Tuesday assorted links


#7 @jordanbpeterson

#2 - I actually listened to the entire Dylan speech, which is rare for me, it was that good. Spoiler alert: you get to hear summaries of the entire plots of Moby Dick, All Quiet On The Western Front, and Odysseus.

Delivered in his affected nasal voice style? And I say this as someone who greatly admires his musical, er, I mean literary, contribution to Civilization.

... apparently only unsophisticated oafs fail to see Bob Dylan's 'brilliance'.
perhaps Dylan has some poetic talent, if one likes poetry (most people do not).
Dylan adoration seems a refined form of social snobbery

That's a little rough. You become a Dylan adorer if you've ever had one of his lyrics hit you like a freight train. If not, no problem, but no need to level the snob charge.

...and if I've had his lyrics hit me like a freight train every day for 15 years (1962-1977 or thereabouts), his Nobel seems not only deserved but half a century overdue.

I'm a big fan of Bob, but I thought the second half of the speech (when he started summarizing those books) wasn't that great. The first half, though, was fantastic and everything I've come to expect from him.

So he recorded this in LA and emailed it to the Nobel Committee? With the piano accompaniment, it's got that Charlie Brown's Christmas feel.

Please imagine a little light piano in the background of all my comments from now on.

The Melville bit told you about where he got his symbol-strewn style from, and I enjoyed the part where he says he doesn't care much about what it means as long as it sounds good.

7: if only we could get the jihadists and the social justice activists together. They deserve each other.

What are the respective body counts for those two groups?

"Better together" is the hope.

7. A local paper proposes to set the facts straight.


Some students of color, they told me, view Weinstein’s written words — taken in total — as “tone deaf.”

Someone call the FBI.

That article doesn't contradict anything in Prof. Weinstein's account of what has happened. "Complex" grievances can surely be debated and discussed peacefully but that is not what is happening.

Perhaps. I found the Twitter timeline very confusing. I like the distancing and perspective-making of the newspaper because .. I am put off by minor disturbances at the butt end of nowhere elevated to cause célèbre. It really does feel like "sure Trump, but let's find a few college students somewhere we can answer with righteous indignation!"


US News ranked Evergreen the "most innovative" west coast university.


They are certainly innovating college campus racism and political violence and by extension apologetics by "moderates" who can watch a racist mob screaming explicit racism and threatening violence and conclude in their "moderate" opinion that everything's peachy.

No one is apologizing Thomas. Arrest all lawbreakers. But that usnews link is pretty funny:

The curriculum promotes engagement and collaboration, rather than competition. Students have the freedom, and accountability, to shape their education to meet their personal and career goals, without the limits or rigid requirements of formalized majors. The curriculum is redesigned every year to provide relevant and engaging academic choices, and upper division students can propose individual learning contracts to further customize their learning experience.

And that reduced student discipline? Amazing.

Your article is absolute crap by the way. I read it to see if I could understand where you are coming from, if not apologetics and spin. Allow me to summarize the article:

The author wants you to know that this issue is "really complex and nuanced" and therefore we must avoid painting with a "broad brush". In fact, there is much more igniting these anti-white riots than a simple email supporting racial equality from a Professor. Instead, the email was just the last in a long line of racism at Evergreen including: not mandating racism training (which will simply be classroom taught anti-white racism) and not doing exactly what students want (which likely includes establishing explicit black superiority on campus) in reference to unspecified allegations of police misconduct and unspecified allegations of racial inequalities in administrative discipline. We know these verified facts because the author alleges that he spoke with two people who were apparently students, and which he will not name for "fear of retribution". Speaking of retribution, the author's most concise point is this, "I generally bristle at the idea of some columnist in Tacoma telling students of color just how angry they’re allowed to be over issues of inequity and injustice." Naturall, this means that it is wrong for anyone to challenge just how much hateful destruction and violence brown people at Evergreen are allowed to commit. So the author is a fellow-traveler, a believer in race-based justice, and a believer in physical and political violence against people today based on what people who looked like them did hundreds of years ago. As an article defending these racist, anti-white riots, this fails. It is simply one more example of the fact that the only people defending this racism are racists.

Here is what is interesting: Yes, a liberal arts college on the butt end of nowhere has gotten itself mixed up, and things have gotten out of hand, probably as a result of bad leadership and mismanagement.

