It's Official, the At The Movies Guys are idiots

Neither Michael Phillips nor A.O. Scott picked any Lord of the Rings movie in the top 10 of the last decade.  The movie that I, and their viewers, picked as number one.  What did they pick as number one?

A.O. Scott picked WALL-E.  A very good movie.  But even my wife, who loves cute animated films, dropped her jaw at this pick.  We will have to rent it again to see.

Michael Phillips picked There Will Be Blood.  This is the kind of movie that critics love, because they can fire their full rhetorical blasts of praise and compare it to another good but completely overblown movie, Citizen Kane.  Check some of the comments, easily available via a cursory Google search:

"a film of Darwinian ferocity, a stark and pitiless parable of American capitalism"

"(director) Anderson is an artful renegade who restores your faith in the harsh power of movies. This is his bloody and brilliant Citizen Kane."

"about Day-Lewis. "Gargantuan" is a puny word to describe his landmark performance."

"epic American nightmare, arrives belching fire and brimstone and damnation to Hell"
 

But Roger Ebert has it right:


"its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp"

I've seen There Will Be Blood.  In my opinion, it was a movie written and directed with the express purpose of appearing to be "great".  Designed to appeal to critics, arriving with hoopla and Oscar buzz.  But not a great movie.

Best Movies of the Decade

I don't watch "At the Movies" much (since it isn't Siskel and Ebert anymore) but did catch it the other night, and they were counting down the "Best Movies of the Decade".  Since each critic had his own selection, and we were at #2, that's a total of 18 films.  I have seen none of them.  My wife has seen only one of them.  Maybe we are really out of touch.  Several of them I haven't even heard of.  For what it's worth, which isn't much, only one (Million Dollar Baby) won the Academy Award, though several were nominated.

I'm really wondering about their choices next week for the best film.  For them to have any credibility with me, it has to be one of the Lord of the Rings movies.  But these guys are really into filmaking and art - maybe they will be like the the Editors at the Modern Library who didn't even rate Lord of the Rings in the top 100 novels of the last century, instead preferring more "literary" works like Ulysses, Lolita, and Sons and Lovers, while the common people voted for books people actually read, like Ayn Rand, Tolkien, To Kill a Mockingbird, and, in a particularly insightful pick, H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness.  Some of the popular votes are dubious and repetitive (there's way too much Ayn Rand and Hubbard), but, all in all, I think they did a better job than the "pros".

So, drum roll please...  Here are my picks for the ten best movies of the last decade

1. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - my favorite of the three
2. Heaven
3. The Wrestler
4. Walk the Line
5. The Bourne Identity  - again, my favorite of the three, though all were strong
6. Bend It Like Beckham
7. Finding Nemo
8. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
9. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World  (if only for the music)
10. Little Miss Sunshine

Plus a few honorable mentions (the two critics get 20 total)

• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 
• The Fountain  this one was weird and ultimately baffling, but had wonderful visuals and tried to be something
• O Brother, Where Art Thou?  it's bonafide!
• The Bank Job
• Legally Blonde  (a guilty pleasure)
  

Is Conspicuous Consumption America's Enduring Legacy?

Noted sci-fi author David Brin argues for this in a recent article and on his blog.  He argues "that the period of Pax America has been generally positive", and considers U.S. policy in the years just after World War 2.

Instead of annexing territory and looting the defeated enemy, (e.g. Franco-Prussian war, Treaty of Versailles) President Truman, Nobel Peace Prize winner George Marshall, and General Douglas MacArthur,developed an unprecedented historical policy of "countermercantilism" to lift up the defeated. 

"the clearly stated intention was for the United States to lift up their prostrate foe, first with direct aid.  And then, over the longer term, with trade."

Before this, normal empires practiced mercantilism, favoring home industry, and using other countries, particularly colonies, as sources of raw materials and as export markets.  The British Empire is a prime example of this, but so were the Chinese, Moguls, Romans and Greeks.

"America became the first power in history to deliberately establish countermercantilist commerce flows.  Nations crippled by war or mismanagement were allowed to maintain tariffs, keeping out American goods, while sending shiploads from their factories to the United States ....

What this amounted to, however, was the greatest aid-and-uplift program in human history. A prodigious transfer of wealth from the United States to Europe, Asia and Latin America."

Now, some of this was done to defeat totalitarian Communism.  Which was also, overall, a good thing for humanity.  While he makes it clear that he is no neo-conservative, Brin calls for the reflexive America loathers to give it some credit:

"Even if America is exhausted from having spent its way from world dominance into a chasm of debt, the United States does have something to show for it the last six decades. A world saved. Billions of human beings lifted out of poverty. That task, far more prodigious than defeating fascism and communism or going to the moon, ought to be viewed with a little respect."

Should the 21st century become the "Chinese Century", as many have postulated, when historians look back upon it, will they find any similar commitment to uplift the human race?  One can hope.
 

Book Review: "Espionage"

I've been slowly working my way through the book "Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets" by Richard Bennett, published in 2002.  I'm up to the Es.  There's some interesting general information.  Many  of the details are wrong.  (I've seen few positive reviews)  But there's some real weirdness.

On the rear jacket cover, where you have a short bio of the author, you see three authors listed.  In addition to Bennett, David Shayler and James Bamford are listed.  They both write prefaces.  Shayler's writes, amongst other dubious anti-establishment things, that "The main job of the intelligence in the years to come will concentrate on the conflict created by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip..."  I almost stopped reading there, as my "he's a nutcase" radar lit up.  You might want to read the unsettling wikipedia article linked above.  Bamford is perfectly respectable, yet you know he has a some history with the CIA and NSA.  In any case, I'm confused as to why Shayler and Bamford appear so prominently, yet aren't listed as authors.  Not sure how much they contributed, but the book does share their biases.

Now, for an innocent yet really strange entry, ANDRE, Major John (1751-80).  Here's the first line:

Major Andre of the 54th Foot regiment was a courageous British officer during the rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, popularly known as the American War of Independence.

Who the F calls the American Revolution the"rebellion against the crown"?  "Rebellion against the crown" refers to all such rebellions, such as the Irish, Scots, etc.  So it's imprecise.  Instead of the short and familiar two word term, "American Revolution", the author insists on making a rhetorical point by using nine words in a less familiar phrase.  Does Bennett refer to the French Revolution as the "rebellion against Louis XVI by his French subjects and the unfortunate beheading of his Queen"?  You can Google other instances of uses of this term for the American Revolution.  But at least one of the blogs is, well, unsettling, very conservative Catholic - go read it and his posts.  He legalistically analyzes whether the Revolution was a "just" war, and calls the claims in the Declaration of Independence "boring and silly".  And the fact that I've read two really unsettling posts or blogs in researching this article is, well, unsettling.  :-)

Speaking of legalistic, Espionage concludes its post on Major Andre with legalistic quibbling of it's own:

Until the new state had finally won its freedom, the lands of N America still belonged to the Crown of England.  Therefore it can be argued that Andre could not have been a spy in his own country...

