Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

There is a fair bit of disappointment in Republican circles today after Newt Gingrich's announcement yesterday that he will not run for President in 2008.

Personally, I had told those who asked my opinion that I thought he wouldn't run, basically because he has too much baggage.

I'm sure I'll never know whether he decided he couldn't win or whether his stated reason for not running was the real reason.

Gingrich said that because of the "McCain-Feingold Censorship and Anti-Citizenship Act", he would have to abandon his educational foundation, American Solutions for Winning the Future, or face criminal penalties if he were a candidate.

Not only would giving up a relationship with American Solutions cost Newt a huge amount of money, but it also would damage his ability to inform American citizens about critical issues of our time.

I don't agree with Newt on everything, but I believe he's about the smartest and most intellectual of our leading political figures. He can do more good for the country as a teacher and speaker than as a candidate, especially when he'd be so unlikely to win.

I received this hilarious piece in my email. Not sure of its source, though it looks a lot like something The Onion would do. If anyone knows where it's from please let me know so I can give them the credit the deserve.

Ahmadinejad Invites U.N. Inspectors to Search for Homosexuals
Permits Use of Advanced Gaydar

Just days after asserting that there are no homosexuals in Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today invited United Nations inspectors into his country to search for homosexuals.

“We have nothing to hide,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. “You can search the entire country – even the airport bathrooms.”

While some senior U.S. diplomats expressed skepticism about the Iranian president’s offer to allow U.N. inspectors to search his country for homosexuals, Mr. Ahmadinejad attempted to silence the skeptics by permitting the use of “advanced gaydar technology” as part of the proposed inspections.

“In Iran we have the most advanced gaydar in the world and we are prepared to share it with you,” he said.

In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech, it was unclear as to who would lead the U.N.’s inspection efforts, but most diplomats assumed that the task would fall to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

At a press conference at the United Nations, Mr. ElBaradei acknowledged that he had no previous experience searching for homosexuals, but said that if chosen to lead the inspection effort he would make sure that the inspections were “rigorous and thorough.”

“The possibility that Iran may possess homosexuals is a serious matter to the world community,” Mr. ElBaradei said. “There has been evidence for some time that Iran may be attempting to build a Broadway musical.”

It is with great sorrow that I report that my friend John Berthoud, President of the National Taxpayers Union, has passed away.

John was a tireless champion for liberty and for the protection of taxpayers from our ravenous government. But beyond that, he was a genuinely nice guy, generous with his time and his spirit, always ready for a good laugh, and simply one of the good guys.

You can find a page at facebook.com from his friends and admirers:
God Bless You, John Berthoud
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4980467555

Here is the Washington Times story on John's passing:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2007/09/john_berthoud_rip_1.html

And the note from NTU:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=126

And on the NTU blog, tributes from people who knew John well:
http://blog.ntu.org/main/index.php

The Freak believes some military and political philosophy from ancient Rome remains important today.

The Romans had a saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum", which means if you want peace, prepare for war. The Romans must have been onto something, because their peace, the "Pax Romana" was one of the longest and most prosperous times in antiquity.

The Roman lesson is as true today as it was 2,000 years ago. Strength begets stability, weakness begets aggression. The Germans might have thought twice about invading France, had the French invested in a fierce, highly mobile army instead of the Maginot Line.

Unfortunately, the lesson is often forgotten. Whether it is because people forget the lessons of history, or because of unjustified optimism about human nature, there are always those who advocate appeasement with an aggressive foe. This approach famously fails; as a Russian proverb (often quoted by Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchyov, and Leonid Brezhnev) reminds us, the one who allows himself to be a sheep will always find a wolf nearby.

In very recent times, the American and British people demonstrated (in the face of the terrorist attacks carried out September 11th and July 7th in America and London respectively) that they had learned the lessons of history. Both people stood up defiantly against the aggressor and demonstrated the will (and ability) to fight back.

The lesson was clearly not learned by the Spanish. In the face of train bombings in Madrid, the Spanish people ousted their government in favor of a socialist government openly and aggressively advocating a policy of appeasement and retreat from battle. The Spanish apparently believed this would soften the hearts of their enemy and remove Spain from its target list.

Pity the Spanish for failing historical learning. Their enemy's response is not what they might have wanted. The reward for Spanish cowardice has been an open declaration of war and increased aggressive threats (you can read about the details here:
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL20837425.html)

I hope the French are paying attention. They will be next and they better prepare to win at Poitiers/Tours again. I also hope the American and British people are paying attention and will not allow the painful price of war to distract them from that fundamental lesson of history: the strong survive and the weak and cowardly are devoured.

"If you want peace prepare for war." Indeed.

In what I consider to be a blow for liberty and fundamental American principles, but which I imagine some of my more conservative readers may not be pleased with, an Oregon District Court judge has ruled two provisions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

In the case of Brandon Mayfield v USA (click HERE to read Court's opinion) Judge Ann Aiken made very strong arguments, returning to the intent of our Founders and our Constitution, ruled that "50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, as amended by the Patriot Act, are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

These sections of the code allow the Executive Branch (primarily via the FBI) to search or surveil American citizens without what the court ruled to be sufficient probable cause and without warrants.

