I think we must start by discussing two actually OPPOSED concepts that are often confused with each other, BIAS and PROPAGANDA: One is an unavoidable mild coping mechanism of human nature, while the other is a malevolent, scientific mass manipulation.

Being fallible human beings with a limited amount of time to make up our minds, and a limited ability to access and to completely process information, we are of course ALL subject to bias. All of us use a variety of short-hand, generally benign techniques to decide where we stand on any given matter: We cheer for the 'home' team at sports events, we may prefer the underdog to the established, traditional favorite (or visa versa), we 'bias' ourselves into all kinds of more or less unconscious decisions about brands of toothpaste, where to bank or buy insurance, cross the street now or later, and hundreds or thousands of other issues. Life is too short to decide most things in any more deliberate or comprehensive way. BIAS is normal, and in a sense essential to conducting an efficient life. Even our political choices are to some degree determined by our backgrounds and personalities, and the assumptions we tend to make based on those characteristics.

If Fox were simply 'biased' in the normal way we use that term, we wouldn't have a problem as I see it. After all, I'm willing to admit for argument's sake that, say,  MSNBC, (less so CNN or the networks), and several of the more prominent 'national' newspapers have a sort of unspoken (perhaps even unconscious) historical lean toward the 'Democratic', the 'progressive', the 'academic', the _____ (enough said, the general point is clear). They tend somehow to end-up with a lot of people working there who share that same vague slant about life, in much the same way that corporate executives, military officers, actors, writers, farmers, or hunters, likewise tend in general to find much upon which to unconsciously 'agree'. Most of us are somewhat AWARE that we don't always process things entirely fairly or entirely objectively, but we tend to accept the premise that we should at least ASPIRE to that elusive but worthy goal. 

This is NOT what Fox is about: Fox is a blatant, self-conscious PROPAGANDA operation from top to bottom, and all the way thru. It has no more interest in being FAIR than does the Ad agency who tells us that X toothpaste is better than Y. It has only a secondary and somewhat marginal interest in what we traditionally think of as 'news' (ie, who? what? when? how? how many? where? and the other traditional factual questions that make-up a NEWS STORY). Like all propaganda functions (ie, the Ad agency above), it has no interest in expanding knowledge per se, but only in creating BEHAVIOR - 'news' is nothing more than the HOOK that encourages you thru the door. Creating the prescribed ACTION in the consumer is the main (the only?) real objective of everything it does, essentially 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. I've never seen anything like it in the higher realms of American journalism, and I think it is really silly to justify what IT does by citing (for example) CBS or NBC. 

Can someone please explain to me why it is that the so-called 'public option' is ALREADY 'DOA'? Without getting too deep into the weeds of polls, it seems fair to say that a clear majority of the overall public supports it, and I see in here today that even a plurality of REPUBLICANS support it. ANYTHING that is continuing to sustain this level broad of public sympathy after months of orchestrated sniping at it,  is something we would expect to pass Congress easily. Why is this so different?

Are we just DUMB? Do a relative handful of self-professed experts, pundits, commentators, Senators, and House Members know everything worth knowing on this issue, while we out here in the broad public can't  be expected to contribute anything useful? I'm trying to think of a recent issue where public sentiment seemed so out of tune with  orthodox conventional wisdom as expressed in the overall commentariat, and I'm having trouble coming up with one.

Is it just possible that the public (while not very smart) is somehow just barely smart enough to KNOW that real reform really IS required, starting NOW? Is is just possible that the public (while not very smart) is barely smart enough to know that REAL reform is NEVER going to take place as long as you're trying to achieve it without getting any private special entity, anywhere, UPSET?  Is it just possible that the public (while not very smart) is barely smart enough to realize that there are some problems that are simply too BIG for the private sector to solve on its own?  That some problems require the united, democratic power of the Federal Government to grab hold, and lead us toward something better?

I don't know about you, but I (and apparently many others) think a public option is a modest but highly critical element of getting that engagement started. I honestly cannot understand why it is so easily dismissed, when so many everyday people seem to favor it..

