So I am somewhat peeved that our wise president - you know the one who saved us from that awful McCain fellow - is hamstringing the ability of citizens to sue prosecutors for misconduct. At issue here is a court case, Pottawattamie County, Iowa, v. McGhee and Harrington, in which a White prosecutor admits to fabricating evidence that put two African American youths away for 25 years.  The Obama administration is arguing that the prosecutors have immunity from civil liability.

I can see how having some immunity for public officials makes sense, you don’t want them to be spending their entire time defending themselves from eveyone’s petty little lawsuits.  But when a prosecutor throws two guys in prison on fabricated evidence, he or she damn sure better be liable for it.

The Administration is off its rocker.

Well the economy tanked, times got a bit hard
And my brother Parker, Joined the National Guard
He now takes orders, with a snappy salute
And marches away, in a big pair of boots

The military’s great, but for me it was wrong
On a crew fightin’ fires, that’s where I belong
So I hike through the mountains, over boulders and roots
And I wear on my feet, a big pair of boots

Unfortunately, today, this childhood rite of passage is being squashed.  Kids no longer get into trouble.  We are too protected.  I never burned anything, I never blew anything up, I never really seriously damaged any property that I can remember (until I started learning to drive, when I did more than my fair share.)  I am not saying we shouldn’t protect our kids, that’s the number one role of a parent.  But at some point, don’t we have to accept that kids get into trouble? and so we spank them, and then love them more.

Which brings me to the tale of Zachary Christy, aged 6.  This young cub scout brought a camping utensil — combination spoon, fork, and knife — to school, and is now threatened with expulsion.  A six year old cub scout is facing reform school.

WCBSTV is reporting that Master Christy got caught up in an “zero tolerance” thing after the shootings at Virginia Tech.  Instead of throwing the kid out, why the hell don’t they turn this into a learning experience for everyone.  Explain to the six year old why knives are not allowed in school, perhaps confiscate it for a few weeks to drive home the point, and then let the kid back to school, where, he obviously belongs.

Or don’t.  Zachary’s mom is going to home school him for the duration of his suspension.  She’ll probably be a better teacher, he’ll probably learn more, and he can get to use his pocketknife all he wants.  Mom can even turn it into a learning experience, maybe research the history of pocketknives on the internet.  He’ll learn all the social skills he needs at his cub scout meetings, and who cares about school?

So what’s the lesson you learned in school today, Zac.? That you are a dangerous person, a threat to your classmates, worthy of reform school? or did you learn that after a few years in the Scouts, you’ll know more about life than half these stupid grownups anyway and some of them might find that threatening?

Here, kid, go get into trouble.

An amusing response to the celebrity health-care PSA that’s been floating around.  Tho I think they should have cut it of @ about 1:30,  starts to jump the shark some.

I don’t read the LATimes much any more, but I did drop in this morning and found this article from Michale Hiltzik claiming that the success of the Internet is proof that the government can do things right. Hiltzik’s underlying point seems to be that the Internet was successful because there was some early government investment and regulation in its infrastructure, investment that the private sector was too shortsighted, or stingy, to make.

In some ways, of course, Hiltzik is correct. The government has provided critical infrastructure to many projects. But often that infrastructure gets poorly maintained by the government.

Some very good friends of my family had a small business go under about five or ten years ago. This business had been a smashing success, once voted best small business in the State. But through financial mismanagement and a lack of foresight, the business went bankrupt and had to be sold. At the time, my father, a Harvard MBA, said that some people are good at starting businesses but not necessarily at running them. Maybe the government is like that, they are great at starting things - the Internet, the Interstate Highway System, the land grant colleges - but very poor at running them. The Interstate Highway System is largely managed by the States now, and the land grant colleges are all state run.

Maybe we should go ahead a let the government set up a health insurance company, the so-called public option, with the intent that it will eventually be privatized, or turned over to the States to run.

In order to have a Democratic process - that is a process in which a community comes together to make a decision - the community must share something. Sharing is a great concept. I like the idea of sharing, until I see someone like Norton abuse it. Then, I wonder if it really is a good idea. The idea behind sharing is that everyone gets a slice of the pie and ideally, everyone’s slice is equal. The problem is there is always someone, a Sec. Norton or a Rep. Cunningham, who feels they have the right to more than their share and has the means to take more then their fair share because of a position of power.

