Pangloss

Just as a side note to this, it's worth noting that, as was predicted by some observers, the cost to consumers benefitting from the Medicare prescription drug benefit has skyrocketed. We signed up something like 40 million seniors, who now buy from the plan instead of the local drugstore. Result? Drug companies simply shift the profit burden from the drugstores to the plan. What a surprise. 77% of the plans will have higher premiums in 2007. Since the entire purpose of the plan was to lower the cost, the plan is now essentially worthless. All we've done is give the drug companies a way to schedule the raising of prices and know exactly how much they're going to make. This is what happens when you simply regulate symptoms without treating the actual disease. Market forces adapt really well. Governments don't.

So you say. But isn't it funny how the only sources on the so-called "Volusia error" are left-wing blog sites? I've read about this before, and if memory serves the best non-partisan information on it is that there was a Diebold-induced voting anomaly that entailed a sudden decrease in Al Gore's vote count of about 16,000, which is a VERY different thing from saying that they actually got a -16,000 total for that county. It's also usually brought up that the district that reported the problem only has ~500 voters, but that's irrelevent because the problem had to take place at the COUNTY level -- where the votes are actually counted, and there are almost half a million people living in that part of the state. And as I understand it, the vote count was ultimately straightened out *that night*. And regardless of whether it was straightened out that night, it was certainly straightened out by the various non-partisan and bi-partisan auditing committees, the last one of which was actually hired by the MIAMI HERALD, all of which found, unanimously, that Al Gore could not possibly have won Florida under any circumstances. Hey, you asked me to be skeptical.........

There's an amazing contradiction in the OP: Followed by: That's what irks me the most about conspiracy theories -- when they accept unsupportable allegations as facts and then have the unmittigated gall to demand that other people are not being skeptical enough! And I use the word "irks" because professionalism prevents me from typing in the words I'd really like to use. When it comes to politics, one thing I've learned is that what I believe is utterly irrelevent. What matters is what I can hear, see, and/or link. You wanna believe whatever you want? More power to ya. Just don't expect me to go along on your little ride just because you WANT me to.

The fastest way you'll see an anti-flag burning amendment pass is if you put a Democratic president in charge of a Democratically-controlled Congress. The same applies to video game censorship. These are two issues that have been identified by moderate Democrats as ways by which they can appeal to the "flyover" states. Gay marriage used to be one of these issues, even as recently as a year or two ago. But there's so much play on that issue that I think a change may be in the wind.

Well I would consider lobby reform (trying to eliminate the influence of special interest groups) to be a "weird red herring". All through the mid-term election cycle Democrats tried to portray themselves as the honorable alternative to corrupt Republicans. Which of course is ridiculous -- plenty of Republicans were corrupt, but not because they were Republicans, and Democrats have *exactly* the same relationship with SIGs as Republicans. Just a couple of weeks ago ABC News ran a piece showing Harry Reid blasting Republicans for going to partys funded and hosts by lobbyists, IMMEDIATELY after which he went straight to a party funded and hosted by a lobbyist. It boggles the mind. But I don't know, maybe I'm just being pessimistic. I suppose the only way the problem is going to be solved is if legislators work on it, so maybe they'll come up with something useful here.

By the way, I'm surprised there hasn't been more realization of this in the media yet, but Iraq is basically done. Neither party has any interest in fielding a candidate for the presidency while we're still in Iraq, and the 2008 presidential race begins in January. The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she's certainly warming up. And there's not a Iraqi alive who doesn't know it. Sunni Iraqis have some tough times ahead of them.

Raising the minimum wage, changes (including a lower interest rate) in the Federal Student Loan Program, immigration reform, lobby reform, authorizing federal health insurance to negotiate with drug companies for lower prescription drug rates, increased spending for airports and port security, and of course getting us out of Iraq. Of those, the minimum wage, FSLP changes, and immigration reform are all likely to pass (almost half the state already have a higher minimum wage law anyway). Lobby reform is a hypocritical crock, pure face (the Dems are every bit as bad as the Repoobs in this area). Aside from Iraq, the other measures are a toss-up at this point. Iraq will continue to flounder unless she finds some sort of compromise with the administration, because ultimately the only authority the House has (by itself) is to cut off the flow of money, which it cannot do because that would hurt the troops in the field.

