More "where are your papers?" news...

Sometimes the "hysterics" are just prescient.

Sharpen your pencils! May 20 is Draw Mohammed Day! In support of South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and artists/cartoonists everywhere! (via multiple sources).

One year into its promise of greater government transparency, the Obama administration is more often citing exceptions to the nation's open records law to withhold federal records even as the number of requests for information declines, according to a review by The Associated Press of agency audits about the Freedom of Information Act...

Major agencies cited the exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period...

The administration has stalled even over records about its own efforts to be more transparent. The AP is still waiting – after nearly three months – for records it requested about the White House's "Open Government Directive," rules it issued in December directing every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public.

Blah blah...

Tea Party Jesus: Putting the words of conservative Christians into the mouth of Christ. (via Reddit)

Nobel Peace Prize winner supports assassinations of own citizens. via WWilkinson.

Who are you better than? (via Reddit)

DIY to the people.
Interviewed here.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

--Matthew 25:31-46. America, be proud of yourself today.

Just to help everyone keep their head on straight about health care reform: Some facts, and a bit of information about public opinion.

Many social, educational and economic policies are the modern equivalent of Dr Spock’s advice that babies should sleep face down: well-meaning, authoritative – and wrong. No doubt it would be awkward to see the wisdom of experts punctured and the pet policies of politicians discredited on a regular basis. But if politicians really cared about those they represent, they would insist on more randomised trials and more systematic reviews of what works. Honest policy mistakes, quickly reversed, should embarrass nobody. As voters, we should demand more such mistakes.

Tim Harford (The Undercover Economist) on the lack of proper experimental attitudes in what are, essentially, government experiments.

"The campaign finance amendment is the liberal equivalent of the flag-burning amendment once pushed by conservatives, which barely missed getting through Congress.

Both amendments responded to a Supreme Court decision that offended some people on a visceral level. Both were solutions to a problem that had yet to materialize in any significant way.

Both also represent an attempt to narrow the scope of a fundamental liberty. They would create a large, unsightly exception to the First Amendment."

Imagine if the George W. Bush administration, in its waning days, had introduced something called the Patriot II Act. To prevent terrorists and foreign agents from influencing American governments and political parties, the act would require political campaigns and other groups to report the names, addresses, and employers of their supporters to the federal government, which would enter the information into a database. The act would also give businesses access to this database, enabling them to make hiring decisions, credit determinations, and other choices based on political activity.

Under his administration, candidate Barack Obama explained in 2007, America would abandon the "false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide." There would be "no more National Security Letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" because "that is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."

Um...

Administration proposes price controls on major component of economy… now I’m too young to remember the 70s but shouldn’t someone in the administration remember what happened the last time price controls were imposed on such a large portion of our economy? Shortages. Bad times.
How Nixonian of our POTUS.

And if you want to see more recent evidence of the wrongheadedness of this approach, try Chavez’s attempts at price controls in Venezuela.

Of course the government will only strike down “unreasonable” price hikes. No room for arbitrary power plays in that regulation. How many lawyers does it take to define unreasonable? How many you got? Maybe it’s a targeted stimulus to the legal profession…

Hypothetical: You and your family are spending the day in a national park. After a few miles of hiking, you decide it’s time for a lunch break. You eat, finish, and throw away your trash. Your son, however, isn’t so careful – he leaves behind a few leftover items from his meal. As you leave your picnic area, a park ranger asks if you or your family has left trash in the area. You tell him that you’ve cleaned up after yourself. You have just committed an arguable federal felony: False Statements to a Federal Official. Any false statement made to a government official – even when it is made in conversation and not under oath nor in writing – can leave a citizen vulnerable to a “false statement” charge.

Real Life Example.

"Imagine that as a young and desperately poor Mexican man, you had made the dangerous and illegal journey to California to work in the fields with other migrants. There, you performed stoop labor, picking lettuce and bell peppers and table grapes; what made such an existence bearable was the dream of a better life. You met a woman and had a child with her, and because that child was born in the U.S., he was made a citizen of this great country. He will lead a life entirely different from yours; he will be educated. Now that child is about to begin middle school in the American city whose name is synonymous with higher learning, as it is the home of one of the greatest universities in the world: Berkeley. On the first day of sixth grade, the boy walks though the imposing double doors of his new school, stows his backpack, and then heads out to the field, where he stoops under a hot sun and begins to pick lettuce."

"For the second budget in a row, President Obama has proposed to reduce the tax deductions on donations by the wealthy, making it about 10 percent more costly for them to give to charity -- and gaining the federal government about $300 billion in revenue over 10 years."

Over the past decade, federal "choice architects"—i.e., doctors and other experts acting for the government and making use of research on comparative effectiveness—have repeatedly identified "best practices," only to have them shown to be ineffective or even deleterious.

For example, Medicare specified that it was a "best practice" to tightly control blood sugar levels in critically ill patients in intensive care. That measure of quality was not only shown to be wrong but resulted in a higher likelihood of death when compared to measures allowing a more flexible treatment and higher blood sugar.

Getting into the nuts and bolts of health care reform at The New York Review of Books with someone who has experience with "best practice" development.

Following up on my last post… Glenn Greenwald has further analysis…

Meanwhile anti-corporate hysteria has invaded the ALCU.

“Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Finance Ruling” reads one of the headlines in today’s alarmist edition of the NY Times. Get a grip! Then get some analysis. The court simply said people can organize, pool their funds, and pay money to express their opinion in political matters.
Law prof argues that restrictions on “corporate” speech REDUCE political equality here.
And hey if “corporations” can have limitations slapped on their speech, why not media corporations?
Here might be the most efficient summation of the case: "Political documentary, banned, government."
Also, some members of Congress and the president have already began to express their intention to reinstate laws limiting what people (other than them) can say – in effect, solidifying their advantages of incumbency. Think about it - elected officials can pretty much summon press coverage whenever they want. Of course they want to limit ways their opponents can compete with them.
What part of “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” do these people not understand?

"This marriage of incompetence and craven opportunism is so much in the familiar spirit of the age that one must conclude that the age itself remains unchanged."
Will Wilkinson inveighs against trans-administrational abuse of crisitunitites.