But then, a bunch of crazy cable news cowboys ride in because they see this liberal arts college at the butt end of nowhere as What Is Wrong With America Today. One of them flips out so much he calls in a death threat.

One big sad distraction (gosh, why would Thomas want a distraction?) from anything actually central to our politics or our future.

I understand that you don't want to talk about the huge problem of anti-white racism in the Democrat party and in the wider left. It's not a winning issue for you, I understand that. That being said, Hillary Clinton made Evergreen College about Trump when she called white men from the middle of this country Deplorables. Why? The term 'Deplorables' is anti-white-male bigotry and elitism from Hillary Clinton. The same white males who won the election for trump. The same white males who are the at the core of the left's innermost hatred and bigotry on display at Evergreen. Evergreen college is the Democrat party and it is Trump and it is you.

Yes, a liberal arts college on the butt end of nowhere has gotten itself mixed up, and things have gotten out of hand, probably as a result of bad leadership and mismanagement.

Actually, it's in a coastal city of about 75,000 which doubles as the state capital. It's not a 'liberal arts college'. It's a state college with a weak vocational component.

The author wants you to know that this issue is “really complex and nuanced” and therefore we must avoid painting with a “broad brush”

Some years ago, one of the characters associated with the Claremont Review offered a somewhat shizzy reflection on male youth (he's a school principal). He did have one amusing observation on the sort of youth who says "You don't understand me at all": "In truth, there's not much to understand".

Good thing nothing important is going on


And Evergreen College is every good American's top concern and priority.

I'm only smart enough to think about one thing at a time! Stop distracting me! ::Fingers in ears:: TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

It's a teaching institution, not a university. It also lacks technology and engineering, so it's faculty aren't innovating much. It might just be 'innovative' in falling for pedagogic fads.

The place is a dumpster fire. The state legislature should shut it down.

Mark your calendars, I might agree.

Mussolini's Black Shirts.

Universities are creations of Reason. Why fund University departments dedicated to ending Reason?

Mussolini, 1937, "We have buried the putrid corpse of democracy."

Sounds like the so-called students at Evergreen are intent on doing it to themselves.

But, it's not their fault. Since pre-K, idiot intellectuals indoctrinated them with liberal crap, e.g., "victimology"; and likely, again it's not their fault, they are intellectually defective.

5. i raised the idea of medicaid for all on megan mcardle's blog, and people attacked me on the grounds that the reimbursement rates are too low. guys, that's how single payer works. monopsony power means lower healthcare rates because who the hell else are you going to sell to?

"Medicaid For All," at least the version described in the article, gives people the option to buy into Medicaid. It doesn't mean everyone loses their health insurance and is forced into Medicaid. It's not monopsony.

"It’s not monopsony."

Agreed, of course, medicaid for all is still going to have to jump the hurdle of low reimbursement rates. How many doctors and hospitals are going to agree to an expanded Medicaid load?

The ACA Medicaid expansion has been fairly popular, at least with large providers (who have plenty of non-Medicaid patients). Hospitals even employ social workers to help eligible patients sign up for the program. The simple reason of course that is that low reimbursement is preferable to no reimbursement.

"The simple reason of course that is that low reimbursement is preferable to no reimbursement."

Cash buyers pay the full Bill, but at the Medicaid rate when they visit a Medicaid provider.

Hell, why even have "insurance?" You pay X% of your bill, then send the rest to the Treasury department. I say raise the Medicaid/Medicare tax to 5-10% and lower other taxes by a 1:1 ratio.

Trump praised Australia's system last month. The government doesn't negotiate. It just sets rates, and let's providers choose if they will accept. Almost all doctors accept the payment because almost all Australians choose to use government insurance.

Once you know what the money is being spent on, you can try to cut the costs. I think it will force MDs to give up some of their monopoly voluntarily.

"It’s not monopsony."

I know Medicaid isn't monopsony. I was talking about the power the state has with a single payer system in general.
If enough people join Medicaid-for-all then the government could dictate lower payment for medical goods and services.