I've always believed that legalistic interpretations of International Law and War don't mix well.  That was further evidence.  I prefer the practical advice from (I believe) Shogun, that the only valid legal defense for treason is victory.  If the USA had lost, would Bennett refer to "rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, and the glorious hanging, drawing, and quartering of the traitorous leaders"?

O.K., now for a few examples of "serious" entries that show bias.  How about the entry on ASSASSINATION?  There's one short introductory paragraph that says, in effect, "everybody does it".  Then there are ten paragraphs, some speculative, of litany about the CIA's possible escapades, the Church hearings, etc.  The tenth paragraph is a huge list of foreign leaders whose assassination was supposedly "considered" by the US.  Most of them died naturally or are alive.  The US has "considered" invading Canada.  Doesn't mean much.  The book presents no information about possible KGB, Mossad, or MI6 assassinations. 

DIRTY TRICKS.  Again, one paragraph of general, what does it mean.  Followed by nearly four pages of litany of supposed CIA dirty tricks.  Apparently, the KGB, Mossad, MI6 etc. are have not performed many dirty tricks.  Or is it that the CIA is usually good at them?  Hooray for the USA - your tax dollars at work.


Now, for the most interesting point.  This book is clearly, shall we say, skeptical (one review said "disgusted with") of US Intelligence fairness and veracity.  But under BIOTERRORISM he writes  (remember - the book was written in 2002)

"the chance that rogue Russian scientists have helped expand the Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan and North Korean CBW capabilities is very high"  ...

"Chemican agents have been mass-produced in ... Iraq, Iran and Libya and there is little doubt that Osama bin Laden has been more that a little interested in ... these weapons"

Now, officially I haven't read the entry on Iraq, but a quick glimpse at page 132 reveals

"The Salman Park complex is also the base for intensive training courses for terrorist groups"  ... "in the use of chemical, biological, and possibly crude nuclear devices."

Bennett then writes about training to hijack planes for suicide attacks.  In other words, Bennett, in 2002, details the "Axis of Evil", and then makes a convincing case for war with Iraq that mirrors that made by the Bush administration.

Der Spiegel has an interesting juxtaposition of articles

In the Nov 18 issue (temporary link here , but I think this will point to the current paper, not the specific issue), the front page has two articles that interested me.

One article blasts President Obama on climate change.  And it contains this hyperbole:

"If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil."


But the real interesting section is Part 2, Americans Do Not Look Beyond Their Own Borders.  And it includes this analysis:


"For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance"


What's another article on the front page?  Actually, it's an entire section about the fall of the Berlin wall.  Now, it seems to me that us insular Americans had something to do with that.  Maybe we do look beyond our borders.  But you wont see that in any of their articles (at least in the headlines).  The Wall just mysteriously fell.  American power had nothing to do with it.  Thanks for nothing Der Spiegel.

A Belated Cheer for the end of the Berlin Wall

For those, like me, questioning President Obama's realism/pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, such as with Iran, here's some counterpoint.

Is it time for Obama to tell Tehran "Tear Down This Clerical Oligarchy"?  Hmm, maybe I don't have a future career as a speechwriter...

More Marginal Tax Concerns over Health Care Reform

Greg Mankiw comments on the CBO analysis  of the House's version of health care reform.  In a nutshell, the House bill establishes significantly higher marginal tax rates than the Senate bill.  The Senate Bill imposes a marginal tax rate of roughly 23% on low to moderate income Americans, and the House bill increases this to 32%.

As I discussed in an earlier post (about the Senate bill), this rate, when added to other marginal taxes on that tax group, which range from 28% to 50% depending on how you do your math (and make your assumptions), the House bill will impose a marginal tax rate of somewhere between 60% and 82% on working class Americans.

Economists disagree on how people react to such high tax rates.  Mankiw discusses it here.  One can certainly guess that this may be a disincentive towards increasing your income.  Or reporting it.  Mankiw concludes, and I agree:

"None of this necessarily means that health reform is not worth doing. President Obama’s push for reform is premised on the belief that access to good health care should be a right of all Americans — a proposition better judged by political philosophers than economists. But we should not forget the cost of translating that noble aspiration into practical policy."

Maybe I Will Become a Socialist

Probably not, but the impending divorce of Jamie and Frank McCourt (co-owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers) gives one pause for thought.  Here are some of her requests of him, to help her "maintain" her lifestyle:

• Paid Business dinners and lunches, 5 days a week
• Unlimited travel expenses
• 24 hour security
• Oh yeah - flowers at her desk
• I'm guessing at least one residence, because they own "tens of millions of dollars worth of residential real estate in the U.S. and Mexico"

Now, in addition to these "perks" of food, shelter, and luxury travel, she also wants alimony.  The news reports differ, but the minimum number is around $330,000, and I've seen numbers close to half a million.  Not a year.  A month.  She expects as much money in a month as many Americans earn in around 10 years. 

Now, don't pick completely on her.  If she wants this, you can imagine what he has or makes.  Most reports claim that their net worth is about 1.2 billion, though most of that is from the estimated value of the Dodgers..

The court papers are fairly damning as to their extravagant lifestyle, apparently paid for by the Dodgers.  Geez, one would think if you were worth 1.2 Billion you could pay for some things yourself.

"Travel. Frank and I travel frequently, both for personal and business reasons. Everything is always first class." .... "When we fly, we usually fly on private planes, typically a Gulfstream-IV, through Net Jets paid by the Dodgers." ... "We always stay in suites when available at the nicest of accommodations, such as The Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons Hotels. It is not uncommon for us to spend $1,000 or more per night at hotels." ... "It was not uncommon for the two of us to spend $400 on dinner when dining out together."

An NBC Sports Blog writes:

"...based on Jamie McCourt's description of the Dodgers' owners' lifestyle -- constant private jet travel at $12K an hour, hotel rooms which never cost under $1000 a night,  six dinners out a week at $400+ a pop, etc. etc. -- I'm going to get medieval on anyone who suggests the players are the greedy ones who make too much money to play a kid's game."

 On the bright side, the LA Times has obtained a copy of some of her court papers, and she does (claim) to give about $31,000 a month to charities.  Here are some more court papers.

President Obama seems to be weak on "Human Rights"

For the first time since 1991, the American President will not meet with the Dalai Lama.

"Obama has tossed aside Carter's "human rights-first" policy as much as he has George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." The Dalai Lama is more than just a religious leader: He embodies the struggle for universal human rights and religious freedom for millions."

And now the State Department it cutting off funding to some organizations that support democracy in Iran.  The Boston Globe reports on the specific case of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

The US has always had a somewhat schizophrenic foreign policy, alternating between "realistic" and "idealistic".  Looks like, for 2009, we are "realistic".  Lets see how that works.

Baseball Playoff Continue to Prove that Payroll Matters

In a previous post, I showed how the teams making the playoffs were, with 2 exceptions, in the upper half of the payroll scale.  In other words, 75% were in the upper half.  Congratulations to the Twins and the Rockies for making the playoffs with below average payrolls.  But, they both lost in the first round.  In fact, in the first round, the higher payroll team won 3 out of 4 series.   The only exception was Angels / Red Sox, and that's not a huge disparity in payroll, that's #6 defeating #4, with less than a 9 million difference in payroll.

