Archive for June, 2009

Newspapers and local politics

Monday, June 15th, 2009

As a brief diversion from the world-shaking events going on right now in Iran, I have a small tale of local politics. I have lived in Mission Viejo most of the past 37 years. I moved here in 1972 and opened my medical practice when this was a small new development, one of the first master-planned developments in the west. The Mission Viejo Company developed a portion of the family ranch into this city. The ranch extends from El Toro on the north to Camp Pendelton on the south, to the Cleveland National Forest on the east and the Santa Fe Railroad tracks on the west. Since the tracks run along the beach south of San Clemente, the ranch extends almost to the ocean. Originally, the ranch was twice as large and extended to Oceanside but in 1942 the owners donated/ sold the land to the Marine Corps for Camp Pendelton.

Mission Viejo prided itself on the planning that went into its city and there is considerable pride on the part of residents. About nine years ago, I got interested in local politics. The city council had been taken over by a small clique in the city and had begun to make decisions that did not follow the master plan. The first I became aware of this was when the planning commission decided to rezone some land that was planned for office buildings to multifamily residential. They were going to approve a 700 unit apartment complex in an area zoned commercial. The significance of this includes the requirement for services, such as schools, plus the volume of traffic and parking and even crime. Prior to that time there were very few apartments in the city. The residents were unhappy with the proposed zone change and I attended a planning commission meeting where the matter was to be considered. In an effort to avoid citizen involvement, the commission placed the matter last on their agenda and it was after midnight before the matter came up. They squelched comments and voted to approve the project in spite of local opposition. The residents, led by a small group of activists, took up a petition and got nearly 8,000 residents to sign it. The city ignored the petition and the residents wishes and the project was built.

Several years later, there was another controversy over the cost of a new city hall. The city council placed an item on the ballot with a low ball estimate of the cost and voters approved the project. Activists, and by this time I was starting to pay more attention, opposed the measure suggesting that the city hall project would cost far more than the estimate in the ballot measure and, sure enough, it turned out be almost twice the cost. Finally, in 2000, I joined a group called the Committee for Integrity in Government and we managed to oust the majority of the old city council in 2002. Some of that history is here although you won’t see that history on the official city web site.

We are now in an era where the traditional newspapers have less and less excuse for their existence. One of the remaining best excuses is local coverage of local issues and local government. The Orange County Register has done an excellent job over the years of doing so but that seems to be waning and it is a damned shame. Read this. We had a local reporter who was actually ferreting out some of the ugly little local stories.

The OC Register announced new staff assignments last week. For more than a year, reporter Lindsey Baguio covered Mission Viejo for the Register and Saddleback Valley News. She has been reassigned to Laguna Niguel.

In April 2008, Baguio exposed the city staff’s wasteful spending on 500 custom-built easels. She followed the city’s 20th anniversary spend-a-thon, which ended with easels thrown in a heap on a hillside. A city contractor took up to 200 of the easels to a county dump while city employees claimed the trashed easels were being “stored for future use.” City administrator Keith Rattay lied to Baguio – she quoted him – about costs and volunteer participation, and activists combed city records to expose the true figures. For a brief time, residents saw the real city hall through SVN coverage.

Baguio at first reported both sides – activists’ statements alongside city hall’s spin. But before the dust settled on Easelgate, City Manager Dennis Wilberg invited Baguio to his office. Baguio’s investigative reporting ended, and SVN published almost no letters about city hall after July 2008. Requests for public records revealed an email trail in which Wilberg pressured Baguio for favorable reporting. Records show he directed her to solicit community comments from a list of people he identified as supportive of his staff and how city hall spent taxpayer funds.

We finally get a local reporter who cares about these local issues and reports the facts. So what happens? The overstaffed and lazy city government calls her in for a “talk” and the reporting stops. This is why newspapers are dying, although on a very small scale. Still, this is where that reporter was learning her career and this is what she learned. What a shame.

Iran in flames

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

UPDATE #2: Even Gary Sick calls it a coup.

UPDATE: An Iranian blogger agrees with me. Michael Ledeen credits Obama with the force of the protests.

Until quite recently, the Iranians did not believe they could do such a thing on their own. They believed they needed outside support, above all American support, in order to succeed. They thought that Bushitlercheney would provide that support, and they were bitterly disappointed. But nobody believes that Obama will help them, and they must know that they are on their own.

Any hope they might have had in the Obama White House was quickly dismissed in the administration’s two statements on the matter. The first came from the president himself, anticipating a Mousavi victory (it is too soon to speculate on the source of this happy thought), and of course, in his narcissistic way, taking personal credit for it.

