Ron Luciano (I think in The Umpire Strikes Back) tells a story of how control pitchers can get the umpire to call pitches strikes which are not. He says they throw one on the corner, which you call a strike. Then they throw one ever so slightly farther outside, which you call a strike. Pretty soon you are standing in the dugout calling strikes.
Over time, the Democrats and Republicans have gradually mutated into parties barely recognizable from what they once were. People who stay loyal to their parties end up supporting things they wouldn't have dreamed of years ago. The Constitution is home plate, and they are both standing in the left-hand dugout. Bring it home folks.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Sunday, November 16, 2003
More Reasons To Home School
Mrs. du Toit has a fabluous post Children and Behavoir which tells a horrendous tale of Special Education gone wrong. Don't miss the comments section, which gives many more examples. Comment number 74 links to this description of the six soul-searing lessons public schools really teach. A true indictment, which might explain why, although I am addicted to learning, I have a real love/hate relationship with school.
Health Care Costs
My Canadian friend, the Show Me Canuck, has some nice points in this piece on Canadian and US drug prices. I am completely in agreement with him about patent length and meaningless follow on patents. The US Patent Office serves this country nearly as badly as the public school system.
As regards drug company advertising, well, I believe that is their right. It is also the government's right and your right and my right to refuse to purchase drugs from companies which spend too much on advertising.
As regards socialized medicine/required medical insurance he and I are very far apart. I think companies should not be allowed to provide insurance tax-free to their employees. Instead individuals should be able to buy however much insurance they want tax-free and not be forced to have the same amount. If I was a single man like my Canuck friend, I would only want to pay for catastrophic coverage, since I have to be nearly dead before I'll go to a doctor anyway and I am perfectly capable of treating nearly all my ills with over-the-counter stuff.
Many people in this country (I seem to remember Kim du Toit, for example, but can't find it on his or his wife's blog) choose to go without medical insurance, figuring they can manage their own health care costs, thank-you-very-much. And from the way I remember him describing it, I suspect he can.
I am not completely averse to government subsidies so that low-income families can afford reasonable medical insurance, but I would like to make a go at funding this through charitable contributions first. If we can't make that work then let it be subsidized, but I am in general very wary of government sponsored wealth redistribution schemes, since they seem always to degrade into voting oneself money. The Medicare Prescription boondoogle is like that. Sure, some poor old people will be helped, but so will all the rich old people and the middle class old people and the old people whose ungrateful kids should be helping them out. Who pays for it? Poor young people, among others.
As regards drug company advertising, well, I believe that is their right. It is also the government's right and your right and my right to refuse to purchase drugs from companies which spend too much on advertising.
As regards socialized medicine/required medical insurance he and I are very far apart. I think companies should not be allowed to provide insurance tax-free to their employees. Instead individuals should be able to buy however much insurance they want tax-free and not be forced to have the same amount. If I was a single man like my Canuck friend, I would only want to pay for catastrophic coverage, since I have to be nearly dead before I'll go to a doctor anyway and I am perfectly capable of treating nearly all my ills with over-the-counter stuff.
Many people in this country (I seem to remember Kim du Toit, for example, but can't find it on his or his wife's blog) choose to go without medical insurance, figuring they can manage their own health care costs, thank-you-very-much. And from the way I remember him describing it, I suspect he can.
I am not completely averse to government subsidies so that low-income families can afford reasonable medical insurance, but I would like to make a go at funding this through charitable contributions first. If we can't make that work then let it be subsidized, but I am in general very wary of government sponsored wealth redistribution schemes, since they seem always to degrade into voting oneself money. The Medicare Prescription boondoogle is like that. Sure, some poor old people will be helped, but so will all the rich old people and the middle class old people and the old people whose ungrateful kids should be helping them out. Who pays for it? Poor young people, among others.
My Votes In The New Weblog Showcase - Week Ending Nov 15
Collected Miscellany has An interview with John Derbyshire, with emphasis on his mathematical work, but enough about politics to wet that whistle, too. There were lots of other good posts, but I don't feel like writing about them this morning.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
George Bush Was Not AWOL
Baldilocks, who took a leave of absense from the Reserves, explains that this common occurence is not going AWOL.