I was listening recently to former Congressman Armey complain about being included under Medicare when he didn't want to be. I gather he  is participating in a lawsuit to permit anyone who feels like he does about it to opt out of Medicare if they choose to do so.

After I thought about it for awhile, it occurred to me to wonder, "Why not?" Why not give a real "public option" to BOTH senior-citizens, AND to everyone else?  If this would deal with a major sticking-point to getting the option for the rest of us, call that bluff (if it is one) and OFFER it to everyone.

I'm not a policy wonk, and I'm sure there are a zillion reasons why that is either impossible, or just not a good idea. Nevertheless, I'm a little stubborn, and I'd like to have the "Why not?" explained to me.

Please give it your best shot.

One of the things that first got me really going on the Health Care Reform idea was my own experience with my employer: A large, multi-national manufacturing corporation that regularly appears on 'best places to work' lists (and in many ways, it truly is). In recent years, I've gone thru the usual and probably typical experience that many others have: An everchanging crazy-quilt of generally reduced, more prohibitive health coverage and increased personal costs. My spouse carries her own coverage where she works (a local Insurance Agency, ironically) - same deal there, never the same  2 years in a row, always just a little less for a little more money. Yes, it has more or less 'worked', we are both more or less 'satisfied', but it's hard even in our relatively privileged situation to avoid the sense of a continual, incomprehensible, and eventually disasterous slow downward spiral.

As true as that may be for us as employees, it has also been my conviction for quite some time that it's equally true for our EMPLOYERS: This must have the same unsustainable feel to it for them as it does to us. The fundamental business of ALL businesses (it seems to me) must be the actual thing they DO:  Making or growing something, or selling something, or providing some important service or public benefit. That is where ALL their expertise should be focused in this intensely competitive modern world.

I'm curious how this Health Care Reform debate feels from THAT important side of the fence. How do business owners and business managers FEEL about the fact that the modern American health care system has forced them to spend an excessive and apparently ever-increasing amount of their time and their resources in an area that has nothing to do with their core business mission? If they are involved in GLOBAL competition (my company certainly is), how do they feel about the fact that America is the only major industrialized nation that forces them to carry that added weight around their ankles?

I would be very interested in hearing from people who actually HAVE that direct experience, I honestly don't know what to expect, and I'm not 'fishing' for any particular slant. I would just be curious to know what you think, and I think it would add an important dimension to this discussion. 

...some similar tactical fashion. The point is, you can put me with Mr. Hertzberg and Ms. Brown, in the sense that we are getting close to the point (Are we PAST it ,already?) where we need to make use of the former President's unique skills. No one EXPLAINS complex public-policy matters better for the average person-on-the-street, and I doubt off-hand if anyone else out there has a better grasp of the often-rural, mildly conservative political mindset of the so-called 'Blue Dogs' who are at the heart of this present dilemma. 

If we win without it, fine. If we lose without trying this approach, it's a very serious mistake.

( Note:  If you,ve read this already, forgive me. What with spam problems and poor entry management, I've had trouble getting currently posted).

Let me start by taking a moment to identify my particular place in this discussion:  I'm normally a moderately conservative Democrat - I believe generally in balancing the budget, moving slowly and incrementally toward 'progress' (I DO believe in that, which is how I know I'm not a Republican), a moderated and generally balanced free-market, moderated and generally balanced free-trade, powerful and occasionally agressive national defense, and a whole bushel of other sometimes-contradictory things that some on this board would support, and others would not. There are other areas where I just don't claim to KNOW the answer, and I remain available to be convinced. I don't think 'horse trading' is always by definition a bad thing.  On the whole, I'm probably closer philosophically, and by background, upbringing, and temperament to the so-called "Blue Dogs" than I am to most of the contributors on this site. For purposes of discussion, put me down as a classic FOX.

