From The Heritage Foundation Via Megan McArdle: ‘Senate Health Care Timeline’

December 31, 2009January 1, 2010 / chr1 / Leave a comment

A brief timeline of health care reform …

Addition: A reader sent in two quotes from Henry Hazlitt, libertarian economist:

“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

and

“The first requisite of a sound monetary system is that it put the least possible power over the quantity or quality of money in the hands of the politicians.”

Related On This Site: From KeithHennesey.Com: ‘My Foggy Crystal Legislative Crystal Ball’ Clive Crook At The Atlantic: ‘Peterson-Pew on the fiscal outlook’ Atul Gawande At The New Yorker: ‘Testing, Testing’…From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”

From McClatchy: ‘U.S. Intelligence: ‘Time Is Running Out’ In Afghanistan’

December 29, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full article here.

Is the Taliban gaining strength?

Also On This Site: From The Associated Press: The Text Of Obama’s Afghanistan Speech, December 1st, 2009

From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?…From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

Christopher Hitchens At Slate: ‘Pakistan Is The Problem’

December 21, 2009January 1, 2016 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

Hitchens has some unkind words for Pakistan. Some of his motivation is likely his anti-theism, but he does point out the following:

“Successive U.S. administrations used to keep certifying to Congress that Pakistan was not exploiting U.S. aid (and U.S. indulgence over the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan) to build itself a nuclear weapons capacity.”

We’ve been sending a lot of checks to Pakistan (and Musharraf played us quite well, as I don’t think you can ask a leader to be too far from his people). Pakistan is not an entirely reliable partner in pursuing our aims due to the circumstances on the ground. Yet, we need Pakistani support to prevent haven across the border if the plan in Afghanistan is going to work. So, we’re making more deals and sending more checks.

He also takes a parting shot at anti-war liberals:

“American liberals can’t quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he’s ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.”

Part of my fear has been a sitting liberal President picking up a war and feeling pressure to act aggressively. But let’s not put more of that kind of pressure on him to spite liberalism. He’s been pretty reasonable so far in my opinion.

Also On This Site: From The CSM: ‘WIll Pakistan Military Go After Taliban In North Waziristan?’

From KeithHennesey.Com: ‘My Foggy Crystal Legislative Crystal Ball’

December 21, 2009December 21, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

Waiting on the Senate…(for the rest of the week)

As for me, I don’t see how extending coverage to 30 million new people will not come without profound and potentially harmful social and political consequences (as regards personal liberty). The political system is, in my opinion, neither the best nor most efficient way of addressing the jerry-rigged health-care delivery system we have…and its rapidly rising costs. Atul Gawande, however, makes a decent, evolving, pragmatic case for some government involvement:

Atul Gawande At The New Yorker: ‘Testing, Testing’…From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”

I do think political compromise is a necessary way to reduce the current ideological pressures on our elected officials and political system, so we can solve the problems we have, like rapidly expanding medical costs. However, I also think much of the momentum behind this bill is simply leftist (we have a moral obligation to the poor, and that obligation is best met by growing the government) and a chaotic, not sufficiently organized left in power (and splintering and coalescing) under Obama. Such is politics. I think Milton Friedman points out some problems in spending other people’s money on other people:

How Would Obama Respond To Milton Friedman’s Four Ways To Spend Money?

And I don’t think anyone arguing the ‘health-care is a right’ argument has convinced me of the necessity of this bill as it’s looking now, or that our moral obigation should take this path (rather than unite the left’s interests around common cause).

From If-Then Knots: Health Care Is Not A Right…But Then Neither Is Property?

It just seems like partial failure of the imagination on all of our parts.

Just a few thoughts from center-right libertarian type.

Also: From KeithHenessey.Com: ‘The House-Passed Bill’s Effects On Health Insurance Coverage’

In response to Obama’s presidency and the current political landscape, is Will Wilkinson moving toward a more liberal youth?: Will Wilkinson And Jonah Goldberg On Bloggingheads: Updating Libertarianism?

From Denis Pombriant: ‘Reinventing The Newspaper Business Model With Zuora”

December 20, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

It’s a pitch for a product of course, but my guess is a similar business model is already being worked on, at least by Murdoch at the Wall Street Journal.

“When the business model change comes it will be sudden and swift because the existing paradigm will collapse everywhere at once and because large newspaper chains will accelerate the turnover. The elements are in place.”

That might be overstating the case a bit…but I wouldn’t be too surprised if we begin to see changes soon.

Also On This Site: Here in Seattle, Bill Virgin says newspapers built up their value, and slowly let it die: From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Via Sound Politics: Why Did The PI Die?..Who Reads The Newspapers?…The Newseum Opens On The Mall: More From The Weekly Standard

Two previous two posts which have some links of interest: From The New Yorker: Malcolm Gladwell’s “Priced To Sell”…From The Becker-Posner Blog: The Future Of Newspapers.

Megan McArdle At The Atlantic: ‘The Death Of Newpapers, Continued’

Remember The Maine! The good old days…by malik2moon

From Fora.tv Via A & L Daily: Bjorn Lomberg @ COP15

December 18, 2009December 18, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full video here .

Don’t argue the science, Lomberg has been saying for a while now, but try and allign the problems more with the science, because much of it suggests that CO2 warming will likely present problems.

We’re cramming way too much into a tiny idea (capping carbon emissions), and the media coverage absurdly demonstrates this (Mugabe?).

I still reserve the right to be entirely skeptical (what if it isn’t happening at all?), but the more time I’ve spent with data, the more I think.

