A "Senate Democratic Chief of Staff", hiding behind anonymity, has a hard time concealing his/her haughty disdain for us progressives as she/he deigns to provide us a lesson in civics.  She/he displays clairvoyance predicting how we, the 'angry mob' will react if 'with...a Senate Democratic Caucus that holds 98% of its members but still fails to pass healthcare reform.'  This, of course, presumes that any bill is 'reform' and worth passing without considering alternatives like letting a bad bill fail and then spending the next 11 months(as the healthcare crisis worsens) explaining to the public that failure was caused by Republicans and DINOs.  Maybe this strategy would add to the majority and we could try again.

Instead, Mr/Ms. Anonymous wags her/his finger at US, lecturing, 'If progressives REALLY want to transform America, they'll make an issue of the anti-democratic rules of the Senate which make real change virtually impossible.'  Gee, wouldn't that require a Constitutional amendment (is it 66 senators and 3/4 of the States?)?  I seem to remember plenty of 'real change' when the Democrats were in the minority.  I don't see Democratic senators making a stink about the rules, why should we lowly hoi polloi?

Then, he/she wraps up by calling us 'stupid.'

Hey Ms./Mr. Condescension, kiss my ass!

In the wake of losses in gubernatorial elections in NJ and VA, pundits on the right AND left are citing "lack of progress" on the part of the Obama administration on the various problems it faces.  The right opportunistically says,"Where are the jobs, what about Afghanistan?", the left,"What about healthcare reform, GITMO?"

The common denominator for lack of progress for these problems is the administration's naivete regarding the public's inability to digest anything but the simplest of messages.  I'm afraid it will take many years of strenuous effort to reverse our collectively shrinking attention span.
Solutions to complicated problems are, duh, complicated.  Objections to solutions have the luxury of the ability to be A) sound bite length and B) untethered from the truth.
None of this should have been news to Obama or his advisors.
Show me a citizen with a good grasp of the issues and I will show you one profoundly frustrated soul.

If we on the left can't condense our policy proposals down to bumper sticker size OR get people to become politically engaged on a large scale(yeah, right) then we will continue to fall victim to those who scream "death panel!" or "socialism!".

Dexter Filkins, erstwhile sidekick to Judith 'curveball' Miller in the whole Iraq/WMD/NY Times fiasco, is at his meddling best again in today's Times where he feeds readers on a watery gruel of anonymous sources and expects them to walk away sated and ready for a nap.

It's interesting that an article 'exposing' Afghan president Karzai's brother of being on the CIA's payroll comes right on the heels of Karzai's agreeing to a Nov. 7 runoff election.  It doesn't take much to see that we now prefer Abdullah Abdullah as our new man.

I'm not smart enough to judge who is the right leader for us to work with in Afghanistan whatever our strategy turns out to be but I don't like being insulted by my daily newspaper when it expects me believe that this 'October surprise' is just a journalistic coincidence.

NYT editors and publisher Sulzberger must know that this story is going to hit Afghanistan like a 'daisy cutter' and lead to Abdullah's election.  Abdullah, former Northern Alliance 'spokesman', likely has been 'cooperating' with the CIA at least as long as Karzai's bro!  Why are Filkins and the Times (again) allowing themselves to be used?

Only a cynical Beltway insider like the Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg could construe Obama's winning of the NPP as a "potential political liability" .

She is apparently basing this speculative assertion on the fact that "...Republicans are criticizing the president, contending he won more for his "star power" than his actual achievements."

Gee, I always thought a political liability was something that caused a decline in a politician's popularity, i.e. a loss of support.

Since those "criticizing the president"(rather than the Nobel Committee?) are unlikely to EVER be supporters of the president on ANYTHING, how is this a potential liability?

This is just another pre-emptive wimp-out by a member of the MSM to avoid the stupid 'liberal media' label by mainstreaming wingnut bullshit.

Update; A Google search of "Obama Nobel Prize liability" reveals that Stolberg is the only one cynical enough to assert this.

Like a jilted lover, the ROTW(rest of the world) was not ready to make up.  If this vote were to take place 1 or 2 years from now I think the outcome would have been in Chicago's favor.  It was just too soon after Bush for the ROTW to forget all the slights('old Europe', 'quaint' Geneva Conventions, 'no' to Kyoto, GITMO, abu Ghraib, etc.).  There just hasn't been enough time, or substance, for the ROTW to determine if our promises to be a better boyfriend are sincere or not.

Today's NY Times reports on "severe sanctions" alluded to directly by SecDef Gates and indirectly by SecState Clinton on the Sunday gabfests.  The article further reports that President Obama did indeed divulge our knowledge of the Qum facility to Russian puppet president Medvedev prior to(friday, 9/18) Iran's hastily written "notice" to the IAEA(monday, 9/21).

Ostensibly, Russia got the first nod, even before our longstanding NATO allies, because Russia is key to the success to any serious sanctions regime.

