Joust The Facts

If The NY Times Were 'Fair And Balanced' ...

... then this editorial

It is extremely disturbing that Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, was hauled off to jail this week. There is reason to believe his prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated.

could easily have been written about this man and his troubles.  Rewriting with minor edits:

It is extremely disturbing that Don Siegelman Tom Delay, a former governor of Alabama representative from Texas, was hauled off to jail indicted by a politically motivated prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, this week. There is reason to believe his prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat the majority leader in Congress, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated.

Mr. Siegelman was convicted, mind you, in a jury trial.  The editorial mainly rails against the prosecutors discretion in pursuing him, and glosses over the evidence against him, and while noting that 25 of 32 counts were dismissed fails to detail the seven on which he was found guilty.  Mr. Delay not so much, but they've nonetheless treated him repeatedly as a political piñata.  Fair?  Balanced?

Saturday Morning Funny

Perhaps the funniest single sentence I've read in a blog post in some time, from a congressman who is also a physician no less.

I'm looking forward to seeing Sicko soon, and I hope it will serve as the kind of wake-up call for Washington on the need for serious health-care reform that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has been on the urgent issue of global warming.

This is, unfortunately, an on-call weekend, with a bevy of other activities and responsibilities packed in, and as a result I don't have time to do justice to this nonsense now.  Let's just say the only thing that would have made it more amusing would have been if he'd included Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph Of The Will in the list, and that if we're going to seriously talk about health care reform then giving weight to Mr. Moore's propaganda - pun intended - is not helpful in the least.  I certainly hope that Dr. Kagan doesn't want to emulate the Cuban system.

My Letter To The Senator

I figured appealing to reason, rather than emotional threats, might be more persuasive.  Was I wrong?

Senator Gregg:

As a New Hempshire resident, politically-involved and interested citizen and blogger (http://joustthefacts.typepad.com) I urge you to vote against cloture for the current poorly defined and even more poorly considered back-room deal Senate immigration bill.  That the body of the bill and the body of the major amendments weren't even available for review as they were being debated speaks volumes.

Scott Rasmussen has polling information (ed: link added here) that indicates a large majority of Americans are both against this bill and in favor of seeing progress on enforcement of the border, i.e., controlling the influx of illegal immigrants, before considering legalization and work visa provisions.  I believe the latter two would be much more acceptable to most Americans, as they are to me, if we could be convinced that we won't be revisiting this problem again and again in the future.

While I understand that the President is in favor of the Senate approach, I feel certain in saying that even he doesn't know what's really in the bill.  There are far too many uncertainties and contingencies, particularly on the enforcement side, to make Americans comfortable that this will solve more problems than it creates.

Sincerely,

'Giacomo' at Joust The Facts

This is unlike even the Iraq War, which is held up as an issue on which a large majority of Americans disagree with the President's approach.  In the instance of the war, when it was instituted a majority of Americans supported the action, and a large majority approved eight months after Baghdad fell.  This has majority opposition from conception.

6/28/07 1240: Wow, 14 votes short.  It wasn't even close.

WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

Senator Gregg was a 'yea', Senator Sununu a 'nay'.  If they're going to consider it only as a comprehensive package then revisiting the issue is probably unwise.  When you're performing surgery, you need to see.  Achieve hemostasis first - stop the bleeding.  Then address the problems.

Others: Wizbang, Ace, Malkin, Captain Ed, Curt, MK Ham at Townhall

6/28/07 1715: DJ Drummond, who has been quite supportive of the bill, and whose writing I generally like, goes off the deep end a bit at Wizbang!.

Once again, the Senate has killed the unpopular bill which would, judging from the vitriol hurled around in the past month, have surrendered the United States to a hated foreign power, replaced all happiness and joy with dismal angst, banished the sun and the laughter of children from our lives, and subjected the nation to the maniacal designs of the denizens of hell. Of course, the actual bill did none of those things, but the hatred against it took on a dark identity of its own, and rational debate was one of its first victims.

The actual bill, of course, "did none of those things."  Neither did it 1) adequately address the concerns of a large majority of Americans that we would only have to do this again in a few years after a new influx of illegal immigrants, due to inadequate border security provisions, had overwhelmed the new systems, 2) reassure Americans that those who came here illegally were not being rewarded to a greater degree than either legal immigrants or our own working poor, or 3) convince Americans that this wasn't all back-room Senate deals, payoffs and used-car salesmanship on the part of the crafters of this unwritten legislation.  Perhaps it would have - and should have - passed had it done those three simple things.

But it wasn't hatred or racism that killed it.  There was never any "palpable rage" in these quarters.  We like a civil discussion and a civil tone at Joust The Facts.  Get used to it.  Hell, my father was a legal immigrant.  As I've written before, if someone wants to come here legally, obey the laws, work hard, and become part of the American fabric, hey, the more the merrier.

The goals Congress is pursuing are not clear. They say they don't want "Amnesty", but some opponents say that's where the bill leads, while other opponents demand a clear vote for amnesty. Congress says they want to secure the border, but won't state specifics on how they plan to make that happen. Congress says they will punish employers who hire illegals, but not how they will avoid hurting legitimate businesses with undue bureaucracy, or how they will make the charges stick. But worse than that, Congress did an amazingly-poor job of bringing supporters on board.

Well, I think we can all agree on that.  Why exactly did the Senate try to build a Taj Mahal of an immigration bill in less time than it would take to build a lean-to?

A Mighty Fine Whine

From the Democratic Senate Caucus:

While Senate Democrats are determined to move America in a new direction, Senate Republicans are doing their best to stop change at every turn.  Senate Republicans are forcing the Senate to waste hours upon hours debating meaningless motions – wasting Congress’ time and the American people’s time. Senate Democrats are trying to lead the way – but Senate Republicans are determined to stand in the way.

Gosh, you mean a 50-49 majority in the Senate doesn't provide "supreme executive power" over the legislative process?  Don't the words "filibuster" or "cloture" ring a bell?  They should.

The Senate as a body essentially has a 60 vote threshold for passage of any legislation.  That is the reality.  It used to be 67.  It comes off more than a little as sour grapes to complain about the rule now while using it with relative glee for the prior 4 years.  I'm not a fan of the filibuster, though I understand it's purpose, but it's more than a little cynical for Senate Democrats to whine about it now.

Clueless In Indiana

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana became a celebrated man in the eyes of the NY Times today - despite the (R-IN) after his name - when he offered a "bleak assessment" of the nascent surge strategy in Iraq, and then called for troop drawdown this fall.  What's interesting, when you read the piece, is how little is mentioned about what should be the two most important things in this Iraq conflict.  That's the tease, here's the article.

WASHINGTON, June 25 — After offering a bleak assessment of the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq , Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said today that he was urging lawmakers and President Bush to change course quickly to protect a further erosion of America’s standing in the world.

No, America's standing in the world isn't one of those two most important things.

“We’re heading into a very partisan era,” Mr. Lugar said in an interview today, following a speech he delivered on the Senate floor on Monday night in which he called on the administration to rethink its Iraq strategy. “The president has the opportunity now to bring about a bipartisan foreign policy. I don’t think he’ll have that option very long.”

And no, reducing partisan rancor isn't one of those either.  Even if it were, Mr. Lugar is deluded if he thinks such partisanship will be eliminated by abandoning Iraq.

For months, Mr. Lugar has kept his skepticism about the president’s Iraq policy to himself, seldom offering anything beyond a wait-and-see reply. But three weeks ago, Mr. Lugar said, he privately concluded that the troop buildup plan was not achieving its goals and he began preparing remarks he delivered Monday evening.

Three weeks ago the full surge troop levels hadn't been put in place, and the strategic moves hadn't even started.  Mr. Lugar must have been seeing a soothsayer.

“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,” Mr. Lugar said on the Senate floor. “Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”

And, like the anti-Iraq War Democrats, Mr. Lugar declines to specify those policy adjustments.  Why, if he were to specify them, he might have to step up and defend them.  As nebulous ideals, well, who could be against them?  They're obviously an improvement on the status quo!

The most important points of concern in Iraq now are, (1) will Iraq become a base of operations for Al Qaeda terrorists, and (2) will America further embolden terrrorists and discourage those in Iraq who believe in democracy by showing that Americans will, once again, back down when the going gets tough?

In December 1992, bin Laden found the battle he'd been waiting for.  The United States was leading a UN-sanctioned rescue mission into Somalia.  In the midst of a famine, the country's government had completely broken down, and warring tribes-largely Muslim--had cut off relief efforts by humanitarian groups.  Somalians were starving to death in cities and villages, and the U.  S., which had moved quickly to rescue oil-rich Kuwait, had come under mounting criticism for doing nothing. 

When the Marines landed in the last days of 1992, bin Laden sent in his own soldiers, armed with AK-47's and rocket launchers.  Soon, using the techniques they had perfected against the Russians, they were shooting down American helicopters.  The gruesome pictures of the body of a young army ranger being dragged naked through the streets by cheering crowds flashed around the world. The yearlong American rescue mission for starving Somalians went from humanitarian effort to quagmire in just three weeks.  Another superpower humiliated.  Another bin Laden victory. 

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said.  "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.  And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ...  about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

Don't do it, Mr. Lugar.  We're only going to have to revisit Iraq again in the future if we give in to queasiness now.  Strategic patience is well worth considering.

Terrorists, Guantanamo, And The Geneva Convention

James Taranto has an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal (and on Opinionjournal.com) that looks at some of the legal decisions like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush that have led to remarkable confusion and acrimony over how to handle what are the textbook definition of "unlawful enemy combatants."  I've visited this territory previously, in discussion of the relevence of the Geneva Conventions to such 'soldiers'.   In particular, while Article 3 of the Third Convention specifies the proper treatment of prisoners of war, Article 4, largely ignored in the discussion, specifies who qualifies as a prisoner of war under the Convention.

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

I run through the categories at the link.  Article 2 applies as well, specifying that if a conflict arises between a party to the convention and an entity (like Al Qaeda) which is not party to the convention, the former shall be bound by the Conventions provided "the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."  Al Qaeda, clearly, does not, targeting civilians, treating captives with viciousness and cruelty beyond comprehension, and hiding from view in civilian clothing and in the civilian population.

Mr. Taranto writes:

Some politicians have also undertaken efforts on behalf of enemy fighters. Senate Democrats, joined by Republican Arlen Specter, have introduced legislation that would restore habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees, although this is unlikely to become law as long as George W. Bush is president.

Colin Powell would go even further. "I would close Guantanamo, not tomorrow, but this afternoon," the former secretary of state told NBC's Tim Russert earlier this month. "I'd get rid of the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts-martial."

