Instapundit Will Just Throw Anything Out There, no Matter How Absurdly Inconsistent

Here is a post today by the famous site Instapundit (aka, "InstaBS"), noting how Democrats have already stopped supporting the Obama Administration. 

Earlier in the day, In yet another post, Instapundit linked to this piece, noting it was now politically safe to criticize the President.

Seemingly oblivious to the fact that his famous blog just criticized the Administration by pointing out how the administration is being criticized by Democrats, less than an hour later Instapundit links to this, as follows:

THOMAS SOWELL: Dismantling America, Part II. “This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.”

The dismantling of America that he quotes as "too serious for squeamish silence"? The outlandishly hypocritical contention that Obama Administration supporters don't let anyone criticize it. Directly contradicting the two earlier attacks on the Obama Administration.

Any attack, any claim, will work by the far right to throw out there. If it's anti the Obama administration, that's good enough, even if it directly contradicts an attack that the same far right indulgent just threw out there against the Obama Administration a half hour earlier.

Repeat:  The issue of not being allowed to criticize the administration is "too serious for squeamish silence." While on the other hand, quite unlike the Bush Administration situation, many supporters of the Obama Administration now not only don't suport it, but criticize, and it is also now "politically safe," to criticize the Obama Administration.

But that's okay. The issue of not being able to criticize the administration, and so few doing so, is "too serious for squeamish silence."

And those on the far right who criticize the administration, and who are responded to in terms far less divisive or insulting, view those responses as "stifling dissent;" but yet coincidentally enough, don't view their own, often more egregious, divisive, emotionally pandering, and often highly derogatory misrepresentations similarly. 

The far right --of which the ideologically driven and almost entirely subjective, and overly influential Instapundit site is a classic example-- is driven by a fierce, almost religiously partisan antipathy toward Obama, and any valid concerns (such as those that might be shared by supporters even) is only icing on the cake of self righteousnes that propels forward such blind hypocrisy as this:

It's ironic; propelled on by a few Liberals who foolishly fell into the trap and thought they were doing something productive by stating how they "hated Bush," almost no one could make a point against the Bush Administration for the better part of this decade, without being accused of simple hyper partisan ideology and/or just hatred of  Bush himself -- when in most instances, it simply wasn't true. But it was a way to avoid the substance of the points made about and against the Bush Administration.

Now almost blind attacks upon the Obama Administration, clinging to shards of evidence that could have been applied several fold over to the prior administration that the far right supported, similarly serve as a way to avoid the substance of points made that are inconvenient to objectively consider if one desires (whether realizing it or not) to cling to a fairly hyper ideological perspective.
As noted here, this is how the far right perpetuates its belief.

More Far Right Wing Projection -- "Real Clear Politics" Dismantling of Objectivity

Yesterday, in a "Real, Clear, Politics" piece ominously entitled "Dismantling of America, Part II," Thomas Sowell wrote:

Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.

Even though the criminality has nothing to do with the Obama Administration, notice how Sowell reflects back on an earlier episode as a professor in academia, finishing up with that key word/concept that lingers in the mind, leading right into his "expose" of blind Obama administration loyalty. Making that subtle but not directly expressed connection.

It is what the far right does, subtly, over, and over, and over, and over.

But notice what else Sowell does here. He makes a decent enough point -- that is is fair to question the Obama Administration even if one was, or still is, an Obama Administration supporter. But he misses two things, which would make this piece rather humorous, if it were not going to be read by a lot of people shaking their head up and down in agreed outrage, and linked to by one of the most popular blogs in America in "serious" support of Sowell's "point."

And those two things are:

1) There are plenty of people who question the Obama administration, who voted for it,and even who still support it.  Less than one year in.

2) Several years into the Bush Administration, almost no one who voted for it still ever questioned it, and dismissed anything anybody ever said in opposition or disagrement with it as indignations of bad faith, or hatred. Almost constantly. Far more than we see from automatic Obama supporters today. And the Bush Administration, contrary to the constant propaganda by the far right's "news" advocacy station of choice, was not moderate, at all.  The Obama administration, overall, is. 

