Donkasaurus

Rudy Giuiliani, in a Separate Reality, and Not an Expert on Terrorism

2010-01-09T12:25:00.065-05:00

January 8, 2010. Rudy Giuliani:

We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama.

We had an attempted attack under Bush, similar to the recent failed Christmas day attempt, by Richard Reid, the infamous "shoe bomber." And we had an attack on September 11, 2001 itself, not long after a President's Daily Brief ominously warned of Bin Laden's intent. That's two, not none.

Prior to September 11, the Bush administration also paid far less attention to the issue than the Clinton administration had, despite repeated warnings of a heightened risk.

But these aren't even the only mistakes Guliani has made on this same issue. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, and roundly criticizing President Obama, Giuliani asserted that not responding with a public statement very quickly, "convinces our enemies that we are not ready."

Ready for what? Ready to condemn terrorism yet again based upon terrorists' calendar, and not our own strategic aims? Terrorists don't care about our readiness to talk about an attack afterwards. They are concerned with being eradicated. With being thwarted in their attempts to begin with; with being painted even more unfavorably to the world (such as lowly pathological murderous criminals, rather than as those "engaging in a war," or "enemy combatants"); and with us not making a big deal out of it, just working steadfastly to eradicate them -- which is the last thing they want.

Furthermore, what expertise is this view of Guiliani's based upon? The view that thinks that terrorists attack because they don't want attention drawn to their attacks?

And what kind of thinking is this by Giuliani? That by making a bigger deal of attacks, in a way that otherwise serves no strategic advantage, this somehow dissuades rather than bolsters exactly what terrorists want to perceive -- that they are having an effect upon the great United States?

Giuliani also erroneously stated in that same interview that Obama took ten days to respond. He also repeated this point over and over (watch it again). This is flagrantly incorrect. Obama took three. Bush took six to respond to the "shoe bomber." When Larry King pointed this out, the former New York Major and aspiring expert countered with "six is less than ten."

Giuliani also seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the shoe bomber attempt was before September 11, 2001. He makes this assertion (also otherwise incorrect, but that is yet another mistake by Giuliani), as if before September 11 we didn't know anything. Perhaps Giuliani didn't. But most experts and those who should wish to lead us on these issues now, certainly did (including the outgoing Clinton Administration), and repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about it.

Giuliani's strategy is wrong. He clearly knew almost nothing about the issue back before September 11. And Guliani clearly knows very little about the issue now. He can't even get the basic facts correct, in order to make his otherwise still highly misguided points. And he keeps getting invited back onto shows as if he is some kind of expert on the topic.
______________

Anal Knowledge

2010-01-06T23:26:00.002-05:00

Famed counter-terrorism expert Anne Coulter apparently shared the following knowledge with viewers of one of the most popular "news" shows on Cable in America:

It was spread throughout the diaper. Unless the bomb is inserted under the foreskin, and by the way, I don’t see a clear angle on the anus. That’s a pretty easy hiding place for this.

Where did Anne Coulter receive her training?

Eminent blogger "TBogg," fairly, or unfairly, on the situation:

Before they offshored her job/schtick to the vaguely foreign-looking and obviously discount-binned Michelle Malkin, supposed serious political shouty teevee shows used to book bile-filled exoskeletal “human” Ann Coulter to come on their shows and say very stupid things and lie and look terribly aggrieved because Americans JUST DON’T GET IT and so we’re all gonna end up being harem slaves or something. But, just like herpes, Ann Coulter is back.

And, as he points out, sharing her knowledge with America. Which,clearly, is better off for having it. Otherwise, we might have made scanners without clear angles on the anus.

Japanese Diplomacy on Whaling Issues

2010-01-06T18:12:00.003-05:00

Which boat would you rather be on?

What might have prompted this? Apparently, it's an ongoing battle between Japense Whalers, and those trying to stop them.

Tiger Jokes, and a Fox Story

2010-01-05T11:08:00.003-05:00

...
Somewhat pilfered from here:

Q: Who's the only person who can beat Tiger with a golf club?
A: His Wife.

Q: What was Tiger's shortest drive since an errant tee shot at the US Open?
A: When he pulled out of his driveway early on a friday morning last month right after his wife found out about his shenanigans.

Q: What's' the only time Tiger has ever failed to drive 300 yards?

Q: Why did Tiger crash into both a tree and a fire hydrant?
A: He couldn’t decide between a wood and an iron

Q: Why did Gillette drop his advertising contract?
A: Tiger admitted that car crash was the closest shave he'd ever had.

Q: What was Tiger Woods doing out at 2.30 in the morning?
A: He’d gone clubbing

Q: What’s the difference between a car and a golf ball?
A: Tiger can drive a ball 400 yards.

Q: What did Tiger shoot with his Automobile collection on that same early Friday morning?
A: A hole in one.

And, last one: What religions should Tiger A) give up, and B) convert to, in order to be able to recover as a person? Don't know? Click here.

Bonus question: What does the word "proselytize" mean?

Someone Get Fox's Brit Hume a Dictionary, or Lie Detector

2010-01-04T22:50:00.002-05:00

Perhaps not much better textbook illustration of proselytizing could be had than the following statement:

The Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, rests on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

What was Brit Hume doing here?

He was trying to convert someone to his own religion. Definition number one of proselytizing.

He was trying to convert someone from one religion to another. Definition number 1Ae of proselytizing.

He was trying to spread the gospel, make converts, or bring someone into the fold. Definition 1B of proselytizing.

He was trying to convert someone from a different doctrine, cause or faith to another. Definition number two of proselytizing.

He was trying to espouse his own doctrine.Definition number three of proselytizing.

That pretty much covers all the bases.

So what did Brit Hume have to say about it?

He said he wasn't proselytizing. And this is not a blog you are reading. It is a Martian alien space ray death star morphed into your screen to make it look like a blog.Which would be true, if you were suddenly a character in a really bad sci fi movie looking at a computer screen posing Martian alien space ray death star.

And the fact that Hume was not proselytizing, might also be true, in that same bad movie. Or maybe just on Fox.

Religious Preachers and Converters - a Fox and Tiger Story

2010-01-03T21:20:00.003-05:00

Prominent Fox Anchor Brit Hume, on Tiger Woods:

Tiger will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person is another story.

Yes, these are the things our media should be talking about.

Can Tiger recover as a person.

But wait, there is more. Brit Hume on his alleged news channel offers Tiger some advice on how to recover as a person:

The Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, rests on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

A Fox anchor publicly preaching the gospel, and using the weight of his considerable news organization to do it, of converting one's religion, so he can be a GREAT example to the world:

Here's' the sermon that might well accompany Mr. Wood's repentance and transformation, in the church of the Holy Fox.

Proper Framing in the Battle Against Terrorism

2010-01-02T23:46:00.002-05:00

A recent post pointed out some of the apparent hypocrisy in Congressman Pete Hoekstra's statements relating to his political opponents, and fighting terrorism.

Lending more to the inherent idea of that post that Hoeskstra is just extremely partisan, rather than completely amiss on all the issues, Matt Yglesias, an influential commentator, notes that in 2008, apparently:

Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, in an interview said the phrase ”war on terror” was the “dumbest term…you could use”. The Michigan lawmaker, who criticises the Bush administration for using an overly aggressive tone, says he has urged Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, not to use the expression.

If that is the case, Hoekstra has earned at least a small modicum of credibility on the terrorism issue. He is right. It is a counter productive phrase:

One of the most important things that can be done in this effort to stem and eradicate sovereignless terrorism, is to make sure that those who engage in it are correctly painted as the lowly, common, psychotic criminals that they are, rather than as combatants in some sort of "war" or bigger effort, and not give recruiters and others ammunition for them to think that they are the "warrior combatants" that they like to think of themselves as.

Additionally, it is similarly imperative to classify, recognize, and most importantly of all, categorize this as an effort against radical terrorism, which happens to emanate from a radical, extremist, fringe of Islam, rather than even incidentally some sort of implicit condemnation of Islam itself. Though subtle, the term "war" even though it is teamed, in the phrase, with the word "terrorism" might again play into this broader concept, particularly if pains are not taken to correctly categorize this as just noted, rather potentially impugning or becoming suspicious of the broader religion itself.

Yglesias, on the other hand, doesn't see it:

Ever since the Bush administration first unveiled the term, my feeling has been that this is an overdebated issue and it doesn’t matter all that much one way or another.

Needless to say, we disagree.

But Yglesias goes on to note, however: "That said, 'war on terror' does seem to me to have a variety of bad implications, including the fact that it’s hard to see how you’re ever going to be able to say you’ve 'won' something like a 'war on terror.'”

But the idea that you "can't win"-- unless one is tying it to this inane idea that we are "at war" and so be acceptable as an excuse for the Constitution of the United States to now be weakened, when this "war" has no definable end and may well exist in perpetuity -- would not be the bad implication that strategically leaps to mind, as noted just above.

The NY Times Publishes One of the Worst Pieces Ever

2010-01-02T12:17:00.002-05:00

We are going to paraphrase yesterday's editorial in the NY Times.

Remember, we are loosely paraphrasing, while making sure to cover all relevant major points:

UFOs and scary science fiction scenarios have no proof, climate change is the same, the end.

For a contrast with the idiocy of this "editorial" in the Times, see the basic facts, in stark contrast.

Out of the blue, after going on and on about Y2K fears, and the like, at the very end of his piece, the author (who doesn't even deserve to have his name mentioned), brings up climate change for the very first time, and simply decides that it is in the category as these other, largely imagined,or even farcical, fears.

What is even more important are the author's reason's. What are his reasons?

None. He just decides it. (If one does google this person, you will see that this is not necesarily by purposeful omission. He is a professor of philosophy, in New Zealand.)

As for the NY Times' reasons for publishing this abject piece of manipulative and extraordinarily ignorant piece of crap?

Who knows. Maybe they think it is provocative: say, along the lines of suggesting that we don't know if the Times publishers are having gay, extramarital sex and cocaine parties with insider coal industry executives (but leaving out that we don't know), just that it "seems to us" they are. The end.

This has been an editorial.

Great Democratic Strategy -- That is Bad Policy, and Will Backfire Politically

2010-01-02T11:43:00.001-05:00

Economist Robert Kuttner was on "Bill Moyers Journal" Friday. He suggested that although the current health care bill was not good, it should be passed because it will make Democrats look bad if it isn't.

This is vintage Democrat strategy: If we pass a bad bill that the right hates (which, in this instance, they actually have good reasons, unlike most of the reasons expressed when the idea was first introduced early last year) and many moderates and several noted Liberals also hate, it will help us!

Kuttner: Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I don't think it's a it's a good bill. But I think if it goes down, just because of the optics of the situation and the way the Republicans have framed this as a make-or-break moment for President Obama, it will make it easier for the Republicans to take control of Congress in 2010. It will make Obama even more gun-shy about promoting reform. It will create even more political paralysis. It will embolden the Republicans to block what this president is trying to do, some of which is good, at every turn. So I would hold my nose and vote for it. . . .

Moyers: Aren't you saying that in order to save the Democratic president and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012 you have to have a really rotten health insurance bill?

Kuttner: Well, when you come down to one pivotal moment where a bill is before Congress and the administration has staked the entire presidency on this bill and you're a progressive Democrat are you going to vote for it or not? Let me put it this way, if I were literally in the position that Joe Lieberman is in and it was up to me to determine whether this bill live or die, I would hold my nose and vote for it even though I have been a fierce critic of the path this administration has taken. . . .

Not Really. Passing a good bill, and articulating and selling to the country why it is a good bill, will help Democrats.

Recognizing a bad bill, and refraining from passing it simply for the "sake of getting something done" (thereby not also playing into Republicans charges that Democrats believe more bad or questionable government is better than less government), while selling what they are trying to do and why, will help Democrats.

Passing a bad bill will hurt Democrats.

Just not in "Democrat Strategy World." Which is kind of like Wayne's World. Only dumber.
____________

In fairness to Kuttner, the above analogy may not apply to him, since what he said was: "Well, it's so far from what I think is necessary that I don't think it's a it's a good bill." This could be read a lot of ways, but it's possible he still believes the bill is a net improvement, just minimally relative to what the thinks it could or should do.

We don't. We think it is a bad bill.

And a lot of people agree.

A Study in Contrast -- Chest Thumpers, versus Strategists

2010-01-02T00:41:00.003-05:00

Glenn Reynolds, January 1st, 2010:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Heckuva Job. “The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. . . . Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.”

Glenn Greenwald, December 31st, 2009:

As always, Charles Krauthammer is one of Al Qaeda's greatest allies:

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

He sounds just like Richard Reid and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Who are Reid and Mohammed? The infamous al-Qaeda "shoe bomber" and "plot mastermind," respectively, who made it eminently clear they view themselves as warriors, not as the common, psychopathic, murderous criminals that they are. As Greenwald points out, the worst thing we can do is play into this notion that terrorists are some warriors, engaged in a "war" against us, rather than some fringe extremist murderous terrorists.

Krauthammer doesn't get this, and seems to respond as if this is all a real life video "war" game. And as if the grave threat that we face from terrorism means that somehow calling it something "big" helps us, rather than hurts us. But then again, Krauthammer preaches on Fox, and the Washington Post.

More Fox Balance

2010-01-02T00:20:00.001-05:00

Our previous post pointed out that Fox is really an advocacy organization that poses as one that is delivering news, thus making it far more effective, and appealing, than outright advocacy.

As the cleverly named site "Balloon Juice" notes, Fox just decided that Democrats were calling for Janet Napolitano to step down.

We're not convinced Napolitano's initial reaction to the news of the Christmas airline bomber was all too swift., but still, a random state senator somewhere, and the former aide to moderate Republican in name only Joe Lieberman, does not exactly represent Democrats.

Except to "Fox," of course, who started off their article, entitled, "Democrats call for Napolitano to Step Down Following Failed Attack," with the sentence "Democrats have joined the ranks of those calling..."

Yeah, technically true, since former Lieberman aide Dan Gerstein and New Jersey State Senator Richard Codley, are "Democrats."

But blatant spin from an organization that bills itself as a news organization.

But is not:

(Or, regarding Fox, see this video, ignoring the first thirty seconds of similarly counter productive, liberal Keith Olberman spin. (As if what Fox did was "bias," and Olbermann did not just play right into the common, but false, "the media is liberal, Fox balances it out" perception. But then Olbermann sometimes writes on this site.))

This is not to weigh in on the substantive merit of Codley or Gerstein's view. It is to point out that Fox clearly cherry picked two random Democrats out of the top several thousand of the country's leading Democrats, to push their own idea that Napolitano should step down and make it seem like there was a wider bipartisan chorus in support of this than their is.

That's not news. That's a clear agenda. Except, of course, to Glenn Reynolds.

"Brush Back Pitches?? Is This Even Possibly True?

2010-01-01T23:51:00.001-05:00

Is Glenn Reynold's correct here when he writes, in the WSJ:

It is, after all, the Obama administration that declared that its critics at Fox News Channel are not real journalists, and that Fox is not a "legitimate news organization." In doing so—as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted with a reference to "brushback pitches" in baseball—the White House's goal was just the same as that of the prosecutors in the president's native city: To chill criticism, and to get journalists to think twice before stepping up to the plate.

Of course Reynold's mischaracterizes what Gibbs was saying. But Reynold's see's Fox as "Fair and Balanced," so it would easy for him to do that.

But still, "brushback pitches? (Brushback pitches?!!) What kind of thinking is this by the Obama Administration?

The problem with Fox, it was pointed out here in October, is that:

Fox is...an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Therein, it was also suggested that:

In other words, now the case is not about Fox, because what Fox does is pose as political and policy news station when it is actually in large part an ideologically motivated and highly manipulative advocacy station, but the case it about the entire media. This builds solidarity between Fox and the rest of the media, when exactly the opposite is required (let alone the fact that Fox often goes after the rest of the media, which in turn is too scared to make a real story out of Fox's constant distortions). And it also makes it seem now that the issue is not so much how bad Fox is (see above again for what it does), but simply that the "media is bad" and is thus about a thin skinned White House that seems to be attacking media and viewpoints that it does not like. [Update: on the day this suggestion appeared, and subsequently, numerous columns around the blogosphere popped up, bewilderedly asking, in effect "how can the rest of the media possibly get Fox's back on this?"]

This plays directly into Fox's characterization of what the White House is doing. And it bolsters the alarming argument, false as it is, that the White House is trying to have a chilling effect upon independent reporting and disparate viewpoints.

Saying one is serving the equivalent of the "brushback pitch," as if one is only talking to one's base and no one else in America, in effect accomplishes much the same thing.

It is terrible framing.

But that is what Democrats do best. (Second best is argue self righteously about how good they are at framing, and how anybody who does not see it the way they see it, or, as they put it, "the truth," is hopeless anyway. Which is why they continue to let well meaning but profoundly biased people like Glenn Reynolds (see here, here, here, here, and here), have a profoundly disproportionate influence on the debate in America today. (For instance, a hundred and thirty one million pages views in one month period alone.)
____________

Getting back to Reynold's op-ed, he is mixing apples and oranges (but one supposes that as a law professor he can't see that either). But while the first part of his article is pretty strong, saying that Fox is not real journalism is not remotely akin to accepting prosecutorial abuse of journalists, as he tries to falsely insinuate. But given Democrats poor framing of this issue, once again, it is easy to see how Reynold's can see it this way.)

What the Obama administration means is that an advocacy organization that sets itself up as a news station is far more effective than an outright advocacy organization, because it is designed with the purpose of making people think its purpose is objectively covering the news, when it's purpose is very different. By making people think they are coming to their own conclusions -- by occasionally throwing in a small tidbit of apparent balance by taking or arguing a position or fact contrary to what the station wants to maintiain, all the while reminding viewers how "fair and balanced" Fox is -- Fox has a far more powerful effect (and broader viewership) than outright advocacy ever could.

Of course, Reynold's can't see this, because as his blog almost constantly illustrates, Fox backs up his vision of the world.

The news is not supposed to do that. It is supposed to sober you up. Fox is exceptionally good at making you think it is doing that, while doing quite the opposite.

Good Idea, Except They Probably Wouldn't Bother to Wipe Their Feet

2010-01-01T02:15:00.001-05:00

From the popular (and well named!) blog, "boing, boing" comment section, regarding a front door mat available at Target that literally says "Come back with a warrant":

Ooh! I want one! Better yet, I want a doormat that actually has the text of the Fourth Amendment on it. If someone's gonna violate my most basic, Constitutionally-protected civil liberties, I want them to have to literally wipe their feet on the Bill of Rights in order to do it.