She then goes on to explain why claiming that George Bush went AWOL is a dreadful insult to the intelligence of our man and women in the service. The claim he went AWOL is either born of ignorance (like ever so many claims) or it is utterly mendacious and repugnant.
George Bush did not go AWOL.
George Bush joined the military, he did not dodge the draft.
George Bush learned to fly fighter jets. Just learning to fly fighter jets in the 60's and 70's was more dangerous than most combat is now. (For American troops, anyway.)
George Bush's unit had been rotated to Vietnam when he joined.
Sure, this could all have been a complicated little game to serve in the military without much risk. Jessica Lynch says that's why she got into a supply unit, but no one is questioning her patriotism. Ain't politics grand?
Via Mrs. du Toit.
She then goes on to explain why claiming that George Bush went AWOL is a dreadful insult to the intelligence of our man and women in the service. The claim he went AWOL is either born of ignorance (like ever so many claims) or it is utterly mendacious and repugnant.
George Bush did not go AWOL.
George Bush joined the military, he did not dodge the draft.
George Bush learned to fly fighter jets. Just learning to fly fighter jets in the 60's and 70's was more dangerous than most combat is now. (For American troops, anyway.)
George Bush's unit had been rotated to Vietnam when he joined.
Sure, this could all have been a complicated little game to serve in the military without much risk. Jessica Lynch says that's why she got into a supply unit, but no one is questioning her patriotism. Ain't politics grand?
Via Mrs. du Toit.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
My Dad, Veteran Keypunch Operator and Cold Warrior
Say Uncle has a great post about his Dad, the Vet.
My Dad was drafted into the Army around 1956 and served as a Keypunch Operator in Germany. I am not sure why they drafted him, since he was making artillery propellants for Du Pont at the time. He did not have many positive things to say about his service. He was drafted almost at the end of his Selective Service window and was older than his lieutenant. It sounds as though, in respect for his age he was responsible to keeping the furnace going during Basic Training and so he may never have actually fired his carbine.
When he came back he went to work for Bendix. He made lots of trips to Los Alamos, White Sands, and Lawrence Livermore Labs and he never would tell me what he worked on, but I guessed. Can you?
Thanks, Dad, for helping to win the Cold War. Detterence and containment worked, and I didn't have to go fight in a big war against the Soviets. I hope the war against Islamic fascism has even fewer casualties.
My Dad was drafted into the Army around 1956 and served as a Keypunch Operator in Germany. I am not sure why they drafted him, since he was making artillery propellants for Du Pont at the time. He did not have many positive things to say about his service. He was drafted almost at the end of his Selective Service window and was older than his lieutenant. It sounds as though, in respect for his age he was responsible to keeping the furnace going during Basic Training and so he may never have actually fired his carbine.
When he came back he went to work for Bendix. He made lots of trips to Los Alamos, White Sands, and Lawrence Livermore Labs and he never would tell me what he worked on, but I guessed. Can you?
Thanks, Dad, for helping to win the Cold War. Detterence and containment worked, and I didn't have to go fight in a big war against the Soviets. I hope the war against Islamic fascism has even fewer casualties.
Kim Du Toit, Master of Nuclear Hyperbole
Warning: All links in this post lead to strong language. The previous sentence is often an understatement.
Kim du Toit has a now famous, crash his server post on the feminization of men and horrors of the Nanny state, with follow ups here, here and here.
Kim is dead accurate about the horrors of the Nanny state. Drugging our young men with Ritalin is particularly horrifying. I also hate the laws outlawing smoking in NY bars (I am allergic to cigarette smoke) and the proposed FDA menu regulations which will probably make it illegal to introduce a new dish until its calories are measured. (What's next, banning buffets?)
Actually I find Kim's style and his critic Philosoraptor's some what similar. They are both condescending and both insulting. Philosoraptor is more polite about it. Kim's essays are easier to read and better constructed and much more succinct. Philosoraptor rambles.
