I often hear or read people who argue that the reason we shouldn’t move to a universal healthcare system, like every other developed country has, is that we would lose our status as having The Best Medical Care in the World. The self-evident truth of this status is often thrown about as though it were part of the patriotic article of faith that we are The Greatest Nation on Earth. Anyone who questions it is in danger of being labeled “un-American.”

And yet, is it really true? Consider this story from CNN: Being a bad patient can save your life. Of course, it is certainly possible that the patient in this story merely had an extraordinary run of bad luck, and it is also possible that he would have fared worse in any other country. But stories like this should make us at least wonder if we really are benefitting as much as some people think we are from our collective decision to keep our medical system private.

Politicians running for office always promise things they’ll never be able to make good on. My favorite is the promise to “get rid of special interests” and “wasteful spending”. John McCain made that promise just last night. I’m sure Obama has made the same promise at some point. They all do.

What a stupid promise. The President doesn’t legislate. Congress does. So to get anything done, the President has to coax a majority of the 400-odd Representatives and 60 out of 100 Senators to act. Every one of those legislators has at least a handful, if not more, of “special interests” to look after. Maybe it’s an industry or spending project that’s important to his/her state. Maybe it’s a corporation that has been especially generous to his/her campaign. Regardless, the President isn’t getting that legislator’s cooperation on legislation if his/her particular “special interest” gets cut.

Even if a President turns out to be a political mastermind and creates massive public pressure on the legislators to abandon some of the ridiculous expenditures in the budget, a lot of what seems special and wasteful to one group of voters is really important to another group. Ie., tax breaks for big oil aren’t “special interests” for all the ordinary folks who depend on Texaco for a paycheck.

In other words, most of what’s in the budget is “important” to some portion of the voting public, regardless of whether or not it’s wasteful. Promising to get rid of it is a waste of air.

The Constitution was intended to limit the Federal government power so that the State governments could, with a few exceptions, do whatever they wanted. Two hundred years later, thanks to the Supreme Court, the same Constitution is used to limit the State governments so that the Federal government can, with a few exceptions, do whatever it wants.

… that said, of course, I don’t think the answer to “what do we do about it now” is altogether clear. Perception is reality, and the vast majority of people perceive that the present Federalist order is the way things are supposed to be. Going back would require a revolution, and those tend to be very messy. We were unbelievably lucky the first time: I wouldn’t want to roll the dice again.

My favorite sport is back, and this time the season started waaaaay early. Possibly bad (according to some) for democracy, but fun for me.

Not a sport, you say? Wrong! It has winners and losers, big salaries and bigger egos, players and fans. And, as with all sports, when the dust settles and the winner is declared, we can all hold hands and be friends again. Because regardless of who wins or who loses, it doesn’t change anything in real life. (Unless you have the misfortune of living in a foreign country our new president decides to invade. You should try to live here. Much safer. And very popular. You want to? Too bad! Nobody can come here without our permission! Unless you sneak across the border or something. But that never works.)

Presidential candidates are an interesting breed. They’re too intelligent and ambitious to be happy with a normal life, they’re too hungry for public attention to make it rich in business, and they’re not talented enough to make it on American Idol.

Well, I finished the book I mentioned in a previous post, Jurismania, by Paul F. Campos. The biggest flaw of the book is that the author, though trying very hard to write for a popular audience, constantly devolves into obtuse academic-speak whenever he gets down to the heart of an issue. Countless sentences are choked to death on fish bones like “incommensurability”. I still need to look that one up.

Still, once I’d brought my reading up to a 36th grade level, I found the book was very insightful, and very disturbing.

The author pointed out that unlike most other cultures, American culture is wrapped up in its system of government. Our system of government is to us what cheese, wine, and laziness are to the French. (Ok, I added laziness. Je suis tres desole.)

If I had to condense the entire book (not really possible) into a single idea, it would be this:

Americans cling to the illusion that rational thinking can produce correct answers to questions involving values. It’s not to say that Truth or Right Answers don’t actually exist, but that people cannot reach agreement (ie., consensus) on these things through rational thought and discussion.

