Many months ago, I wrote about the untimely demise of an essential member of the Obama team, his closest advisor Tel. E Prompter ("Breaking News!"). It now seems that the administration is feeling that loss. A recent NBC article on Obama's televised statements following the Ft. Hood shooting makes much of his choice to make light comments about the Tribal Nations Conference and other topics before adopting a mock somber tone for comments about Ft. Hood. Best of the Web followed up with the biting comment that "the president's vaunted "cool" under pressure reflects indifference, not mastery." Combined with the election losses, the faltering health care reform initiatives, and many other recent failures, it is clear that things are not going well on the PR front.

What no one has noticed is how much of this is the fault of Mr. Prompter's replacement. While clearly an adequate substitute, it seems Mr. Prompter's replacement does not have the ear of his predecessor. We all have seen Mr. Obama talk without prepared text, so we know that without a proper prepared speech he would simply emit a stream of "uhs" and "ers", meaning whatever he says is all attributable to his onstage aide. And, while Mr. Prompter could handle changed situations, his replacement cannot. And so, faced with a sudden tragedy, Mr. Obama instead continued with lightweight banter, as his aide was unable to shift tone on short notice.

It is ironic. When the results come in on election night 2010, and then on 2012, Mr. Obama will take the blame, but, in reality, the elections were all decided on July 13, 2009, the moment Tel E. Prompter died.

It is always interesting to see the media resort to their pat explanations of events. If there is a tragedy in the military it is because of the war. If someone dies of cancer, it used to be time to talk of environmental threats and corporate greed, though now it seems more likely to elicit complaints about "our failing health care system". And, of course, any economic downturn always brings stories of CEO greed and the "failures" of the free market.

More fun than listening to the press using the same boilerplate explanations are those times when circumstances show just how senseless those facile explanations are.

For example, as soon as the Fort Hood story broke the press began telling tales of the stresses of combat and how the war was "taking a toll" on soldiers. It didn't matter that the shooter had seen no combat, he was going to a combat zone, had treated soldiers who had been in combat, so Bush was to blame. Without "this senseless war of choice" none of it would have happened*.

Then reality responded. In a tragic turn of events, Ft. Hood was followed almost immediately by another shooting in Orlando. And again, the individual had no connection to war, soldiers, or combat. So, unless we are willing to postulate that somehow George Bush is to blame for his spree, I think we must confess that workplace shootings, be they on military bases or in civilian companies, have a variety of motivations, and that to blame them on the war is absurd. Yes, this shooter may have been reluctant to enter a combat zone, but to blame Bush for the way an obviously unbalanced individual responded to a stress is a bit of a stretch.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

* As always, when a Moslem is involved the question of whether it was some sort of terrorism arose. No, despite claims by some in the media, it is not "bigotry". No more than the fact that in the 1970's and 1980's any explosion in England immediately raised questions of IRA involvement. Of course it now seems that this is, at most, as case where his Islamic identity aggravated his existing grievances. I can't say for certain that he was not tied to any groups, but from all reports it seems most likely that he was not. Then again, it does seem that his religion allowed him to feel even more of a victim and fueled his beliefs of being put upon and persecuted. However, were he not a Moslem, I am sure he would have found other excuses. It sounds as if he was inspired more by a dangerous mindset than any other factor. In his case Islam was likely more a pretext for violence than the primary motivation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

One thing that struck me as bizarre was a quote in an article on the Army missing warning signs:

The FBI reportedly investigated whether he was behind the inflammatory comments left on a website under the handle "NidalHasan."

It would seem to me that connecting Nidal Hasan with the screen name "NidalHasan" might not be all that difficult. Kind of like if someone were investigating someone from Riva MD with the name Andrew and a last name starting with S, it would not be all that hard to connect to this blog. It doesn't sound as if Mr. Hasan was making much of an effort to conceal his identity, so how hard did the FBI have to work to connect him to these "inflammatory statements"?

Or perhaps I should say "Whoa is me now". At least I would if I believed what I read on this "ex-Christian" site. When I came upon an Amazon review saying "Whoa is me", I thought it was an aberration, a single bad speller. Unfortunately, google searches for "whoa is me" actually turns up quite a few people who seem to think this strange spelling is correct. If only I had known how many people imagined this was the correct spelling, I would have taken a slightly different tone in "Short Grammar Nazi Post". I then only thought it was a single case, but apparently, along with those who think "rediculous" is a word, there are many who believe "whoa" is a word for sorrow. (Then again,  "whoa is me" is now a SOURCE of sorrow... at least for me.)

And so I leave you with these words: Whoa unto me! the treacherous spellers have spelled treacherously; yea, the treacherous spellers have spelled very treacherously. (With due apologies to Isaiah.)