That stipulated, I think that on this Health Care issue, I'm prepared to cross the river: In my judgement, the scale and significance of this particular matter is such that the usual cautious, split-the-difference calculations that centrists tend to make do not apply in the way that they normally might. We have been  a half-century building to this day, it is a matter of vital national interest (a domestic equivalent to National Security, in my opinion), and we are closer at this moment than we are likely to be in any near-term future to actually making a truly substantive start to doing something  constructive about it. These unique moments must be seized, or the timely window closes - perhaps forever, certainly for a very long time.

I personally would be happy to support universal 'single-payer' with private supplemental discretionary options. I am  convinced that it has worked in actual practice in Canada and other places a lot better than we give it credit for, and (taken overall), better than what we currently have, at LOWER costs.  I'm equally convinced that the day is eventually going to come when we do the RIGHT thing and take it all the way there. Meanwhile, I'm reluctantly willing to support any lesser measure that keeps momentum up, and provides a constructive step in the right direction (by a "constructive step", I mean at MINIMUM, a reasonably-priced basic public insurance 'option' with real bite). 

It seems to me that if we are to actually GET there from here, we have to consider the classic differences between LIONS and FOXES, and further consider which traits are most required to make progress at this special time. We are at one of those historical moments where things might go either way. I see it as a time where priorities must be rearranged: Re-election, bean-counting, philosophical quibbles, personal feuds, financial contributions, even party dominance, may have to be set back in the line. In normal times, these are all valid considerations, the sort of things that foxes routinely concern themselves with in their everyday business.  However, it seems to me that these are not normal times, and this is not a normal issue. This is one of those rare, exhilarating grand moments when it seems actually almost sensible to risk EVERYTHING, throw away the gloves, cut your retreat, and give it all you have to win. There are certain critical moments when even the possibility of losing is not as bad as failing to try your best for what you think is right. 

This is a moment made for the lion, and I'm asking people like me who  normally think a lot like foxes to change their usual way of doing business. It's time to take a personal risk for the greater good of the whole, and get on board the train to the future.  

.

Like most of us, I'm not an expert on Health Care. If I claim to any special expertise on anything, it would be in the general area described by the expression, "Common Sense". One of the attributes of Common Sense is that it has the capacity to find simplicity almost anywhere - even deep within the brambles of a thorny, complicated set of expert-laden, statistics-crammed issues like this one.

What are the simplicities here?

 (1)First, focus on the desired RESULT.  Given absolute authority, where do we want to come-out at the end? What is actually RIGHT, in terms of its best long-term benefit to the country? If we can't visualize that goal NOW, we are certain to get prematurely bewildered by the morass of worrisome details standing guard against action on the front-end of ANY complex problem. ("If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."  - Anonymous philosopher of Common Sense). How did Alexander the Great untie the Gordian Knot?

(2)To make a long story brutally short, here's the result we SHOULD want (I know that's a bit didactic, but I'm keeping it simple):

 Responsible, minimal, economically-sensible, cost-rational, permanent coverage for every Amercan citizen - cradle to grave, with or without either a job or the ability to pay.

(That last part means it must be a Federal program, paid by public taxes. Bill Gates and his gardener qualify equally).

There's our MISSION, in a couple of sentences.

(3)How do we get there?  As Americans with a uniquely American problem-solving sensibility, that's really the LEAST of our problems. If we're broadly agreed on (2), history repeatedly warns not to bet against us. I recall reading about a meeting among the Allies during WW2. The British were not sold on invading France, and were introducing all sorts of detailed negative considerations. After a lot of to-and-fro, a Russian general told the assembly (including Gen. Marshall), "If you think about it, you will do it." Marshall was deeply impressed by the profound simple truth of that statement, and it was that simple observation that put us on the way to what became D-day. This isn't so different. 

