asker the chance to exhibit a pensive, "hmm..." and to let the askee know in no uncertain terms that the asker considers himself in a position to judge** whether that's indeed the case.

But I don't hate it for all the potential pomposity of the asker, but because it makes a liar out of the answerer. How's your spiritual walk puts the answerer immediately on the defensive, because although it may be asked with only the best of motives - or none at all - its being asked presumes a negative and morally-culpable answer. I mean, is anyone's spiritual walk all it could be? I suspect not. We all have sins and shortcomings, we all deal with setbacks, we all have those things in our lives that as soon as we think they are beat pop right back again until we begin to suspect we will only be fully rid of them when our our name is carved on a slab of granite over two dates, hopefully far apart.

But the possible answers are limited. We could tell the person the truth: that it's none of their business, but that is in bad taste and perhaps uncharitable and the asker will certainly be offended, for in all likelihood he was just making conversation***. In any case, even though it does not say anything in actuality about one's spiritual walk, it will be taken as an admission that it is poor or that you're a jerk.

So the answerer, assuming he really doesn't want to reveal his own innermost struggles to a stranger in a crowded church foyer, is forced to say something on the order of, "Hey, great, couldn't be better" or "It's not even a walk, but a brisk trot, or maybe even a canter." Hypocritical, plastic Christian, filling dead air with dead words, but there you go. We are forced into such an answer by the very fact that it's none of the person's business and our spiritual pride will not allow us to give the impression to a stranger that we are less a Christian than him. In asking such a question, we are virtually forcing the answerer to lie, to say things are fine when maybe they're not, to claim a spiritual mantle that perhaps none of us is worthy to bear.

Like many spiritual things, How's your spiritual walk has a power that needs to be respected but is not. It should cross the lips only to a person whose confidence we already share, in an environment that is proper, and on an occasion where the person can and wishes to honestly and openly share their moral, emotional, and spiritual struggles with us. When asked in that context, it can lead to a more powerful bond, a stronger friendship, and much-needed help offered between Christian brothers. When asked in passing, that spiritual power is wholly turned toward destruction.

* and is probably expected to be. I mean, you ever see the look on someone's face when they ask how you've been and you answer, "Well, I've got this chigger bite on the bottom of my sack and it itches so much I can barely sleep"? Me, neither, but I'm sure it's a shock, even though they asked.

** It's even worse when a questioner asks someone else about your spiritual walk, which wraps up both gossip and judgmentalism in one spiritual package. It's very dangerous ground for any Christian to tread.

*** Which is why, "Do you think Favre will make it through the whole season? Is a perfectly acceptable question to make in passing.

(hat tip: Magic Negro Watch)

(hat tip: Mitzibel)

Leave Bernanke Alone!

Can't you see that he's suffering?

More than 250 prominent economists warned that critics of the Federal Reserve are putting "the independence of U.S. monetary policy...at risk," and they urged Congress to back off lest it undermine the Fed's ability to manage the economy and thwart inflation.

The petition reflects growing unease among professors, former Fed officials and some investors that the vehemence of the criticism from Congress of the Fed's handling of the financial crisis suggests a readiness to weaken the freedom the Fed has to move interest rates as it sees fit.

In other words, the petition reflects the concern of bankers that Congress is getting too uppity.

You know, I hate to be a buzzkill, but the Constitution gives to Congress "the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof." It is Congress' job and I would argue, their primary job*. The Fed is not only secretive and dangerous to America, it is blatantly unconstitutional. The Fed sending its sycophants out to tell Congress** to bugger off is the height of arrogance. "Pride goeth before destruction" and all that. I hope.

It's not that Congress would do any better job were they given the ability to create paper money from nothing and manipulate interest rates, it would probably do far worse, which was the original argument for the Fed's "independence." But what the progressives forgot when they saddled us with this monetary Cthulhu is that independence from the voters just means that the nation's monetary policy would henceforth be run in the interest of its banks***.

In the progressive tradition of doing everything exactly wrong, Obama seems to be of the opinion that the Fed needs to be given even more to do and even more power to do it with, so much so that Congress itself is finally starting to balk. If that's a double-secret Obama plan to destroy the Fed, I sure hope it works out.

* Which goes a lot way toward explaining why they turned it over to someone else so they could get on to the really important issue of steroids in baseball..