UPDATE: I was reading over the entire board to amuse myself and saw there was something to offend almost every faith on this site. This bunch of teen and twenty-something boys (check out the interests and you will see why I make that assumption, at least I hope those interests make them no older than mid-twenties) manage to mangle not only the word "woe", and manage not only to insult Christians, but also manage to mangle things sacred to other faiths as well. Just check out the post about getting the "Wicken Creed" posted in public squares. I imagine Wiccans would be puzzled to see their faith spelled in that new and interesting way. Then again "Wicken Creed" may make a good opening act of Linkin Park, a name which seems to have provided the foundation for much of the spelling on this site.

This one is a bit of Best of the Web imitating me, and me imitating them. Well, maybe. I don't recall seeing the 2005 article they mention, but as my argument in "Lifespan" is identical to theirs, I have to say that it is possible I read their column and unconsciously repeated their argument two years later. I am not saying ti is certain, but possible.

Still it is interesting seeing them bringing up my favorite argument. In their description today of the Kristoff article on America's health care, their essay sounds remarkably like my many posts on misused statistics (listed in "Another Example" and "Bad Economics Part 1", though both tend to emphasize environmental, not medical statistics), especially "A Useless Measure". Which, after a long dearth of articles lifted from my blog, brings a smile. It is nice to see the WSJ stealing from me once again.

Welcome back guys!

POSTSCRIPT

Yes, this is still a joke. Check out "Best of the Web Imitates Me XXI" and "Checking In With the Professionals" for the details and a history of this long running gag, which may have, at one time, even been funny.

POSTSCRIPT II

You can also read my many posts on medical regulation, and the state of the US health care system, all of which are listed in the postscript to "Bad Economics Part 2".

I have been writing a lot about the potential for a huge rift among the Democrats, and it appears that in the wake of recent losses it is coming to pass. However, the actual rift is, quite surprisingly, taking a form a bit different than I expected.

Back when Obama passed the $400 billion budget I postulated that he was being used as a figurehead by the Congress, that they were taking advantage of his ambitions to get him to push through their pet projects, attach his name and face tot hem to deflect blame form congress, and would then kick him aside when the public turned on him. At the time I predicted the split might come in early 2010.("Is Obama a Figurehead?")

A little later I postulated that public discontent over medical reform, the continued bad economy and many other Obama initiatives would cause first the blue dogs, and then the rest of the congressional Democrats, to distance themselves from him prior to 2010 to save their seats. ("Easy to Explain","2010 and Health Care") I imagined, though I did not state, that a few safe, die hard Democrats might stand with him, but not many. My theory was that first the blue dogs would turn, and then, lacking a majority, and seeing the writing on the wall, the upper echelons of the party would turn on him, if for no other reason than to retain their majority and their ability to enact legislation.

Some readers disputed this, arguing that Democrats were such doctrinaire partisans that they would gladly lose their majority to enact certain measures. I doubted this for several reasons. First, because the Democrats, more than Republicans, seem to understand that to enact any agenda you need to be in office, even if it means some compromise. (See "The Need for Discretion" and "Think of the Impresison You Make") Second, because, even if the leaders are willing to sacrifice seats to enact an agenda, that does not mean the occupants of those seats are. And as Lieberman taught the Democrats, a rebellious party member can easily cause serious problems. Even if the blue dogs did not jump form the party to save their seat, they could still refuse to vote the party line, and if that were to happen it could render the Democrat majority meaningless, as a majority which cannot ensure a majority of votes is not likely to enact much of their agenda.

And so, no matter how dogmatic the leadership, I fully expected them to be in the forefront of those Democrats pushing Obama aside. And, I was half right. Harry Reid has given every sign of being ready to split with Obama. As have many prominent Democrats and almost all of the blue dogs, especially those from the class of 2006. All told, the Democrats in congress give every sign of following my predictions quite closely.

With one shocking exception. Nancy Pelosi seems set on riding the Obama coat tails all the way to the minority leader's seat.

I had thought Pelosi would be the first to jump. True, she has a safe seat, and has no personal reason to abandon Obama, but she also has the shakier foundation. As congress faces reelection en masse every two years they are much more aware of public sentiment, so she has many more party members ready to abandon Obama. In addition, congress has many more insecure seats, seats taken from Republicans in 2006 or 2008 and which could easily go back to the opposition. Finally, within the party leadership itself her position is not that safe. She has faced challenges from right and left, and has had moments where her leadership was challenged by quite strong rivals. If she were to upset a significant number of the newer congressmen, and adopt a position inimical to the more moderate Democrats, it is quite plausible that she could lose her leadership position to one of her past rivals.

But despite all that, Pelosi is holding firm in her attachment to health care reform. And I am surprised.  Even if she is dedicated to her doctrine, one does not reach a leadership position without being something of a realist. So I have to think she understands the price she is likely to pay. All of which makes me unable to comprehend what she is doing.

I wrote before about the lessons Obama learned and forgot concerning public image ("Why Obama Won, And Why He Is Losing Support Now"), but this time I want to look at Obama's rather clever solution to succeeding in electoral politics, and the evidence that he, and his party, completely forgot that lesson, as show by their recent losses.