Good, it's not Like they have a union. Oh wait, nurses are unionized. Well, at least those doctors dont have a guild or a union. Oh wait, they do, the AMA. Well, we can just import more doctors and they'll live with it! Oh, crap, they used their political clout to prevent foreign doctors from practicing. It's illegal. Notice how the politically powerful always make it illegal for others to compete in the free market? Weird how that works, I'm sure the answer is more regulation though. That makes sense, and isn't at all the definition of insanity. It's not like the AMA would lobby congress to limit Medicare reimbursement of medical school residency slots. Haha, that would just be nuts. And it's not like the underlying problem is liability for medical residency, necessitating government involvement. Haha, only a guild of trial lawyers would worry about that lucrative pot of gold!!


If the highest % of costs in medicine is labor (and it is, Vox idiocy about drugs aside), then someone will have to lower nurse and doctor pay to lower costs. Or limit liability, or limit access.

Have fun selling that to the participation trophy millenial generation and the "aw shucks, Vietnam is tough let's start planting bombs at US police stations" generation.

My eyes can't roll hard enough.

Where the f is Art Deco

The version described in the article very explicitly stated that any "resident" would qualify. Not every citizen but every "resident". Why? Why should citizens have to pay for foreign "visitors" insurance? Seems to be very intentional and in your face.

Those who sign up for Medicaid and think they will actually get to see a doctor might not be so thrilled with their single payer experience.

Or they will clamor for more funds to be spent so they can see the "good" doctors they think they deserve. Watch as Medicaid spending goes up in that case.

When average joes imagine "national healthcare" they assume it will be like the healthcare their friend the county employee or state worker gets, not welfare-care for po folks!

That's a problem of expectations. Which really do matter: if we aren't prepared for the proper trade-offs of a single-payer system, then implementing one leads to disaster.

I'm overall inclined to say it's fine to let anyone buy into Medicare. It's moves towards how I think most safety-net programs should run: let everyone use them, but have them be basic enough that people of means will buy out. It gets rid of the hard-coded benefit cutoffs aka huge marginal taxes on the poor.

Designated Player may have a point that the person who buys in figures out what they don't like about it and finds work-arounds.

With Medicare everyone knows you need supplemental, or whatever. Maybe I'm being too cynical today.

You dont know how single payer works. You can pay cash for things that aren't covered, and/or buy supplemental insurance. Single payer covers the important stuff.

People with Medicaid tend to think it is quite good. The myth of not being able to see a doctor is overplayed and just that, a myth.

Do you know anyone on Medicaid?

Used to help enroll people in it who didn't know they qualified. Do you know any?

Depends on the type of care, I think. Most specialists aren't exactly chomping at the bit to drive up the number of Medicaid patients they see.

Perhaps, but the large majority of Medicaid patients are now in privately run managed care plans, such as Aetna, United, etc. So the docs who contract with large private insurers--which is the vast majority of docs--agree to see all those insurers' patients, including Medicaid folks. The docs get paid the same rates by those insurers, regardless of whether its a Medicaid patient or someone who gets insurance through his employer.

Jan is right. For all the wrong reasons.

We pay hundreds of millions to private insurance companies to manage Medicaid.

Woe be to those who want a government automatic enrollment and coverage of catastrophic care based on % of income, with a sliding deductible based on income that smooths out marginal tax rates for the poor.

And people ask me why I don't vote.

"The docs get paid the same rates by those insurers, regardless of whether its a Medicaid patient or someone who gets insurance through his employer."

Late on this, but you're almost certainly wrong here. The insurers get paid a capitated rate by the state Medicaid agency they are operating a plan for. They get paid a different fee for private insurance plans, based on whatever they can negotiate with the employer. To think that they then turn around pay the same amount to physicians for both types of plans when the revenue streams are not at all the same strikes me as extremely doubtful.

It was explained pretty well on Arnold Klings blog a while back too. I think it is the way forward.

#6 Funny. Honestly though I sometimes forget that I'm reading the satire when I read the onion these days. These are very weird days.

1. Bernanke's measured, rational responses in this interview are jarring, jarring because of the contrast with Trump. What if everybody was Trump, the Fed chair, your doctor, the air traffic controller. Being Trump works (he is president), so why aren't more people Trump. I'm a lawyer, and in my city there are a few Trump-like lawyers, and they too can be effective. They can be annoying, such as scheduling depositions on days they know opposing counsel will be on vacation, and they can be dishonest, such as lying to the court, even rifling though the judge's desk to see what they might find. I think it's fear of chaos, a return to the barbarism from whence we came. My city can take a few Trump-like lawyers, but if all of us were Trump-like, it would be chaos. What's disheartening is that these Trump-like lawyers have thriving practices, clients more than willing to hire them and pay their large fees not in spite of being Trump-like but because of it. Fortunately, there are Ben Bernankes, highly successful, measured, rational, to give hope that we are not doomed to a Lord of the Flies existence.

