Detailed Abstractions

In an effort to increase sales of large sized Saudi Prince dolls to burn in effigy, the Saudis are seeking (again) world welfare in case of a decline in oil revenues due to global warming policies (here):

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers….

This would ordinarily send me into a rant with lots of words ending with something like, “Why do they think we owe them?”  It would likely also include a discussion on OPEC and their unnatural control  of the market which allows them to set the price much higher than it would be otherwise.

However… considering the kingdom’s hatred of women, children, and consistent human rights abuses through Sharia law and the Wahhabi religion, using this to call out Saudi Arabia would be like getting angry at Jeffery Dahmer for having a bad sense of fashion.

President Obama, among other distinguished guests, got together at the UN for a conference on Climate change.

This pressing issue, that Mr. Obama cares so much about – that issue which his party fights for daily was so important, that his words must have been strong and firm on our commitment to the environment, right? (here):

…”I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted I believe in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”…

Ok – so unilateral action in our interests are different from other unilateral actions other countries make how?  And should we care why?

I know, this again will make me be seen as heartless and I do understand that we have to act in a way that is semi-consistent with international laws, but it’s not our job nor is it our responsibility.  I would like to think that when despots are killing their own citizens, we can act unilaterally if we wish.

Please understand; I’m not for an expansion of foreign entanglements mind you, I’m only saying that when something is a just cause and others are unwilling to do anything, then unilateral action is the moral response.

But, he did go on to say that he wouldn’t apologize for defending the nation’s interests.  So there’s that… but this as well:

…”We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

“On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.  “…

Maybe the President is out the loop or something, but GITMO remains open, and without knowing the specific interrogation techniques which are now being allowed, “not allowing torture” is a joke.  I think it’s obvious that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn’t believe they were “allowing torture”, but maybe he meant something else – like;

“I started a committee to look into closing GITMO, but I still support the Patriot Act, sending prisoners to other nations who torture, and really, most of my predecessors policies, with the exception of the committee and DOJ investigation.”

But this is politics, so he continues:

…”We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies — a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we — and many nations here — are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.”…

Where’s Iraq?  Oh, here:

…”In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.:…

Well, that’s not really true.  We’re pulling back troops and have a date to leave, but the Iraqi government can ask us to stay and we would likely oblige… but even without that, does this match the campaign promise?

Hmmm….:

…On Tuesday, Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007,” which calls for a goal of all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a phased redeployment worked out with military commanders….

It’s almost becoming too easy to poke holes in damn near anything he says, but remember first and foremost that this was a UN Conference on Climate Change.

To be fair, he did get there.  Out of roughly 1000 words spoke, he spent 46 words on climate change.  For an administration that recently published a report described as this:

…The report describes in vivid detail how our urban infrastructure will be placed in peril from intense hurricanes and storm surges, how heat waves, poor air quality, and insects will increase, and how a rapidly intensifying climate change will make it difficult for both society and the natural resources we possess to adapt….

His discussion on the world stage leaves a lot to be desired.

For real climate change discussions and solutions: I highly recommend the Copenhagen Consensus.

In an effort to make sure Paul Krugman isn’t the most incoherent economics writer working for the New York Times, Thomas Friedman comes out with an oped yesterday titled Our One-Party Democracy.

You see, in Mr. Friedman’s world, the only party working towards effective reform is the Democrats, therefore democracy has failed:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

Not hard for him maybe, but for those who like freedom, we only see the worst example of governance ever conceived… except for all the others.

Why stop there?  According to Mr. Friedman, the real problem here is that the US isn’t more like China:

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages…

I’m pretty sure even the leadership in China just laughed out loud at being called  enlightened – they are probably laughing just as hard as I am confused in trying to figure out how Mr. Friedman could come to such a conclusion.

After all, China is a country that continues to jail dissidents, persecute the religious, deny access to a free press, ignore basic contracts rights, and many, many other anti-freedom atrocities, all of which are well documented and easy to find.

Just a couple years ago, in 2007, multiple reports held that Chinese officials had displaced (read: kicked out without recourse or compensation) 1.5 million Chinese nationals to make room for the Olympic Village.

Surely Mr. Friedman understands this, so why go to such lengths as to spot light China for being enlightened?  Well, to Mr. Friedman, it seems obvious that with all of China’s current evils, they don’t rank with the evils being perpetrated on US society  right now by Republicans.  Thanks to Mr. Friedman, the Republican’s evil nature has been identified and it is startling.  Yes, the Republicans have dared to oppose Mr. Friedman’s Mr. Obama’s legislation:

…The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste….

What should we do when people dare to demonstrate such blatant use of their individual rights by going against the One True Way?  Well go to one-party autocracy:

…The only way for us to match them [China] is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy….

…Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business….

I know when trying to follow such flawless logic, sometimes we lose the forest for the trees, so for those playing the Analogy home game:

In the past 200 years, the United States, with a fairly free economy, slowly became and then maintained economic dominance in almost all areas, while China, Russia, and other controlled economies have done much worse.  Recent history is different with China, India, Russia, and others becoming emerging economies, but only as they progressed towards market reforms and away from command economies.

To Mr. Friedman however, little things like historical evidence and current human rights’ abuses aren’t part of the equation.  The only part of the equation seems to be “China is doing things I like, the US isn’t, therefore the US is bad and China is good.”