In the Championship Series, the remaining teams have the #1 payroll, plus the 6th, 7th, and 9th.  If both Championship Series finish with the current leaders, that means that the higher payroll team will have won 5 out of 6 of the playoffs.  If we disqualify the Cubs and Mets for bad luck and incompetence, which we should, the two highest payroll teams in each league will make the World Series.

Marginal Tax concerns about Health Care Plans

Coming mainly from Greg Mankiw's blog, and he's an admitted conservative, but there are a couple of articles, with supporting numbers, about the Baucus health car plan's effect on marginal tax rates.  The plan includes subsidies for lower income participants, to help cover their insurance costs.  Probably well intentioned, and sure to appeal to a lot of voters in those income ranges.  However, these subsidies phase out as you get above the poverty line, creating a effective "marginal tax" rate.  If you earn a dollar more, you don't get to keep it all, because you are losing part of the subsidy.

One article calculates the marginal tax rate for these subsidies at 23 to 24%.  The CBO essentially agrees:

"In that case, marginal tax rates would go up by about 22 percentage points for all families whose income was between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level."

Note - the CBO estimates poverty level when these laws take place will be roughly $23,000.  So this marginal tax will affect all Americans making between $23,000 and $92,000, which is the vast majority of Americans.

In an earlier post, Mankiw links to this article in New Atlantis, where James Capretta comes up with a higher estimate of 30% for the Baucus marginal tax.  The math is a little different because he only considers families making 100 to 200 percent of the poverty level.  He then looks at other taxes on people in this income range.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is reduced by $0.21 for every additional $1 earned - an effective 21% marginal tax..
The individual income tax rate is 15 percent.  (Though most of this is covered by deductions at this low income, so I'm skeptical whether to count this)
Payroll taxes are 7.65 percent.  And, one would argue that this tax should be doubled.  Even though the company "pays" half, in reality, this money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from wages.

So, an optimist who completely discounts the Federal Income tax for these wage earners, and only counts FICA once, and counts the health care marginal tax at the lowest number, 22%, still comes up with a marginal tax rate of 50%.  Pretty high.  The "health care tax" roughly doubles the marginal tax rate.

A pessimist who counts all the taxes, including Federal Income Tax, and uses Capretta's slightly higher 30% number for health care, computes a marginal tax rate of over 80%.

The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between.  These calculations do not count State and Local Taxes.

Banned Book Week is Over, now it's Banned Speech Incident

Our local paper reports on a recent incident, where a mixed-race child was taunted by a another group of teenagers at a skate park.  The taunters (allegedly) shouted "white power" and waved a Confederate flag.  The incident is being investigated as a possible felony "hate crime".

This doesn't fit my understanding of a hate crime, nor Wikipedia's, which states:

""Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions."

because no criminal act occurred. Unless the article is missing something, there is no allegation of violence, theft, bullying, or whatever.  Even a claim of "intimidation" seems dubious, as the alleged victim enjoyed the skate park for hours.  It seems that only the mother, who was not a direct target of the taunts, was offended.  And nothing sounds even remotely like a felony.

Now, I don't like what the taunters did, but, whether I like it or not does not matter.  It isn't illegal to shout "white power" or wave a Confederate flag, in fact, that's Freedom of Speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (widely attributed to Voltaire but this is apparently wrong)

"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."  ~Tommy Smothers

Baseball Team Payrolls for 2009, and who's in the playoffs

Here's a link to a handy table of MLB 2009 opening-day team payrolls.  And here is the data:  (The first number is total salary, the second is average per player)

Yankees	$201,449,289	$7,748,050
Mets	$135,773,988	$4,849,071
Cubs	$135,050,000	$5,402,000
Red Sox	$122,696,000	$4,089,867
Tigers	$115,085,145	$4,110,184
Angels	$113,709,000	$4,061,036
Phillies	$113,004,048	$4,185,335
Astros	$102,996,415	$3,814,682
Dodgers	$100,458,101	$4,018,324
Mariners	$98,904,167	$3,532,292
Braves	$96,726,167	$3,335,385
White Sox	$96,068,500	$3,694,942
Cardinals	$88,528,411	$3,278,830
Giants	$82,161,450	$3,043,017
Indians	$81,625,567	$3,023,169
Blue Jays	$80,993,657	$2,892,631
Brewers	$79,857,502	$3,194,300
Rockies	$75,201,000	$2,785,222
D-backs	$73,571,667	$2,724,877
Reds	$70,968,500	$2,957,021
Royals	$70,908,333	$2,727,244
Rangers	$68,646,023	$2,367,104
Orioles	$67,101,667	$2,580,833
Twins	$65,299,267	$2,251,699
Rays	$63,313,035	$2,183,208
Athletics	$62,310,000	$2,225,357
Nationals	$59,328,000	$2,045,793
Pirates	$48,743,000	$1,874,731
Padres	$42,796,700	$1,528,454
Marlins	$36,814,000	$1,314,786

I highlighted in bold all the teams that will make the playoffs.  (Note - Twins vs. Tigers are still competing for a playoff spot at this time).  Other than the Rockies and possibly the Twins, all the playoff teams are in the upper half of payroll.  Hardly a surprise.  Thanks to the incompetent Mets and Cubs, many will say "but this shows you can't buy your way into the post-season".  True.  A large payroll is does not guarantee entrance to the playoffs.  But it is still required.  In other words, a small payroll pretty much guarantees failure.

I could correlate payroll with wins, but no need, somebody has already done that.  Here's a nice chart based on data from 2006-2008.  It shows a clear correlation between wins and payroll.  Teams significantly below the line are more "efficient", in that they get more wins per dollar.  As you'd expect, the As, Twins, Marlins and Rays are there. 

Anyway, this proves that money  largely buys success in MLB.   With exceptions to "prove the rule", a payroll of roughly $90 Million looks like the minimum to get to the playoffs.  Note that the three teams that missed the playoffs but were "in the race" in September were the Giants, Braves, and Rangers, whose average payroll is about $82 Million.  This is another data point - looks like to be "playing meaningful games" in September requires about $80 Million.

Not sure how to fix this.  Some owners are just plain cheap.  Part of me admires the Steinbrenners for their willingness to spend money to win.  But most of me hates them.

Here's a list of those who support Polanski - boycott them

What Polanski did was despicable and he deserves punishment.  Especially since he has shown no remorse.  Yet many call for his release. Here's an article about the petition by misguided movie stars to win his release.  And here's a list of the signatories, as of Sept 29 2009.

I strongly suggest that you boycott movies produced by, written by, directed by, or featuring these "artists".  Unfortunately, based on the length of the list, that may mean no movies for a long time.  Most of the names I don't recognize, but here are some I do (or that sound familiar):

Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Darren Aronofsky, Monica Bellucci, Lionel Cassan, Penelope Cruz, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Jonathan Demme, Terry Gilliam, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Martin Scorsese, Antoine Silber, Tilda Swinton, Tom Tykwer, Wim Wenders, Harvey Weinstein.