Here's a funnier one:

...Cop: Our dog smelled something in your car. Can we search your car? Me: I was standing right here, and I heard the other cop tell you the dog didn't find anything. If the dog had found anything, you wouldn't have to ask me to search my car. That would be the probable cause that you don't have. (I then made the mistake of relenting to their ridiculous search, and they repaid me by removing EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE SEATS from my car and leaving them on the side of the highway at 2am. I was young, and that was the 1st and last time I ever consented to a search. It was also the night I learned to never trust anything that comes out of a cop's mouth.)

As they say on the internet (or as Sunday talk show host John McLaughlin says every time he ends one of his shows), boing boing!

As a segueway into a different John McLaughlin (and slightly more entertaining one):

Rebound? -- Seriously -- REBOUND???!

2010-01-01T00:27:00.006-05:00

Anyone not familiar with Jim Mora's greatest PR moment ever (well, greatest for those who like coach press conferences, not so great for Mora), should check it out.

In a piece that goes to great lengths to argue that the economy has not "rebounded," Tom Blumer, on the Instapundit/Pajamas Internet site, says that when he saw the word "rebound" used in the media, he was reminded of the scene from the movie "Breaking Away," where the dad used car salesman says to the son, half increduously, "[you gave them a] refund? Refund???!!"

Which reminded us of Jim Mora:

As for Blumer -- while the economy has not fully recovered, and (as is almost always the case with macroeconomics, despite the plethora of prognosticators that predict otherwise) we can't be sure when or to what it extent it will fully recover -- one has to wonder just how this exact same set of facts would be spun by Blumer were, say the situation reversed, and had Obama been the President for the past eight years and Bush now in office for the past year. (Or even if just McCain or Huckabee or (frightening as it is), Palin, were president, instead of Obama.)

It probably would read like a completely different reality; with Blumer, instead of cherry picking some reporter who probably did overstate the recovery (despite the fact that was not his point) going half apesh*t about how the media was not talking up how well the economy was doing, how a great catastrophe had been averted, and what a great job the administration had been doing.

Seriously. Who stoops to this actual argument:

You haven’t "rebounded' until you’re back to where you were.

Yeah you have. Just not fully.

Or, instead, next time your teammate takes a shot from the three point line in basketball, and inside the guard, you pull down the "rebound," just remember: It's not a rebound, because the ball did not get back to the three point line.

Even if one agrees that the word "rebound" (qualified or not, in which case the argument would be that it should have been qualified, which is a whisper compared to the conniption fit that Blumer throws by saying "rebound" like Mora said "playoffs" (or the Breaking Away character's dad said "refund?!!")), is not perfect, Blumer also uses the wrong measure; namely the last quarter of growth, when the issue is whether the economy has rebounded back to some measure of vitality, in which case, an average growth would be more appropriate.

But the first part of that equation is whether the economy has (so far) rebounded out of the enormous hole it was in. The answer to that, however temporary (or not, you predict), is yes. Just not in Blumer's world, with Obama as president.

What is Different About the Response to the Shoe Bomber versus the Christmas Bomber?

2009-12-30T22:41:00.000-05:00

The GOP has been jumping all over Obama for the Christmas airline bombing attempt. So

Q: What is Different About the Response to the shoe bomber versus the Christmas Bomber?

A: The shoe bomber's attempt was made under the Bush Administration.

TPM notes:

During a telephone interview on MSNBC today Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) failed to reconcile the hypocrisy inherent in Republican criticisms of President Obama's allegedly soft or slow reaction to the attempted attack on flight 253. As MSNBC's Milissa Rehberger pointed out, then-President George W. Bush took six days to issue a response to shoe bomber Richard Reid's failed attack in 2001 -- far longer than President Obama took to address flight 253.

Plus, Reid had a trial in civilian court -- though Republicans have jumped all over the Obama administration for not trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a military tribunal.

After stammering momentarily to Rehberger's question about the apparent double standard, Rep. Conaway offered an answer that didn't address the question:
Well, I didn't come out immediately and criticize the president. He has said let's do this review. There's some other steps he can take. ... Let's look forward to what we ought to be doing, and we can spend all the time we want to looking backwards, whether you want to criticize Bush or whatever. The truth of the matter is, there are active jihadists at work right now trying to come hurt and kill Americans.

Double standards, however, seem to be the standard, these days.

Scary Parallel Logic

2009-12-30T22:31:00.000-05:00

No, it didn't. Did it?

A popular blog perhaps tried to insinuate that lack of health insurance is worse than terrorism.

We could analyze all of the problems in this comparison for pages. But, simply put, this is like arguing that murder is no big deal because "people die in hospitals every day." Actually, it's not just "like" arguing that, it kind of is that.

The number one point of course being that medical care may not be needed; we control our own health to a large extent; even with health insurance one can still get bad medical care, or even good medical care may fail; while not nearly as effective we do have emergency rooms (not an endorsement for a health care plan being "emergency rooms" which are overused, often don't prevent what will lead to death where good care might have, and are incredibly inefficient and a last resort, but we do have them); there is no element of a purposeful engagement in the most heinous hijacking of liberty known to man -- the purposeful killing; and one can of course provided circumstances are not too unfavorable, work to get health insurance or save enough to cover at least some medical care.

This is not to say that medical care in this country is not a debacle. It is. But that is not the point of this post. It is to say that false comparisons, like "the number of people that die from skiing accidents, and the number of people that die from being robbed nyc city streets is the same, so what's the big deal about being robbed!" are really missing the boat.

Still, in fairness to that blog, it is worth pointing out that lack of insurance, at least under our current system, does lead to deaths in some cases, that otherwise could have been prevented. That's just a reality, and it's not a good one. But while we think health care, and in particular health care insurance, is ripe for reform in a country where health care costs (both to government and citizens) are spiraling ridiculously out of control while many people's health care is in fact compromised, we don't think any bill is better than no bill. In fact, we think it is a lot worse.

Republicans Have No Business Pointing Fingers, Do They?

2009-12-30T21:59:00.000-05:00

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen:

In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration's failures to deal with al Qaeda. The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security."

The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq..." [The Administration has] been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Seems pretty reasonable though. And the far right sure has politicized this attack attempt, mighty quick.

As Steve Benen of Washington Monthly points out:

Bush/Cheney released the terrorist plotters into.."art therapy rehabilitation" b) failed.. to keep America and its allies safe from terrorism during the former administration's eight years; c) the same Republican lawmakers whining now also voted against funding for the Transportation Safety Administration, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems; and d) that Obama has succeeded on counter-terrorism fronts that Bush/Cheney only talked about.

But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the crass politicization of this issue, with, of course, an assist (as almost always) from the crack expert counter terrorism unit over at the Washington Post.

Battle Against Terrorism, and, Sadly, Politics

2009-12-30T18:37:00.000-05:00

Earlier today, Dick Cheney, who never met an opportunity he didn't like, real or imagined, to castigate those who he doesn't agree with politically, said the following:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war...But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.

Actually, saying we are at "war" does not change the reality of the situation either.

What it does do, however, is help send a message to our pyschotic al-Qaeda enemies that this is bigger, not smaller. This only increases their importance and effect.

It also, more troublingly, plays into the idea that this is not an all out effort on our part to expunge, exterminate, and wipe out fringe extremist radical Islamic terrorist cells, but that this is somehow part of some broader effort which may well even involve Islam itself -- which is probably just about the worst strategy we could engage in.

One of the many problems, from a political strategic and communication perspective, with Democrats, is that they think that anybody who is, or who they think, is wrong, must have really bad motives, or know they are lying, or just "evil."

Dick Cheney is almost radically right wing and militant. And Democrats have done a poor job of showing this, and defining Cheney with it, as opposed to simply presuming everyone "knows it." And the media has thus also done a poor job of covering it. But the fact is, this does not mean that Cheney is "evil" (although if ignorance is evil, Cheney may be sometimes thus), or that he is always, in his mind, lying.

What it does mean, in this particular instance, is that Cheney is, in the words of Karl Rove (talking about others, of course) "deeply, an profoundly, wrong." .

As for politicizing this, Cheney believes he is being fair and objective. Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald had an excellent post on this point recently, with respect to "Reason" magazine. When Obama said that the CBO "reports" instead of the more speculative "projects" -- because it suited Reason's extremely ideological beliefs, Obama was lying according to its Editor in Chief; there was even a picture of Obama with a Pinocchio nose.

But guess what. Greenwald looked at numerous Reason articles, and found out that by this "standard," Reason writers lied all the time. That is, whenever it suited their political purposes, the CBO "reported." Reasons writers said the CBO reported all the time, always in articles where the "report" suited their political beliefs.

But when a political Obama, and thus with more need to spin than a magazine named "Reason," did the same exact thing that "Reason" reporters, in "objectively reporting," did, the Editor in Chief called him a liar, and put a picture of him up with a Pinocchio nose.

Cheney is very likely the same way. He is being extrordinarily political, and is so lacking in objectivity, probably does not even realize it. Which is perhaps worse than even being extraordinarily politcal.(Here's another example, showing this is not just restricted to "Reason" magazine, or Dick Cheney.)

On top of that, in terms of his framing on this effort we need to engage in, after eight years of magnifying the problem, misdirecting resources, and failing to quell al-Qaeda, he is also, deeply, and profoundly wrong.

More Expert Anti-Terrorism Advice: Quick, Who Said This?

2009-12-30T00:25:00.003-05:00

(Update below)
What Far Right, Zealous, anti-Obama Ideologue, and on what random blog, wrote the following:

By staying in Hawaii, the president has sent the message that the situation really isn’t all that serious, that things can proceed just fine until he’s back. And isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?

That is, that because some random terrorist (who should never have made it into the U.S.) -- who of course claims allegiance to and apparently had some ties to al-Qi'da, tried to blow up an airplane -- our President is sending the wrong message by staying In Hawaii. In other words, let's go nutso whenver al-Qi'da does something, so that they know they can really get us into a tizzy even by failed attempts. Or, um, perhaps we should send the message that they can't throw us into a tizzy?

That is, so long as Obama is not needed in Washington to help orchestrate any strategies or thwart any attacks -- a pretty big stretch if one was to make it. But that's not what this zealous anti Obama site is saying. This site is just saying that Obama, taking it in stride in a way that has no negative practical or strategic ramifications for us, is "sending them" the wrong message.

Where did this person writing on this site get their anti terrorist training, anyway? Because it looks like they could use a refresher course.

So what site was this? The Washington Post, and Jo-Ann Armao.

Let's check out her reasoning again:

By staying in Hawaii...isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?

So what Christmas day would they strike? Christmas day tomorrow? Wouldn't that be an argument for staying in Washington next Christmas day, next year? (To the extent Obama being in Washington is even relevant.) Maybe our President should never travel oveseas, either? The argument that by him staying in Hawaii we are not taking terrorism "seriously," as opposed to not sending al-Qi'da the message that they can have even more of an effect on us than they need to, is really pretty weak.

Terrorism is a tough topic. A lot of people have ideas on it, but few have any idea what they are talking about. Jo-Ann Armao is one of those people. And not suprisingly, she writes for the Washington Post.

Update: Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald offers a more scathing indictment of Armao's counter terrorism "expertise,"but essentially makes the same points:

Scampering back to Washington -- "hotfooted" or otherwise -- would have been the worst possible thing that Obama could have done. It would have created a climate of frenzy and panic and thus helped to terrorize the country even more -- which, one might want to recall, is the goal, by definition, of Terrorists. The fact that Obama doesn't hysterically run around like some sort of frightened chicken with his head cut off every time Al Qaeda sneezes -- or swagger to the nearest camera to beat his chest and play the role of protective daddy-cowboy -- is one of the things I like best about him. As for Armao's "point" about how Janet Napolitano probably took it easy because the "boss was away" -- and her belief that Terrorists will strike more on holidays if Obama isn't affixed to his chair in the Oval Office, as though he's the Supreme Airport Screener: those are so self-evidently dumb it's hard to believe they found their way even into something written by one of Fred Hiatt's editorial writers.

That last point may seem a little harsh. But seriously, whatever one may think of Napolitano's responses, she ought to be ready to just vomit over the inanity of Armao's suggesting that the head of Homeland Security Secretary "took it easy" because the "boss was away."
We all make mistakes, and write dumb things. But how did this get past Armao's editors? Oh, right. It was the Washington Post. Your one stop crack team counter-terrorism unit.

MI Rep. Pete Hoekstra Versus MI. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Terrorism, and Health Care

2009-12-29T14:50:00.006-05:00

Who wins this debate?

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, on funding for the latest technologies in airport screenings:

Voted Nay.

Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, after the foiled Christmas day airline bombing attempt by a Nigerian whose famous father warned the U.S. Embassy about a month beforehand, now:

Says the U.S. needs to...put into place the latest technology for dealing with it.

But was this a one time slip up, a quick change of heart, or was the vote against "the latest technology for dealing with it" cast for other reasons, while working otherwise to get it applied?

Here is Hoekstra versus Hoekstra again, accusing House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of "outrageous accusations," which he has made himself both before and, most notably, since, accusing the CIA himself of outright lying.

Here is Hoekstra in a Detroit Free Press Op ed on the same issue of more effectively combatting terrorism:

On the one hand, the Obama administration claims it will protect our nation from terrorists, but is pursuing CIA officers who used approved interrogation techniques against al Qaeda terrorists.

But this is false information that Hoesktra is representing to his Michigan constituents, and to the American public:

Despite demands from civil libertarian and human rights organizations for a much broader investigation....Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly did not approve such an investigation and opted instead to appoint a special investigator to look only at CIA interrogations that might have gone beyond the techniques approved by the Office of Legal Counsel under Bush. The Washington Post reported this quite clearly:
...The sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the “four corners” of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.

We're all in agreement that we need to do a more effective job.

But first we need to have correct information.

Promoting erroneous information just further undermines legitimate debate, discussion, and understanding of the actual issues and choices, and increasingly leads to bad policies and politics.

Here's a classic example of bad policies after months of heated public "debate" where misinformation ran rampant -- much of it, sad to say, promulgated by Hoekstra's political party.

Hoekstra himself proselytized and blatantly attacked on that issue --health care --himself:

Democrats want to take away your freedoms!

We don't like the bill either, among, for other reasons, its seeming intrusiveness, mandates, and big government, overly complicated, paperwork excessive nature while at the same time probably only adding more to the real root of the problem. But is shouting "Democrats want to take away your freedoms" helping on the matter?

What Does the TSA Administrator Say About the Christmas Day Airline Bombing Attempt?

2009-12-29T13:59:00.001-05:00

A recent post noted how the 23 year old Nigerian who apparently attempted to blow up a commericial airline flight bound for Detroit on Christmas day, should not have been allowed to fly: Among other things, his father, a prominent Nigerian, warned the U.S. Embassy in November about his son's ties to al-Qaeda.

Instead, luckily, his explosive device apparently did not go off properly or immediately, and his attempt was thrwarted by a passenger.

But what does the TSA Administrator have to say about all of this?

We don't know, because we don't have one.

Why? Ask South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, who reportedly has been blocking the nominee over concerns about TSA workers joining a union, or some such thing.

Meanwhile, another site wonders what kind of stink the far right, rightly or wrongly, would be making about this if the situation were reversed: That is, no TSA Administrator had been in place for several months, because a Democrat had been holding up an otherwise reasonable TSA appointment by a Republican Administration.

Probably a big stink, even if the Democrat was well intentioned, and even if it had nothing to do with the foiled bomb attempt -- questions we don't purport to answer here. What is noted here is the veritable absence of attention paid to the fact that we don't have a TSA administratrator because Demint has been holding it up for months.

Yeah, the System Worked: "Great"

2009-12-29T00:31:00.000-05:00

Although it's not clear what system Janet Napolitano is talking about here when she makes this comment.

Because it's certainly not the system that is designed to keep radical terrorists out of America:

The alleged perpetrator in the recent failed airline bomb attempt had been denied re entry into Britain.

Britain's reason? A pretty good one: He allegedly claimed his intent to study at a bogus University.

His own father, a former economics minister of Nigeria, is reported by the UK's Independent to have warned the U.S. that his son was tied to al-Qi'da almost half a year earlier. In November, his father went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to warn the U.S. about his son and these same ties.

ABC's Jake Tapper also notes that on Dec. 16 he bought a round trip ticket with 3k cash and no address or contact info, and on Dec. 24 boarded a flight from Nigeria to the U.S. with no luggage.

These latter two things are not that big of a deal; but in combination with his father', an extremely prominent Nigerian, warning of ties to al-Qida, and Britain banning him from entry prior to that for other reasons?

Seems like, in fact, the system didn't work so well.

How to Worsen the Battle Against Terrorism

2009-12-28T17:34:00.004-05:00

Q: What is you wanted to make the war on terror worse, and you were famous, what would you say?

A: Something that would make this effort to combat terrorism more -- to Muslims, at least -- like it was a battle against Muslims.

Why would this be one of the most foolish things we could do? Because it is imperative that the Muslim world understand that this is not against Muslims, that it is not impugning Islam (the world's second most popular religion) but is against radical extremist, terrorism, which is far different from the vast majority of Islam.

This is probably the single most critical thing to accomplish to help mitigate and lessen this problem long term, rather than infalme and broaden it. In a word, the most important thing we can do, is further marginalize extremist elements, and have Muslims understand that this is not a battle against them. The worst thing we can do is anything helps to convey the opposite.

So what did talk show host Mike Gallagher do? The opposite, of course:

We should anybody who is a known Muslim and put them in a separate line. Call it the VIP line! Treat them with respect!

Did Gallagher take lessons in how to inflame and provoke and make insanity directed against innocents and the "west" just ever so slightly less insane (still insane, just effecting their view a slight bit in the opposite way that we need to) to a lot of otherwise reasonable people who feel they are being targeted now?

Or is he just a natural.

As practical as this idea might sound to some, if you are a Christian, traveling in either your own country, or abroad, and it turns out that some really radical, fringe, lunatic element of the "Christian Faith" which has nothing to do with you, were to be crazy terrorists, how would you feel then to be singled out in your own special "respect line" which is a double check, for terrorism. (Obviously, not something normally associated with "respect.").You'd feel like you were being singled out (and you would be) and that it was your religion that was being impugned.

That is not good, and undermines what we need to accomplish.

