The Daily Gouge, Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013

On April 2, 2013, in Uncategorized, by magoo1310

It’s Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013…but before we begin, please join us in praying GOP voters in the Palmetto State’s 1st Congressional District don’t redefine “stupid”:

South Carolina Republicans About to Nominate Mark Sanford for Congress 

 

Mark Sanford & traditional family values

Sanford’s right: none of us do go through life without mistakes; but certain particularly egregious errors in judgment…like this one…should categorically disqualify someone from future public office.  And grace requires repentance, along with a turning from sin; compounding acts of adultery by marrying your mistress hardly qualifies as either.  Here’s hoping Charleston voters aren’t taken in by Sanford’s Elmer Gantry act.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, in the “A Sign of Things To Come” segment, one possible explanation for the recent killings in Kaufman County, TX which we hope ain’t so:

Assassinating Public Officials: Mexican Cartels Getting Strong and Violent Foothold in the United States

 

article-0-190424B7000005DC-603_634x448

Assume for the moment Mexican drug cartels are found to be engaging in a campaign of intimidation through the assassination of U.S. citizens, i.e., perpetrating acts of terror on American soil.  What inquiring minds want to know is if we can kill Islamic extremists with ties to terror on foreign soil without due process, why should Mexican drug lords and their families not be subject to similar sanction?  It’s not like the Mexican government is any more capable of quashing the cartels or bringing them to justice than Pakistan and Yemen are of controlling Al Queda.

Cómo se dice “Predator” en español?

Next up, courtesy of Townhall.com, Colorado state senator Shawn Mitchell offers this follow-up on yesterday’s Cover Story:…

Ponder Christian Soldiers Google’s Smirking War on You

 

Screen-Shot-2013-03-31-at-10.56.47-AM

Google scrambled some Easter eggs yesterday. Or, more precisely, it didn’t. It would be silly and counterproductive to exaggerate Google’s eye-poke at Christians, but it would be a mistake not to consider its meanings, too.

On Christianity’s holiest day, Easter Sunday, the Web’s hyper-dominant site’s commemorative screen was an earnestly winsome portrait of American labor organizer, Caesar Chavez.   Sure, no Christian was mocked, defamed, arrested, or persecuted. And heaven forbid any believer needs internet graphics to help bolster their faith.

But hundreds of millions of Christians received the clearly intended message that Google doesn’t deign to wish them well on their sacred day. It would rather honor a liberal labor icon.

index

What does the evocative snub convey, ultimately? Well, several things about American culture, about Google and the information age, and the uncertain perch of traditional values and groups in modern society.

First, the screen that perhaps more Americans saw than any other yesterday reminds us that not just the state is aggressively secular. The most powerful media and information companies that pervade and shape our culture are as well. One of the biggest information companies in the world happily delivered a smug tweak rather than a friendly wave.

One interesting note here is that as people spend more time and more life in the online world, the traditional public square is being supplanted by the cyber square. The Supreme Court has chased religion from the public square, and now global corporations may sanitize it from the cyber square.

Constitutionally, private publishers like websites don’t face First Amendment “public forum” scrutiny that governments do. They can celebrate any, all, or no significant religious occasions. Newspapers historically have noted and cheered a variety of days important to their readers. In that regard, Google has a vast array of special screens for special days. The fact that Easter—or reportedly other diverse religious holidays—aren’t among the offerings seems to reflect a decision by Google more than a lack of interest by Google’s users.

With the public square now largely stripped of religious references, the same trend in the private cyber square has cultural consequences. While it doesn’t deprive believers of their right to assemble, the “authorities” of yet another forum of human interaction withdrawing ceremonial acknowledgement is another increment in the long march to marginalize faith in America. (More specifically, Judeo-Christian faith.) As the scene increasingly appears to uncommitted observers, no one even talks about faith, do they?