Luckily for me, I don't see the Coen brothers,  Luc Besson, Peter Jackson, Peter Weir, or Clint Eastwood.

It's Banned Books Week

Sept 26 - Oct 3 is Banned Books Week.  (Also here)  Now, I'm against banning books.  But, if you look at the details, the good news is that books aren't getting banned.

The ALA provides details.

A "challenge" is an attempt by somebody to get a book removed, usually from a school class or library.  Since 1995, there has been a slow decline in the number of challenges.  The primary reason for challenges are concerns about Sex and Language, shown below.

The targets of the complaints are, overwhelmingly, schools and public libraries - see below:

And the actual complainant is, overwhelmingly, a parent.  Organized pressure groups, government, and religions groups are a very small fraction of the complainants.

So, parents are complaining about books in schools - or, in a positive light, taking an interest in their children's education.  Is there a problem?  Here is a PDF report of challenges in 2007-2008.  Thanks to the miracle of computers, you can search on terms like "banned".

One book was "banned", Mark Mathabane's Kaffir Boy.

One book was "restricted", Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's Alice on Her Way.

I counted about a dozen actual book removals.  This doesn't count a Catholic school removing the Harry Potter books because of their themes of witchcraft.  While I think this was a silly decision on their part, it's a private, religious school and its their right to remove books they feel inappropriate to their religion.

Notably, other than one outright theft from a public library, all the bannings, restrictions, and removals were from schools, not from public libraries.

Here is a list of the ten most challenged books.  I looked into details of two, chosen vaguely at random.

Gossip Girl, by Cecily von Ziegesar, deals with "the lives and romances amongst the privileged teenagers" and is now a CW TV series.  Here's selected lines from the wikipedia synopsis of the first book.

"Teenager Blair Waldorf sneaks away from a party at a friend's house to have sex with her boyfriend Nate Archibald ...  She is also unhappy to learn that Nate and Serena had sex the summer before Serena left"

Naomi Wolf, hardly a conservative religious fanatic, writes that "sex saturates the Gossip Girl books".  And shouldn't we be trying to have kids read literature?  In my high school, not only did we walk through snow uphill both ways, but we read books like Grapes of Wrath, while my teacher pontificated on the genius of Thomas Hardy.  Today kids read trashy CW sitcoms?


The TTYL; TTFN; L8R, G8R series, by Lauren Myracle.  ttyl "gained attention for being the first-ever novel written entirely in the style of instant messaging conversation."  It has "frank and mature content".  Now, I'm not sure about the content, but should we be teaching students to read English, or IM?


In conclusion, the anti-book-banning people have done a great job.  (The WSJ comes up with somewhat different statistics than I did, but the same conclusion)   Books are not getting banned, and even the ALA admits it: "most of the books featured during [Banned Books Week] were not banned."  Frankly, the books drawing criticism from parents concerned about their children's education seem to deserve it.

Baucus Plan - maybe it's a good start

I'm saying that not because I have analyzed everything, but because it seems to be taking flak from both sides of the aisle.  There's no Public Option, but co-ops are proposed as a competitive alternative to private insurance.  If one believes the math, it doesn't create large deficits.  Reaction from a Small Business Group has been somewhat positive.

So far, he has attracted no Republican support.  This is unfortunate - this bill seems to meet at least some of their desires.  I think it's an adequate starting point.

Here's some commentary from both sides.

Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Huffington Post

Open Left
New York Times


In my opinion, Health Care Reform cannot be handled in one giant leap forward, in some sort of Washington waterfall software development model.  Let's get some decent bill in place.  In several years, revisit it.  This is going to be incremental.

We Need Some Real Honesty on Health Care Reform

Just to prove that I can be "progressive" at times...

The whole Joe Wilson thing is a distraction. It will be a very good thing for everyone, including illegals, to have insurance coverage. We already pay a lot for uninsured at emergency rooms. And presumably they will stay healthier, increasing their quality of life and perhaps decreasing expenses. Frankly, if a few illegals slip through the cracks and gain some government credits and benefits, not a biggie in the grand picture, since most illegals will be paying for their insurance. That's good for us.

President Obama stated, truthfully, said "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have". This skirts the underlying issue. One of the good arguments in favor of health care reform is that current practices place a large burden on businesses, hurting their competitiveness. For this argument to make any sense, that means that after the reforms, some businesses will stop their current insurance support, to make themselves more competitive. Their employees will then change to the Public Option. Is this horrible? Well, hopefully the Public Option is decent, and I have to believe that most doctors will sign up. But, even if this causes minor hardship, overall, it is good for the country. But allowing a struggling small family-run business to remain competitive, to resist losing out to a Borders or a Starbucks or, even worse, to outsource their labor overseas, that is a very good thing. If this requires a few employees to change plans or Doctors, so be it. It's good for us.

All sides complain about "rationing", or pander to Americans that there will be no rationing. Rationing is required. Call it cost-benefit analysis, call it sabremetrics, call it common sense, but it's required. In a perfect world, we'd have infinite money, and no need for rationing. In that perfect world I'd own both an Audi R8 and a Porsche Cayman S and check out whether Motor Trend ranked them correctly as the top two "driver's cars". We are not in that perfect world.

Finally, I'd like to cite a New York Times editorial with which I agreed. Will probably come back to comment on it later.

Media getting it wrong

Huff Post "exposes" Joe Wilson as a liar. By claiming that what Obama said was

"illegal immigrants would not qualify for credits for the proposed health care exchanges"

The Huff Post nicely presents the text of the speech. Search for "qualify for credits" or "health care exchanges". The text is not there. Obama did not say what Huff Post says he did, so the truth of that imaginary statement is irrelevant.

They cite a Time Article, which also ignores the plain facts:

The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits."

Now, some Time copy editor didn't read those two sentences to see that the second does not support the first. Obama did not say that the reforms he was proposing would not benefit illegals. He said they would not apply. Since the reforms require everyone, including illegals, to purchase insurance, they clearly apply. The difference is that they will not benefit from government credits. Whatever phrase Obama's "seemed to mimic" doesn't matter - it's what he said, which Time knows, since they just quoted it.

Now, I'm admittedly, making a mountain out of a molehill, arguing technicalities of phrasing. As I said in a previous post, Joe Wilson's outburst was wrong. I believe that Obama (or his speechwriter) meant to say something like "benefit". But he didn't. And arguing technicalities of phrasing is what lawyers and judges will do once this reform is passed. If the leader of our country uses sloppy language, and the media uses sloppy language to analyze the "truthometer", and one suspects that the eventual bill will have sloppy language, some of it deliberate, it's hard to analyze anything for "truth".

Obama's Health Care Speech

It sounded great to me. I'm all for That Health Care Reform Plan. But much of what he said didn't seem to match many of the proposals I have seen coming from Congress. I'm hoping he means "the health care plan I support will...", and that Congress works to meet his goals.