It is, thus, is a terrible idea.

Most experts in this field, happen to agree. Gallagher, on the other hand, a "guest" on Fox, is no expert.

Health Care "Reform:" Kill or Change This Bill

2009-12-20T14:11:00.002-05:00

"Health Care": A bill that puts even more rules on people, yet does not address the health insurance cost issue, is like trying to fix a bus by putting on a new tailpipe and hood,and throwing more sand in an already bad working engine.

Shorter version: A health care bill that throws on more rules, and doesn't address health insurance costs, is like trying to fix a broken pipe by requiring even more people to spend money buying the oil that flows through it.

When Howard Dean, M.D., former presidential candidate, former Governor, former head of the DNC, and a huge advocate of health insurance reform, says its a bad bill, it says something.

Perhaps in order to "appease" Republicans, who aren't voting for this bill anyway, all Democrats have managed to do is make some of the non stop criticism that Republicans have been hurling (much like one throws mud at a wall hoping some will stick) valid.

It's a bad bill. It's bad legislation. It's more big government. It's more mandated control. It won't provide the type of health security for everybody that advocates of this desire (whether right or wrong to do this, what else other than "cost" is the point?), and it won't do anything to address the real problem with health care in this country: Spiraling costs, and in particular, health insurance costs.

A bad bill is not better than no bill. Excesive health insurance -- rather than health insurance only for expensive, unexpected health crises -- is the problem, not the solution. This bill does nothing to address that, and only adds to it. In fact, Dean says its a "bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

Ditch, or substantively change, this bill. Address the problem. For profit health insurance that everyone, from the government, consumers, to medical personnel, are all being held hostage by. Provide a competitive option, or decrease incentives to have broad based "non essential" for profit health coverage; excessive coverage which is soaking up enormous amounts of government and consumer money, for no return. Yet all this bill would do is add to this it.

That's not reform. That's just more rules.

Perhaps in order to "appease" Republicans, who aren't voting for this bill anyway, all Democrats have managed to do is make some of the non stop criticism that Republicans have been hurling (much like one throws mud at a wall hoping some will stick) valid.

It's a bad bill. It's bad legislation. It's more big government. It's more mandated control. It won't provide the type of health security for everybody that advocates of this desire (whether right or wrong to do this, what else other than "cost" is the point?), and it won't do anything to address the real problem with health care in this country: Spiraling costs, and in particular, health insurance costs.

A bad bill is not better than no bill. Excesive health insurance, rather than health insurance only for expensive, unexpected health crisis', is the problem, not the solution. This bill does nothing to address that, and only adds to it. In fact, Dean says its a "bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

Ditch this bill. Start over. Address the problem. For profit health insurance that everyone, from the government, consumers, to medical personnel, are all being held hostage by. Provide a competitive option, or decrease incentives to have broad based "non essential" for profit health coverage; excessive coverage which is soaking up enormous amounts of government and consumer money, for no return. Yet all this bill would do is add to this it.

That's not reform. That's just more rules.

Just How Insane and Irrational is Pox News?

2009-11-25T04:11:00.001-05:00

The talking heads on Pox News and its related ideologically driven far right wing minions, have been largely going nuts because President Obama bowed to some foreign leaders in a land where such greetings are customary.

This is pretty scary. On Pox apparently they think the art of diplomacy is to get other countries to hate us for no good reason, and to pass up sensible opportunities to build rapore and communication with no attendant loss to our own interests or goals.

James Fallows writes in the Atlantic that a WH aide who traveled with the President to Asia told him:

When the president heard that some people had complained, I'd characterize his reaction as: The notion that the United States is somehow humbling or humiliating itself by showing respect for a local custom, when it is transparently the most powerful country in the world, leaves me speechless.

That should probably be restated, replacing the world "humbling" with "weakening" and it's a pretty spot on assessment of just how absurd and one dimensional the predominant thinking on Pox News has become.

"Smart Grid" or Another Creep Close to Big Brother?

2009-11-19T19:01:00.001-05:00

From the Washington Post:

"The modernization of the grid will increase the level of personal information detail available as well as the instances of collection, use and disclosure of personal information," warns a report (PDF) jointly released Tuesday by the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), a think tank made up of chief privacy officers, advocates and academics.

Smart grid technology -- including new "smart meters" being attached to businesses and homes -- is designed in part to provide consumers with real-time feedback on power consumption patterns and levels. But as these systems begin to come online, it remains unclear how utilities and partner companies will mine, share and use that new wealth of information, experts warn.

"Instead of measuring energy use at the end of each billing period, smart meters will provide this information at much shorter intervals," the report notes. "Even if electricity use is not recorded minute by minute, or at the appliance level, information may be gleaned from ongoing monitoring of electricity consumption such as the approximate number of occupants, when they are present, as well as when they are awake or asleep. For many, this will resonate as a 'sanctity of the home' issue, where such intimate details of daily life should not be accessible."

According to the study, examples of information that utilities and partner companies might be able to glean from more granular power consumption data include whether and how often exercise equipment is used; whether a house has an alarm system and how often it is activated; when occupants usually shower, and how often they wash their clothes.

This is really not a good thing. Interestingly, it should be one of those rare things that concerns both those on the left and right (such, as for example, reliance upon oil) but just like those other rare things (such as reliance upon oil) will likely not be sensibly solved.

Frankly, for a whole host of reasons, there should be less emphasis on power grids, and far more emphasis on highly localized, even individualized, power sources. But few seem to be preaching this.

Another Terribly Misleading, and Ill-Informed Column From the Denver Post

2009-11-19T17:02:00.001-05:00

David Hirsanyi yesterday tells the Denver Post's readers some extraordinary things with respect to the Sarah Palin Phenomenon. Let's break it down.

He starts with a far overdone point, about stereotpyes:

These days, where you fall on the crucial issue of Sarah Palin tells the rest of us all we need to know about your character. You're either a:

A) Scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist, or a

B) Radical, tea-bag-loving simpleton.

Yes, you are. To some of the simpletons in the media, perhaps, who have to find false equivalency and oversimplification in everything; or to those on the extremes of both parties (which in the case of the Right would now probably be a majority of that party today). But to anybody else, this is an asinine assesment.

Plenty of people simply believe, correctly, that Palin is phenomenally gifted when it comes to spin and rhetoric (hence perhaps why some of her appeal to much of this same far right) but extemely lacking when it comes to substantive understanding, knowledge, or objective insight.

Many others, perhaps more versed in the facts than one should be today in order to be able to comfortably read columns such as those by Hirsanyi without wanting to vomit, are also aware that almost everthing that Palin stated in the first half year since she burst on the scene publicy in August of 2008 (and much of what she has stated since) has been misleading, or manipulative.
\
None of this has anything to do with scum sucking, or radical tea bagging.

The media is often accused of being unfair to Palin. And it is true that the media does not give Palin a pass on virtually everthing, as it does many others on the far right -- afraid of being branded as "liberal." (It does so for two reasons. One -- the profound level of ignorance that Palin exhibited, and two, the disdan and contempt for a media simply doing its job -- albeit marginally at that -- that Palin routinely exhibited, as if in her world a media exists solely to provide the information that one wants, in the manner that one wants it provided. Exactly the opposite of what a media's job in a free society is, and exactly what the media's job in an authoritarian society is.)

But if the media really focused on the many misleading statements by Palin, and the facts, as it should, and should have, back in 2008, there would be far less ignorance when it came to Palin than there is.

For example, Hirsanyi is correct to insinuate that Palin critics are far overplaying the significance of the fact that a little over half of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of her, and even more don't see her as qualified for the presidency. But many of those who do have a favorable opinion of Palin base this upon her rhetoric that they have heard, rather than the actual facts underlying that rhetoric, which have not been so revealed. Facts which more accurately paint her as the highly authoritarian, intensely hypocritical, extremely, if not purposefully manipulative, and deeply misinformed figure, rather than some rugged individualist thinker that she and her supporters like to portray her as.

Hirsanyi clearly must also feel like Palin's personal protector, because here is what he has to say about Levi Jonhston, the father to Palin's grandchild:

[He is] a man whose only discernible talent is the possession of operational sperm and the ability to humiliate the former vice presidential nominee.

Johnston is not writing columns in the Denver Post, holding himself out as some sort of informed voice. So why is Hirsanyi attacking him? Because people love to attack people that we perceive as "dumber" than us.

It is a disgusting trait when those being attacked are not holding themselves out as experts or as an authority, or telling other people what to think, or, such as in Hirsayni's case, writing ignorant, and manipulative columns in one of the nation's largest newspapers.

Johnston is still largely a kid, and this is just a gratuitous shot at an easy target. But why does Hirsanyi feel compelled to rag on the guy?

Hirsanyi then next, sarcastically asks:

And how could a major magazine like Newsweek be expected to use a cover photo of Palin campaigning or spending time with her Down syndrome child when editors could simply borrow a shot of the 45-year-old mother of five decked out in her exercise tights — nudge nudge, wink wink — from a Runners World piece and slap the headline "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?" onto it?

Here is the answer Hirsayni: Because Newweek is not Palin's propaganda tool of the fundamenta. wing of the Republican Party. Bad as it is, it is a news magazine, and it still fits that purpose. If it was the former (much like Fox is today, teaching people like Hirsanyi what media that "says what they want to hear, how they want to hear it" sounds like, and convincing them it is news), then perhaps a nice cover phot of Palin spending time with her Down syndrome child might be a better shot.

Was Palin decked out in ":exercise tights" a proper picture for the front page? We don't know. We do know that Palin has used her looks to her advantage. This is not necessarily wrong. But then it should not necessarily make it wrong for Newsweek to run this otherwise clearly public picture. As for the somewhat slanted Newsweek title, that is another story. (But for those do see Palin as a problem, whether for the Republican Party, or for Democrats (sadly, Democrats are not yet hip to that possibility), or for America, it is solved by covering the facts. Palin is not a cause of rampant ignorance; along with Glenn Beck, she is a profound reflection of it.)

Hirsayni also contends:

Who knows what is to become of Palin? Today, though, there is little doubt the left is using her to create ugly stereotypes and attack limited-government types across the country.

Hmmm. This is somewhat of a limited government blog. And this blog will make the point (and back it up with more facts than could be fit into 50,000 of the latest misleading sound bite headlines or "populist" figures spins) that Sarah Palin is the poster child for ignorance. So is she being used here to attack limited goverment types across the country?

The fact of the matter is that many "Limited government" types support increased authoritarianism, and in many ways increased government power -- in almost all respects but the one or two where it makes the most sense for a government to exercise some role. That is, those areas which we must share collectively, like the environment. Or where it makes more sense to handle collectively, and where this creates more freedom than it impinges upon. Such as in food safety and accuracy of representation. (It doesn't pay on on invidivual basis, for example, to go out and test all the food one buys, nor does it years after the fact to sue after one has lost a family member to excess carcinogen induced cancer, years after billions have been made,and reorganized under other corporate entities).

Figures like Palin, and Glenn Beck, only further promote and feed into this ignorance. And the less the media does its job helping to objecitvely inform the public,and illuminate wildly misleading rhetoric such as Palin and Beck's, the more this ignorance will be fed, rather than checked.

As an example of just how sad the state of affairs today has become, consider that Beck himself is actually a "part of" that very same "media." Of course, consider the fact that it is the part of the "media" that operates the way Palin, and it appears Hirsanyi, want it to operate, as noted above. That is, telling them exactly what they want to hear, and how they want to hear it; again exactly the opposite of its function in a free democracy.

As another example of the sad state of affairs, consider that such an ignorant, misinformed piece by Hirsanyi in the Denver Post is what passes for "balance" today.

And it is part of exactly what some on the rtight (usually the far right) did in 2004. Create a shield of insulation from the need to actually look at the facts. Thus anything substantive said against Bush in 2004 was simply because "one hated Bush." (Sadly, also played into by some on the left proudly proclaiming their hatred of Bush, instead of merely focusing on effectively communicating, rather than takin for granted, why). And now anything which makes an effective case against Palin, can be dismissed by Hirsanyi and his clones, ludicrously, as a means simply to create ugly stereotypes and attack limited government types across the country.

The real uglines is ignorance. And Palin, as non ugly as she may otherwise be, as earnest as she may be, and as admirable as she may be, as Hirsanyi also points out, for her undoubted "charisma and her roots," has uttered a profoundly high number of ignorant and often highly manipulative statements passed off as populist "straight talk." Palin has a right to speak her mind, however misinformed that mind may be. But there is a certain ugliness in accomodating this, in not pointing it out, in accepting it as okay merely because of that "charisma and roots" and her popularity -- popularity fueled by that very same ignorance.

Ugliness is ignorance. Ignorance by those who claim to know, and continually hold the bully pulpit over others.

Hirsanyi, essentially, concludes his piece with this:

Palin claims that a presidential run is "not on my radar screen right now." She may have gone rogue on John McCain — joining the rest of America — but Palin will have to work to articulate her positions, show more intellectual curiosity and fuse her magnetism with more substantive thinking.

But due to the stupendously nasty campaign waged against her, she might not get the chance.

In Hirsanyi's world, Palin joined the rest of America, by "going rogue" on the McCain campaign. Except for one thing. Palin went rogue by going to the right of McCain. McCain garnered the Republican nomination, and campaigned for President, by going radically to the right of his former self. So this was "joining" the rest of America? Or is this just more ignorance on the part of Hirsanyi, in the Denver Post.

Palin -- who has had her book mentioned more than almost any figure in recent modern history, who is on the cover of magazines, who is repeatedly asked to be on talk and news shows, all unlike countless other Americans who may be far more profoundly competent at actual governing as well as insightful idea generation, than Palin -- may not get a chance, according to Hirsanyi, to "show more intellectual curiosity," and more "substantive" thinking.

Hirsanyi is living in a dream world. Unfortunately, that dream world is slowly starting to ruin America.

The "nastiness" leveled at Sarah Palin does not come close to the nastiness leveled against Hillary Clinton for several years, or even President Barack Obama today. And much of that nastiness (which as actual nastiness is in no way here condoned), is in fact simply pointing out the facts of the matter. Facts which Americans should know. And which most still don't.

What Needs to be Addressed to Solve Health Care, and Some Ludicrous Claims Highlighted by the Washington Post

2009-11-07T18:06:00.001-05:00

A Washington Post editorial on health care reform this past weekend, noted the following:

As an example of the hyperbole, take the ludicrous assertion by Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) that the Democratic measure "is the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington." Come on. The proposal has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and the AARP, hardly wild-eyed radicals.

The editorial is right to point out the absurdity of Boehner's statement. Not to mention the irony, given that Boehner was a staunch supporter of the controlling, highly restrictive, and power amassing Bush Administration, as well as a supporter of almost every congressional bill this decade that either was highly intrusive and/or expanded government power over individual rights -- something the Post neglected to mention.

But is it really necessary for the AARP and the AMA to have endorsed the proposal in order to be able to point out the ridiculous rhetorical overdosing by Boehner over it?

Hardly. Whether this or that group does or does not endorse a bill does not reflect the accuracy or absurdity of such a statement, which instead requires an examination of the role of government currently in health care, and the facts. Something that seems to be short supply these days, when it comes to this same media.

As a separate issue, it is valid to point out that the reasonably conservative AMA endorses the bill. But why must the Post then link this point directly to the inane, and wholly gratuitious assertion that the AMA and the AARP are not "wild eyed radicals"?

Does this need to be stated? And are other opponents of the far right wing Boehner "wild eyed radicals"? Where are these "wild eyed" radicals?

Fairly few and far between, it seems, and largely insignificant. Although on the other side of the equation -- and also largely unmentioned by the Post -- there seem to be quite a number of them on talk radio propogating similar outrageous claims on a routine basis.

Not to mention some more in Congress, including those who outlandishly assert that the Democratic measure "is the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington."

The Post also has its laundry list of concerns with the current proposal. But what the paper misses is that one of the biggest failures of this bill is that it not only fails to address the biggest cause of excessive health care costs -- rampant middleman health insurance for routine health care -- but in essence it adds to it.

The fact is, health care in this country DOES NOT operate under real capitalism now. Almost no one bargains with their doctors. Few have the chance to compare costs. Most are hostage to their insurance companes. And these insurance companies are already often dictating the terms of medical decisions, leaving consumers -- who have given their health dollars to the insurance company rather than directly to their own medical care -- left holding the bag for which there is no money left when coverage, treatement or needed tests are denied.

If there is going to be health insurance, and the government is going to be involved, spending several hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money annually (and rapidly rising) as it does now -- spending more on health care than anything other than national defense and the fully separately funded Social Security -- it has to be non profit. And more limited.

Catastrophic coverage by the government, or by insurance companies, still makes more sense than the current system that we have -- whereby consumers held hostage economically by insurance companies wind up paying ever and ever increasing fees, while all kinds of often ridiculous and wholly wasteful attendant costs are incurred at almost every step of the way. And all at a profit for large health insurance conglomerates that are essentially covering things that individuals should be paying directly themselves -- into either their own actual health care and or prevention -- while at the same time having the effect of making things far more expensive for government by increasing health care costs across the board.

No one wants to say it. Particularly the health insurance industry lobby which Congress seems to have its hands deep in the pockets of. (Just google health insurance industry related donations to Congress). But Health insurance, apart from health insurance which covers each individual only for what for them would be catastrophic, is essentially an enormous, needless waste, that greatly compounds our overall private and public costs .

Fixing the system, and the incredible waste in our country on health care relative to the results obtained -- now near 18 percent of our entire GDP -- requires fixing this.

Not adding to it.

Iran Holding Journalists Captive for No Real Reason

2009-11-07T14:16:00.001-05:00

As this country moves closer and closer to corporate controlled news, Iran seems to be exhibiting even more profound government controlled news; and is behaving more like an autocracy and less like the democracy that many in Iran -- at least back when George Bush famously called it part of the "Axis of Evil" -- wish it to be.

Calling out the worst in Iran, a country overflowing with a younger population that wanted to be more like the West in many ways, was probably not a wise strategy move. Today, continuing to speak out nationally about the perceived need to "bomb Iran," is probably not a wise strategy either.

But these days, it seems, we increasingly seem to be looking at these foreign policy issues from our own perspective only (witness our strategic decisions on and handling of Iraq, for one example), and thus if Iran feels imposed upon by being dictated to by world opinion on weapons, we are oblivious to it. If threats of military action against Iran will lead to increased solidarity within Iran towards the outside world, we are oblivious to it.