The truth of electoral politics is this: the majority does not decide elections. Election turnout is rarely even 50%. No, in most elections maybe 30-40% show up. Of those, 80-90% are committed to one side or the other out of the gate. Which means 10-20% of 30-40%, or maybe 3-8% of the electorate decide most elections. And that means, at the absolute best, most politicians, even the most ardently admired, under normal circumstances, are winning with 8% or less of the people, though in the polls they are ahead by up to 20%.

This is the lesson Obama learned, and one that had been ignored by recent politicians. Because, if you can win by persuading 3-8% of the people, then you can also win by dragging another 3 -8% of the people to the polls to offset your rival's lead. Not that Obama needed it against McCain, as McCain ran a rather lackluster campaign, but it definitely helped against Clinton, and would have helped had the Republicans fielded a better candidate. Rather than try only to appeal to the undecideds, Obama also brought out voters, college students, minorities and others, who do not normally vote. By adding to the pool, suddenly he had a built in majority.

It is a clever strategy if you can pull it off, but, unfortunately for Obama, it is a lesson he learned only part way. He appears to have forgotten the flip side.

The flip side is "If you upset enough people, those who don't normally vote might come out to the polls and defeat you." In the year of tea parties, bitter debate over health care reform, corporate takeovers by the government and 10% unemployment, with a  president whose interests seem to stop at getting the Olympics for Chicago and winning the perpetual campaign, is it any wonder that the Demcorats fared poorly in these off-year elections? After all, a small part of Obama's 2008 victory, and a big part of the Democrat victories in 2006, was the turn out of voters dissatisfied with Republican control of the government, and Bush in particular (or the image of Bush the media painted, whichever you prefer). And yet, somehow, this lesson was lost on Obama.

Had Obama been truly concerned with getting his party members elected, as well as improving Democrat chance in 2010, he would have behaved quite differently. First, he would have granted that the stimulus was not yet having the desired effect and declared he is looking for alternate solutions, even made some gestures in that direction. He would have listened when the tea parties sprang up and made a pledge (even if it was broken the day after the 2010 elections) to not raise taxes. And he would have put his more controversial plans on the back burner, or found a Democrat from a safe seat to act as the front man for his policies, so he could safely distance himself and the rest of the party from them.

But I think such behavior is impossible for our president. First, he seems to have a problem even hearing criticism. He seems to notice it, but he just gives a smile, a glib word, and thinks that solves any problem. Second, he seems unwilling to change, at least on certain issues. He appears so convinced of his position that he is unable to even believe that others might not agree, or if they do it must be from some sort of malicious motive. These traits are not compatible with doing what is necessary to support his party.

Of course I may be wrong. My impression of Obama comes from his public statements and may be a media persona unrelated to his real identity. But if that is the case, then it is a bad choice. To select a media persona which is inflexible and arrogant seems a choice calculated to turn off many voters and to do harm to your party, and even your own chances, in any future elections.

POSTSCRIPT

Before someone argues that Obama's inflexibility on issues in which he believes is consistent with my own beliefs, I would suggest reading "Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion". What Obama is inflexible about is the method, not the goals.He wants not "medical care for all", but "insurance for all". He is, as I described in my essay, inflexible about the means, not the end. If I proved to him conclusively that moving to a free market solution would provide medical care for everyone, does anyone think he would? Or would he blindly push for "universal insurance"? That is what I mean by being inflexible in methods but not in principles.

POSTSCRIPT II

In some ways this also explains Bush's victory in 2004. The press was right in ascribing some state victories to "values voters", but they missed the significance. The "values voters" the press bemoaned were basically additional voters, brought to the polls by local initiatives which upset people enough to bring to the polls those who did not normally vote. Of course they were offset to some degree by Angry Left partisans seeking redress for the "stolen election" of 2000. The only reason it wasn't a wash was that the Angry Left partisans were largely drawn  from those who do normally vote, so the anger over 2000 did not bring many new voters to the table, while the "values voters" included a large number of individuals who did not normally vote.

POSTSCRIPT III

Note that some official numbers do not tell the whole story. For example, Obama probably brought more voters out that is generally accepted. The difference in turnout between 2004 and 2008 is not the total additional turnout. As local issues brought out values voters in 2004, without Obama's new voters, this election's turnout may have been lower still. Not to mention that lack of enthusiasm over McCain may have meant a lower Republican turnout as well. So, in looking at elections, it is difficult to go by just the raw numbers. (Also note that, in some ways, any analysis of polls and turnout numbers is going to be impressionistic. We are dealing with determining human motivation and, like all social sciences, some degree of understanding is involved. Polls alone do not tell the entire story. There will always be some degree of personal "story telling" involved. And I admit as much. My explanation cannot be entirely demonstrated by the numbers alone, nor by the polls. Then again, no explanation can. That is a problem inherent in attempting to explain motivation.)

