Author: Tony

Nationalized does not mean sane or restrained.

Megan McArdle links to a recent Matthew Yglesias post on nationalized health care. Here’s the key part of the excerpt she quotes:

In effect, a highly centralized state run health care system is able to put a cap on how much demonstrative caring can be done through the health care system.

She replies to a hypothetical example of how the government would cap such demonstrative caring through health care with this:

But after the legal revolution of the 1970’s, American public services look, well, like American ones: unable to deny anything to anyone. What would actually happen in the case Matt describes is that the patient would form an activist group, sue, get the treatment, and use the government settlement to buy the kids organic fruit and a trip to Disneyland.

Bingo. This is why I don’t trust the argument that nationalized health care would result in no further government funding for infant circumcision. One boy would get a UTI that results in a kidney infection. The lawsuit shows up, the verdict ignores logic, and we’re back to funding infant circumcision. And we probably end up with pressure to perform it on all male infants because it will save the government money in the long run. We can’t legislate away unintended consequences.

“Insubordinate teacher reprimanded” wouldn’t get readers, or how news cheats with facts.

In what can only be counted as a P.R. “win” for vegans, this story:

An art teacher removed from the classroom for encouraging pupils not to eat meat vowed Monday not to return to Fox River Grove Middle School until it eliminates milk and all other animal products from the lunch menu.

I heard about this when it first appeared last week. My opinion was and is that the story is about insubordination, not veganism. But that wouldn’t sell. Remember Nina Planck?

As much as I agree with his message (and it isn’t 100% agreement, as you’ll see in a moment) and what I’m sure are good intentions, turning this into a debate on food choices will ultimately hurt vegans by making us look irrational and weird. For example:

Dave Warwak, 44, also said he plans to ask the McHenry County state’s attorney to file child-endangerment charges against the school district because the school continues to promote milk and other animal products as part of a healthy diet.

With friends like these…

In other clichéd “vegans are weird” news, most freegans are vegans. Most vegans are not freegans.

(First story via FARK. Second story via Hit & Run.)

Maybe Bush should nominate Harriet Miers.

The Wall Street Journal is upset that Sen. Harry Reid is politicizing the pending nomination for Attorney General.

“Ted Olson will not be confirmed,” declares Senate Majority Leader Reid. “He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an Attorney General is a partisan.” That standard could certainly stand some fleshing out. As “partisans” go, Mr. Olson doesn’t come close to Bobby Kennedy, the brother of JFK; or Griffin Bell, close friend of Jimmy Carter (and a fine AG); or for that matter Janet Reno’s Justice Department, which was run for years not by Ms. Reno but behind the scenes by close friend of Hillary Clinton and hyper-partisan Jamie Gorelick.

Selective memory? Do we really need to go further back than Alberto Gonzales to find a partisan Attorney General?

… the real Democratic game was given away by none other than Mr. Leahy, whose own “partisanship” is so raw he can’t disguise it. Number Two on Mr. Leahy’s helpful “Checklist for Choosing the Next Attorney General” is this: “A proven track record of independence to ensure that he or she will act as an independent check on this Administration’s expansive claims of virtually unlimited executive power.”

The belief that the president is bound from unlimited powers is not a partisan position, since it requires only an honest reading of our Constitution. <sarcasm>Although, to be fair, I do see the point that advocating for an Attorney General who will acquiesce to the Decider’s legal preferences isn’t raw partisanship.</sarcasm>

I won’t argue that Mr. Olson can’t be the independent official that Democrats claim to want. Members of Congress should make the case for why Mr. Olson isn’t qualified if/when he’s nominated. But the Journal’s editors should acknowledge that whoever becomes the next Attorney General should not expect his/her job to include being a “legal advisor to the president.” Let President Bush hire qualified White House counsel instead.

We should not shy away from an independent Attorney General, even if it’s a new idea because the founders rejected it. It is possible that we might have a better, broader understanding of effective limited government. As we’ve learned, though, the Journal’s editors are in no way interested in limited. And they’re often good at demonstrating no concern for effective.

The Wacky World of Politicized Economics

Michael Kinsley analyzes the federal student loan program and forgets that more than two scenarios are possible.

Here’s how the program works: Banks and other private companies lend money to students. The federal government pays part or all of the interest — currently 7 or 8 percent. The government also guarantees the loans.