Thus some of our rhetoric only tends to further hostility, causing the pronouncement of further animosity toward Iran in a sort of self perpetuating cycle.

At the same time, evidence is creeping up in Iran of exactly the type of increasingly authoritarian and controlling rule that it in some ways has historically been reflective of, and was trying to move away from. And there is probably nothing else to create internal Iranian solidarity toward a government that it may not even like, than the perceived threat from the outside world.

As an example of this increasing government control, we see actions like these:

Iranian officials arrested a Japanese and two Canadian reporters during anti-government demonstrations this week and charged them with "unauthorized reporting," the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported Friday.

Is this a real report? Note that the Fars News Agency is described in the Washington Post article as "semi-official."

The article's author, Thomas Erdbrink, was not available for comment, but an assistant at the paper stated that the news source is referred to as "semiofficial" because it is considered to have ties to the government, and is not completely independent as the agency claims. It is likely standard form, as the BBC appears to refer to the News Agency as "semi-official" as well.

Whether the potential tie to the government increases or decreases the likelihood of the story being true is unclear, as there are arguments in both directions: given the propaganda aspect, it could be falsely reported to have a chiling effect on foreign journalists, while on the other hand it is news that does not reflect well upon the government, making it thus less likely to be made up.

Erdbrink's article in the Post also seems to suggest that the Fars News Agency is actually "state run" -- althought it is not clear what this means. And wikipedia, in the link above, suggests that "The [Far News]agency is well known for saying lots of lies and for unreliability."

Either way, whether it is just the threat, or, far more likely, the actual capture of foreign journalists, it is chilling news.

Additionally Erdbrink reports:

On Wednesday, authorities temporarily blocked all access to e-mail programs such as Gmail and Yahoo during the demonstrations to prevent people from sending images to foreign media organizations.

The Demonstration, apparently, was in response to a state sanctioned event commemorating the 1979 Embassy takeover, by those who don't think the current government is legitimate.

One wonders -- given the antipathy that we have seen from the far right toward President Obama (and likely would have seen toward a President Kerry)-- if the situation in 2004 were reversed, with Kerry winning, and disputed vote blocking measures propelling him to victory in the election swinging state of Ohio, what we would have seen in America subsequent to that.

At least on the protest side, would it have been much different than in Iran? Even today, the far right is doing everything possible to question the legitimacty of the current administation regarding an election which had no real outcome controversies as otherwise occurred in both 2000 and 2004. (Witness the incessant attachment to the "birther" assertion -- That Obama's birth certificate is "not real" and thus he can not be President, for one. The antipathy toward the Obama Administration's legitimacy is so out of control that even an National Review Online article that mocks the birther controversy as "lunacy" then itself, incredibly resurrects the question as "legitimate.")

Although again not nearly as pronounced in the U.S, very vague similarities between our two countries appear on the news side as well:

As more and more corporate takeover of our news here is occasioned -- something which undermines our necessary Fourth Estate check upon everything but perhaps upon what is needed most by government (protecting capitalism by promoting free competition, and protecting for externalities such as the environment and possibly health and safety) -- maybe, to a much lesser degree, we are becoming more like Iran in the sense of Authoritarian, top down, and concentrated, power and control.

It is certainly what the increasingly vocal far right in this country seem to want. And this story is being repeatedly missed -- most of all, of course, by that same increasingly corporate conglomeration controlled media.

How to Lose Wars and Miss What is Going On

2009-10-30T13:13:00.001-04:00

Short version as to how to do this: Listen to David Brooks. But then, David Brooks never was much one for logic and real understanding.

Here is Brooks on the "more important trait" for a President to have, according to his "research:" "tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion."

So long as one also has the judgment to know which circumstances to apply this toward; otherwise, in matters of foreign policy and war in the 21st century, it is a train wreck. (Yet here the Washington Post's fairly hawkish David Ignatius, also today, takes an unusually "untenacious, non fixated, flinching, convictionless" approach to perpetuating the Afghanistan war: supporting McChrystal's call for troop inscreases, but willing to considerably alter course a year from now based on conditions if this turns out to have been the wrong call.)

What Brooks is trying to say, to spin it for him, is "exhibit clarity, vision and the strength to employ the right judgment." But what he actually writes is an extremely foolish litmus test. It is how wars are lost. It is how problems are exacerbated.It is how lives are ruined forever and fundamental underlying problems, military and otherwise, become further entrenched.

This appears to be yet another classic armchair warrior view. One that automatically believes that "clarity, vision and the strength to employ the right judgment," mean inflexibility, intransigence, shallowness of thought, and stubborness in the face of evolving circumstances and changing facts. And that here, the right answer on Afghanistan, in black and white, is "whatever Brooks" (or the foreign policy "experts" he looks up to), think that it is -- and that anybody who does not unyieldingly fixate on this exact same view regardless of circumstances, is not exercising better judgment, but lacks the necessary prerequisite to be able to make decisions in this regard in the first place.(Leaving one to wonder exactly what decisions need to be made, if one is instead supposed to simply "fixate.')

It might be the right call to be "resolute" and stick with Afghanistan until the square of this country is somehow forced into a round hole (but if so, probably not under the current game plan), and it may not be. But Brook's inherent thesis that because there is a "military action," that this thus becomes the right course by implicit definition, is maddeningly shortsighted, and dangerously naive and sophomoric.

Glenn Greenwald today makes an excellent point as well about how Brooks "does what journalists are supposed to do" and cites a bunch of "expert sources," not a single one of which are named -- for no real good reason; although Greenwald supplies a pretty darn good one:

In a shocking coincidence, the views of these unnamed, handpicked, anonymous "experts" all happen to coincide perfectly with Brooks's own warrior views and, more generally, with clichéd neoconservative pablum.

Yep, that is pretty much what, to use Brooks words, what, "journalists are supposed to do," right?

David Brooks: Doing What He Does Best

2009-10-30T12:14:00.001-04:00

David Brooks doing what he does best; and that is, miss the real story.

Brooks: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, have no power because they can not merely summon a wish, and have millions act upon their specific command.

Wow, Brooks is amazed, and so reasons they have no real power or influence because they are not Merlin the Magician! (Except when it comes to turning non truths into believable assertions, that is. Then, sometimes, they are pretty Merlin like.)
He also suggests:

They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.

No, they are enabled by those who do not directly address and illustrate the pattern of wildly manipulative, and often profoundly ignorant representations engaged in, or who dismiss them as "unimportant" and to be ignored because, well, those same "slightly educated snobs" (who write for the NY Times, in this instance) don't tend to listen to them.

Beck is a somewhat deranged, rhetorically gifted genius, who has a very difficult time not only telling fact from fiction, but from not relying upon those fictions to support his often incendiary and outrageous views. He taps into a nerve, because hyperbole and outrageousness aside (which also, to many, make him appealing), he reaches a general distrust and concern that people have, as well as plays upon the very ignorances that he himself does great service to wildly exacerbating.

And it is in this quality — their effect upon general mainstream information and perception, and the overwhelmingly influence upon the nature of our debate that this small handful of not very well informed by wildly accusatory and fanciful pundits otherwise thus have — that these pundits are far far more important than they should be. Not in their ability to singlehandedly, and magically, make millions change their primary voting predilections near instantaneously, as Brooks otherwise ludicrously reasons.

It should also be noted that Brooks essentially uses the example of John McCain, somewhat exaggerating these pundits’ scorn for him, to make his point. But for the 2008 primaries and general election, McCain easily pulled the most dramatic character change, from a somewhat media beguiling and crafty statesman, to blatantly Machievellian figure, perhaps ever occassioned on our national stage.

And he did so why? Because he was not far right enough otherwise to win the nomination. And what are Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity, essentially? Far right.
But Brooks missed that little detail, too. [The people that argue that because Beck sometimes rips into Republicans --notice it 's almost never far right Republicans -- plays to populist undertones, or makes wildly hypocritical libertarian leaning suggestions, he is not simply a slightly libertarian tinged far right winger, are misssing what Beck does as well.]

If by Beck and the like being “enabled” by “educated snobs” who continue to dismiss them as being “so obvious” to people, while not — particularly in the media – making the effective case as to how wildly misinformed and misleading these same pundits are, particularly given their enormous audiences and constant mentions — then yes, Brooks is correct here. But Brooks does not state anything like this. But perhaps it is high time some of our “real” pundits like Brooks, however, started to.

Electric Vehicles Work, Major Advancement Highlights Need for Better Policy

2009-10-29T12:51:00.001-04:00

For years we have been hearing how "batteries are too expensive or not sufficiently long lasting" for electric cars.

This was always incorrect. Well over half a century ago it was not clear if the major power source for vehicles was going to be electric, gasoline, or something else. The reason gasoline happened to take hold was because it was ridiculously cheap, while the enormous environmental (and later national security) costs were a) considerably lesser,and b)otherwise simply not integrated into the prices, or considered.

An electric car that could meet the performance/expectations cost that consumers have come to expect, could have been built at any time. The answer, at least until gasoline is no longer available, was simply to put a genset auxiliary motor on board; to power the vehicle, and to simply recharge the battery, if or when the charge gets too low.

The idea behind this is to capitalize on the increased efficiency -- and thus decreased pollutants, decreased electrical power generation source CO2 output (even when the electrity is produced by fossil fuels), and reduced fuel costs -- of electric motors over over internal combustion engines. (This improvement, albeit less, is still present even when the power plant source electrical generation is fossil fuel based, due to the enormous inherent inefficiencies in internal combustion engines.)

The Chevy Volt, due out late next year, is the first modern, mass production vehicle to utilize this very simple and highly practical concept. A concept that allows for reliance upon more efficient electrical power for short trips (in the Volt's case, 40 miles or so), while not otherwise limiting vehicle range.

For many drivers, most of the normal usage can be covered via charge, as the average commute in the U.S is less than 40 miles. For those times when additional range is needed, the auxiliary engine kicks on to maintain a constant level of battery charge. (During which time, in the Volt's case, the vehicle is still reasonably efficient, gaining an estimated 48-50 m.p.g., which blows away most other cars on the road today).

Moreover, if vehicles are charged at night, the energy and environmental gain can be much higher, as plants typically don't "shut down" at night due to great efficiency losses, and sometimes burn extra capacity to keep the cycle going. This is otherwise a complete net loss in terms of energy, pollution, and CO2 emissions, since it is essentially energy that is being "burned off." Here that same energy would go toward charging batteries of cars, that in essence, from an efficiency and enviromental standpoint, will be running on "free energy" (and, since electrical charging costs are typically very low at night, very low dollar cost energy to the end use consumer as well.)

Of course, more promisingly, if the energy production comes from cleaner and renewable sources, then the net efficiency, environmental, and carbon output gains are greatly magnified. And one of the main arguments for electric cars is being to inspire greater accompanying development of these capacities --

For example, a windfarm, already built, running excess power at night, might charge a car that the next day will essentially be driven with the only net result of that car's usage, in terms of energy loss of pollution, being the release of particulate matter from its tires. That is, close to zero net energy usage, and otherwise zero polluting car, in terms of its usage. This is an extraordinary improvement over typical vehicle miles driven today.

Sure the Volt's pricing point seems too high (and likely is), but this is the first time it's really been done; it was GM that did it -- a company that we just had to heavily bail out; and again, the true benefits of this car's decreased energy and environmental footprint are not being integrated into its costs structure so long as highly damaging gasoline -- in environmental, climate change, and national security terms -- remains relatively inexpensive.

So why wasn't this done before? For the same reason that the benefits of the Volt are largely being missed. There was simply entrenchment of the idea of almost complete reliance upon gasoline. Again, more importantly, the enormous external costs of gasoline usage are not properly factored into its price, and this is still the case today (even as, with climate change, its already large costs are increasingly rising). In effect, gasoline usage, because its real costs are not utilized into its cost structure is still, in theory, very heavily subsidized.

But now there may be a simpler, better, and additional answer to the already fallacious assertion that "batteries are too expensive or not sufficiently long lasting," while creating the potential for far more impressive electric capabilities and costs. As noted on this site,and elsewhere:

A Swiss company says it has developed rechargeable zinc-air batteries that can store three times the energy of lithium ion batteries, by volume, while costing only half as much. ReVolt, of Staefa, Switzerland, plans to sell small "button cell" batteries for hearing aids starting next year and to incorporate its technology into ever larger batteries, introducing cell-phone and electric bicycle batteries in the next few years. It is also starting to develop large-format batteries for electric vehicles.

A practical series of lithium ion batteries in an electric vehicle -- that is sufficient to power the car at least a few hundred miles -- for the most part represent the bulk of the cost of an otherwise practically made electric vehicle. Reducing the cost by half would make even advanced battery technology vehicles practical in terms of cost alone; and would, obviously, greatly extend what are already decent ranges for such vehicles as well.

Even an improvement of 50%, at half cost,would reduce the cost of a 200 mile range lithium ion vehicle, by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars, while extending the vehicle's range to close 300 miles. This firm is claiming a 300% energy storage improvement.

The problem with zinc-air batteries has been the ability to re-charge them:

Unlike conventional batteries...zinc-air batteries rely on oxygen from the atmosphere to generate current. In the late 1980s they were considered one of the most promising battery technologies because of their high theoretical energy-storage capacity...The battery chemistry is also relatively safe because it doesn't require volatile materials, so zinc-air batteries are not prone to catching fire like lithium-ion batteries.

Because of these advantages, nonrechargeable zinc-air batteries have long been on the market. But making them rechargeable has been a challenge.

The company believes that it may have solved this problem. Even if it has not, by taking zinc-air batteries through over 100 charge cycles, it has moved us a lot closer.

They will begin by making tiny batteries, such as for hearing aids, and working on larger batteries, such as for electric bicycles and cell phones, in the next few years. The company is "also starting to develop a large-format battery for electric vehicles."

James McDougall, [ReVolt's] CEO, says that the technology overcomes the main problem with zinc-air rechargeable batteries--that they typically stop working after relatively few charges. If the technology can be scaled up, zinc-air batteries could make electric vehicles [far more practical].

Of course, the sooner our policies reflect the realities of our enormous reliance upon foreign oil (which in turn is just slightly less oil than is used by our transportation industry alone), the more market incentive there will be to move in this less destructive direction, than the path, in terms of environmental damage and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, that we are currently on.

The more incentive, the faster and more practically such developments and growth will occur, and the more market innovation, further multiplying the process, will follow. That starts with good policy, which means no more subsidization of destructive of oil and gasoline (or even coal, frankly); but instead, penalties ("disincentives"), with revenues to in turn be utilized toward the promulgation and reward of cleaner alternative end usage.

End market usage motivation is critical here, because that targets the neeeded result -- clean energy -- without trying to micromanage the means to get there. It's less government command and control intervention, with more positive market effect. On the flip side, it is even more effective to inspire better end use decisions via the penalization, or tax, of the utilization of any finite, environmentally destructive, polluting, heavy greenhouse gas emitting, and national security compromising fossil fuel.

Unfortunately, "tax" has become a bad, or loaded word, in America. But this is all semantics. Every time a drop of oil, drop of gasoline, or crud of coal is utilized, it is a far greater tax that is being imposed in the form of these various, and very real, albeit not immediately measureable harms. Thus it's not so much a tax, as it is a re-balancing of the natural market imbalance when such an enormous externality -- as exists in the case of the continued use of fossil fuels -- accrues. To not address the problem, inane and almost meaningless rhetorical slogans such as we hear from the likes of AEI and others aside, is rather foolish head in the sand behavior, as we very slowly begin to undermine the very world in which we live. The only real question is how best to achieve the necessary (and rather quick) transition over to clean, renewable (and "growh generating"), energy sources.

But this misnomer idea of a "tax" comes in, and it reframes the entire debate: since tax is an easy, appealing sounding, one second sound bite, and the far more important overriding concepts above, regarding how these destructive fossil fuels are in effect being heavily subsidized (which in pure economic terms amounts to a tax upon everything else) is not.

So it's not a question of "tax" or "no tax." (Hence, along with the fact that "penality" is a negative connotation word,one of the reasons why the more accurate term "disincentives" should be used).

It's a question of how we stop using fossil fuels. 1) Let the market do it with the proper policy incentive. This is something, so long as all of the heavy external costs of these fossil fuels are not integrated into the pricing structure, it by definition can't efficiently do completely on its won. And this is why excessive fossil fuel over reliance has led to the wildly destructive results, and hidden pollutions and health care and quality of life costs and other environmental harms, that we are very slowly starting to see today. Or 2), alternatively, simply regulate and proscribe the detrimental behavior.

It seems sensible all around to let the market inspire it. Thus the issue needs to be framed in terms of market solutions, properly motivating the market so that the excessive external costs are no longer being ridiculously subsidized, versus government command control solution, which will never fly because it is "too much government telling people what to do."

The first approach described above -- raising revenue off of harmful fossil fuel activies and thus taxing all other behavior and income earning, less, as a result (while some on the far right nevertheless still jump and up and down and screams "tax" while not understanding the issue) -- does not do tell people what to do; it is less onerous; it is far more efficient; and it is much easier to explain.

White House Advisor: Really Poor at Framing?

2009-10-28T15:06:00.002-04:00

White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett says "of course it is true that Fox is biased."

But that's not the problem with Fox. The problem with Fox is that it is an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

That's a huge difference. Of course, the case needs to be made. but that seems to be another "challenge" on the part of Democrats, along with framing.

Then Jarrett uttered some words that might get the "democratic base" all teary eyed with positive political passion, but which will likely chill a whole lot of other Americans, including many who voted for Obama.

I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we're gonna speak truth to power

It's almost like Democrats took lessons on how to play into right wing and far right wing caricatures of them. Yes, this is a popular phrase, and yes it has been used by some notable (and well spoken) politicians, but it is not appropriate here, and it sounds far more out there in this context than it really is. It makes it seem that to those not already fully on board with the White House that the White House has a rather controlling agenda.

Of course, active Dems keep getting their feedback from other active, fully committed Dems, who tend to see things the same way, so nobody is pointing out to Jarrett how this actually hurts the White House's message, hurts them with their case to Fox, and plays right into Fox's attacks back on them (which don't bear repeating here.)

Jarrett also helped those who want to make the case against the White House. But at the same time, she also did something more important. She aligned Fox with the rest of the media, when the real problem is that the rest of the media is not doing a sufficient job covering the media story that is Fox. This is two terrible strategic accomlishments with one move.