The most contentious part was when President Obama said

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

and Representative Joe Wilson rudely shouted "liar". (Rep. Wilson has quickly apologized)

The CNN truth check, after a bunch of hemming and hawing, concludes that Illegals will not get benefits. But, technically, President Obama's statement is false. He did not talk about benefits, but used the terms "insurance" and "apply to". Because the reforms force illegal immigrants to buy insurance, they clearly apply, and will end up insuring the illegals. A reasonable person would say the facts contradicts the strict text of his message.

Now, I think this was very poor, sloppy wording by his speechwriter, and I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt that what he meant to say is something like illegals will not receive taxpayer dollars and benefits. Even so, if they buy from the Public Option, and that public option ever receives any government subsidies, then they would, technically, receive benefits. To my understanding, current plans for the Public Option do not call for government subsidies. A cynic may doubt this in the future, especially if the bill is as sloppily worded as the speech.

A Huffington Post blog, which calls Rep Wilson a liar, effectively supports him. Though the bills have text to exclude illegal immigrants, the Huffington Post piece admits that such text will be ineffective, saying, quite correctly, that

"this country doesn't have a feasible and comprehensive system for keeping track of who's who here".

So, in practice, many illegals would receive benefits. The piece than makes a very good argument that illegals should be covered. After all, we already pay for all uninsured, legal or illegal, for emergency visits etc.

Let me state unequivocally that nobody should shout "liar" at the President while he is giving a major policy speech. Very bad form, and deserving of censure and an apology, if not more. However, the exact words of the speech can reasonably be interpreted as untrue, and I hope that Obama or his staff will clarify their meaning and intent.

Maybe It ain’t so

An article in Chicago Lawyer (which I spotted not by reading lawyer magazines, but through Hardball Times) makes the case that Shoeless Joe Jackson was not complicit in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Or at least, that the evidence is not there, and that the "definitive" book Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof is not so definitive.

Asinof has admitted to adding a couple of fictional characters, "designed to prevent screenwriters from stealing the story and claiming their material was from the public domain". A key incident, where a mob thug threatens star pitcher Lefty Williams, is fabricated.

"Asinof ... never read, or had access to, the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings".

Based on this information, Eight Men Out was not written as a factual, heavily footnoted historical treatise, but was intended as a dramatic popular "history" account, with a clear eye on making money from a movie.

For some pro-Joe Jackson information, check out BlackBetsy.com. His Grand Jury testimony is confusing - he admits to taking money to throw games, but claims he took no actions to actually throw the games.

Obama's School Speech

I read that this was a very popular search phrase right now, so I'm trying to build some traffic. :-)

Also, I'm trying to figure out the hullabaloo over President Obama giving a speech to school children. It sounds pretty innocent. Of course, before Democrats get too righteous, they should remember that they complained about Bush I giving a speech to children in 1991. Apparently both parties can act like petty children.

O.K., I can see a minor case that schools shouldn't be "forced" to show the speech. And maybe the original Department of Education lesson plan could be interpreted as political, and by paranoids, as indoctrination.

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

You'd have to be pretty sensitive to think that was a deep dark pod-people conspiracy, but, hey, some of us have read 1984. The Department of Education has changed the lesson plan. Those on the Left, such as the New York Times have generally refused to address the (very slightly) troubling text, simply calling the protests silly and bizarre.

In my opinion, conservatives have shot themselves in the foot on this one. They look over-sensitive. Besides, the best way to turn school children, and future voters, against the President would be to force them to listen to his speech telling them to work hard in school.

David Sirota Complains about Hate, Chris Kelly spews it.

On OpenLeft, David Sirota complains about some anonymous hate mail he has received. He quotes from one letter wherein there are terms like "drivel", "drooling buffoons", "incredibly stupid". I leave it to you to decide if this is "hateful" or merely "direct and colorful". Sirota makes one very good point:

"the political discourse in this country has gotten toxically coarse to the point where we're not having any kind of discussion about substance at all."

Of course, he blames this on the Right. Consider the first response to his column, by "the new", (an anonymous name) which has received high ratings (that 4.00/4 you see means 4 people voted favorably for the comment).

"I know it must be rough dealing with this shit, even from anonymous knuckle-dragging lunatics."

Good to see an intelligent response that gets to the substance of the issues. :-)


Over at Huff Post, here's a post by Chris Kelly (he posts there about once a week). He rips on conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham, who suggested that the Democrats should not politicize Teddy Kennedy's funeral, especially about health care. Since they took a lot of grief for (supposedly) politicizing Wellstone's funeral, that seems like decent advice. How does Chris Kelly respond to the substance of the issues, about why Democrats should use the funeral to push for need health care reform? He claims that at the 1996 Republican Convention he bumped into Ingraham and she showed anguish for a "nanosecond". And, in that nanosecond, Chris Kelly, world renowned psycho-analyst, saw the "face of the most hated child in the meanest fourth grade in the world". He concludes that Ingraham is a sicko who was traumatized in grade school. "This hateful wounded second-rate soul. I hope she finds peace."

Kelly's post is completely non-factual, hateful, a deeply deeply personal attack, non-constructive, with no substance or discussion of the issues. And most of the responses / comments to his blog are worse. Kelly's other Huff Posts are similar or worse - he really has it in for Ingraham, and in hating her, he screws himself up into a rabid left wing version of Ann Coulter. I won't bother to link to his posts cause I don't want to send them any traffic. Search yourself.


Returning to Sirota's column, he adds

"Despising one another and ignoring the substance of issues has become the defining mark of Americanness in the 21st century - and that's a tragedy."

I'm not sure if this is a purely 21st century problem. With the blogosphere and the decline of traditional media, it's probably more apparent. But it isn't new. On March 9, 1830, Senator Edward Livingston of Louisiana gave a famous speech, after the even more famous speeches of Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster debating nullification. (Warning - these are long speeches. I recently learned of these from Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson). Livingston wanted to warn against too much partisanship, to

"mark the difference between the necessary, and, if I may so express it, the legitimate parties existing in all free Governments, founded on differences of opinion in fundamental principles, ... and that spirit of dissension into which they are apt to degenerate"

As he continues, his "spirit of dissension" seems the very antithesis of St. Paul's Love, it

creates imaginary, and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue—denies every merit to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs—publicly imputes them to its adversaries: poisons domestic happiness with its dissensions; assails the character of the living with calumny, and, invading the very secrets of the grave with its viperous slanders, destroys the reputations of the dead; harangues in the market place; disputes at the social board; distracts public councils with unprincipled propositions and intrigues; embitters their discussions with invective and recrimination, and degrades them by personalities and vulgar abuse; seats itself on the bench; clothes itself in the robes of justice; soils the purity of the ermine, and poisons the administration of justice in its source; mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of Heaven, war, pestilence, and famine, as preferable alternatives to party defeat: blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled, and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friends as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing; rushes on the sword; braves the dangers of the ocean; and would not be turned from its mad career by the majesty of Heaven itself, armed with its tremendous thunders.

