Torture and Eliot Ness

The Washington Post wrote on Saturday:

The tactics -- which one official described Friday as a threatened execution -- were used on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, according to the CIA's inspector general's report on the agency's interrogation program. Nashiri, who was captured in November 2002 and held for four years in one of the CIA's "black site" prisons, ultimately became one of three al-Qaeda chieftains subjected to a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding. The report also says that a mock execution was staged in a room next to one terrorism suspect, according to Newsweek magazine, citing two sources for its information.

After reading this article, I thought of the interrogation scene from the movie The Untouchables, where Sean Connery's character "Malone" stages a mock execution, a Canadian Mountie expresses his disapproval, and Eliot Ness, despite the fact that he is obviously uncomfortable with the harsh tactics, comes to Malone's defense. (Watch the first two minutes of the link below).



I've watched this movie several dozen times, and never once thought that Malone was torturing the Capone gang member. Regardless of whether it is torture or it isn't, one thing is certain: I want Malone, and guys like him, on my side.

And wouldn't it be nice if the administration acted a lot less like that Canadian Mountie and little bit more like Eliot Ness?

Will on Clemente

Every five years or so, George Will comes out with a collection of his newspaper and magazine columns. It is a sign of my conservative nerdishness that I look forward to them so much. When he hits a groove with his columns, it's really something, and his collections can be like a scrapbook of the political arguments of a particular era. For example, his previous collection, With a Happy Eye But . . . America and the World 1997-2002 contains a section of brilliant, scathing columns published during the debate over the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Will was, and is, an outspoken critic of government regulation of political speech, and his columns puncture every gassy, self-congratulatory argument made by the bill's proponents.

Which is why (he says, finally approaching his point) I'm finding his latest collection, One Man's America, so interesting. It displays both Will's trademark arch tone, incisive wit, and a fencer's ability to hit his opponent right on the mark, as well as a few ideological tics that became increasingly noticeable during the Bush years. I'll be posting about the good and the not-so-good of the book over the next few days. For starters, something light:

Longtime Will fans know that he is a great lover of baseball. (His Men at Work is a fascinating look at how major leaguers approach their jobs). One section of One Man's America consists of columns about football, basketball, and sports culture. The section is titled "Games." The next section, about three times as long, focuses exclusively on baseball and is titled "The Game"--emphasis very much in the original.

Anyway, a column from May 2006 on Roberto Clemente, inspired by David Maraniss's biography of the great Pittsburgh Pirates slugger, displays Will's love for the game, his eye for fun detail, and his ability to pack an entire novel into a single sentence. To illustrate Clemente's great power at the plate, Will writes about two at bats with the most feared tough-guy pitchers of his day.

A Clemente line drive broke the leg of one Hall of Fame pitcher (the Cardinals' Bob Gibson, who pitched to three more batters before collapsing) and, Maraniss believes, hastened the retirement of another, the Dodger's Don Drysdale. In August 1969, after a Clemente shot whistled into the outfield, Drysdale flicked what felt like an insect off his neck, but discovered blood on his fingers. Clemente's drive had torn the skin off the top of Drysdale's ear. Shaken, Drysdale walked Clemente the next time up and retired six days later.

Don't you want to know more about Gibson's broken leg, and Drysdale's bloody ear -- what they said about it, how they felt, and all the rest? I know I do. But Will has a knack for knowing when a few words is enough to propel the reader along. That isn't as hard as hitting a Bob Gibson slider, but it ain't beanbag.

Ron Paul on 'Cash For Clunkers' and the myth of economic stimulus

Congressman Ron Paul intelligently points out in this video that the Cash For Clunkers program will hurt the poor the most, because it destroys the vehicles that poor people depend on.

He also tells this story about economic stimulus in general: "Imagine someone had a new business that needed customers, and to get new customers, they took money out of their savings account, walked out onto the street and started handing out money to people telling them 'you can have this money as long as you spend it in my store'. And so they come to the store, spend the money, and the owner rings up the cash register and says 'wow, today I made a lot of money'. This whole notion that government can stimulate the economy is just as absurd as that."

A good approximation of "Cash for Clunkers"

In my view, if you think "Cash for Clunkers" is such as great idea, then you should be more than willing to knock on your neighbor's door and ask them for the $4500 "cash for clunker" payout directly. I could imagine the scene playing out something like this:

"Hi neighbor, I have an old beat up car, and I think it would be a great idea if you gave me $4500, and in exchange, I will junk this car and then use the money as a down payment on a new car."

"Wait, who gets the new car? You or me? I don't need a new car".

"That's okay, I get the new car".

"Ok, so what is in it for me?"

"By giving me $4500, you may not benefit directly, but this will certainly stimulate the auto industry, and that will help everyone. Plus, my car uses lots of gas and emits all kinds of pollution, so it would really be in your best interest to pay me to get a new car".

"But I need that $4500. I need to pay off some credit cards, and I also need to buy a new dishwasher. I'll tell you what, why don't you go buy a new car with your own money and leave me out of it."

"I was trying to be nice about this and make you feel good about participating, but it turns out that you don't actually have a choice. If you refuse, eventually US Marshalls will show up at your door with guns and a warrant for your arrest. I would get me that $4,500 as soon as possible."