** By which they mean Ron Paul.

*** Yes, I know that's why the bankers designed and pushed the Fed. I'm just pointing it out in case some person who believes "progressive" and "democratic" mean the same thing wanders by. Progressives always end up turning governance over to committees, cartels, and dictators.

I'm sure going to miss

those comforting colors:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has begun a review that could spell the end of the color-coded terrorism advisories...

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the review Tuesday by a panel of 17 people that include Democrats and Republicans, mayors, governors, police executives, and public and private security experts. It is a balanced group clearly designed to not only evaluate the alert system but also to provide political cover from critics for any changes to the color-coded system.

Whether they get rid of that idiotic system or not, you have got to admire the way the Obama administration goes about making decisions, or at least avoiding responsibility for them*. No one is responsible, no single person can be pinned with the decision. It's ass-covering on a monumental scale. It's not unlike the drive to get "bipartisan" health care - getting the other party on board will theoretically keep the voters from blaming Democrats when for some reason medical nirvana continues to escape us**.

Sure, it may not the be the perfect approach for voters, who might be denied meaningful criteria from which to choose between a big-spending Democrat who will break the nation's budget and currency while promising free lunches for everyone, and a big-spending Republican who will do exactly the same. But it is certainly the perfect mechanism for decision-making.

Because we all know that knowing you won't be held responsible for the consequences of your choices gives you every incentive to make the right ones.

* that's what "political cover" means. If it works, Obama gets the credit, if it doesn't, it's blamed on Republicans, mayors, and private security experts.

** but on the bright side, at least people who die waiting for health care will cease to blame the Democrats. In all probability, they'll even begin voting for them.

The quarterback is toast

Obama is a logic machine

At least when it comes to Africans:

Ahead of a visit to Ghana at the weekend, he said: "Ultimately, I'm a big believer that Africans are responsible for Africa.

"I think part of what's hampered advancement in Africa is that for many years we've made excuses about corruption or poor governance, that this was somehow the consequence of neo-colonialism, or the West has been oppressive, or racism – I'm not a big – I'm not a believer in excuses.

Obama makes a lot of sense here, at least as much sense as John Edwards did here, when he said, basically, that unless you hold people responsible for their own actions, they are never going to be able to take care of themselves. Besides being absolutely correct, there is one thing the President and former Senator Edwards have in common: they are talking about foreigners. They are not talking about American voters.

Think about it for a moment. If Africans are responsible for Africa, its corruption, its violence, its poor governance, even given the accepted realities of the late colonial era, then does it not follow that African Americans likewise responsible for the state of African Americans? Yes, slavery sucked. Yes, Jim Crow sucked. Yes, segregation sucked and was unfair and evil and hurtful and harmful. And yet many blacks find themselves today in a culture and a sub-society that is far worse for the average black resident than was the case 40 years ago. If Africans are respponsible for post-colonial Africa, then African-Americans are responsible for post-segregation Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Mobile, and DC. They are going to have to take responsibility for fixing it themselves or it will never, ever, be fixed.

Yet what politician would say that? To say such a thing would bring howls of outrage from the press, professional race warriors, and every member of the political party to which the speaker does not belong. Unless he were an old white Democrat, that would be the end of his career*.

It's the same thing with Edwards. He was talking about the people of Iraq when he said that "people are more likely to take care of themselves when no one is helping them or propping them up." He would never say such a thing about Americans.

Liberals seem to have have a perfectly clear understanding of the harm that their programs do, at least when applied to non-Americans. But they are in a bind, because it is ultimately the voters, who will simply not stand for hearing that they are the people primarily** responsible for their own condition, who demand that liberals implement programs to allow people to do stupid things and not be punished for it.

Then again, if America was the kind of place that was run under just rules, where people received the just rewards of their talents and hard work, or the just rewards of their folly, where they were expected to be responsible for their children and their parents, to pay for what they consumed, if America was the kind of place where people got what they deserved - and if everyone wanted it that way - not only would there be no liberals, there would be no need for them.

(hat tip: Magic Negro Watch)

* If he were an old white Democrat, he might lose a choice committee assignment.

** not wholly, but primarily. There is a difference and it makes all the difference in the world.

Sometimes

it's fun to read just the comments.

But why would you want to?