Jarrett told Brown that the White House will go after any network, not just Fox News, that distorts the truth.

"We're calling everybody out," she said. "This isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox

In other words, now the case is not about Fox, because what Fox does is pose as political and policy news station when it is actually in large part an ideologically motivated and highly manipulative advocacy station, but the case it about the entire media. This builds solidarity between Fox and the rest of the media, when exactly the opposite is required (let alone the fact that Fox often goes after the rest of the media, which in turn is too scared to make a real story out of Fox's constant distortions). And it also makes it seem now that the issue not so much how bad Fox is (see above again for what it does), but simply that the "media is bad" and it is thus about a thin skinned White House that seems to be attacking media and viewpoints that it does not like.

This plays directly into Fox's characterization of what the White House is doing. And it bolsters the alarming argument, false as it is, that the White House is trying to have a chilling effect upon independent reporting and disparate viewpoints.

Top Civilian in Zabul Province, Matthew Hoh, Resigns: We Fouled Up On Afghanistan

2009-10-27T18:48:00.002-04:00

We fouled up on Afghanistan.

How? We have been there for eight years. Even if our ends are seemingly helpful to the Afghan people, we are bombing and fighting over there, and there has to be some resentment.

The window to help and resurrect Afghanistan, sans Taliban rule, was not eight years long. Yet we did not focus on Afghanistan sufficiently back when it mattered. Many people at the time made this argument. Unfortunately, few were in the Bush Administration.
Now, right or wrong, Matthew Hoh, a Political Officer in the Foreign Service and Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province, has resigned. His reasons?

Hoh said that his act of protest and decision to speak out were painful, even "nauseating" at times, but he was strongly motivated by the friends he had lost on the battlefield and the mental anguish he has experienced since returning home. "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right,' " he explained, adding that he "is not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love."

Hoh will meet with Joe Biden's foreign policy adviser this week, and will advise a reduction in troops. He said he feels the U.S. "has an obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," but that Afghans are resistant to what they see as a military occupation.

Hopefully Hoh is incorrect, but after eight years of lack of focus, this is an understandable and even somewhat predictable outcome.

Here is Hoh's letter of resignation. In it, he noted the following:

Like the Soviets [who were also in Afghanistan, perhaps for lesser reasons, for an extended time], we continue to bolster and secure a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.

Among the prominent people that brushed off Afghanistan, back when it should have been clear (and to some of us, it was) not to take Afghanistan for granted, was none other than 2008 Republican Party Presidential Candidate John McCain.

McCain seemed to disparage the complexity of Afghanistan and the challenges we faced there, and seemed to ignore its history, from the very start. On October 1, 2001, he did not think that Afghanistan was much of an issue or the main challenge, and stated:

That's where the tough part of this whole scenario is going to begin. And that is that, after the Taliban are overthrown -- which I believe they will be -- I have very little doubt in my mind -- after bin Laden is either taken prisoner or killed and his network is destroyed, then what's next? Obviously, Iraq is still bent on.. [developing WMDs], Iran is..... [MSNBC, Hardball 10/03/01]

In April, less than two weeks after we went into Iraq, McCain stated:

But nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America and nobody is running terrorist training camps to orchestrate attacks on the United States of America. [Fox, Hannity and Colmes, 4/03/03].

Perhaps somewhat true at that moment, but neither was this the case with Iraq. And it had been the case for Afghanistan, which is precisely why we went in there to begin with. In fact, it was in Afghanistan, aided, supported, and assisted by the Taliban, where al-Qaeda trained, and in fact did plan and launch its depraved September 11, 2001, attack.

Several other, very notable statements, seemed to belie an understanding of what the challenge in Afghanistan was, including calling it "so far a remarkable success" on an ABC just a few weeks before we went into Iraq, and two and a half years later, on CNN, stating "Afghanistan, we don’t read about anymore, because it’s succeeded." More details found here.

Why is this worth mentioning? Because in 2008, our national media annointed John McCain our nation's top, unquestionable, military strategy and foreign policy expert, and not only pushed this same angle as the McCain Campaign, but even protected McCain from questioning or facts suggesting otherwise.

The same media that the far right, and the McCain campaign, argues, and actually believes, was "unfair" to it.

While at the same time, the media, ever defensive, ran articles headlined with the question as to whether or not it was being unfair to the McCain Campaign. And while Democrats, once again, played right into framing of the far right, by arguing points on their terms. Not by asserting how in fact McCain received oftentimes ridiculously favorable treatment relative to the facts, but by making the argument that "the media was not unfair to McCain," thus strenghtening the idea, from a non partisan perspective, that whether or not the media was unfair to McCain is the question, rather than reshift the focus onto the far more pertinent one as to whether it was in fact lopsidedly favorable to McCain relative to the facts, and if so, why.

Our Society is Getting out of Control -- School Policies Getting Nuttier and Nuttier

2009-10-14T07:04:00.005-04:00

The law was introduced after a third-grade girl was expelled for a year because her grandmother had sent a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it. The teacher called the principal — but not before using the knife to cut and serve the cake.

Then there is Zachary, the avid six year old who was so enthusiastic about joining the cub scouts that he brought his swiss army knife to school to use the fork in it to eat at lunch, and was expelled for 45 days.

Just read the whole article.

Noted on InstaBS as well -- a site that doesn't only scour the Internet far and wide for anything that is far right wing slanted and skewed, logically twisted on its head, and notated therein as reasonable, but often for interesting stuff too -- which here states: "the excuses offered for this piece of idiocy are even more daming than the idiocy itself."

Actually, no, they are not. They are highly insufficient, which is what makes what is idiocy on its face, still idiocy. But they are not more damning than the idiocy itself, which is the problem. The issue of how to deal with potential weapon violence in school is very real. But the inflexible, and over the top, solutions favored don't seem to be a sensible approach, at all.

When a six year old kid in an article makes more sense than all of the adults involved in setting the policy, perhaps it is time to reevaluate our approach.

Chris Matthews is not Helpful, to Anyone

2009-10-14T06:19:00.009-04:00

In the 90's Chris Matthews could not get past Bill Clinton's private if disreputable behavior, and simply would not let of of it for the remainder of the decade, and beyond.

It is wrong for someone on the far right to do this, but at least they have the benefit of being driven by pure partisanship, and perhaps even a mildly Taliban like tinged belief that the President's private, legal, scurrilous behavior is so much our national business that we should devote two years to wrecking the presidency over it.

(On the pretense of an "untruth" in (1) a civil case, in a (2) deposition, on a (3) matter tangential to the issue in litigation, and a (4) matter of the utmost personal and private nature -- something which not one person has yet been able to provide an example of a successful prosecution for, in our entire American history. And for good reason; it's absurd. But our nation looked past that for two years, driven by far right framing, and a scandal obsessed and easily kowtowed media, that this same far right -- confusing occasional recitation of unfavorable facts (while omitting far more) with "bias" -- likes to correctly label a scourge, but for incorrect reasons. And which media, seeing this, like the dunce that it collectively is, then loudly, in turn proclaims, "see, we get criticized by all sides [though this blog is assuredly not a "side," nor part of one], we must be doing something right!")

Matthews? He's just simply wrong, much of the time, on everything. Which for a relatively smart guy, is quite a track record.

A simple google search of Bob Somerby's "Daily Howler" site and Chris Matthews will tell you all you need to know about Matthews.

But here, yesterday, is Matthews saying rather oafish things again. This blog says it like it is on Rush Limbaugh (see second half of this piece in particular). But still, this, by Matthews, is totally uncalled for, and not funny. (Although the headline to the video does seem a little bit misleading. But it is trivial in comparison to Matthews' statements).

Matthews seems to suffer from that common affliction of believing that everything that is "obvious" to him is obvious to everyone else, and that therefore nothing need be show with respect to Limbaugh. Clearly, this is far from the case. Still, perhaps the word "clearly" is inappropriate, since "clearly," it is not apparent to many that it is far from the case.

And that is the problem, Matthews' ridiculous James Bond movie villain fantasies aside.

The Fox Story is Still Being Missed -- Baltimore Sun Critic a Classic Dupe

2009-10-14T03:51:00.008-04:00

This blog is no fan of Baltimore Sun TV Critic David Zurawik, who exhibits a strong bias, and strange leaps of logic.

So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."

Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!

Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.

With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."

Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):

I wonder if [Anchor Shepard] Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one.

Aside from the fact that someone can be a staunch Republican and disagree vehemently with some unlicensed plumber that doesn't know jack squat about policy or the facts, people need to communicate the following sentence, repeated from above, to Zurawik, and to others:

[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.

What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.

Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________

Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.

We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.

Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.

The Fox Story is Still Being Missed -- Baltimore Sun Critic a Classic Dupe

2009-10-14T03:51:00.007-04:00

I wonder if [Anchor Shepard] Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one.

Health "Insurance" is Part of the Problem, Not the Solution

2009-10-14T03:11:00.007-04:00

Health Insurance insures people for trivial things that should be self paid, and adds countless billions of unnecessary middleman waste and seemingly non ending doctor office paperwork, while at the same time often dictating to people what procedures, and even, sometimes conditions, 'are and are not" covered, thereby defeating the purpose in the first place.

It seems the answer to solving our problem of excessive and spiraling health care costs, while at the same time many Americans are receiving sub par (or no) health care, does not lie in the direction on increasing health insurance, let alone mandated private, health insurance.

Also, they should be getting special treatment if they are non profit, keeping costs down and the quality of care up,and not commonly refusing to cover care that patients - who are often paying a small fortune for this health insurance (directly, or indirectly)- and their doctors decide is medically sensible.

One of the Stupider Science Statements Made in a While, in a "Super" Book, No Less

2009-10-13T05:02:00.012-04:00

Here is the statement, and it comes from the new "book," "Superfreakonomics":

A lot of the things that people say would be good things probably aren’t,” Myrhvold says. As an example he points to solar power. “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat — which contributed to global warming.

This is wild. This person, former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myrhvold, as told by ClimateProgress.org (a somewhat hysterical, mildly partisan, but extremely well researched site) was called as "smart as" anybody else out there, by Bill Gates. Apparently not, when it comes to matters of energy.

This line of reasoning by Myrhvold, who clearly has no clue about the subject matter, is similar to the one that confuses calories with kilocalories (a thousand calories); reads about how it takes a few calories to heat up ice cubes consumed in a drink, and suggests that one can therefore drink ice cold bud lite all day long and not put on a single calorie. (Nice idea, but you can't.)

If you want to see why Myrhvold's statement is ridiculous, click here.

We'll just share one reason, in case it was not obvious. (Don't feel bad if it was not. One of the smartest guys ever -- according to Bill Gates -- missed it, and an idiotic book that will soon be a best seller actually quotes it as logical.)

What was the absorbtivity or emissivity of the material that the panel covered up? If you look on Google images, you’ll see that PV panels [[which are often blue, not black] are often — if not usually — put on roofs or over ground that is quite dark, often black. In a large fraction of cases, the panels contribute less heat reradiation than what they are covering would.

The original book Freakonomics was creative, but in some ways, inane. Most people missed why. It compares intangibles with tangibles, and presumes that because we have to make choices with respect to intangibles with tangible items, that these valuations are equatable. (That is the short version of why it is based on a dumb concept, anyway). This column also shows why Superfreakonomics is, more obviously, a dumb book.

It will sell though. The worst --but most convincing -- crap usually sells the best. That's the way it tends to work.

IS RE-SHARING NEWS, ITSELF NEWS? HUFFINGTON POST TRANSCRIBES PART OF CNN AND LARRY KING'S INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL

2009-07-28T20:46:00.002-04:00

As posted by Sonoma County Democracy for America, and reflective of various sites picking up the "story" that Colin Powell, "in an interview with CNN's Larry King," suggested that both Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates could have acted a bit differently:

by The Huffington Post News Team [courtesy of Politics on HuffingtonPost.com]

Technically, this is true. The "Huffington Post "news team"very briefly summarized this portion of the interview, and provided the video itself and a convenient transcript of it. Still, we are pretty comfortable with the impression that it was CNN that produced the actual news here.

This is not to say that the Huffington Post did not provide a valuable service, or that acknowledgements are not appropriate. But it seems that somewhat lost in this acknowledgement is the fact that CNN produced the relevant news; the Huffington Post then made the news on TV, easily available online.

The "By The Huffington Post News Team," along with "courtesy of Politics on Huffington Post," phrasing, might subtly suggest that the Huffington Post engaged in actual news reporting here. That is, we tend to think of the "news team" not as the team that gathers the news, but one that is the original reporter or, as in the case of CNN and Larry King's interview, creates it.

Perhaps that is no longer clearly the case.

The Huff Post indeed has a very cost efficient model. But could it be replicated, in the absence of the actual CNNs, the NY Times', and the scores of other "real" news" services? (Note, the Hufffinton Post also itself engages in reporting, serving a quasi blog -- news function; part of the reason why this question is more than esoteric.)

Below, we suggested (on the otherwise same topic of Professor Gates arrest in his own home):

As the wonderful Althouse re-reports (indulging in what, for the most part, passes for the reporting that the "online blogosphere" must over rely upon in order to replace traditional, necessary, hard hitting investigative journalism with -- a large part of the reason why we are sour on the claim that with the "rise" of the blogosphere, the demise of today's mainstream media is somehow less relevant) and we re-re-report..

Regarding the substance of what Powell said, see immediately below, here

On CNN, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell Implies Much of What We Suggested regarding the Bizarre Arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates

2009-07-28T20:28:00.002-04:00

Donkasaurus, yesterday:

What is in question, is the degree to which Gates -- who perhaps felt himself a victim of differential treatment because he was Black (and we are not sure that the police report itself establishes otherwise) -- over reacted. And why Officer Crowley persisted in making an issue of what was clearly an agitated, perhaps over-reactive Harvard race scholar, after what really mattered -- the "break in" -- was quickly solved.

Colin Powell, on CNN:

[Gates]...might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer, and that might have been the end of it. I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal.

Powell implies, particularly from the context, that racism almost either had to have played a role, or that it was reasonable for Gates to assume that, even if, he seems to suggest, it may not have been best exercise of judgment on Gates part to perhaps act it out dramatically. Powell also states: "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would have thought at that point some adult supervision would have stepped in and said, OK, look, it is his house. Come on."

This seems sensible to us. As we noted below:

We think the police report itself is dispositive. Gates' allegedly obnoxious behavior, in his own home, after apparently being suspected of breaking and entering into his own home, is rather specious grounds for arrest; something motivated the officer -- whether he was peeved that the resident was giving him grief, or something else -- to unnecessarily continue to be abrupt and unfriendly and unapologetic (perhaps mirroring Gates), and arrest Gates even after the easily rectifiable case of mistaken identity was quickly resolved and the matter was over. (Additionally, racially overtoned inconsistencies in the police report, are noted elsewhere in the link.)

From a comment to the Huffington Post article on CNN's interview:

The issue in the Gates' controversy is not one racial profiling but how white police officers treat African Americans in policing encounters. Citizens are not under any obligation to refrain from expressing anger to police officers at perceived mistreatment. Given the large number, and diversity, of African Americans who are confronted annually by white police officers, whether for good or bad cause, it's unrealistic to expect the majority of them to bear perceived mistreatment with a stiff upper lip.

As we have said many times, the issue is how Crowley (who was the one with a duty of professional responsibility, and not the one who was being questioned on suspicion of having broken into his own home) -- treated Gates, and why.

And we still don't understand why, after the officer clearly (even by his own police report) realized -- or could have double verified with the head of Harvard Security as Gates suggested -- the matter continued. Gates being upset in his own home over the incident, overreactive or not, is understandable, not a crime. This should be particularly obvious to somebody who -- as excusants for Crowley are otherwise happy to point out, claiming it somehow "proves" that racism can not have played a role -- teaches a course on racial profiling and sensitivity! (Once again, see the link below; for some of the transcipt of the 911 call establishing that there was repeatedly expressed ambivalence over whether it was even a break in or someone returning from travel -- with suitcases -- whose key got jammed, and racially tinged interpretations in the polic report that seem to directly conflict with the evidentiary record. )

CROWLEY-GATE VI: Yes, the Gates Tapes Have Been Released to the Media, And....

2009-07-28T01:53:00.002-04:00

As the wonderful Althouse re-reports (indulging in what, for the most part, passes for the reporting that the "online blogosphere" must over rely upon in order to replace traditional, necessary, hard hitting investigative journalism with -- a large part of the reason why we are sour on the claim that with the "rise" of the blogosphere, the demise of today's mainstream media is somehow less relevant) and we re-re-report:

What is clear is that the caller, Lucia Whalen...did not know the race of two men she saw trying to push in the front door of Gates's house.... Crowley did not know the race of the suspects when he answered the call.

What we wonder, and Althouse, fails to wonder, is why then does the police report very clearly state:

Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me it was she who had called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black men with back packs on the porch of [17 ] Ware Street.

Our question is this: If that is not what Whalen said, despite the police report to the contrary, what does that indicate about the incident?

If it was what Whalen said, why does the media keep harping on the "fact" that "Whalen did not know the race of the two men she saw trying to push open the front door of Gates' house"?

Perhaps we are over reading into this, but we don't see the relevance of whether or not Crowley knew "the race of the suspects when he answered the call."

He answered a call about a possible break in. It was legitimate.

What is in question, is the degree to which Gates -- who perhaps felt himself a victim of differential treatment because he was Black (and we are not sure that the police report itself establishes otherwise) -- over reacted. And why Officer Crowley persisted in making an issue of what was clearly an agitated, perhaps over-reactive Harvard race scholar, after what really mattered -- the "break in" -- was quickly solved.

A look at the Washington Post article itself, that Althouse so comfortably cites, without, clearly, having read, adds a new layer. It starts with:

The role of race in the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. became more difficult to untangle Monday with the release of the tape of the emergency call that brought Cambridge, Mass., police to his door.

How is this the case, one might wonder? Krissah Thompson of the Post continues:

The tape revealed that the woman who reported seeing two men trying to break into a house did not know their race. When pressed twice by the dispatcher to identify the men by race, Lucia Whalen said: "Um, well, there were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all."

It seemed, from Althouse, that it was very likely that the caller did not identify the suspects, but thought they "may have been "African American" and so gave the officer additional information upon entering the scene. Now it seems harder to fathom how a caller who could not even hazard an accurate guess as to race when pressed, suddenly had changed her tune.