[Update]

Jim DeMint pointed out on Fox News Sunday that it is actually our children who are paying for these used cars. So, in my example above, I guess that would mean that you should go to your neighbor and ask them if it is okay if your neighbor's child put up the $4500.

The Road to a Single Payer System

Watch Paul Ryan, "wipe the floor with Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on health-care reform" (description courtesy of Mark Hemingway of National Review).



And then watch Barney Frank admit that the "public option" will lead to a single payer system.

Do Private Health Insurance Companies Have an Incentive to Reject Claims?

Bryan Caplan argues in this post that a profit maximizing insurance company does not necessarily have an incentive to reject expensive claims, because there is a reputation cost for doing so.

I wouldn't choose an insurer that was known to abuse or abandon its sickest customers. Would you? And why would word of mouth, advertising, and other conduits of reputation be less potent here than in other lines of insurance?

....

Insurance companies want a good reputation for taking reasonable care of their customers. However, they can live without a reputation for paying for everything, no matter what. Some companies might want to be known as "generous," and charge their customers correspondingly higher premiums. But most insurers prefer a reputation for decent but cost-conscious care. If that means affordable premiums, customers will happily buy cheap - then complain if their budget insurer makes them wait or tells them no.

Am I saying that health insurance companies never play dirty tricks on their customers? Of course not. It's a big world, lots of bad stuff happens. What I'm saying, rather, is that reputation works well even in industries where firms have big, lumpy liabilities. There are plenty of examples. What reason is there to think that health insurance isn't one of them?

I agree with this completely. The only problem is that the "reputation cost" factor is not as pronounced in health insurance as it is with other types of insurance because we have an employer based system, and as a result, people do not get to choose their health insurance company. By creating our employer based system, the government has interfered with what would otherwise be a healthy free-market check on the abusive practices of insurance companies.

To work toward eliminating the employer based system and putting people back in control of their own health care, see my previous post.

Letter to My Congressman on Health Care Reform

Dear Representative Klein:

I am opposed to the health care "reform" bill drafted by the US House. To address the rising costs of health care and the problem of the uninsured,I recommend the following:

1) Eliminate the tax discrepancy between insurance purchased by an employer (tax deductible), and insurance paid for directly by an individual (not tax deductible). This tax effect has created an illogical coupling between health insurance and employment. Why should the tax code encourage a system where I have health insurance when I am employed, but none when I am not?

2) Provide for the tax deductibility of health care paid for directly by the consumer by making HSA's available to everyone. Right now, if I don't have an HSA and I purchase health care directly, my medical care is most likely not tax deductible. But, if I pay for my medical care indirectly through an employer provided insurance policy, my medical care is tax deductible. In other words, the tax code encourages large insurance companies to become the middleman between the patient and doctor for virtually every single medical transaction, no matter how small or insignificant. If anything, shouldn't the tax code encourage exactly the opposite? HSA's at least level the playing field by eliminating this tax preference and putting consumers back in control of their own health care dollars. Consumer control, and getting the insurance company out of every single health care transaction is what will ultimately help bring down health care costs.

3) Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines. The President says that he wants to increase competition between insurance companies. One easy way to do this is to allow groups and individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. Right now, states have various levels of mandates that increase costs and are in effect political payoffs to various special interest groups. Allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines will provide competition, undermine these costly government imposed mandates, and bring down costs.

4) Tort reform. Law suits are extremely costly to our health care system, and any health care reform that is designed to bring down costs must involve tort reform. Proposals to cap punitive damages and institute "loser pays" rules should be considered. These types of reforms will discourage frivolous law suits and bring down costs without taking away a patient's right to their day in court.

Thank you for considering these ideas. I can assure you that I am sharing these ideas with people in my neighborhood and community -- your constituents.

Secretary Paulson, Shouldn't You Have Recused Yourself?

Good question.



As I said back then, when your Treasury Secretary is the former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs (GS), and he allows GS's main competitor to go bankrupt, and a week later helps engineer the bailout of AIG, a firm that was on the hook for $13 billion to GS, the whole thing looks really bad no matter how good his intentions were.

Weak Effort

Of all of the things that are wrong with the stimulus, the House GOP produces a 90 second ad that implies that the only thing wrong with the stimulus package is the timing.



Where is the ad pointing out that the stimulus was not a stimulus plan at all, but a political payoff to Democrat constituents...paid for by our children and grandchildren?

Where is this graph?






This is only slightly better.

Why Not Audit the Federal Reserve?

Amidst all of the debates over health care and stimulus and the Sotamayor nomination is a surprising and growing movement to pass legislation that would authorize an audit of the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul's HR 1207 Audit the Fed bill currently has 277 co-sponsors in the House, including every House Republican, and the companion Senate Bill has 13 co-sponsors, including the self-described socialist Bernie Sanders and one of the most conservative members of the Senate, Jim DeMint.

The video below shows a speech recently made by Senator DeMint regarding this effort. {It's worth watching not only for DeMint's speech, but also to see how a rules gimmick can prevent an amendment from being voted upon).



I think we would all like to know what assets were purchased by the Fed with its trillions in newly created money, and just as important, from whom those assets were purchased. How anyone who claims to believe in free markets, limited government and decentralized power could not be in favor of this is beyond me, yet most mainstream Conservatives seem to be silent on the issue or opposed to the idea.