(4)A few rough concepts to help cut a little more brush out of our way: (a)Every segment of our society must work for the betterment of the whole, and not the other way around - if physicians, or insurance executives, or individual employers, or ANYONE ELSE is unwilling to do their part to pull the wagon out of the ditch to a better place, to H--- with them. Better to do it with them, but it's going to be done one way or the other. (b)A minimal floor does not have to be a ceiling - any person, or any employer, or any other entity who wants something more or something different should not be prohibited from seeking it out from any private enterprise that cares to provide it. This simply means no one is under any burdensome OBLIGATION to consider these distracting matters in lieu of their normal business.(c)Don't be overly deterred by COSTS. This is a national public crisis that MUST be addressed - no different and no more restrained by an inappropriate concern for costs than WW2 was. It is simply going to cost what it costs, but we are not allowed to ignore the equally valid (and arguably greater) costs of doing nothing. 

We've all seen issues like this before: It starts-out vaguely, eventually crystalizes into a finite form, and then goes vague again as the counterattacks mount. Next thing you know, the original straightforward issue is all but lost in an incomprehensible flurry of documents, exposes', charges, countercharges, lies, truths, half-truths, and irrelevancies. I knew we were heading for trouble when I started hearing Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill turning-up in this discussion.

So far, I'm sure of just ONE thing: The Bush people are scared to death. One suspects a potential universe of Pandora's boxes -  'waterboarding' perhaps among the least of them, conveniently trotted-out like Brer Rabbit's briarpatch to divert attention from even graver and more obvious abuses. They never imagined that they would be in this position (ie, bunkered-in against a hostile Congress and White House, public opinion floating slowly and inevitably against them). It went sour for them so quickly, that the speed itself is frightening. Underneath all this extraneous desperate mud, one REAL question continues to sit -  solid as a post, and undismayed: WERE CRIMES COMMITTED? Everything else is secondary, and may matter more as mitigation in a potential 'penalty' phase down the road than it matters now.

Keep our focus on LAW in spite of all distractions, and we will eventually break thru to a workable semblence of the untidy truth.

I think this entry has focused the geometrically expanding debate on this issue back onto the key point: What does the LAW say about these activities? I would suggest anyone read this post, if you haven't already - it articulates the admittedly fuzzy nature of my own rough thinking a lot better than I could.

If we truly accept the idea that we are a nation of laws, and the accompanying principle that no one is above the law, it greatly simplifies our task in deciding what should be done at this point: We must first understand the full letter and spirit of applicable law, and then we must INVESTIGATE to determine as thoroughly as possible the extent to which WHAT actually happened is within or outside those legal parameters. That seems to me a simple enough concept that properly avoids the pitfalls of getting prematurely bogged-down in all these extraneous secondary considerations.

A second vital point that Mr. Lava makes very well (and properly) is that any 'soldier' may be placed into a situation where he feels duty-bound to go against the established rules. If he does so, the morally correct course when caught is to explain himself as best he can, and hope for mercy based on extenuating circumstances, or on the tactical effectiveness of what he did (not an unreasonable prospect in these current difficulties). His PERSONAL fate in such a situation may have to take a backseat to what he perceives to be in the best interests of the country at a given point. What he does NOT do, is try to cobble the existing rules to his own advantage, and  accessorize the whole country in the lawbreaking by making a public political issue out of it as it is happening. 

I'd very much like to make a sensible comment or two about this event.

That's not really as easy a thing to do as it might at first appear. To acknowledge the event at all seems hard for some people: If that sort of messy business must occasionally be done for the greater good, so be it. Let those low-brows who MUST deal with it pay the penalty, while the rest of us go on obliviously about our more exalted affairs.

On the other hand, there's the matter of TONE. Isn't there something a little off-putting about the puffed-up, bowtied little academics on the cable channels who so transparently and somewhat pathetically GLORY in the matter: Three  ignorant young fools are dead here. People who obviously couldn't bait a fishhook or defend their school lunch money, nowhere to be found when their PERSONAL turn to make a difference came (and went), all of a sudden tranformed in front of the cameras into vicarious participants in the victory "we" achieved? Aren't we sick to death of this sort of easy, juvenile play-acting at a simple-minded distortion of  'patriotism'?