Beware of the Spirit of Dissension. You will see a lot of it in today's political debates.

OK, Rex Rammell is stupid

But some of the columns against him are even stupider. Timothy Egan in the New York Times is discussing wolf hunting. For the record, I'm against it, as is he. But he sets up a typical rhetorical BS strawman is describing his opponents:

"For those who hate wolves and long for the era when they were wiped off the map, and for those who welcomed back this call of the wild"

In Egan's world, there is no middle ground. In his simplistic world, all in favor of wolf hunting hate wolves and want to wipe them off the map. Egan is unwilling or unable to discuss the matter civilly with them, so he dismisses them as genocidal haters. Does this technique sound familiar?

Egan goes on to condemn Rex Rammell who joked about issuing "Obama tags", that is, permits to hunt Obama. A bad joke. But by Egan's own works Rammel is a "fringe candidate", and the "Idaho Republican establishment came down hard on Rammell".

In conclusion, I'm not sure what the point of the editorial is. Egan is against wolf hunting, and against bad jokes about hunting the President. Fine points, but he brings no real insight about the American West (his specialty), no intellectual discussion, no nothing. I guess he had a bad day and a deadline to make.

Make America more Meritocratic

Greg Mankiw lays out the case that talented people (who make above average income) tend to have talented children (who make above average income). He surely oversimplifies, ignoring the fact that wealthier children have advantages in schooling, tutoring, stability etc. But his point still seems reasonable, and, in a followup post, and another, he cites studies indicating that heredity ("nature" if you will, as opposed to "nurture") is significant.

Paul Krugman takes exception to Mankiw.

"But, you know, there’s lots of evidence that there’s more to it than that. ... It’s comforting to think that we live in a meritocracy. But we don’t."

Without getting too far into the nitty gritty details, (I'm sure that nature and nurture both matter, and Krugman cites studies that support nurture) read the comments on Paul's blog. I'm amazed at how many people state categorically that there is no correlation between intelligence and income. e.g. "By the way, does anyone seriously think there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? " And many make straw-man arguments. Mankiw never claimed that the USA was a perfect utopian meritocracy.

I'm not sure what to make of Krugman saying we are not a meritocracy. If he means "not a perfect meritocracy", well, duh. If he means "not even remotely a meritocracy, it's all rigged", I beg to differ. Does he tell his students at Princeton to not bother studying or working, they may as well just waste their time playing beer pong? I hope not. We are an imperfect meritocracy, o.k.? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that's what he means. But that's not how he expresses it.

The other disturbing trend is how little either side considers "hard work" and perseverance and high-expectations from parents. If one only read the Krugman comments you'd think that the rich are only rich because they cheated or were lucky. (Here's an example) In effect, they are saying that neither nature nor nurture matter, just blind luck and greed. Now, in some cases, like recent Wall Street shenanigans, they are partly right. But, overall, hard work and talent matter. Inheritance is not all - the USA has high turnover in the richest Americans.

Maybe I've become an old fogey, but some kids today worry me. I have none, but have several friends with teenagers, and a good friend who teaches high-school. Many kids are not studying, not working, not even close to making the most of their talents. Why? Not sure. Because they see a few of their peers making millions as athletes or rock stars or poker players? Or they hear of government bailouts? Or they think it doesn't matter, we are a corrupt rigged state?

If we also buy into the liberal claim that the rich are just "lucky", that talent and hard work don't matter, that's one more nail in the coffin, why should kids study or work hard at all? Such a belief is bad for America's future. For a Nobel Prize winning economist to (possibly) advance such an idea (like I said, I'm not sure what is comment on meritocracy really means) is actively destructive to America's future. Conversely, government and business should not reward raw greed and luck, as has happened recently on Wall Street. Let's work to make America more meritocratic, if that's a word. :-)

Intimidation is Bad

(Legal aside: please insert "allegedly" as appropriate)

Many on the left have condemned armed citizens (usually identified as conservatives) showing up at town hall meetings. I agree completely. You've got the right to bear arms, but I have the right "peaceably to assemble". Neither of us has the right to incite the violent overthrow of the government. In any case, having the "right" to do something (carry arms) doesn't make it the "right" thing to do. David Sirota states it well.

(let's make) public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" -- and without the threat of bloodshed.

I an unaware of conservative columnists condemning the actions of these (few) citizens with guns who are clearly pushing the limits of political civility and attempting to intimidate. Hopefully, some will do so. And let me know if you know of any.

However, the right is correctly condemning alleged actions by the Black Panthers where they attempted to intimidate voters, by appearing in paramilitary garb, brandishing nightsticks, at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. I am unaware of liberal/progressive columnists condemning this action, or calling for the Justice Department to pursue the case. Hopefully, some will do so. And let me know if you know of any.

Can I Take that Back?

The other night I watched the first Bourne movie (the Bourne Identity) on DVD and they have interviews with director Doug Liman and screenplay writer Tony Gilroy. Tony Gilroy is a talented writer of all the Bourne screenplays, plus many others, with many award nominations and one win. But even such a smart insider as he says something in the interview that, in hindsight, is silly.

Remember, the Bourne Identity was filmed in early 2001. Then came 9/11. As a thriller movie involving the CIA and explosions, it had to be rethought after 9/11. Apparently, in the original movie, the final battle at the Paris CIA safe-house had some big explosions. This was changed to a "less explosive" ending with a great shootout between Matt Damon and the CIA operatives. Explaining why they did this, Gilroy says:

"Everyone pretty much accepted that explosions is movies are over, that there would probably never be another film that had an explosion in it."

I will go out on a limb here and state that this turned out to be wrong. :-)

Now, Gilroy was obviously overreacting here. But this should remind us that 9/11 was shocking and, at least for a short while, did change a lot of things. I worked by San Francisco Bay, right under the main landing route to SFO. I still remember the shock of not seeing the routine of commercial airplanes slowly coming in to land, but instead watching missile-armed Navy fighter jets patrolling the skies.

Now, other people said silly things about the movie too. CrankyCritic's review:

Matt Damon does fine in a role that may have had more punch to it pre 9-11. As we said above, sometimes luck is bad. The Bourne Identity novel was first of a trilogy. We doubt you'll see the rest of 'em on the big screen.

Hmm, many of us did see the rest of them. To the tune of $288 million and $442 million.


As for the movie, I still enjoy it. And it's probably my favorite of the Bourne movies, though all are good. I agree with this review that seeing the action through the eyes of Marie (the fine actress Franka Potente) really heightens the drama and conflict.

I Support Whole Foods on Healthcare

As some may know, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Markets recently wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal on health care. Since it does not endorse President Obama's plan, in fact, it calls for less government involvement and for individual empowerment, many on the left have called for a boycott. And some from the other side are calling for us to support Whole Foods. Lets consider the post by the Moderate Voice, which doesn't seem very moderate.

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey shot his company in the face the other day with an anti-health care op-ed screed in the Wall Street Journal.