Battlefield Earth has to be one of the funniest SF books ever written. Say what you like about the man's politics, but he had one amazing talent for satire.

Snow Crash -- one of the best opening acts of a science fiction book ever. I'm not as enamored with his most recent books, but I did enjoy The Diamond Age and Zodiac quite a lot.

One of the fallouts of the mid-term election is that gun control is actually now LESS likely to pass in the coming year. Not that it was especially likely in the Republican-controlled legislature, but Democrats have clearly pushed it to the back burner in order to keep the Big Tent open for moderates who are angry about Iraq. This will be one of the areas where you'll want to watch and see if Democrats can stay together under the Big Tent, or if they instead start to fragment and disperse. This is one of those subjects that often play very well with a local constituency but very poorly on a national level. So you won't see it raised by any of the Democrats with 2008 presidential aspirations, because they're playing the middle ground. But you may see it brought up by House members trying to ensure re-election in 2008. And that's when things will get interesting.

I don't see the connection between Thalidomide misuse and drug company corruption. Could you clarify what you mean there? I'm surprised to hear of "another generation of Thalidomide babies". Hasn't that situation been made fairly clear to the public, via warning labels and general information? What part of "DO NOT TAKE IF PREGNANT" don't they understand? There are always going to be drugs that are useful for treating one disease but incredibly dangerous when used incorrectly. That's why we have doctors. But maybe I'm just missing your point there -- feel free to clarify.

I'm actually taking a break from non-fiction at the moment after a couple of recent misfires. I'm reading The Third Policeman by Flann O'Brien, and I just finished re-reading the famous Lattimore translation of The Iliad. "Thus he went beside the ships of the bronze armored Achaens!" Eric Burns' "Infamous Scribblers" is next up on my list.

From Saturday Night Live: "Nancy Pelosi, the likely Speaker of the House, had lunch at the White House Thursday with President Bush. Though, just to rub things in, she left early to have an abortion."

LoL... I just thought of an amusing distributed computing app -- calculating the amount of time left before the Earth is destroyed by global warming! Only the fastest and hottest processors would be allowed to participate....

Absolutely. But we won't, because Jesse and Al aren't on the case. Ok I guess I beat that horse to death... Just to be an optimist, perhaps the new Congress will be able to take a closer look at it.

Incidentally, the Vice President of the United States (Dick Cheney) gets a 51st vote in the Senate any time there's a tie. This will be significant over the next two years. Essentially, Democrats caucus 51 votes and Republicans caucus 50 votes (including Cheney). If only one "Democrat" decides to "break ranks" then the vote goes the other way. Much will ride on how effective Harry Reid (who I believe will be the new Majority Leader) is. Also, it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster, which means that Republicans will be able to stop anything that don't like (much as Democrats have been doing). Of course, doing so has other ramifications, particularly in terms of popular opinion.

Much of what happens is actually based on something call "the caucus", which is a loose entity that ostensibly indicates how a member will vote (but in a non-binding way). Because the two independents "caucus" with the Democratic party, the Democratic party is considered to have the majority, therefore they will have the leadership role (they actually vote on who gets to be the majority, if memory serves). They'll get to decide committee chairmanships, for example. However, in recent years Democrats have complained about not being given fair representation in these chairmanships because they are not THAT far in a minority, so it will be interesting to see how they play things now that they are in charge (and how the press spins it when that plays out). Where the caucus becomes irrelevent is in the day-to-day voting. Any member can vote any way they like on any issue, and it's not unusual at all for them to "break ranks" with their party on a key vote, especially if their constituency tends to see things differently from the party line. There's a reason why Lieberman is considered a moderate -- his electorate is moderate. So he's not likely to support far-left legislation, no matter what the Senate Majority Leader says. His first and foremost obligation is to his constituency. But yeah, simple answer, Democrats get the Majority Leader position and Republicans get Minority Leader.