Yes, Obama can do great things. Some interesting comments:

I’m following the “tweets” from Iran. Fascinating. As of a few hours ago the tenor seems to be changing as the regime seems to be taking an even harder stand. One tweeter writes that students are now being rounded up by the hundreds; another writes that the police are increasingly beating people up; and another writes that police are speaking in Arabic and suggests that these police have been imported from Lebanon.

Hezbollah ?

More now about foreign forces being used to suppress the rioting:

Reports are circulating that Venezuela has sent anti-riot troops to Tehran to help Ahmadinejad, joining Hezbollah members from Palestine and Lebanon who are employed by the Islamic government as anti-riot police — the reason such forces are being brought in is that some of the Iranian police are unwilling to hit people as ordered and some are even joining the protesters.

Sounds more and more like Tiananmen Square.

The Iranian election, “won” in record time by Ahmadinejad, has set off huge riots in Tehran. Michael Totten has the best coverage of what is going on in English. It is not yet clear how much danger the regime is in but there is little doubt that the election was a fraud. The regime has been unpopular for years and half the population of Iran is under age 25. They are sophisticated and the Farsi language is the most popular language of blogs. The regime has taken steps to shut down the internet and Twitter to try to control communication among the resistance.

I have read a couple of books about Iran and recommend them. One is Guests of the Ayatollah, by Mark Bowden (who also wrote Blackhawk Down), which is a history of the revolution and the American embassy hostage crisis. He managed to interview, not only most of the former hostages, but many of the Iranian hostage takers as well. An interesting moment in the book is his visit to the former embassy which is now a museum. As he left, the guards at the entrance asked him if he was American. When he answered that he was, they both said “Go George Bush !” and gave him the thumbs up.

The other book I have read, and one not well known, is James Calvell’s novel Whirlwind, which takes place over a few days when the Shah was overthrown. It provides a picture of the bazaar culture of the Iranian cities and the suddenness of the change that occurred. While his novels of Japan and Hong Kong are better known, this one appears to be as accurate as history.

Another book I plan to read is Amir Taheri’s, Persian Night, a history of Iran since the revolution.

Written in sorrow rather than anger, The Persian Night clearly and calmly describes Iran’s descent into unreality. It is a masterwork of information and argument. Formerly editor of Iran’s most influential paper, Amir Taheri is now perforce an exile but he remains in touch with all sorts of insiders. In addition to his native Farsi, he is fluent in Arabic and the main European languages. Frequent quotations from Persian poetry, old or contemporary, reveal his love of his native country and its culture, but he is equally likely to make good use of Plato and Cicero, Hobbes and Goethe, or even Frantz Fanon to illustrate a point. More than ironic, it seems outright improbable that one and the same Iran could be home to ignorant bigots like Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors–in particular the vicious and narrow-minded president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad–and a sophisticated humanist like Taheri.

That is from a review.

Another good source is “Know Thine Enemy, written under a pseudonym by a CIA agent who, upon retirement from the Agency, decided to smuggle himself into Iran for a more personal look at the culture he had come to love. He is better know these days by his real name, Reuel Marc Gehrect, and he writes for several publications, including The Weekly Standard. It will be interesting to see what he has to say about the current upheaval in Iran.

This story will be developing for a while. The New York Times has a typically fatuous story on the election.

Among downcast Iranian journalists and academics, the chatter focused on why the interlocking leadership of clerics, military officers and politicians, without whose acquiescence little of importance happens, decided to stick with Mr. Ahmadinejad. Did they panic at the unexpected passion for change that arose in the closing weeks of the Moussavi campaign? Did Mr. Moussavi go too far in his promises of women’s rights, civil freedom and a more conciliatory approach to the West? Or was the surge an illusion after all, the product of wishful thinking?

Many of the early stories focused on the suspicious speed with which the result was determined. Among other factors is the voting by illiterates. Unlike other countries with large illiterate voter populations, there are no symbols or photos of the candidates to guide them. Instead, the voter has his ballot marked by a “helper” from the Revolutionary Guards. Since 20% of the electorate is illiterate, that forms a nice base for the IRG candidate, Ahmadinejad.

Andrew Sullivan, for once on the right side, has updates.

AP Stenographers Recite Flawed Green Jobs Study – UPDATED

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

Did you know that environmentally friendly “green jobs” grew nationally from 1998 to 2007 by 9.1 percent, while the growth rate of all jobs was just 3.7 percent during the same period?

