The older I get, the more I appreciate Spring. Every winter, it occurs to me that, once again, I’ve forgotten to leave Indiana. And, every Spring, I’m a little happier to see the warm weather return. Easter, among other things, is in the great human tradition of rebirth celebrations. Jesus joined the ranks of Osiris, Baldr, Persephone, Adonis, Mithras, Inanna, and other deities who died and came back to life, frequently in the Spring.

I can only imagine that the importance of “rebirth” in the Spring would be that much more significant for folks in an agrarian society where famine was much closer at hand.

Another thing that struck me while I was poking around the Internet for background on some of these gods is just how many different gods have been worshiped over the years. And to wander even further afield, Neil Gaiman has a fun take on gods who have fallen into disuse in his book American Gods.

The central concept is that gods and mythological creatures exist because people believe in them. Immigrants to the United States brought dwarves, elves, leprechauns, and other spirits and gods with them, but their power is diminished as people’s beliefs wane.

Anyway, Happy Easter everyone.

MSNBC has a story which is the latest installment of “every generation sucks a little worse than the one that came before.” Apparently 20 somethings don’t talk about their work ethic or “respect” as much as older people.

I’ve harped on this before, but was there ever a generation that viewed the younger generation as having it tougher, working harder, or listening to better music than the one that came before? I doubt it. But I’ve been hearing about the Decline since the 70s. If folks grousing about the kids actually knew what they were talking about, we should be living in huts, wearing rags, and starving by now.

The Slacktivist has a very interesting discussion on the difference between virtues and, particularly as Glenn Beck uses the term, values. This is a follow up to a previous entry on the same topic. The primary distinction is that “virtues” require being and work. “Values” generally require nothing more than saying one “values” something.

I was struck particularly by the discussion of two of Beck’s values: charity and personal responsibility. On the surface, these sound like good things, but there is a certain Orwellian “up-is-down” character to them where charity absolves one of any duty to help anyone and personal responsibility refers not to one’s own personal responsibilities but the lack of duty to anyone else.

What does Glenn Beck mean by “charity”? He means “charity” instead of justice. Charity as opposed to justice. He means charity as a strictly voluntary, optional, extravagant (in nature, if not in scope) act.* He means he owes nothing to the needy, that the rich man owes nothing to Lazarus at the gate.

This is a redefinition of charity that was invented expressly for the purpose of defending a lack of charity. It is “charity” that proclaims the right not to share, not to give, not to be affected at all by the need of others. It is a denial of obligation, a denial of connection and of interconnection, a denial of kinship. It is the charity of Cain, rejecting any obligation to be one’s brother’s keeper.

That same insistence — we are not our brother’s keeper — is also at the heart of what Beck means by the term “personal responsibility.” For the 912 Project this does not mean that you must take responsibility for your choices and actions, not blaming others for your misfortunes. It means, rather, that you are responsible only for yourself and that you are free of any and all responsibility for anyone else. For Beck, in other words, “personal responsibility” is a declaration of irresponsibility.

This idea combines with the stunted anti-justice redefinition of charity to rationalize the refusal to assist others as a humane “do not feed the bears” policy. Which makes sense if you think of the world as an uncivilized jungle. And if you think of people in need as subhuman beasts.

“If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own,” one of Beck’s 912 disciples said to The New York Times’ Kate Zernike.** That man collects unemployment and Social Security, but spends most of his free time angrily making sure no one else can.

I’m back from vacation. I took the kids down to North Carolina to visit my folks then up to the Akron, OH area where Amy caught up with us at some friends house. Then we drove back home today.

According to Google Maps, that was roughly 1,560 miles.

View Larger Map

The kids were champion travelers. I was a little anxious about having the kids to myself for a lot of the trip, but I have to say, it was a good experience. I wouldn’t want to do it on a permanent basis, but taking them out of their element and being the sole parent for them for a while lets you get to know the kids a little better. At least that’s how it worked out in my case.

There is a big health care vote in the House today. From what I hear, the way the procedural stuff is set up, passage in the House pretty much paves the way for making the health care reform package law. What really caught my attention today was some ranting about how the Constitution will die today – this from people who did not bat an eye at warrantless wiretaps and suspension of habeas corpus for individuals designated by the executive branch as “enemy combatants.” To repeat: Tapping phones and suspending habeas corpus? No problem. Health care for the poor and uninsured? Constitutional crisis!