My wife just read in her hospital news letter that $100,000 of stimulus money is being allocated to all Maryland hospitals, to monitor doctor and nurse hand washing. That's right, Obama's stimulus is paying 100 grand to have people stand in hospitals and watch doctors and nurses wash up. And they tell me without the stimulus the economy would be collapsing?

I know someone will argue that this is "essential" and "creating jobs", but I have a thought for those who endorse the stimulus. That money came from somewhere, whether it was through taxes, borrowing, or the hidden tax of inflation. If it weren't paying hygiene spies, it would be going somewhere else. My question is this: Can you imagine a use more frivolous than the one to which it is being put? Is it possible that, left in the private sector, the money would be put to a worse use?

Somehow I doubt too many people will be able to find a less sensible use for the money.

POSTSCRIPT

Have you noticed, for an administration which is decrying the "high cost" of medicine, the Obama administration is certainly allocating a lot of money for nonessential medical functions, such these hygiene monitors, the "cost effectiveness" panels, and a host of other high cost, low benefit activities.

And before anyone tells me about the massive importance of washing in preventing contagion, I would mention that since the late 80's, I can't think of a time a medical worker touched me without gloves. And, while it may be nice that they wash before gloving up, if gloves are a barrier to contagion, then they are in both directions, making me worry much less about whether or not a doctor forgot to wash once. Between all the worries over contracting something from patients and the threat of lawsuits, I really doubt there are many who do not wash, and that is likely what this study will find, but my point is, this will serve, at best, a very minor role in improving health care, making it little more than a waste of money.

In other words, like much of the stimulus, this is a way to give some "mad money" to favorite recipients, who can then spend it on silly projects that they could not otherwise justify, and then claim that somehow helped the economy, all while ignoring the fact that all this money had to come form somewhere. And while they ignore the massive cost to the economy, they still continue to claim this somehow benefits all of us.

Simply unbelievable.

Readers may have noticed I have not yet said anything on the Republican wins yesterday. Obviously I find it good news, as it shows how premature were reports of the death of conservatism, and shows how foolish were those who suggested the Republicans needed to "change direction". However, it is still a bit early to pronounce the end of liberal domination and rejoice in advance of 2010. As the Demcorats just learned, it is easy to turn victory into defeat, and Republicans have a history of forming circular firing squads and doing themselves in, so we need to bear that in mind. Which is the main reason I am waiting a while before responding. I really want to consider exactly what this all means, wait for a few more polls come out (both conservative and liberal slanted ones), and think through the significance of the races. So, for the moment, I think I will refrain from commenting, though I will do so in the near future.

I admire the WSJ (the editorial staff more than the news staff), but this article is absurd. They first, rightly, point out there is no way to count "jobs saved". In fact, there really is no way to tell how many jobs were "created due to the stimulus" either, as opposed to just created, but let us ignore that for the moment. But as soon as they point this out, they claim there is a miscount in Obama's "saved or created" numbers. Well, if they are absurd made up numbers, how can they be right or wrong? As the title says, can we have a "miscount" in the number of dragons and fairies?

Worse still, the Obama administration pretty much admits the numbers ar emade up. See this quote:

Ed DeSeve, the senior adviser to President Barack Obama on implementation of the stimulus plan, said Tuesday in a statement responding to questions from the Journal that the administration knew the reports were not "100 percent accurate" but that the plan was supposed "to create jobs, not count them." He said that even the "approximate" total pointed to "tremendous progress."

Yet, even after both sides admit the numbers are fictions, they proceed to argue over them. Why? I think in some ways this is a practical example of what I describe in "Bad Economics Part 4", the economic obsession with numbers, even when those numbers are known to be meaningless.Economists seem so obsessed with econometrics they would rather take meaningless numbers than admit something cannot be quantified.

But that is bad, as it lends credence to the Obama claims to know the number of jobs "saved or created", when in reality there is as little way of knowing that as there is of knowing how many jobs were not created due to the inflation and borrowing which funded the bailout. All is speculation. In these cases, no matter what the econometrics wonks claim, we have to fall back on theory and say, whatever the claims, the best the government can do to create jobs is get out of the way.

I wrote Monday that I intended to write a blog post about inertia, the way even conservatives, when confronting an institution that has existed for a very long time, often overlook the merits of the case and simply except its age as an argument for its validity. This is not always the case, many conservatives still rail against the Federal Reserve, for example, but there are many cases where, "we always did it that way" or "it has always been there" is accepted as proof of validity. Just raise the possibility of making education entirely private and you will see what I mean. Granted, part of that is because constant propaganda has convinced people that eliminating public education will mean only the rich get an education, but in part it is also because public education is simply very old and very familiar.