Of course, perhaps the caller was able to gather more information after placing the call. Which leads us back to the original query. How does the case become "more difficult" to untangle simply because the caller (and thus Sergeant Crowley) did not initially know the race of the two men involved?

Crowley was responding to a legitimate possible breaking and entering call. He was to learn of the race quickly upon arrival, and all that is in question follows the acquisition of that knowledge. Thus, it's irrelevant as to whether upon first being called, he know of the suspects' race or not.

What it does raise is the question of blatant inconsistency in the police report (or possibly, but less logically, on the part of the caller) -- which would be quite relevant if the caller was unable to further observe the potential suspects after she placed the call.

The Post is further relevant on this point -- and it raises questions that Althouse clearly missed, that go to the very heart of the point that the column centered around. (Hint for bloggers: If you want to build an audience, decide what your point of view is years in advance, jot down a few provocative, knee jerk, polarizing sentences, and add a few quick links that seem to support it; this clearly seems to be the winning model online -- reason No. 57 why the "left" is mistaken that online blogging can, without systemic changes, adequately replace the role that traditional media -- our independent press, and fourth estate -- so critically serves. On the other hand, if you want to actually say something of value, or that is not misleading, at least read the sources you link to.)

Courtesy of Ms. Thompson, of the Post:

Whalen.... had been vilified in online comments and blogs as a racist "white woman" who saw "two black men" trying to enter a home and assumed they were breaking and entering...[then] issued a statement knocking down a line in the police report filed after the incident. It describes Whalen telling Crowley, who responded to her call, that she saw "two black men with backpacks." The lawyer, Wendy J. Murphy, told CNN on Monday that Whalen did not identify the men by race at any point. Cambridge police officials, who released the tape of the 911 call, have said they stand by the report.

The 911 call clearly backs up Whalen. Lopsidedly. On the other hand, Whalen may have observed the suspects further. But there would be no reason for Whalen to falsely change the record with respect to after the call; it was what prompted her to make the call in the first place that matters (one would think), in terms of any otherwise rather irrelevant criticism directed at her. And on the call, she indicated that the suspects had already entered the house, and there is nothing, apparently, to indicate that he came out of the house prior to the officer's rather timely arrival, thus nothing that would have given her much further information as to his race. It thus seems unlikely that she subsequently stated "what appeared to be two black men."

Note also that the 911 call indicates that the witness clearly saw two suitcases -- not back packs -- something that seems much more likely for a 58 year old professor coming back from his travels; and also that it is pretty clear that there was doubt as to whether or not it was a break in from the start:

Caller:...I noticed two suitcases So I’m not sure if these are two individuals who actually work there, I mean who live there.
Dispatcher: You think they might’ve been breaking...
Caller: I don’t know, ‘cause I have no idea, I just noticed...
...
Dispatcher: And what did the suitcases have to do with anything?
Caller: I don’t know. I’m just saying that’s what I saw. I just [inaudible]
...
Caller: ... I don’t know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key
Caller: I just saw it from a distance...this older woman was worried, thinking someone’s breaking in someone’s house...she interrupted me, and that’s when I had noticed. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have noticed... So I was just calling ‘cause she was a concerned neighbor, I guess.

From the police report: "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black men with backpacks on the porch."

As noted earlier, we think the police report itself is dispositive. Gates' allegedly obnoxious behavior, in his own home, after apparently being suspected of breaking and entering into his own home, is rather specious grounds for arrest; something motivated the officer -- whether he was peeved that the resident was giving him grief, or something else -- to unnecessarily continue to be abrupt and unfriendly and unapologetic (perhaps mirroring Gates), and arrest Gates even after the easily rectifiable case of mistaken identity was quickly resolved and the matter was over.

However, from the 911 call alone, we see that at least three separate things likely contradict what was alleged in the one sentence of the police report that we have some outside objective information on:

1) It is very likely that the caller did not tell the officer that the two men "appeared" to be Black.

2) It is extremely unlikely that this witness suddenly (and rather illogically) decided to change her testimony from what was almost assuredly two suitcases, to "two back packs" -- which conjures up quite a different impression from suitcases (particularly in combination with the caller's expressed doubts in the 911 call).

3) It is likely that the caller did not tell the officer that she observed two men "on the porch," as she had been very clear to the 911 dispatcher that she had not seen them outside: "Caller: Umm, I don’t know what’s happening. I just have an elder woman, uh, standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number, 17 Ware St., and they kind of had to barge in. And they broke the screen door and they finally got in and when I had looked, I went further, closer to the house a little bit, after the gentlemen were already in the house."

Criminology Professor Lorie Fridell puts it best, in conclusion to the Post article:

"Racially biased policing exists -- but sometimes it is perceived where it doesn't exist," she said. "It is very hard to identify when a particular incident is in fact a manifestation of racially biased policing because the answer is inside the officer's head."

Still, it is interesting that the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto can know what is inside of this particular officer's head, in this otherwise fairly inexplicable incident.

CROWLEY-GATE V: The Wall Street Journal Blog Professes to Know What Truly Motivates Men's Souls

2009-07-28T00:06:00.003-04:00

Not that we wish to pimp the Wall Street Journal; but we often do, and the Rosa Parks take is an interesting read.

We don't necessarily agree that the rather unnecessary arrest of Professor Gages in his own home for disorderly conduct after being questioned on suspicion of breaking and entering into his own home is "reverse Rosa Parks."

But it is with this analysis that we take issue:

By now it is clear that Gates erred in accusing Crowley of racial animus or profiling. The worst that can be said about the officer is that he acted stupidly by remaining on the scene once he had established that Gates had every right to be there

It was likely an exercise of extremely poor judgment to remain on the scene "once he had established that Gates had every right to be there." (Being as it was his home, and all. We also wonder what was said in the way of apology to Gates, or with respect to the idea that he was no longer under suspicion for breaking and entering into his own home -- something which seems to be woefully absent from even the police report perspective). We even made this suggestion, rather pointedly. But what we think Taranto might be missing, is this rather elementary inquiry:
Why did he remain on the scene? Because someone who is known to have an expertise in the field of racial sensitivities, and even teaches an apparently well received class on racial profiling, did not understand why Gates -- even if he overreacted (and it seems fair to conclude, Gates did) might have been so upset?

Taranto seems so certain that racism was not involved -- we're not at all sure how. But might not racism be one very likely reason as to why the officer remained on the scene after the incident -- that is, after a clear, "classic case" of misunderstanding" -- was cleared up?

Because Gates was mad and giving the officer perhaps some unwarranted grief? Because the officer wanted to exert an authority (clue up Eric Cartman here: You will respect my a tor eh tay!)? We don't know. We only wonder how the WSJ's Taranto, so clearly, does.

On the other hand, while we agree with Gates that [it would be fallacy] to believe that we live in a post racial world -- obviously -- we agree with Taranto that Gates' claims that there have not been fundamental structural changes in America, might be somewhat questionable.

Gates is one of the better known scholars of race in America. We think rather ironically -- even more so than the fact that Crowley, his new drinking buddy with President Obama (if Gates drank) teaches a class on racial profiling and racial sensitivity . We are not sure what he means by this, but we're not at all sure he's completely correct, either.

Health Care Transparency?

2009-07-27T23:35:00.002-04:00

We are not huge fans of the new health care proposals -- not that we are necessarily opposed to the ideas. We just don't understand them. Maybe we're dense, but the hunch is that most don't really understand them either.

But, without getting into the nitty gritty of whether this is correct or not (which would require oh so much research, and heck, we never do that, unlike the blogosphere which is just full of , objective, crack research and support), the question does arise:

Since this well written piece is obviously done by a skeptic of the Obama Administration, a serious skeptic, why is it that it seems to be the right wing of the Republican party that cites back to key, critical statements; then attempts to show, rather then tell; and that understands the importance -- in connecting with those who otherwise are at first ambivalent -- of using the statements of one's opponents whenever possible, to make one's point? (We have a hunch.)

It's an intriguing, and funny, read. We'll provide a quick sampling of its more serious point, but really, you have to read it. The squirrel part is comical. (Not quite hysterical a la the cat scene in "Meet the Parents;" but then again, this is on the boring subjects of politics, and policy, so a rather large adjustment seems only fair).

And it has to be poor eyesight on my part, since I plainly remember during and after the campaign promising the following:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

We're all for openness.

Harry Truman said it best (or at least he said it): "Secrecy, and a free, democratic government, don't mix." They Don't. And they haven't all decade.

But this applies to all administrations. Not just the administrations of one's political opponents.

MORE GROUNDBREAKING LIVE BLOGGING -- Live Blogging Events That Already Happened!

2009-07-26T00:04:00.003-04:00

This is so excellent. We are bringing to you, via "live blogging," yesterday's David Letterman show. Remember, as we noted in our previous groundbreaking post on this matter, we are bringing it to you "live," via live blogging.

Well, we are pleased to bring you quite a compelling update. Amy Poehler, who already noted how she got to meet Obama, has now affirmed the fact that, and this is a direct quote:

"Obama leaned over and gave me a [terrorist fist jab]."

Only, Amy called it something, like totally weird!

She called it a "fist bump" or something, like, totally lame and weak like that. That is hard to believe. Sheesh.

LIVE BLOGGING YESTERDAY'S DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW!!

2009-07-25T23:48:00.003-04:00

And this is no small deal. At Donkasaurus, we are exceptionally good at serious, no journalistic holds barred, live blogging.

Returning to our absolutely "live," (and also somewhat groundbreaking) live blogging of Yesterday's David Letterman show, Amy Poehler just said. "Very Exciting. I met President Obama."

Amy, did you get to drink beers with him? We may be overly indulgent here by asking, but you didn't by any chance arrest a prominent professor in his own home for giving you lip about him being a suspect for breaking and entering into his own house, did you?

CROWLEY GATE IV:...and Now Post Incident Cerveza is Involved?

2009-07-25T18:52:00.002-04:00

[Note: CROWLEY-GATE(S) I is here. CROWLEY-GATES(S) II is here. CROWLEY-GATE(S) III is here.]]

And now Crowley is suggesting, and the President is contemplating, having him (and Gates) at the White House for a beer?

We have a note for the President. Have one or two of us from Donkasaurus over for a beer. It will be more entertaining, and probably more helpful. (Note to White House: You do have Guinness, right?)

And, also, Mr. President, can you get those d*** reporters off our lawn? Sergeant Crowley, the President most assuredly feels your pain, on that one.

CROWLEY GATE III:... And the President Plays Along

2009-07-25T18:17:00.002-04:00

[Note: CROWLEY-GATE(S) I is here. CROWLEY-GATES(S) II is here.]

Though frustration is understandable on the administration's part, Obama likely should have said nothing more. But if not, he needed to back up what he said, while very clearly changing the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" part of the comment -- which was poor wording on his part, overly pejorative, far too subjective, and unnecessarily and accidentally appeared to impugn the department, when what Obama was referring to was the officer involved. Short, simple, to the point. Case closed. He should not have involved himself directly in the matter further, by calling the two principals involved (Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley).

Instead, the President, in addition to calling both Gates and Crowley, made another lengthy statement that helps legitimize this as a bigger (and more national) issue than it really is. By so doing -- although his statement was substantive -- it in some way also plays into the media pack rat appearance and sound bite over substance scandal machine, that along with Obama (who did so unintentionally), helped create this issue out of a relative non issue to begin with.

[Update: The President also plays along by trying to patch up something that does not need patching up. See CROWLEY-GATE IV, here.]

CROWLEY-GATE II: ...The Lemming Like Swarm of the Media Helps Turn it into a Big Story

2009-07-25T18:09:00.002-04:00

[Note: CROWLEY-GATE(S) I is here.]

Police associations were naturally defensive over Obama's ill chosen bit of off the cuff opining. Wth this small bit of incentive, led by the same old chorus of voices on the far right (whose news channel is named after a sly animal that manages to manipulate its audience into thinking it is "fair and balanced," by among other things, constantly telling them this), the media of course jumped all over the "controversial," albeit minor, statement.

This same media, prompted as per usual by mother Fox (the same channel that the active "intelligentsia" on the left and even more moderate Democrats dismiss as largely irrelevant) turned it into another big scandal, turning somewhat of a molehill into a mountain. This is the same media, of course, that has repeatedly ignored actual mountain after mountain. (Links of examples here would extend dozens of pages. Note, not by complete coincidence, these are also usually mountains that mother Fox likes to dismiss or blatantly misconstrue, as well. Links would now extend hundreds of pages.)

The fact of the matters is, a professor, even if he was irate at the officer, got inquisitioned, and questioned, for breaking and entering into his own home -- and when it was ascertained that it was clearly his own home, and he was upset, the officer continued to make an issue of it, instead of simply moving on and apologizing for the mixup. {Note therein that the reference to Gates "opening the front door" means that he was not solely "yelling" at the police officer, who was standing in the back of the house, but working on his front door, which, being stuck, was what led to the mistaken call by a suspicious neighbor in the first place.}

Continuing the matter, let alone the arrest, was probably a mistake. It was probably poor judgment. And the gist of Obama's statement was probably correct, and certainly defensible. The words chosen could have been better. But it was not simply this to much of our media -- which of course decided to make it, because of its potentially salacious appeal, into their latest overblown parroted story of the moment.

CROWLEY-GATE I: The President Opines Unnecessarily....

2009-07-25T13:52:00.002-04:00

The President, asked an irrelevant end of session question at a health care forum about the mix up regarding Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, should have responded as follows:

I have tremendous respect for our police force, the work that they do, and the difficult situations that they are put in. It seems that with respect to this, from the little I know, that it is really an issue for the local community, and the police force there. But I can certainly understand what I have seen, why Professor Gates would be upset over this. Thank you all for coming.

Instead, after a lengthier, and more rambling remark, he said:

The Cambridge Police acted stupidly.

It was not the best choice of words.

The problem here is that the President is a bright guy, with a lot of common sense. So in a way he feels comfortable, perhaps, being the national opinionator. He's not. His handlers need to recognize what the President's role is, and is not, and remind him.

If at least the gist of the facts that are being claimed by Gates' lawyer are correct, this officer exercised judgement that was either sufficiently poor, or racist, that a short suspension to reevaluate his response to the events would not be inappropriate. However, the officer's statement after the fact, that he "supported the President 110%," but that "I think he was way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts," if exaggerated, is still essentially correct.

George Will -- Any Rationale Necessary to Keep his Head in the Sand on Science and Ecology

2009-07-23T18:06:00.003-04:00

Written by Will, it might as well read "Cool to science." (On the opinion page home link, the headline caption is "Cool to Climate Change.")

But the fact that climate change is a global problem is only one more reason for the U.S. to take a leadership role on this issue.

Instead, in addition to Will's blathering to the contrary, we see, on these same Washington Post editorial pages, editorial after editorial claiming that the U.S should drill more -- and thus expand the production of that which, predominantly here in the U.S. (and, along with agriculture, globally) is in fact causing the problem in the first place. (And which would have essentially no effect on oil imports for years -- let alone decrease the entrepreneurial incentive to move toward alternatives, to the extent it even would -- and at most minimal effect thereafter.)

Now that's leadership by the Post, particularly in combination with Will's fascinatingly contrived piece on foreign policy and climate change: Arguing to drill for more of that which causes the problem, and that which we need other countries to move off of, certainly gives us the moral, and credible, authority to make an effective case to the developing world, particularly India and China with over a third of the world's population and rapidly burgeoning energy economies, right?

Leadership. The U.S needs to take a leadership role, not a George Will head in the sand role.

George Will -- Any Rationale Necessary to Keep his Head in the Sand on Science and Ecology

2009-07-23T18:06:00.002-04:00

Live Blogging Update

2009-07-23T16:34:00.004-04:00

Earlier we reported on the groundbreaking attempt to actually, via live blogging, "live blog" the earth's rotation.

There is news to report -- and we are bringing it to you now, via "live blogging." The earth, apparently, is rotating, on its axis. (Just not in Kansas). Many wonder why.

Since the earth is rotating very fast, and making it very difficult to hang on, we are finding it a bit more challenging than had previously been envisioned. It is very hard to both live blog, and hang on while the earth is spinning so rapidly, at the very same time.

However -- we could adjust to the great speed of the earth by cleverly using our radio broadcast station up at the north pole for this special "live blogging the earth's rotation live blogging" and (more or less) eliminate this problem of the earth's rapid speed as it rotates on its axis. (Just in case you want to determine just how fast you are moving.)

That we being said, there is even more breaking news to report -- and again, we are bringing it to you live, via "live blogging." But, until we can get our north pole live blogging operational, what with the speed of the earth as it rotates on its axis, and the even faster speed of the earth as it moves through space, it can not be emphasized enough -- it is exceedingly difficult to just hang on, let alone live blog this truly amazing (and apparently, nonstop!) event.

Report Alleges Palin Likely to Have Used Official Position for Personal Gain

2009-07-23T12:59:00.003-04:00

The Key language from the report, via here:

In Light of the evidence the Governer expressly authorized the creation of the trust and the fact that the trust website quite openly used the Governor's position to solicit donations, there is probable cause to believe that Governor Palin used, or attempted to use, her official position for personal gain in violation of Alaska Statute 39.52.102(a)

Yawn, snooze. It seems likely that Palin -- who resigned ostensibly because of all of these (in her and her supporters minds) "unfair,"complaints against her -- does not see it this way at all. She was probably even unaware of the fact that using her position to solicit donations to defend herself from complaints that seemingly arised from a public position, was problematical. After all, this is someone who ran on a campaign last year against "good ole boys" networks in Washington, and yet when in power in Alaska had promptly instituted her own, rather more prominent version, of it.

The real question, assuming the report's assessment is accurate, is whether it really is a problem. We say not much, that it will get short shrift. And that in and of itself, will have little bearing upon Palin's potential ongoing popularity, and probable run for president in 2012, barring the Democratic party finally doing an effective job in framing the case against her, and ending its counterproductive dismissal of and contempt for the fact that this wildly manipulative and incredibly misinformed outgoing Governor, on a populist level, is in fact quite popular.

Did outgoing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin use the Office of the Governership for "Personal Gain"?

2009-07-23T12:43:00.002-04:00

Ironical?

That the official state website would be used to publicize the private response of Palin on Monday to another ethics charge is somewhat ironical, given Tuesday's leak of a preliminary independent report [PDF] from a state ethics commission investigator finding "probable cause" that Palin's "official" legal defense fund violated the Ethics Act in that it made use of her "official position for personal gain."