There IS a victory here, but I think it's important to understand what it really was, and what it emphatically WASN'T: Right beat wrong, for sure. It's certainly a personal victory for  the heroic Mr. Phillips and his family and friends. It's a personal victory for the military  and the national security teams who did everything exactly right in a scenario where so much might have gone wrong. It's a victory for President Obama, not least because he has avoided (so far) the premature triumphalist chest-thumping so beloved of  the previous Administration. His cool, restrained demeanor in crisis is perhaps a welcome revelation to some segments of the population. It's a victory for the Democratic Party, as loath as some of us are to admit it: You can't get people's votes in dangerous times, if they aren't convinced you'll play BOTH smart (always) AND for keeps (when necessary).

...are becoming a serious matter for Pres. Obama (and Democrats generally) in a variety of fairly obvious ways. I'll just settle on ONE: Somebody was quoted the other day saying something like, "No wonder Democrats don't mind higher taxes. They don't intend to PAY them, anyway!" This hits the nail squarely on the head. We are in serious immediate danger of being justifiably labeled as HYPOCRITES - no deadlier charge exists in politics.

The vetting process was clearly either flawed or non-existent - not once, but at least FOUR times and counting: The Sec. of Treasury and the COMPLIANCE officer among them, for God's sake! The toothpaste is out of the tube there, but Pres. Obama has to act to at least get it off the floor as best he can ASAP. As much as I like Daschle, I am really wondering if he should be allowed to survive, and I know he's canny enough to be wondering as well.

Whatever happens there, we simply cannot afford any more  screw-ups like this. Our REAL problems are far too serious for us to be diverted to the Daily Show, the late-night people, and the Talk-shows by such a tempting (even unavoidable) target as has been inexcusably presented here. 

We've GOT to do better, starting yesterday.

Consider the following (lifted from a web site dealing with logical fallacies) in light of Pres. Obama's reference to  "...a false choice..." in his Inaugural Address, and in FINAL eulogy to the buzz-words and empty, repetitive slogans that have dominated public discussion these last eight years:

Fallacy of False Alternatives

Definition of FA: The reasons of an argument mention two (sometimes, more than two) alternatives, but there is pretty obviously at least one other alternative that the arguer should have considered, but didn't; this failure to consider a plausible alternative produces an incorrect conclusion.

Terminology: In an FA argument, it is false that the alternatives mentioned in the reasons are the only  alternatives. This is the only one of the fallacies presented here in which the mistake is that the argument has a false reason. For all of the other fallacies considered here, it doesn't matter whether the reasons are true or false, because the problem is with the relationship between the reasons and the conclusion.

Example FA argument:  Senator Blather was either telling the truth, or he was lying, and we know that what he said wasn't true. Therefore he was lying.

Explanation: FA because telling the truth and lying are not the only two alternatives that should have been considered. The Senator might have made an honest mistake (which isn't lying because lying has to be deliberate), or he might have been misinformed by his staff.

FA explanations: To give an acceptable explanation of why an argument involves the FA fallacy, you must include the following: 1) state the the two (or more) alternatives are that are mentioned in the argument, and 2) say that there is another alternative that should have been considered, and describe that missing alternative!  Of course the missing alternative is not in the argument you are criticizing -- you have to think it up for yourself.  It should be a reasonable, plausible alternative, not a wild or extremely unlikely one. If you can't write out a reasonable missing alternative, then you have no basis for saying that the FA fallacy is present.

Here is the REAL enemy, our Conservative nemesis from 1980 forward. How many times and in how many different forms has our Republic fallen for it?  Low taxes OR poverty. The Constitution OR be blown to bits by terrorists. Genesis OR evolution. A clean environment OR economic ruin. By the simple-minded rhetorical device of first, reduce every possibilty to only two, and then, exaggerate the effects of both the preferred and the lesser of the remaining options, the GOP has channeled and controlled the debate. It's exactly what Bush was getting-at when he so often disparaged 'nuance'.