Foden20130401-Gaggle20130402123520

Google’s decision also reminds us of the company’s total–if perhaps temporary—dominance. They knew the screen would irritate lots of people. There would be grumblings and buzz. Google didn’t care because the web’s dominant presence felt no risk

It’s simply not viable for displeased consumers to shun Google. (Is it?!?  Or is it just inconvenient?) Social networks like Facebook buzzed with disgruntled urgings to switch to this search vehicle or that. But, apart from the certainty that most switchers would backstop unsatisfactory search results with a quick Google check, Google is a lot more then web searches. It’s far easier to do the odd search on Bing than to go full G-vegan by deactivating Gmail accounts, Google+, etc.

We see Google can tweak the largest religious demographic in the US unafraid, because it knows there’s nowhere else for web users to go.  That’s interesting and important. Though, it’s also important to remember dominance is never permanent. That’s a lesson AT&T, General Motors, IBM, and Microsoft have learned. But top dog status has its impact in its day.

Google’s action also presents the challenging social question how beliefs, creeds, and the groups that embrace them can remain vibrant in a culture that suppresses all public recognition. In earlier days, town squares and communities reinforced the messages of favored local faiths. Since the 60’s when that was deemed unconstitutional, religion and faith communities have reached for other media and means to connect and invite people to join in common spiritual cause.

While the interpersonal world remains free, the communal world is becoming decidedly less so.  If the most frequent private gathering places, like Google, Yahoo, et. al., disparage religiosity, then the turf where believers feel welcome and free to express themselves shrinks inexorably toward their private places of exchange: the chapel, the synagogue, or electronic networks of co-religionists. It’s akin to the Obama administration’s position on mandating contraception: “Say whatever you want in church on Sunday, but out here with the rest of us, you will conform.”

It’s not suppression per se, just the atmospheric expectation that believers will take it somewhere private, sort of like designated smoking areas. We’ve known since at least 2008 that’s the attitude of our government. It’s becoming clearer that’s also the world view of our corporate information portals. What’s left of the public forum is becoming an important question.

And if you think it’s bad now, wait until we’re forced to actively embrace sexual deviance…in any form.

Meanwhile, how did the city with the toughest gun restrictions in the country celebrate Easter?

2 Dead, 21 Wounded In Chicago Easter Weekend Gun Violence

 

dont-shoot-i-want-to-grow-up-chicago

Unfortunately, she’s preaching to the choir; and the folks doing the damage don’t even attend church.

Moving on, here’s a must-read commentary from Megan McArdle writing at The Daily Beast; yes, that’s right…The Daily Beast:

Health and Human Services Secretary Doesn’t Understand What Insurance Is

Kathleen Sebelius thinks insurance isn’t really insurance unless it covers routine expenses. This is exactly backwards.

 

SEBELIUS-OBAMA-PELOSI-PETE SOUZA-CROP

Admit it; you two clowns know even less about this insurance sh*t that I do!

How can insurance make everyone better off? After all, the insurance company has to make money.  That has to mean that the expected value of the claims they pay out is lower than the expected value of the premiums their customers pay in.  In some sense, then, the expected value of your insurance premium is negative.

But insurance does make everyone better off, because it covers very large costs that most people would have trouble paying.  Even most really good savers would have a hard time replacing the value of their house, or paying off a $250,000 judgement for an auto accident.  The expected value of those incidents is very, very negative–more than just the value of the cash, you have to factor in the horror of being homeless or bankrupt.  When you factor in the homelessness, the bankruptcy, and so forth, the slightly negative expected financial value is more than outweighed by the positive value of being protected against personal catastrophe.  Not to mention the peace of mind one gets from not having to worry about homelessness, etc.

This is the magic of risk pooling.  But notice that it’s the catastrophe which makes insurance a good deal.  You wouldn’t get much value from buying “grocery insurance”.  At best, you’d be paying an extra administrative fee to route your routine expenses through an insurer, rather than paying them directly.  At worst, you’ll end up with bills skyrocketing as all sorts of perverse incentives appear.  After all, if the insurer is paying all your grocery claims, why not load up on filet mignon instead of ground turkey?

