Libertarian Leanings

Scientists Look to Hollywood

According to the Christian Science Monitor, climate scientists are appealing to Hollywood for help in getting their message across.

The importance of getting the word out has science organizations scrambling to explore new channels, from souped up websites to asking Hollywood for help.

The current climate-change furor has become the poster child for what happens when there’s a communications gap between scientists and the public. The vast majority of scientists see compelling evidence that the world’s climate is about to change significantly, and that the change is largely driven by human activity. Yet polls show public opinion becoming more skeptical about climate change.

Let me offer some skepticism of my own here.  I have my doubts about the "vast majority of scientists" and the " compelling evidence" the Monitor says they see.  On the other hand, I suspect a smaller, vocal, politically driven group of scientists see compelling evidence that the climate change gravy train might be slowing to a crawl. 

What we got here, says the Monitor, is a failure to communicate.  Thus the plea from scientists for help from celebrities. 

Keeping the public looped in on what scientists are discovering has never been easy. For one thing, the traditional explainers – journalists – can distort, hype, or oversimplify the latest breakthroughs. But the need to communicate science broadly and clearly has never been more urgent.

Unfortunately, the communications breakdown at the root of the climate change furor did not arise from any distortion, hype, or oversimplification by journalists.  The problem was with the scientists themselves who offered "dog ate my homework" excuses for not sharing the information that was supposed support their global warming theories.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. 

Professor Jones admitted it was possible that the world was warmer in medieval times than now, which would argue that global warming is not caused by human activities.  He also said there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming for the past 15 years.  While there may not have been any significant warming, there has been significant money. 

Since 1990, Jones has received $22 million in grant funding. Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year. Most of the grants came from government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union.

Besides, Hollywood is already on the case.  Been on it for years. 

Tim Cahill on ObamaCare

Shouldn't we take it from someone who might know?  That someone would be the Massachusetts state treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, and when it comes to health care reform we should take it from him.  ObamaCare will break the bank.  Massachusetts has been trying out health care reform on his watch and it isn't working out.  In fact it's so bad Cahill jumped the Democratic ship in July to run for governor against Deval Patrick as an independent.

By The Associated Press
March 16, 2010, 12:42PM

BOSTON – The Massachusetts treasurer said Tuesday that Congress will “threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years” if it adopts a health-care overhaul modeled after the Bay State’s.

Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill – a former Democrat running as an independent for governor – said the local plan enacted in 2006 has succeeded only because of huge subsidies and favorable regulatory changes from the federal government.

“Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?” he asked.

Cahill made his remarks after Gov. Deval L. Patrick, a Democrat, accused him and Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker of being silent amid the state and national health care debates.

Cahill cited quotations in which he has called for the state to abandon its plan, and for the federal government not to match it. 

First Scott Brown.  Now this.  I can just imagine Thomas Frank in stumbling around in a daze wondering aloud, "What's the matter with Massachusetts?" 

By way of Power Line.

Notable Quotes on Health Care Reform

Robert Reich opined today about the need to pass health care reform:

Health care reform is necessary, and House Democrats should vote for it because it's best for the nation.

Having set off with that topic sentence Reich meandered off into the history of health care reform circa 1994, concluding that Democrats need to pass it in order to be victorious over Republicans.  No mention anywhere of why this particular health care reform might be "best for the nation."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently made this stunning assertion in speech at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

That's positively mind boggling.  Does she think this is a game show?  Not only do proponents not want to discuss the bill on its merits, they don't want anybody to know what's actually in it.  At least, not until it's too late to do anything about it.

Matthew Yglesias urges Democrats to vote for ObamaCare to secure a place in history.  He says it will be a much revered place in history.

If it passes, Obama will go down in history along with Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as the key architects of the American welfare state. Those members of Congress who back him will be a part of that history, and those who vote no will be left behind.

There's a sales pitch for you.  You too can be an architect of the American welfare state!  Just vote yes!  But in saying that, Yglesias put his finger squarely on the problem with this bill.  Americans don't want America to become a welfare state.

What Health Care Reform Should Look Like

Paul Ryan, Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, takes to the Washington Post this morning to describe what real health care reform ought to look like. 

Last May, Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Burr and Rep. Devin Nunes and I collaborated to address rising costs while securing access to quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. The Patients' Choice Act takes on the discriminatory and inflationary tax exclusion, delinking the tax benefit from employers and attaching it to individuals through universal tax credits. The tax exclusion for employer-provided health coverage subsidizes insurance instead of health care, hides the true cost of coverage and disproportionately favors the wealthy at the expense of the self-employed, the unemployed and small businesses. Health-care economists across the political spectrum and reform-minded Democrats such as Sen. Ron Wyden identify the backward tax treatment of health care as a problem that must be addressed.