The wonderful thing about a free market is that in its purist form, it is very difficult for any one person to take more than their share without resorting to dishonesty. When Dishonesty is employed, then, and only then, the government should step in and do something about it. Everyone has equal access to the Market, and yes, sometimes you need a little government to make that happen, but that little bit of government has much less potential to do damage than the massive bureaucratic nightmare we have now.

I present my case in the following points

• Overall, I like it.  The theme of the speech seemed to be VERY supportive of keeping the bulk of the system in the free market.  He says “Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business.” This is good news and for now, I’ll take him at his word.
• I like the emphasis on reducing waste and abuse, and increasing efficiency, in Medicaid and Medicare
• I like his commitment to make this deficit neutral.  This is not only responsible, it prevents excessive growth in the size of the government.
• I LIKE being told that nobody would be forced to choose the public option
• I like the idea of curbing medical malpractice suits
• I like the idea of a national insurance exchange
• I like his promise to exempt small businesses from some of the federal requirements
• I like the idea of forbidding Insurance companies to cancel policies willy nilly.  It seems to be that continuing to allow that to happen is legalizing theft
• I am at least open to the idea that most folks would be required to buy health insurance.  It seems like a good idea - we already require people to buy car insurance, as Obama said, but I still get nervous when I hear about government mandates.
• I like what he said about self reliance towards the end of the speech.

BUT I have some reservations about it

• While Obama insists that the Public Option would be just that, an OPTION.  What is to prevent another, succeeding administration from forcing people into it.
• I think I trust Obama, but I know I don’t trust Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Henry Whack Job, or Al Franken.  What is this gonna look like when they get their hands on it?
• Says “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money - an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.”  So I want to know A) just who the $%#@ are these “experts”? and B) Why should someone be penalized just because their healthcare plan is expensive?  I know he calls it a “fee” on the “insurance companies,” but c’mon, let’s be honest, its a tax on rich people who have high end plans.  I’ll make fun of these people all day, but they have a right to spend their money as they please.

There are, I am sure, thousands of non profit healthcare organizations out there in the country. Some are faith based, some are based around a specific disease (AIDS, Cancer, MS, MD etc) while others are simply coops. I think it would bee a good idea to to weave these NPOs into a sort of federation of private healthcare systems that would become a de facto national healthcare model but be largely independent of the federal government and still reliant on the generous people who support them now. The Feds would provide infrastructure, a little bit of funding, and perhaps some guidelines, but the NPOs would still be required to fundraise, still be independent.

The Feds could, as they do now, monitor these NPOs to ensure they provided access to everyone, used the funds donated to them wisely, and provided quality care. The Feds could also provide some support in the form of infrastructure grants etc, so long as they did not interfere with the basic day-to-day operations of the NPOs. Also, significant tax breaks would be given to individuals and corporations that donated to these charities.

The result, I think, would be a semi-private healthcare system that would provide universal access without the red tape and government interference that I am concerned will be an inevitable part of the plan currently working its way through the Congress.

There’s a flood coming in a small southern town and a squad car comes down the street and tells everyone to evacuate and one guy says “the Lord will save me.”

11:35 PM

I bring this up because it reinforces my belief that to often, government is abused by those who seek to manipulate it for their own personal gain.  Programs are often set up by well intentioned people with the intent of righting injustices and then those same programs are twisted by special interest groups to benefit themselves at the expense of the taxpayer.  The Department of Defense was abused by Cunningham to benefit himself, not the men and women in uniform who are risking their butts for our freedom or the taxpayers who fund the department.

A few years ago, I read another great book, called Cadillac Desert about the amount of money that is spent getting water from places the Good Lord put it, to places She didn’t put it.  It is maddening to think that money I earn is taken from me to fund this crap!!

What’s to say that a public healthcare system won’t be the same way.  How much Medicare Fraud is out there now? do you think that Obamacare - in whatever form it comes in - will eliminate that?  I know he says he will, but will he.  Don’t forget, folks, that’s your money that they are taking.  And I daresay you can spend it much more wisely than Duke Cunningham.  In fact, I think so highly of the average American that I would venture to say that you can spend your money much more wisely than Barack Obama.

It does appear, I will concede, that with the death of the public option :), the Obama administration is more concerned with improving the private healthcare industry than imposing another government bureacracy on an already overregulated economy.  I’ve just been flipping through the plan, and it ain’t bad, I concede.  BUT this is from the Whitehouse, who knows what our worshipful masters in Congress (Opposite of Progress) will turn this into?  Will it truly be fair, truly be a way to curb the power of the special interests? The way that Duke Cunningham dolled out money from the Pentagon does not give me much optimism.