However, this is not that post. Instead, this post is the description of a fortuitous accident. As I mentioned in my last post, after sleeping at my desk I found I actually had time to browse Townhall for the first time in several days. In addition to the pundits, I also examined some of the news stories, and, while glancing through those stories I came upon one which perfectly illustrates this inertia. Not so much in the story itself, but in the likely reactions individuals will have tot he story, especially given the way it is presented.

The story itself concerns removal of millions of acres from a federal program which pays farmers not to farm. The ostensible reason is to prevent soil erosion¹, but clearly it has also been used as a sop to various other constituencies, undeveloped land appealing to environmentalists, reduced food production, and consequent higher prices, pleasing the farm lobby².

What interests me is that this program is the quintessential welfare handout. Yes, it goes to "productive" people not layabout slackers and mothers of herds of illegitimate children, but it is still nothing but a handout. The government select farmers and then pays them to do nothing. Conservatives should be thrilled that land has been taken out of this program, we should be eager to see more removed, or the program discontinued altogether.

Yet, I have a feeling many will not rejoice.

A small part is because it is an Obama initiative (though from the article it may have been put in the works by the previous administration, it is hard to tell -- though I am sure Obama's people will manage to blame Bush when he speaks in farm country). Given the tendency of both the angry left and angry right to try to find something to criticize about any project proposed by their opposite number. So, as this is Obama's program, I can see some on the right trying to blame him for impoverishing farmers or something similar.

Then again, I think that will be only a very small minority. Most on the right who will find fault with this program will be those how buy into what I have dubbed "The World's Oldest Myth". That is the belief that farming is somehow a special profession, with special needs, requiring special government attention, and imbuing farmers with a special moral virtue. It is an old myth, having been supported by several otherwise brilliant men, such as Jefferson. But it is still a myth. Farming may have a long production cycle, rely heavily on credit, provide an essential good, and so on, but those are true of many other fields which manage to exist without government subsidies. Nor are farmers any more moral than anyone else. Farmers may have provided most of our soldiers int he past, and provided the armies of Athens and the Roman Republic, but they also provided the armies of the Roman Empire, Communist Russia and Prussia, not to mention the "viking hordes" that terrorized Europe for quite some time, so farmers can obviously be evil as easily as good. (Let us not forget the Nazi fascination with "blood and soil", which would seem strange were farmers somehow endowed with a mystical innate store of virtue.)³

Nor is the sob story provided even all that much of a sob story. A fellow in his eighties has been taking money from the federal government for years and is finally cut off. So he faces either having to farm or to sell his land for many, many times what he paid for it. I know it sounds sad, but there are many other farmers in their eighties who have to farm or sell their land and we don't cry for them. Or for the small business owners in their eighties who have to go to work every day. And this fellow has seen massive appreciation of his land. At eighty-something he could likely sell it all and live on the annuity income for the rest of his life, leaving the principal to his family. That is a better deal than most retirees get from social security, where they lose their wages to get an annuity without any principal payout at the end.

However, regardless of the objective situation of the individual profiled, it does show how these programs can maintain themselves, regardless of their virtue.

First, because they have been around for some time, there are people who rely on them, and sob stories to offer about their demise. It is the same problem I have when arguing for allowing a recession to run its course, people mention that "unemployment hurts real people", as if destroying the economy through more inflation won't hurt anyone. But the problem is, they have concrete sob stories to show, while I ahve only theoretical damage in the future. Granted, inflation today may hurt ten times as many in a few years, but they can show a real person today, and so inflation wins and prudent retrenchment does not. (See "The Inflation Engine", "Explaining Past Crashes", "A Thought on the Clinton Surpluses")

Second, they have "benefits" to show. The article is full of "good stuff". Preserved wilderness, grouse populations, taking food off the market to prevent a glut⁴, and so on. (Basically committing the fallacy described in Bastiat's analogy of the broken window, see "Passing Thought on Green Energy", "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs" and ""Fair Trade"" for other examples.) This means that any effort to do away with these programs has to show a benefit greater than those, and, as any benefit is speculative, it just won't carry as much weight. So not only does the benefit of discontinuing have to outweigh the supposed benefits, it has to far outweigh them, several times over.

Lastly, there is the argument "we have done it this way for years and no one has been hurt". And many accept that as an argument. And since I can't show you all the things that were not bought, all the businesses not opened, all the new technology not developed, all the lives not saved because of the money spent on paying farmers not to farm, it is hard for me to dispute that. We can never know what was not done because money was appropriated by the state. All I can do is point out that private venture produce much better than state ventures ("The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises"), and, more significantly, people who do produce make more than thsoe paid not to produce, but somehow those seem to carry little weight with those convinced the current situation is harmless. And so it takes much more, usually a major disaster, before an existing plan will even be questioned.

But, as I said, this is not my post on legislative inertia, simply thoughts on one example. The full post is coming later, and will contain quite a bit more detail than I gave here. So please check back as I will be treating this subject in much greater detail.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I will cover this in more detail in my Bad Economics post on farm subsidies, but is there any logic to paying farmers to prevent soil erosion? Does someone pay you to not burn down your house? Or to maintain your car? Farmrs whose soil erodes lose the value of their land, so it would seem they would have an interest in doing it themselves. Paying them to follow their own self-interest makes very little sense to me.

2. I will not go into this here, but it is bizarre to hear the article decry "grain glut", as less than a year ago we were suffering form high food prices due to a grain shortage. It does show how short lived most such phenomena are, and cuts the legs out of the article's argument. After all, the present glut may make such land unnecessary, but if it were one year ago, it would have been sorely needed. So who is to say next year whether the land will be needed or not? (Not to mention that the government continues to press for us to substitute more ethanol for gasoline, so it is likely grain demand will continue to rise for that reason alone.)

3. For some reason, paleo-cons and other protectionist "conservatives" seem especially fond of farm subsidies. (See "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play" and "Beware Populist Deception") I tend to think of paleo-cons not so much as conservatives, but as 19th century Republicans, but as the mainstream dubs them conservatives, their beliefs tend to be ascribed to the rest of the conservative fold, which is regrettable. (See "The Political Spectrum " and "I Am A Conservative But...".)

4. Still puzzled by that "glut" just a year after warnings that we were facing world wide famine. Does no one have any memory in the media? (See "Solving High Food Prices", "A Future Topic" and "Biofuel Question".)

----------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

For those interested in the topic of inertia, as I said, a post will be coming in the next few days. In addition, the topic of farm subsidies is going to be covered in great detail in an upcoming installment of my "Bad Economics" series. I will deal not only with payments to leave land untouched, but with import quotas, buy-back programs, all manner of price supports, subsidized loans, disaster relief, flood insurance and the rest. So if you are curious about my thoughts on farm subsidies, please check out the blog in the days ahead.

For those who found this post interesting, I would suggest an older post on a related topic, the obsession with small businesses shown by politicians of both parties. ("Small Business Fetish")

I hate to admit it, but recently I have been so busy I have not read one word written by the professional pundits on TH. For that matter, I have just barely kept up on headlines. But, last night, after falling asleep at my desk and waking at 4 AM, I had a few quiet minutes, so I decided to check out what the professionals had written, and was surprised to see that several were writing on topics I touch on regularly.

For example, John Stossel wrote a piece on media bias which hit upon several favorite topics of mine. First, his description of the attitude with which he entered the news agrees perfectly with my theory that journalism students self-select form a "save the world", left-leaning bias, as described in "Some Thoughts on the Media". Then his belief that all news is inherently biased agrees well with my post "The Death of Impartial Media". And, given that, overall I think Mr. Stossel would probably have no objection to the suggestions I made in  "The Impossibility of Unbiased Reporting" and "Media Double Standards and a Proposed Solution", simply giving up on trying to create an unbiased media, accept the bias, and simply have competing media outlets, each open about its bias.

Then we come to Thomas Sowell, a man with whom I almost always agree. And in this case that is quite true, as he was addressing a question I often take up, medical reform. He first mentions something I brought up in  " High Cost of Medical Care" and "Medical Reform, An Overview" the fact that medicine costs what it costs, regardless of reason, so "reforms" are simply going to mean less of it. He then follows reasoning similar to my post "Who Will Decide" and argues that reform will basically mean less care.

There were a few others, but those two were the ones closest to my writing. Not that I am claiming any sort of superior insight as I happened to hit upon the same topics and perspectives of two pundits. No, I am simply happy to see that my thought is not that far outside the mainstream. Sometimes I worry that I am on the fringe of conservative thought, especially when I start talking about privatizing roads or eliminating medical licensing or doing away with public education and I get either no response or rather unsympathetic responses. So it is nice to find that, one some topics at least, I am well within the mainstream of thought on the right. At least as much as Thomas Sowell or John Stossel are.

POSTSCRIPT

For my regular readers, yes, this would normally have been a "John Stossel Imitates Me" or "Thomas Sowell Imitates Me" post, but, as I haven't read their columns in so very long I was surprised at how mainstream my thoughts turned out to be. Mentioning that surprise seemed more important than adding yet one more installment in a long running joke (see "Best of the Web Imitates Me XXI"). So, for once, I spared them the facetious accusations of plagiarism.

It appears that the public option is a thing of the past. At least it seems likely that the Democrats have decided to sacrifice it in an attempt to keep medical reform alive. And, understandably, conservatives are happy to see it go. But does that mean that all our worries are over? Far from it.

The problem is that the Democrats, while not pushing actual government insurance, are still pushing for mandatory coverage, which likely will mean government funding. And, as someone once remarked, the Soviet Union was nothing but universal government funding.  Once the government becomes the primary source of income, or even a significant source of money, the government effectively establishes control. Just look at how much influence the government has over how insurance billing is handled, just because of medicare and medicaid. Or how much they determine policies of universities thanks tot heir role in providing financial aid. Or read my posts on vouchers ("You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer", "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education"), as my main objection to vouchers is how much control it would give the state over education, public and private.