We guess. You just don't see it in writing so much in this contect. But it does seem pretty ironic. We guess.

It seems to us that Palin's response is public news, and putting it on the website is thus appropriate, but we don't know. More interesting is the alleged preliminary finding of the state ethics commission. After all, this was a Governor who recently announced a very premature resignation, for the "benefit" of Alaskans. (And who has quit a public position prematurely before, based upon similarly "noble" sounding rationales.)

Many Thanks to Listeners, Readers, and a Live Blogging Update

2009-07-23T04:19:00.003-04:00

Since we ran our first "live blogging"update covering the earth's rotation, we have literally been besieged by readers, as well as listeners of "Donkasaurus radio." Well, first off, the excitement and enthusiasm has just been amazing, and we just want to thank everybody for their continued support and generosity in their comments and well wishes as we continue this rather incredible live blogging of the actual earth's rotation.

Many readers and Donkasaurus radio listeners have also written or called in to express their amazement at what might have appeared to be the truly ground breaking nature of this new, exceptional, exciting, even scintillating, titillating, form of reporting and "keeping it real." Well, it is ground breaking, to be quite candid. We don't know of anyone or any organization, and this includes ABC, CBS, the NY Times, and even the pseudo news but catchy and celebrity riddled Huffington Post,that has live blogged the earth's rotation before. Or even anything as exciting.

But to those of you might have thought that this fantastic concept of "live blogging" was just invented, no, no, no, no, live blogging has been "alive" and well now for a while, providing political and news excitement to otherwise normal everyday Miller beer swilling donut eatin' own oil changin' Americans everywhere. We are a bit hesitant to share this list with you, because the excitement can be a little overwhelming (so certainly take a big breathe before you read much further, this can be quite exciting), but here are a few instances of actual live blogging.

Ah, but first, just say the word. "live blogging." It's like taking a first sip of that freshly roasted morning java, it's like that first bite into a snickers bar in between extra innings, it's like that dewy filled morning when for the first time you... uh oh.... anyway, it is just so cool, isn't it? Here we go:

"Live Blogging the Sotomayor Hearings" --can't ya just feel it? This, is exciting. Say it with me now. So. Toe. My. OAR! She is already one of our favorite Justices. Even if Lindsey Graham, -- despite agreeing that she is moderate, despite having no more opinions overturned than most judges, despite serving as editor of the Yale law review, despite being within the mainstream on her opinions at least as much as most judges -- and more than many -- despite a reasonably rigid adherence to the law first and interpretation second (and again, more so than some recent nominees), despite graduating from Princeton Summa Cum Laude, and being awarded Princeton's top prize for academic and extracurricular achievement, despite serving more time on the federal bench that any other nominee reaching back several decades now -- can somehow vote against Sotomayor on the merits, but yet the rather incredible Washington Post just knows Obama could not have voted against more extreme, objectively less (but still reasonably) qualified nominees himself, for any other reason than that of despicable "political motivation," unlike the honorable Graham. We are not sure how Graham, with far less to support such a decision, can vote against on the merits, but Obama can not (and let alone how the Post can know both of these things). But we digress. It was just so exciting, this live blogging, that we had to take it down a notch. Here's another:

"Live Blogging Obama’s News Conference" Wow, live blogging a news conference!? Now that, is truly amazing. We get such fascinating stuff, at such breakneck speed, no wonder after the initial immediate swarm of lemming like interest, we don't need to pay attention to things that will have as much relevance over the next several years (including by the way, the election of 2012, as the Washington Post gives immediate credibility and legitimacy to a completely fake authority, not to mention an exceptionally misleading and manipulative piece of energy and economics trash), and perhaps decades, or any other day for that matter, as the random day that they appeared.

(Again, we had to take it down a notch. I mean, live blogging an Obama news conference? That is just complete excitement. It's like one of those days that you just know you better opt for the decaffeinated version of your morning Pepsi. )

Can we do some more? Can we do some more live blogging event excitement? We better wait.

We'll try to bring you more examples of actual live blogging excitement, but its hard work live blogging the rotation of the earth, and we have to get back to it. Unfortunately, we have no more immediate updates to bring you on that front, other than to report, it appears that, in fact (although we can't be completely sure), the earth is still rotating. This is live blogging at its finest. Interesting. Relevant. Compelling. Edgy. And brought to you in live time -- particularly important when we are talking about something as fast moving, and constantly changing, as this.

The Best Way to Keep People From Not Having Something is to Force Them to Get It

2009-07-23T02:19:00.003-04:00

"CRISIS: Nearly Five Million Adults Have Lost Insurance Since Sept. '08."

Solution: Let's force everyone, by law, to get health insurance.

We know, this is an oversimplification. There are other "parts" to this plan that "make it" work. But what, specifically, are those? And more importantly, what does "work" mean?

We have not seen any solutions brought forward that address the enormous amount of health care money that is going into actual health insurance profit and overhead itself and thus not into health care -- insurance not for catastrophic loss relevant to that particular individual or family, but for simple everyday health coverage that the recipients of hundreds of millions of health care policies could in fact be paying for themselves, if they weren't paying far more, for insurance for them.

Thus we are skeptical of a plan that A) mandates, and tells people what they must do, and B) mandates more health insurance, while not addressing the differential between economically sensible, catastrophic insurance and routine insurance which simply puts in multiple layers of middlemen and cost, while removing control.

Maybe another part of the solution in this country is to stop treating "doctors" like the Gods that, for the most part, they are not. Because we view them as such, some go into medicine for the wrong reasons, which also tends to lead to bad medicine. Many doctors are also overpaid, while some of the better doctors are in fact underpaid. (Much like teachers). But that's another topic. And probably a much more provocative one, at that. Also, doctor pay, and the ridiculous cost of medical school solely for the purpose of learning how to memorize a bunch of rote information, rather than how to think and learn like a doctor as well, is only a small part of the excessive health care cost problem. But seriously, 100k plus to spend a bunch of years simply memorizing facts?

Maybe we need better doctors, for doctor stuff; and more nurses -- male and female, for more routine stuff. Just an idea. Oh, yeah, right, since it's been a few sentences since we mentioned it: And a whole lot less health insurance, with health money not otherwise going to catastrophic insurance going to health care, and policy holders playing a more active role in their own health treatment decisions and expenditures. While we are at it, why not also put a moratorium on all these laws a law happy Congress keeps passing this decade (and even reverse a few) that have created reams of paperwork and administrative overhead, that most in the health business itself (and especially doctors offices) continually lament.

It's a law happy Congress, for sure, yet we could not even pass a cash for clunkers bill that actually subsidized the purchase of vehicles that help solve the overuse of oil (and corollary emissions) problem, and we're finally struggling to pass even a minimum climate change bill -- and one, as being considered, fraught with all sorts of loopholes and inconsistent subsidies.

Here's a side idea, while we are digressing: Apparently very large tax increases are being considered, at least upon the upper tier of income earners. Okay, fair enough, to some, anyway, while providing great fodder for Obama administration opponents. (Opponents who are now, also, suddenly, deficit hawks again, even while the mess we are in is a result of not being even remotely sensible about the deficit for the past eight years, when unlike right now, we had no real reason not to be.)

How about simply taxing the heck out of dirty forms of energy? Too regressive? There are ways of adjusting for that. It's going to "ruin the economy"? Here's news for you -- the economy is already ruined. And we are only continually, and ineffectively, trying to prop it up by artificially subsidzing dirty energy (since none of its real, and excessive costs, are integrated into the pricing structure) while exacerbating the very problems we need to solve.

Let the market and ingenuity and market induced behavior alteration solve the problem, and transition us over to a more sustainable economic growth pattern, while at the same time not trashing the world we live in based upon the myopic view that is somehow a "cost" not to engage in sensible, non self destructive long term policies. Such taxes will increasingly reflect a tax of choice and not compulsion as market parameters and modes of production continally shift toward increasingly cleaner and more ingenius forms of production, while raising considerable revenue at the same time.

Just an idea. But we are paralyzed by this misconception of cost, and the need to artificially prop up what is a stagnating economy that was based in part on this unsustainable model, from doing anything sensible, and absolutely paralyzed over the easiest solution of all: Tax that which is doing the harm -- overreliance upon dirty, unsustainable, atmospheric altering, and national security compromising energy -- and let the market do far more effectively than what a gaggle of well intentioned, and in the long run far more costly, laws, will likely never come close to accomplishing.
_____________

Oh, wait, we almost forgot, our nation's foremost energy expert (and potential if not likely 2012 nominee for President the way things are going) has a different "opinion" -- one based upon as much energy knowledge, as might "fit in a can of 3-in-1 oil and still leave room to fix a whole lot of squeaks." While the shot at Republicans in general is gratuitous and uncalled for (why Democrats have to constantly engage in that is beyond us here), the "can of oil" estimation of Palin's energy knowledge is not that far off. But of course the Wasington Post -- an increasingly excellent reflection for our grandest and greatest ignorances -- has to play into the ridiculous popularity groupthink run amuck version.

For those who thought King George was the emperor who wore no clothes, wait to you get a taste of Empress Sarah Palin, who makes Bush's rhetorical and emotional (clothed as logic) manipulation skills look like child's play.

2009-07-23T00:56:00.001-04:00

We know that donkasaurus was an actual dinosaur.thats why we named our web blog after one.

Curiously enough, a google search could not find this actual dinosaur. Now, unless one happens to be in Kansas at the time one contemplates the question, we pretty much know that actual dinosaurs existed. Either that, or God put some might cool dinosaur bones for us to find, that carbon date back millions of years or so, more or less. (So we ask, "what's the big difference?"). In either case, just bones, or actual 'saurs, where are all the g* d* earth crushing, animal stomping, stegosaurus eatin' donkasaurs, or, alternatively (again, for everywhere but Kansas), where are their bones?

I mean, we got allesaurs, brontosaurauses [ get list of dinosaurs] . Where the H*** are the donkasaurs?

We know the donkasaur existed. We think it was a cross between allesaurus, a bronchialsaurus, a triceritops, and a tyranisaurus rex. Or maybe it was a pretty much like Dino, from the Flintstones. Where'd they get that dinosaur anyway. And, hey, wait a minute, wasn't the flintstones incorrect? I mean, dinosauries werent around when man came on the scene. (Right?) That leads us to conclude the "Dino" was not a real dinosaur.

But Dino was a dinosaur, not a donkasaur. But we know the donksaurus is, and we are determined to find it.

Maybe Stephen Colbert can help. Stephen? Stephen??

Live Blogging Update - I

2009-07-23T00:05:00.002-04:00

Earlier today we reported on a fantastic new development. And we noted that we would, quote, "later today," in fact, begin, actual live blogging, of an actual event. And that even better, we would be blogging on the truly exciting, groundbreaking, and quite timely and almost non stop discussed event that is the rotation of the earth.

True to our promise, we are now bringing you -- although we have to acknowledge that this is very difficult, because this is, after all, live blogging -- our first live blogging report on the earth's current rotation.

There are some preliminary challenges involved in this, of course, technical issues, and the like, but stick with it, we will be bringing you fresh new "news" information. To start out, and we have confirmed this, it does, indeed, appear that the earth is in fact rotating. And yes, we are, quite incredibly, quite excitingly, bringing it all to you right now via live blogging.

More live blogging news on this fascinating event to follow, as it develops. So stay with us here, you will be the first to know.

Special Edition -- Live Blogging Event... Live!!!

2009-07-22T23:15:00.002-04:00

While we will not be available for our normal morning and evening press briefings, our daily roundtables, fireside chats, to return email or phone calls, or our committee chair duties, etc., over the next days, don't fret -- this is because we are live blogging.

Yes. Don't worry that your hearing (or in this case, your eyesight) is going bad. We are going to be live blogging. Let us repeat that one more time. Live. Blogging!!

That's right. That means we are going to be reporting, live, as only this decade's latest and coolest and most importantest online news reporting sensation can do -- by blogging live!

For those of you not in the know, live blogging means that one blogs not from the grave. Not from the beyond. Not even from inside the womb! (Well, there is a lot of controversy over that last one, with a preponderance of the evidence supporting the idea that at least for a time period inside of the womb, that would also constitute, "live" blogging. Various factions are still furiously, and sometimes violently, debating this.)

And just in case you somehow think it could not get any better than this, live blogging actually means more. So much more.

It not only means blogging while alive. It means blogging from an actual event!!!!!! While alive!

It is so exciting, that words really can not begin to describe the emotions here at Donkasaurus. We are simply besides ourselves with the excitement of this. We literally can not wait to begin sharing our live blogging -- repeat, that is live blogging -- updates from the event itself.

Starting later today, we, again we can not emphasize this enough, but live, are going to be blogging (and folks, it's a big one), the rotation of the earth.

You heard that right. Right here, right here at Donkasaur.us, we are going to be live blogging the rotation of the earth. This means of course that we will be bringing you live updates, actual live blogging updates (we get all goose bumpy just thinking about it) on the earth's rotation. Actual live updates. Via Blogging!

This sure promises to be one fun filled, fact filled, information, ground breaking news gathering and sharing event.

_______________

And, also, note, not to get too far ahead of ourselves here, because this is truly already a monumental event -- but next week we are going to do something even cooler, even more groundbreaking, even more newsworthy, than live blogging. I know, some think that is not possible. But we are. This seems incredible to even contemplate, given that not only are we going to be live blogging starting later today, but that we are going to be live blogging something as exciting as the rotation of the earth. But when that event is over, we are going to be bringing you even fresher, instantaneous, can't get it anywhere else, can't get it any faster, can't get it any fresher, scintillating news coverage about some of the most exciting things on the planet --like live blogging some of C-spans hearings on future soybean crop yields, for example. Or the society of preservationists debate on whether the name preservationist should always start with a capital p or not. And we will be bringing it all to you live. Live!!!! Because if it's not here and now, and if it's not "live," even on the most boring subjects on earth, and even on the most timeless subjects we face today, it's just not news anymore.

How Are We Solving the Excessive Health Cost Problem?

2009-07-22T20:54:00.002-04:00

Earlier we asked:

How is a health care plan that forces everyone to get insurance (whenoverinsurance is part of the problem) and will cost a small fortune more for a country that already spends far too much on health care, solving this?

It seems that the director of the Congressional budget office might have similar questions:

Under questioning from Conrad, [CBO Budget Director Doug] Elmendorf delivered a bombshell, testifying that healthcare proposals drafted in the House and by the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee would not curb healthcare spending, as Obama has envisioned, but instead add to federal spending

True, they are not exactly the same thing. But how is simply requiring everyone to get health insurance, and spending more government money on top of that, solving the problem?

Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures

2009-07-22T18:24:00.002-04:00

The Post asks:

"Wouldn't you watch a naked video of, say, Chris Berman, just because it was there?"

Yeah, um, sure. If, say, it was a video of sportscaster Erin Andrews, instead.

But the heading and subheading to this article reads: "You Know You Want To Watch That Video. But Erin Andrews Would Rather You Not."

So, Erin, please let us know if that subheading was wrong. Email us at nowwecantwatchit@becausewepostedthisstupidblogpost.com

Is Employer Provided Health Insurance Necessarily a Good Thing?

2009-07-22T17:39:00.002-04:00

Simply to introduce another perspective here: whether the public option is a good or a bad thing, how is this necessarily a bad thing?

"The independent Lewin Group analysis found that a new public plan could mean that 118 million Americans will lose their current health care coverage, and 130 million Americans could end up on a government-run health care plan," Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said in a Senate speech in April.

Doesn't health insurance cost employers a lot of money? Wouldn't saving them that money be a good thing? And if this is a result of consumer choice, wouldn't this be a good thing also?

If the argument is that insurers would "force" consumers to get the "lesser" government health care, what is it about our Constitutional charter that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees, rather than this being a dynamic of the markeplace? And what is that keeps individuals from getting their own health insurance; or better yet, saving a boatload of money, getting only catastrophic health insurance, and taking a bigger role in their own health care?

The fear of a two tiered system --"better" private insurance for the well off, and less quality government run health care-- might be an issue. But how is the simple idea of individuals moving off of expensive, high overhead private industry paid health insurer plans, at the individuals option, to a better (if that can be achieved), less costly plan, a bad thing?

Is it just because it is government provided? Fair enough. But right now, our government is spending hundreds of billions a year on health care. (Which is why we argue that real health care reform should not cost an additional fortune more.)

As for the "independent Lewin Group," a CBO study happened to peg the figure at 11 or 12 billion, rather than the 100 plus million (now revised to 88.1 million), who would move off of employer provided care. (We think both figures are wildly speculative, but that's another matter.) And as for how "independent" the Lewin Group is, see post below.

The Washington Post Engages in Some Reporting

2009-07-22T16:19:00.002-04:00

Normally, the Post has served as cheerleader for misinformed groupthink run amuck -- particularly on its editorial pages. But today, the Post actually engages in some decent reporting. The lopsided nature of the example doesn't hurt, either:

Imagine that you are a huge health insurance company. You make a fortune off of health insurance. One can contend (we do), that our overreliance upon health insurance may be the single largest factor for the excess waste that is our public (think hundreds of billions a year in medicaid, medicare) and private (think, along with the public, close to an astonishing 18 percent of our GDP when "health related" things are taken into account) health care expenditures. So as an enormous health insurer you are at least not unhappy when the one thing everyone seems to agree upon is more mandated government intrusion -- this time making everyone get health "insurance."

Now consider the so called "public option." Forget for the moment whether it is a good idea or not (and here we don't pretend to know, barring more information). The public option, at least in theory, would provide an option -- ostensibly, and one presumes, realistically, to compete with private insurance, in order to bring down costs and increase true competition.

It has the potential to greatly cut into insurance coverage, profits, and even relevance. It might even, in theory at least, provide a more viable, lower cost, quality alternative to what is currently available in the form of health insurance (an idea that there is now otherwise broader support in favor of mandating for everyone), which might cut even further into conventional health care. So as this huge health insurance company, you can't be happy about his, right?

As the Post points out (emphasis all added):

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, [the "Lewin group"] is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

However, as the Post also points out, the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest health insurers in the country. Nope, no conflict of interest there. Sort of like there would be no conflict of interest if a prominent land developer gave $250,000 in cash to a Congressman, who was later assigned to head the committee responsible for choosing among land developers for a multi billion dollar land project. Or if a judge was ruling in a case where the defendant was his first cousin.