1. Neither Bernanke nor any of the other players has had a Robert McNamara moment when they acknowledge any regrets about their tenures.

Maybe Dr. Bernanke doesn't buy into the idea propagated by Austrians that the housing bubble was generated by inflation-targeting or into the idea propagated by Scott Sumner that paying interest on reserves triggered a large economic contraction in areas making use of the dollar, the yen, the Euro, and the pound to boot. He might just have his reasons not to.

I read "The Courage To Act." I don't need to hear from Bernanke any more excuses.

Those are akin to the two times a day when the stopped clock is correct.

The subprime mortgage crisis was a confluence of many causes. Paying interest on reserves wouldn't sit in the top twenty. In fact, it may have reduced liquidity for the subprime mortgage maelstrom. The Fed keeping rates too low was a cause, not a top cause. I ascribe that to playing with asset prices, not inflation targeting. .

Forget about any "McNamara moments." The infallibly ignorant that created via subprime mortgages the housing bubble/crash/great recession and the idiot intellectuals that were blind-sided by it, are running the asylum.

I can't help it if you don't see that as a problem.

Paying interest on reserves was a policy instituted in the fall of 2008. It was not a cause of problems in mortgage lending. The Fed Funds rate was abnormally low from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2004. Whether that was derived from a good policy or a bad policy, it was instituted five years after the run up in home prices began, a run up which proceeded apace for two years after the policy was discontinued.


In a hundred years, assuming the gathering idiocracy was reversed, historians will judge Bernankle's actions more damaging than McNamara's.

We had a recession which ran on for about 17 months and saw a 5% decline in the rate at which goods and services were produced in the economy. Dr. Bernanke and Sheila Bair ring-mastered an emergency response which prevented something worse from happening. I'm not exactly sure how this is 'more damaging' than a mismanaged counter-insurgency which eventually cost the lives of 58,000 American soldiers and so ruined the political culture and intra-elite co-operation that we could not act in 1974 to prevent the North VietNam Army from taking the country (something the VietCong could not do consequent to Gen. Abrams successful counter-insurgency).

Ain't nobody want Medicaid. What's worse, those poor souls forced to be on Medicaid (i.e. the poor) are going to be displaced by those middle class folks buying into the plan.

If only 68% of doctors accept Medicaid and these are widespread doctor shortages as a result, what happens when you add a flood of new recipients? Soviet style shortages.

The article also says that 84.7 percent of doctors nationally are accepting new patients with private insurance. Its almost as if we have a supply-side problem being ignored.

The other 15% are planning to retire in 5 years.

There is probably truth to that, but that makes the Medicaid acceptance rate not so bad.

For my part, I asked to make an appointment with the family physician that sees my wife and our kids over ten years ago, and was told he was not accepting new patients. He is still working; I think he just wanted a more manageable practice size and fewer hours committed.

31% of all actively licensed physicians are 60 years of age or older.


It doesn't surprise me at all that a 64 year old doctor wouldn't be interested in adding new patients.

One of the hilarious unintended consequences of women starting to take over the medical field.

It turned out to be a Mrs Dr degree.


The proposal was to allow a Medicaid buy-in, not switch over everyone onto the plan. To the extent people have health insurance through work (that;'s most non-retired people) they will not be switching to Medicaid.

Right. So, you've bought into Medicaid. Now, time to set up your first appointment...good luck with that.

Harun used to be on Medicaid and knows all about it.

Over 3/4 of Medicaid patients are now in managed care plans run by private insurers. They don't ask for appointments as "Medicaid patients" -- they get appointments as Humana or Aetna patients.

The point is that the pool is not randomly distributed.

If given the option of purchasing into Medicaid or Medicare, who will purchase? You have a massive problem with asymmetric information.

Now, I think you have a point. In a world of retards, a pool of uninsurable diabetic obese morons could have a government sponsored insurance scheme where they "pay in" at 100 dollars a month and get essentially tax payer funded opiate and barbital drugs and Doctor visits. Great.

The point is that the typical result of JANcare is to restrict supply and subsidize demand. Then, when prices rise, the response is to rage and scream and further restrict demand and subsidize supply.