Even if there were no subsidy, simply forcing universal coverage would, in itself, change medicine. First, for many of the same reasons public funding would. To qualify as "insurance", meeting the requirement that everyone have insurance,t he policy would likely have to provide certain defined services, and so every insurer would effectively be required to provide those. Be they twice yearly checkups, prenatal coverage, or "gender reassignment surgery", whatever the federal government says must be included for insurance to meet the mandatory coverage requirement would have to be in every policy. Simply by changing this definition the government could effectively dictate insurance policy for the entire nation.("Preexisting Conditions")

Second, by making insurance universal the government would insure the "health care crisis" will worsen. It likely isn't their intent, but that is the outcome. As I discussed in "The Absurdity of Mandatory Insurance", "A Potential Problem With Universal Insurance" and "A Potential Problem With Universal Insurance" universal insurance would create ever fewer reasons for providers to engage in cost competition. (See also " High Cost of Medical Care","Medical Reform, An Overview", "The Insurance Sham", "Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "Why Health Insurance Isn't Insurance and Related Topics".) With cost competition a thing of the past, and every customer relying upon insurers, costs would continue to rise, and with the government easily able to expand coverage by changing definitions in legislation, the costs would soar and the price of private insurance will skyrocket. With people mandated to buy insurance, likely the poor will be bankrupted, even with some government assistance for their required insurance purchases. As a result the clamor for a public option, or outright takeover will probably grow stronger. And the government, having avoided the public option, will likely declare the "free market" (which they will claim this solution to be) has failed, and once again blame the market for a fiasco caused by intervention. (See "How To Blame the Free Market", "Greed Versus Evil", "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism". And for a related problem "An Interesting Question Under ObamaCare".)

All of which means we must not rejoice too much at the death of the public option, as the remaining choices are still dangerous and just as likely to push us toward full nationalization, be it de facto or de jure. Just as there is no need for explicit nationalization, the public option will work just a swell, there is also no need for the public option, mandated universal coverage will have the same result. At best, if we dodge the public option, dodge public funding, but still get saddled with mandatory universal coverage, we are looking at a few years of quiet, while costs quietly soar and conditions worsen until we once again hear calls for government intervention. Then again, if the Democrats pass nothing, we are still not out of the woods. The current situation is the outcome of our present system, and ti won't get better. We definitely do not need the Democrats' reform, but we do need reform.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt we will see the free market solution we really need. (See "My Health Care Plan", "Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine", "The Insurance Sham", "Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance".)

POSTSCRIPT

This is not quite the post I intended when I wrote a blurb in "Upcoming Posts". Nor is it my last word on the matter. Think of this as sort of an introduction, pulling together a few old posts, setting the scene and presenting opening arguments. Each of the points I raise here deserve a post in themselves, and will be receiving it in the near future. However, for the moment, I wanted to at least mention the problems we are still facing, so I wrote this to get my cards on the table and let readers know what to expect. And, having done so, I will soon be returning to these topics and discussing them in greater detail.

I have often written that rights are absolute, that there is no case for making exceptions, and that every right is valid, at any time, under any circumstance. (See "My Vision of Government","My Vision of Government Part II", "A Right Is A Right", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "Negative and Positive Rights", "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government ") The only case I allow is for the incorrigible criminal who, through his actions, has shown his unwillingness or inability to share social intercourse with his fellow man, and so may be treated like the beast he resembles and either imprisoned for the duration of his miserable life or killed. Likewise, I allow that lesser felons may, as a condition of being admitted once more to the society of their peers, have rights temporarily restricted, but this is just an extension of the principle above. We had every right to kill or imprison them, so when we choose to show clemency and allow them back into society instead, w can impose restrictions upon them.

However, whenever I write about absolute rights, it is almost inevitable that someone will bring up Justice Holmes, and his aphorism about crying fire in a crowded theater. Now, I know this is quite a popular quote, and many take its literary merit as a sign of judicial merit, but to my mind it confuses two aspects of the law. One has every right to cry whatever he wants, but that does nto free him formt he consequences of his actions*. In the same way that I do not see laws agaisnt conspiracy as restricitons on free speech, I do not see crying fire as a restriction on speech. In fact, I even disagree with Holmes' premise. Were an actor to cry "Fire", he would not be charged, as he is not likely to cause a stampede, and thus the speech itself is not banned. It is only when consequences arise that one is liable for those consequences, and that liability is not in any sense a restriction upon the freedom of speech. Are laws against fraud a restraint of commerce? Are prohibitions of human sacrifice a restriction of religious freedom? Nor do I see this ebing a restriciton of free speech. One is free to say whatever he wants, but some statements carry consequences. Slander and libel do not restrain free pseech, and neither do the penalties for crying fire.

