Insanity and Religion

[Can you tell it's exam period? My posting frequency has skyrocketed...]

This article in the Post tracks a discussion that my classmates and I were having after my crim law class. There can sometimes be a blurry line between insanity and religious beliefs. (What does that say about religion...?)

The Big Three

This WSJ article discusses how "we live in a world where wisdom can be punished and where foolishness can be rewarded" -- i.e., how Ford has managed to avoid having to get government rescue, and may ultimately be left at a competitive disadvantage while its government-spoon-fed competitors get their debts wiped clean and have a bankruptcy restructuring plan crammed down by sheer government clout. Over the objections of creditors. And in violation of the absolute priority rule.

Supreme Court Favorites

Oh, fyi, since you asked, the consensus around my school seems to be that Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan top the list of Supreme Court picks to replace Souter.

Policy Question

HYPOTHETICAL: The consumer finance companies introduce a program called ParentSupport®, which allows the adult children of the elderly to mortgage their own homes to help pay for parents’ care. ParentSupport® also allows individuals to pledge payments of ten to fifty percent of after-tax income for five to twenty-five years in order to collateralize a loan to pay for their parents’ care.

Should such contracts be enforced?

Health Care for America

At some point, I'd like to blog about health care reform in America. Oh, you know, that very simple subject that can easily be blogged about in one tiny entry. Specifically, I'd like to evaluate
Prof. Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America proposal, which we are discussing in my health care class.

Of course, per usual, this super Left class does not really present the other side to the story, so I went and pulled up the Heritage Foundation's criticisms of the proposal. Pretty standard Republican retorts, all in all.

Except that I find that more and more, I agree with them. Except I still think we should go to a national health insurance system. Very very weird.

I'd love to write about why, except... I should really finish my reading for class tomorrow first...

Oh, but I'd like to note that I find this blog's very rosy depiction of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program quite intriguing. It certainly accords with many of my dad's boasts about the system. Another similar view, with more air-time to the system's ills: here.

[update] WSJ criticizes the public health plan option here.

Amnesty

I'm impressed with this WSJ article and the author's take on illegal immigration and the distraction of the "amnesty" debate.

XY comment: While I'm right of center, I agree with that article. Having more open borders would alleviate the flow of illegal immigrants which is the long-term problem. However, I disagree with the idea that the illegal immigrants already in the country is a `self-correcting' problem. The fact remains that they circumvented the laws and rules of our country and that has to be dealt with. This is a belief in justice and the rule of law that is separate from economic arguments. Personally I'm not sure amnesty is the right solution and maybe there should be some penalty to illegally residing in the country. No - this is not a crime on the level of murder or fraud, but it remains a crime.

The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid

I keep meaning to read Jeffrey Sachs' The End of Poverty, William Easterly's White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill, and Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Or other books that address the issue of international poverty and foreign aid. But I still haven't gotten around to it.

I still find the question interesting, though. Is foreign aid effective?

This WSJ article comes down on the Easterly side of things (arguing no). Jury's still out!