Mr. Powell claimed that "I would not let any of [the detainees] go," but his proposal would inevitably have that effect. Once inside the criminal justice system, detainees would become defendants with full constitutional rights, including the right to be charged or released, the right to exclude tainted evidence, and the right to be freed unless found guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even the Geneva Conventions, when read fully and clearly, give no indication that such unlawfully acting 'soldiers' merit such consideration.  As Mr. Taranto notes, even lawful prisoners of war may be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities.  This is the triumph of the quest for international approval over both reason and the letter of the law, in this case, the Geneva Conventions.

Stalled. For Good?

A Rasmussen Reports poll gives the immigration bill better favorability ratings than, say, Sen. Harry Reid and Congress, but that's not saying much.

As the Senate prepares to resume debate the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, the legislation continues to face broad public opposition. In fact, despite a massive White House effort, public opinion has barely moved since the public uproar stalled the bill just over two weeks ago.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That’s down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago and down from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill while 28% are not sure.

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

So the more people find out about it, the less they like it.  But still its telltale heart keeps beating, the efforts of Ace of Spades notwithstanding.  Funny, though, is this article about the "enemies" Senator Ted Kennedy has made by compromising with Republicans on the bill.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Months of tumultuous negotiations with the White House and GOP allies have brought the Senate's liberal lion, Edward M. Kennedy, to the brink of passing a bill to legalize up to 12 million unlawful immigrants.

But his concessions to get there have alienated liberals who in the past have counted him as their strongest champion. A showdown test vote is scheduled Tuesday, and the Senate could pass - or reject - the bill by week's end.

Traditional Kennedy allies are mystified and angry at the Massachusetts senator's willingness to accept Republican-backed measures such as subjecting illegal immigrants to steep fines and trips home, separating immigrants from relatives and letting new guest workers stay only for short periods of time with little chance of citizenship.

"Separating immigrants from relatives."  Isn't that what happened when they came here illegally in the first place?

"I think that in his heart, he's where I'm at, but he wants to see a deal move forward and he's willing to take certain steps that I might not be willing to take," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who abandoned the deal just before it was announced because it scrapped many immigrants' ability to come to the U.S. based solely on family ties.

And still no hint of resolve to prevent having to revisit this in the future.  That's the thing that Rasmussen found would most clearly make this bill acceptable.

If the current bill passed, 71% of American voters believe that another bill would be required to focus on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration. That’s up from 65% in our previous survey.

Rasmussen Reports and other firms have consistently found majority support for a hypothetical bill combining border security and legalized status for the 12 million or so illegal aliens already in the country. However, the data has also shown a huge gap between support for the actual legislation and a hypothetical bill. The reason for the gap is simple—reducing illegal immigration is the first priority for voters but only 16% believe the Senate bill would reduce illegal immigration. In fact, 41% believe the Senate bill would make things worse and lead to even more illegal immigration.

The Senate should follow Hippocrates' admonition to physicians: "Above all else, do no harm."  The first casualty of this short-on-enforcement immigration bill might be Sen. McCain, whose fundraising seems to have dried up, and with it his chances at winning the presidency.

FORMER US presidential frontrunner John McCain may drop out of the 2008 race by September if his fundraising dries up and his poll ratings continue to drop, Republican insiders say.

The speculation, vigorously denied by Senator McCain's camp, is sweeping Republican circles after a disastrous few weeks in which he has clashed with the party's conservative base on immigration and also alienated independent voters bybacking President George W.Bush's troop surge in Iraq.

I've written before that following the dictates of American popular opinion may not be the proper thing to do - and yet commentators are constantly telling us that politicians should "listen to the people."  Surely there have to be 41 Senators who agree.

Pricing The Work Of Medicine II - The Author Stops By

A few weeks ago Dr. Robert Swerlick wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that discussed one of the distortions in allocation of resources caused by the administrative pricing of medicine but was, unfortunately, behind the subscriber wall.  I discussed the editorial in Pricing The Work Of Medicine.  The point of the discussion is that work in medicine is priced currently in a largely administrative and arbitrary fashion that creates market distortions that, were the market to set the price (and medical work to be reimbursed according to the quality of the work and its worth to the patient) then these distortions could be reduced.  Thus, using Dr. Swerlick's example, low reimbursements for increasingly in demand specialties like endocrinology (for diabetes) leads to a shortage of such specialists, and there are no market forces to correct that shortage.

Well, Dr. Swerlick stopped by JTF a couple of days ago, and added further to the discussion.  After checking with him I've posted his comment in full below.  He emphasizes this lack of market correction in medicine, and wonders if those who are proposing new systems have considered that such distortions will continue to occur unless feedback is allowed to correct prices.

While I identified Medicare as becoming the major player in the administrative pricing structure of medicine, it is by no means the only culprit. What the authors of the two comments fail to stress is the major point of my editorial which is administrative pricing (whether public or private sector driven) is THE MAJOR PROBLEM.

None of us individually or even collectively can prospectively define the correct prices. It is an iterative process and prices are (and should be) very context dependent. Incorrect prices are defined ultimately by their result in terms of production and allocation and price allocated systems are the best systems yet devised to get the most bang for the most people. Furthermore, price coordinated systems have the potential to be rapidly self correcting.

I am in a position to see how pricing structures in medicine influence the decisions making of the next generation of physicians. While we might want to believe that a substantial proportion should be driven my motives other than self-interest and money, that perspective is not entirely grounded in reality. The most competitive residencies appear to be attractive for reasons other than service and altruism. Whether these competitive specialties are highly compensated because they provide extraordinary value for patients is doubtful.

Beyond the perverted incentives between specialties created by administrative pricing, within specialties are created an additional set of undesirable incentives. Since administrative prices basically set one price for a service independent of context, the service is valued essentially the same whether delivered by someone with extensive experience or not, whether indicated or not, and whether high quality or low quality is delivered. Thus, why not ramp up the volume, do the easy stuff, and pawn off the hard stuff on some poor doc with a conscience who will take the financial hit.

Like it or not, there is no historical precedent in the entire history of mankind of an entity that has set prices administratively (whether government or non-governmental) which effectively dealt with these issues.

So the question still remains, whatever system is put in place, who or what will set the prices, how will they do so, and what sort of self correction mechanism will be in place to get the prices right?

 

The Confused, and Confusing, E.J. Dionne

So is the far left really centrist, have more centrists really moved left in their views, or have leftists become more centrist?  I was more than a little puzzled at times reading E.J. Dionne's column in the Washington Post today, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  We'll start with the title, which in the Washington Post is "'The Left' is Front and Center," while on Real Clear Politics the title is "The Center Has Drifted To The Left."  One indicates a prominence of left wing ideals and political culture; the other suggests that the left is growing by winning converts.  Both are dubious propositions at best.  Still, let's have a look at the article.

Whenever you use the word "left" in American politics, you feel almost compelled to add quotation marks. Today's left is not talking about nationalizing industry, abolishing capitalism or destroying the rich. What passes for "left" in American politics is quite moderate by historical standards.

I have only four words to say to that.  "Single Payer Nationalized Healthcare."  Okay, let's make it nine.  "Tax cuts for the wealthy."

This approach is about abstractions, not concrete political problems, and it misses the dynamic in American public life, which is the move away from the right and a discrediting of the conservative era. The political "center" of today is not where the "center" was even five years ago.

Now would be an appropriate time for Mr. Dionne to make several arguments in support of this assertion, that there is a shift left and that the conservative 'era' has been discredited.  Arguments like, say, pointing out the stellar public support for the Democratic majority in Congress.  No arguments are forthcoming; the statement proves itself, apparently.

The political "center" of today is not where the "center" was even five years ago.

That's why every leading Democratic candidate for president chose to appear at this week's "Take Back America" conference organized by the Campaign for America's Future, the leading group on the party's progressive end.

No, Mr. Dionne, the reason they all showed up is because that's where the Democratic political energy lies, and where the activists that will end up selecting the Democratic nominee will be found.  To presume that it's an indication of the American center is to presume first that the left really is in the center politically, and to further assume that independents and Republicans can be found distributed throughout the ideological space occupied by the most "progressive" of registered Democrats.  Neither proposition is believable.

Clinton was booed at last year's Take Back America conference when she said it was not "smart strategy" to set a date certain for withdrawing from Iraq. She was much better received this week for a tougher stand against the war.

Of course, speaking to all of America would require not a "tougher stand" against the war but a tougher stand against terrorists.  But for a far-left anti-war crowd such a stand would be more valued.  It also demonstrates how ... malleable  are Senator Clinton's positions.  Or is this just a case of "growing" in office?

Clinton was not just playing internal party politics. A large majority of the country has now decided that the establishment was wrong to support the war, and that those who opposed it -- including the left -- were right.

That is baldly incorrect.  She was, of course, playing internal party politics, but it is now convenient for her that such gamesmanship has wider support.

It's like that on a lot of issues. Just a few years ago, the prevailing view held that national action for universal health insurance coverage was politically impossible. Now, pressure for comprehensive health-care reform is broad and deep, arising from major businesses as well as traditional liberal bastions.

"Traditional liberal bastions" like, oh, the New York Times, for example.  You really can design your poll to give you the answers you want.

Would you say The New York Times has a very serious reporting problem; a somewhat serious reporting problem, or that its problem is not very serious at all?

Any way you answer that question, The New York Times has a reporting problem. The problem is bias toward national tax-funded health care, and it was evident in coverage of the latest Times poll – which left out the fact that respondents thought a government-mandated health plan was “unfair” and that government would be an inefficient service provider.

[...]

The Business & Media Institute pointed out the media’s preferential treatment of universal coverage plans in a January 2007 article entitled Health Care Face-Off

Mr. Dionne's work here reminds me of Damone's advice to Mark Ratner, on how to get the girl:

Damone: Three. Act like wherever you are, that's the place to be.
(to Debbie Harry; debonair) Isn't this great?

He wants you to know that where he is, that's the place to be.  It's a pity his argument is so unconvincing, or rather, he presents so little actual argument.

6/23/07 0800: Paul Mirengoff discusses this article at Power Line, giving Mr. Dionne a little more credit as a sage than I do.  However, Mr. Mirengoff's readers are not so easily impressed.  From one comment:

When Dionne talks about “discrediting of the conservative era” that translates into the left’s penchant for rewriting history in order to obscure conservative successes and exaggerate conservative failures. Whether or not they are in power, that’s always one of their MOs. It just gets worse when they’re in control.

The Question Is Why

The Center For American Progress, which Newsbusters quite accurately points out is essentially a Clinton Administration (former and perhaps future) think tank tank/propaganda engine, has released a report showing the bias toward dominance of right wing/conservative talk radio.

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio

Despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America. Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.” Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006.

Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.