Which is why I was fascinated to find this article, arguing that legal thinkers are much less impressed with Holmes than laymen, precisely because Holmes often used literary devices to overcome weak arguments. The forced sterilization case they cites as an example is much more dramatic than the crowded theater example, but it does help convince me I was right all along in not listening to Holmes' honeyed words. As usual, just because something sounds nice is no guarantee that it is true. Truth may be beautiful, but we have to recall not all beauty is truth.

-------------------------------------

* I have a similar problem with laws attempting to prevent crimes. For instance, prohibition on drunk driving per se. The laws themselves recognize this and ban only negligent driving while drunk, but then cleverly declare that drunkeness creates a presumption of negligence. In my mind that is not proper. A law can only prohibit an action which violates the rights of another. Then again, such laws arise form the strange circumstances created when the government owns the roads. As I mentioned many places, when "public property" is involved, the law often takes strange turns and ends up going far beyond its intended purpose. Still, regardless of the involvement of public property, I have a problem with punishing people because of the presumption that their action is more likely to cause harm. Almost anyone could be jailed at some point if we allow an individual to be jailed anytime their decisions increases the risk others face. But that is a topic for another day. (Before I leave the topic let me say, I recognize that intoxication may increase the risk of accident, but there is a difference between a slight increase in risk and outright criminal negligence. In addition as we lower ever more the standard of intoxication we end up jailing people whose real risk is almost the same as a sober driver, and probably less than, say, most teenage boys. Which seems a bit much.)

-----------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I found this link on overlawyered.com, which is a great site for those fascinated with the law and modern legal excesses.

As regular readers know, from time to time, but very rarely, I have cited a good post, or an interesting article. I tend not to do it often, partly for selfish reasons, as I hate to send potential readers elsewhere from whence they might not return, but also because I don't want to give the impression I am endorsing an entire site when I am just agreeing with a single post. I may be a bit overly cautious, but I take politics rather seriously and would hate people to think I endorsed or even agreed with some of the ideas floating around out there.
 
However, I am today going to endorse a website, because I actually agree with the concept behind it. The site We Are Watching You apparently began as an idea on Garnet92's blog, the concept being that we need to target Democrats, not Republicans. It is a good point, that even if we replace the RINOs with devout conservatives the Democrat majority will remain. So we need to target the shakiest Democrats, either replace them with Republicans, or at least provide enough support to their opponents that we let them know that they cannot just serve as a rubber stamp for Pelosi and Reid. (I know the site endorses only the first goal,but the second outcome would still be beneficial, so in this case, even failure would be better than doing nothing. And Garnet92's original post actually suggests writing to these Democrats, so I have to think he is thinking in terms of the second outcome as well.)

This is actually in line with two concepts I have pushed. First, as mentioned in "Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion" and elsewhere, trying to take partial steps to reach our goal, rather than holding out for a total solution all at once. Second, trying to strengthen the rift I believe is inevitable between the Democrats, especially blue dogs, in congress, and Obama and his loyalists. Even if we don't succeed in unseating them, the fact that their support of Obama put their seat at risk will make them think twice about blindly following party discipline (and may even make them reconsider their belief that they have a seat for life). (See "Easy to Explain", "ObamaCare on the Ropes?", "Percpetion Is Reality", "Positive Sign", "Obama Forgets All He Learned" and "2010 and Health Care".)

So, as it is a site promoting taking concrete steps to advance ideas I have advocated, I feel good endorsing it.

POSTSCRIPT

Thanks to Bobbie for bringing this to my attention. And, for those not aware of its existence, I would like to take a moment to also plug Bobbie's message board for TH bloggers and others. It is a great method to stay up to date on new posts as well as pass along information to like minded bloggers. She has a page on her blog telling everyone who is interested how to sign up, and if you are a political junkie interested in conservative political debate, I recommend it. I certainly don't agree with everything my fellow bloggers write (and they certainly don't always agree with me), but they are always interesting. And I have to say the list does contain most of the more active and thoughtful bloggers on TH. (Not sure if Bobbie is going to love or hate me for creating extra work for her, but I had to give her a plug.)

If you were to hear people arguing about whether the pixie population had increased 10% or 15%, you would think it the biggest waste of time imaginable, as there is no such thing a pixies. So why on earth do we take seriously debates between state authorities and Obama administration wonks over how many jobs were "saved or created" a a result of the stimulus? First, there is no way on earth to count a job a "saved". The method is, I suppose, to guesstimate how many jobs you would have lost,t hen how many you have, and attribute the difference as "saved or created", but, as you can tell, that is a pure fiction, based to nothing but guesswork. Second, even if you just stick with jobs created, counting the jobs you have this month you didn't last month, you can't tell if ti was due to the stimulus.

In other words, you might as well debate the number of pixies or the increase in dragon population. It is just as real as the Obama job figures.