It's OK to be a Pedophile?!

You've gotta be kidding me.

The Police says:

He's not doing anything wrong at the moment.

Well Not Yet.

Someone's gotta stop these sick creeps before something bad does happen. It just ain't right.

Yup, these are my bosses

Smart guys like us

On the repeated failure of various terror plots, Faceless Bureaucrat wonders aloud:

Why is someone who is smart enough to get an MD incompetent as a
terrorist?

I'm reminded of the scene in Office Space when they are trying to figure out how to launder the money they have unexpectedly stolen and resort to looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.

The Fine Prints

Wanted: Yes / No answers only, or nothing more than five words long.

We want more politicians that are "straight talkers", which is apparently defined by the two characteristics above.

It seems that the majority of Americans (or perhaps human beings in general) does not care to hear about the finer details of where their representatives stand in terms of policy.

In the interest of time and efficiency, we've developed broad categories -- left or right, pro-choice or pro-life, pro- or anti-war, among countless others -- for people to sort themselves. While acceptable and sometimes useful as a first cut, we seem to have stopped caring beyond what the broad labels say about us.

In the recent "You-Tube debate" among Dem candidates, one question posed was whether the candidates would meet with leaders of countries with which the US has strained or no current diplomatic relations.

And the battle of fine prints ensues -- at least between Clinton and Obama. I don't know for sure whom I agree with more, exactly because each candidate's answer must essentially be stripped down to "yes / no", with a lot of fine prints that didn't come until the candidates' "post-debate memos", which, unfortunately, is more a cherry-picking catfight than an honest discussion of the candidates' positions.

So I say chuck the headline news and free Metro newspapers. I also would rather watch one-on-one live interviews with candidates than the debates. The debates promote "negative politics" (focusing on attacks) and provides voters with very little actual information about their candidates. We're not picking out members for a debate team, and let's face it, all candidates are heavily coached on how they should answer these predictable questions anyway.

If someone only has to the time or interest to read or listen to no more than two sentences about an issue or a political candidate, honestly, you might as well just not know anything about it at all. That way at least you're less likely to fall victim to manipulation.

The (Conservative) Devil's Advocate

I'll start off by saying that I do support increasing health insurance coverage to children that would otherwise not be covered.

That said, a few things need to be made clear:

(1) I disagree with your remark about allowing for government coverage is to let "Americans being able to choose for themselves."

Let's be serious here. You're talking about this expanded coverage being paid for by either an increase in cigarette tax or cutting in pointless defense spending, so I take it that the expanded group would be able to enjoy the coverage for free or at a very discounted rate.

I'm not sure how that's realistically just "giving Americans more options." Let's see, do I pay ridiculous amounts in private insurance and copays, or not get my kid any insurance, or have the government pay for my kid's insurance practically for free?

Hmmm.... tricky... How can one be forced to face with such difficult decisions?

Coming down to it, it's a question of incentives VS needs. I'm not saying that these families are greedy government-program bloodsuckers; it's just that as laid out this program's goal is not to provide more American families with options, but to assist those unable to get insurance to be covered.


(2) One of the points raised is that more middle-class families are becoming eligible for this insurance program, presumably because the "middle class" is falling behind in relative and/or absolute terms.

If that's what the problem is -- the income & wealth inequality and the shrinking of the "middle class" -- shouldn't we be tackling that directly head on, rather than trying to fix the problems that result from it? If there's a leak in my glass, should I be dabbing away the water that drips out, or try to fill the leak?

I'm certain this comment will bring attacks left and right. First is that some see offering expanded insurance coverage as a way of filling the leak. Second is a question of whether it's possible and realistic to talk about filling the leak anyway, so what we can do as a government is to clean up the water mess.

I'll leave my rebuttal for when the attack actually comes my way.


(3) It bothers me that every time a group or individual is trying to push for a program that they hope implemented, they inevitably point to a cutback of bad / useless programs, or raise punitive taxes in activities that they deem should be "socially condemned".