The judge's concluding paragraphs are so important and powerful that I will quote them at length:

Finally and perhaps most significantly, In re Sealed Case (Ed: a case which the government was trying to use to bolster its position) ignores congressional concern with the appropriate balance between intelligence gathering and criminal law enforcement. It is notable that our Founding Fathers anticipated this very conflict as evidenced by the discussion in the Federalist Papers. Their concern regarding unrestrained government resulted in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and ultimately, the Bill of Rights. Where these important objectives merge, it is critical that we, as a democratic Nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles. The Fourth Amendment has served this Nation well for 220 years, through many other perils. Title III, like the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Katz and Berger, recognizes that wiretaps are searches requiring fidelity to the Fourth Amendment.

Moreover, the constitutionally required interplay between Executive action, Judicial decision, and Congressional enactment, has been eliminated by the FISA amendments. Prior to the amendments, the three branches of government operated with thoughtful and deliberate checks and balances - a principle upon which our Nation was founded. These constitutional checks and balances effectively curtail overzealous executive, legislative, or judicial activity regardless of the catalyst for overzealousness. The Constitution contains bedrock principles that the framers believed essential. Those principles should not be easily altered by the expediencies of the moment.

Despite this, the FISCR holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States. In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate. The defendant here is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so.

For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as illadvised. In this regard, the Supreme Court has cautioned:

The price of lawful public dissent must not be a
dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance
power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official
eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and
discussion of Government action in private conversation.
For private dissent, no less than open public
discourse, is essential to our free society.

Not only am I very pleased to see any judge actually rely on the Constitution and our Founders' intent when making a ruling, I am also pleased to see the over-reaching hand of the Executive Branch slapped back as they try to take the liberty which they are sworn to protect. Judge Aiken deserves the thanks and respect of all Americans who believe in the rule of law.

For today's reading, I refer you to an article I wrote for Human Events discussing Barack Obama's use of tax-cutting rhetoric to cloak plans for massive tax hikes on those Americans who already pay the vast majority of income taxes:

Barack Obama: A (Tax) Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
by Ross Kaminsky, Human Events, 9/25/07
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22553

I've written previously about why I give money to Hillsdale College rather than my alma mater, Columbia University.

Columbia has again earned my derision for their decision to invite the modern face of evil, the President of Iran, to speak on campus.

This is a man who thinks that Hitler's problem was that he didn't go fast enough, a man whose ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, a man who wants to acquire nuclear weapons for this and other horrible purposes.

Despite his soft rhetoric being sucked up by gullible mainstream American media, the man would be a mass-murderer if he could. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that he is insane in the way that right-wing prognosticators often describe in the sense that his actions and probably consistent with his religious beliefs and maybe not that far from potential realization.

Some people argue that Iran is not a suicidal nation, that they would never launch an attack on Israel because they know that any retaliation would cause truly massive devastation within Iran. But if you are a rabid jihadist Muslim who believes that Israel must be destroyed and that Jews are the enemy, would you not attempt to destroy Israel and with it half the world's Jews if the resulting response still left a billion Muslims on the planet? In other words, suicide is definitely within the parameters for people like Ahmadinejad and Khameni if it came with a big enough "victory" for them.

In any case, my anger with Columbia is less with them letting this truly reprehensible person come speak to students than with their absolute hypocrisy: Columbia routinely finds ways to prevent conservative speakers or allows them to be harassed by leftist students (sadly the majority at Columbia). Columbia creates a petri dish for anti-semitic slime despite having one of the highest percentages of Jewish students in American higher education.

I listened to Ahmadinejad's talk at Columbia. Columbia President Lee Bollinger, trying to make himself look better than his poor initial decision made him look, asked Ahmadinejad some fairly hard questions, but got no real answers.

When asked "Do you or your government support the destruction of Israel?", Ahmadinejad just said "We are friends with all nations". When pushed further, he basically called Israel a terrorist nation.

When asked why he supports "further research" in to the Holocaust, he said "Well, we don't stop research in physics, do we?"

When asked why homosexuals are being executed in Iran, he said "I don't know who told you we have homosexuality in Iran. We do not have that problem."

Typical of Columbia, sadly, Ahmadinejad got about an equal mix of cheers and boos for the first two questions and only got an unequivocal negative and jeering response when he said there aren't gays in Iran.

When asked about their nuclear program, he first said that Iran only wants nuclear energy not nuclear weapons, but then said "If you are testing your 5th generation of nuclear weapons, who are you to question other nations on their nuclear programs?" Again, to much cheering from the idiot students whom I had to tolerate for my nearly 4 years at Columbia.

I certainly wish that Columbia would stop making me embarrassed to have to answer the question "Where did you go to college?" Inviting a speaker who wishes he could just be more successful than Hitler is reprehensible, earning Columbia my continued disdain and continuing to ensure that they never get a penny of my money.

I’d like to offer the following response to a note on the Colorado Index reacting to my article about Bentley Rayburn suggesting he is a carpet-bagger.

Sir,

I’d like to clarify a couple of issues you raise in your essay.

First, I do not ever attack the military or its members. I am the son of two military officers, one of them a flag officer. In no way did I state or imply that General Rayburn somehow has fewer rights than someone else because he is a General. Indeed, in my view that level of achievement and service demands an extra level of deference, respect, and gratitude.