As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:

• Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
• Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
• A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

Their solution, of course, is government actions to prevent such dominance, stepping upon the free speech of those who disagree with them.  Let's leave aside the first amendment ramifications.  Let's leave aside further the sense you may have that this is an effort to quiet voices of protest during Hillary Clinton's coronation campaign.  Let's also not discuss the failures of liberal efforts to make a dent in that dominance, mainly through the fact that insufficient numbers of listeners tuned in.

No, instead let's ask why conservative talk radio might find such a fertile market.  Could it be, perhaps, because of this?

Posted on MSNBC.com is an "investigative report" on liberal bias in the media. Strange, coming from MSNBC, of all places. Actually, the report doesn't call it outright a bias; it's ostensibly a look at journalist contributions to political campaigns, but, based on the fact that the sample of 144 journalists donate roughly 9 times more to Democrats than to Republicans, it's difficult to read it any other way.

Could it be that conservatives haven't felt, for quite some time, that they were getting a fair shake from the MEDIA and so they found other media that was, perhaps, more "fair and balanced?"  I suspect that if network news were keeping their thumb off the scale then it would be harder for such conservative radio to be successful.

By the way, it's not a "structural imbalance," which implies that liberal radio voices are being denied access and success.  No, radio is a marketplace, and if advertisers and radio stations could make money airing liberal voices they would.  Those who get the ears are successful, those who don't are not.

An Orthopaedic Surgeon In The Senate

John Barrasso, an orthopaedic surgeon from Wyoming, has been appointed to fill the spot of the late Craig Thomas.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - Republican John Barrasso, a surgeon and conservative Wyoming legislator, became the country's newest U.S. senator Friday, replacing the late Craig Thomas.

The temporary appointment, announced Friday by Wyoming's governor, will have no effect on the Senate's party breakdown, since Thomas was also a Republican. He died June 4 while being treated for leukemia.

Barrasso, 54, will serve in Thomas' place until the beginning of 2009. He said on his application that he also intends to then run in a November 2008 special election to serve out the remainder of Thomas' term through 2013.

Barrasso also left no doubt that he will be a conservative voice in Washington.

"I believe in limited government, lower taxes, less spending, traditional family values, local control and a strong national defense," the orthopedic surgeon and state senator from Casper wrote in his application.

He said he has "voted for prayer in schools, against gay marriage and have sponsored legislation to protect the sanctity of life."

Conservative, in other words.  Although I suspect that my opinions and beliefs don't match up in lockstep with Mr. Barrasso, as a fellow orthopaedic surgeon there is a certain element of pride of association that all orthopaedic surgeons will feel for him.  In addition, with health care and tort reform two of the big domestic issues facing the Senate and the nation in general, it will help to have the voice of someone who truly knows the effects of the policies arguing with the likes of Sen. Ted Kennedy and Senator/Candidate Hillary Clinton.  He's lived them.

So, You Think You Know McClane?

If so, head on over and take the Ace of Spades Die Hard quiz.  And no fair scrolling down to the answers in the comments.  I got about half of the 52.

Less than that, and you need a refresher course.

Tony Blair Discusses The Media

Mr. Blair's speech, which was delivered on June 12 and which I discussed in the context of being delivered predigested news, trimmed and processed with the "proper" interpretation force-fed to you, is reprinted in it's entirety on Opinionjournal.com.  If you haven't read it yet, do yourself a favor and do so now.  If you haven't read mine yet, do me a favor and do so now.

Choosing The Right Parents

From a financial standpoint, at least.  First there was Lebron:

James became a father for the second time early Thursday when his girlfriend, Savannah Brinson, gave birth to the couple's second son, Bryce Maximus James.

[...]

"You put everything in perspective," he said. "This is definitely special for me, being a part of the NBA and being a part of the NBA finals. It's great. Win, lose or draw, this is special for my family, especially to have another James. It doesn't get any better than this."

Then there was Tiger:

Tiger Woods failed to deliver a championship Sunday in the U.S. Open, but his wife, Elin, delivered a special prize Monday morning that he said last week was far more important than any golf title.

Woods announced on his Web site that he and Elin became the proud parents of a daughter, Sam Alexis Woods.

"Both Elin and Sam are doing well and resting peacefully," Woods wrote after becoming a father, one day after Father's Day.

Then there was the Rainbow Warrior:

NEW YORK, N.Y. -- Jeff Gordon won't have to miss a race for the birth of his daughter.

NASCAR's four-time champion became a father Wednesday when his wife, model Ingrid Vandebosch, gave birth to a girl. Gordon announced on his Web site that Ella Sofia Gordon was born Wednesday morning.

"It's been an absolutely incredible experience," Gordon said. "Ingrid came through amazingly and we're both really happy and overjoyed. We can't wait to get home and start our lives together as a family."

Congratulations, everyone.  Now, be the daddy.

I Was Sure He Didn't Have Another Fifty Years In Him

A sports drama featuring The Rocket, with a very special guest appearance by the brain of George Steinbrenner.  Enjoy.

Bloomberg's 'Surprise'

The Mayor of New York City has abandoned the GOP!  Stop the presses!  This is just another poke in the eye for George W. Bush, obviously.

LOS ANGELES, June 19 — Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency.

The announcement was released during a campaign-style swing through California, during which Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, used increasingly sharp language to criticize both parties in Washington as too timid to take on big problems and too locked into petty squabbling to work together.

“I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead my city,” Mr. Bloomberg’s statement read. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles, and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.”

He's a political opportunist rather than a died-in-the-wool conservative.  Location of the following tidbit of information?  Paragraph 10:

Several analysts argued that a three-way race with Mr. Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate could ultimately prove more of a threat to Democrats than to Republicans. Until he ran for mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat, and his success in New York reflected his ability to draw Democratic votes: he is for abortion  rights, gay rights and gun control.

Let's see.  "Lifelong Democrat."  Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice (pick your favorite moniker).  Pro-Gay Rights (I think they're referring to gay marriage, but it's a bit obtuse).  Pro-Gun Control.  Boy, I'll bet the Republican base was disappointed.

The Republicans already have one Mayor of New York City in the field, and they seem to like him quite a bit even with the moderate social positions.  I don't think there was room for a second in the Republican field.

6/20/07 1125: Rick Moran:

Having the golden touch at making money and governing the United States of America represent two different skill sets. Why we would think that someone successful in business would be able to translate that skill into being able to deal with al-Qaeda? Or reform entitlements? It won’t wash with the voters. It never has.

6/20/07 1500: Oh, now this is just priceless.  From Michael Shear's article in the Washington Post:

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abruptly left the Republican Party yesterday, declaring himself free of a "rigid adherence" to ideology ...

I don't know who should be laughing more, Mr. Bloomberg while saying it or Mr. Shear while writing it.

Libby Appeals For Freedom

Having been told to be prepared to begin serving his 30 month sentence even while appealing, Scooter Libby is hoping that an appeals court might give him a break.

In a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Libby argued that the ruling was inappropriate. He said he has a good chance of having his conviction overturned on appeal and should not have to serve jail time while the court challenge plays out.

"The Bureau of Prisons will shortly designate a prison facility and direct Libby to report within a period of two to three weeks after designation," his attorneys wrote. "Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the court expedite action on this application."

Mr. Libby has some interesting support in this quest.  Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, no friend of either President Bush of VP Cheney, thinks the prosecutor's zeal was a bit misplaced.

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

Christopher Hitchens is similarly unimpressed with the conclusion of this travesty of a farce of a travesty in three acts.

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

I know of a senior lawyer in Washington who is betting very good money that if the case is heard again on appeal, the conviction will be reversed.

Mr. Hitchens reproduces a statement from the judge regarding the start of the prison sentence that is quite remarkably dripping with venomous sarcasm for a dispassionate dispenser of justice.

Both Mr. Cohen and Mr. Hitchens note the calls for Mr. Libby to show contrition, calls which he has not heeded, and which would be inappropriate in light of the appeals process.  The Appeals Court should do the right thing in this case and stay the sentence pending the appeal.  Mr. Libby isn't going anywhere; neither is this case.

Too 'Nuanced' For Me

Former President Carter was at it again, this time in Ireland.  He gave a speech and collected money for his Carter Center in Atlanta, the place where a number of his staff recently resigned after the release of his most recent book detached musings.  He managed to produce not one, but two senior moments.  The first included taking yet another shot at the anti-terror policies of the Bush Administration.

He said that the US has abandoned its role as a champion of human rights in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks.

Mr Carter pointed to the torture of detainees, the denial of the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the erosion of civil liberties within the United States.

So Mr. Carter is against torture, and with his referencing of the Geneva Convention obviously in favor of following the rules of war.  And despite those tendencies he seems awfully smitten by a terrorist organization.

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."

[...]

Carter said that election was "orderly and fair" and Hamas triumphed, in part, because it was "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.

Far from encouraging Hamas's move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, has sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.

It's actually been a year and a half, and there has been plenty of opportunity for Fatah and Hamas to compromise - except that the latter won't, instead choosing violent confrontation.  Hamas openly pines for the destruction of Israel (Fatah does so a little more circumspectly), a position that is for all intents and purposes non-negotiable.  I fail to see how supporting Hamas leads to any solution that doesn't involve Israel's demise.  Perhaps Mr. Carter could explain it to me.  John Hinderaker at Power Line:

So there you have it: in the perverse world of Jimmy Carter, the United States is a criminal nation that destroys civil liberties, tortures prisoners and oppresses Palestinians. But the Iran-controlled terrorists of Hamas? No problem.

Dueling but vivid metaphors from Gina Cobb:

So now he spends his days catering to Middle Eastern terrorists and urging the rest of the West to join him in racing toward the cliffs of mayhem to dive into the sea.  Sensible people and nations know that this is a very bad idea and are not swarming like lemmings in response to Carter's call.  Instead of heeding the feedback, Carter grows ever more shrill.

He's had plenty of time to see the warning signs and to hear the clanging bells and blaring horn, but he's still determined to drive what's left of his lousy foreign policy reputation (think a Yugo or a Chevy Vega) right onto the tracks in front of the oncoming Train of Reason.

This whole "Hamas: Good, US: Bad" argument is a little too nuanced for my taste.  For a little insight to the contrary, this is a good place to start.

Your Left, Your Left, Your Left ...

It seems there's a profound leftward shift going on - from the Democrats running for President.

As the Democratic presidential candidates gather in Washington to make their pitch to party activists this week, "liberal" is suddenly no longer a dirty word.

In recent months, virtually the entire Democratic field has tacked left -- not just on the Iraq War, but on health care, taxes, energy issues and gay rights. In each of those areas, much of the field is standing to the left of where Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., stood in 2004, when President Bush lampooned Kerry as a "Massachusetts liberal."

"They're responding to the reality of the primaries, where the center of gravity is far to the left of the electorate as a whole," said Erik Smith, a Democratic consultant who is not affiliated with any of the 2008 candidates. "The discussion with the greater American public is just getting started. They have plenty of time to define themselves, but you don't come all the way back to the center."