Mrs. du Toit had a useful comment in one of her defense posts:
"Kim, intentionally heat the debate with invective and hyperbole, challenging the very assumptions themselves in the language he used? NOOooo... heh heh"
I desperately need to understand her point.
I have been struggling with Kim's rants for some time now. Though I enjoy them very much, I cannot imagine handing them to my Depression-Era Democratic Mom and Dad to read. I would like very much to persuade them that the statism ensconced in the Democratic party (and, shudder, the Republican party for the most part) is incredibly corrosive to our Republic. However, I can't imagine them being persuaded by his favorite hang 'em from the utility-pole image. As a former Democrat, I find this imagery repulsive, off-putting and pretty well reprehensible. I thought of challenging Kim to a boxing match over it, but my wife pointed out that I have a family to feed, so please don't risk the injury.
Do I just lack imagination? Why would someone chose this style, and how can it be used to persuade?
Mrs. du Toit has other related posts here, here and here.
Kim du Toit has a now famous, crash his server post on the feminization of men and horrors of the Nanny state, with follow ups here, here and here.
Kim is dead accurate about the horrors of the Nanny state. Drugging our young men with Ritalin is particularly horrifying. I also hate the laws outlawing smoking in NY bars (I am allergic to cigarette smoke) and the proposed FDA menu regulations which will probably make it illegal to introduce a new dish until its calories are measured. (What's next, banning buffets?)
Actually I find Kim's style and his critic Philosoraptor's some what similar. They are both condescending and both insulting. Philosoraptor is more polite about it. Kim's essays are easier to read and better constructed and much more succinct. Philosoraptor rambles.
Mrs. du Toit had a useful comment in one of her defense posts:
"Kim, intentionally heat the debate with invective and hyperbole, challenging the very assumptions themselves in the language he used? NOOooo... heh heh"
I desperately need to understand her point.
I have been struggling with Kim's rants for some time now. Though I enjoy them very much, I cannot imagine handing them to my Depression-Era Democratic Mom and Dad to read. I would like very much to persuade them that the statism ensconced in the Democratic party (and, shudder, the Republican party for the most part) is incredibly corrosive to our Republic. However, I can't imagine them being persuaded by his favorite hang 'em from the utility-pole image. As a former Democrat, I find this imagery repulsive, off-putting and pretty well reprehensible. I thought of challenging Kim to a boxing match over it, but my wife pointed out that I have a family to feed, so please don't risk the injury.
Do I just lack imagination? Why would someone chose this style, and how can it be used to persuade?
Mrs. du Toit has other related posts here, here and here.
Saturday, November 08, 2003
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Did Walter's Loose Lips Sink Our Vietnam Ship?
Andrew, in the comments to Ara's A New Meme: The Press As Killers post, replys to my comments as follows:
The North Vietnamese General Staff knew that the Viet Cong were finished as an effective fighting force. But I have no information to lead me to believe that the American General Staff knew that the Viet Cong had been destroyed. How could the press? Without this information, could the press have known enough about guerilla warfare to realize that Tet was an American victory? Maybe not. NVA/VC casualties were 45,000 dead and 7000 captured, with the number of wounded unknown. US/ARVN casualties were 4300 dead, 16,000 wounded and 1000 MIA. See here for my source.
So, even though the NVA/VC had surprised the US/AVRN, they had lost 10 soldiers for every one they killed. Westmoreland thought it was a victory, the North Vietnamese knew that their plans had failed, but Walter Cronkite and Lyndon Johnson lost their will to win.
I think they both messed up. In this, Johnson carries by far the greater burden, since he was the President. Lincoln, FDR and Truman would not have lost their will to win. But Cronkite was a uniquely powerful opinion leader, to whom there is no current analog. His stalemate broadcast completely failed to note the hard fought victory our soldiers had won at great cost. I think he, and the rest of the press, let America down.
All judgement calls, by someone who is well outside his area of expertise, your mileage will certainly vary.