But is that the only reason Medvedev got the heads up first.  After all Russia has been more intricately involved in Iran's nuclear program than any other country, even Pakistan.  Just speculating here but maybe Obama also let Putin medvedev know that we know they helped create the Qum facility.

In any case, we'll soon know the measure of Russia's(and China's) willingness to create a prophylactic sanctions regime and wipe their hands clean of their involvment or just want to continue jerking us around

Today's NY Times reports on the UN's daylong climate change summit and though more sophisticated than my crude title implies, China, India and other developing nations are essentially arguing that despite knowledge gained since the West "smoked"(grew by burning fossil fuels) they want the right to "smoke" too because the West did.

I did a little research and, though still in their nascent stages, both China's and India's governments have embarked on anti-smoking(cigarettes) campaigns.  I assume they are doing this because they accept the science that smoking is bad for human health.

Yet, even though they seem to equally accept the science on climate change they want the right to "smoke" for growth.

This by no means is meant to absolve the West from their responsibility to aggressively pursue real cuts in CO2 emission regardless of what China and India's stance is..  I'm merely pointing out the dichotomy.

In his latest NY Times editorial Douthat seems to be saying we should give Dubya some credit or at least a "reassessment" because he was conscious enough to agree to the surge and Paulson's $700 billion "trust me, I'm from Goldmans" bailout.   Well, that's certainly a creative(as in creative accounting) way of looking at Dubya's presidency. OR, we could reach back even further and ask why, after the Enron debacle of late 2001, didn't 43 look upon industry self-regulation with a bit more suspicion. Maybe if he had, his free market orthodoxy would have been shaken enough for him to not push so hard for the 'ownership society' in his re-election campaign with its attendant laissez-faire stance vis a vis lenders. Then maybe he wouldn't have had to give in to Paulson's ransom demands (only half kidding).

On Iraq, maybe if he'd listened to his mortal father more he would have been satisfied to 'stay the course' in Afghanistan, making Iraq and the surge non-issues. By now Petraeus could be overseeing Afghanistan's third free and clean elections and be in his 10th printing of "How I Caught bin Laden".

Today's NY Times op-ed page features a warning against the advent of an all out US-China trade war.  How did we get to this point where China holds so many cards?  The same way that Max Baucus came up with his outrageous health 'reform' bill, by putting the interests of huge corporate contributors over the well being of the people.  Some history:

The West, as defined by G-7 or the OECD, back in 1989 struck a Faustian deal that they would 'engage' China like they never would have the Soviet Union.
COCOM, which had very successfully kept western technologies out of Soviet hands, denying them a source of economic growth, was allowed to die in the early '90s.
G-7, at that time, controlled over 75% of the world's economy and could have used that primacy to engender real change in the remaining non-democratic countries.  That was supposed to have been the real 'peace dividend'.
Instead, western leaders kowtowed to their respective corporate constituents and set of a race to the bottom in pursuit of China's cheap, compliant labor force.
The rationale given to the gullible public was the 'engagement' theory in which we would 'change China from within' because 'economic reforms would lead to political reforms.'
Now, in 2009, China blocks almost all UN Security Council initiatives aimed at stemming corruption, oppression of minorities and women, sanctions on despotic regimes, etc.  The Central Commitee is stronger(and richer) than ever.
China is a champion of 'no strings' investment in myriad bad regimes in Africa and we can't complain because the West did the very same thing with China!
The decision of our leaders to trade with China in hopes of changing it instead of the other way around will eventually be recognized as their biggest political blunder in modern history.  Even bigger than abandonning Afghanistan after we expelled the Soviets.  Talk about 'blowback'!

On September 9th Tom "we've turned the corner in Iraq" Friedman openly lamented our inability, unlike China, to "...impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.... from the top down."
It's true his lament comes in the broader context of exposing the GOP in 2009 as "...standing, arms folded and saying "no." " and it is, after all an op-ed.
Yet today, in the News Section(page a4) we get this from China correspondent Keith Bradsher.
He breathlessly reports "The image of laid-off workers here returning to jobs stands in sharp contrast to the United States, where even as the economy shows signs of improvement, the unemployment rate continues to march toward double digits."
Though it's clear in reading the article that China's central govt is purposely replacing one bubble (global demand) with another (domestic demand) through fiat, Bradsher wants to emphasize how well it's working now while giving short shrift to the inevitability of the coming bubble burst; "The state-controlled banking system here...unleashed $1.2 trillion in extra lending to Chinese consumers and businesses in the first seven months of this year. That money is financing everything from a boom in car sales, up 82 percent in August from a year earlier, to frenzied factory construction." Never mind that "As much as a third of the extra bank lending in China appears to have gone into real estate and stock market speculation.", stay focussed on "...the bulk has gone into investments by companies and local governments, with tangible results."
He breezes through eye-poppers like "Government agencies have been told not to buy imported goods with money from economic stimulus programs unless no domestic alternative is available." and "Beijing also has given huge tax breaks and other assistance to exporters. They include placing broad restrictions on imports and intervening heavily in currency markets to hold down the value of the renminbi, to keep Chinese exports competitive even in a weakened global economy." That looks like fodder for a whole article to me!
Only in the final paragraphs does he touch on the the dangers with "Cheap cash has a way of inflating bubbles -- just ask Wall Street -- that could damage China's economy and its banks when they pop." But ends with the oddly editorial-sounding "But such concerns are so 2008."

