December 2007 Archives

In 2004 Phillip Longman wrote an article about declining birthrates around the world with a lot of data and many ideas. I don't agree with all his speculations or proposals, but he did mention a really intriguing idea for solving the both the Social Security low fertility problems of the United States in one fell swoop:

Governments must also relieve parents from having to pay into social security systems. By raising and educating their children, parents have already contributed hugely (in the form of human capital) to these systems. The cost of their contribution, in both direct expenses and forgone wages, is often measured in the millions. Requiring parents also then to contribute to payroll taxes is not only unfair, but imprudent for societies that are already consuming more human capital than they produce.

This proposal is much more logical than a straight tax credit. The Social Security deduction should vary from year to year based on current population projections -- that way we won't have to fine-tune the incentive once it starts working.

Everyone was a-twitter over Mike Huckabee's subliminal cross in his Christmas video, but how about the halo in Fred Thomson's video to Iowa caucus-goers?

Sometimes a URL is more than a URL!

For whatever it's worth, here's a neat chart displaying jobs by IQ distribution.

(HT: Tom Smith and Glenn Reynolds.)

Former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was killed by an assassin, and all the MSM news coverage casts her in a very positive light despite ample evidence of corruption by the Bhutto clan.

Many cyncial Pakistanis discounted accusations against the Bhuttos as a frame-up. But all this changed when incorruptible Swiss federal prosecutors announced the Bhuttos and their Pakistan People's Party had hidden at least 20 million Swiss francs (C$20 million) made from money laundering, illegal payoffs, and, possibly, drug dealing in numbered accounts in Geneva. A Swiss firm hired by the Bhutto government to monitor customs duties was accused of having paid a percentage of their collections to the Bhutto's secret Swiss accounts. Swiss prosecutors froze the Bhutto accounts and sent their indictment to Pakistani federal prosecutors for criminal action.

'Few people believed the Pakistani government charges,' Benazir said, 'until the Swiss investigation. But that changed everything.' Indeed. Not only did the Swiss charges widely discredit the Bhutto clan in Pakistan, the accusations of massive bribery and drug dealing caused Benazir's many ardent supporters in Washington and the western media, whom she was seeking to enlist to her cause, to give her the cold shoulder. Why would the normally discreet, cautious Swiss bring such inflammatory charges unless they had overwhelming proof of guilt?

'I don't know,' insists Benazir. 'I've never had a bank account in Switzerland since 1984. Why would the Swiss do this to me? Maybe the Swiss are trying to divert attention from the Holocaust gold scandal.'

I think it's more likely that the Bhuttos, like essentially every other Islamic power-center, were deepy corrupt and largely supported by criminal enterprises. That she was more popular than the current thug ruling Pakistan means that Benazir Bhutto could have won a hypothetical "election", but even if she had she would still have been a thug herself. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Democracy is great in that it gives people the government they deserve. The Palestinians got Hamas, and the Pakistanis would have gotten in Bhutto more of the same they get now from President Pervez Musharraf. Bhutto did nothing to advance women's rights during her two tenures as prime minister, and she made a strategic alliance with the Taliban in Afghanistan to help stablize the opium market. Let's not pretend that Bhutto was a pure and wholesome freedom fighter -- she was just the most popular thug in the country.

Al Qaeda is taking credit for her assassination, which is as plausible as anything. Whether they did it or not, they may have alienated another whole swath of the Muslim world by claiming credit for killing such a popular figure. Perhaps Musharraf will now have the breathing room to allow American forces into northern Pakistan where Bin Laden is most likely hiding? Or maybe we'll take the initiative ourselves if the country falls into chaos over this murder.

Someone else please leave a comment so I know the site is working!

Encouraging news that illegal immigrants are self-deporting as the climate in America becomes less welcoming.

In the past year, U.S. immigration police have stepped up workplace sweeps across the country and teamed up with a growing number of local forces to train officers to enforce immigration laws.

Meanwhile, a bill seeking to offer many of the 12 million illegal immigrants a path to legal status was tossed by the U.S. Congress, spurring many state and local authorities to pass their own measures targeting illegal immigrants.

The toughening environment has been coupled with a turndown in the U.S. economy, which has tipped the balance toward self deportation for many illegal immigrants left struggling to find work.