What is wrong with this picture? Well, the government itself borrows the odd nickel to finance the national debt. This borrowing, obviously, is also guaranteed by the government. For that reason, it carries an interest rate of only 3 or 4 percent. If the government can borrow money at 3 or 4 percent, why should it pay 7 or 8 percent for the privilege of guaranteeing loans to someone else? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to lend the money itself?

The third possibility is that the government could remove itself from student loans entirely, which is the only legitimate position for it to take. Let the market develop solutions, including appropriate insurance mechanisms to pool the risk of adults without a credit history borrowing money for an activity that can’t be securitized. Let’s find out that it can’t or won’t be provided by the private market before we decide it must be provided by the government.

But there’s a bigger flaw here. If the government begins taking on more and more borrowing responsibility, it will not be able to continue at its rates. At some point that guarantee becomes worthless. Or more likely, people realize that the guarantee isn’t as guaranteed as it’s been sold.

Think about the IOU issued for social security. Carry the logic further, as Mr. Kinsley wishes us to do here, into trusting the government to provide all sorts of services. At what point do we reach the threshold where there aren’t enough people in private industry to create sufficient new wealth for the government to redirect this wealth into “guaranteed” services, via taxes? At some point, money becomes worthless and life becomes nationalized. That attractive 3 or 4 percent interest rate will mean nothing.

I won’t pretend to know what that threshold is. I think we’re closer than we collectively believe. I’d suggest that people like Mr. Kinsley think we’re further away, but I fear that’s giving them too much credit. I don’t think they believe a threshold exists, much less where we are in relation to it. That’s dangerous.

**********

Mr. Kinsley demonstrates his contempt for individual preferences in his conclusion:

… the “one-size-fits-all direct loan program.” This would be no bad thing, but it doesn’t seem to have been the case. I’m not sure what “one size fits all” means here, but if it refers to the interest rate that students and their families have to pay, it’s true that there is only one rate in the government program, compared with many in the private one — all of them higher, but maybe there are people for whom the variety is worth it.

Who doesn’t want a free lunch, right? But let me make an effort.

The variety is worth it for me, since I am not in the process of taking out student loans, nor do I expect to do so in the future. A variety of interest rates, even if they’re higher, would be preferable. That way he who engages in the risk takes on the cost of the risk. Why should I help pay for every college student’s default risk through my taxes, which is how that interest subsidy is funded now, and would be funded under Mr. Kinsley’s plan?

As a matter of disclosure, I have an existing student loan from my college years that was and is subject to government guarantees. I would not have used the system as it was/is, if I’d had a choice. As I think I’ve written, a significant portion of my undergraduate debt was in my mother’s name. That’s just as irrational. The entire student loan situation in the United States relies on the faulty notion that college students are irresponsible children. Worse, we’ve added lending institutions and the American taxpayer to this assumption. Mr. Kinsley’s idea would deepen this idiocy.

Parents decide what is reality-based education.

Evesham Township in New Jersey is under fire for including a video in its third-grade classes – as part of the state-manadated curriculum – that shows a child with two dads.

The issue first arose in December after a class of third graders at the J. Harold Van Zant School here was shown “That’s a Family!,” a documentary created by an Academy Award-winning filmmaker intended to show students the different forms that families can take, as part of the curriculum required in New Jersey. But the district temporarily stopped showing the video after some parents complained that they should be able to decide whether their third-grade children should learn about same-sex couples in the classroom.

My stance is that the only valid discussion in this context is third-grade, as opposed to children. Of course it’s possible to cherry-pick whatever quote you need to make whatever point you want to make. The article has exactly what you’d expect, but I’m sure the sentiment is moderately common:

“I don’t think it was appropriate,” said Jennifer Monteleone, 35, who is a parent of two children at the Robert B. Jaggard Elementary School. “If it was maybe in fifth grade, but in third grade they’re a little too young.”

It’s reasonable to debate this, as I said. But it can’t stop there.

Yet Ms. Monteleone also questioned whether the video should be shown at all because of the presence of the same-sex couples.

“It’s something to be discussed within families,” she said. “I think it’s the parents’ responsibility to teach the kids about that stuff.”

I don’t have a problem with this statement. But prohibiting this discussion in school addresses the symptom. When government is in charge of education, you have considerably less freedom to limit facts, or even decide what should be facts. But education is provided by the government. As a blunt instrument it can work against any agenda as much as it can work for one. Don’t be surprised when it happens.

