Paul M. Jones

if we let it, the government will define the War on Terror however it wants.

The United States government, under two opposed increasingly indistinguishable political parties, asserts the right to kill anyone on the face of the earth in the name of the War on Terror. It asserts the right to detain anyone on the face of the earth in the name of the War on Terror, and to do so based on undisclosed facts applied to undisclosed standards in undisclosed locations under undisclosed conditions for however long it wants, all without judicial review. It asserts the right to be free of lawsuits or other judicial proceedings that might reveal its secrets in the War on Terror. It asserts that the people it kills in drone strikes are either probably enemy combatants in the War on Terror or acceptable collateral damage. It asserts that increasing surveillance of Americans, increasing interception of Americans' communications, and increasingly intrusive security measures are all required by the War on Terror.

But the War on Terror, unlike other wars, will last as long as the government says it will.

via How I Convicted A Man For Helping Terrorists Who Now Aren't Terrorists | Popehat.

A few minutes later, I heard a Dutch audience member make a similar, if stronger, point.  The average American, he said, is much worse off than the average Swede.  Why can't America be more like Sweden?  

I actually don't think that the latter point is true; if you plucked an average American (mean, median, or modal) out of Kansas City or Aurora, and plopped them down in the middle of Gothenburg, the average American would be very unhappy.  Yes, they'd have generous social benefits and lots of vacation, but they'd also be crammed into a small apartment in a very small country.  They wouldn't be able to afford services that average Americans take for granted, like lots of restaurant foods and extremely high levels of customer service, which means they'd spend a lot more time doing basic housework, childcare, and so forth.  They would find it very expensive to fuel their car, and the insular, almost formal culture would make them crazy.  

This is also true the other way, by the way; the average Swede would not be happy living in America.  Sure, they'd have a huge house, filled with cheap consumer goods, and they could drive their car everywhere, particularly to their incredible array of dining options.  But they'd miss their vacation and find America's looser safety net both terrifying and inconvenient.  They would hate the inefficiency of our government services, and miss their cozy circle of friends and family.  Part of the reason that we have different systems from the Swedes and the Germans is that we place different emphasis on various possible sets of amenities, and of course, the availability of various amenities changes what we think of as the basic package for a decent life.  In most of America it includes a house, preferably detached, and a car.  In Sweden it includes a year of mandated maternity leave and a well-run streetcar system.  Losing any of those amenities is usually more painful for people than getting whatever the other folks have--which is why most expats are some combination of young, unhappy in their home country, or wealthy enough to buy the stuff they miss.  

via America Really Is Exceptional - The Daily Beast.

Angered by the recent murders of four young people,  the mayor announced today that police are going to impose drastic new measurers to keep teens off the streets.

“There is something going on in the community at this point that we’ve got to safeguard them and keep them off the streets,” Mayor Alvin Parks said. “There are people shooting at each other for no reason whatsoever.”

Among the new rules:

**Minors are to be off the streets at ten o’clock on both weeknights and weekend nights.

**Minors on the street during school hours will be arrested on sight.

**Police will also perform I.D. checks on street corners and conduct gun searches, and Parks says he won’t hesitate to call in the National Guard if the spike in violence continues.

East St. Louis Mayor Alvin Parks announcing crackdown on youth violence

“The loiterers will be arrested, not warned, but arrested. Those who are hanging out at 11th and Bond, 15th and Lynch, 38th and Waverly, wherever you happen to be, if you are loitering, you will be arrested.”

"Articulable suspicion" is now "walking around after 10pm" and gets you searched on a whim. Papers, please! Via Virtual House Arrest Ordered for Minors in East St. Louis « CBS St. Louis.

Just one day after an Islamic activist attempted to cover over private property in spray paint (and a woman who got in her way), the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York has announced they will amend their rules to prohibit the types of advertisements that offended her.

The New York Times reports the MTA will prohibit any advertisements that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” Those “viewpoint” ads that do not meet this criteria will be allowed, so long as a disclaimer is included saying the MTA does not endorse them. The MTA met on Thursday to discuss the rules, which were approved unanimously 8-0. 

Maybe Christians should start spray-painting over speech they find offensive, too. Via NYC Prohibits Controversial Subway Ads in Wake of Islamist's Vandalism.

There’s been a lot of trumpeting about how health care spending has been slowing. Some attributed that to the economy, others to the ACA. Some of us, on the other hand, have been more skeptical. I hate it when cynicism is rewarded. Here’s a sampling of the bad news:

Per capita health care spending for under-65 year olds with employer based insurance went up 4.6% to $4547

Per capita health care spending for children went up 7.7% to $2347

Per capita out-of-pocket spending went up 4.6% to $735

Surgical admission average facility price went up 8.5% to $29,858

Emergency room average facility price went up 5.4% to $1381

Via And this morning was looking so promising… | The Incidental Economist.