Whatever happened to standing up for what you believe in?  Do we really want politicians who shift so easily with the winds of political fortune, unable to, for example, stand up and defend what was in 2002 a perfectly reasonable and supportable vote for military force in Iraq?

Meanwhile, Mr. Smith all but admits that what they're telling America now is not what they'll be telling America 9 months from now.  Apparently they're not "defining themselves" now.  So how are we supposed to believe anything they say now or will say then?  Why can't politicians resist the temptation to try to be all things to all people?

A year ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was roundly booed at the Take Back America conference when she stated her opposition to setting a deadline for troop withdrawal. When Clinton addresses the same gathering of 3,000 progressive activists Wednesday, it comes shortly after she reversed course and voted to cut off funding for the troops as a means of ending the war.

Have some Republicans tacked right?  Absolutely (cough ... Mitt ... cough).  I'd say, though, that on that count Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have far less for which to answer.  Good old Abe Lincoln had it right.

"If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens,
you can never regain their respect and esteem.
It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time;
you can even fool some of the people all of the time;
but you can't fool all of the people all the time."

Stand-up Guy Wanted

While he spends a lot of time here tiptoeing between the raindrops, he does at least acknowledge where the buck ultimately stops.

NEWTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday said his campaign made a "dumb mistake" when it circulated a memo criticizing rival Hillary Rodham [ed: oh, so it's Rodham again, eh?] Clinton's financial ties to India.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama disavowed the memo which carried the headline —"Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) — and referred to Bill and Hillary Clintons' investments in India; her fundraising among Indian-Americans; and the former president's $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company that has moved U.S. jobs to India.

"It was a dumb mistake on our campaign's part and I made it clear to my staff in no uncertain terms that it was a mistake," Obama told the AP in a brief interview in which he referred to the memo as "unnecessarily caustic."

"Please don't do things that make me look desperate and vicious, okay?"

"It is not reflective of the long-standing relationship I have had with the Indian-American community," Obama said in the interview.

"Long-standing relationship?"  He hasn't been around that long.

"The issue of outsourcing is a genuine and important issue but to refer to one particular country was, I think, an error and I let all of us know that we've got to be more careful about how we communicate," he said.

In a statement on his Web site, Obama said he was not aware of the contents of the memo before it was distributed. The Illinois senator said he was responsible for the mistake and the campaign had taken appropriate action "to prevent errors like this from happening in the future."

I'd love to know what the "appropriate action" was.  You know what I find most offensive and yet simultaneously puzzling about this?  The fact that, of all of the things that you could attack Mrs. Clinton on, his campaign chose this.  You're gonne need a bigger boat if you want to bag that shark, Barack.

Predigesting The News

Now, let me preface this post by writing that this isn't going to be another "conservative blogger bashes the MSM" post, although it may at times seem like that.  No, what instead I'd like to do is tie a series of events and stories together and give a little insight into just why and how the current incarnation of the MSM is failing us as a nation and as a society.

Let's start with the little CBS News dustup from last week.  Former CBS Anchor Dan Rather, who lost his job because of his own journalistic indiscretion, credited Katie Couric's last-place-and-falling ratings on her dumbing down and tarting up the news.  CBS President Les Moonves responded, accusing Rather not of sour grapes, jealousy, or resentment over his own firing.  No, it was obviously simply sexism on Rather's part.  Dan Rather is a lot of things, and he certainly doesn't need me to point this out, but sexist is not a problem that comes to mind.

Then the next day came soon-to-be former British PM Tony Blair's explication of the problems of the media, and it was greeted with a yawn by the MSM.  Nonetheless, he hit several of the nails right on the head.

Father's Day 2007

As I was out this morning digging two moderate sized holes in the rocky New Hampshire soil in order to plant a couple of trees, it suddenly occurred to me why Father's Day exists.  It's not so that kids can tell their dads how much they're loved and appreciated.  Kids let their dads (and moms) know that in little ways every single day.  And it's not so that dads can get a "vacation;" my Father's Day weekend was filled with doing things for my kids and my family, including the first session of "Dad's Soccer Camp," wherein an aging middling former player tries to inspire three young daughters who claim to be interested in becoming very good players.

No, as I was drenched with sweat and prying large rocks out from the dense soil, it came to me that Father's Day exists for the dads themselves, to give them a moment to realize just why they labor, why they put in the overtime and sweat the small stuff at work, why they drive themselves to be there for their kids even more than they do for their jobs, why they take the time to teach their kids things about life and living that may not sink in for 20 years.  Father's Day exists as a yearly reminder that giving of yourself and imparting the knowledge that you've accumulated to your kids is the greatest gift you can give them.

Now, let's see if they still think I'm all that when "Dad's Summer Math Camp" starts.

By the way, my choice for a Father's Day movie is Field of Dreams.

Misinterpreting Arnold

So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California shot off his immigrant Austrian mouth and dissed the Hispanic community.  Or at least that's the impression you'd get when you read the reactions of the race baiters and liberal demagogues.  Let's look at what he said, in context, first.

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and stay away from Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.  "You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster."

Schwarzenegger, who immigrated to the U.S. from Austria, was responding to a question about how Hispanic students can improve academic performance. The audience included many journalists who work for Spanish-language media outlets.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said. "But I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely spoke German to anyone."

To translate and summarize, in answer to the question of how Hispanic students could improve academically, what the Governor's advice came down to was, in essence, learn English as soon as possible.  Good advice, if you want to be successful in an English speaking country.  Aw, heck, English is the language of business worldwide.  From Doshisha University in Kyoto:

Another Big Dig

Switzerland has created the longest overland tunnel on earth, connecting Germany and Italy through Switzerland, measuring almost 35 kilometers, and speeding travel through the Swiss Alps.

N THE LOETSCHBERG BASE TUNNEL, Switzerland - With a ceremony that went off like a classic Swiss timepiece, officials Friday inaugurated the world's longest overland tunnel, a 34.6-kilometer-long (21-mile-long) rail link under the Alps meant to ease highway traffic jams in the mountainous country.

The tunnel, which took eight years to build and cost 4.3 billion Swiss francs ($3.5 billion), will trim the time trains need to cross between Germany and Italy from 3 1/2 hours to just under two.

The first train through the tunnel was a freight carrying Swiss Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger, arriving in the town of Frutigen at the tunnel's north entrance. It burst through a banner declaring "Loetschberg — Connecting Europe" to the cheers of more than 1,000 people and the popping of fireworks.

"We have moved a mountain," Leuenberger said.

Granted, it didn't have to be done in the middle of busy traffic in a busy city, but let's look at a brief comparison between this one and Boston's big dig.

• Boston: roughly $16 billion - Switzerland: $3.5 billion
• Boston: 20 years - Switzerland: 8 years
• Boston: about 2 miles, one new tunnel and a bridge, and several entrances and exits - Switzerland - a straight shot, but dug through several mountains and about 20 miles long.

Oh, and given the Swiss reputation for engineering precision and attention to detail, perhaps falling tunnel roof panels and civilian deaths can be avoided.  Maybe we should have brought the Swiss in and just handed them the project.

Oh, How Soon They Forget

This is a shame.  (hat tip Hot Air)

Do you realize that it's very likely that all of these individuals are voters?  No, I'm not going to speculate on party affiliation.

A New Oxymoron

We've long had "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" (har-dee-har).  Now there's a new one: "Palestinian self-rule."  In pseudo-democratic elections some time ago Hamas became a ruling party in the Palestinian "parliament," such as it is.  After those elections I wrote that

I think that we're going to see a bloodier campaign.

I thought it would be Israeli blood, but I was wrong.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas fighters overran two of the rival Fatah movement's most important security command centers in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, and witnesses said the victors dragged vanquished gunmen into the street and shot them to death execution-style.

Hamas also seized control of Rafah in the south, Gaza's third-largest city, according to witnesses and security officials. It was the second main Gaza city to fall to the militants, who captured nearby Khan Younis on Wednesday, and gave Hamas control of the porous border with Egypt, which has been the source of arms smuggling.

Responding to Hamas' gains, President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah declared a state of emergency, fired Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, dissolved the Hamas-Fatah coalition and said he would form a new government.

This is the real civil war, the one that gets far less attention from the press.  Does anyone else think that Hamas' animosity toward Fatah is because they think the latter doesn't hate the Jews enough?  As Karol has often written, "Somebody give these people a state, and quick!"

Abbas, who is considering early elections, considers the Hamas fighters who have seized control of most of the Fatah-allied security headquarters in Gaza to be an "outlaw militia," said his aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim.

Early elections?  As O'C said in Miracle on the prospect of guys from Minnesota and guys from Boston playing on the same team, "Yeah, that'll work."

Damned If You Do ...

The report on the problems that led to a homicidal college student arming himself to the teeth and murdering fellow students at Virginia Tech is out, and the fault, according to the report, lies with confusing and contradictory medical privacy laws.

WASHINGTON - Schools, doctors and police often do not share information about potentially dangerous students because they can't figure out complicated and overlapping privacy laws, according to a federal report released Wednesday on the Virginia Tech shooting.

As a result, information that could be used to get troubled students counseling or prevent them from buying handguns never makes it to the appropriate agency, the report by three Cabinet agencies said.

[...]

The report by the departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Education found that teachers and school administrators feared liability for sharing information and didn't understand whether they could be held responsible for not sharing information.

On top of federal privacy laws governing health and student information, states have privacy laws of their own and police have rules limiting disclosure of criminal information.

Hey, I work in the field (medicine) and it is quite confusing, and the requirements and directives are at times contradictory.  Often the decision-making comes down to "use your best judgement."  The problem is that the laws are written in such a way that, despite good judgement and appropriate use, you may be sued even in a situation that is eminently defensible.  It's not so much that the people involved are trying to avoid losing a lawsuit over this; they're trying to avoid being sued at all.  That requires even more stringent avoidance behavior.

I don't have a solution for this dilemma.  The public wants their information private, and they want control over who has access to that private information.  They also want to be able to seek a legal remedy if they perceive that the information is improperly handled. The medical and law enforcement community needs to communicate that information, and at least on the medical side the HIPAA laws have generated a ton of additional paperwork, notifications and disclaimers.  Electronic record keeping and data transfers may help, but is likely to lead to other, different security issues.

Dueling Polls

Cue the banjo music.

Most Americans Back Stalled Senate Immigration Bill, Poll Shows

By Heidi Przybyla

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Most Americans support central elements of the legislation overhauling U.S. immigration laws the Senate shelved last week after it failed to gain sufficient support from lawmakers.

A new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that at least a plurality of Americans backs the two most contentious provisions of the bill, a proposal to offer 12 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship and the creation of a guest- worker program. Of a third provision -- a point system for immigrants based on professional qualifications -- many say they don't have enough information to have an opinion.