 I think Pres. Obama is signaling that we no longer intend to 'think' that way -  to which I (for one) say, "Thank God, Hallelujah throughout the land!" We have reached a point (finally!) where the LAZINESS of so much of our thinking is a luxury we can no longer afford. Our problems are large, dangerous, and complicated. Their solution is certain to require hard study, careful choices, and a lot of REAL input from people who KNOW things, and know how to communicate these compexities and inevitable difficulties to the larger public in a way they can understand.

I've thought for some time (maybe 25 years or so?) that Republicans were much better than Democrats at the real ESSENCE of grassroots, small-d democratic politics: Getting ordinary people who talk to each other across the back fence, or who pass in the supermarket aisle to genuinely understand, genuinely believe and genuinely support their sometimes simplistic but highly marketable ideas.

In a truly democratic society, this is vital, and it is an area that Democrats have sorely neglected. We have tended to hold too many wonky seminars, write too many snooty op-eds, and in general sort of hop from one lofty peak to another in the arcane minutia of policy disputes, ignoring the living populace in the valleys below.

Even when we may have been 'right' intellectually on the issues, we have failed to acknowledge the central FACT of democracy: It isn't enough (and may not even be necessary) to be RIGHT. A  consistent majority (most not college professors or policy wonks) must UNDERSTAND you,  SEE you as right, and VOTE that way.

I think to this day that that was a central problem for the Clinton Administration: He managed to get a bare plurality to vote him in, and he did a brilliant job in my opinion with what he was given to work with. However, he failed to leave any identifiable PROGRAM behind to rally the public around. 'Clintonism' (such as it was) did not 'sell' as well as Clinton himself did, and was not easily transferable to other less brilliant, less articulate, and less deeply studied and knowledgeable candidates.

I think I see a real chance here to reverse that trend:

Bush has jumped the shark in every possible way. Republicans have LOST the 'benefit of the doubt' advantage they have carried since Reagan. It is truly possible for Democrats to regain that same edge they had from FDR thru the early LBJ era, and become once again the default 'party of the people'.

In my opinion, it is very important that we do not MIS-READ this chance. It hasn't completely TURNED just yet. Whether President Obama becomes another Carter, or even just a Clinton (ie, a constructive contrarian blip), or whether he can become transformative in the historical sense of FDR or Reagan, is still up in the air. I think the latter has a reasonable chance to happen, if he (and we) keep in mind that many more people live in the valley than on the peaks. He has to convince THEM, in ways they can understand and support- we already HAVE the college professors, and they aren't enough by themselves.

I know there has been much offense taken in some circles over CNN's assertion that National Review called Gov. Palin, "...stupid...", etc. From what I understand of the background for that statement, I think the criticism is justified: I don't think National Review said such a thing, and I think they are within their rights to call a foul.

That said, it's instructive to actually READ the full interview. I would never call a serving Governor  (or anyone else) "stupid", but I think it IS fair to say that broad patchs of this interview are simply incomprehensible gibberish: A few familiar, memorized 'bullet' points, dropped-down wherever they might land - lost balls,actually - in an overgrown jungle of useless filler verbiage and meandering free-association.

On reading the transcript myself, I really DO understand the true tactical point of these attacks from the GOP: It's critically important to divert public attention from the overall impression left by absorbing the WHOLE performance in its patented awfulness.

To be fair, those are only my personal impressions. Read it yourself, and see what you think:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.sitroom.transcript/index.html#cnnSTCText

...Sen. Obama HIMSELF. The more he just shows-up and TALKS in his highly intelligent, cool, analytical manner, the more difficult a stretch it becomes to believe he has any such thing in mind.

I'm not talking so much about his speeches (he's obviously very good there also), I'm talking primarily about small face-to-face encounters like the last debate. And I'm also not talking primarily about spending a lot of time debunking these attacks directly - just talk the way he normally talks, about the normal policy questions he normally talks about, and the normal personal and family matters that normally come-up.

I know that's a lot of 'normals', but that is actually the point. Sen. Obama DIRECTLY articulating these very ordinary concerns is better than a dozen 'spokesmen' out there every day trying to beat-down this non-existent fire of false and even silly charges.