As a followup, Megan McArdle

says:

I had a somber conversation with an economist of my acquaintance about what health care cost moderation might mean. If Obamacare's boosters were right, it would mean more money to spend on other things--at least, for those of us who are not doctors or nurses. But if they were wrong, and the moderation in cost growth indeed resulted from the economic slowdown, any long term moderation in cost growth would also be accompanied by long-term moderation in economic growth--a cure worse than the disease. Health care costs that grow at 3% when the economy is growing at 1% are not better than health care costs growing at 5% when the economy is growing at 3%. They are much, much worse.

I was talking with Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, the other day; she offered a different approach, one that harkens back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Back in the Great Depression, FDR was more focused on getting people back to work than on handing out money. He set up the WPA and the CCC to provide employment for out-of-work Americans -- jobs building needed infrastructure: bridges, post offices, courthouses and other federal buildings.

The idea was that taxpayers should get something out of helping the unemployed.

The Green Party’s Stein has a similar suggestion, and comments: “If you don’t have work, you’d go to an employment office, not an unemployment office, and you’d get a job, not sit home, depressed, with a check.”

Emphasis in original. Via Barack Obama v. Jill Stein on dependency--Glenn Reynolds - NYPOST.com.

Please consider this a public service announcement for my married friends.

She broke the unwritten contract that by having a Date Night, and plying her with food, wine, fun and maybe a surprise nice thing, you were going to get laid. How dare she do that and ruin your perfectly planned evening. Why the hell do you have to jump through so many freaking hoops just to get laid BY YOUR WIFE anyway? Good grief she’s a selfish spoiled bitch who should be having sex with you. Right? Right! …right?

Ah… yes and no…

Yes - Yes indeed getting laid on Date Night is a reasonable expectation. It’s a special night to connect and have fun together. Having sex is a great way to connect and have fun, and in fact you should have a reasonable expectation that you’ll even have somewhat above average sex that night. After all, more time to relax and ease into it, no kids, a little wine. It should all be good. That’s why you have a Date Night in the first place.

No – She’s just not attracted to you sexually. An evening of special whatever simply isn’t going to make that change in a single evening. She doesn’t want to have sex with you, so she blew it all up in your face. If she was right on the line of being interested in you, Date Night might have earned you getting laid on Date Night, but if she’s below the line if interest in you, the whole evening is just unwanted pressure to screw a guy she doesn’t want to screw.

If you were both single and this date went down, she wouldn’t go back to your place. She’d probably screen your calls out afterwards too. She’s just not interested, but she’s married to you, so she has to go back to your place and find a way to ruin the evening.

So what to do?

Read the rest of the article to find out. Via What To Do When You Don’t Get Laid On Date Night | Married Man Sex Life.

Your teacher asks you to challenge me to give “one good reason why the law should not require that women be paid the same as men for the same work.”  I’m happy to oblige.  There are many good reasons, but I’ll here stick to one.

That one reason is that it’s practically impossible for government officials to determine when two jobs involve “the same work.”  What might look like the same work to outside observers – to government officials, lawyers, or even the workers themselves – might well be very different work.

via Letter to a Very Bright 11th Grader.

CBO concluded: The tax credits would still need to be about 50 percent higher than they are now to fully offset the higher lifetime costs of an all-electric vehicle.

I know that someone is thinking that gas prices are going up, and when they do, electric cars will prove to be a smart thing. I’m not so sure. The CBO provided a breakeven on this line of thinking. If gas prices go north of $6, electric starts to make sense. When gas goes to $10, all of the vehicles break even to conventional autos. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that if gas were to go to $8, the US economy (and the rest of the world) would come to an economic halt. In that environment a fellow would be grinning if he had an electric car, but he would probably be out of work, and most of the stores he would want to drive to would be closed.  What good does the electric car create for him if things go very bad? Not much.

via CBO: Electric Cars Are A Waste Of Money - Business Insider.

Muslim outrage over an amateurish trailer for a probably non-existent video coincides with an ongoing hit Broadway play ridiculing the Mormon Church, the reappearance of the once government-subsidized Piss Christ photos, and so on. When the administration apologizes for the excess of a private individual, but ignores condemnation of far more widely disseminated similar venom, some of it sponsored by the U.S. government, it is making a policy statement -- we dare not tamper with free speech unless it touches upon Islam, not out of principle but because of sheer cowardice.

via Please, No More Apologies For Free Speech - By Victor Davis Hanson - The Corner - National Review Online.