Moreover, most of those surveyed appear to reject one of the central arguments deployed by the bill's opponents: The poll found that less than a third of all respondents, including Republicans, believe illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans who need them.

And:

Poll: Voters Want Smaller Steps to Immigration Reform With Focus on Enforcement

Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to “take smaller steps towards reform” while 16% believe they should wait until next year. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday night as the President was publicly attempting to rally support for the legislation.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

Scott Rasmussen: asking the questions that other American pollsters won't ask.  Are we to be swayed that "a plurality" of Americans accept two of the major provisions of the bill?  I would certainly hope the bill would have at least that amount of backing.  The Bloomberg/LA Times poll apparently didn't actually ask Americans if they support the bill itself, though, instead choosing to isolate those provisions.  Mr. Rasmussen not only asked for an up-or-down on the bill, but also separated out the Guest Worker/legalization provisions from enforcement, and found, lo and behold, enforcement is even more popular.

Today's Wall Street Journal (sorry, subscription only) pushes the business-centric provisions, looking to provide both high tech and manual labor to American companies in need.

A more streamlined bill could address both these concerns and in the process test the bona fides of restrictionists who keep saying they like immigrants, so long as they're here legally. The cap on visas for high-skilled workers could be lifted or removed. Congress might also consider exempting from the cap foreign nationals who receive a master's degree and above from a U.S. school. For agribusinesses, the procedure for a farmworker visa could be simplified by reducing paperwork and expediting the labor certification process.

But the most important thing Congress could do before giving up altogether is put in place a guest-worker program for future immigrants. If we want to reduce illegal entries, let's provide more legal ways for foreigners to enter the country. It's worked before and it could again.

To be fair they have an argument.  And I'm not in favor, necessarily, of a wall.  I'd like it, however, if our government took seriously unknown individuals with unknown intentions entering the country without authorization.  They could improve this bill in a lot of ways, but the most important ones, as Mr. Rasmussen shows, are those that indicate a seriousness about stopping illegal entries, and expelling those who, in the future, do.  Do that, and most of the rest becomes much more acceptable.

Bob Schieffer Leaves It Short

He needed a little more muscle to get it to the hole.  Writing on the immigration bill, Mr. Schieffer instructs us that Americans want this bill.

Here's the "clean little secret" about immigration: For all the noise from the right side of the Republican Party and the left side of the Democratic Party, most Americans want immigration reform, want some kind of guest worker program, and want some way for illegal immigrants to apply for legal status.

Actually, it's no secret — those were the findings of a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.[*]

But you'd never know it. The Right and the Left turned up the volume and drowned out the center. When the Democratic leader in the Senate was unable to cut off debate and bring reform to a vote, the blame game began.

But this doesn't tell the whole story, does it?  Not by a longshot.  To get the whole story Mr. Schieffer would have to have read and incorporated the results of someone else's poll, the one done by Scott Rasmussen.  In that poll we learned that what Americans really wanted, first and foremost, was a secure border and virtually no likelihood of ever having to revisit the illegal immigration problem in the future.

There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration reform means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border. Only 16% believed the Senate bill would accomplish that goal.

So let's rewrite Mr. Schieffer's opener for him.

Here's the "clean little secret" about immigration: For all the noise from the right side of the Republican Party and the left side of the Democratic Party, most Americans want a secure border first, stopping the steady flow of illegal immigrants.  Then once that' been accomplished they actually do want immigration reform, want some kind of guest worker program, and want some way for illegal immigrants to apply for legal status.

See how easy it is to write the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

*Of course, I could point out that CBS misrepresented, to a degree, the results of their own poll, but that would be too easy

Important Economic Benchmarks - Except When They're Not

Ordinarily there are a certain few benchmarks that are looked at to decide if the government's economic policies - monetary, tax, budget priorities, inflation - are going in the right direction.  I'll give you a minute and let you conjure them up.  Now, let's all recite together.

• Unemployment Rate - check
• Job Growth - check
• Inflation Rate - check
• Interest Rates - check
• GDP Growth - check
• Federal Budget Deficit - check
• Income Growth - check

These are the standard benchmarks which the press uses to evaluate the performance of government.  By all of these measures, each and every one, the Bush economy has been doing just fine, thank you.  Yes there is a federal deficit, but each year it is less than the year before, and less even than it was predicted to be.  The Fed Chairman, first Greenspan and now Bernanke, has kept inflation in check with judicious, though not excessive interest rate manipulation.  The unemployment rate sits at a low by historical standards 4.5%, and jobs have been produced to the tune of roughly 160,000 per year for since the final Bush tax cuts in 2003 took effect.  And incomes have risen across the board.

But.  But George Will had the temerity to write a column in praise of this relative economic goodness and whaddayaknow, a few other economic benchmarks are suddenly deemed more important.  First, from  Mr. Will.

In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something...

In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan's tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy's growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter, and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is below the post-World War II average.

Now, from Ezra Klein via the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities* comes a graph demonstrating an "extraordinary jump" in income concentration.  Income concentration?  That's the holding of a larger percentage of total income by a small percentage, the top 1%.  Here's the graph.

Mr. Klein doesn't do much more than publish the borrowed graph and say "Here, see!  But here's what the CBPP has to say about it:

• "This disparity produced an exceptional jump in income concentration in 2004.  The share of the pre-tax income in the nation that goes to the top one percent of households increased from 17.5 percent in 2003 to 19.8 percent in 2004.  Only five times since 1913 (the first year that this data set covers), and only twice since World War II has the top one percent’s share risen by as much in a single year (in percentage point terms).  Each percentage point of income is equivalent to $69 billion in 2004.
• The share of total U.S. income that the top one percent of households received in 2004 was greater than the share it received in any prior year since 1929, except for 1999 and 2000.

I've taken the liberty of highlighting the last few words.  For if you look at the graph with them in mind (and can read the very fine print for the years involved) it becomes quite clear that if anyone should stand accused of re-establishing a "robber baron society" it should be Mr. Bush's predecessor,  President Bill Clinton.  In 1994 it appears that the top 1% earned roughly 14.5% of pre-tax income, and in 2000 they earned roughly 21.5%. a steady upward climb if ever there was one.  Did we hear about the evils of "income concentration" then?  I think not.  No, then it was about job creation, debt reduction, GDP growth and low interest rates.  Ah, but now, when the top 1% earned 19.8% do we hear about this evil.

The greatest contributing factor to this is a rising stock market.  During the long flat part of the curve the market was just that, relatively flat.  After the Reagan tax cuts and with the stock market rise in the 80's those most invested in the market, the wealthy, saw their incomes rise.  No surprise.  With the tech boom in the 90's again those invested in the market, the wealthy, saw their incomes rise.  No surprise.  With the Bush tax cuts and renewed economic growth the market has once again risen, and investors have seen their incomes rise as a result.  Again, no surprise.

Unless you'd like to argue that a falling stock market is good for America then I think we'd best stick with the standard economic yardsticks and benchmarks and keep "income concentration," a socialist construct if ever there was one, in the closet.

*By the way, I found this quote on the CBPP's site that tells you really all you need to know about their economics and their politics.

"[The Center's] statistical work is absolutely impeccable; there is nothing at all like it on the right, or anywhere else. . . .  If you care about [fiscal issues], check CBPP's site regularly for updates."

Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist,
in a May 28, 2003 column on his website listing
websites that are "must reading for anyone interested in government policy."

(Linked to OTB's Traffic Jam for June 12)

Got Yourself A Gun

The Sopranos concludes tonight, and Gwendolyn and I will definitely be watching.  Does Tony get whacked?  Does Phil?  What happens to Sil?  What about Pauley, where does he end up?  Do the Feds save Tony's bacon?  Does he turn state's and rat out Phil and his mob?  What about AJ, does he figure in the finale, stepping up to carry on the family tradition?

I heard one rumor that I won't mention, but if it turns out to be the road they take with this I'll be very disappointed.  Let's just say that Tony is no salesman.

Discuss here, or with other Sopranos junkies.

6/10//07 2205:  I mean, WTF?  Looks like no more episodes,  but don't stop believin'.

(different version substituted - first wouldn't load)

6/12/07 1600: Spree at Wake Up America has a great Sopranos post mortem (double entendre intended) with flashbacks that include my favorite episode, The Pine Barrens.  And I'm with him on this final episode.

"I Think I'll Go For A Walk"

John Hinderaker at Power Line has thoughts that the dread unpopular immigration bill might not be as dead as, say, a Norwegian Blue parrot.  "Pining for the fjords?!"  I don't know, it seems like it's probably not completely dead, but hopefully will be soon.

Rasmussen polls show that the immigration bill was disliked by ... well ... just about everybody to the right of Senator Ted Kennedy.  That should be a wake up call for Senators McCain and Graham, and to President Bush.

The reality is much simpler and has nothing to do with legislative tactics. The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.

The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation. When a bill has less popular support than the War in Iraq, it deserves to be defeated.

Rasmussen also gives insight into what could have saved this bill.

There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border. Only 16% believed the Senate bill would accomplish that goal.

It wasn’t amnesty or guest-worker programs or paths to citizenship that doomed the bill. Each of those provisions made it more difficult for some segments of the population to accept. However, most voters were willing to accept them as part of a true compromise that accomplished the primary goal of reducing illegal immigration.

The key to winning voter support was to accomplish that primary goal.

Get that, Senators?  We are absolutely not anti-immigrant, we're anti-not knowing who's coming and who's going.   We don't mind people staying, we just want them docmented and legal.  It's about demonstrating competence.  It does us no good to have laws that are selectively not enforced.  Or, if it does, might I suggest that in my case you selectively not enforce the laws regarding income and property taxation.

Somebody's going to have to put it out of its misery once and for all, with a good club to the head.

Break A Leg, Michael

Via AndrewR at Ace of Spades, we have Michael 'Uh' Moore's plea for hard luck health care stories on YouTube, a promotion for his documentary propaganda film on the US health care system.

Transcribing verbatim a section of, uh, Mr. Moore's, uh, statement:

"I got to thinking, you know, after I finished the film ... uuhh ... uh ...now that, you know, there's YouTube, uh, what a great ... uh ... uuhh ... uh ... umh ... you know, chance, really, to ... to ask those of you ... uuhh ... who are out there and who are watching ... uh ... to send me ... uh ... your own ... uh ... health care stories, in terms of not being able to get care ... uh ... or something that was botched.  So if you would like to ... to videotape ... uh ... uh ... uh ... ba ... uh... you know, your story and ... and send it ... uh ... here ... uuhhh ... dit ... I'll post it ... uh ... uhhand YouTube will post it, and also take these ... uh ... these YouTube videos to our members of Congress, 'cause I want them to sit down and hear from the people what you're going through."