That’s what a study from the Pew Charitable Trusts found, as dutifully reported by the Associated Press. Trouble is, the numbers are wrong.

Follow the link over to BizzyBlog’s detailed explanation of what’s wrong with the study.

The explanation begins with an insight that apparently never went off in the heads of the AP reporters: “Sometimes the numbers in a wire service report are so ridiculous, you just know that they’re bogus.”

People who have some savvy with numbers can often tell that a number is wrong because it just doesn’t make sense. In this case, a total job growth rate of 3.7 percent for the entire decade is far too low to make any sense. That decade encompassed two economic booms and a mild recession. The U.S. population increased by about 11 percent during that time, according to census figures. And indeed, official employment growth during that period is far higher than what the Pew study said.

As Tom Blumer points out on BizzyBlog, Pew’s numbers come from a private company, not publicly available data. And there is no attempt by the AP to reconcile the vastly differing numbers, or indeed, any sign the AP reporters are even aware of a discrepancy.

The AP and other news organizations are frantically trying to get online readers to pay for their stories. They’re discussing all sorts of high-tech business models to this end. But how can they succeed when they let info-garbage like this get published?

UPDATE: One of the problems with the Associated Press is its new pretensions to being the great arbiter of truth or falsity, especially in political matters. That’s dangerous territory for any news organization when that news organization has problems with basic fact-checking.

Although I’m but a mere reporter, I think I speak for a lot of editors when I say AP needs to spend more time on making sure its reporters sniff out smelly data, and less time on pretentious agenda-setting.

————————————————-

As with everything I write here, this is my personal opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.

How we got here in health care.

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

For those who have not read Paul Starr’s book , The Social Transformation of American Medicine, or my own chapter on medical economics, here is a brief introduction to American medical economic history. Along the way, I will mention some European history.

The first government health plan was in Germany, established by Bismark, who introduced a disability and old age insurance program in 1883. Initially, retirement age was set at 70 and later lowered to 65. His reason was to preempt the Socialists in the German political world. The German health care system evolved over the next 100 years but it is not a government single payer system.

In Germany, statutory health insurance, which covers 90 percent of the population, is financed by a payroll tax. The individual’s premium is not a per-capita levy, as it is in the United States. It is purely income-based. Ostensibly, about 45 percent of the premium is contributed by employers, although economists are persuaded that ultimately all of it comes out of the employee’s take-home pay (See this and this).

An employee’s non-working spouse is automatically covered by the employee’s premium.

The Clinton Plan was allegedly based on the German model.

The health insurance premiums paid by Germans are collected in a national, government-run central fund that effectively performs the risk-pooling function for the entire system. This fund redistributes the collected premiums to some 200 independent, nongovernmental, competing, nonprofit “sickness funds” among which Germans can choose.

The sickness funds are based on employment or the town in which the subscriber lives. The Germans have different priorities than we do. For example, our fixation on hospital length of stay (LOS) is absent. I presented a paper on hemorrhoid surgery to the European laser medicine society in 1988. Most of the questions after my presentation concerned my policy of doing hemorrhoid surgery as an outpatient procedure. The Germans think that is cruel and recommend hospital stays of several days. They also have (most Germans have, anyway) a benefit for two weeks of spa treatment per year. I once had a patient in Orange County who was eligible for German health care, as well. He had his surgery here but he returned to Germany each year for his two weeks of government paid spa care.

I have already done a lengthy analysis of the French system which I think the best model for US reform.

Now, some US history. American medicine was purely private and fee-for-service until the Depression. There were public hospitals, like Charity Hospital in New Orleans, or Bellevue Hospital in New York, or Cook County Hospital in Chicago, or the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, or the Los Angeles County General Hospital in Los Angeles. In 1928, the new LA “Big County” hospital opened and during the Depression it offered the finest care in California. I have been told by older physicians that doctors denigrated “the County” to patients, not out of concern for their welfare but because of concern that private patients would choose to go there leaving private doctors in dire straits. Those great public hospitals could have formed a nucleus for care of the poor even today but they were destroyed or badly damaged by Medicaid after 1965 which refused to pay the county hospitals as it emphasized (often inferior) private care over the public hospitals. The budget shortfalls occurred just before the illegal aliens began to flood the public hospitals. The result has been a distinct decline in quality of care.