Congressman Ryan's proposal is not new.  I mentioned it here over a month ago.  It hasn't gotten any publicity because, unlike the president's proposals, it addresses health care reform.  The debate that has been occupying the country for the last year has never been about health care.  It has always been about extending the government's control over the economy and extending progressive control over the government. 

The thrust of the progressive argument in favor of their takeover was captured in the FOX News Sunday interview with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs over the weekend: We need to do this "for the children." 

GIBBS: Look, there are — there will be debates — I'm sure there will be later on this show — on the political effects of whether or not we should make sure that people in this country can afford health care, make sure that children aren't discriminated against by — on the basis of a preexisting condition.

It would be one thing if the president were to propose health care reform that would put some downward pressure on health care costs, but that is not the case at all.  It's quite the opposite.  Increasing coverage and increasing subsidies to provide it will drive costs higher.  The way to lower costs is to put the consumer in charge of health care decisions.  We could also expand the supply of health care by training more doctors and nurses.  The last thing Democrats want is to empower citizens.  That's why they argue solely on the basis of fear mongering and guilt.  Their plan is a disaster and everybody knows it.

The Uber Lie

Howell Raines, former executive editor of the New York Times, headlines his complaint against FOX News with a question: Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News? It ought to be easy, he thinks.

This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Two problems with that little bit from Mr. Raines.  First, FOX News never claimed that American people don't want health care reform.  It should be pretty obvious, even to the Raineses of the world, that Americans really do want health care reform, but they, we, don't want ObamaCare.  Let's go to an independent source, Rasmussen, for the latest numbers. 

Monday, March 08, 2010

As President Obama and his congressional allies search for a way to pass their proposed health care plan, most voters remain opposed to the legislative effort.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. These figures include just 20% who Strongly Favor the plan and 41% who are Strongly Opposed.

Let me emphasize, a majority of voters oppose President Obama's health care plan.  That does not say Americans are opposed to health care reform.  FOX News said the same thing back in October of last year.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for Fox News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

When given a choice, Americans pick the middle of the road rather than a complete health care overhaul or no action at all. Half, 50 percent, would like Congress to focus reforms on providing health insurance to those who don't currently have it -- that's nearly twice as many as say they want Congress to reform the entire health care system, 27 percent. Some 18 percent want legislators do "do nothing and leave the current system in place."

Let me emphasize again.  Half would like Congress to focus on health care insurance for those who don't have it, while only 27 percent want to reform the whole system.  Democrats want to change the whole system.  That's why their popularity is in the dirt.

Which brings me to the second problem with Raines's assertions.  It really is a "liberal-versus-conservative issue," and most people are aware of that as well.  Liberals favor the expansion of government that Obama's plan entails and that Raines and the Democrats promote.  Conservatives oppose it.

The uber-lie does not originate at FOX News, and most people are aware of that as well.  The diverging fortunes of FOX News and New York Times, once run by Howell Raines by the way, are proof enough of that.  FOX News Channel is far and away the most watched cable news network, while the New York Times has been in financial trouble for years.  It's a credibility issue.

For Howell Raines to deliberately mischaracterize the mood of the American people in order to attack FOX News shows the utter contempt in which he holds his audience.  Audiences respond, which might explain the circulation drop at his New York Times and the concurrent rise of FOX.

There's nothing to the accusations of bias at FOX News Channel, so it's unlikely that an honest reporter is really what Raines is looking for.  What he says he wants is one of "America's old-school news organizations" to blow the whistle on Roger Ailes and FOX News.  I think he means somebody like Dan Rather.

The Pelosi Strategy

We'll probably discover that her argument persuaded a few more Democrats to vote for the health care takeover.

Mark Steyn Channels Libertarian Leanings

Libertarian Leanings, August 5, 2009:

But let's be realistic.  The objective of Obama and the Democrats is not health care reform.  The objective is an enduring progressive congressional majority that they hope to achieve by forcing Americans into a dependence upon progressive government for life supporting medicines and medical care.

Libertarian Leanings, August 15, 2009:

Neither Clinton nor Obama care in the least what gets passed, as long as it gives progressive politicians control over special interests and their money.  Health care reform and climate change legislation are designed for maximum political control, which means there is one thing we can know with a certainty.  Whatever comes out of this health care reform exercise, the least likely is a better health care system.