So, on to the substance. Do I think this bill is well designed? No. Not really. But I’m convinced that a well designed system can’t pass Congress. And, given the political capital spent on this bill, there will not be another effort made for at least another 15-20 years. So, the choices are the status quo or this. The status quo is simply unsustainable. We are spending 16% of our considerable GDP on health care already. We spend twice as much per person on health care as other countries. We already pay for something like 45% of those costs from public funds. And costs are increasing. (And no, despite what you may have heard, medical malpractice lawsuits aren’t the prime or even substantial cause of these increases.) Despite spending half as much, those other countries have health care results that are comparable or, in some cases, superior to the U.S.

To date, nobody has been able to direct my attention to an example of a successful market-based system of health care; leading me to be skeptical of whether such a thing can exist. One country that sometimes comes up in this context is Singapore. However, while its system makes use of private insurance, it also ensures affordability largely through compulsory savings and price controls.

Singapore’s system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized catastrophic health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as “actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country” to keep costs in check[.]

Markets are very good at allocating resources. However, to function properly, it seems to me that buyers need to have good information and the ability to walk away from a transaction. That’s a problem in health care negotiations. Health care decisions involve analysis of medical information that’s generally beyond the understanding of most people. And, even if you can rely on your doctor or otherwise master the medical end of the decision making process, medical pricing is often ridiculously opaque. Try calling up half a dozen hospitals and trying to get the actual price of a hip replacement. Even if they’re willing to tell you, there are likely to be an array of prices depending on who’s asking. And those will be qualified prices because any number of contingencies can affect the price, even in the middle of the surgery. Then you have the problem of getting an insurer to be clear, up front, about the terms of the insuring contract and then honoring those terms after the fact. The insurer operates from a position of strength, collecting premiums for years when there are no significant health issues, then being able to withhold a determination of whether it’s going to pay for a procedure until after the procedure is complete. Finally, any negotiating options you have in the ordinary situation pretty much go out the window once you’re in an emergency situation. It’s like negotiating with a gun to your head.

Politically, the pundits like to tell Democrats they are doomed if they vote for this thing. That may or may not be. I think it’s a certainty that they’re doomed if they vote against this bill. A political wind pretty much always blows against the party in power. It’s just easier to criticize than it is to govern. But, pretty much regardless of the substance, that wind will turn into a maelstrom if they are unable to pass legislation during tough times. During good times, the electorate will pretty much ignore ineffectual dithering as leaving well enough alone. However, during bad times, “strong and wrong” seems more comforting to people than weak and either right or wrong. Of course, “strong and right” is best of all. When asked about particular policies in the legislation, folks are generally on board. When asked about the bill or the legislative process as an abstract entity, that’s when public opinion goes negative. Once the law is passed, a lot of the negativity about procedure will probably evaporate pretty quickly. When the armageddon predicted by the bill’s detractors never materializes, they will be discredited and a lot of that negativity will evaporate as well. So, politically, the best option for Democrats is going to be voting for this bill. If the bill fails, there will never be anything concrete for the electorate to judge. Instead, the health care bill will always be the inchoate monstrosity built up by its detractors. Anyone associated with that monstrosity will be judged harshly – even if a particular lawmaker only dithered about supporting the monster and even if the monster never existed in reality.

Now, it’s all over except the shouting. And the voting.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier has an editorial that criticizes the Obama administration’s plans for education reform as worthy but untimely. The No Child Left Behind approach tends to penalize schools for not bringing up lower students. The Obama approach has in mind rewarding schools for helping the upper students to excel. (I’m simplifying). The Journal & Courier’s editorial basically says “not now, the economy’s in the tank.” When the economy is better, then you can start doing other stuff.

I don’t think they’re wrong, necessarily, but this view of things highlights an excellent way for cynical political operatives, if they were so inclined, to make sure the opposition doesn’t make any progress when they are in power. Trash the economy for the middle class. As long as they are struggling, no other initiatives will be able to get much traction.