I really appreciated Andrew's nicest possible way remark. I would have taken the spinning comment much more negatively than he meant.
Here is some more Vietnam wisdom from Jerry Pournelle's blog. See also Jerry's opinion that JFK messed up badly by killing Diem. And also, scroll down to see Jerry rebut some Colonel who compared Iraq to Vietnam improperly. I have a great deal of respect for Jerry, whose advice, with that of Stephan Possony, helped Reagan win the Cold War.
Regarding Vietnam - Sloppy reporting such as telling the bare bone facts and showing the pictures? is that what you mean? If there are those still saying sloppy reportign contributed to the American failure they are in pure and hate-filled denial.OK, Andrew, I thought about it, although without any actual spinning, and my number one problem with reporting in Vietnam was that they failed to report the Tet offensive as an American victory. But could they have done so? Perhaps not.
A country is the will of the people and we don't have a fucking king and royal court.
And I always ask this question - should journalists not report these facts. Is the job we're doing more important than American lives?
Lastly, I thought reporting on Iraqi civilian casualities was also going to sap American will. As also happened in Vietnam.
It comes full circle and you should sit and spin -- and think. (he says in the nicest possible way).
The North Vietnamese General Staff knew that the Viet Cong were finished as an effective fighting force. But I have no information to lead me to believe that the American General Staff knew that the Viet Cong had been destroyed. How could the press? Without this information, could the press have known enough about guerilla warfare to realize that Tet was an American victory? Maybe not. NVA/VC casualties were 45,000 dead and 7000 captured, with the number of wounded unknown. US/ARVN casualties were 4300 dead, 16,000 wounded and 1000 MIA. See here for my source.
So, even though the NVA/VC had surprised the US/AVRN, they had lost 10 soldiers for every one they killed. Westmoreland thought it was a victory, the North Vietnamese knew that their plans had failed, but Walter Cronkite and Lyndon Johnson lost their will to win.
I think they both messed up. In this, Johnson carries by far the greater burden, since he was the President. Lincoln, FDR and Truman would not have lost their will to win. But Cronkite was a uniquely powerful opinion leader, to whom there is no current analog. His stalemate broadcast completely failed to note the hard fought victory our soldiers had won at great cost. I think he, and the rest of the press, let America down.
All judgement calls, by someone who is well outside his area of expertise, your mileage will certainly vary.
I really appreciated Andrew's nicest possible way remark. I would have taken the spinning comment much more negatively than he meant.
Here is some more Vietnam wisdom from Jerry Pournelle's blog. See also Jerry's opinion that JFK messed up badly by killing Diem. And also, scroll down to see Jerry rebut some Colonel who compared Iraq to Vietnam improperly. I have a great deal of respect for Jerry, whose advice, with that of Stephan Possony, helped Reagan win the Cold War.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
An Old Meme - Thoughtless Reporters Kill Soldiers
Dean Esmay wants a new slogan: Thoughtless reporters kill soldiers. His WWII model is: Loose lips sink ships. I can't speak for Vietnam vets, but the one who defended my right to say stupid things for over twenty years thought the press lost Vietnam, so this is not really a new meme.
Ara thinks the meme is lousy. He wants Dean to prove it. I cobbled this post together from two comments to his post.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that sloppy reporting risks wasting soldiers lives by sapping our resolve and causing us to fail in Iraq. I want America to win, I don't like Copperheads, and I want the Democratic Leadership to want to win. I took the trouble to restate Dean's position to show that I agreed with the general sentiment and not that reporting was directly causing any actual deaths. I think the direct cause of death will always be a car bomb, missile, bullet or some other weapon. We have no casualties from paper cuts. Dean was trying to come up with a slogan, like 'Loose lips sink ships'. I think you will find the ships in question were bombed, shelled or torpedoed. None were actually sunk by careless conversation. As slogans go, the big problem with Dean's is that it isn't catchy, not that it fails to carry its meaning.
