perfidy

As usual, Lileks hits it straight off:

Only in America. And I say that as a good thing. Which reminds me: like all typical examples of American craziness, this will just horrify the Europeans.

I like the Idea of the terminator running for office. If successful, he will be the second cast member of the movie Predator to attain high office. Does anyone know where Carl Weathers lives?

On the idea of American craziness, I am all for it. The only predictablility in our foriegn policy should be steadfast loyalty to allies. As for the rest, some judicious twitchiness should have only positive effects.

In a Washington Post article, Rev. Al says that he is being dismissed because reporters are white males.

"I think when you look at the lack of diversity in the newsrooms, when you look at the lack of diversity from the editors and those in power, then you see them as automatically dismissive of anything that is not like them, which is white males," said Sharpton.

"I think we've seen some very blatant racial insensitivity in the coverage of this race so far," said Sharpton, in an interview with The Associated Press.

Jeez, I thought he was dismissed because he's an inveterate race hustler, responsible for a deadly riot, and because he manufactured the Tawana Brawley hoax. And, generally, he's a wacko.

For our collective edification, via Fark (the source of all hard news) comes this editorial from the Taipei Times about the differences between the US Constitution and the proposed European Union Constitution. Money quote: "Madison is a better guide to an effective constitution than is Descartes."

Food for thought, and plenty to disagree with too.
 

Like Buckethead, I decree Queer Eye For The Straight Guy excellent. It's edu-tainment!

Did you know that Carson (the queeny fashion guru) graduated Summa with a degree in Finance? Holy crow! All that and fashion sense too!

George Will has condemned the misbehavior of both parties, giving an extensive list of both democratic and republican offenses. In describing one outrage, he says, "Nothing this undignified has happened in American politics for, well, two weeks."

Will fears that the overturning of established custom - such as the custom that district boundaries are reset only once a decade, after each census - causes permanent damage to civil society. When custom is overturned, "it is replaced either by yet more laws codifying behavior that should be regulated by good manners, or by a permanent increase in society's level of ongoing aggression."

I find it hard to disagree. In my lifetime, stretching all the way back to the chaos of the late sixties, political discourse has become progressively more polarized and acrimonious. "Each vandal seems to think that his or her passions are their own excuse for existing. As Santayana said, such thinking is the defining trait of barbarians."

Oh well, the world must be coming to an end.

You think we've got it bad in the US? Think our economy's moribund? Well, unemployment in Germany's above 10%! Germany! Powerhouse of Western Europe!

I'm sure I don't need to go into the many and sundry examples of inefficiences and graft within the E.U. When that bureaucratic nightmare is laid on top of the demographic, economic, and political transformations currently afoot in Europe, you get this: 10% unemployment in an economy that not long ago was the star of the continent.

The E.U. is (or was) an interesting idea. As a layman, I can see why it is attractive to its participants. In the wake of two world wars caused by belligerence on the part of one or two member states, it makes sense that Europe would seek a super-national body to make sure that such a conflict does not happen again. Moreover, it was not too long ago that the modern European nation-states emerged as conglomerations of hundreds of petty feifdoms-- a process we can watch in reverse as some nations disintegrate. For this reason too it makes sense that Europe would seek a collective road to regional stability.

Of course, big solutions create big problems. One of the advantages of the US state system, for example, is that Michigan's economy can be in the crapper while California's zips along. The problems of one state, in general, stay within that state. But the EU's governing bodies have a hand in everything-- trade, criminal law, measures and standards, economics-- and as a result suck the vigor (vigah) out of hot sectors while funneling money (inefficiently!) into poor sectors.

All in all, and again I'm speaking as a layman, but it's not a good sign when nations who have not yet adopted the euro-- Sweden, the UK-- are reluctant to do so, especially when their economies are performing better than the EU. That's what we call a "sign."