Yes, the Washington Times invites you to view an even larger picture of the Screamer of the House. I didn't realize the the Times was a paper designed for masochists.

UPDATE: I don't know why, but for some reason I was imagining this conversation, going on in, say, London*:

A hanging bell above the door rings as a man steps off a crowded London street into a small, cluttered shop. Though the day is unusually sunny and warm for this time of year, he is wearing a raincoat. His eyes furtively scan the stacks of books and old vinyl records lining the walls, locking briefly on a poster of Peter Sellers dressed as a certain French detective, which inexplicably appears to be upside down, on the wall directly across from the door. A tattered, bored salesman glances up from behind the counter.

Salesman: Hello, can I help you?

Customer, in an embarrassed whisper: I think so. I'm looking for a large poster of Nancy Pelosi.

Salesman, momentarily stunned: Sir?

Customer: You know, Nancy Pelosi. From America. I'm looking for a huge poster of her. Really, really, big. Enormous.

Salesman: Nancy Pelosi...

Customer: Yes, you know, those gentle eyes, those soft, pouting lips. Preferably something in a string bikini, with her slender, nimble fingers sensuously toying with the knot in front...

Salesman: I'm sorry, sir. We're closed.

* So you're going to have to read this with a British accent. God knows I can't type it with one.

No, it's not serious

The G8 is just playing games:

L'AQUILA, Italy -- The Group of Eight leading nations agreed Wednesday to cut their emissions of heat-trapping gases 80% by 2050, but failed to reach an accord on shorter-term targets -- a setback that could have repercussions for a major meeting on climate change in Copenhagen later this year.

Chinese President Hu Jintao's sudden departure from the meeting early Wednesday further complicates negotiations, dealing a potentially significant blow to the summit's ability to produce concrete results on issues from climate change to economic recovery.

Any agreement that will take effect after all the signers will likely be dead is not a serious agreement, even if every nation in the world signs it in blood. It's very easy to make promises that others will have to keep, but that does not make them worth believing or even working toward.

But what would be worthwhile is requiring that the nations that are pushing agreements like this go ahead and cut their own emissions by 80%, over say, five years, well within the nation's election cycle*. We'll watch, not only to see if it can be done but to gauge the economic and social effects of such a move. If Denmark or some other green nation manages to pull it off, great, the rest of us can decide then whether it's a step worth taking.

If they cannot, well, then that will prove there was little sense in making such a promise in the first place.

* the election cycle is important, not only because it makes the current round or promisers accept responsibility for the results, but because future electees, especially those elected four decades in the freaking future, are under no obligation to implement what the current generation of promisers promises on their behalf.

A simpler solution

Is probably not the one Obama wants:

WASHINGTON — Reacting to the violent swings in oil prices in recent months, federal regulators announced on Tuesday that they were considering new restrictions on “speculative” traders in markets for oil, natural gas and other energy products...

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said it would consider imposing volume limits on trading of energy futures by purely financial investors and that it already has adopted tougher information requirements aimed at identifying the role of hedge funds and traders who swap contracts outside of regulated exchanges like the New York Mercantile Exchange.

You might be surprised to find that I actually approve of placing limits on speculative traders in the commodity markets. I know, I know, libertarian and all that. But I think there is a method to my madness*.

From my perspective, the purpose of commodities markets is to match buyers and sellers of physical commodities. They exist so the gold miner can sell his gold to a gold buyer, so the farmer can sell his corn to a popcorn maker, so the oil pumper can sell his oil to a refiner, who can then sell his product to a gas station. They do not exist so individuals, hedge funds, and big New York banks can gamble on what way the price will move, especially since their gambling is often as not a larger mover of the price in markets than supply of and demand for the actual product. So in my mind, there is much simpler way than the Obama way, which will involve nothing but filing paperwork and employing lawyers, both to write the new "rules" and to find ways business as usual can go on.

All that is needed is to require that the purchaser of a contract take physical delivery of the commodity at the contract delivery date, or to provide physical delivery - in short, it would ban the "rolling over" of commodity contracts into future months. For companies that want to purchase oil or gold or corn, that's no problem at all: that's the reason they bought a contract in the first place. For actual sellers, that's no problem, they sell contracts because they have actual product they wish to move. For "financial traders," whether Goldman Sachs or Monex or any other corporation that buys commodities they do not want or sells commodities they do not have in a leveraged bet on price movements, they could still speculate all they wanted. But it would probably require that they add to their glass-and-steel downtown headquarters silos and freezers for all the soy beans and pork bellies they accumulate. If they want to store them and re-sell them on a new contract, great, but I'm betting they really don't.