Sloppy reporting, by overemphasizing the American casualties and never mentioning our opposition's casualties, gives a real morale boost to the enemy, which causes American deaths. Sloppy reporting, by underemphasizing casualties among friendly Iraqi policemen and soldiers, misleads the American people into believing the Iraqis aren't helping out and don't deserve our assistance. That could prevent the US from providing the help needed to win over Iraqi hearts and minds leading them to join the holdouts, which will cause American deaths. Sloppy reporting, if it causes America to lose its nerve, could cause us to reduce our forces too rapidly, over-exposing the remainder, which will cause American deaths.
I think you will find many thoughtful people who believe sloppy reporting was a significant factor in the way America lost the Vietnam war and that it cost many American, Cambodian and Vietnamese lives. The Tet offensive was such a battlefield failure that the North Vietnamese General staff was planning big concessions in the peace talks until the American press convinced them it was a strategic victory. Imagine if the war had ended in 1968. Would any lives have been saved?
Ara often says he wants Bush to win the war, but it isn't his job to say how. Well, I want the media to get out of Bagdhad, get out of their habit of molding every story to a familiar theme and report the war. I am not trying to intimidate the mainstream press. I am trying to get it to report the things I get from non-mainstream sources. I say this as part of my job as a consumer of media and as an American citizen.
Ara thinks the meme is lousy. He wants Dean to prove it. I cobbled this post together from two comments to his post.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that sloppy reporting risks wasting soldiers lives by sapping our resolve and causing us to fail in Iraq. I want America to win, I don't like Copperheads, and I want the Democratic Leadership to want to win. I took the trouble to restate Dean's position to show that I agreed with the general sentiment and not that reporting was directly causing any actual deaths. I think the direct cause of death will always be a car bomb, missile, bullet or some other weapon. We have no casualties from paper cuts. Dean was trying to come up with a slogan, like 'Loose lips sink ships'. I think you will find the ships in question were bombed, shelled or torpedoed. None were actually sunk by careless conversation. As slogans go, the big problem with Dean's is that it isn't catchy, not that it fails to carry its meaning.
Sloppy reporting, by overemphasizing the American casualties and never mentioning our opposition's casualties, gives a real morale boost to the enemy, which causes American deaths. Sloppy reporting, by underemphasizing casualties among friendly Iraqi policemen and soldiers, misleads the American people into believing the Iraqis aren't helping out and don't deserve our assistance. That could prevent the US from providing the help needed to win over Iraqi hearts and minds leading them to join the holdouts, which will cause American deaths. Sloppy reporting, if it causes America to lose its nerve, could cause us to reduce our forces too rapidly, over-exposing the remainder, which will cause American deaths.
I think you will find many thoughtful people who believe sloppy reporting was a significant factor in the way America lost the Vietnam war and that it cost many American, Cambodian and Vietnamese lives. The Tet offensive was such a battlefield failure that the North Vietnamese General staff was planning big concessions in the peace talks until the American press convinced them it was a strategic victory. Imagine if the war had ended in 1968. Would any lives have been saved?
Ara often says he wants Bush to win the war, but it isn't his job to say how. Well, I want the media to get out of Bagdhad, get out of their habit of molding every story to a familiar theme and report the war. I am not trying to intimidate the mainstream press. I am trying to get it to report the things I get from non-mainstream sources. I say this as part of my job as a consumer of media and as an American citizen.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Blocking The Constition Is Next
Symantec's Internet Security 2004 blocks pro-gun sites (all the NRA sites, for example, including the NRA Institute for Legislative Action) but not The Brady Campaign or Good Bye Guns. Symantec's phone number is 408-517-8000. The only email I've found so far is investor-relations@symantec.com, but maybe john.w.thompson@symantec.com would contact the CEO (just guessing). Will pro-war sites be next? (War is violent.) George Bush's reelection site? (Some people think he's a racist.) They'll hear from me tomorrow during their office hours. Go to their web site and ask for one of their officers.
The Bill Of No Rights
This piece of satire is double-plus good. From its prolog, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."