Maybe the EU would be better off breaking up, or at least getting the hell out of the economies and internal affairs of its member states. Things aren't THAT bad now, but if it stays on the present course the EU is doomed to a slow amble into mediocrity. Maybe it's time for the EU experiment to end, before it grinds to a halt like a mealy-mouthed and stultifyingly dull version of late-stage Soviet Communism.

Dan Simmons, author of Hyperion, has a new book out. Ilium, which I just finished, is the first of a two part series that involves little green men, robots, Greek gods, Shalespeare and Proust, post human evolution, the wandering Jew and a middle aged classics professor from Indiana. Sweet.

Joe Bob says check it out!

Seeing as how gnomes proved to be completely unmotivated workers, the Ministry was forced to rely on pixies. While pixies do indeed work harder than the gnomes, they are less reliable. Some of the posts may be out of order. Rest assured that while we will make no effort to go back and correct the mistakes, the pixies were dealt with most severely.

You will notice that there are even some comments transferred over. Given the number of pixies that were sacrificed to transfer even one week of comments, even the Ministry blanches at doing it again.

Well, that is the problem, isn't it? The new prescription benefit program will actually help some people, but at the cost of doing enormous damage elsewhere. Including these nuggets of goodness is what allows these abominations to become law. Because some disingenuous senator can point to the one nice bit and say, "but look, we're helping old people get the meds they need and not have to eat cat food! You don't want old people to eat cat food, do you?"

I don't oppose helping people. I do oppose helping people who don't need to be helped. But the AARP and others oppose means testing tooth and nail. And the sad fact is that if a benefit becomes available, people will use it regardless of whether or not they "need" it. Soon after, they will feel entitled to that benefit, and will scream bloody murder if some cold hearted conservative tries to take it away. Every beneficiary of one of these vast entitlement programs becomes an instant, permanent constituent for whoever says they'll continue or expand these programs.

When we create these programs we have to limit the eligibility, and everywhere possible build in mechanisms that encourage people to leave the program. It should never be just a handout. It should never provide everything, otherwise there is never any incentive to provide for yourself. A safety net is just that - something to catch you if you fall. It shouldn't be a place to live permanently. Benefit programs have to be set up with an eye toward personal responsibility. The responsibility to work, to provide for your own retirement, etc. Privatizing Social Security would go a long way towards allowing people to actually provide for their own futures.

Instead of blindly paying a huge chunk of your earnings (matched by your employer, remember) to the government, imagine that that money went into your own account. Every quarter you'd get a statement showing how much money you had. If you die, your family would inherit the cash - unlike the current system where the money largely just disappears into the government black hole. In this scenario, everyone would actually be providing for their own futures, and we wouldn't have to worry about SS going bust, and we'd worry far less about providing for the needs of seniors.

It occurs to me that the question of medical benefits for older people is thornier than I thought. I stand by my comments of yesterday, but a conversation with my sage and oracular wife has reminded me that the Medicare bill will do some concrete good. Namely, it will allow poorer senior citizens without many assets or good insurance to afford and gain access to the drugs that keep them alive. If they're taking say 6 pills a day, and don't have decent coverage, the expense can be crippling. Importation from Canada can help that group of seniors afford BOTH food AND medicine. Unless you are a true Social Darwinian, you cannot fail to see that this is good for them.

Of course, most Boomers and Greatest Generationers are already set up with good insurance and prescription coverage, and probably won't bother with the extra bother of mail-ordering drugs from Canada. A good insurance plan gives you $5/$10/$15 coverage on perscriptions, and there is no conceivable benefit to going to Canada instead of Rite Aid. So, it's possible that the effect of drug importation will be less than I thought, but it remains to be seen how many people take advantage of it.

The damnedest thing about healthcare legislation is that even the most venal and grasping bill contains a nugget of good intentions that will concretely help people that need it badly. Makes it kind of hard to work up a white-hot denunciatory rage, I tell you what. Why can't people just be evil and motives clear? Dang!