The Depression brought the first health plans for the middle class. In Dallas, in 1929, the Baylor University hospitals established a plan for school teachers. For six dollars per year in dues, the subscriber was entitled to 21 days of hospitalization. Similar plans began in California and New Jersey and finally, a plan called “Blue Cross” won a suit in New York that exempted it from insurance company reserve requirements. The hospitals were not selling insurance but promising services, hospital care, and did not need to maintain cash reserves.

Blue Shield plans began in California where the California Medical Association devised a plan in which low income subscribers would be guaranteed physicians services. The AMA, in those days still very powerful, opposed the plan but it persisted and a fee schedule was established in spite of Federal Trade Commission opposition. At one point, when I was first in practice, the FTC required the CMA to surrender all copies of the fee schedule, called Relative Value Schedule (RVS) but Medicare required that doctors use the RVS for billing ! We all had xerox copies of the RVS for a while. Such was the stupidity we encountered.

Until the Second World War, medicine was relatively inexpensive and of limited effectiveness. Surgery was effective in curing most surgical conditions after 1900. Critical care came as a result of the war and antibiotics arrived just in time for the war casualties. Blood banks began about 1937 at Cook County Hospital. Few medical conditions other than infection were treatable until the 1950s. Hypertension was the cause of death for President Roosevelt but there were no effective drugs until the 1950s. Winston Churchill’s life was saved in 1943 by sulfa drugs in an episode little known to historians. The “golden age” of medicine began about 1950.

Health insurance in America began with unions and the Stone Cutters Union had the first health plan that would pay for delivering a baby in 1887. In 1945, the United Rubber Workers Union established a health plan that paid $50 for delivery of a normal pregnancy. For years, the doctors in Butler, PA had collected a fee of $50 for this service. That was the established fee. When the insurance began to pay this $50 fee, the doctors increased their fees to $75. Here was the beginning of the destruction of the profession although it seemed to be progress at the time. The union health plan increased its payment to $75 and the doctors then raised their fees to $125. They were now back to the original arrangement with patients. The patient paid $50 cash and the insurance paid the rest. Here was the fatal bargain. A third party was paying the bill and both the doctor and the patient had little responsibility. The cost issue began here. In 1969, my second son was born in Pasadena at a cost (hospital bill) of about $260. It was not covered by insurance. A few years later, with insurance paying the bill, the price was more than ten times that amount.

The French had similar cost issues in the 1950s after the French system was established in the aftermath of the war. Our own system was also a consequence of the war as wage and price controls allowed a loophole for “benefits.” The employer offered health benefits as an inducement for scarce labor when 12 million men were in uniform. In France, President De Gaulle settled the issue by scolding the medical associations and asserting “I saved France on a colonel’s salary !” A national fee schedule was established but it is not mandatory. It does, however, provide the fee schedule that is paid by the health plans. Doctors and hospitals may charge more but the balance is up to the patient to pay. Canada made a terrible mistake by banning private practice. The result has been emigration plus a disincentive for young physicians to train in long programs since they will not be rewarded financially for the specialty and the hours and years invested. We are already seeing a similar effect in this country as medical students choose “lifestyle” specialties, which allow shift work, like Emergency Medicine, and which avoid long hours and weekend call.

The factors that have brought the crisis include technology, the incentive for both patient and doctor to overuse benefits, plus the aging population. The Obama program, if passed, does not seem to bar private practice. I am seeing doctors dropping out of Medicare and practicing on a cash basis. Whether that will become an issue if there is a large exodus from the government option is a question.

One major issue is the fact that medical bills do not reflect real costs. A hospital bill for $100,000 may in fact represent only $25,000 in insurance payments. The cash patient is at a huge disadvantage. This becomes a factor if you have a 20% co-pay, as many high deductible policies do. The “20%” you pay may be more than the amount paid by the insurance company for the “80%” share they have. The 20% co-pay is based on the inflated retail price of the care. It also makes medical IRAs far less useful since the cash market is using inflated retail prices that may by four times the negotiated price the insurance plan, or Medicare, may pay.

Doctors may be willing to practice on a cash basis with realistic bills approximating the actual Medicare payment. I have heard of orthopedic surgeons doing total hips for $1200.00, far less than the usual billed fee but approximately what Medicare actually pays. If such a surgeon bills that fee, Medicare (if he is still a member) will reset his fee “profile” at that rate, then pay him 25% of that lower fee. Thus, the surgeon must drop out of Medicare completely to switch to a market price practice. Will hospitals be willing to do this ? I doubt it. Will Obama’s new plan reset the prices so they represent actual costs ? I doubt it.