Wow, that was more painful, and difficult, than I thought it would be.  But, let's look at the "substance" of what Mr. Moore is discussing (and I use the term substance very loosely).

Let's say, hypothetically, a middle aged documentary film maker propaganda videographer is grossly overweight, and as a result his knees which see, on average, four times his body weight in joint surface stresses begin to give out, as if he's been carrying a refrigerator on his back for the last 20 years.  Sure he's a relatively young guy, but stuffing his chubby face with Doritos and cheese fries hasn't helped his knees, and now the joints are worn down to bone.  Medication and injections don't get the job done anymore, and now it's time for knee replacement surgery.

The 10 year survival rate (that's survival of the replacement, not the patient) is roughly 94%.  That's pretty darn good.  The others have issues severe enough to warrant removal of the prosthesis and revision, or another solution.  Early failures are most often due to infection; late failures are due to prosthetic failure or loosening.  There are, on very rare occasions, severe complications such as nerve or vascular injuries at the time of surgery.

Medicine is not mathematics, Mr. Moore.  There is no sharp dividing line, with one right answer and all other answers wrong.  Often the result is a shade of gray for the patient, much better in most ways but still with a minor complaint of 'z'.    Your quest with your movie and this collecting of negative outcomes is to push for single payor government health care.  Please explain exactly how such a shift would reduce complication rates, how no physician will ever "botch" something.  Will we all be better doctors working for the government?  It certainly won't improve access to care, given the waiting lists that develop in nations, like Canada, who have it.  It certainly won't provide incentive for innovations that may move that 97% to 98%, then 99%.

Further, If you do present these videos to members of Congress (I'm guessing that you'll only show them to the Democrats) and they actually think they should be making policy based on such anecdotal evidence then they are even less sharp than I think.

Oh, one other thing.  Those complications I listed above for knee replacement are highest in those with  a Body Mass Index above 30, and based on your photo, I'd guess you're there.  Better do some pushaways before you find yourself thinking about the pain in your knees.

From The Medical Mailbag - 6/8/07 ...

This week's New England Journal of Medicine arrived on my desk, and after completing the workday and before heading home a story caught my eye (the contents are somewhat famously listed on the front cover).  It seems that thee has been a fairly dramatic reduction in deaths from coronary disease (heart attacks) in the United States between 1980 and 2000.

ABSTRACT

Background Mortality from coronary heart disease in the United States has decreased substantially in recent decades. We conducted a study to determine how much of this decrease could be explained by the use of medical and surgical treatments as opposed to changes in cardiovascular risk factors. 

Methods We applied a previously validated statistical model, IMPACT, to data on the use and effectiveness of specific cardiac treatments and on changes in risk factors between 1980 and 2000 among U.S. adults 25 to 84 years old. The difference between the observed and expected number of deaths from coronary heart disease in 2000 was distributed among the treatments and risk factors included in the analyses. 

Results From 1980 through 2000, the age-adjusted death rate for coronary heart disease fell from 542.9 to 266.8 deaths per 100,000 population among men and from 263.3 to 134.4 deaths per 100,000 population among women, resulting in 341,745 fewer deaths from coronary heart disease in 2000. Approximately 47% of this decrease was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively). 

Conclusions Approximately half the decline in U.S. deaths from coronary heart disease from 1980 through 2000 may be attributable to reductions in major risk factors and approximately half to evidence-based medical therapies.

Two points to note.  First, the reduction has been phenomenal, with 341,745 fewer deaths and age adjusted death rates that are roughly half what they were only 20 years ago.  Not five or 10 percent.  Half.  That is impressive.

The second point is to look at the factors under control of the patient, you.  Want to decrease your risk?  Exercise, and maintain an appropriate weight.  Don't smoke.  Check your blood pressure and use medication to control it if it's high.  Watch that cholesterol, and lower it with medication if necessary.  And, as for that appropriate weight, that's the big factor in developing diabetes as an adult.  With that factor under better control the reduction in mortality would have even been higher.

It's all very simple, and it comes down to what doctors have been telling patients for years.  Exercise and eat right.  The rest takes care of itself.

Sen. Byron Dorgan: Hemostasis First

I'm with Senator Dorgan on this one.

Unfortunately the proposal the U.S. Senate is considering was cooked up by a small group of senators negotiating with the White House. It’s being sold as a “great compromise.” But it is not that at all.

I don’t support this immigration bill. I’ll explain why.

The first responsibility we have is to provide real border security so we don’t have massive illegal immigration coming across our borders. With the estimated 12 million people who have already entered our country illegally, it’s clear we’re not yet doing that.

One would think the first order of business for any new immigration bill would to get serious about securing our borders. That’s not the case with this bill, at least not in any meaningful way.

Control the bleeding first.  Bravo, Senator.  You know, you've got the soul of a surgeon.

Once we’ve secured the border, and taken away the market for illegal labor, then will be the time to consider the best way to address the status of illegal immigrants in our country.

When my amendment to remove the guest-worker provision in the bill was debated, the supporters of this legislation argued that we need the guest-worker provision because “otherwise people will just come across illegally.”

Read that last section again, and think for a second.  This, absolutely, is an open borders bill, and whomever Senator Dorgan spoke to, giving him that quote, all but admitted it.  The guest worker provision is necessary to document people coming across, because they're not going to stop anyone from coming.  Strip out the flow of guest workers and, lo and behold, no border enforcement.

For the last week Ace of Spades has been all over the bill, and a hat tip to him on the piece by Senator Dorgan.

6/7/07 2145: And the bill failed cloture, debate remains open.

WASHINGTON - A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully failed a crucial test vote in the Senate Thursday, a stunning setback that could spell its defeat for the year.

The vote was 45-50 against limiting debate on the bill, 15 short of the 60 that the bill's supporters needed to prevail. Most Republicans voted to block Democrats' efforts to bring the bill to a final vote.

The legislation, which had been endorsed by President Bush, would tighten borders (ed: not), institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers in addition to giving up to 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.

Senator Kennedy actually said something I agree with.

"We can all find different aspects of this legislation that we differ with," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the leading Democratic architect of the bill.

Yes, indeed, we all can find objectionable parts of this bill.  Senator Sessions found 20.  If, Senator, if the bill had given adequate attention to the area of concern for Senator Dorgan, if it had done that one thing differently, it likely would have passed.

6/7/06 2215: The roll call vote.  The usual suspects voted for cloture: Hagel, Specter, Graham, Lugar, McCain, Voinovich.  My two senators, Gregg and Sununu were nays.  Kudos to the 10 Democratic Senators with a modicum of common sense.

Quote Of The ... 23rd Hour

From Joe Klein, blogging at Time:

"But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable...

The spitballs aimed at me don't matter much. The spitballs aimed at Harman, Clinton and Obama are another story. Despite their votes, each of those politicians believes the war must be funded. (Obama even said so in his statement explaining his vote.) Each knows, as Senator Jim Webb has said repeatedly, that we must be more careful getting out of Iraq than we were getting in. But they allowed themselves to be bullied into a more simplistic, more extreme position.

Courage.

6/9/07 1600: I focused on a different aspect of this section, the spinelessness of the candidates.  The portion truncated form the tail of the first paragraph, however, points to another area of silliness.  Kim Priestap at Wizbang! noticed it, as did Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.  From the latter:

Note to TIME Magazine columnist Joe Klein: suck it up, Joe. Some of us have been targets of the insane bile that pours out of the left-wing blogosphere for years. It didn’t just start recently, and it’s not unusual or rare. The left-wing haze in which you live parted for a second and you saw what the Nutroots are really like. Welcome to the reality-based real world.

6/9/07 1625: And a much longer, and perceptive, take at Right Wing Nuthouse, from Terry Moran's brother:

For Klein to blame the left’s historic, hate-filled rhetoric on the recent phenomena of talk radio and specifically Limbaugh’s broadly drawn (and at times, over the top) satire is fantastically ridiculous. The world did not begin in the 1990’s with the right’s reaction to the deliberate Clintonian strategy of personally destroying your opponent with outrageous smears and lies. It’s just that the left has now perfected the technique and uses the world of blogs to vastly amplify the tactic so that the target feels beseiged.

Technologically Obsolete

The continuing ingenuity and determination of scientists may eventually eliminate one area of political contention and political angst, the argument over embryonic stem cell research.  Sure, adult stem cells have been far more effectively harnessed and put to work to ameliorate disease, but the highest hopes have always been held by many for pluripotential embryonic stem cells.  Imagine producing such versatile cells without actual embryos.  Previously such promise was shown by a group in Germany.  Now it's been done in New York City.  Hey, if they can make it there ...

NEW YORK - In a leap forward for stem cell research, three independent teams of scientists reported Wednesday that they have produced the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice using skin cells without the controversial destruction of embryos.

If the same could be done with human skin cells — a big if — the procedure could lead to breakthrough medical treatments without the contentious ethical and political debates surrounding the use of embryos.

Experts were impressed by the achievement.

"I think it's one of the most exciting things that has come out about embryonic stem cells, period," said researcher Dr. Asa Abeliovich of Columbia University in New York, who didn't participate in the work. "It's very convincing that it's real."

[...]

Scientists have long hoped to find a way to reprogram ordinary body cells to act like stem cells, avoiding the use of embryos altogether. The new mouse studies seem to have accomplished that. Past experiments seeking alternative routes to getting stem cells have generally involved tampering with an embryo or egg.

I'm not one of the many that holds out such hope for the embryonic cells, purely on a medical basis.  Because such embryonic cells are so immature and able to go in so many dimensions, they have tended to act more like cancer cells than normal tissues.  Will we ever be able to completely control them?  Perhaps, but when that comes about the cure to cancer will likely also have been found.

6/7/07 1000: More, from the NY Times:

The new technique, developed by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, depends on inserting just four genes into a skin cell. These accomplish the same reprogramming task as the egg does, or at least one that seems very similar.

The technique, if adaptable to human cells, is much easier to apply than nuclear transfer, would not involve the expensive and controversial use of human eggs, and should avoid all or almost all of the ethical criticism directed at the use of embryonic stem cells.

“From the point of view of moving biomedicine and regenerative medicine faster, this is about as big a deal as you could imagine,” said Irving Weissman, a leading stem cell biologist at Stanford University , who was not involved in the new research.

Presidential Aspirations

Now here's a candidate that I could support.

I have not taken this decision lightly. When considering a run for public office, the first thing a candidate must ask himself is: what can I, as newly elected public servant, expect to get out of this deal?  I have researched this question thoroughly, and believe me: being President is a pretty sweet gig. Not only does it pay 400 large, it has plenty of perks including "three hots and a cot," and the world's most fearsome military force at my disposal.