But once again, the far right sees beautifully in others what it can not see in itself, even though it is but a fraction elsewhere of the pattern that the far right, throught most of the Bush Administration, engaged in constantly.

It's called projection. And to the far right, it is as natural as swimming is to fish.

It is what they do, to perpetuate their beliefs.

Is Senator MItch McConnell Saying that Most Americans are Idiots?

Probably not, because not impugning voters is something that Republicans (and in particular the far right, from which framework McConnell emanates) tend to be much better at than Democrats. Still, Either he is saying this (unlikely), or he is being misleading or illogical (take your pick).

Mitch McConnell:

I think it is perfectly clear that most Americans will treat the vote to get on the bill as a vote on the substance of the bill. So our view is that cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill is a vote to endorse a half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in new taxes, and higher insurance -- health insurance premiums for everyone else.

Putting aside McConnell's highly questionable framing of the health care bill, a vote to avoid a filibuster is not a vote in favor of Health Care. These are two entirely separate things. McConnell says most Americans -- perhaps taking their cues from him? -- will, falsely, view them the same.

Rasmussen Reports and Instapundit Both Mislead

Here is the entire Glenn Reynolds post:

POLL: 44% Favor Health Care Reform, 50% Oppose.

In Reynold's defense, he probably did not have time to read the piece. (We have noted this tendency before, particularly in support of the often highly illogical and wildly skewed Althouse site -- see the bottom of this piece here).

What was Rasmussen Reports' excuse? (See the headline to its piece).

Here is what the poll actually concluded:

Forty-four percent (44%) of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. ...The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% are opposed to the plan.

Putting aside whether the poll is accurate or not, is this "minor" technicality. Let's try not to put too fine a point on it, and then simultaneously ask how it is that famed law professor and blogger Reynolds did not get this (assuming the read it, which of course then begs the question as to why one of the most popular blogs in America relies in full for its posts upon pieces it does not read) and Rasmussen Reports not get this?

Namely: Support of health care reform, and support of the current health care reform "plan," are not the same thing.

Manipulative Trash to Reach a Pre-Desired End Result Will Attract Readers

The Althouse blog is pure, unadulterated, far right wing bias that often turns logic into sauerkraut. It is often linked to by Instapundit (aka, InstaBS), which alerted us to this little fact:

Althouse is the third most visited law professor blog, in America. (Or at least of those with publicly available site meters).

Here are just a few examples of how logically and politically skewed the Althouse blog is, and yet for the last 30 day period measured, there were over 13 million page views.

That's an awful lot of people being mislead.

Yeah, It's the Media that Harms Limbaugh, Not his Constant Falsities and Misrepresentations

Rush Limbaugh never said anything racist? His comments about Donovan McNabb were not at all racist, just good old common sense? Maybe not racist, but they were not very sensible, either. The fact is, plenty of black quarterbacks have been hammered by the media. And the reason McNabb has not been quite as hammered, is probably because he is extremely polite, and has been hammered by the Philly fans, ever since he was first introduced as the Eagles top draft choice. And he's also not on an elite level, but he's a pretty good quarterback, and always has been. (The media must constantly hammer onetime superstar Terrell Owens, nearly beyond belief, because "he's black and they want him to fail"?)

One from the vault -- another -- how do we put this nicely?? um, "genius" (yeah, that'll work), who doesn't seem to know jack squat about football but cites off a bunch of stats that he knows nothing about, to prove that Limbaugh was right that McNabb is just a bad quarterback and the media loves him because he is black!

Mathias Kawinuka is among those NFL players who say they would not play for the Rams if Limbaugh became an owner.

Limbaugh has a right to try and buy a team, and NFL players have the right to voice their opinions. Frankly, given the many extreme, often bigoted and even more often, wildly inaccurate comments that Limbaugh has made -- and not the ones allegedly discredited in this post linked above, and not to mention his miserable and short lived ESPN experience -- this seems like a rather well reasoned position.