And the economists wept.

My fault, I apologize. Sentence should have read: subsidize demand and restrict supply.

Honest mistake after a 14 hour day, apologies to Jan.

7. Fortunately, he's not exactly dealing with the crème de la crème of the deranged left: "The average GPA for freshmen admitted in 2015 was 3.15. The average SAT composite (critical reading and math) score was 1084 and the average ACT composite test score was 24. The SAT writing test and subject tests are not required."

Except that SAT and GPAs are racist measures of ability, so you just proved yourself wrong haha.

Thus "Rosh HaShanah" means 'head [of] the year'

Unless you are actually celebrating shana tova?

The Encyclopedia of Literature remarks that Natasha "is undoubtedly Tolstoy's ideal woman

Those are decidedly average scores. OK, they're not elite, but they're not Cal State Chico or anything.

A rastafarin, a lesbian, you're really a lesbian and that's why ur so unhappy and so a Rastafarin is one good solution

1000 SAT score is borderline retarded.

Really, anything under 1300 under the old score is indicative of stupidity. Anything under 1400 is an unserious Jan or Anon type that should be responded to but taken with a grain of salt. They know they don't understand math or science, yet try to use it as a weapon, due to cultural wars. The 1100-1400 is the liberal extremist target zone. Smart enough to think they know how to organize society, yet can't pass a topology class. They're super smart!!! Unless you ask them about math or statistics, and they prove to be just as stupid as the coal miners they sneer at. All the liberal humanity majors are just as incapable as the line worker in a factory at engineering. Only one of them thinks they're smarter than the engineer.

1/2. Classy gentleman.

3. NIRP is intriguing in the short term.

5. States driving policy innovation rather than copying the tired think tank models. I welcome more of it. Our federal government will be mired in ineptitude for some time.

6. The simplicity of satire to reflect our inanity.

7. Disturbing precedent. Should force all universities to become less complacent. I wonder if this is a growing pain or if productive protest/free speech should be part of campus orientation.

You are in tune with The Chronicle


I drove my dirk into his heart! Ja wohl, "laughed I, "it was a tragedy." ...Leaving the accusing googles behind me. This was fifteen or sixteen or years ago. I have killed men!

Now, as to that watch - see how strangely things happen! Only one does the sun embrace, upon Germany, Of course I took for granted, I had I constented, I recognized.

2. And with an opposing point of view, here is Michael Orthofer:


2.Anybody know the background music

2. Anybody know the background music to Dylan's speech?


if new territory for mining and a slower pace of plant decommissioning and steel-intensive infrastructure investment and lower discretionary regulatory barriers for miners and less friendly relations with large nat-gas providers don't stimulate a bit more employment somewhere along the mine to plant stream, I'll be surprised

is the dude so powerless at the margins? if 10% unemployment is the Great Recession and 5% is full employment, how many margins do you need to bundle together to make a notable difference in popular sentiment? what if our present combination of political uncertainty and economic expansion motivates firms to establish beachheads in our political economy to demonstrate good will and take on stakeholders in the form of jobs in hard-up / hotly contested congressional districts? will Netflix or Alphabet/YouTube feel a nudge to build server farms or call centers in different districts than they might otherwise have done, or more quickly? does admin deserve claps for FB's content monitor hiring spree, or Infosys's and Salesforce's new digs in Indiana? Silicon Valley seems to have an employee cost-of-living problem. will they see more reason to diversify into red states, as opposed to simply diversifying into (perhaps heavily overlapping) lower cost-of-living territories?

the new SSA COLA pops will sweeten as fast as they have in years for Trump's oldsters, and growing truck and SUV fleets will make strong deposits in the highway trust fund. in my area south of Seattle (I'm an Evergreen grad, ama), the freeway bulges with new construction. rising property and sales tax receipts r financing new commuter rail to the city and inside the city. numerous new apartment buildings r under construction. Amazon populates the shores of Lake Union with hulking offices, and will even build a homeless shelter into a new site. a childhood buddy of mine with a passion for engineering had a manic-depressive episode early last year, and when he noted the simultaneous realizations of various improvements to the civic architecture he had agitated for on our school bus each morning, he believed that God signaled his worthiness through veins of serendipity. then he won a government charter to grow rec pot in another state. this first boom of my adult life gives me happy shivers

Comments for this post are closed