Now, nothing in the editorial is anti-health care. Nor does it fit the definition of screed. Other than the call for tort reform, none of Mackey's bulleted proposals should have any objection from anybody. He calls for more transparency, more competition, and more tax equality, along with fiscal responsibility. Please, find something to object to there.

Another leftist blogger characterizes the post as

"he argues for insurance industry deregulation and a shrinking of the Medicare program".

Please, read the editorial. Technically, he does call for less regulation, so as to reduce the influence of industry lobbyists and increase competition. He calls for "reform" of Medicare, since it heading towards bankruptcy. Does this make him a shill for Newt Gingrich or the dreaded "drug companies"? No. These harsh and over the top reactions from the left are reminiscent of the "death panel" claims by the right. Both have a very feeble grasp of reality.

Mackey then calls for Americans to take some responsibility.

we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote most of a comment by Desider on Open Left.

Thank you for letting me know (4.00 / 1)

that you folks are a bunch of intolerant idiots.

What did this guy say so horribly?

That boomers are retiring, so fewer workers will be paying in while our deficits go up, so we need to cut the cost of entitlements, not increase them, especially for Medicare. [If we pay twice as much as other countries per capita, as Bob Somerby of Daily Howler keeps pointing out, shouldn't health insurance reform bring some of the costs in check, not increase them?]

That his company gets low insurance rates by going with high deductibles, and uses Wellness Accounts to roll over savings for the employees. [I use high deductibles myself, since I've gone more than a decade without seeing a doctor].

Make personal insurance tax deductible like corporate already is. Good idea, no?

Allow insurance competition across state lines. [Making insurance companies competitive, more responsive to customers and lower cost is a good thing, no?]

Make costs of treatment transparent. [Kinda obvious?]

He notes that at Whole Foods employees vote on what they want company health insurance to fund. [Workers' rights?]

David Sirota, in effect, agrees with Rush Limbaugh

In a recent Open Left article, progressive firebrand David Sirota argues to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, income over $106,800 is "capped" and does not get taxed at 12.4% by Social Security. Eliminating the cap would make Social Security more solvent. On the other hand, it's a large 12.4% tax increase on those making more than $106,800 a year.

Sirota then makes a pair of interesting points.

IRS data ... shows people who make over $106,800 are squarely in the top quintile of income earners - not the "middle-class.

So, only about 10% of Americans would be affected.

Sloan - theoretically an objective reporter - is on the extreme fringe when he lambastes the proposal to subject more income to payroll taxes. As a 2005 Washington Post poll showed, a stunning 81 percent of Americans believe there shouldn't be a cap at all. 81 percent!

Now, those 81 percent of Americans are (largely) those who are not in the top 10%. So, 81% of Americans are willing to let others pay higher taxes. Hardly a shock, and hardly right or wrong. (For the record, I think some sort of 6% "half tax" on income above $107K would be a fine and all too obvious compromise)

But Sirota also implies that a 19% minority is an "extreme fringe". To me, 19% is still a pretty large group, but let's see what comes from accepting his rhetoric.

According to a recent Gallup poll,





only 21% of Americans describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal". By Sirota's logic, liberals are an extreme fringe. That's the kind of rhetoric you'd expect from Rush Limbaugh!

And since progressives are presumably largely in that 5% "very liberal", they are really a fringe!

Anyway, I don't disagree with Sirota's point that we should raise taxes on the rich. Though I wouldn't raise them as much as he. But, in my opinion, his class baiting and cries of "extreme fringe" do not help the debate, and backfire against his own supporters.

I Hope Paul Krugman is Right

In Sunday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote:

So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all.

I sure hope his desk is made of wood and he knocked on it loudly while writing that column. Since it's still early, and the Great Depression took years to become "great". :-( What follows in Krugman's column isn't all that cheery.

Just to be clear: the economic situation remains terrible, indeed worse than almost anyone thought possible not long ago. ... We haven’t yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly.

In praising the ARRA stimulus package, he writes

Nonetheless, reasonable estimates suggest that around a million more Americans are working now than would have been employed without that plan

Who made these estimates? Articles I have found basically say nobody can really tell how many jobs the ARRA has saved or created. In one article I found, even President Obama only claims 600,000 jobs saved or created. In general, the responses to these job claims range from skeptical to outraged.

Now, I would assume that Nobel Prize Economist Paul Krugman knows more about this than I. But he should cite a source for these reasonable estimates. Because, even though I sometimes disagree with Krugman (and President Obama) on policies, I'm rooting for them to be right. I'm rooting for an Obama landslide victory in 2012. Not because I love Obama, but because that will, most likely, come about because the US economy has recovered. Which is good for me, and most everybody. Probably even good for Beck and Rush. :-)

Last(?) Post on Sotomayor

She got confirmed. Which I support. But even so, the politics of identity and "betterness" were raised again. Consider the comments by Sylvia Lazos in the article:

Sotomayor is also a divorced woman who has no children but a close relationship with an extended family.

"She is a modern woman with a nontraditional family," said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "She is much more reflective of contemporary American society than the other justices like Alito and Roberts."

She was referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom are married and have two children.

Now, a lot of people are divorced and/or childless. But a lot of people are married and, as many of us know, have 2.4 children. So seems like Roberts and Alito are very representative too. Just what is "average" in America today is hard to say. To say that Sotomayor is "as reflective" or something like that is fine. To say that she is more reflective is just plain wrong.

For the record, almost all current Supreme Court Justices are married and have children. Considering the more liberal judges,

John Paul Stevens is married and has four children (one of whom is deceased).
Anthony M. Kennedy is married and has three children.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is married and has two children.
Stephen G. Breyer is married with three children.
Sandra Day O’Connor (retired) is married and has three children.

Why does Lazos claim that Sotomayor "more representative" than Roberts and Alito, but not "more representative" than Stevens and Breyer? Probably because Lazos disagrees with their conservative rulings. Not because of their backgrounds.

The article adds this about Sotomayor's finances:

Even Sotomayor's personal finances look more like contemporary America as compared with her new and wealthier colleagues at the Supreme Court. According to friends, Sotomayor has struggled to pay her mortgage and her credit card bills, and her financial disclosures show she has no substantial savings or stock portfolio.

I don't want to get into this too much, but the documents of her finances show a mixed result. She was a law partner in the early 1990s, presumably making a lot of money, and currently earns close to $200,000 a year. So one might expect her to have a lot of cash or stock assets, which she doesn't. But she's has made very good money for 20 years and is hardly "un-wealthy". Few average Americans own a million dollar apartment in Manhattan and earn $200,000 a year.

Sotomayor should have been confirmed because President Obama nominated her, she is well qualified, she brings a valuable, different perspective to the Court, and her past rulings are generally good. She has made a few missteps, but so has everybody. The Senate had no just reason to reject her. Sotomayor should not have been nominated and confirmed because she is Latino, childless and struggles to pay a large mortgage.

Are Harvard Students and Faculty thin skinned?

Bob Herbert comments on other incidents "similar" to the recent Gates arrest. Let's look at what he says.