What Limbaugh does, and apparently Ed Driscoll and InstaBS miss this, is that he makes something up that is wildly off the mark -- sometimes a hypothetical, sometimes declared as fact, and the bases almost his entire argument off of it.

One usually does not need to listen to Limbaugh for more than few minutes, often only a few seconds, before he does this. But to a far right audience, led by belief, this slips right on by. But then, this blog has documented other examples where things that might mess up a rigidly partisan, and often far right, orientation, slip right on by InstaBS.

Here is a clip of Limbaugh's rather ridiculous statement that "In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering." (The particular statement that Mathias Kiwanuka, noted above, wasn't all that down with).

But that's not the really problematic statement; at least it's kind of funny, if in poor taste and likely racist. The real problem statement, the one that routinely gets missed, and the types of statements that Limbaugh utters constantly in order to pull the BS that he pulls and have it go right by so many otherwise well meaning folk, is about 17 seconds in:

Everyone is saying, oh, the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he is
white.

No, everyone is not saying this. And in fact, most people are not. And anybody who is, is pretty out there. But then Limbaugh, in his very next statement, utters another falsity, in "support" of his prior inanity:

Newsweek magazine told us this.

In fact, if one listens carefully to what Limbaugh then says next, with respect to what Newsweek magazine said (exaggerating even that part as well), Newsweek magazine did not say anything of the sort.

But then, those that listen to Limbaugh, don't seem to listen too carefully.

All of this is in the first 25 seconds. And it is routine for Limbaugh: If the Olympics were for BS, rather than, say, sports, all Americans could once again be proud of Rush, as he would assuredly shatter Michael Phelps record of eight golds in one year.

Pull out any tape of any show, and this is what Limbaugh does, constantly. It is a disgrace to logic, and fact. But his audience does not want to be shown this; it's easier to just point fingers at those who "criticize" Limbaugh. But the fact is, Limbaugh is not really being "criticized;" it is simply being pointed out that Limbaugh is one of the most misleading, and manipulative, voices in America. And it would take an opposition with about one fourth his rhetorical skill about two days to make the case so effectively that Limbaugh's audience would essentially shrivel up to a few far right zealots. But Limbaugh's staunchest opposition, doesn't know how to make the case to outside of its own choir.

Meanwhile, inane pundits like David Brooks engage in logic that is almost as bad, in order to try and downplay Limbaugh's vast influence.

It's a wonder we have intelligent conversation in this country for our national discourse, and debate.

Oh, yeah. That's right. We don't anymore.

Obama, Baltimore Ravens on "Civility," and Biased Baltimore TV Critics

Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik on the 60 Minutes Obama Interview:

At the end of last night’s conversation, the president decided to play media critic again and use 24-hour cable news channels as the foil for making himself look like the would-be champion of civility. Kroft set the president up on this theme, and then let him run straight into the end zone untouched – where the interview ended.

Instead of ending the interview there with big smiles between the two as “60 Minutes” did, I would suggest that perhaps Kroft should have respectfully asked the president if he thought using the adverb “stupidly” at a press conference to describe the behavior of the Cambridge (Mass.) police officer who took Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. into custody was a good exampleof civility.

Speaking of running into the end zone untouched, his local Baltimore Ravens football team, despite dominating the still rather horrific Kansas City Chiefs, let them into the end zone 3 times: Once on a blocked punt. Once after a long pick return by former first round pick and current backup Derrick Johnson set them up at the two, and once after some nice passes by K.C QB Brodie Croyle, who shockingly managed to get through the entire game without being injured. This resulted in a rather close game until the end, despite the Baltimore team’s otherwise lopsided domination of the Chiefs.