Meranda Watling, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, has a story about how the passage of HB 1367 will affect schools in the Lafayette area.

The bill allows schools to transfer a percentage of their maintenance and capital projects funds to cover operating expesnes. Turns out it won’t be a great deal of help for our local schools. At the Tippecanoe School Corporation, it will allow transfer of only about $1.8 million as compared to the $3.1 million the state shorted TSC this year. And, even for that $1.8 million, it sounds like they had a mechanism available to transfer the money even in the absence of the legislation. West Lafayette could transfer about $200,000 as compared to a $586,000 shortfall in state funding. And Lafayette School Corp. could transfer $350,000 as compared to a $2.2 million state shortfall.

Public education is sucking wind. And, once again, it bears mentioning that this is a consequence of shifting school funding away from local property taxes to the more volatile state level income and sales tax. The ballot language on property tax caps in the Constitution is pretty simplistic: just mentioning the 1%, 2%, 3%. I think it should come with something that looks like the disclaimers for prescription medication (or Happy Fun Ball): “Caution – may cause extreme revenue volatility, making school financial planning impossible.”

At a personal level, I feel like grousing because I paid into the school system for roughly 14 years without kids of my own in the system – which I’m absolutely cool with. I benefit greatly from a population that knows how to read, write, and the rest of it. However, now, going into the second year of having my kid in the system, the system starts crumbling because of short sighted tax policy and they slash teachers.

It looks like Michael Newdow lost another round in his crusade against the 1954 legislation which injected the words “under God” into the original Pledge of Allegiance to keep us safe from the godless Cold War communists.

As I posted in the comments over at Opening Arguments, I think Newdow is clearly correct that the 1954 legislation injecting “under God” into the Pledge was something the United States Government had no business doing. But, I also don’t think it’s worth wasting a lot of energy on – except that the addition messes up the cadence of the original pledge.

I’m a little bemused by the idea, however, that tossing God into the middle of our Pledge or our currency is useful to anybody. Mostly, I see it as an attempt by a certain, vocal subset of Christians to mark territory.

SB 73 is ready for the governor’s signature. It is primarily concerned with railroad crossings – making it an infraction for failing to obey the instructions of a railroad flagman to stop the vehicle and requiring a motorist to stop at a railroad crossing upon the approach of on-track equipment. But, it also has a law of more general concern – what to do with those flashing pedestrian walk signs.

Flashing “don’t walk” means a pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal. A pedestrian who has already started to cross on the “walk” signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island. If a countdown pedestrian signal indication is also shown, a pedestrian may cross if the pedestrian is able to proceed to the sidewalk or safety island by the time the steady “don’t walk” signal is shown, and a person who drives a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to the pedestrian.

This is pretty much the same instruction given for the “don’t walk” signal. Sometimes you wonder if the whole traffic code should be scrapped for a one line statute that says “be careful.”

I realize even talking about this is futile. Facts, logic, and other trivial details of rational analysis are utterly lost on anyone who finds Beck persuasive. And Beck himself is laughing all the way to the bank. But, whatever.

His recent bit of idiocy was to condemn any church that advocates social justice.

“I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church web site,” Beck urged his audience. “If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

Today, Beck returned to the subject, insisting that the notion of social justice is “a perversion of the Gospel,” and “not what Jesus would say.” He wasn’t kidding.

The Slacktivist had some nice commentary on how utterly stupid this was.

Glenn Beck continued his attack on “social justice” today, arguing that it entails “a perversion of the gospel” and is “not what Jesus would say” (MediaMatters has the audio).

This is an astonishing claim to anyone who’s ever had a Bible and their eyes open at the same time. Justice is an inescapable, relentless, pervasive, nearly omnipresent theme of that entire volume. It is impossible to read the law and the prophets, the Gospels and epistles, the histories, wisdom literature and apocalypse without being confronted incessantly with the theme of justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice, justice.

That accounts for justice, in the Christian teaching of every Christian church, being regarded as a cardinal virtue and an attribute of God.

But, for my part, I think Al Franken pre-emptively disposed of this kind of crap when he wrote The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus.

It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle. . . . if you are prosperous on earth, that means that God is rewarding your rugged individualism. If you are poor, it is a sign that God frowns on your reliance on handouts.