The Harvard police, responding to a phone call, spotted the youngster attempting to remove a lock from a bicycle. He tried to explain that the bike was his and that his key had broken off in the lock.
One of the officers reportedly pulled a gun and pointed it at the teenager. The frightened youngster said he did not have any photo identification, but he showed the officers his library card. Traumatized, he started to cry at one point. When the boy’s story was eventually confirmed, he was allowed to leave with his bike.

O.K., pulling a gun was perhaps a bit much. But note that this is not racial profiling by the police - they were tipped off by a phone call. The kid was not arrested and left with his bike.

In 2004, the campus police stopped S. Allen Counter, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at the Harvard Medical School...In a particularly humiliating ritual, the officers went to University Hall and asked two students to confirm that the professor had an office there. They did.

Now, what does being a distinguished professor have to do with this? Is Bob Herbert suggesting that distinguished professors should get special treatment? Shades of Gates allegedly telling officer Crowley that he "had no idea who he was messing with". Secondly, I don't see how walking over to a couple of students and asking if the professor belonged there is "particularly humiliating". If anything, it's humiliating (and embarrassing) to the officers when they are proven wrong. Was Professor Counter handcuffed? Was he shackled in leg irons? Was he strip searched for ibuprofin? No. I see nothing "particularly humiliating". Only if one considers that being a distinguished professor makes one immune to normal hum-drum police routine is any of this humiliating. Will Professor Counter complain next time he is asked to remove his shoes at airline security? He is, after-all, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at Harvard! Who are those TSA people to ask him to remove his shoes?

In the final example, Bob Herbert himself exonerates the police! (emphasis added by me)

Nworah Ayogu... told me about a well-known incident that occurred in 2007 when a number of black students were playing games like dodge ball and capture-the-flag on the Quad as part of an annual field-day-type celebration. White students called the Harvard police to investigate. The police showed up on motorcycles and asked the black students for identification, even though the students were wearing all kinds of Harvard regalia — caps, crimson T-shirts with “Harvard” emblazoned in white, and so forth. Mr. Ayogu said the cops actually seemed to be embarrassed by the situation and were not confrontational.

Now, I don't know how Mr. Ayogu knows that the callers were white. A reasonable, smart guess, or racial profiling? The police showed up, asked for IDs, and behaved properly.

Now, if Bob Herbert had a real point, I'd think he'd come up with shocking examples of police misconduct, false arrests, racial profiling, and brutality against black students and faculty. He fails. If these are the worst examples of "humiliation" he can come up with, things aren't so bad there. Stop crying "wolf" and get on with your lives. Enjoy the fact that you teach or study at one of America's top (and wealthiest) Universities.

Disclaimer: I was an undergraduate at Dartmouth, a Harvard rival. Go Big Green!

What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

On July 27, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized Charlie Rangel for his possible tax evasions. They listed a few of his questionable tax arrangements, then concluded with

All of this has previously appeared in print in one place or another, and we salute the reporters who did the leg work. We thought we’d summarize it now for readers who are confronted with the prospect of much higher tax bills, and who might like to know how a leading Democrat defines “moral” behavior when the taxes hit close to his homes.

On July 30, Representative Rangle replied in a letter to the editor. His first paragraph does absolutely nothing to respond to the charges. He also claims the ability to read the minds of the WSJ editorial board to understand their ulterior motive, which is to undermine health care reform. A classic ad-hominen attack.

Your July 27 editorial ("Morality and Charlie Rangel’s Taxes”) insulted me in an attempt to undermine my work on health-care reform legislation. But your slurs can’t change the fact that the Ways and Means Committee, which I chair, has already succeeded in negotiating and passing its portion of the health-care bill without a hint of the rancor you’ve resorted to in your mean-spirited editorial attack.

Whatever. I leave it to the reader to determine if the original WSJ editorial featured slurs, rancor, and was mean-spirited. But, as I noted, you see that Rangel provides no facts to dispute the charges. Anyway, what follows shortly thereafter is truly incomprehensible blathering.

Since when has it been the practice of a major daily newspaper like The Wall Street Journal to rely on the reporting of journalists “in one place or another” as the basis of a searing attack on the character of a public official?

Apparently, journalists are not supposed to rely on reporting of other journalists? And editorials are not allowed to attack public officials? What? What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

Health Care Reform

Some thoughts and links

1) Health Insurance should NOT be tied to a job. Note that this editorial was written by a Democrat and appeared in a conservative publication (the Wall Street Journal). I think both sides would agree with the article's subtitle that "One thing we can all agree on is that portable coverage is more secure." This also clarifies the true costs of insurance.

"No country achieves universal coverage without subsidization and compulsion, but U.S. politicians tie themselves and the health care system in knots by proposing reforms designed to conceal these realities. Politically, the most appealing plans are those that mislead people into thinking that someone else is paying for their insurance. Currently more than half of insured Americans obtain their coverage through employment, and workers have been led to believe that their employer bears most of the cost of their care — a belief that labor-market experts have concluded is invalid. When a firm pays $3,000 to $7,000 per worker per year for health care, it can get that money in only three ways: reducing potential wage increases, increasing prices for what the firm sells (which means lower real wages for workers everywhere), or lowering profits."

2) Administrative costs are only a small part of the problem. The Washington Post considers them here.

"For one thing, some administrative costs are not only necessary but beneficial. Following heart-attack or cancer patients to see which interventions work best is an administrative cost, but it's also invaluable if you want to improve care. Tracking the rate of heart attacks from drugs such as Avandia is key to ensuring safe pharmaceuticals."

They estimate that, if we could cut administrative costs in half (to the Canadian system's level), we would save about 5% off health care, or 124 Billion. A significant saving, certainly worth doing if it were possible, but not enough to cover growing expenses.

3) New technologies are are driving the growth in health care spending"

"Most real medical spending growth is accounted for by beneficial but costly new technology."

Kenneth Arrow, noted health care economist, agrees.

"The basic reason why health costs increased is that health care is a good thing! ... A lot of these technologies clearly reveal things that would not be revealed otherwise. There's no question about it. Diagnostics have improved. Technology has improved. You know, sending things through your blood stream to help in operations, instead of cutting you open. It's incredible. But these things are costly. ... But, nevertheless, preserving life is a good thing."

4) Crass or immoral as it may seem, we must put a value upon human life.

Some of these new technologies have limited "bang for the buck" and must be "rationed". Some are inappropriate due to age or other conditions. For example, the Kidney Cancer drug Sutent adds maybe half a year to the patient's life. The drug costs $54,000. Worth it? Maybe. But what if the drug cost a million dollars? Most would say not. The article gives several other examples of evaluating and limiting spending that isn't "worth it".

Conservatives have been the main users of the "rationing is bad" point to argue against reform. I think they are being inconsistent here. Conservatives have argued, in my opinion correctly, that economic factors should be used to evaluate expenses for regulations, e.g. consumer safety and environmental regulations. To be consistent, conservatives must also agree that economic factors should be used to evaluate expenses for health care. Which means "rationing".