Once again, the Lewin Group, whose work is being widely cited as part of the opposition to a public option inclusion, is part of a subsidiary of an enormous health insurance carrier. (See the Post article for more fascinating revelations regarding that subsidiary).

How is it that Democrats -- the party that seems to be more in support of both health care "reform," as well as the public option if there is going to be such "reform," stand for such misrepresentative framing by those opposed to their proposals?

The Washington Post Engages in Some Reporting

2009-07-22T16:19:00.001-04:00

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, [the "Lewin group"] is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

The Problem with Indefinite Detainee Detention

2009-07-22T13:12:00.003-04:00

And the problem with NPR.

But what about indefinite terrorism suspect detainee detentions, or even potential detainment after acquittal?

A strong case can be made that the prior administration did an extremely poor job paying attention to and properly addressing the issue -- from an over focus on Iraq while the real problem in Afghanistan was never effectively rooted out (and continues today), to ignoring warnings alltogether with respect to the initial threat.

Combine this nevertheless with the fascinatingly manufactured point that it is the Clinton administration -- which did far more to address the threat in the face of more imminent warning, and even took unusal steps to overly brief the incoming administration --which often tends to get blamed.

And consider Democrats "caving" on the so called FISA compromise issue, and other alleged national security matters. Here, the choice has often been to avoid "looking" weak, rather than simply being strong, and articulating and selling their case to stand on principles of freedom and justice first and foremost, and why it matters to America and who we are.

Perhaps the Democratic Party is concerned about losing the battle of rhetoric, and so is overly concerned with anything that, rightly or wrongly, might, to Democrats, allow their (perhaps increasingly right wing?) political opposition to miscast them. Recall that during the election cycle, Obama switched his principled opposition to that same misnamed "FISA compromise." Was it a real change of position, or a fear that he and his party during an election cycle simply would not win the battle of rhetoric? At this time, with the weight, responsibility, and worry of being President upon his sholders, as well as an opposition seeking to demonize and even mischaracterize him at every turn, what is Obama's position, now, as President?

How Are We "Fixing" Health Care?

2009-07-22T02:47:00.002-04:00

From a political email: "Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint ... told a special interest attack group, 'If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.' Here's how the President responded:

Think about that. This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.

But how is a health care plan that forces everyone to get insurance (when overinsurance is part of the problem) and will cost a small fortune more for a country that already spends far too much on health care, solving this?

Mark Sanford Cheated on Wife Because of "Gays," "Ted Kennedy"

2009-07-15T05:00:00.002-04:00

This is a non partisan blog. But seriously, this is the party of alleged "personal responsibility"??:

"Of course I'm not saying that Mark is gay," [South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's wife Jenny] Sanford said, “but he may as well be. The moral decay in this country has claimed another victim and this time it was my family. Our marriage was perfect until these laws started passing around the country. Clearly the slow dissolution of the sanctity of marriage in America seeped into Mark’s psyche until he no longer felt compelled to abide by our vows.”

...“It’s finally happened,” said Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio personality. “America, I’ve been warning you for years that gay marriage would destroy the American family and look… there they are, a husband, wife, and four children — destroyed. When is this going to stop America? When will the liberals be satisfied? When all the marriages break up? This wasn’t Mark Sanford’s fault, this was Ted Kennedy’s fault. Sanford didn’t cheapen the value of marriage, he was victimized by the cheapening of marriage.”

Repeat. Mark Sanford Cheating on Mark Sanford's wife isn't Mark Sanfault's "fault," it is Ted Kennedy's fault (who probably does not know Mark Sanford's wife, and for all I know, probably does not even know Mark Sanford).

This is the type of logic that is being foistered upon millions of Americans daily, and which, to many, represents the soul and center of today's GOP. And yet Democrats are already in trouble of going right back to losing national elections to far right figures once again? (Though they don't seem to recognize it yet, which might well be part of the reason why.)

Lindsey Graham, But Not Obama, Can Vote "Nay" Based on Merit

2009-07-15T04:19:00.002-04:00

What is interesting is that Alito, Roberts (and Thomas) were all quite more extreme than Sotamayor. But, as Bob Somerby notes in the piece linked to below, one wouldn't necessarily know this from our mainstream media -- here represented by the Washington Post, chastising Obama for voting against Bush's rather far right appointees.

Here is the money line from the "unbiased" sources at the Washington Post editorial page:

[S.C. Senator Lindsey] Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain.

Yes, on the merits, no doubt, even though Graham himself, as the Post points out, noted that Sotamayor's record is more moderate than "critics" have contended.

But clearly, Obama, with respect to less moderate appointees -- who, despite solid qualifications, objectively presented less qualifaction than Sotamayor -- could not have done so. Or at least as so pronounced according to the Post's "unbiased" crystal Ball. Only Graham, voting against the most moderate of all of these nominees, and also perhaps the most objectively qualified, could be nevertheless voting "nay" on the "merits as he sees them" and "not as a ploy for political gain."

Wow president Obama, does the Washington Post ever have your number, huh. I'm probably solidly to the right of you, politically, and yet, with all due respect to the Post's idea of "deference," as an elected Senator who would represent his constituents and country first and foremost and not the President, I would have assuredly voted against Alito, and likely Roberts, on the merits, as well. Yet I guess the Post would have seen right through that -- just as they somehow were so cleverly able to in the case of President Obama -- and somehow known, unlike in the case of the honorable Lindsey Graham, who is allowed to vote against the moderate, well qualified, pulled herself up by her own bootstraps Sotamayor, "on the merits" -- that I would have only done so for "political gain" as well, huh.

Quite a work of art, that Post editorial page. Oh yes, of course, this gem of profound ignorance just yesterday, from this savant of energy policy. And yet the far right has managed to convince the country that this paper is "liberal"? We are living in wondrous times.

Lindsey Graham, But Not Obama, Can Vote "Nay" Based on Merit

2009-07-15T04:19:00.001-04:00

2009-07-15T02:27:00.002-04:00

Yes, well, satirically speaking, the AP's Washington Bureau Chief clearly has no partisan ax to grind. But at least the AP itself can remain unbiased about the Sotamayor nomination. Right? Uh, not quite:

Fingers splayed, palms flat, hands bouncing up and then deliberately pressing down to the table, Sotomayor elaborated, clarified, expanded, retracted.
She drew loopy circles on her paper; she ran rhetorical circles around her past words.
"I didn't intend to suggest ..." she explained.
"What I was speaking about ..." she offered.
"As I have tried to explain ..." she parsed.
"I wasn't talking about ..." she demurred.
She was a tough critic at times.
"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," she averred.
"It was bad," she said. Of her own words.
Democrats were only too happy to take Sotomayor's rhetorical revisions at face value as she explained away the most problematic of her past remarks.

This, is your new, unbiased, Associated Press. And the article gets worse. The picture it paints of Sotamayor is quite lopsided.

It also fails to mention that one of its two star Republican critics, Jeff Sessions, lost his own bid for Judgeship when it was discovered that he was a bit of a raving racist. (Google his name, and the Ku Klux Klan, and you will get quite a veritable bounty of pieces.) The raving racist making big of Sotamayor's muddled musings about her own life experiences making her a better fit as a judge (as we here believe about ourselves, as should any aspiring jurist), and that as a Latina Women she may be able to come to a better decisions, taken somewhat out of context.

For more on this view by Sotamayor (and our own disagreement with it) see this letter to the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson on this very same topic. (Note: link to be posted shortly.)

For a bit more on Jeff Sessions, and in quite sharp, if not comical contrast to the lopsidedly skewed picture that this AP report paints, consider this little moment:

Senator Jeff Sessions (Pompous racist, Ala.) contrasted Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark with NY Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, whom he said "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."

Apparently unbeknownst to Sesssions, Judge Cedarbaum was at the hearing. Judge Sotomayor replied:

"My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,' Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions's apparent surprise. 'We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts."

As also noted in this short piece, Cedarbaum, herself, later stated: "I don't believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging."

Game, Set, Match -- Sotamayor. (For more on Sotamayor, from one of her professors at Princeton, as noted by Somerby.)

But to the AP's hatchet piece (and we really hate to use that term, but this is NOT journalism), Jeff Sessions was one of its stars. Imagine that.

It's not until late in the "news" article that one sees that even the AP had some equivocation over its own journalistic skulldoggery: "Sotomayor seemed to be feeling her oats as she held her own hour after hour." Huh, seriously? After quoting no less than Jeff Sessions as the authority with respect to what the AP quite unsupportedly decided to label "after the fact revisions"?

Of course, the view of the coherent far right is quite distinct, yet expresses shock at the "nasty attack" that the "AP's Nancy Benac" hurled at Sotamayor. (One expects MSNBC"s Keith Olbermann to not cite this blog for support, I suppose, as opposed to -- see piece bottom)

This comment (which was agreed to by some others) was quite typical:

.....For God sakes, is Sotomayor the best that our country’s supposed best and brightest can serve up?

Well, She did graduate as co Valedictorian at Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Review, and does bring more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court appointee in over half a century. But perhaps it's a valid point. But was it similarly made when Alito, Roberts, or Thomas were appointed? (Thomas being appointed by the same man, George Bush, Sr., who first appointed Sotamayor to the federal bench.)

But Sotamayor is the Obama administration nominee, though she seems to have been a rather stricter adherer to the rule of law than many judges, she probably leans a bit more liberal than conservative, she made one befuddled comment that at its true core actually makes some sense, and so the far right must program itself to immediately dislike her. Or so it seems.

2009-07-15T02:27:00.001-04:00

Healthcare Reform Should Equal Lower Cost

2009-07-15T00:24:00.002-04:00

Maybe the answer should be less, not more?

"The House bill would expand insurance coverage by increasing Medicaid eligibility and delivering tax credits to people earning as much as 400 percent of the poverty level, or about $43,000 a year for an individual. Small businesses and individuals who had trouble buying insurance would be able to shop for plans through new purchasing groups dubbed "exchanges." Individuals who did not purchase insurance by 2013 would face a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income, and employers that did not provide coverage to their workers would be fined as much as 8 percent of their payroll, a provision the CBO estimates would generate $30 billion a year. "

Since we are spending a little talked about fortune on Health care, and this plan is going to cost a small fortune more, perhaps the answer lies at least somewhat in reducing costs?

Making insurance -- let alone mandatory insurance, which is far worse -- an even bigger part of the equation, seems to be quite the opposite. It would seem that at least part of the answer should lie in working towards more direct consumer involvement in their own health care and insurance, and a focus on efficient, catastrophic and other streamlined forms of "protective" rather than "convenience" insurance -- the latter of which has only served to create a fortune costing mountain of paperwork and administrative overhead, and a large fortune in insurance company profits.

It seems that this bill might well be rewarding the big lobbyists, more than anyone.

Perhaps the extremely unethical access that the Washington Post insists that it was not trying to sell, was not even really necessary after all?

2009-07-13T17:49:00.002-04:00

The point is, anyone objective could legitimately be skewering Palin far more than has been done -- on her record, rhetoric, and constant manipulations.

This is a far different matter than sexism. And when it has even minimally been done, Palin has falsely accused her critics of precisely such sexism and other irrelevancies, using her rhetoric much like a bludgeon. And the media have played right into it. (Speaking of which; here, the winners of our sellout of the year club, giving voice to the "genius" that is Sarah Palin. We'll address the blatant manipulations in this energy and logic obscenity laced piece, a bit later.)

Of course, this is the same person, who when skeptics noted that the then vice presidential nominee's experience was limited to 20 months as governor of a state with a population under that of many small cities, and had been major of a town of around 6800, viciously wielded this same rhetoric like a weapon, vociferously claiming that they and "the media" were "attacking small town America;" Or that, in a pejorative context, then candidate (and now President) Obama was "not like you or I." Frighteningly misleading rhetoric, that.

By the way, what other famous historical rhetoritician used such type of "not like you or I" logic?

This was also a person who could not name one single news source that she read. Who held open political rallies where secret service blocked reporter's access to everyday citizens; whose own presidential campaign staffers, fairly or not, have expressed grave concerns over her, and was found by the Alaska Legislature to have "abused her powers" as Governor, and mislead about it after the fact; allegedly claimed dinosaurs and humans once coexisted (a claim that was never refuted by Palin); couldn't cite a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade; just like she repeatedly claimed that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" when she had been a vocal supporter until it became a national boondoogle and Congress made it clear Alaska was not getting another dime for the project; boasted to Americans how she called for divestiture of Alaska investments in Sudan,when in fact it was her administration that blocked the bill calling for divestiture; lashed out at "Washington's 'good 'ole boy' network" while back at home taking such nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism to new heights; when explaining her foreign policy credentials because "Alaska is close to Russia" mysteriously claimed "we have trade missions back and forth;" labeled herself an energy expert yet claimed that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" when in fact Alaska produces about 1/7th of that amount; as major tried to fire a librarian who wouldn't cooperate with her untoward, and multiple inquiries ("on behalf of a constituent") as to how to ban books; presided as major over the billing of rape victims for evidence gathering exams; campaigned for vice president on an anti federal pork platform, but as major went so far as to use taxpayer money to hire a lobbying firm, in raising almost 27 million dollars in federal money, for a town that averaged around 6,800 residents; did very well to distinguish us from our enemies, by proclaiming that soldiers in Iraq were on a "task from God;" etc.

But of course, how bad can she be, she is going to campaign for Democrats! What open mindedness. We'll see how many she actually campaigns for. We're pretty sure it will be zero. Of course, if she is really clever and wants to play the "skewering media" and voters like a fiddle, she actually will campaign for one, just for show.

2009-07-13T15:02:00.002-04:00

"Unfortunately, neither Democratic nor Republican senators will decry the post-New Deal rulings that transformed our constitutional order from what Princeton professor Stephen Macedo has called "islands of [government] powers in a sea of rights" to "islands of rights in a sea of [government] powers."

So we hope that this Georgetown Law Professor, penning this today in the Wall Street Journal, was an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration impositions upon the 1st (the anticipation of enormous nets of surveillance potentially chilling, embarrassing, political or otherwise private speech) the 4th ("...to be secure in one's person's, houses, papers and effects.......no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"), the 5th (due process), or the 9th (the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") Amendments to the Constitution.

He must be particularly outraged by a Congress that a few years ago passed the UIGEA which effectively banned the ability to fund online poker -- telling people what games of short term chance, long term skill, they can and can't play from the privacy of their own home with their own funds, as well as other notible infringements upon individuals in what should otherwise be private matters.

He's probably horrified by the idea of indefinite detention for detainees -- detainees about whom we are not certain are guilty of any crime (more notes here).

Or does "inherent right" largely mean the right to produce any product whatsover, completely unregulated, and in so doing, pollute the very air that you, I and others breathe, even to the point of unduly, and collectively, effecting the health, and even, quite significantly, the mortality rate, of everyone who lives under the same skies? That seems to be what it is often confused with, when hears constitutional rhetoric these days. Not necessarily always by Georgetown Law professors, however (to say the least), so we don't know.

A google search, for now, didn't indicate much, in one direction or the other. More later.

2009-07-13T06:58:00.002-04:00

We covered this below, but we still think it's kinda funny: More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.

2009-07-13T06:58:00.001-04:00

We covered this below, but we still think it's kinda funny: More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.

2009-07-13T06:00:00.003-04:00

Speaking of health care reform, the lack of adequate discussion of the wasteful costs involved, and just in case you otherwise missed it:
"You may have missed the story because it broke on the eve of the July 4th weekend. The publisher of THE WASHINGTON POST, Katharine Weymouth — one of the most powerful people in the nation's capital — invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.

But she then invited CEOs and lobbyists from the health care industry to come, too — providing they fork over $25,000 a head, or a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy little get-togethers. And what is the inducement she offers them? Nothing less than — and I'm quoting the invitation verbatim — "An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done."

2009-07-13T05:36:00.002-04:00

It is?

And if one travels to the link that "backs up" this claim, one can also learn -- hold onto your seats now -- that the fictional movie Saturday Night Fever, was a work of fiction. Yes, I kid you not. "Did you know that ...the basis for Saturday Night Fever, and thus probably for everything you think you know about disco -- was a fabrication?" Gasp. Does Johnny Travolta know about this?

Also, apparently, "Saturday Night Fever" was really "Quadrophenia." I mean,they both had "troubled kids" revolving around a music scene. So why not.

Next this site is going to be telling us that the Who's Quadrophenia, was "made up" also.

2009-07-13T04:50:00.002-04:00

Bob Somerby has been asking for weeks why health care reform has to cost countless hundreds of billions of dollars additional, and why we have to spend so much on health care to begin with.

He has also been repeatedly asking why the media has not been asking these questions, or even covering the issue of cost, relative to what many other industrialized countries actually spend in return for similar services.

These are actually pretty good questions.

They are also questions that do should not fall so easily fall into the over abused, and often highly misleading and improperly designated categories of so called "left," and "right" -- as government spending on medicare, and medicaid, is the second highest category of spending in our national budget, after defense. That's a lot of money.

It seems to us that perhaps "reform" should include some level of savings. And perhaps this savings could help to pay for the additional coverage that we seem reasonably, to want to be able to provide to those without any means to pay for it themselves

But we think the place to start is by moving away from excessive over insurance, which saps away much of the money actually "spent" on health care.

But most of the talk so far seems to be in the direction of furthering over insurance. This would seem to go hand in hand with the seemingly presumed idea that healh care "reform," somewhat contradictorily, needs to cost somewhere upwards of a trillion dollars over and above the gargantuan sums that we are already spending. Doesn't it?

2009-07-13T04:28:00.002-04:00

"The word “environmentalist” usually conjures images of dreadlocked campaigners in tie-dyed T-shirts who eat only organic muesli and never travel by car." Really? To who, the far far right? Particularly since a majority of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists.

But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)

More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."

This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.

The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.

2009-07-13T04:28:00.001-04:00

2009-07-13T04:13:00.002-04:00

More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.

2009-07-13T01:51:00.002-04:00

Hilarious Headline of the week: "Palin Willing To Campaign For Democrats." And it's posted on the Huffington Post, among other places.

Yes, Palin is willing to campaign for Democrats. This Palin. Now attempting to play Democrats (who if you ask them, never get played) -- and of course, once again, the voters -- like a fiddle.

I suppose we could give about a thousand examples of how Machiavellian this is, and how, of course, the media (and Huff Post) is playing into it. But what would be the point.

2009-07-13T01:45:00.002-04:00

Here's a good idea: "Congress Needs A Read-The-Bill Bill." Hear, hear.