Quick hits for the week just past

Far from being a happy ending, the abject capitulation of having Bill Clinton travel to North Korea to retrieve two journalists working for Al Gore's (heretofore unknown) news agency Current.TV, was a setback for any effort to rein in a rogue state,... any rogue state. Why breaching the usual rule about negotiating with terrorists or hostage-takers leading to moral hazard is worth it in the case of journalists who might have voluntarily put themselves in harm's way is unclear. The previous U.S. position, of six-way negotiations only, gave way to the bilateral talks that Kim Jong Il was always demanding. The punishment for being a rogue nuclear state? Increased recognition and stature. And what about South Korean and Japanese hostages held for years ( even decades)? What did Bill Clinton have to do in the way of "negotiating", anyway? Did he give away more of the store, a la Jimmy Carter in 1994, in ways we don't yet know about? It sounds like a pre-packaged "deal" communicated to the prisoners themselves and with Al Gore and Bill 'Richardson having been turned down by Kim as insufficient ( only Clinton or Carter were deemed acceptable, Carter having been rolled by the North Koreans before and Clinton having sent him.) Rogue states now have a new demand to add to enhanced hostage-taking: PP for Prestigious Patsies.

Orwell and Stalinist informing on civilians is endorsed by the Obama administration in asking for emails to be sent to the White House if they are believed to be critical of the orthodox position on healthcare reform. Will tax audits of an "enemies list" be next? There is a new "Czar" of health care reform disinformation ( an ex-main-stream media "journalist" all-too-easily turned into admin flack ) who will handle the names and addresses of dissenters ratted on.

Obama 's specific denial that he is aiming at single-payer healthcare is gainsaid by comments specifically made by Barney Frank ( if inadvertently) and Jan Schakowsky that the present "proposal" is just a Trojan horse for single-payer. From earlier Obama speeches and interviews, it is clear that his own heart is firmly in the single-payer camp but denial is expedient if not credible. It's unusual to have a President whose word is so questionable so early in his tenure.

Obama's assurance (in repeated and repetitive and annoying appearances) that expanding health insurance coverage will SAVE so much money that it will help fund deficits created elsewhere is so astounding that one is reminded of the phrase originated by Chico Marx: "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?"( or common sense!) Putative savings have been extorted from insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals by Obama with threats and sweetheart deals ( e.g. promises by Obama's people that things won't be made worse.) However, Cong Waxman and Sen. Shumer have already indicated that they are not bound by any deal made by the executive branch so that these savings are completely unreliable.
This raises another issue, that of one hand making a deal and another hand denying it. We see this with Obama reneging on deals made by Bush with Israel and countless examples of Arabs/Muslims being totally untrustworthy, even among themselves. More of this in another post.Just as classical rhetorical fallacies are regularly employed, so too is the standard negotiating trick of getting mutual agreements and commitments only to learn that one side was only authorized to receive concessions but not to make them. Additionally, even when both sides are authorized, some think it OK to renege on their commitments while insisting on those of the other side.
One fallback proposal by the more "progressive" is to curtail reimbursements to doctors and other heathcare professionals. All this without either putting a cap on malpractice awards or providing a "safe harbor" defense if doctors follow approved protocols. The tort bar, however, is a bulwark of Democrat funding and wants to continue results-based litigation. All this will inevitably have two consequences: less hard-working and more risk-averse doctors. At present, many people go to law school because they cannot get into medical school. As the medical profession becomes less attractive, the standards will drop and more of these previously unsuccessful applicants will be able to go to medical school; American society will wind up with less academically-qualified doctors who have the ethics of lawyers.

The "Cash for Clunkers" program is so universally acclaimed that one can only wonder at the absence of demurrers.
1) Destroying something of economic value is fundamentally of doubtful merit. If the goal were truly the reduction of greenhouse gases and actual pollution, the cars should not be destroyed ( with both energy and recycling costs) but, rather, sold to Cuba to be an economical replacement for the inefficient cars from the 50s being kept going at great cost in both money and to the environment.
2) Far from being a stimulus this is just the short-term use of taxpayer money to accelerate car purchases and transfer value to those who are either in the automobile industry or able to afford new cars (plus or minus a few thousand dollars). There will certainly be a cost in terms of new-car purchases in the future.
3) There will also be a rise in costs for used cars since this program removes them ( and their associated parts ) from the market and future usage. Thus it will turn out to be a transfer of value from poorer people ( who buy used cars ) to richer ones ( who buy new ones.)
4) Why should there be yet one more benefit to the automobile industry ( actually to the UAW) rather to another one ?(Or, perhaps, others are coming.) Why not refrigerators, air conditioners, windows, roofing?
The only merit of this program is that it is a direct subsidy to consumers but this could be better done with vouchers for purchase of anything in a broad category of "acceptable" items ( i.e. no cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc )