What's next...

Not banning happy hours

Phew!  Jeremy Hanson commented that there is not an effort to ban Happy Hour in Minneapolis.  Folks, it's safe to order the boot full of beer.  I'm surprised that an apparently bogus issue became such a story requiring such damage control.  The Mayor's Communications Director is lurking in some pretty dark hallways to correct this runaway story.  Good for him.  Hopefully he's having the same conversation with Cam Gordon.  Because Cam was much less clear about what was being discussed.

On a side note, I don't think it's a great idea to release 18 year olds out into the world with Manhattan's, but maybe the legislature ought to be studying the impact of allowing 19 and 20 year olds to drink beer.  Undoubtedly DWI's would go up.  But perhaps health related injuries, assaults and deaths from under the table underage drinking might go down.  I'm not for or against right now, but I'd love to hear some arguments.

Happy Hour Ban continued...

Referencing yesterday’s post regarding the restriction of drink specials I just couldn’t understand why I was so bothered.  So I started surfing my Hannah Arendt  on the bookshelf, and she got me pointed towards the old Burke and Montesquieu.  Referencing The Spirit of the Laws (my version is in english), Part 3, chapter 6, “May we be left as we are, said a gentleman of a nation closely resembling the one of which we have just given an idea.  Nature repairs everything.  It has given us a vivacity capable of offending and one apt to make us inconsiderate; this same vivacity is corrected by the politeness it brings us, by inspiring us with a taste for the world and above all for commerce with women.  

May we be left as we are.  Our discretion joined to our harmlessness make unsuitable such laws as would curb our sociable humor.”

Okay, so I admit that I’m stretching Montesquieu’s point to match drink specials in a bar.  However, I think the point is made that very smart people have been arguing for the freedom of our indiscretions for 300 years.  I think his point is made, that there is a place for the law, and there’s a place for personal Reason, and they’re not always the same place.  

Not long after Montesquieu was critiquing the French crown Edmund Burke, a famous and learned British Parliamentarian, penned “considering their speculative designs as of infinite value, and the actual arrangement of the state as of no estimation, they are at best indifferent about it.  They see no merit in the good, and no fault in the vicious, management of public affairs;  they rather rejoice in the latter, as more propitious to revolution.”  Burke wrote this in reference to the French Terror and the ideals of the revolution.  He would comment, as Arendt did in late centuries, that there is a danger in people assuming the body politic has paramount authority in determining Right behavior.  

I’m not saying that banning happy hour is totalitarian in nature, but I am suggesting that it’s a bit much.

Happy hour ban in Minneapolis?

Coming before the Minneapolis City Council is a discussion of whether Happy Hours, or more specifically, drink specials, should be banned in an effort to control binge drinking around the University of Minnesota.  This is a preliminary proposal, so I hope people don't flood our City Council with comments that can be construed as counter-productive.  

So, earlier this evening I was enjoying a special on champaign.  Under such an ordinance, this would be impossible.  No champaign deals for those of us who somehow managed to survive college.  It did make me think about just what my obligations to civil society are when political society usurps my obligation to be responsible.  What can we expect of people if we simply legislate behavior?  I spent some time with Aurelius, Cicero, The Federalists and Hume looking for answers.  I couldn't spend long, but did come away convinced that at some point, we have to have an expectation that parents will teach their children about over-consumption.  If we legislate such expectations, what do we leave for the parents?  Guess I'm going to have to go back to the books for answers. 

Single Payer flaws

One issue to look at in the coming Congressional races is some form of Universal Health care. Minor fixes won’t reduce costs, and other, more critical reasons are looming in the future. In coming years healthcare will be increasingly important in what is increasingly a global economy. As Paul Krugman of The Times wrote last Summer when Toyota opted for Ontario over America’s South for a new plant, health care and education were critical elements. Future jobs require a better support system.
Regarding healthcare, many advocate single payer healthcare plans similar to those in the United Kingdom and Canada. I suggest that this is a mistake. With so many different forms of universal healthcare available to copy, why not copy the best? For example Yes magazine does a great comparison of four healthcare systems. The World Health Organization, in this example, holds that France and its mixed system rank number 4 world wide, compared to the US at 72, and neither of the single payer programs discussed crack the top 20. The criteria for these rankings are 50% good health, 25% responsiveness and 25% fairness in financing. So why are we so intent on copying mediocrity in our healthcare? As we evaluate our candidates, let’s do a better job of thinking ahead because right now all I hear is grandstanding and sound bites from our candidates.

Dr. Miles slides

Dr. Miles, at the Stone Arch Discussion Group a couple months ago provided me with these slides. I've only recently learned how to load the slides onto What's next. I'll try an explain later. For now, just check out the data. I'll have to keep adding over the next few days.