Second, there is a big difference between you and Rayburn (or Clinton) as a “carpet-bagger” in that (I presume) you are not running for office within a few months of moving to a place as General Rayburn did. I am not saying that people have some sort of responsibility to buy property as soon as they move to a place (particularly not in this real estate environment). What I am saying is that it is rather presumptuous to move to a place and then suddenly believe you’re like to be its best representative in Washington, DC. How much could you really know about your district after only living there for a season, or a few seasons?

Third, although it’s not really relevant, I would point out that I also attended the Leadership Program of the Rockies and I would urge all who are interested in public policy and in making a difference (there are a lot of ways to do it, not just running for office) apply for the Program. (It is non-partisan, so accepts Dems, Republicans, whatever, but only people who have interest in and some basic appreciation of ideals of liberty and free markets.)

Again, since you mentioned it again, my “carpet-bagger” designation is not because he moved and didn’t buy a house. That’s not what “carpet-bagger” means. The definition from dictionary.com is “politician who moves to a place where he/she sees an opportunity to promote his/her career”. That is my accusation, and unless you are running for office just after moving here, it would not apply to you.

Fourth, of course I know that Lamborn, Crank, and Rayburn are all religious Christians. Of the three, only Crank does not seem to make it his primary political card to play, and I appreciate that about him. I do not believe that government is the right place or the right aspiration for someone whose major goals in live are evangelization and some of General Rayburn’s words and his friend’s words make that seem to be the case for him.

Fifth, I wasn’t the one who said that Rayburn’s military friend broke the rules. News reports said they were investigating that and the writer himself said what he did was “inappropriate”. This is not a major issue, though, and we shouldn’t take more time with it.

Sixth, if Lamborn wins in a 3-way race with Crank a close second and Rayburn a distant third, it wouldn’t be outrageous for Crank supporters to be “disaffected AGAIN”. I hope that doesn’t happen.

Seventh, you are absolutely correct that I am no fan of Doug Lamborn. Not only do I believe his campaign was unethical during the last election, I also think there’s a decent chance they broke the law but just didn’t get caught. Beyond that, I believe he keeps proving that he’s just not very smart, what with leaving those phone messages, making the silly proposal to turn Pikes Peak into a National Monument, and lying on his web site and in public about being “on leave” from the Armed Services Committee. I believe that at this point most people in the 5th already know why Lamborn is the wrong guy, and was the wrong guy last time too.

I do not disrespect General Rayburn the way I do Doug Lamborn. I simply believe that it would be a big mistake for him to run in this primary if what he really cares about is getting the best representative for his district. I believe he can’t win but he could allow the wrong guy to win again. I think that would earn him bad feelings from a lot of people who are subjected to more years of Congressman Lamborn.

I would like to re-emphasize that I did not make an intentional or accidental attack on the military. I believe you misunderstood the definition of carpet-bagger to mean anyone who moves somewhere, but it specifically means someone who moves somewhere with the aim of furthering a political career. If Rayburn isn’t that, his actions certainly make it appear otherwise, and he should be aware that it’s a charge easily made and likely to be made again if he runs…likely with some effect since his competitors have lived there and paid taxes there for a long time.

I am not putting General Rayburn “at the back of the line”…at least not more than I would any similar person regardless of military service. If he had been CEO of IBM, or a politician from elsewhere, or just a guy who moved to the district and then ran for Congress within a few months of arriving, I would make the same argument. When it comes to representing people, the back of the line rightly belongs to people who don’t know the area very well. Even a prestigious military career doesn’t change that.

Yesterday, the Senate voted on a measure expressing support of the character and integrity of General David Petraeus: "(It is) the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

The vote was 72-25, including 23 Democrats voting for it.

Interestingly, none of the Democratic candidates for President who are Senators voted for it: Clinton and Dodd voted against it, Biden and Obama were absent, even though Obama was clearly in the neighborhood as (Fox News reports) he voted against a similar measure 20 minutes earlier and he voted on another bill just two hours later, so he chose to dodge the hard vote.

Although this "sense of the Senate" did not mention MoveOn.org, that's clearly who it was targeting. What a great tactic by Texas Senator John Cornyn to bring this measure and make Clinton and friends decide between dishonoring our nation's top military officer and sucking up to the most prominent far-left group.

Cornyn gave Clinton, Obama, and friends the opportunity to show their true colors, and to little surprise they are yellow rather than red, white, and blue.

You can see how your Senator voted here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

For those of you interested in economics, I recommend this interesting piece by Brian Wesbury on the markets' reactions to the Fed's decision to cut its short-term rates by 50 basis points:

http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2007/9/20/They_Actually_Did_It_-_Cut_Rates_That_Is

Yesterday, President Bush called on Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent before it expires on February 1, 2008.

As MSNBC describes, "the law allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on conversations involving US citizens provided the target of the surveillance was foreign but required the agency to obtain a warrant before targetting US citizens."

Here is some more information about the law, from the point of view primarily of people who oppose it:
http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/

As my regular readers know, I'm quite torn on this issue.

Generally, I'm in agreement with Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This makes me suspicious of laws which allow the government to spy on Americans, even if they say that's not what they're doing.

The government's case becomes even weaker when we learn that either through deceit or incompetence, they did just that.

Some apparent examples:
http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1043082.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-22-phone-data_x.htm

DNI Michael McConnell of course says that the law should be made permanent:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-mcconnell19sep19,1,5267410.story?