I'm all in favor of free markets; anyone should be able to buy or sell anything they want**, anywhere they wish to buy or sell it. So long as they really want to buy or sell it. Financial organizations leveraging made-from-nothing money in bets on the future movements of the prices of commodities that other people actually produce or use, however, they are not a part of those markets at all: they are its destroyers and its enemies.

* at least this particular madness. I have spent nearly every waking hour over the last three days on Price's 1864 Raid. For that particular madness, I'm afraid there is no cure. At least none that I want to take.

** Why yes, I do think California could and should ease its current budget crisis by letting drug users and hookers out of jail and leaving them alone in their pursuits.

Is there a category for "strongly amused by"?

Etcetra and stuff

With the lovely and gracious Rogue off to California for the next 6 days, El B is officially "batchin' it." Well, with 5 foster kids and 2 of my own here with me. But I'm taking vacation the whole time, so I ought to get a good nap in there somewhere.

I'm amazed* at how every time I get ready to write a paper, exactly the facts I need fall into my lap. My paper on the Kansas Fifteenth will now be called "Tarnished Glory," and will contrast the gallant actions of the regiment during Price's Raid with their disgusting actions following it. The research I found was a transcript of the 1865 court martial of Major Laing of that regiment, which details not only the looting that occurred on the trip home, but the drumhead executions of wounded Confederate soldiers as well. It should be a much better paper than the one I'd planned.

I have to disagree with Mish, who writes concerning the California IOU fiasco that:

Every one of those blood sucking banks was bailed out by taxpayers (California taxpayers too) and now will not take an IOU from the State of California for the citizens of California. This is disgusting.

No, it's simply good business**. Why should any bank lend a contractor or private company cash on the soundness of California's credit? If the company is worth lending to on its own, then it ought to get a loan to tide it over. But if the only collateral is an IOU issued by a profligate and bankrupt state, no bank should be forced to make such a loan, whether it's been bailed out by taxpayers or not***. Yes, California's problems may be bad for businesses who rely on state government to meet their payrolls, but the poor business plans of private companies are not the responsibility of banks.

The minimum wage is slated to rise this month by something like 10%. Since the Democrats assure us that price controls on wages do not cause unemployment, I again propose the Living Large Wage: $500 an hour for everyone. Who doesn't want to be a millionaire?

* and eternally thankful. It may sound cheesy and unlikely, but I'm not a good enough researcher to be convinced that all of this happens by chance.

** the kind of business that, had they engaged in it over the last 5 years, they might not have needed to be bailed out in the first place.

*** If a bank must take California IOUs, then what about those coming in the next months and years from other states, counties, and cities? Sewer commissions? Community colleges? Force that precedent now and you allow - nay encourage - all sort of government and quasi government entities to monetize as much debt as they want. You might as well criticize a Revolution-era grocer for not taking Continentals.

Follow the logic

well, follow the money anyway:

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama...

Obama said last month that a second package isn’t needed yet, though he expects the jobless rate will exceed 10 percent this year. When Obama signed the first stimulus bill in February, his chief economic advisers forecast it would help hold the rate below 8 percent.

The economic logic used by Ms. Tyson here is impeccable - and she's not the only one using it - proving once and for all that economics is not "the dismal science" after all. It may be dismal, but it's not science.

If you treat the last stimulus like a simple scientific experiment, it resulted in something like this:

If we do X, then Y will occur, where X= spend a bunch of money just to see it spent, and Y=millions of jobs "created or saved."

X is done, Y does NOT occur. In fact, if there is a causal link, it would appear to be the opposite of our proposal. Everyone acts surprised.

"Scientific" conclusion? We did not X enough and so must do it again and more of it.

Now, proponents of spending will justify the conclusion by claiming that things are far worse than they thought when they did the experiment*, therefore Y would be far worse than it is now had it not been done. But that's a hypothetical argument, it's not remotely based on the experiment. People who admit they were ignorant of the situation when they started the experiment are in no position to declare authoritatively what would have happened had they not performed it.

