October 2002 - weblog posts

10/8/2002; 9:56:44 PM: Charles Krauthammer makes a wee mistake
He starts out well in his latest column:
There are two logically coherent positions one can take on war with Iraq. Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is simply intolerable--and must be pre-empted.

Doves oppose war on the grounds that the risks exceed the gains. War with Iraq could be very costly, possibly degenerating into urban warfare. It would likely increase the chances of weapons of mass destruction being loosed by a Saddam facing extinction and with nothing to lose. Moreover, Saddam has as yet never used these weapons against America and its allies because he is deterred by our overwhelming power. Why disturb the status quo? Deterrence served us well against such monsters as Stalin and Mao. It will serve us just as well in containing a much weaker Saddam.

I happen to be in the latter camp, and it is nice to see him treat us with respect.

However, he soon makes an interesting mistake:
But, ah, there is a third way. It is the position of Democratic Party elders Al Gore, Ted Kennedy (both of whom delivered impassioned speeches attacking the president's policy) and, as far as can be determined, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. This Third Way accepts all the premises of the antiwar camp. It gives us all the reasons why war could be catastrophic: chemical or bioweapon attacks, door-to-door fighting in Baghdad, alienating allies, destroying the worldwide coalition of the war on terror, encouraging the recruitment of new terrorists, etc.

Moreover, they argue, deterrence works. ``I have seen no persuasive evidence,'' said Kennedy, ``that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority.'' So far, so good. But then these senior Democratic critics, having eviscerated the president's premises, proceed to enthusiastically endorse his conclusion--that Saddam's weapons facilities must be subjected to the most intrusive and far-reaching inspection, and that if he cheats and refuses to cooperate, we must go to war against him.

This is utterly incoherent. In principle, a search for genocidal weapons that can be hidden in a basement or even a closet cannot possibly succeed without the full cooperation of the host government. There is not a serious person on the planet who believes that Saddam will give it.

More important, why are these critics insisting on inspection and disarmament anyway? They have just elucidated all the various costs of attempting to disarm Iraq forcibly, and told us that deterrence has worked just fine keeping Saddam from doing us any harm. If deterrence works, by what logic does Kennedy insist that Saddam ``must be disarmed''?

Chuck, I almost hate to tell you this, but the "third way" is the official position of the Bush administration, not of the Democrats you list.

10/4/2002; 7:37:09 AM: Stupid Insurance Ideas
Whenever I read an aricle like this one that apparently came from the Washington Post, I laugh.
HRAs [health reimbursement arrangements], like flexible spending accounts and medical savings accounts, are predicated on the idea that there is waste and inefficiency in the system, and that consumer shopping and price resistance will hold down costs. And indeed that may happen -- but to what extent?

I feel like I can talk to this as I recently dropped my dental insurance and am now paying my dental expenses out of my pocket.  Have I started shopping around?  Have I been less likely to have expensive dental treatments?  Heck no.

First off, I would "shop" for a dentist?  There aren't any ads in the newspaper.  Call up and ask how much they charge for a filling?  Go to different dentists' office and ask for price schedules?  Would I be able to understand the pricing information any dentist gave me?  What if a dentist has low prices for doing filling but high X-ray fees - how do I assess that?

Let's say that I find out the Dr. Smith has really low prices for dental services.  Does that mean that he is also really bad?  If I switch to Dr. Smith, that means all of the history I have built up at my current dentist will be lost.  Dr. Smith will probably want right away a full set of X-rays, which will eat up any cost savings I may have over the long term.

These types of insurance assume that I am going to see my dentist for unnecessary services and that I will cut back my dental visits once I start paying for it out of my own pocket.  However, I have never considered going to my dentist a fun thing, and the cost of most dental appointment is minor compared to my loss of time.  Now that I am paying for things out of my pocket, I still go every 6 months for cleanings, because that is what makes sense.  If my dentist says that I have a cavity, I am not going to say, "I don't feel it yet, so how about we wait a few more months and see if it goes away."

Insurance companies have people with the time and expertise to analyze dentist price schedules.  They have bargaining leverage to negotiate lower prices.  They can have the expertise to decide when a second opinion should be done.  So why did I drop my dental insurance?  They raised their rates to the point that I didn't think it made economic sense anymore, and I haven't had the time to shop around for a different policy.