I must say, likely to the disappointment of my more "conservative" readers, that on balance I believe we should limit executive power. I'm not old enough to have been around during the days when J. Edgar Hoover was making enemies lists, but the behavior of this administration which the left sometimes characterizes with unfortunate accuracy as "imperial" is very good reason to fear continuing expansion of executive power and reduction of functioning checks on that power.

I hope our elected representatives will find a way to give the NSA and FBI tools that they need to protect us, but not at absolutely any cost. If we give away the very freedoms and privacy that is the purpose of our nation's existence, then how much less valuable is the we are "protecting"?

John Warner, the very senior Senator from Virginia, changed his mind about supporting an amendment by the junior Senator Jimm Webb which would require that troops get as much time at home as they spent in Iraq. In other words, if you were there for a year, you get a year at home before being sent back. If you spent 18 months, you get 18 months here, etc.

After conversations with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has also counseled the President to veto the bill if it were to pass the Senate, Warner said he would not support the measure although he voted for it in July.

Following that announcement, the measure got only 56 votes, still 4 short of the 60 needed to override a veto.

This was a big blow to the Democrat's attempts to accomplish bigger troop drawdowns than the military leaders are recommending as this tactic was the most likely of their ideas to succeed, and none of the other measures are likely to get close to the sixty votes needed to overcome a Bush veto.

Still, we should not underestimate the message behind the Senate getting together 56 votes....
You can read more about the story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6934342,00.html

As my regular readers know, I took an active interest in the Republican primary in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District (the area around Colorado Springs) in 2006 despite not living there. (After all, there’s not much point in my trying to help Republicans in the People’s Republic of Boulder, where I live.)

Doug Lamborn, whom I think is best described as the 5th’s home-grown embarrassment will be challenged in next year’s primary by Jeff Crank (whom I supported last time) and possibly by retired Air Force General Bentley Rayburn (despite his pledge to drop out of the race if it seems likely he won’t win). Neither of these guys wants to be responsible for splitting the vote enough to let Lamborn win again, as happened in 2006.

As I was doing a little research on General Rayburn, whom I know very little about except that he made the rather stupid comment that he wanted to “open up hope within (Iraq) for the gospel of Jesus Christ”, I learned that General Rayburn had just moved to the 5th CD shortly before the last election. In other words, he’s a carpet-bagger.

At least the ultimate modern carpet-bagger, Hillary Clinton, had the sense to make a commitment to her new place of residence by buying a home. It appears that Rayburn has done no such thing.

Rayburn’s home address is publicly available, so I did a search on the El Paso County Assessor’s web site to see when he bought his home, and it appears that he is renting as the owner has an Indian name.

A Denver Post report last year noted that Rayburn lived in Teller County, but a search of Teller County records show only a piece of land owned by one Robert Rayburn, whom I believe is Bentley’s brother. Even if Bentley Rayburn had lived there, he did not own it.

And just for good measure, I checked the assessors’ records for the other counties which are covered by CO-5, namely Lake, Park, Chaffee, and Fremont, and found no record of Bentley Rayburn owning property in any of them.

So, General Rayburn, what exactly is your commitment to your district? What is your motivation here besides the laughable idea that we “need more Christian influence in Congress” (as a friend of Rayburn’s said in an email that appeared to violate military regulations for campaign involvement)? We need more support for the Constitution in Congress, not people who want to use positions of political power to evangelize the world. If your goal in life is to spread your religion, there are far better and more appropriate places than government.

My guess? Rayburn will not honor his pledge to drop out of the race if he’s unlikely to win (which he made because he sensibly claims not to want to be responsible for Lamborn winning again). He’ll lose to either Crank or Lamborn, and then he’ll leave Colorado…if he causes Lamborn to win again, he should have the courtesy to apologize, leave, and not return. The wiser decision by Rayburn, who doesn’t have any apparent commitment to the district, but just to his ego, would be not to run, especially if he truly believes that the 5th CD must be rid of the ridiculous Doug Lamborn.

For those of you who wish to try the property searches yourself to verify no record of Bentley Rayburn owning property anywhere in CD5, here are the links:

El Paso: http://land.elpasoco.com/
Teller: http://data.co.teller.co.us/AsrData/wc.dll?AsrDataProc~OwnerNameSearch
Fremont: http://www.qpublic.net/fremont/name.html
Park: http://www.parkco.org/search2.asp
Lake: http://64.234.218.210/cgi-bin/colorado_links.cgi?county=lake&search=owner
Chaffee: http://annex.chaffeecounty.org/assessorsearch/SearchByOwnerName.aspx

Authored by "The Freak".
----------------------------------------------

Watching television, here in the UK, I was struck by the numerous advertisements for private health care coverage. It made it amusing because I understand that the NHS is held out by many in the US (I think even Clinton refered to it) as some kind of amazing health care heaven.

Let me set the record straight: I think universal health coverage is a great idea. In fact, I will go even further and state that I am in favor of providing high quality, inexpensive (or free) health care services to every man, woman, and child in the world.

This idea, regrettably, is akin to nuclear energy generation using a controlled fusion reaction: in principle it’s possible (and a great idea), but it’s never been accomplished. In fact, based on data I’ve seen, we’re closer to harnessing fusion than finding a formula for high quality, inexpensive health care.

