The economics of insurance are poorly understood by most people -- especially politicians the media folks. Although, some politicians almost certainly understand it well, but play on the misunderstandings of others for political gain. Jonathan Chait has an insightful piece in a recent TNR article that looks at the differences between how Republicans have approached health care and how Democrats have.

Though I come down squarely on the philosophical approach of the Dems -- one of fairness and equal opportunity -- I like that Chait explains pretty fairly how Republicans approach it -- they prefer not to take from the winners to compensate the "losers."

Health insurance, if you think about it, is a redistribution scheme. It transfers money from the winners (people who don’t need much medical care) to the losers (people who do). It differs from other redistribution schemes because, unlike programs that redistribute from rich to poor, the winners and losers can’t be sure in advance which category they’ll be in. That’s why people enter into it voluntarily--today I might be healthy, tomorrow I may contract some horrible disease.

If you want to have a better idea of why Republicans are freaking out at an almost entirely private sector solution to a problem that would be better solved by greater public sector involvement (says me), read this article.

Some of you may remember that Michelle and I kicked off 2009 in Pennsylvania with family and friends. I edited those photos, but never found the time to finish putting captions on them. I've given up, declared bankruptcy on this batch and posted them, only half with captions. You can finally see the photos here. Sorry for the delay.

Hop on over to a WCCO story on why US Broadband is slower than peer nations, and you will see me talking on the tele.

I finally got an opinion piece published in the Star Tribune - In Minnesota, a de facto limit on broadband: Service across the state would be better if there were public competition.

All thoughts and comments appreciated.

If you haven't seen this video, check it out:

And if you have seen that video, check out this video describing how it was done:

In a different interview, I saw that the video production folks did end up making the video with two takes - the upstairs was one take that was combined with a different downstairs take. In both takes, the machine worked properly but the camera work was better upstairs and downstairs in different takes.

Just finished Up in the Air by Walter Kirn - the book that the Clooney movie was based on (though substantially different). I had heard the book was hilarious and was disappointed that it definitely wasn't. However, if I didn't have the expectation of laughing like I was reading an Evanovich mystery, I think I would have enjoyed it more... it was a good book. Once I got into it, I really enjoyed the writing.

I found the movie intensely good, but it was definitely more inspired by the book than based on it -- a lot has changed in America since 2001 when this was written.

Kirn makes some great observations - this in particular struck me on many levels:

As a younger man, I made the mistake of talking to a stripper, in depth and at length, about her finances. Her income shocked me. It was double mine. She claimed to be saving for college, but when I presser her, I learned that she didn't even have a bank account and supported not one but two delinquent boyfriends. I didn't feel sorry for her, I felt insulted. There I was, the sort of clean achiever this beautiful girl should consider marrying, but instead she was shaking me down for twenties to lavish on my Darwinian inferiors.

Another one:

His painful, frostbitten feet explained the slippers, but the bubbles he blew were the purest affectation, intended to show that he plays by his own Hoyles. He knows, as all the cleverest ones do, that no human being is so interesting that he can't make himself more interesting still by acting retarded at random intervals.

Observations like these really made the book worth reading for me, as they were far more interesting than the story. The end was kinda odd and I didn't really follow it but it doesn't bother me because I was mining the book for insights more than being wrapped up in the characters. I guess I read it like a nonfiction book and I have no regrets, but it sure doesn't seem like praise.

Rachel Maddow has a really powerful video - starting at about the half way point. I think the entire video fun, but a little long and not everyone may be as entertained by the US House Penalty Box and Robert's Rules of Withdrawing Insults.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you wake up hearing my voice on your radio? MPR ran a story this morning with a short quote from me - the story covering Duluth's desire for Google gigabit fiber.

Hilarious - hat tip to Bjorn.

Remember that Dodge Charger commercial in the Superbowl that portrayed men as totally emasculated by the women in their lives, only to assert their manhood by driving a friggin' Dodge?? Well, this is why I love freedom of speech - the best response to stupid ads like that is to create a spoof.