But insurers try very hard never to sell insurance for less than the cost of your expected claims.  If you expect to buy $10,000 worth of groceries next year, it will not charge you less than that for a “grocery policy”.  And if we all drive up the costs of grocery insurance by consuming more, the insurer can do one of two things: raise everyone’s “insurance premiums” to cover a filet mignon budget, or create a list of “approved groceries” that it will cover, and start hassling anyone who tries to file an excessively expensive claim.

Sound familiar?

This is why you should always have liability insurance, but should think twice about collision damage coverage.  It’s why high deductibles are a good idea–for small expenses, it’s better to self insure.  And it’s why “catastrophic” health plans, which only cover the sort of extremely expensive events that most people would have difficulty financing, are a much better deal than the soup-to-nuts plans that most people get through their employers.  Those plans are expensive, both because they’re paying for a higher percentage of your expenses, and because they drive up utilization–which means that they drive up next year’s premiums even more.  Imagine what your car insurance would cost if it covered gasoline, routine maintenance, and those little air freshener trees you hang from the rearview mirror.  Then stop asking why health insurance costs so much.

But Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS, thinks that catastrophic insurance isn’t really insurance at all.

120817_kathleen_sebelius_mahaskey_605

How else will 33-year-old law school students afford to sleep around?!?

At a White House briefing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can’t be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus,” she said. “They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance.”

She said this in response to a report from the American Society of Actuaries arguing that premiums are going to rise by 32% when Obamacare kicks in, as coverage gets more generous and more sick people join the insurance market.  Sebelius’ response is apparently that catastrophic insurance isn’t really insurance at all–which is exactly backwards. Catastrophic coverage is “true insurance”.  Coverage of routine, predictable services is not insurance at all; it’s a spectacularly inefficient prepayment plan.

Now, it occurred to me that Sebelius might be thinking about the scam insurance that is all too often sold to naive, mostly lower-middle-class folks who labor in the service industry.  That stuff isn’t insurance at all; it’s a fraud, and the people who sell it will richly deserve any justice that is meted out to them in either this life or the next.  But that stuff doesn’t protect your mortgage, either; they’re almost-worthless discount plans or very-limited-coverage insurance sold by fly-by-night operations who tend to evaporate as soon as claims have to be paid.  So I don’t think that’s what she’s talking about; I think she’s talking about catastrophic plans.

Nor do I think that Sebelius is responding awkwardly to a report that the administration would like to wish away.  I think she’s sincerely confused about the difference between insurance, and prepayment.  Which explains a lot about the new health law. (As well as every other policy this Adminstration’s promoted.)

Last week, I was at a health care conference where the subject of catastrophic plans came up.  Obamacare has, unfortunately, sharply curtailed the ability to offer these plans; very high deductible plans are now effectively illegal.  Which is a great shame, because these plans, combined with a dedicated health savings accounts, were showing real promise at controlling costs.

A liberal policy professor at the event explained this as a result of the toxic political environment surrounding policy these days; since Republicans wouldn’t cooperate on Obamacare, Democrats stuck the knife in one of their favorite programs.

But Sebelius’ answer suggests another explanation: the Democratic opposition to castrophic plans was not strategic, or vengeful, but entirely heartfelt.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services genuinely believes that health insurance should do more than just, well, protect your ability to keep paying the mortgage.  Unfortunately, “more” is very expensive and inefficient.

Very, VERY inefficient!  And though it scarcely seems possible, there is one thing Sebelius…and her boss…understand even less than insurance:

billboard-aca-3

Oh…you’re the one that got away!

The value of a human life.

Speaking of ignorance and confusion, they’re the subject of Conn Carroll’s latest Morning Examiner:

Stockton bankruptcy just the beginning of California’s woes

 

2012-06-29T180850Z_1_CBRE85S1EEW00_RTROPTP_3_USREPORT-US-STOCKTON-BANKRUPTCY-DEBT_JPG_475x310_q85

In yesterday’s New York Times, Paul Krugman declared that, thanks to what he views as enlightened liberal Democratic rule, California was on a comeback. “Liberal big spending and overpaid public employees” are not “bringing on collapse” Krugman wrote, “California isn’t a state in which liberals have run wild.”