Before I go on, let me be very clear that I don’t consider the US system (where I’ve also lived many years) to be some kind of nirvana. It is afflicted by many ills: the AMA is a monopoly that controls the market entry of new physicians, insurance companies choke competition, employers warp the market by cornering and limiting insurance opportunities, local regulations eliminate coverage choices, local medical boards prevent meaningful information availability to consumers, etc. Nevertheless the US medical system is distinctively different from most other places I’ve lived; high end extraordinary care is still available if you can find it and pay for it.

For the sake of transparency I’ll mention (as I’ve already stated in other posts over the years) that I’ve lived in many different countries that attempted to realize this elusive health care universal dream. Rather than point out their failures with raw data (it’s been done before and I have no interest in rehashing others’ work) I will discuss 10 traits I’ve observed universally. Just to be clear, the countries where my family and I have lived (for longer or shorter periods of time) include: Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom; I’ve also spent lengthy spans of time in France.

The Freak’s 10 characteristics of universal, government regulated health care as implemented in Europe (I would bet in Canada too, but I have no first hand experience):

1. Great basic care. 90% of common ailments that affect the vast majority of healthy people are managed well by these systems. This means that common respiratory ailments and infections, minor traumas, and frequently encountered conditions are treated promptly and in such a way that recovery ensues with a low rate of complications.

2. Inefficient and uncomfortable basic care. No, this statement is not in conflict with #1 above. The care is provided to yield misleading but politically convenient, objectively measurable statistics. For instance, if you’re in the UK and attend an NHS walk-in centre for influenza, you will be told to go home, rest, and drink plenty of fluids. A request for anti-viral medication will not be heeded unless you are in an “at risk” group (I know, I tried and failed). What this means is that the system will deliver recovery from influenza consistently (leading to good politically expedient “outcome” statistics) but also sap the economy of workers. In my example, I was out from work for about a week and a half. When I compare this to other situations (in the US) where I was offered a test (to confirm influenza) and Tamiflu, I was out of the office five days fewer than in the UK. Given my hourly rate, this translates to an economic loss of £4000 (or $8000 if you prefer). So, in this case, the NHS made a decision to skimp on about £120 (or $240) of treatment and thereby robbed the country of approximately £3880 ($7760) in GDP. Not every body is compensated as much as I am, I understand. Nevertheless, by removing economic incentives and trade-offs from the consumer, the UK has eliminated any market force for optimization. The situation is similar in the other countries I listed.

3. Horrible management of uncommon conditions. The way these countries deliver great basic care (see #1 above) is by delegating it to minimally trained professionals (nurse practitioners) who practice without physician supervision. The maxim in medicine is that the world is populated by horses, not zebras. Nevertheless, occasionally a zebra sneaks in and lesser trained observer will call it a horse with disastrous consequences. A friend of mine suffered irreparable harm because malaria was diagnosed as a generic viral condition for 3 visits in a row. When she finally saw a physician, he immediately asked her about travel and realized that malaria was possible given a recent trip to Papua New Guinea. Damage was already done.

4. Downward spiral in quality. In spite of what anybody wishes to believe, policy impacts behaviour. Most European countries had more free-market health care systems not too long ago. When these were taken over, they continued to work as well as they had before – for a while. Then the slide begins.

5. Physicians become scarce or of low quality. We wish physicians would choose their career because they have an aptitude for medicine and enjoy helping people. Some do. Others choose it because they have an aptitude for medicine, enjoy helping people, and like to make some pretty big money, and bigger if they’re better than most and practice some particularly valuable specialty. Take the incentive away and you’re left with the first group – a subset. This subset drives #6, below.

6. Occasional pockets of outstanding all-around care. Smart hospital managers, dedicated individuals, talented professionals tend to attract each other and create pockets of excellence. These examples get studied by all; everybody wants to learn their “secret” to replicate it. The problem is, there is no secret. They’ve succeeded in spite of the system, not because of it. These examples cannot be replicated.

7. Flourishing alternative medical systems (that is, where this is permitted; The Netherlands forbids private medical care). Those who can afford to pay top money, can get first rate care. So in Greece, Italy, and the UK I’ve been to private facilities that are, consistently, as good as any in the world. They cost as much as any in the world as well – my mother had a lung tumor removed in a private hospital in Italy and it cost more than it would have in the US. Of course, this creates a two tier system, a good one for those who can afford it, and a bad one for those who can’t. In some of these countries (Italy comes to mind) the government, in an attempt to cut off its nose to spite its face, forbids private physicians from practicing in public hospitals, thereby assuring that the best leave the public, and those who can’t cut it in private go back to public.

8. A blossoming medical insurance market. Once private systems spring up and public facilities spiral into oblivion, individuals feel they can’t risk to be without coverage. So most people end up paying twice.

9. Delays. Long, long delays. In fact, in this wondrous land of the UK’s NHS (where I’m currently typing this note) an insurance company’s come up with a new product: NHS delay insurance. Check out: http://campaigns.axappphealthcare.co.uk/whichpolicy/assure6choice/page1.php?mode=31&axacmp=Brand/TV/6Week.

10. Slow adoptions of breakthrough new treatments and technology. Enough said.

I could go on, but these 10 characteristics are classic and consistent. I don’t wish them on anybody and hope Americans are smart enough to fix their system rather than break it further. Investing in successful fusion reactors is more likely to pay than effective and efficient government run health care.