The most amazing thing is how he isn’t even trying to hide his desire to control your lives.  Without a hint of irony, he is telling you directly he’d prefer that those who disagree not be given rights to control the government,  while those who agree with him should be shown the keys to the kingdom.

Yes, like all worthless dictators before him and all totalitarian idiots who will come after him, Mr. Friedman is more than willing to give up your rights in search of his goals.

Since the Cap & Trade bill is getting hammered from quite a few angles throughout the halls of Congress, recent news has started pushing the much fated plan for Health Care.

They do this, by first admitting the need to increase the insured, the move to hyping the number of uninsured individuals, and finally discuss plans on how to insure them.

For serious thought – Cato and others have noted that the system itself is creating our current problems and by expanding the current system, we will only expand those problems(here):

A free-market approach would move away from employer-provided insurance and increase competition among both insurers and health providers.

Going further of course, they try to give some reasons the system operates as it does:

There are two key components to any free-market healthcare reform. First, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer.

Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means that people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured.

Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker’s taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed….

Not to be locked out, John Stossel just wrote a piece over at Reason giving the reader very colorful examples of how the current insurance system has actually done more harm to having efficient and cost effective medical care than any other piece of legislation on health care (here)

…Insurance, whether private or a government Ponzi scheme like Medicare, means third parties pay the bills. When someone else pays, costs always go up.

Imagine if you had grocery insurance. You wouldn’t care how much food cost. Why shop around? If someone else were paying 80 percent, you’d buy the most expensive cuts of meat. Prices would skyrocket.

That’s what health insurance does to medical care. Patients rarely even ask what anything costs. Doctors often don’t know. Often nobody even gives a damn. Patients rarely ask, “Is that MRI really necessary? Is there a cheaper place?” We consume without thinking.

By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own way, service gets better, while prices fall.

Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices don’t. “In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general,” says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “But the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent.”

And honestly, I encourage everyone to read what they can, because this is the very beginning.  Through an extensive societal system, we limit the number of doctors graduating each year.  We, by law, force doctors to do certain procedures lesser trained individuals might be able to do for my less money.  If you recall, 10 years ago, a fully registered nurse (RN) had to draw blood.  Now, it’s a 6 week course and they’re called phlebotomy techs.

So yes, Mr. Obama: I and millions think our health care is pretty good, but could use some changes.  We just don’t think the government has proven to be more inefficient in any endeavor when compared to a private company has in that same endeavor (excluding government allowed monopolies).

The only real question – is why are we looking for several trillion dollars, which will be pushed into all these different feel good remedies, most of which will show no measurable improvement?

And therein lies the selectorate theory, which basically reads that heads of states and other major players got to their positions of power through a winning coalition of others and those are the people they will be the first to covet.

As for those people that didn’t vote for Mr. Obama, and are therefore not in the winning coalition, well, they’ll get hurt.  It’s just too bad that my daughter someday will feel the pain from not being apart of that winning coalition, even though she was completely unable to vote.

This past Friday, the 25th of June, Democrats, with 8 Republicans in the House have passed sweeping environmental regulation known as Cap and Trade.

Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.

But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama’s ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it…

Despite the numerous problems with the bill and still open questions remaining as to what the full financial impact will be on average consumers, Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman is full of praise (here):

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

Which is perfectly fine.  I honestly tend to expect more out of an economist, like asking questions about cost versus benefits and the like, but I’ve gotten use to Mr. Krugman using his very large bully pulpit for his politics, and not economic principles.

As is his trademark for completely disregarding anything that fails to comport with his world view, he moved from praise directly into false logic:

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

So from the very beginning, he places everyone into two basic camps – those who voted for the legislation and those who are anti-science, treasonous bastards, how don’t understand the fundamental science behind climate change.

Instead of acknowledging the well known fact that many opponents of this legislation are not global warming deniers, he presents a false dichotomy in which there are only two sides – his side and those that don’t believe in global warming.

From this basic setup, his article flows smoothly as he defends the science behind global warming all the while pretending the strawman he is busy burning exists in real life.

As usual, outside of his partisan world, the issue is not nearly as cut and dry.  Many of the best argued positions come from people opposed to this bill have absolutely nothing to do with the science of global warming at all.  The generally tread a few main points:

1. What are the true costs of the bill to individual consumers? This question is almost impossible to ask as 300 additional pages were added to the 1000 page bill just a couple of hours before a forced vote.  None of Congress had time to read the additions prior to voting.
2. If we can detail a good cost estimate, do we fully know what benefits to expect in order to balance costs with benefits?
3. & lastly, the politics of the bill are being setup for corruption.  Instead of opening an exchange where the initial carbon offsets can be purchased through a free market system, the government will be handing out those directly to business.  They will get these carbon credits free of charge and be able to resell them on the market once that happens.  Allowing congress the ability to decide who gets free money is a system setup for corruption.

Critiques :Reason, Cato.org, and just a lot of additional BS on politics of the entire thing

Of course Mr. Krugman should know and likely does know exactly what he’s doing.  He frames the debate as a false dichotomy, only allowing two choices, then pretends to make one choice look completely stupid by comparison through the ceremonial burning of the strawman he invented.

Not terribly surprising from a columnist who was arguing in 2004 that the economy needed a housing bubble to get us moving forward again, only to completely reverse course and pretend he never did any such thing after the collapse of that market (here).

Is it really any wonder why the self proclaimed 4th branch of the government is trusted less and less everyday?