The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein and Berkeley’s Brad DeLong have each weighed in on Cato’s book forum for Arnold Kling’s new health policy book, Crisis of Abundance (Cato Institute, 2006).
Kling notes that we had invited The New York Times’ Paul Krugman to speak. I was disappointed that Krugman had to decline. I would have loved to see that matchup, as I have for some time thought of Kling as The Anti‐Krugman.
Now comes word that Harvard’s Greg Mankiw recommends the webcast of the book forum.
From Walter Scott’s “Personality Parade” in Parade Magazine (to be posted here soon):
Q: How much time do former President Carter and wife Rosalyn devote to their Habitat for Humanity projects?
A: Since 1984, they have spent one week each year on Habitat projects, helping to construct 2,733 new homes.
Brad DeLong endorses Ezra Klein's comments (see my earlier post) about Cato's recent forum for my book Crisis of Abundance. The event was really a health care symposium, with New York University's Jason Furman offering comments and the Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby offering comments on the book.
Concerning the latter commenter, DeLong offers the following:
I challenge the classification of Sebastian Mallaby as a "professional domestic policy thinker." It would seem to me that it would be more accurate to call him a lazy hack journamalist [sic].
Memo to Cato: putting Sebastian Mallaby on a panel as a health care "expert" gains you brownie points among the journamalists [sic] of the Washington Post. It doesn't boost your reputation among the reality-based community.
Memo to DeLong: I'll debate anyone of your choice. I understand that Cato tried really hard to get Krugman, and I am willing to travel to Princeton. At least Jason Furman (or is he just another hack?) and Sebastian Mallaby were willing to engage.Read the rest of this post »
Tonight, ABC will rerun its 20/20 special, “Stupid in America,” which exposes our monopoly school system for what it is: a remarkably dumb — and harmful — idea.
Central planning has been thoroughly discredited in every other field of human exchange over the past half‐century. But, for some reason, we still cling to our public school politburos.
Tonight, you can see John Stossel summarizing some of the human and financial costs of our dumbitude.
Over at my personal blog, I've been having a back-and-forth on the issue of jury nullification with an L.A. prosecutor who blogs under the pseudonym "Patterico." I can certainly understand why a prosecutor would be opposed to jury nullification. Were more Americans aware of their power to nullify — a tool with a rich tradition in the American founding, by the way — prosecutors would have a lot less power.
Patterico's "gotcha" question on the issue concerns the oath many courts require jurors to take before serving, which affirms that they will uphold the law. Patterico asks supporters of nullification if they'd risk perjury charges by taking that oath and then subverting an unjust law during deliberations.
It's a difficult question, and one I think people interested in real justice need to reconcile with their own values and priorities. But I also think his question is pretty revealing. It shows how prosecutors and judges have tweaked juror oaths to set perjury traps for would-be nullifiers, thus taking out of play an important check against bad laws, bad judges, and bad prosecutors. I'd like to see a civil liberties group mount a challenge to those oaths.
Remember FreeRepublic.com? The right‐wing web forum for Clinton‐hatred, respectable and otherwise? I recently ran across an article, “The Secret FISA Court: Rubber Stamping Our Rights,” that somebody posted on FR back in 2000. (Hat tip: Glenn Greenwald.) The comments are precious:
This is beyond frightening. Thank you for this find.
This does not bode well for continued freedom. Franz Kafka would have judged this too wild to fictionalize. But for us — it’s real.
And my personal favorite:
Any chance of Bush rolling some of this back? It sounds amazing on its face.
Privacy is a false argument and has been for some time. Your insurance company and the credit bureaus have more on you than the feds do and you can do nothing about it. I would rather be secure knowing that the feds were looking over my shoulder and keeping me safe. I have nothing to hide, and in times of war, these steps are necessary.
There are a few exceptions per comment thread, a few throwbacks to the pre‑9/11 Right who think skepticism about power is justified even when the Red Team’s in charge. But they’re a distinct minority.
Was it September 11th that “changed everything,” or Republican takeover of the executive branch? Either way, for the Right, it’s a different world indeed.
The Enid News and Eagle posted an opinion article last week on the new farm bill. Admittedly, it is a rural paper (based in Enid, Oklahoma) catering to a rural readership. Most of you will probably not have seen it. But I was struck by a number of passages.
Take this one, for starters:
"It seems the 2002 farm bill was one of the more popular farm bills to come out in the history of farm bills, according to Frank Lucas. The Third District representative has been traveling the state getting input from agricultural officials and farmers on what should be included in the 2007 version of the farm bill."
Of course the 2002 Farm Bill was popular, Congressman, at least with the "agricultural officials and farmers" you are talking to. A significant backtrack from previous farm bills, payments to farmers under the 2002 Farm Bill are projected to average over US$20 billion per year from 2005 to 2007. Agriculture officials are hardly going to support huge cuts to the agriculture budget, either.
Or consider this gem:
"...the House committee knows the most about agriculture and has the most contact with the people it will affect..."
The Enid News and Eagle is suggesting that the "people it will affect" are farmers and ranchers. This is undeniably true. But this farm bill, like all the others before it, will also affect every taxpayer and consumer of food in the country, not to mention commodity producers abroad. (more here)