Except for the pointless jab at the economy, that's good news. (Got any evidence of a "downturn"? Construction jobs, often done by illegal immigrants, are down because of the housing slump, but the economy as a whole is doing quite well.) There's no need for mass deportations by government officials. If we fix the system, the illegal immigrants will return on their own. Hopefully the gang members and violent criminals among them will be the first to go. Then maybe we'll be able to build an enforcible and fair system to admit new immigrants who love our country and respect our laws.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of history can help me, but my impression is that women tend to rise to higher ranks in parliamentary governments than in governments that split executive and legislative power between two branches (like the US does). I can think of many female prime ministers, but I can only think of a few female presidents (any in a government with strong presidential powers?).

Similarly, women have thrived in America's Congress but none have yet made it to the presidency. Hillary Clinton is the closest yet, but I personally don't think she has a chance at winning (unless she can run against Huckabee perhaps).

On the other hand, America has plenty of female governors who wield a reasonable amount of power -- but don't have any responsibility for foreign relations.

Is my impression wrong, or if it's true is there some reason for it? The only thing I can think of is that executive power parliamentary systems is wielded by members who gradually rise through the ranks through seniority, whereas in presidential elections seniority can actually work against you (voters always wanting "change").

I loved my Roomba Discovery while it lasted, but unfortunately that was only about a month. Two days ago the motor that drives the counter-rotating brushes stopped working (though it still makes noise) and I've been unable to fix it.

I knew it was too good to be true :(

If anyone can tell me why the content in the left sidebar is pushed down on individual entry pages and on the most recent comments page but not on the main index, that would be great. Here's the stylesheet.

The individual pages have ad blocks that appear to be doing the pushing, so how can I avoid that? The ads are inside divs that hold content, and the other content in those divs don't push anything down. The recent comments page doesn't have any ads at all! Argh.

Update:

Fixed it. It helps if you close your div tags.

As my regular readers know, my website had grown absurdly slow on Yahoo's hosting service. So, I decided to ditch them and upgrade to Movable Type 4 at the same time. It's taken several hours to get everything working, and as you can see we've still got an off-the-shelf template. Fortunately I've got several days left of vacation to get all the details sorted out.

If you notice anything that doesn't work, please let me know.

Here's my top story for 2007: the media is obsessed with negativity and bleakness. I think the Associated Press's top 10 proves my point:

Here are 2007's top 10 stories, as voted by AP members:

1. VIRGINIA TECH KILLINGS

2. MORTGAGE CRISIS

3. IRAQ WAR

4. OIL PRICES

5. CHINESE EXPORTS

6. GLOBAL WARMING

7. BRIDGE COLLAPSE

8. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

9. IMMIGRATION DEBATE

10. IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

No mention of 2007's hundreds of medical breakthroughs, the vibrant economy, the lack of a successful domestic terror attack since 2001, the continuing explosion of new media, and so forth. The Associated Press poll also ignored the meta-news about AP collaboration with terrorists and AP photographers faking photos. Good thing there's now someone to watch the watchers.

If a Democrat were in the White House you can bet the year would have been reported much differently.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is facing a budget crisis and is planning to release thousands of prisoners early to help save money -- and it sounds like the prisoners are mostly criminals who shouldn't (ideally) have been in jail in the first place.

In what may be the largest early release of inmates in U.S. history, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is proposing to open the prison gates next year for some 22,000 low-risk offenders.

According to details of a budget proposal made available to The Bee, the administration will ask the Legislature to authorize the release of certain non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offenders who are in the final 20 months of their terms.

The proposal would cut the prison population by 22,159 inmates and save the cash-strapped state an estimated $256 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1 and more than $780 million through June 30, 2010. The proposal also calls for a reduction of more than 4,000 prison jobs, most of them involving correctional officers.

The only reason "non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offenders" are in prison is because our society has for whatever reason forbidden almost every other form of punishment. In my opinion, non-violent criminals should generally not be imprisoned at all, but should instead be made to suffer "alternative" punishments like fines, public humiliation, community service, hard labor, and various forms of non-maiming physical punishment. It's hard for people to accept, but sometimes the human animal needs a good beating to learn a lesson.

In any event, since there aren't many alternative punishments available I expect this prisoner release program to lead to an uptick in crime and a reduced respect for law and order.

Also significant is the huge cut in jobs for correctional officers. Non-Californians may not be aware, but the correctional officer union is the most powerful public sector union in the state and donates massive amounts of money to the Democrats. This indicates to me that Schwarzenegger is trying to strike a political blow for his party while simultaneously saving the state money. Very devious/convenient.

My BS-ometer goes off whenever Democrats claim to base their policy preferences on "the children" or the welfare of "future generations". From the House Committee on Ways and Means we get this complaint over the President's tactics that forced the Democrats to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax without increasing taxes elsewhere (though nothing prevents the Democrats from cutting spending and thereby staying true to "pay-as-you-go").

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives took an important step to prevent 23 million Americans from receiving an average $2,000 tax increase per family because of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

While the precise nature of the legislation—providing tax relief without adhering to the principle of “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO)—was not the preferred option of House Democrats, allowing the AMT to eat away at incomes of middle-class families was something that the Democrats could not let happen.

The Democrats objection to waiving PAYGO is simple: Our children and grandchildren should not have to pay for tax cuts we give ourselves. The Republican solution of waiving PAYGO seems easy only because the people who ultimately incur tax increases—our children and grandchildren—don’t vote. ...

The Administration’s very clever and deceptive trick has left House Democrats in the difficult position of choosing between American taxpayers and future generations.

Considering that these same Democrats have absolutely no problem with murdering more than 1,000,000 of "our children and grandchildren" annually in the womb, I find their complaints here to be disingenuous at best. If members of "future generations" don't deserve enough consideration to have their very lives protected, why should we worry about how our tax laws will affect them?

Another example of why I think Christopher Hitchens is a dangerous idiot: while in a drunken stupor, he equates private decisions to play Christmas music with North Korean tyranny.

"It may have struck you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's a big relationship between this marvelous time of year and living in a one-party state," Hitchens told the overflow crowd of 250. "You can't go anywhere without listening to the same music. You can't go anywhere without hearing the name of the Great Leader, and his son, the Dear Leader....All broadcasts, all songs, all jokes, all references are, just for that magic few weeks, just exactly like living in...North Korea."

The guy's a facile moron who shouldn't be taken seriously in any context. Once he sobers up he should go read about what North Korea is really like.

(HT: Instapundit via Ann Althouse.)

I just got an email from the creator of a website called Out of Pocket that is attempting to collect and disseminate ("expose") information about the true costs of various medical treatments and procedures.

As you know from my recent posts on health care, I'm a big proponent of market-based solutions and the cornerstone of the free market is freely available information. Unfortunately, it's often very difficult to compare prices between health care providers because they know a lot more than we do and most of their patients pay indirectly through insurance rather than directly out-of-pocket.

I'm very excited to see this site, and I'll be checking it before I go to the doctor -- even if just to know what my health insurance is actually doing for me.

Helen Smith writes that gender equality should lead to the elimination of alimony.

Personally, I have a hard time justifying long term alimony payments to men or women in today’s society. Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair. However, in today’s world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends. That said, if we are going to have alimony laws, I believe that men and women should be held to an equal standard under the law. But apparently, many women do not feel that equality holds when they are the ones who have to take responsibility.

In this Forbes article, women are angry about paying alimony:

A lot of women are indignant now that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, says Carol Ann Wilson, a certified financial divorce practitioner in Boulder, Colo. “There’s this sense of, ‘What’s yours is ours, but what’s mine is mine,’” Wilson says. “My first response to that is, ‘All these years we have been looking for equality; well, this is what it looks like.’ I think women get angrier about having to pay than men do.”

Ex-husbands should pay alimony as long as ex-wives keep having sex with them.

(HT: Instapundit.)

I've been thinking more about the health care/insurance article I linked to yesterday and I want to add one qualification to my general agreement with the authors. They write in their conclusion:

Finally, we must repeal HIPAA and all other government regulations involving health insurance or medical care. It is immoral for doctors to be subject to criminal penalties for documentation errors that violate no rights and have nothing to do with the quality of patient care. ...

As I considered the article, the phrase I bolded above stood out to me. I won't defend HIPAA, but I don't agree that "all other government regulations involving health insurance or medical care" should be eliminated. In particular, I think a very important role of government is to mandate transparency from experts in the commercial sector. There's no way that I as a health care consumer can ever know as much as the doctors who treat me, but the final decision for any treatment I undergo still lies with me and not with them. To that end, the government should require the disclosure of treatment information from medical professionals.

I'm thinking of a medical equivalent of the nutrition information that's mandated on food packaging. I don't want the government to tell me how many Fritos I can eat, but if it weren't for government-enforced transparency I wouldn't know what goes into Fritos and I wouldn't be able to make an informed decision about how many to eat. The government already requires drug manufacturers to disclose the potential side-effects of their products (do we need them in every commercial though?) and I think there should be similar transparency in other medical arenas.

It is a legitimate role for government to prevent experts from harming or defrauding consumers with their information advantage.

Paul Hsieh (of GeekPress) and Lin Zinser explain the American health care system, including how we got where we are and how we should move forward. You'll learn something.