Safe-Storage Is Not Always Safe
Via Jeff at Alphecca, and Old Skool at Stop the Bleating! see this cautionary tale of safe-storage laws gone awry. Personally I prefer laws which encourage good judgement, rather than those which mandate a particular course of action. People have brains. Laws don't. In actual cases a law which seems sensible to many (zero-tolerance anything laws comes to mind) often produces truly stupid results.
Another Reason To Visit The Palace...
...if you like deliciously subtle humor. Look for the phrase "catastrophic renal backpressure" here.
Let's All Go Looking For Trouble
From Francis W. Porretto at the Palace of Reason comes these tales of wonderfully helpful people who are looking for trouble.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
Econo-Legal Meditations On An Apple Jolly Rancher®
This morning my six year-old brought an Apple Jolly Rancher® to me (gained, as you might guess, from a cheerful walk around the block last night), having read and being concerned by this message:
CAREFUL: SMALL OBJECTS, LIKE HARD CANDIES, MAY INADVERTENTLY BECOME LODGED IN THE THROAT.
I told her it meant to be careful not to choke, and she seemed happy.
I was intrigued. Economically speaking, are the burdens placed on businesses by what seem to be wildly out of control legal liability claims balanced by increased consumption due to decreased risk (or at least compensated risk) to consumers?
CAREFUL: SMALL OBJECTS, LIKE HARD CANDIES, MAY INADVERTENTLY BECOME LODGED IN THE THROAT.
I told her it meant to be careful not to choke, and she seemed happy.
I was intrigued. Economically speaking, are the burdens placed on businesses by what seem to be wildly out of control legal liability claims balanced by increased consumption due to decreased risk (or at least compensated risk) to consumers?
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
The Social Security Trust Fund Is Enron Writ Large
Megan McArdle presents the case that an IOU written to oneself is not a Trust Fund, even if you pay yourself interest. The bill comes due in 2013, when the government has to start paying off on that IOU. To do that we will, cut benefits, raise taxes, cut other spending or borrow the money. 2040 is meaningless. In other words, the Prescription Drug Benefit is the real quagmire. Can you say, "Increase the dole?" Dictatorship in America by 2020? Will the new word for tyrant be Bush, or Gore, Kennedy or Clinton? (Is it just me, or are aristocratic political families more common on the Democratic side? Or do they just get more play in the press? Come up with more future names for Caesar in the comments and I'll add them to the post. )
Via Instapundit.
Update: Francis W. Porretto came up with these, and I've commented on his lists:
Democrats: Kennedy/Shriver, Cuomo, Daley, Rockefeller (ignore Nelson; he was a sport), Clayton Powell, and Clinton, plus maybe the Longs of Louisiana. I'd add Gore. In Kansas we had the Dockings, but they never made it out of state.
Republicans: Bush and Taft. I'd add Dole, since if we consider Bill/Hillary we have to add Bob/Liddy. In Kansas we had Landon/Kassebaum, but again they never made it out of state.
I guess Al Gore is evidence that any state political family can go national.
Via Instapundit.
Update: Francis W. Porretto came up with these, and I've commented on his lists:
Democrats: Kennedy/Shriver, Cuomo, Daley, Rockefeller (ignore Nelson; he was a sport), Clayton Powell, and Clinton, plus maybe the Longs of Louisiana. I'd add Gore. In Kansas we had the Dockings, but they never made it out of state.
Republicans: Bush and Taft. I'd add Dole, since if we consider Bill/Hillary we have to add Bob/Liddy. In Kansas we had Landon/Kassebaum, but again they never made it out of state.
I guess Al Gore is evidence that any state political family can go national.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Move On Should Live Up To Its Own Standard
Move On was started thus:
Censure and Move On was a bipartisan group of concerned citizens organizing around a single cause: reaching closure on the Clinton scandal. The vast majority of the American public understood that a continuing obsession with scandal will do great damage to our institutions, our economy, and our power and prestige in the world. We expect our representatives to understand this as well, and show true leadership.So why are they sending out email critical of Arnold Schwartnegger's sexual escapades? Grrr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)