One of the first promises that Democrats are making after winning control of the US legislature is lower interest rates on student loans. This is actually one of those rare areas where everyone in politics *should* agree that the current system (as more-or-less instigated by the Clinton administration) has been working very well, and is ripe for a rejuvenation following spiking interest rates and deliberate inattention from the Bush administration. While this is generally good news, there is some cause for concern that Democrats might upset the apple cart if they're not careful. If they bend over backwards they may upset the delicate balance between profit motive and educational incentive that has made the current system so successful. There are two specific areas of concern: 1) Increased grant spending. This obviously cuts a bit further into their lending amounts. (But it's a short-term problem given climbing interest rates and tuition costs.) 2) This is the real stickler: Direct Federal loans (bypassing intermediaries like Sallie Mae). Studies suggest a big savings to taxpayers here, but I think those studies assume way too much efficiency on the Federal government's part. We'll see what comes of this, but this is what Sallie Mae is probably most nervous about at the moment. It's probably still a fair way off, though. So Sallie Mae's stock dropped a bit on this news today, but I think that was premature. Democrats in Congress ARE generally aware of the value of the current system, and concerns about Sallie Mae's profitability generally take a back seat to student welfare. For now. That's also in part because the questionable aspects of the relationship between Republicans and Sallie Mae was *generally* below the public radar. And it's not like Democrats are any better when it comes to graft and corruption. If they can do something good for students and not look bad doing it, they will do that. So in all likelyhood Sallie Mae will still be making money hand over fist, with zero risk. And the new interest rates being discussed are still higher than the interest rates students were getting just four years ago. And regardless of the specific decision on rates, the lenders are guaranteed a "market rate" (i.e. a profit). As an investor, what's not to like about that? Free money all around. Currently students are seeing numbers in the high sixes and low sevens on these loans, but the new number being bandied about is 3.8%, which would be a substantial cost savings for students and a good spike for smaller colleges and universities, whose fortunes often tend to wax and wane on these interest rates. Couple articles: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061110/10collegeloans.htm http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-11-08T193231Z_01_N08301503_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-USA-ELECTIONS-STUDENTLOANS-DC.XML&from=business

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918

Of course. And since their proferred candidates won, how can there be any malicious tampering taking place in the system? Democrats are victorious, therefore (according to the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons) we can automatically assume that nobody is being disenfranchised.

Actually the errors in this election were pretty much what people predicted/expected. Problems with broken equipment and untrained employees topped the list. And yet -- no Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson storming the streets, marching on Washington. Huh.

Hey, here's my question... Why aren't we hearing a tumultuous outcry of voter fraud today? Did the American voting system suddenly become valid in the eyes of the electronics-are-evil crowd? Why aren't Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson marching in the streets, crying foul? Or are we seeing the truth today, that most of the objections were based on the party affiliations of the winners of previous elections?

When Bush has a <= 40% approval rating? Absolutely. Not going to happen, though. There will be no impeachment, for a number of reasons that have little if anything to do with popular appeal. Excitable types can keep going to their impeachment parties, and if they're really good little sheeple the Democratic National Convention might even send them a nice note signed by Howard Dean. But they're too smart to go that route. Not that that's saying a whole lot.

Well ok, pardon me, you are supporting systems that haven't received much attention yet but that would perhaps provide a "paper trail". But those systems still have to be monitored and measured by somebody. And that somebody is going to be either a Democrat or a Republican. The criticism aimed at Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris during the 2000 election was entirely baseless. In fact, notice how those criticisms are currently non-existent in Virginia, which is about to go through the exact same kind of nation-controlling recount, but whose governor is a Democrat, which apparently automatically exempts him from corruption (?!). We're going to need to mature beyond that sort of thing, regardless of what voting system we actually end up using.