For more than 20 years we have pursued an illusory 'engagement' policy vis a vis China in hopes of 'changing China from the inside.' Looks like WE'RE becoming more like China instead.

One major reason healthcare insurers and malpractice insurers are so adamant about 'tort reform' and 'junk lawsuits' and 'defensive medicine'(see previous post) is that focussing on these as the blame for their poor earnings performance of late gives them cover for their dismal investment performance.

Most insurers invest premium income either internally or on a contract basis with a money manager, ostensibly to 'maximize returns to shareholders.'  The combination of financial dereg under Clinton/Bush II and persistently low yields on Treasury Bonds led insurers to the siren song of 'AAA' mortgage-backed securities (CDOs) and derivatives thereon (CDSs).

I imagine many of these losses have yet to be 'realized' in the open market or 'written down' on financial statements but sure as hell are keeping CEOs awake at night.

This is a huge motivator to keep the emphasis on small potato issues like 'junk lawsuits.'

All types of enemies, and even some friends, of healthcare reform love to cite the alleged heavy cost burden malpractice insurance puts on our poor, poor doctors.  They tell us this evil plight is two-headed, the cost of malpractice payouts themselves and the darker but supposedly 'indirect cost' of , oooh, 'defensive medicine'.

'Defensive medicine' is when doctors, so afeared of evil litigious patients, order uneccesary tests and procedures 'just in case' the patient later falls ill and claims the doctor comitted a 'sin of omission' by not finding what ailed him/her.  The other example is when doctors hold off on so-called 'risky procedures' like some types of surgery.

As proof, makers of these spurious claims like to point to this study by JAMA ,the Journal of the AMA.  The problem is its methodology, premise, and the survey is carried out by DOCTORS!

It only covered one state, Pennsylvania, it only covered the 6 'high risk' specialties, AND it allowed anonymous response.  What's wrong with that, you ask?

Well, let's see.  Imagine you're a doctor who HATES to pay malpractice insurance premiums which seem to rise every year (we'll get into why in another post) but LOVES your fee-for-service setup.  It greatly behooves you to answer the survey, anonymously, that you would have never, ever ordered those extra tests if it weren't for your abject fear of being sued.  It certainly wasn't for the money!  This answer helps you feel better about yourself, and might even someday down the road tie your patients' hands legally in the case you really do screw up.

No wonder 93% admitted, anonymously, to having practiced 'defensive medicine'!

Any survey return in which 93% admit to something unethical is bad polltaking.

TPM Reader News (fictional) has learned overnight that Rep. Joe Wilson (Wingnut-SC) was retainbed by the CIA to hospital ERs 'in or around a US international border that is not Canada' to determine if indeed illegal alien 'Saddam Sanchez and his family sought to acquire $500 worth of medical care from America'.

Mr. Wilson had completed half of a rough draft of his to-be-published op-ed "What I Found in El Paso" but decided shouting "you lie" at the President would be "easier than all that writing stuff."

In further developments, the White House has secretly determined that Wilson's wife, a NOC for the South Carolina Republican Auxiliary is now "fair game."

My town's(Montville, NJ, a deeply red enclave in blue NJ) school district was unable to present our President's speech in ANY of our schools today. The lame excuse provided by the Superintendent , Dr. Gary R. Bowen, was:
"On this first day of school the children will be quite excited to converse and socialize with their friends during this noontime period and to divert their attention or reschedule operations would obviously be difficult if not counterproductive."

Shameful, absolutely shameful

In a poorly written article that makes it sound as if both sides have been acting crazy and that Democratic reform proposals are just crazy, Shalaigh Murray makes the GOPs behavior look reasoned and logical.  The public option is a 'non-starter' but govt subsidies to private insurers to cover the poor is a good idea.  Oh yeah, an open 'policy exchange' (as if there would be such a difference between companies that would never, ever collude) is also floated.   So, even some GOPers believe "the status quo is not a popular alternative" yet it's the public option that's gotta go.
I remember the mocking tone these same people had about anyone who doubted the logic of invading Iraq; "What would you do, give him(Saddam) a stern warning?"
Well, unlike Saddam, private insurers ARE killing Americans and Republicans just want to issue them a 'stern warning.' I say they're 'soft on terror', the terror of seeing your family fall apart because of untreated illness and/or unpaid bills.