Of course, there are others whose hypothesis** goes something like this:

If we do X, then Y will not occur.

X is done, Y does not occur.

"Scientific" conclusion? Some people are cynics.

"Cynic" is Obamaspeak for "correct but in the way of what we want to do."

* And it's George Bush's fault.

** Known loosely as the "Government Wastes Resources" Hypothesis.

I'm sorry, was I picking?

How you know cities still have too much money

They care a little too much:

MINNEAPOLIS - The city of Minneapolis is spending nearly $200,000 to sell something that would seem to sell itself: tap water...

But the real problem for some may be the product. The city's water comes from the Mississippi River and a spring run off gives it a taste and smell, that's just a little off.

Minneapolis' water tastes awful*. But hey, if the city wants to drink their water out of a river, so long as they put it back when they're done so Missourians can drink it, more power to them.

But I find it very difficult to take the fiscal wailings of cities and states seriously, not only because they spend money on this sort of thing, but because they even consider that, even if they had all the money in the world, it's their job to do it in the first place. $200,000 spent on smarmy** commercials to convince people to consume a beverage they won't drink even when it's free is 200,000 reasons to appeal your property tax bill.

* Though it's probably better than it tastes in New Orleans after it passes through the kidneys of those living in Saint Lewis and Memphis.

** Seriously, I don't understand why the blonde doesn't just coldcock her tormentor after about 20 seconds.

Defending Hamilton

It seems we've forgotten the meaning of "if not excessive":

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.

The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.5 trillion -- equivalent to over $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.

The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn...

The United States went into the red the first time in 1790 when it assumed $75 million in the war debts of the Continental Congress.

Alexander Hamilton, the first treasury secretary, said, "A national debt, if not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

Some blessing.

Whether or not is IS a blessing, there can be little doubt that at the time it WAS a blessing. Long-time readers will note that I seldom defend Hamilton on these pages. But in this case, it's probable that he was exactly correct. But the difference is not simply the small matter of a small debt versus the smothering debt and promises under which our government finds itself today.

Government debt is the pecuniary measurement of choices not made. The reason we have a federal debt today has nothing to do with Hamilton or his Funding and Assumption program that made a number of outstanding debts national ones. Today we have debt because we refuse to make choices; it is always easier to borrow and spend than to either tax or tell the open-handed to go pound sand.

Hamilton did not borrow to spend; in fact, what he did could be called borrowing only in the loosest sense, as the money was already lent and already spent by others. It is no more borrowing than is taking over your neighbor's mortgage and letting him continue to live in the house. But why would he do such a thing?

There is an old biblical adage, where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Hamilton, in charge of the finances of a new nation - and one that no one knew would survive - faced the problem of getting people, especially the rich and powerful, "on board" so to speak. They had lent money to the Continental Congress and to a few states, and so long as those entities existed they had hopes of getting their money back with interest. In fact, what they had was a vested interest in seeing that those organizations survived for that very reason. By assuming the debts of states and the prior government, he gave the rich and powerful a financial incentive - their own lent money - to support the new government. So long as it was the new government that owed them money, they were not going to do anything that would undercut that government's ability to operate. When you are establishing a new government, that is more than half the battle.

So in that sense, a small if real national debt checked the ambitions of a lot of people who could potentially give it a lot of trouble. But every choice has a cost, and the cost in this case, as in all cases, was that a national debt took money from the poor and middle classes through taxes and gave it to the rich through interest. To get the rich on board, the debt needed to be significant. To keep the regular taxpayer from being fleeced, it could not be excessive. And it was not.

But if one wishes to look at from where modern government debt arises, there are two villains: guns and butter, war and welfare. Governments always outspend their revenues in times of war: WWI is the major reason no first-world country is on the gold standard today. But democratic governments also realize what Hamilton did, so long as people have a pecuniary interest in a government, they'll be on board with whatever it wishes to do. Today, such means Social Security and Medicare and transfer payments and unemployment insurance and a plethora of other programs that cost far more than our wars do.

Hamilton tried to get the rich and powerful on board in order to stabilize a very small and new national government. Our modern Congress tries to keep everyone on board to ensure that the current government can grow, a very different reason.

Hamilton was correct, and his new government was established. It remains to be seen how far Congress will get using him as a scapegoat for their own debt.