(The Ravens had an interesting ”running into the end zone” situation themselves. With the game over, if Baltimore on 4th down elects to kick a field goal from inside the one yard line with 36 seconds remaining (thereby putting them up by two scores) Baltimore rather uncivilily opted to go for the touchdown on 4th down. Willis McGahee did “run it in.” But if they got stopped, Kansas City would still have had a shot at the game, which, with the field goal, they would not have. Granted, K.C. would have had around 34 seconds, and they had a long way to go. But still, why increase the other teams chances of pulling it out, when the game is all but over?)
Perhaps it is the many interesting end zone forays in this game that Zarowik could have been writing of, rather than of Kroft allowing the President to go “untouched” into the “end zone” by allowing him to make a well needed point about political discourse and civility without debating the the President about his own civility, because the President once earlier this summer, in a foolish (or, um, uh, err, “stupid”) political move, had called an action stupid, which in fact was stupid.

(Of course, Mr. Uncivility himself, then invited this same police officer, who had acted in a manner which raises significant questions about judgment, to the White House “for a beer.” Prompting us to wonder who else might be invited.)

Baltimore Sun "Critic" Can't take Criticism

Baltimore Sun Critic David Zurawik wrote a relatively dull, typical, non substantive, "gotcha" piece on Barack Obama's "60 Minutes" Interview, Sunday, September 13. In it, he made some fairly lame football analogies; perhaps because it was NFL Football opening Sunday.

And he called out 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft for enabling Obama to make a point about promoting civility, without having challenged Obama for having called the actions of the arresting officer in the Professor Henry Louis Gates Affair, "stupid" (not to mention subsequently inviting this same officer to to the White House for a beer.) This blog addressed it here.

His home team that day, the Ravens, had amassed over 500 total yards and largely dominated the Kansas City Chiefs, yet for a while were in danger of losing the game. Perhaps as a result, at the end of the game, the team engaged in some uncivil (and strategically ill-advised) behavior; by, with around 40 seconds to go, up by 7, from inside the one, going for the touchdown instead of the field goal on 4th down. Had they been stopped, K.C. would have had a chance (albeit a very small chance) to come back and win the game. Had they kicked the field goal, Kansas city would have had to had received a kickoff, scored a touchdown, recovered an onside kick, and scored again, all within about 30 seconds. Virtually an impossibility.

An  Admin' from this blog posted the following comment to Zurawik's 60 Minutes critique:

Did you catch the Ravens game? Now there was some uncivil behavior, speaking of end zones.

I Agree Obama was very foolish to have used that term. I do not agree however, that calling actions that in fact were likely stupid, as stupid, is all that uncivil. [Once It was clear Gates had not broken into his home, and understandable that he would have been upset, whether he overreacted or not,THERE WAS NO ISSUE LEFT. Making it into one, rather than politely apologizing for the rather comical (or not, as far as Gates is concerned) mixup, was an extremely poor error of judgment and/or use of authoritative power.]

Or, at least not to the level of many months later taking issue with Obama's claim that we need more civility, when overall he has been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of uncivility, and otherwise been reasonably civil and courteous himself -- and was agreeing with a relatively important point.

With respect to your very last point, I don't believe Obama was "blaming it all" on the 24 hour news cycles. But, aside from, uh, "all of us," which I for one know is not accurate, who would you blame it on?"

Rather incredibly, this comment was apparently not "approved" by the "blog author" and professional critic Zurawik. Perhaps there was some sort of strange, blog error on the blog, so we can't be certain -- but Zurawik could certainly clarify this. Email is Admin@WeMisleadYouFollow.com  [Update: of course Zurawik never did.]

More Evidence That Fox's Sean Hannity Lives in a Separate Reality

Found here, in eight seconds.

Another fantastic Washington Post Editorial

Some people -- perhaps unfairly, perhaps not -- have taken to saying that the Washington Post editorial page has fallen somewhere below bird cage liner. (They maintain that it is below it, because bird cage liner is not normally of such a misleading and logically adulterated nature.)

This site does not necessarily agree -- but the Washington Post editorial pages does continue its march, ever onward, toward thought excrement poised as thoughtfulness.

Then along comes today's gem by none other than Richard Cohen, who perhaps best exemplifies the recent trend toward the appearance of wit over any semblance of underlying sense.