The second thing a candidate must ask is: am I qualified for the position? Let's look at the facts. First, I am a native-born citizen of the United States. Second, I am over 35 years old. Third, I have never had a felony conviction stick beyond the appeals court. And Mister, if that's good enough for the Constitution of the United States, then that's good enough for me. Google it.

Oh, he's got some darn fine policy positions, too.

The Environment

The scientific debate is over: man-made global warming is real. Finally! This means we can now stop paying for all those expensive redundant research projects to prove global warming. Not only will this save over $2 billion dollars per year in federal spending, we will see significant reductions in CO2 as unemployed global warming scientists sell off their Volvos and move to mud huts.

Iowahawk for President '08!  It's got a nice ring to it.

6/6/07 1800: On the other hand, I thought I was most qualified.

Libby, Libby, Libby

As the sentence for Scooter Libby - 30 months and $250,000 fine - is handed down, it's worth looking back at one of the more insightful - and as a result, correct - articles written about the case, from Brian Carney at Commentary Magazine in the May '07 issue.  The story goes that Libby lied to keep a lid on the awful White House conspiracy, led by Karl Rove, that outed a covert CIA operative in vicious and vindictive retribution for the truth-telling of her husband.  Unfortunately for those who believe that story,

The trouble with this narrative is that Libby was not the source of the information; nor was he ever charged with the crime of leaking it. This, however, has not appeared to trouble his accusers. As Joseph Wilson would put it after the trial, Libby’s conviction for perjury rather than for violating the IIPA was like putting Al Capone behind bars for tax evasion; when you are dealing with known criminals, the particular crime you catch them at is less important than catching them at all. Similarly, in the judgment of Max Frankel, the former executive editor of the New York Times (writing in the Sunday Times Magazine), the essential point to be gleaned from the trial is that Libby was indeed engaged in a White House campaign to expose Mrs. Wilson and discredit her husband; the fact that the information about her was first leaked through other channels was a matter only of happenstance, or perhaps incompetence.

But despite the wishes of those who take their history via synecdoche, this reading of the Libby trial is wrong on every point. Indeed, for a trial that is said to have been about the nature of truth-telling and lying, it is amazing how mistaken is the impression most people have both of the proceeding itself and of its meaning. This is the case not only for Libby’s enemies but also for his defenders, who tend to construe his fall as a tale of tragic personal sacrifice in the name of a higher cause—protecting his superiors and, through them, the continued prosecution of the war against terror. In fact, it is a tale of something else entirely.

What follows is concise synopsis of a Keystone Kops tragedy of errors where, as Mr. Carney puts it,

[I]t was a conspiracy of dunces. At every stage where a top administration official could have exercised authority to ameliorate the problem caused by Wilson’s op-ed and Armitage’s indiscretion, that official failed to do so.

Ms. Plame was not "covert" under the statute.  The "sixteen words" did not say bought but sought, backed up in two separate reports.  Joe Wilson actually lied about what he told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as they note in their report.  The "leaker" was a State Department employee, Richard Armitage, which was known to the FBI even befor the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald.  There never has been a single shred of evidence, that the "leaks" originated in the White House and were part of a vindictive conspiracy.  Even the NY Times today writes, finally:

Mr. Libby was not charged with leaking Ms. Wilson’s name, which first appeared in a column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003. Mr. Novak’s sources were later revealed to be Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s senior political adviser in the White House, neither of whom was charged with violating the law prohibiting the disclosure of the identities of C.I.A. officers.

But Mr. Libby was indicted on charges of lying about his conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson. Mr. Libby argued that the three reporters who contradicted his grand jury testimony were incorrect and that, in any event, he was too pressed by other business to remember details about any conversations concerning Ms. Wilson.

As for a pardon, I frankly don't care whether he's pardoned or not.  Politically it is probably unwise for Mr. Bush to do so, for the simple fact that it implies guilt in the larger alleged "cover up" rather than guilt in disagreeing with the testimony of reporters.  My hope, though, is that Mr. Libby receives weekly sympathy visits from Sandy Berger, whose actions much more clearly obstructed an investigation (the 9-11 Committee) and dealt with national security.

Read the whole thing.

6/6/07 1000: The Wall Street Journal (subscription only) urges a pardon.

It bears repeating that although Judge Walton increased the sentence on grounds that Mr. Libby had obstructed an investigation into the leaking of classified information, neither he nor anyone else was ever accused of that supposed crime. Mr. Libby, ironically, was right to believe he was in no jeopardy for the conversations he had with reporters in June and July 2003. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly said that Mr. Libby's lies prevented the government from learning the truth in that investigation. But Mr. Fitzgerald's version of the truth has now been ratified by a jury, and still there is no evidence of an underlying crime.

I Loved This Game!

Ah, Pac-Man.  The time (and quarters) I spent playing that at Sgt. Pepper's Pizza, just down the street from my college apartment.  Those were the days.  And now, the gentleman who designed the game is retiring.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pac Man will be reborn on Microsoft Corp.'s XBox Live online service on Wednesday as a final tribute for designer Toru Iwatani, who is retiring from the $30 billion games industry he helped ignite.

The new version of the iconic arcade game is a faithful interpretation of the addictive 27-year-old original, where players wrenched joystick controllers to race a character -- resembling a yellow pizza missing a slice -- around a digital maze to chomp white pellets and chase multicolored "ghosts."

[...]

Iwatani, 52, an employee of Japan's Namco Bandai Holdings, said in an interview he will retire from active duty at Namco and spend more time teaching the next generation of game designers at Tokyo Polytechnic University.

Though I haven't played in quite some time, Pac-Man was thoroughly enjoyable and I remember fondly heading for the game room with my roommates and killing time chewing up the dots.  But you also developed quick hand-eye coordination and, because each level had a pattern which could be run precisely to survive to the next level, memory.  I joked with my mentors in arthroscopic surgery, when they complimented me on my dexterity with the scope, that the video games were great training for such video surgery.  Both involve watching a screen, moving your hands while watching the screen and making things happen on that screen.  Now many surgery programs incorporate elements of this kind of training.  Thanks, Mr. Iwatani.

When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?

Paul, who only occasionally now posts at Wizbang!, did so yesterday on his current most favored topic, global warming.  His post, "New Study Proves Global Warming Models Worthless," makes the point that if the models that some scientists are using to make predictions about global warming are off by a factor of three, regardless of whether they over- or under-estimate the effects they are essentially meaningless.  You can't know trust projections based on such a model.  Such results require going back to the drawing board.  To try and draw conclusions, or worse, make policy based on such inaccuracy is foolish at best and dishonest at worst.

I was drawn, however, to a comment left by someone who clearly disagrees with the premise that humans may not be responsible for what global warming has occurred.  Here is the comment in its entirety.

Here's what I don't get:

- do you think the earth is getting warmer, or not?

- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities?

- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming?

- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*?

- do you think worldwide flooding will be awesome?

I mean, I honestly don't get it. Seriously. All arguments aside, can you just explain to me why you think this way?

Consider the first question, and perhaps some data might help those considerations.  The next comment points to, amazingly, the raw data, broken down by measuring station.

Next we have "prove the negative" questions designed so that the asker doesn't really have to consider the answer.  You see, it's up to those who don't believe man has been conclusively proven to be responsible for global warming to prove to the true believers that man is not, in fact, responsible.  The scientific method involves a hypothesis, experiments that test the hypothesis, and consideration of confounding variables.  The GW alarmists would stand this on its head and require those who question the hypothesis disprove it.

And, seriously, "do you have any reasons why human activities can't be causing this warming?" is such a laughable construct for serious inquiry that I don't know where to start.

In response to the fourth question, "do you have any reasons why global warming will just stop?" I would ask "do you have any evidence that climate should be, or even has been, completely stable through time?"

And let's not even talk about worldwide flooding until we've answered the other questions, because if warming is occurring, and if said warming is not due primarily to the activities of man, then we don't really have any control over whether it occurs, do we?  So perhaps we'd better answer that question definitively.

By the way, if you keep reading from those two comments on down, there are several serious responses to the questions.

Pricing The Work Of Medicine

There's an outstanding Wall Street Journal editorial this morning that, unfortunately, sits behind the subscriber wall.  It's by Dr. Robert Swerlick, an associate professor of dermatology at Emory University in Atlanta, and it's well worth reading for the insight it gives into some of the market forces in medicine.  Here's the choice excerpt:

Our Soviet Health System

The limited number of endocrine specialists is a not a consequence of limited demand -- everyone is aware of the epidemic of diabetes we are facing. There are also shortages of generalists and other specialists, and the reason is the absence of market signals --i.e., market-based prices -- for influencing the supply of physicians in various specialties.

The roots of this problem lay in the use of administrative pricing structures in medicine. The way prices are set in health care already distorts the appropriate allocation of effortsand resources in health care today. Unfortunately, many of the suggested reforms of our health care system -- including the various plans for universal care, or universal insurance, or a single-payer system, that various policy makers and Democratic presidential candidates espouse -- rest on the same unsound foundations, and will produce more of the same.

The essential problem is this. The pricing of medical care in this country is either directly or indirectly dictated by Medicare; and Medicare uses an administrative formula which calculates "appropriate" prices based upon imperfect estimates and fudge factors. Rather than independently calculate prices, private insurers in this country almost universally use Medicare prices as a framework to negotiate payments, generally setting payments for services as a percentage of the Medicare fee structure.

Many if not most administratively determined prices fail to take into consideration supply and demand. Unlike prices set on the market, errors are not self-correcting. That is why, despite an expanding cohort of patients with diabetes, thyroid disease and other endocrine disorders, the number of people entering this field is actually dropping. Young physicians are accurately reading inappropriate price signals.

Medicare (and therefore Medicaid) set prices not based at all on market forces, supply and demand, or anything related remotely to the business side of medicine.  The prices are set based on an arbitrary structure called the RBRVS (resource-based relative value scale) which gives a rough estimate of the relative "work" and "expertise" involved in thousands of medical procedures and diagnoses, or codes.  This relative scale is then modified by a multiplier to determine payment levels, and that multiplier is set based on what the government can afford to pay.

Dr. Swerlick didn't point it out in his article, but the current pricing of medicine distorts other things than what specialties graduates choose.  It influences cost in nefarious ways.  For example in Massachusetts a great number of patients choose to get their care at the great Boston hospitals like Beth Israel Deaconness, Boston Medical Center, New England Medical Center, Brigham & Women's and Mass General even though there are community physicians conveniently located who have equal (or greater) expertise and ability in managing the condition.  The physicians at those institutions receive, through their power of negotiating with the HMOs, 30% or more for the same service than those of us in the community receive.  The hospitals receive higher payments for providing similar hospital care.  All of this contributes to an increasing cost of medical care.  The dollars spent for medical care would drop dramatically if nothing else changed except patients sought lower cost quality providers in the community rather than rushing to a major medical center at the drop of a hat.