Maybe there's a way to deliver universal coverage. I've never seen it -- and I've certainly looked.

In a great interview with the Wall Street Journal, Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Irish low-fare air carrier Ryanair, has some choice words about the airline industry, its regulators, and the "Eco-nutters" who pray at the altar of CO2.

I highly recommend that you read the whole interview, but in case you're feeling slightly unmotivated, I've included the parts about regulators below since I enjoyed that particularly.

see "My 'Stupid Business'", WSJ, 9/15/07
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010607

Mr. O'Leary's low opinion of his own industry, though, is nothing compared with his outright disdain for those who regulate air travel--particularly when it's done in the name of the environment. Mention airlines and carbon dioxide in the same sentence, and he begins peppering his language with four-letter words.

Earlier this year, before becoming Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown raised taxes on air travel to and from the U.K. The then-Treasury chief's stated purpose was fighting climate change. Mr. O'Leary, whose airline serves more than a dozen British airports, demurs: "He just raised taxes on airlines. It has [bleep]-all to do with climate change! We've written several letters . . . to the Treasury, asking what the money's going to be spent on. We still haven't gotten a reply.

"This is the problem with all this environmental claptrap . . . it's a convenient excuse for politicians to just start taxing people. Some of these guilt-laden, middle-class liberals think it's somehow good: 'Oh, that's my contribution to the environment.' It's not. You're just being robbed--it's just highway [bleeping] robbery."

Airlines have become an enormous target for global-warming doomsayers. Last month, campaigners staged a nine-day protest outside London's Heathrow airport, hoping to discourage summer vacationers from flying. Mr. O'Leary points out that air transport accounts for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions world-wide--"It's less than marine transport, and yet I don't see anyone [saying], you know, 'Let's tax the [bleep] out of the ferries.' "

Mr. O'Leary assigns further blame to "the chattering bloody classes . . . or what I call the liberal Guardian [newspaper] readers--they're all buying SUVs to drive around the streets of London. And there's this huge disconnect between their stated passion for or care for the environment and what they actually do. They all want to buy kiwis and kumquats in the supermarket on Saturday. They're flown in from New Zealand for chrissakes! They're the equivalent of, you know, environmental nuclear bombs! But nobody says, 'Let's ban the kiwi fruits.' "

Also coming in for an O'Leary lambasting is the European Commission--which in the past has declared Ryanair the recipient of illegal subsidies from the airports it uses, and more recently blocked its attempted (but so far unsuccessful) takeover of former Irish state carrier Aer Lingus. "The whole purpose of regulators," he argues, is to be "a convenient political cover for the lack of political will to allow competition. And so what the politicians [say] is, 'Well, this is a natural monopoly, therefore we're going to impose a regulator and he's going to protect the consumer interest.' And what happens from the second after the regulator's imposed is the regulated monopoly starts gaming him."

Here's a little bit of fascinating reading for your Sunday morning:

Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water (Breitbart, 9/10/07)
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIRI600&show_article=1

And here's a compilation of TV reports on it, including demonstrations of the discovery.

While it's still probably a net consumer of energy in its earliest stages (because it takes more electric power to generate the radio waves than is created by the burning water), it's quite possible that math could be overcome.

It's rare that you see a real breakthrough in science these days, especially in science that "normal" people can really understand. It's great to be reminded of human (and American) ingenuity.

I made the mistake of encouraging an ultra-liberal neighbor in a political email discussion.

The most recent note he sent me is such an incredible bit of insight into the mind of the liberal "elite" (in this case, the part that works in academia) that it almost seems like a caricature even though the writer is absolutely serious.

So, here I present you, first, the note I received from my neighbor and second my response to him:

Ross,

I hope that by "outrageous government spending" you are talking about the insane military industrial complex. The war in Iraq has made war profiteers and military contractors wet dreams come true. This is and always has been the story of our corporate economy. We invade countless countries in Latin America and elsewhere, teach them torture, engender death squads, destroy unions, all at the behest of our free market. We try our best to destroy any society that decides they don't want our brain-dead economic theories, with invasions, boycotts, assassinations, dis-information, bribery, and on and on, again, all at the behest of the huge corporations which have no moral compass, only greed. A society that doesn't stand up for itself against domination by the powerful is just another empire waiting to fall from it's own un-sustainability. If the Republicans don't manage to steal another election, perhaps we can begin to move in a direction of change; perhaps we can reform the Clintonesce Democratic Party to it's supposed ideals. Our democracy has been hijacked by corporate power, almost from the start. A new deal saved the bastards from themselves once; perhaps a more sustained version will come.

As to Regonomics, I have no interest in being trickled down upon. Just give to the rich and when they think they have enough, maybe (or maybe not) you'll get some too. What garbage! What a disaster it has been for everyone except the wealthy!

Don't depend on investors to invest for the good of humanity; all but a very few invest for their own profit. They'd as soon invest in Exxon-Mobil and destroy our planet as invest in solar energy companies. This is why we should start taxing big oil into oblivion, and re-directing the subsidies to renewables. As a democracy we have every right to determine our destiny, even (especially) if it steps on the toes of the powerful. What good does 20-odd million dollars a year to some price-gouging mis-informing greed-head do for the people of the world, when the earth is rapidly becoming a toxic waste dump. See http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/07fal/alberta1.asp for one small example (there are countless, just broaden your horizons a bit). Corporations can and should be re-directed to good, and there is no reason CEOs need grab such riches; the environmental movement has shown that we there are plenty of upstanding people who can run large organizations without becoming multi-millionaires; there do exist competent people who's goal in life is to do good. You are either for the most benefit for the few, or for the most benefit for the many (Mr. Spock is for the latter). In the Jewish-Gnostic myth of Jesus, the savior says "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". Have you ever wondered why well educated, thoughtful and progressive people (like most up here) are against the corporate/government agenda?