The same Richard Cohen who pronounced Al Gore unlikable, and more, then years later bemoaned the fact that Gore was not our President and declared him the 'perfect candidate;" even chiding, in his words, his "colleagues in the media" for promoting misleading caricatures of Gore in the past.

The Same Cohen who spent an entire paragraph --in a piece under 800 words no less -- explaining his "standing" to call Stephen Colbert's ('06) correspondents dinner speech "unfunny" (and lash out at and call him a "bully" if not an outright coward") -- namely, many decades earlier, in grade school, his teacher thought him "funny." Just ask anyone, he says.

The same Cohen, who when it comes to bullies, explained in yet another golden Washington Post op ed how he came to know that our decision in 2006 to share top secret nuclear technology with India "was a good move" because it was "stupidity" to treat "friends the same as enemies." Something he learned behind his high school one day while watching a hero get the better of a bully until the bully's friend jumped in. (Cohen bragged about the lesson he learned, but apparently not about getting the victims back or stopping the bully, something he apparently did not learn).

The same Cohen who was so in love with John McCain's inner hero that the he could practically do no wrong, until the evidence mounted so greatly that Cohen - A Democrat and once professed "liberal"-- finally ripped into McCain later in 2008, apparently forlorn that his long time love had so betrayed him, blind to the reality for over a year, when it is his only job, not to be.

The same Cohen who openly supported the Iraq war right upon until it started, then many moons later viciously ripped into the Bush Administraton over it -- even calling for Bush's impeachment, when all of the facts that needed to be known, were in fact public knowledge prior to the war. Namely that we had not credible data on WMDs, that legitimate weapons inspections had not taken place in Iraq since at least the mid 90s, and that in the winter of '03 viable weapons inspections were finally taking place any ever inspector to a tee said to "wait."

The list goes on. And on.

So here today is Cohen professing this wondeful line:

My love of these many years came into the room and asked what I was working on. I detailed some topics, enthralled as usual by my brilliance, but she
scoffed at them all.

So he wrote about the recent Nobel peace prize award, as she suggested. Fair enough. But here is what he wrote: the American people should get the award, because "we" voted for Obama.

It is not clear if this was a dis on white people, since Obama lost the election among whites; really bad satire; or even worse, non satire. You tell us.

What is clear it is that it is yet another inane column, from a vain, ridiculously self righteous columnist, from an increasingly inane, editorial page, from what used to be one of the country's premier newspapers.

Logic - NRO Style

A column in NRO yesterday smacks down the whole "birther" nonsense, and commends the NRO for (allegedly) "smacking down" the whole nonsense, because it is, in the words of this NRO columnist, "lunacy."

And then nevertheless proceeds to reproduce an extremely long email that in essence ressurects the question.

The reproduced email constituting most of this column claiming to condemn the birther thing as sheer lunacy, actually makes this twisted point: "If the question is so crazy.... why all the fuss?"

Apparently, this is truly not obvious to the NRO, or this emailer.

In other words, this NRO columnist notes his satisfaction with the "lunacy" birther thing having been smacked down, and then devotes some 90 percent of his column to an email, using contorted and disconnected logic, that resurrects it.

Accusing Obama of not having been born in the U.S.A, despite evidence to the contrary, is "sheer lunacy," on the one hand, but yet on the other hand, Obama is "getting a pass" because this "sheer lunacy" has not been investigated further?

There is also the strange notion -- surely absent in spades by this same e-mailer and columnist prior to January, 2009 -- that "transparency" in the White House somehow means (essentially) that every potentially troublesome, embarrasing or negative PR detail of every moment or fact of Obama's existence on this planet must be continually re-vetted -- just see the column, which references things which are now wholly irrelevant, and then complains how "Obama is getting a pass, whereas other Presidents have not.")

But the most interesting about this tied into knots logic so typical of NRO, is that the main claim in the cited piece that there is something to this, is the "hysteria" when this "lunacy" is brought up. In other words, why the annoyance when it is brought up? (Answer, because, in your words, it is "lunacy"?)