The Democrats’ health bills

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

UPDATE #2: The substance of the bill is now coming out and seems similar to the leaks from last weekend. I’m still not sure this is going to pass this year as it seems very sketchy in details. Public opinion may not be more receptive in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. Obama has a political event scheduled today in Wisconsin to support his health care bill but an inadvertent truth slipped into the Washington Post article about the trip.

States such as Wisconsin have lower medical costs because they are predominantly white and middle class, he said. The notable exception is Milwaukee, with its “poverty corridor,” he said. “Nobody wants to talk about the fact that if you want to deal with health care you have to deal with poverty.”

Nobody wants to talk about the real drivers of high healthcare costs. Of course, they also do not mention how many of the Green Bay elderly move to warmer states as they age.

UPDATE: Obama seems to be making a serious effort at a single payer health care bill this year. The details were secret but now seem to be leaking out and the bills, themselves, may be reported out soon. Whether this will actually pass is still in doubt but there are several sites doing a good job of analyzing the two versions of the legislation, for the House and the Senate.

Here is one analysis. The mandatory rule is one that Obama opposed in the primary debates but seems to have adopted. The free rider is a serious problem that needs to be addressed but, as always, the devil is on the details.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).”

This should be unconstitutional as the taxing power resides with Congress. Of course, COngress can delegate but this is extreme, even for Democrats. My concern is with the type of insurance to be mandated. If this is a basic catastrophic plan, I’m for it, but I doubt they can leave well enough alone.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees.

Once again, the idea has merit but it will no doubt increase unemployment just as the French have created high unemployment by onerous rules for discharging employees. I thought the idea was to get employer-related insurance ended to free up the job market and reduce the anxiety that losing a job meant losing health insurance. McCain tried to suggest this in the campaign but could never explain it.

In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?

Here is the camel’s nose under the tent. Other sections of the bill will ban insurance rating for risky behavior.

A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.

This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.

Here comes the politics. I spent years on the California Medical Association’s Commission on Legislation. We lost most of those battles because every provider group, from inhalation therapy to alternative medicine freaks, was in there promising contributions if the legislator would only vote for this one little item that was crucial to their group. I might add that the Republicans were the worst in voting for the weirdo alternative health bills.

Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.

The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.

More politics. This is what kills health care cost control. Eventually, you end up with conventional care being rationed and the alternative stuff approved because it is “cheaper” and people want it.

When privileged minorities govern

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

We are entering a strange time in this country. We have elected a black President who appointed a black Attorney General and who has now nominated a Supreme Court candidate who is of Puerto Rican heritage. One would think that this proves racism is gone and we can all advance to the future as allies. What is happening ? This essay says what I think, and I wonder how many others are starting to think about this.

Michelle Obama describes the fear that Sotomayor felt at Princeton — and its lasting effects to this day — and then compares it, of course, to Michelle’s own ambiguous feelings toward the same Princeton campus (cf. Michelle’s thesis for the details), that one is willing to put up with for the education and prestige it gave, but does not really like for the presence of apparently so many stuck-up, rich, preppy kids and their ubiquitous exclusive campus culture.

Sotomayor was a radical activist at Princeton, advocating Puerto Rican independence, among other causes. Puerto Rican independence gained 2% of the vote in elections in Puerto Rico. I think that makes it a fringe position.

The Princeton thesis was written at a time of heated political debate over Puerto Rico’s future. Beginning in 1974 and continuing for nearly a decade, the paramilitary group Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional, or FALN, carried out bombings in the U.S. to push for independence for the island.

Ms. Sotomayor described the inconclusive debate over Puerto Rico, even after a 1967 plebiscite in which 60% of voters agreed with Mr. Muñoz Marin in favoring commonwealth status.

She had never lived in Puerto Rico, of course, but that is typical of left wing radicals.

Many Americans were terrified about our first year in college. Some left farms for sophisticated urban environments and were lost; others were the first in their families to go to colleges, and so on. The Ivy League is by definition snobbish to all outside its traditional insular orbit, whether white, black, brown, country folk, foreigners, etc. But by predicating such common discomfort on their own race and gender, Ms. Obama and Judge Sotomayor deprecate a universal human experience, and instead claim it as something unique to identity politics.

Some of us left home at age 18, traveled 2500 miles and knew no one when we started college in a strange city with very little money, no car and very limited experience of the world. The Ivy League may be snobbish but it can’t have been much more snobbish than 1956 USC.