In this case, parents do not have a right to make up their own facts. Same-sex marriage civil (in-)equality is the law. In acknowledging same-sex relationships, the state of New Jersey is dealing strictly in fact. Again, question the third-grade aspect and the debate is useful. (I think third-grade is fine, but I won’t pretend to base that on anything other than my instinct.) But you don’t get to impose this on everyone:

Delores Stepnowski, a parent of another Jaggard student, said parents should have been given more notice that the video would be shown.

“Something that controversial should have been discussed,” Ms. Stepnowski said. The children “shouldn’t learn questionable things in school that they’re not ready for and don’t understand.”

The evaluation of fact is open to subjective opinion. The existence of fact is not. The word questionable has nothing to do with this.

Economics hurts women. Let’s hurt it back.

The United States is in great company:

Why is there deep bias against mothers? It turns out our country lacks basic supports for families. Out of 173 countries, only four have no paid leave for new mothers — Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and the U.S.A.

The essay contains many other out-of-context abuses of economics, but this one is sufficient. But first, this:

We know how to fix this problem.

Of course we do. The nanny statists always do.

The U.S. does not have mandatory paid leave, legislated by Congress. And yet, how many new mothers go completely without pay immediately following childbirth? Every time I’ve encountered a co-worker who will be taking maternity leave, she and her family have planned during the pregnancy for the coming lack of income by saving vacation days. They have nine months, after all. This needs to be considered without nonsense like this:

It turns out that having a child is the top cause of a “poverty spell” for families, a time when income dips below what’s needed for basic living expenses like food and rent.

The burden is on the parents, not the state, to properly plan a family’s finances in the event of a child. If a child will cause a “poverty spell”, do not have a child. Couples may procreate but they may not expect society to pay for that choice.

Most frustrating is that the author almost understands the truth.

The good news is businesses that are adapting to the human need for flexibility are thriving.

Still, we must lament that the United States sits with Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Liberia in not mandating paid maternity leave.

So let’s assume the U.S. mandates paid maternity leave. Who will fund the new state expense? Since it’s a burden deriving from businesses, the tax burden will be placed on them. They will simply pass this expense to employees in the form of lower wages. Where there is an existing wage gap, it’s logical to assume that the cost for an extra benefit to women, all else equal, will be passed to women. We’re essentially down to shifting financial planning for children from parents to the state.

This might bypass women past child-bearing age, though how that will be determined opens a can of worms. But it will inevitably ignore the women who choose not to have children. Even though they do not need to financially plan for children, they will be financially planning for other people’s children, through the state. But I’m sure this is one extra law from Congress away from being rectified.

And what about paid paternity leave?

Via FARK

Stupid HIV Defense Quotes – A Contest

I have two competing quotes, but I can’t decide which is dumber. First, from the article I referenced in yesterday’s entry:

“It’s now the most proven, effective HIV prevention strategy we have for male heterosexuals, so it’s really important that we make this widely available,” said Robert C. Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who oversaw the Kenyan trial in nearby Kisumu.

You might remember Mr. Bailey, as he’s made two appearances at Rolling Doughnut with the same basic quote. (I guess this makes him our returning champion.) His statement is egregious, since abstinence, monogamy, and condoms are undeniably more effective.

Next, from Archbishop Manase Buthelezi of the Lutheran Church in South Africa:

Virginity inspection helps protect our children from HIV-Aids.

I’m not really sure how, as it’s a ex post facto check, unless he’s relying on the shame of “failing” the inspection to discourage sex.

I’m voting for Bailey, because he’s more certain, so unthinking individuals will be less likely to dispute him. As evidence, read the article. You won’t find any dispute from the reporter to such a ridiculous claim. What do you think?

**********

To strengthen his position, Archbishop Buthelezi offered this:

“We have never heard of any maiden who died because of virginity inspection. But we have many young boys killed in mountains during circumcision. And there is no big noise about that.

“If there are people who want to stop virginity inspection they must do the same with circumcision. Virginity testing is about abstinence from sex, which we preach in church,” he said.

As you can predict, he doesn’t make this comparison to discuss how reprehensible both are, but how beneficial virginity inspection is. He glosses over circumcision deaths to defend church doctrine. And then he states that virginity inspection “brings back humanity and respect to our children.”

Maybe that should’ve been his entry.

Fear loosens man’s adherence to logic.

From the first two paragraphs, the rehashing of the same vile pablum is inevitable:

Family gatherings for Collins Omondi once were boisterous affairs here on the verdant shores of Lake Victoria. But in just 11 years, AIDS has killed seven of his uncles, six aunts, five cousins and both his parents. His extended family now consists of one surviving uncle, an aunt and their 2-year-old child — all of whom have AIDS.