I think you should start looking at other theories of economics, not the ones you learn at school. Everything is tainted by greed in main-stream economics; just look more closely. Perhaps simplistic Miltonian theroies have totally replaced Keynesian theory; just follow the money.

You really should get out more.

I have to say that I was so stunned by this note that it took me a while to respond. When I did respond, here's what I said:

XXXXX,

That's just silliness.

Teaching torture for economic gain?
Stealing elections?

You're been reading too many left-wing conspiracy web sites or something.

I don't depend on investors to invest "for the good of humanity" nor do I think they should. That sort of thinking gives you the Soviet Union and Cambodia...not exactly paradigms of economic success. Economics works when there are freely-made transactions between parties who each believe they are getting value in the trade, whether it's paying money for a good or service, or receiving the money. "The good of humanity" is ultimately taken care of this way whether you believe it or not, and despite your apparent distaste for a profit motive.

And finally, your idea that the educated people are "against the government agenda" comes down to the critical flaw to the progressive movement and people who think like you: You believe that if only smart and "caring" enough people got to make all the decisions, everything would work out better. It's the worst sort of egotistical junk and it's the reason that so many places fail or don't thrive economically, because "smart people" can't make better decisions than the market.

I must say, you are really a textbook example of the sort of person I write about frequently on my blog as being truly dangerous to the well-being of the country. Really, I should "start looking at other theories of economics"??? Maybe should we also look at other theories of gravity, and whether the world if flat, and whether two plus two equals 5, which is the theory of economics that you seem to subscribe to even though not one shred of evidence supports you.

It's OK...I understand your sort of liberalism is basically your religion and I'm not going to talk you out of it. With a little luck, at least the country won't be subjected to people who think like you do, because if we are it will be the end of a growing economy, devastating to employment, and fatal to liberty. But maybe you think that's OK, as long as smart and caring people are in charge.

Ross

For those of you who missed President Bush's speech last night, you can read my summary of it here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22398

Following recent reports that Delta County Commissioner Wayne Wolf may challenge former Congressman Bob Schaffer for the Republican nomination in the election for the US Senate seat being vacated by Wayne Allard, I sent this letter to Mr. Wolf:

Dear Commissioner Wolf,

While I certainly appreciate the effort (and risk) that a person takes when running for office, especially an office as important as US Senate, I would like to suggest to you that unless your goal is to assist Mark Udall you should pick a different battle than challenging Bob Schaffer.

I do not intend to sound unkind, but I truly believe there is no chance you could beat Schaffer. On the other hand, you could cause him to waste time and money that could end up being the difference in a very close general election.

Mark Udall is a guy who has one of the least distinguished records in Congress I've ever seen. Whereas Schaffer would be a highly effective representative of our state, and someone who would fight to preserve the sorts of liberties, p roperty rights, and limited taxes that I presume you support, Udall would do just the opposite, sacrificing our freedoms and our money to various liberal, union, and tree-hugging causes.

Is Udall the guy whom you really want to help get elected?

ColoradoPols.com ran a note a few days ago quoting the Sentinel about your possible run. You might find it instructive to read the comments posted by the site's readers. Keep in mind that the site tends substantially liberal. Here's the very first comment, for example: "Yay! Now as long as Moveon.org or somebody doesn't do something stupid and recruit a challenger for Udall, this will only increase Udall's chances (even if only by a tiny bit)."

Here's another: "Who? Seriously. Wolf starts out with a Name ID deficit that is so deep he'd have massive issues overcoming it. But I'll still thank him and wish him well, because it will take money away from Schaffer's general election campaign and divert it to fighting of an internal party struggle."

You can read more at
http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4131

While I don't want to overstate your influence on the race, because I think it will be quite small, I still believe that in these days of very close races, a small influence might end up making a difference. If you want to spend the next 6 or 12 or 18 years wondering whether Colorado is suffering through Senator Mark Udall because you chose to create an unwinnable distraction within the GOP, you're certainly free to do so with what liberty we have left in this country. But if your goal is good government and having an exceptionally talented Senator representing Colorado, I would suggest that you don't run and that you try to help Bob Schaffer get elected.

Most respectfully,

Ross K

This great article was written by my friend Mark Hillman. It's an important insight not only into the politics and economics of immigration and labor markets, but also (highly relevant to this parent of a young child) into parenting.

Much of our country's simmering dialogue on immigration sooner or later turns to the question of hiring people to perform certain "jobs Americans won't do."

Rarely, however, do policymakers address why Americans apparently refuse to do certain jobs while immigrants go to great trouble and expense to come here to perform those very jobs.

Many of the jobs now commonly performed by immigrants were once filled either by students or by adults who saw work as noble and idleness as shameful.

Today, our relative prosperity and appetite for instant gratification is becoming our enemy.