Instead of accepting this, we hold on to the illusion that the Law, via the decisions of judges who interpret it, can provide answers and decisions that are superior, and more rational, than those made by other people or institutions. The effect of this is that our legal system is ridiculously complicated, time-consuming, and expensive, and worse, that its tentacles reach into every part of life.

I think this delusion is one of the reasons we, as a society, have allowed the Judicial branch of our government to take upon itself the authority to make moral decisions for our country, decisions which should be made by our elected representatives. It comforts us to think that there is a small, elite group of highly-educated, highly-moral people, who are above the corruption of politics, who can make these difficult decisions rationally and rightly. But there is nothing that makes judges, even Supreme Court judges, more capable of making these decisions. They are still human.

We are, case by case, ruling by ruling, returning to the rule of kings, and doing it with smiles on our faces.

I’m a couple chapters into an excellent book by Paul F. Campos, a professor at CU Law School, called Jurismania. I highly recommend it, if for nothing else than his brutal slam on Boulder’s I’m-a-good-person-because-I-shop-at-Wild-Oats culture.

The basic point of the book (so far) is that our legal system is insane because our society has an unhealthy, quasi-religious, and obsessive belief in rationalism - the idea that there is an answer to every question which can be determined through rational thinking.

We love to hate politics, politicians, and lawyers, but he argues that it’s merely evidence of our inability or unwillingness to admit that the biggest, most divisive issues cannot be resolved through rational means.

Do I agree with him? Don’t know yet.

—– update —–

Now the book is getting interesting. He uses analogies from sports betting and stock market investing to suggest that, by the time a legal dispute reaches the formal legal system (in the US), it has already proven itself to be rationally and legally ambiguous. If a particular legal outcome was likely, the case would very probably have been settled out of court (in a civil dispute) , or plea bargained (in a criminal proceeding). In other words, by the time a case of some kind appears in court, its outcome is, by definition, probably beyond the reach of rational thinking.

Your reaction, dear reader, is probably something like, “So … what?” This reaction is normal, and in fact, means that you’re sane.

However, to crazy people like me who look at politics and government as sporting event worthy of a bag of corn chips and pound of guacamole, it’s a big deal. It means that a significant portion of the law-making process, something that’s supposed to be performed by our elected legislators, is actually performed by a bunch of judges robed yahoos.

At least I think that’s what he’s saying. It’s rather late.

—– update —– (encouraged by danb’s comment)

I haven’t gotten much farther. So far his most significant point is that in the noble pursuit creating a fair trial system, we’ve created a system that is too expensive, too confusing, too complicated, and too time consuming for all but the well-funded to take advantage of. Most ordinary people, and certainly the poor and disenfranchised who the system’s fairness is intended to protect, are forced to settle out of court or take a plea bargain. Only 5% of cases ever get a trial. Which is worse? A less-than-perfectly-fair trial? Or no trial at all?

This stuff is great. I should go to law school.

Our government: now protecting us from foreign, ex-hippy scientists. Phew. Now I can get some sleep.

Link

You can, however, bring them into the country if they are placed in one-ounce containers and sealed in a zip-lock bag.

The other day, BoingBoing included this bit on a relatively-unknown author who claims to have pieced together the details of a huge religious-political conspiracy and who is trying to sell a flash drive containing the documentation for $3.5M. Link

He says that the documents are all in the public domain, and that he has simply done the research and compilation necessary to bring the story to light. Which, of course, is the problem. How can he prove to a news organization that (a) he is not part of the tinfoil-hat brigade, (b) his story is credible, and (c) his story is newsworthy?

I don’t think it’s likely, but $3.5M isn’t really that much money to a news organization and I would love to see one of them take a gamble and buy the flash drive.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced yesterday that the UK will begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq (link). Reportedly, Bush has asked Tony Blair to reconsider, saying, “Ok, so maybe establishing a stable democracy in Iraq ain’t gonna happen. But at least stay in the game until we can establish Walmart.”

Love to hear what other people think about this. Do public school teachers have a responsibility to not be crazy whack-jobs outside of the classroom?

Link