10/3/2002; 7:28:46 AM: An enjoyable Blackie Sherrod column
Blackie Sherrod is a DMN local columnist and his column is usually a bunch of right wing blather.  Today's column was mainly interesting:
The president was doing a speech in Memphis or maybe Nashville or someplace to the starboard of here. He was on a formal podium, with a big crowd seated before him, stridently making a point about the big guy in Iraq and his foul deeds.

"There's an old saying in Texas, and I'm sure also in Tennessee," he said with his familiar back porch grin. "Fool me once" – and he paused just a bit for effect – "shame on...." He stopped abruptly.

He stared at his audience, assured they knew his thought progression.

"Fool me...," and he paused again. And paused some more. You could sense, you could feel the mental wheels churning. There was the faint scent of hot oil.

It wouldn't help to glance down at written notes, for goodness' sake, they weren't that complete. This was a throwaway speech at a Tennessee political stopover, and he could get by with mere notes rather than a spelled-out manuscript. Give 'em a little red, white and blue rah-rah and pose with the Republican candidate. Jot key words on a sheet of paper and depend on the presidential memory to come up with the rest. Piece of cake.

But that presidential memory – it appeared – was taking a coffee break or maybe had gone to the restroom. Anyone who ever has been struck dumb before a microphone could feel for him. There is no feeling quite like it, except possibly realizing the parachute wasn't going to open.

The president leaned forward on the podium, looked earnestly at his audience, with brows lowered and eyes sweeping as if someone might hold up a prompter sign, as aides do when he is filming an Oval Office speech. Obviously or at least apparently, he was waiting for that blasted memory to kick in. Dang it, I just went over this speech an hour ago. Come on, it's an old saying. Everybody knows it. "Fool me once, shame on you," or is it "me"? "Fool me once...." Come on, what's the rest of it? Come ON!

Of course, those of us watching, confident and comfortable on our sofas, knew the saying. We've heard it all our lives. We wanted to shout at him, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me TWICE, shame on ME! Darn it. Shame on ME! Come on, George! Shame on ME!"

Instead, the president punted.

"...you don't get fooled again," he said quickly and lamely, obviously glad to desert the tangle, like an embarrassed golfer raking a two-inch putt into the hole after missing from two feet away, anxious to leave the green for the next tee, hoping nobody noticed.

It was an awkward moment, but the president has had his share of awkward wordage, and he has learned to plod ahead gamely.

The "fool me" thing, we've all heard a zillion times. It is not especially a Texas or Tennessee saying. It has been attributed to the Scots, to the Chinese and even to American Indians.

Suddenly, the thought popped up. Maybe Mr. Bush didn't forget the saying. Perhaps he started thinking ahead to the last words: "Fool me twice, shame on me."

:
:

The president may have been stricken by a sudden thought: If he continued with the old adage, in effect he would be saying "shame on me." For bosses, that's a traditional no-no.

Of course, he wonders out into space at on point:
Indeed, Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda or whoever calls signals has fooled Uncle Sam more than once – more than twice, for that matter.

Every time the terrorist alert goes to orange or red, and fighter planes scramble, and extra cops surround buildings, and offices are emptied, and workdays are canceled, and flights are grounded, and Secret Service agents are sent here and there, we're out a billion dollars before the anticipated crisis passes with nothing happening.

That's fooling us, right? Maybe it was a hint planted here or there, a deliberate leak or a message purposely transmitted to be intercepted. Obviously, something that couldn't be ignored. Fooling us.

I have never seen anyone even hint that Hussein has ever been responsible for any kind of alert. The biggest false alarm so far was when the Florida interstate was shut down, and that was due to paranoia and officials overreacting. I do remember one time when Dubya's poll numbers had dropped, all his minion hit the Sunday morning talk shows to talk about an imminent terrorist threat, even though the color alert system didn't change.

10/1/2002; 10:10:13 PM: I love the end of Krugman's latest column
Of course, the worst thing of all would be if our leadership decides that economics is not its thing, if it simply tries to distract the public from rising unemployment and plunging stocks by going off and invading someone. But we don't have to worry about that, do we?

© Copyright 2003 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 7/30/2003; 6:38:19 AM.