The truth is, for every inefficient program which funding should be cut, a handful of aspiring programs would already have put their claims on it.

Inefficient status quo often preserves because it's unclear (& puzzling!) to the politicians how to reallocate the freed-up cash, in addition to fighting resistance from groups that benefit under the existing bad program. When we make decisions difficult for them, they end up choosing inaction, because that at least minimizes attacks.

There just needs to be more creative ways to raise revenue for one's cause -- at least for there to be any hope of being implemented.

Philosophically speaking, kids deserve to die

State Children's Health Insurance Program is probably one of the best programs run by the government. For the price of a few F-22's about 6 million kids from low and middle (with rising premiums, this is the faster growing group in the program) income families get health insurance so they can go see the doctor, get medicine, etc.

However, in his infinite wisdom the President has decided he will stand tall and veto a bipartisan proposal to add another 3 million kids.

The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan
Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35
billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding
and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion
being contemplated in the House.

"I support the initial intent of the program," Bush said in an
interview with The Washington Post after a factory tour and a discussion on
health care with small-business owners in Landover. "My concern is that when you
expand eligibility . . . you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people
to switch from private insurance to the government."

Leaving aside the rife inaccuracies in his characterization of the program, it comes down to him being afraid of forcing private insurance to compete with the government. That's right folks, the President is philosophically opposed to Americans being able to choose for themselves.

It would be almost farcical if it weren't so tragic. Seriously, conservatives (of which I include myself) are supposed to believe that the private sector is superior to the government, not the other way around.

And for those concerned about the budget impact I submit that a) the whole thing would be paid for by increasing the federal tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, and b) The program costs half of what we are spending on a completely useless missile defense program that no one is excited about.

On the off event that we're not just talking to ourselves here, I highly recommend this blog on international development.

Sing it loud and clear

Tonight the Republicans will be standing up and defending what they believe in: keeping us in Iraq no matter what.

Stephen Colbert last night. The MOST succinct and clear statement of the difference between the parties I have heard yet from anyone.

The Fudging of Numbers (Again)

I still think there's some sort of muddling / confusion as to whether the support was to end the debate, or for the actual bill itself.

For instance, Collins (R - Maine) supported ending the debate, but she would vote against the bill. Are all dems actually going to vote yea for the bill?

In either case, referring to the same AP article:

Reid pulls defense bill after pullout measure fails

Was the measure ever meant to succeed at all? Put more simply: What have we managed to accomplish between 8 pm last night and 8 am this morning? What were we even trying to accomplish?

Clarification (and exclamation)

For clarification, when I say Dems "completely support" Reid-Levin, I mean that every single Democrat who was at the Senate (remember, Senator Johnson is still in the hospital) voted in favor of cloture.

Cots are for the birds

Someone at AP was thouroughly pissed at having to stay up all night.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown that capped an all-night debate on the war.

Workers place cots in the Senate on Tuesday for a planned all-night debate.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats...

Emphasis added. I'm not a huge fan of majoritarian democracy, but last I checked that's the system we have here in the US. While they may have been procedurally unable to pass the ammendment, since when is getting 52% a "sound defeat". And what does that make it for the 66% of Americans who support it?

Also interesting that they note "Republicans were mostly unified in their opposition" - as opposed to Democrats who were COMPLETELY unified in their support.

The good news is CNN's earlier report actually used the word filibuster for the first time. Reid also said he's shelving Defense Approps for the time being. Like Bush himself said, Congress has the power to control money in times of war. Glad to see they aren't giving away their only piece of leverage. The next (and delicate) step will be to remind people at every turn that it isn't Reid holding up "support for our troops", it's the folks who refuse to allow an up or down vote.

Giant Douche & Turd Sandwich

Mr. None-of-the-above may soon run the world

I must be more of a pragmatist than I thought I were, because the many political acts attempted to "signal" the public's opinion or dissatisfaction -- utterly wasteful of time and resources yet with no concrete changes effected -- annoy me to absolutely no end.