Mark Steyn, March 6, 2010:

Yes. Because government health care is not about health care, it’s about government. Once you look at it that way, what the Dems are doing makes perfect sense. For them.

But not for the rest of us.

"Iraqracy"

In the midst of violence that killed at least 36 people, Iraqis held their third democratic election since since Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in the U.S. invasion of 2003.  Millions cast votes.

Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission said voter turnout was estimated to be 50 percent or more in all but one of the 16 provinces for which statistics were available.

Ballots were being counted Sunday night, and final tallies not expected until March 18.

Diplomats have said Iraq is unlikely to be able to form a government for several months as no single voting bloc is likely to emerge dominant.

Abbas Hussein, his index finger coated in purple ink, signaling he had voted in Mansour, a Sunni district of Baghdad, told Agence France-Presse: "We don't care about the bombs. The people will vote."

No single political coalition is expected to win an outright majority in the 325-member parliament, but the coalition that wins a plurality will eventually form a government.  It is expected to be a contentious affair in an unconventional democratic system that U.S. Central Command commander Gen. David H. Petraeus has dubbed "Iraqracy."

It's All About the Strategy

The progressive case for health care reform has moved on to the discussion of strategy.  Reconciliation is the morally correct course, they charge, to defeat "the small-mindedness of the GOP."

The health care debate, with opponents crying socialism about reform that is patterned after classic moderate Republicanism, has exposed the small-mindedness of the GOP. The party’s reconciliation hysteria may not be its worst moment of this episode, but it is its most pathetic. That opponents have had to lean so heavily on a completely trumped-up objection speaks volumes about the overall strength of their case. 

But let's look at the cases.  Progressives argue that we must lower our health care costs and provide better health care to more people.  Republicans and other Americans are skeptical that any of the plans put forward by Democrats will accomplish any of this.  And with good reason.  The Wall Street Journal explained in an article from last November.

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

The progressive goal, often stated, is a single payer system.  Republicans argue that health care suffers under a single payer system, and we're a short hop away from it if Obama's "reforms" are enacted.  The public option is an important step toward that goal.  When progressives aren't denying that they intend to create a single payer system, they're claiming that single payer systems work just fine. 

This morning a London Sunday Times article lays out for us just how well a single payer system works in the real world.

DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients’ needs have been neglected.

They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets.

It says “several interviewees” cited the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells [NHS Trust in Kent where 269 deaths during 2005-6 were caused by infection with Clostridium difficile bacteria].

“Managers crowded in patients in order to meet waiting-time targets and, in the process, lost sight of the fundamental hygiene requirements for infection prevention,” the report stated.

There were subsequent failings at health trusts in Basildon in Essex, and Mid Staffordshire. Filthy wards and nurse shortages led to up to 1,200 deaths at Stafford hospital.

At the New York Times and the Washington Post there isn't much interest in these aspects of health care reform.  According to the mainstream press on our side of he water it's all sunshine and blue skies, and it's all about the strategy.

Does anyone believe this?

Occasionally Peggy Noonan writes with some degree of perception, although it seems rare to my mind.  I was about to give up on her latest offering in the Wall Street Journal after she had said of Obama's first year in office,

What a disaster it has been.

At best it was a waste of history's time, a struggle that will not in the end yield something big and helpful but will in fact make future progress more difficult. At worst it may prove to have fatally undermined a new presidency at a time when America desperately needs a successful one.

America does not need a president who is determined to turn the country into a socialist Utopia to be successful, and it is utterly foolish and silly of Noonan to hope he succeeds at it.  But further on Noonan managed to stumble onto the right question, the question of Obama's credibility.

In his speech Wednesday, demanding an "up or down" vote, the president seemed convinced and committed—but nothing he said sounded true. His bill will "bring down the cost of health care for millions," it is "fully paid for," it will lower the long term deficit by a trillion dollars.

Does anyone believe this?

Exactly.  As we await the latest version of reform, the latest ploy for government takeover, can anyone seriously think this is going to be a cost saving exercise?  No one believes this, not even the people who support Obama's health care takeover.  For them a bankrupt America is a small price the rest of us should pay so that progressive pretensions of social justice can be satisfied.  For the rest of us, Obama's health care extravaganza is an impending disaster that must be prevented from destroying the last best hope that is America.  But nobody believes it's going to save us any money.