Scary Parallel Logic

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?

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

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?

(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

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?

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"

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

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

"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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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?