Somebody forgot to give U.S. Bankrupcy Court Judge Christopher Klein Krugman’s column. Mere hours after Krugman’s article was published online, Klein ruled against Stockton, California, bondholders who were suing to stop the city’s bankruptcy plan in federal court. In his findings of fact, Klein detailed how liberal big spending policies, including major infrastructure investments, led directly to the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation’s history. Klein’s decision also singled out lavish employee benefits that were given on top of a “multi-decade, largely invisible pattern of above-market compensation for public employees.”

Yes. Liberals did run wild. And now Californians are paying the consequences. (Pay close attention America; we’re next in line.) In finding that Stockton had done all it could to avoid bankruptcy, Klein also noted that the city had already cut its police force by 25 percent, and that the city suffered through a record high number of murders last year.

18892958_BG2

But despite yesterday’s ruling, the fight over debt in Stockton, and the rest of California is far from over. Not only did Judge Klein open the door for the city’s bondholders to take significant payment and principal cuts, but he also left open the possibility that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers) would see their payments cut, too. Under state law cities may not cut their payments to Calpers. But a federal court could rule that U.S. bankruptcy law trumps state law. That would open the door for hundreds of California cities to cut their payments to Calpers, which would only send the state government deeper into debt since Sacramento would have to make up the missing payments.

California still has the nation’s highest unemployment rate, the nation’s highest poverty rate, and a third of the entire nation’s welfare recipients. Contra Krugman, it may be a little too early to declare a California comeback.

PBS offers some further details on the decisions that brought about Stockton’s demise:

photo_blog_main_horizontal

“…What it had bought in the boom years were a new ballpark, a city activities center, a new hotel, an ice rink, some parking garages and a lovely marina on that same channel the port uses. It had floated bonds to pay for all those goodies, many of which sit largely empty today. The bondholders — and it’s unclear exactly who they are since bonds often get traded — may not get paid back; some of the bonds are already in default. But it wasn’t just spending on buildings that pushed Stockton to the brink. Like most California cities, the city offers retirement at age 50 to police and firemen, at nearly (or in some cases more than) their last year’s pay. Plus, they decided that since so many city employees retire before they’re eligible for Medicare, the city would provide health insurance as an additional retirement benefit.

Needless to say, none of the nincompoops who made these decisions have any personal liability for their missteps.

And since we’re on the subject of nincompoops…

Proposed Law to Remove Sheriffs Who Won’t Enforce Gun Control

 

bevo

However, Ms. Davis HAS refused to enforce any of Mayor Bloomberg’s diet dictates.

Hundreds of sheriffs across the country have banded together and vowed not to enforce any new state or federal gun control legislation because they feel such laws would be in violation of the US Constitution — the document they took an oath to uphold.

Now, at least one lawmaker in Texas, state Rep. Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas), is proposing legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law. Keep in mind, sheriffs are elected by the people, not appointed by bureaucrats. In other words, the proposed bill would remove elected officials from office unless they enforce laws they feel violate the Constitution.

If found “guilty,” a court shall remove the person from office and disqualify them from public office for a period of 10 years.

Were Ms. Davis’ proposed penalty applied to Liberal politicians every time they failed to enforce laws with which they disagreed, let alone conform to the Constitution, they’d all be banned from public office.

On the Lighter Side…

bg040113dAPR20130401084514payn_c10822120130329120100130329PersonalityRGB20130330121845sk040113dAPR20130331084514cb032813dAPR2013032912452081_12947820130329092719Spring-Broke

Then there’s this bit of humor forwarded by TLJ:

dogwithattitudelovelyjenny

Finally, we’ll call it a day with another sordid story ripped from the pages of the Crime Blotter:

Fight between West Virginia Students Ends in Deadly Shooting Between Mothers

 

Welcome to West Virginia:

WV-Wild-and-Wonderful

Though we certainly understand the “wild” aspects of The Mountaineer State…

The

…we’re still a little fuzzy on the “wonderful”.  Now, let’s you just drop them pants!

Magoo



Archives