Let's not even go into the little show the Democrats and Republicans put on for us last night. I've seen enough reality-tv-absurb finger-pointing shouting matches, I don't think we need to see that on CNN or front page news as well.

While I'm all for the masses (and esp. the powerless) having their voices heard, I think peaceful demonstrations, writing to your whatever-politician, grassroot organizations, and other similar means have been and still are the most useful and efficient forms of aggregating or representing public opinion.

"Symbolic actions" within the political system and procedures, on the other hand, is nothing but the relevant individuals' or groups' pathetic need to leave a mark in the history books. This pitiful desire for exhibitionism causes society incredible losses in time, resources, and progress, leading to stalemate and uncertainty in the political process.

The only positive I see out of it is my own selfish motives as a theorist. It would be interesting to analyze and observe how a change of rule in this direction would change how politicians act and conduct themselves. My first guess would be that if status quo rules while Mr. None-of-the-above is elected, it will lead to more irresponsible and self-interested policy choices on the part of the incumbent, because, all else equal, there's now a higher likelihood that he might stay in power for longer.

Grrreat.

Food for Thought

Voice of America, via Juan Cole:

"President Bush has signed an order that allows the U.S. government to block the assets of any person or group that threatens the stability of Iraq. The order exempts the United States."

In Defense of Michael Moore

I agree with you, but add the question of why it's ok for CNN to be "nitpicking on every single word" Moore has uttered? They've basically now called him out twice - once on Larry King and now in this thing - for (for instance) using 2004 Cuba data and 2006 US data and "creating controversy where none exists".

Moore says Medicaid is a decent model to build off of, Sanjay says Medicaid is going bankrupt (which is a vastly different word than "deficit", which Moore uses) in less than 20 years (i.e. probably not a good model), Moore says "but the whole nation is going to go bankrupt given the rate of increase in private insurance rates", and then CNN responds with "we never disagreed" - which they clearly did (and if they didn't they would have said "we agree that ..." rather than the undefined "there is no controversy").

The reason (I think) they are so pissed is because they see themselves as the arbiters of reality and truth; Moore in contrast is a political actor who - how dare he - doesn't kiss the ground they walk on and accept them as the last word. More importantly, the publicity surrounding his response socially challenged their position as the last word. I guarantee that were he to write another response, they would
have an even more furious and petty rejoinder.

At the end of the day, the reason all this matters is because there is still a vibrant and democratic civil society in the US. If people with low levels of political engagement (and there was an op-ed about this today in the Post) only exposure to the health care debate is CNN and Sanjay saying "Medicaid is going bankrupt" (and I guarantee there are MILLIONS who fall into that category) the process around (and consequently outcome of) health care reform will be vastly different
than if their one point of contact were "Medicaid is the most efficient health care provider in the US".

I still agree with Sajay for Pres!!

CNN-Moore Showdown

The Moore-CNN Standoff: CNN's Reponse (again)

Seriously, is CNN really worried that persistent attacks by Michael Moore on this will make it lose credibility in journalism and news reporting? It's one thing to watch Michael Moore's movies and think that Bush is a moron and dirty businessman, but it's a totally different ballgame when it comes to attacking something as established as CNN with such nitpicking on every single word Sanjay Gupta uttered.

It's like if Moore were to say that Harvard's a crap school that does not have serious scholars doing serious research because one professor came out and said something bad about his movie and the numbers he used, is it really gonna make people stop applying and wanting to go to Harvard? My analogy is to the extreme, but the main point remains.

I just don't understand why CNN would even bother to give him the time of day.

SANJAY FOR PRES!!!

Newscasters Rebellion (part II)

clipped from matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com

The news folks are REALLY sick of Paris - yet she persists. How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

Newscasters Rebellion (part I)

clipped from ezraklein.typepad.com

Via [url=http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/nancy-grace-and.html]Neil [url] over at the Younger Klein's site. Even if the second half is doctored, it's still hilarious.