Once more we see the schizophrenia of affirmative action, diversity, and identify politics — the university is both obliged to select students on the basis, at least in part, of race, class, and gender, but then almost immediately faulted for a climate that, in the eye of the recipient, stigmatizes those to whom it gives unusual consideration (what is the answer? — no race/class/gender consideration at all?; constant race/class/gender consideration that begins at admission and continues through graduation?; damned if you do, damned if you don’t?).

Affirmative action has had very mixed results for many beneficiaries. The anger of the well fed and prosperous members of Reverend Wright’s church suggests that the recipients of such beneficence are not always grateful for the support. It seems to feed resentment. Now, those people seem to be in charge of the government.

And the remedy for feeling separate at elite colleges is apparently to reemphasize separatism based on identification with the tribe (e.g., Justice Sotomayor’s senior thesis, like that once written by Ms. Obama, is predicated on ethnic and racial grievance).

The irony of the demands for racially segregated dormitories never seems to occur to the new generation whose parents and grandparents fought segregation.

All this should disturb Democrats because it fuels a general and growing perception (cf. Sotomayor’s white-male references, Eric Holder’s “cowards” remark, the serial Obama apologies abroad, the confusion about America being an important Muslim nation, etc.) among the public that something very strange is going on — a sort of generic anger being expressed at the highest levels of government that seems fueled by long past resentments against a perceived establishment that at times apparently is to roughly characterized as white, or white male, or rich, or Christian, or something other than poor, of color, or of female?
One would have thought with the presidency, or nomination to the Supreme Court, or with the office of Attorney General, or First Lady, such hurt feelings and old grievances might wane; but instead the resentment seems to be ubiquious, and growing, and the lectures will be with us for the next four years in almost every imaginable circumstance. If the administration is not careful, millions of Americans are going to begin feeling that they are caricatured pretty much as those once were in rural Pennsylvania.

I even feel a bit of this in the gay marriage arguments. It is not enough to have all the old grievances corrected. They must move on to new grievances and keep pushing the majority until the good will is exhausted. It will be a long four years.

More about Sotomayor here.

In her thesis, Sotomayor punctuated her radical nationalism by referring to the United States Congress as the “North American Congress” or the “mainland Congress.” At least she didn’t call it the “running dog imperialist Congress.” As Princeton’s former president William Bowen says, she was always respectful.

Always respectful. Now that she is about become a member of the “North American Supreme Court.”

Hilarity

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

Unintentional comedy from a Washington Post article on the GM and Chrysler auto plant closings.

“The Obama administration has sought to ensure that government ownership does not make the companies vulnerable to political pressure. Members of the administration’s autos task force have said they will refrain from getting involved in day-to-day decisions of the car companies. The task force pushed for dealership cuts but did not specify how many or which dealerships would be eliminated, administration officials said.”

A journalist out in flyover country, not part of the WaPo Obama fan club, painted quite a different picture in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: The Obama Administration apparently misled Congress about the plant closings, making the announcements to minimize unfavorable media coverage.

The White House and Chrysler won major headlines across the country with first-day stories of saved jobs. With the exception of the Detroit Free Press, which had the plant closings in its Friday, May 1, editions, most media were unable to review the entire U.S. Bankruptcy Court filing until time for their Saturday editions, one of the worst days of the week for readership.

The bad news was largely limited to press outlets in cities where plants would close.

If it was, in fact, a media strategy, it worked. Despite complaints from a couple of congressmen — notably, LaTourette and Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan — the fact that congressmen believe the White House misled them has gained almost no traction in the press.

And over at Zero Hedge, there’s evidence of a relationship between Chrysler dealers who donated to Democrats being disproportionately favored in keeping their dealerships open.

This hasn’t been refuted: Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight.com tried to deflect the criticism with an analysis of political donations among all auto dealers.

There is just one problem with this theory. Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren’t being closed. It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats — not just those who are having their doors closed.

False and misleading reasoning. The control group is the donation pattern of Chrysler dealers whose dealerships weren’t closed, not the much larger list of all dealers.

This is a guy who won fame by taking the press to task for not being rigorous with numbers. But Silver, an Obama supporter, says his political views don’t bias his data analysis.

—————————————————————–

As with everything I write here, this is my opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, the North County Times.

Tanks !

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

Some of us love tanks and guns and stuff like that. I always have although I have never driven a tank. There are a few museums around and an amazing private museum is now being organized into a non-profit foundation. Here is their prize.

I’m hoping they will allow a tour later this summer.

The founder died this past January. There are some other tank and armored vehicle restorers but none on his scale except the Army.