In my hometown, summer or after-school jobs were once prized by high school and college students. Kids knew they could make good money during a summer of hard work with a farmer or a contractor. During the school year, service industry jobs helped pay for dates and gasoline while accommodating classes and school activities.

Now, far fewer students seem to want - or need - jobs that demand responsibility and hard work.

"Help wanted" signs are permanent fixtures at restaurants; others have closed or scaled back their hours because they just can't find good help.

Farmers rely more on immigrants because they can count on them to be on time and work long hours when harvest or planting schedules require it.

A Western Slope fruit grower recently told me that several orchard owners solicited summer help at area high schools, offering $20 an hour to students who would help pick fruit. Not a single student took them up on the offer.

A contractor related a similar story of able-bodied young people. When offered a job, he said, "They look at mom and dad like, 'Do I have to work?'"

Therein lies the problem. Kids haven't changed that much. When I was in high school, I probably wouldn't have worked in the summer if my parents had provided me with a car, clothes and spending money.

My father, however, knew a teachable moment when he saw it. After I turned 16, I had enough money saved to buy a car, but he refused to let me take that money out of savings until I also had a summer job.

American parents want their kids to be better off than they were. But it seems that too many simply want to wave a magic wand to bestow happiness and success on their offspring, rather than teach them life's inevitable lessons. It shouldn't surprise us then that so many young people wrongly believe that what we once called "entry-level jobs" are beneath them.

Adults who spurn those same jobs do so for the same reason: because they can afford to. For a family of four, the poverty level is $20,650. But as recently as 2004, that same family's annual consumption averaged $40,000 - thanks to welfare payments, tax credits, food stamps, housing assistance and unreported income.

That's better than the take-home pay, benefits or working conditions for a job that pays $20 an hour but demands hard work. What's more, subsidized sloth offers far more leisure time than a 40-hour-a-week job.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and Heritage Foundation, 46 percent of all "poor" households own their own home with three bedrooms and a garage. Poor Americans, on average, have more living space than the average citizen of Paris or London. The primary nutrition problem for poor children isn't malnutrition but obesity. Three-quarters of poor families own a car; 30 percent own at least two. Ninety-seven percent own color TVs; most have cable and a VCR or DVD player.

Just as kids make a rational decision not to work when their parents meet their every need, so do adults who know they can count on government to supply their needs at taxpayers' expense.

No wonder there are so many "jobs Americans won't do." Our shortsighted generosity and "compassion" are causing depriving many of the lessons that lead to lasting success.

For today's reading, I refer you to an article I wrote for Human Events about the recent demise (or at least temporary caging) of the movement for "Net Neutrality" which in fact is anything but neutral toward free markets and liberty:

The Justice Department vs. 'Net Neutrality'
by Ross Kaminsky, Human Events, 9/11/07
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22293

(Per my agreement with Human Events, articles which I write for them must be posted exclusively on their site, which is why I'm giving you the link rather than the article text.)

In these days of relatively arcane financial market information being in the mainstream media, and with the vast majority of commentators calling for the Fed to cut rates at their September 18th meeting (or sooner), I offer you this opinion from my friend Brian Wesbury who argues that while the Fed probably will cut, it is a mistake to do so:

Unnecessary Rate Cut...On Its Way?
Brian S. Wesbury - Chief Economist, First Trust Advisors L. P.
Robert Stein, CFA - Senior Economist, First Trust Advisors L. P.
Date: 9/10/2007

Our view is that any Fed rate cut would be a mistake. Nonetheless, a weaker-than-expected August jobs report, pressure from politicians, panicky comments from former Fed officials, and howls of protest from Wall Street, have pushed the Fed into a corner. As a result, the probability of a rate cut, at or before the next FOMC meeting on 9/18, is above 50%. And we believe that if the Fed does cut rates it will do so by a total of 50 basis points before the end of 2007.

In such a short column we cannot deal with every argument being made for a rate cut, so we will deal with just three.

1) – Some say the Fed is just too tight, while others have gone as far as comparing today to the late 1920s – when the Fed ignored signs of deflation and tightened monetary policy anyway, causing the Great Depression.

These concerns are over-the-top hyperbole. Between 1926 and 1929, the Consumer Price Index was declining by an average of 1.1% per year. Gold prices were fixed, but silver prices plummeted. In other words, there were clear signs of deflation in the late 1920s, but the Fed lifted the federal funds rate to 6% anyway, making its biggest mistake ever.

Today is different. Gold and silver prices have surged in the past six years and are pressing higher, consumer prices are climbing in the 2% to 3% range, and the dollar is weak.

The real (or inflation-adjusted) federal funds rate is low relative to any historical pre-recession period regardless of what inflation rate one uses to calculate the real funds rate – the CPI, the “core” CPI, the PCE deflator, or the “core” PCE deflator. Any similarity between today and the Depression are figments of an overactive imagination.

2) – Some argue that during the past 50 years, every time the US housing market has contracted like it has in the past year it translated into an economy-wide recession.

This idea that housing slumps trigger recessions is a confusion between cause and correlation. Every recession since 1913 (the year the Fed was created) has been accompanied by tight money. And because housing is a big-ticket, interest-rate-sensitive, industry, it has almost always reacted early to tight money. It falls first, before the economy as a whole. But this does not mean housing caused the recession. Tight money did.

Both short-term and long-term interest