There's a second distortion that this process brings about, that increasing demand for care at the big hospitals brings them a need to hire more doctors to fill that demand, and a need to build more capacity.  Meanwhile the lower payments in the community hamstring us in our efforts to hire more doctors even when demand and capacity are there.

As Dr. Swerlick points out, this lack of market direction will only be made worse by the current proposals for "universal" care by, for instance, Senators Obama and Clinton.  Everyone is hailing Massachusetts efforts to cover the uninsured, but that program a) won't cover them all and b) is likely to distort the market even further.  The Massachusetts plan is all about managed Medicaid, a problem in itself.  On top of that, it hasn't really started yet, so it's a little early to hail it's greatness.

Some have touted efforts at price transparency, but my question is, which price list do you want?  Should I give you the inflated list prices I sometimes receive, designed to make up for the generally too low payments of Medicare and the HMOs?  Should I give you what those payors actually pay me?  Should I list the prices that I'd be willing to cut my fees to if you could guarantee me I'd receive 100% of charges?  Or should I list the 30% higher prices they receive downtown that I'd be more than happy to get?

Strange Neighbor

The state next door does some very strange things.  They let their teens run around unclothed in public.  They kill the goose that lays the golden egg by taxing their number one industry, skiing, so heavily that one resort town wanted to carve itself out and become part of the next state.  They elected a socialist to the US Senate.  And now they want to leave the United States with only 49 stars on the flag.

MONTPELIER -- At Riverwalk Records, the all-vinyl record store just down the street from the state Capitol, the black "US Out of Vt.!" T-shirts are among the hottest sellers.

But to some people in Vermont, the idea is bigger than a $20 novelty. They want Vermont to secede from the United States -- peacefully, of course.

Disillusioned by what they call an empire about to fall, a small cadre of writers and academics is plotting political strategy and planting the seeds of separatism.

They've published a "Green Mountain Manifesto" subtitled "Why and How Tiny Vermont Might Help Save America From Itself by Seceding from the Union." They hope to put the question before citizens at Town Meeting Day next March, eventually persuading the state Legislature to declare independence, returning Vermont to the status it held from 1777 to 1791.

You mean we'd have to pay foreign import taxes on cheddar cheese and Ben & Jerry's ice cream?  Hmmm.

But there are plenty of skeptics.

"It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make political sense, it doesn't make historical sense. Other than that, it's a good idea," said Paul Gillies, a lawyer and Vermont historian.

[...]

"We're normal human beings," said Williams, 39, a history professor at Champlain College. "But we're serious about this. We want people in Vermont to think about the options going forward. Do you want to stay in an empire that's in deep trouble?"

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The Nailbiters Against The Bedwetters?**

There's a Democratic Presidential debate tonight.  Sorry, I'll be watching the Red Sox/Yankees matchup, featuring Josh Beckett for Boston, and the penultimate episode of The Sopranos.  You can consider this an open thread on the latter.

My prediction: Tony will order a hit on Phil at the same time that Phil orders a hit on Tony.  In the final episode the Feds will come to the rescue, saving Tony while taking down Phil, and AJ will figure into the resolution prominently after emerging from his inpatient therapy.

(click the double asterisks to follow the link for an explanation of the title)

Fisking A Dishonest Argument

Michael Kinsley's column in yesterday's Washington Post considers the plight of the poor besotted anti-war members of Congress, forced to choose between constraining the President's ability to conduct the Iraq war (and yes, John Edwards, the war on terror) and staying within the boundaries set for their actions by the Constitution.

What are you supposed to do, according to supporters of the Iraq war, if you think that the war is a dreadful mistake? Suppose you are a member of Congress, elected by constituents who also, like most Americans, according to opinion polls, oppose the war. Is there any legitimate action you can take? Or must you simply allow the war to go on and let young Americans die in what you regard as a bad cause? What are your options?

The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have the Power . . . to declare War." That power does not mean much unless it includes the power not to declare war as well.

They had the power "not to declare war," but they chose not to exercise it, instead choosing to declare war in the 2002 AUMF (pdf).  What Mr. Kinsley is looking for is congressional power to "undeclare" war.  That one doesn't exist.

But presidents from both parties have pretty much stolen Congress's war power, with the ordinarily "strict constructionist" Republicans taking the lead.

Except that no one "stole" anything this time around, with President Bush getting the AUMF from Congress - with wide bipartisan margins - before the invasion.

Last week President Bush condescended to sign a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, but only after any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal were stripped from the legislation.

"Condescended?"  Could we find a more pejorative term?

There was a time, circa 1999, when Republicans considered it the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to commit any troops to action in a foreign country without what used to be called an "exit strategy." That was when the president was a Democrat.

There's quite a difference between use of troops for peacekeeping when American security is not at risk and use of troops for removing a genocidal dictator in the aftermath of both 12 years of continuing hostilities and Islamic terrorism striking our shores.  But making such a distinction would undermine this argument - so Mr. Kinsley doesn't.  Oh, and, the troops left Bosnia when?

Now it is considered the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to suggest the possibility of any exit strategy short of triumph. If you do, you are betraying the troops.

No, Mr. Kinsley, it is considered the height of irresponsibiity and indifference to suggest leaving the fate of Iraq at this stage to either Shiite militias supported by Iran or Sunni Al Qaeda terrorists.  That is betraying the troops who have already sacrificed.

And woe betide any politician who suggests that waiting for complete triumph might not be the only alternative -- just in case democracy, prosperity, peace and brotherhood don't flower in Iraq next week. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed the war-funding bill because it lacked even the mealy-mouthed timetables in an earlier version that Bush vetoed.

Straw man alert.  We're not looking for the flowering of a peaceful society in Iraq next week.  Nobody is.  What we're looking for is sufficient strength by the Iraqi government and Iraqi military that they can battle the insurgents and militias and terrorists on their own.  Whether that happens does depend on some inclusiveness of Shia, Sunni and Kurd in the government, and that does remain to be seen.  But there won't be a conventional victory celebrated by a "V-I Day."

Mr. Obama has been, to his credit in terms of consistency, anti-war all along.  That doesn't mean he has answers - he doesn't - but at least it's consistent.  Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, voted against the resolution in naked political calculation, courting the most vocal and left-wing and politically active segment of the Democratic coalition.  She had, until recently, defended her prior votes in favor of the AUMF and continuing operations.  But this argument is about timetables, and about the power to "undeclare" war, essentially a congressional veto of Constitutional presidential authority under Article II.  They don't have that.

What they do have is the power of the purse.  If Congress is against the war so strongly then de-fund it completely.  The troops will then be forced to come home, and Congress will have accomplished openly what it is attempting to accomplish through stealth.  They want George W. Bush's signature on the order to come home, not theirs.  They would be held accountable for that, and they know it.

And here is where Mr. Kinsley is at his most dishonest, performing slight of hand that would make David Copperfield proud.

But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd (also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse" unusable.

Did you catch that?  A vote against a bill that funds the war with no timetables is the same as voting to cut off funds, at least in Mr. Kinsley's mind.  Ah, but it's not to the cowards in Congress, who were twisting themselves into pretzels avoiding such obvious accountability.  That is the complaint that I and clearly the Wall Street Journal editorial staff have with the restrictive resolutions.

On the other hand Mr. Obama, Mr. Dodd and Ms. Clinton did not vote to withdraw all funds.  They voted against funding the troops without clauses that would force future withdrawal in the absence of consideration of conditions on the ground.  That is undermining troops in harm's way by asking them to remain in harm's way, and risk death and injury, while guaranteeing that that sacrifice will meet ultimately with failure.  That is the height of cynicism, and Mr. Obama of all people should know better.

Party Affiliation Seems Irrelevant

Neither the previously in-power Republicans nor the currently in-power Democrats seem interested in allowing us peasants to know exactly how they are spending our money.  Yes, that's right.  Our money.  And my apologies to the Associated Press' Andrew Taylor for clipping most of his brief story here.

WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

[...]

The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

A few observations.  First, if you thought that it was Republicans who were all about earmarks, there are 36,000 answers of "not really" you should consider.  Second, far be it from me to tell Speaker Pelosi how to run her House of Representatives (and bearing in mind that I consider the whole earmark process rather undemocratic).  But if there isn't enough time to fully review an earmark, shouldn't the process  be to table it until it can be considered and voted on properly, rather than shuffle it through on the whim of the leadership and pass it without due consideration by all members?

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' observation that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" seems most aptly applied to our current lords and ladies in Congress more than anything other than, perhaps, organized crime.  This is one area where I can agree with Rep. Ron Paul.

And They, Too, Are Muslim

Interestingly enough, the AP highlights that important fact in paragraph one.

NEW YORK - Four Muslim men were foiled from carrying out a plot to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods, authorities said Saturday.

Three men were arrested and one was being sought in Trinidad on Saturday. In an indictment charging the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the plot would "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks."

One of the suspects, Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana and retired JFK employee, said the airport was a symbol that would put "the whole country in mourning."

How did that get past the editors?  Usually we need to read to about paragraph sixteen to get that tidbit of information.  It's not that no other group is capable of being a terrorist; it is the case, however, that 'profiling', giving this group somewhat greater attention than others, would be considered the smart approach in any other nation in the world.

The arrests mark the latest in a series of alleged homegrown terrorism plots targeting high-profile American landmarks.

A year ago, seven men were arrested in what officials called the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and destroy FBI offices and other buildings.

A month later, authorities broke up a plot to bomb underwater New York City train tunnels to flood lower Manhattan.

And six people were arrested a month ago in an alleged plot to unleash a bloody rampage on Fort Dix in New Jersey.

That's a steady stream of terrorist plots by Muslims in America.  There will be more, unfortunately.

Others: Wizbang, Hot Air, Captain's Quarters, Newsbusters among others.

6/2/07 0630:  The NY Times, on the other hand, buries the information, never mentioning it explicitly anywhere in the story.  They hint.

The plan, which was described by United States Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf as “one of the most chilling plots imaginable,” involved a former airport worker who is a United States citizen of Guyanese descent and a former member of the Guyanese parliament, who is also an imam.

Recognizing Right And Wrong

Because, I'm sorry to say, this is just wrong.

WASHINGTON — Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called "extraordinary rendition program."

If a judge doesn't dismiss this out of hand as frivolous and irresponsible then I'll be even more disappointed in the legal system.  Let's leave aside the fact that the treatment of these detainees is the responsibility of their country of origin, where they were brought.  Their "troubles" are the responsibility of the provider of the plane?  And the search for deep pockets continues.

In related news, a class action lawsuit was filed against Rawlings, Easton and Louisville Slugger on behalf of all baseball players who've been injured after fouling a ball off their foot.