Fear is the first rule in propaganda. If you don’t get circumcised, you are going to die of HIV. You don’t want to die of HIV, do you? You don’t want your children to die of HIV, do you?

Omondi, 28, a tall, broad-shouldered fish trader, has come to believe that a quirk of culture contributed to the decimation of his family. They were Luos, members of the only major tribe in Kenya that does not routinely circumcise boys. The absence of this ritual, Omondi said, helps explain why Luos are dying from AIDS at a rate unheard of among other Kenyans and rare in East Africa.

The lack of genital surgery is not the problem. Promiscuous, unprotected sex in an HIV-packed community explains why Luos are dying from AIDS.

That doesn’t dismiss the horror of HIV or the need to reverse the trend, but if the Luos – or anyone – thinks they can keep the same habits that created the HIV epidemic after undergoing circumcision, their future will be as horrific as the present. Behavior must change, not genitals.

Buried in the article, long after several examples of how lack of circumcision “helps explain” the HIV epidemic, this:

Lake Victoria’s fishermen, following the winds, often kept girlfriends at several different beaches. The men generally were among the few in villages with steady supplies of cash, arriving home each day with $10 or $20 — sometimes much more — in areas where many earn less than $1 a day.

“With the fishermen, you can’t trust them,” said Mary Achieng Bunde, 41, a former fish trader and an AIDS activist whose husband died of the disease.

Of the women who trade in fish, she said, sexual favors were expected and generally granted. “Most of them, they are ready to do because maybe your husband has died, your children have school fees. . . . What can you do?”

Let’s keep pretending that the foreskin is the problem and not promiscuous sex without condoms. Rule number two in propaganda: lie.

She said attitudes are changing on the beaches because of fear and aggressive education programs. More fishermen are living in family houses, with their wives and children, rather than in communal dorms. The carousing has quieted as the toll of AIDS has grown.

Should I assume that this change in sexual behavior will be considered as a potentially dominant factor in the causation/correlation conclusion, should the HIV rate suddenly drop among the Luos after circumcision? I suspect that’s too much to ask. Rule number three in propaganda: ignore inconvenient evidence refuting the lies.

Unsurprisingly, the article closes with mention of a funeral for a fisherman who died of AIDS. Trite and manipulative like the rest of the article, it’s a shining example of yellow journalism.

Karl Marx is available on iTunes.

Of course:

Lawyers suing [Apple] said the new devices bolster their antitrust case accusing Apple of trying to monopolize the markets for digital music players and online music sales.

“The inability of the new line to play competing formats is part of the case,” said Gregory Weston, an attorney with one of the nation’s premier class-action firms, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins of San Diego. “That is evidence that the company is acting like a monopolist and not competitive.”

Just ignore that there are competing formats, that they continue to exist, and that companies continue to release new products capable of playing those formats. None of that proves anything about competition and consumer choice. The iPod is really popular and Apple has a lot of money!

In court documents, Apple said demanding that the company work with competitors “may facilitate the supreme evil of antitrust: collusion.”

“Forcing Apple to deal with rivals may lessen the incentive for Apple or rivals to innovate and invest in economically beneficial facilities,” Apple wrote in court briefs. “It would require antitrust courts to act as central planners, identifying the proper price, quantity and other terms of dealing — a role for which they are ill-suited.”

Ill-suited? Absolutely. But central planning is exactly what anti-capitalists want, especially if they can steal money in the process of getting to centrally-planned, where they can steal more money for the “good” of consumers.

The [class-action status seeking antitrust] suit alleges Apple customers were economically harmed because, once they bought an iPod and purchased music at iTunes, they were locked forever into buying iPods.

Perhaps they should ask each individual iPod customer if he or she has been economically harmed. I don’t. I valued the iPod and all its alleged limitations more than the $400 I paid for it. The same was true of the second iPod I bought. It was going to be true of the third iPod I intended to buy, the iPod Touch, but I don’t like the limited size of both hard drive choices. I will be keeping my $400 and Apple will be keeping its iPod. Behold competition.

Did I mention that the iPod’s success is largely due to its superior design and user interface? Central planners have never concerned themselves with quality, of course. Quantity matters exclusively. Apple has sold the most mp3 players (to lemmings, apparently), so they’re monopolists. Ridiculous.