Related On This Site: Bjorn Lomborg saw this coming a while ago, pricking the mighty Al Gore (who is moving beyond satire): From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics

From Watts Up With That: Richard Lindzen On Positive Climate Feedback

From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

Andrew Revkin In The NY Times: Global Warming Moderation From Bloggingheads: On Freeman Dyson’s Global Warming Heresy…From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset.

From The CSM: ‘WIll Pakistan Military Go After Taliban In North Waziristan?’

December 16, 2009December 16, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full article here.

Haven, and Pakistani cooperation, is an important part of our plan’s success. Musharraf was playing both ends in this regard. So, how far ahead of his people can you ask a leader to be?

Is this a problem that can be overcome by Pakistan’s government?

————————————————

Also from the American Conservative Blog: We really need to hold the administration accountable. Has Obama’s logic already sought defeat…will that be the new line against him?:

“As it is conceived, or at least projected for public consumption, in order for COIN to work in Afghanistan –

1) The central government must be legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people and willing to work hand in glove with the U.S military to pursue the campaign to its proscribed ends.

2) Afghan security forces must be trained and equipped and trusted enough by the civilian population to eventually provide security and to “hold” in the long-term any territory coalition forces can wrest from the “enemy” in the current campaign.

3) The U.S military must have trust (and assistance) from the Afghan civilian population in order to gain leverage over the insurgency and to build legitimacy for the government in Kabul”

Also On This Site: From The Associated Press: The Text Of Obama’s Afghanistan Speech, December 1st, 2009

From Foreign Policy: ‘Obama’s Indecent Interval’

December 14, 2009December 15, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full article here.

Our authors argue that Obama’s reasons for Afghanistan not being like Vietnam are quite wrong:

“First, Obama noted that Afghanistan is being conducted by a “coalition” of 43 countries — as if war by committee would magically change the outcome (a throwback to former President George W. Bush’s “Iraq coalition” mathematics).”

Well, we need to include other parties as much as possible, though their politics probably do not allow them to wage an open and extended military campaign (how about ours?). They still clearly have a stake in the outcome.

“The president went on to assert that the Taliban are not popular in Afghanistan, whereas the Viet Cong represented a broadly popular nationalist movement with the support of a majority of the Vietnamese. But this is also wrong. Neither the Viet Cong then, nor the Taliban now, have ever enjoyed the popular support of more than 15 percent of the population…”

Partially agreed. And:

“The president’s final argument, that Afghanistan is different because Vietnam never attacked American soil, is a red herring. History is overflowing with examples of just causes that have gone down in defeat.”

But they can strike us and do damage…this is the main reason I believe no sitting president can allow another attack to be plotted on his watch…

I think I understand the fear of a Democratic leader pick up an unpopular war, and getting us in deeper. It’s real, and quite valid. Perhaps Obama hasn’t really offered any new strategy or insight (and things haven’t changed that much since Vietnam). Perhaps he’s a difference-splitter looking for an exit, doing what he has to politically…

But clearly politics play a part in this discussion…and is there anything else offered?

Addition: A reader points out that we should leverage the global warming hoopla (despite the naivete and dangerous idealism…it is a world meeting) as a platform to create more representative world governance….thus leveraging this body to create better leverage in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ha-ha.

But these are stateless actors, motivated by a violent and extreme vision of a holy war, and of modernity and the world. Islam and the West have had many points of contact for many centuries worth thinking about…

Also On This Site: From The Associated Press: The Text Of Obama’s Afghanistan Speech, December 1st, 2009

From Bookforum.com Via A & L Daily: Kevin Mattson On Michael Berube’s ‘The Left At War’

December 13, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full review here.

Berube is a professor of cultural studies at Penn State:

On one level, Bérubé is merely acknowledging an intellectual debt to Hall, who is best known as a founder of the cultural-studies movement in the academy. Bérubé, after all, teaches cultural studies at Penn State, andThe Left at War is part of a cultural-studies series he edits for New York University Press.”

Well, it’s not really a surprise that a cultural studies professor has written a book about the radical left (one more reason not to become a cultural studies major, in my opinion, due to the overt politicalization of the field).

“To readers I say: Engage Bérubé’s arguments, skim the block quotes that come almost every other page, and then skip the stuff on Hall (unless that’s your thing). You’ll rejoice that there’s such an intelligent and even-minded critic of the left who takes his principles seriously enough to challenge those who threaten to destroy them from within.”

It could be a useful book, if intellectually honest and accurate. Though it could just as easily be used by those on the political right to know their enemy, and seek to destroy the left, for example. So, on that note, how good are the reasons to keep institutionalizing such thinking?

Berube discussed his ideas a while back at Bloggingheads.

Atul Gawande At The New Yorker: ‘Testing, Testing’

December 11, 2009December 11, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

Gawande likens the state of health care to farming at the beginning of this century and what’s happened since. Individual doctors, patients and communities must make their own decisions, and work constantly to innovate, share knowledge, and solve the problems they have, alongside government officials (but not top-down mandates).

“At this point, we can’t afford any illusions: the system won’t fix itself, and there’s no piece of legislation that will have all the answers, either. The task will require dedicated and talented people in government agencies and in communities who recognize that the country’s future depends on their sidestepping the ideological battles, encouraging local change, and following the results. But if we’re willing to accept an arduous, messy, and continuous process we can come to grips with a problem even of this immensity. We’ve done it before.”

Like NOAA maybe? It’s a fine line to walk and maybe we can do it.

Anyways, a libertarian friend makes the argument that while this would be nice if it worked, it’s simply more of the same: extending health-care to is akin to extending home-ownership to all (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)…or college education to all. That’s too much egalitarianism, and look for the political and social consequences.

I don’t think she’s winning the argument right now…

Also On This Site: From Clive Crook: Is Health Care Reform On Track?…From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”