Yet other columns, while similarly dismissing the "lunacy" of the birthers claims, have used not "hysteria" but in fact, a rather unconcerned"dismissal" by the Administration as evidence that there is something to this "birther" issue after all!

In other words, why the lack of annoyance when it is brought up?" (Answer, because, in your words, it is "lunacy," and thus ridiculous, sidetracking, and has been vetted?)

To sum it all up. Here is what NRO and cohorts believe: The birther thing is sheer lunacy.

Except we really can't be sure. Because why all the concern on the part of the administration?

Except we really can't be sure. Because why all the lack of concern on the part of the administration.

It really doesn't matter what the facts are. They will be spun, torqued, twisted, manipulated, distorted beyond all recognition, to meet a predisposed set of beliefs. In NRO's case, those beliefs include the inherent dislike it must feel over Obama, even if the so called birthing "lunacy," as they put it, should have nothing to do with it.

Memo to the Wall Street Journal's Blog: When "After" Means Days, Not 22 Years.

Taking the concept of literalness, to ridiculous lengths, here's another oddity from the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto:

Even Including That, the Story Was Accurate
Here’s an odd correction from the Los Angeles Times:

"An article in Sunday’s Section A about Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s role in Congress’ healthcare debate said that Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) had urged his friend to stop drinking after the Massachusetts Democrat’s 1969 car accident at happaquiddick. Hatch gave the advice in 1991, after Kennedy spent an evening at a Florida bar with his nephew William Kennedy Smith, who subsequently was charged with rape and later acquitted."

Why the correction? We’re pretty sure 1991 was after 1969

Are we missing the satire here? Surely Taranto can not claim to mean that when the statement "I urged him to stop drinking after the [fill in very specific event]" somehow does not mean within an appropriate vicinity of time, but "technically" any time after, including decades after.

That would be like, to someone who said "We were over Taranto's house drinking Yuengling when he showed us this kind of crazy column he wrote," saying "so you were in a helicopter over his house drinking?" and meaning it. On second thought, it would be worse.

Here's another example, and one we hope someone can share with Mr. Taranto:

Q: "Why did you never correct your brother's tendency to turn his head away before connecting with the ball?

A: "I did, after the Kingsdale game, junior season."

Only the person did it, 22 years after, the Kingsdale game, junior season.

Of course a correction was necessary by the LA Times: The article unequivocally implied that Hatch had urged Kennedy to stop drinking in a reasonable vicinity of time "after" the 1969 accident, not 22 years later -- and no one reading the article would have thought otherwise. Taranto's logic here, or (to us) incomprehensible satire, is somewhat hard to fathom.

These two pieces were harsh on the NY Times Maureen Dowd -- and deservedly so. And it has been acknowledged that Pulitzers are routinely awarded based on politics, and little more. But as we noted in a link to the second piece, Dowd has had a distinguished career (including a Pulitzer), so we labored to find a column that was not atrocious.

The very first one we came across, on Gates, Crowley, and Obama a few days earlier, while not all of it was pinpoint, was reasonably perceptive. So to Maureen Dowd, who, we are sure, could give not a whit, we say "nice column."

NY TIMES MAUREEN DOWD, TAKES DOWN NY TIMES MAUREEN DOWD

Earlier, we noted that NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote the following:

Hillary, who so often in the past came across as aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing, was confident and comfortable in her role as top diplomat, discussing the world with mastery and shrugging off suggestions that she has been disappeared by her former rival, the president.

And why it was a "wee" bit off the objective scale, and a "wee"bit onto the playing into hyperbolized and manipulated characterizations scale.

Since reading Dowd's superficial, conventionally parroting, and manufactured democrat chic opinions is fairly painful (and what's the point, really, though the country's leading newspaper apparently thinks there is one), we relied on The Daily Howler for this quote as well, from the same column by Dowd quoted from above.

Notice the irony:

The Alaskan [Palin] who shot to stardom a year ago as the tough embodiment of Diana the Huntress has now stepped down as governor and morphed into what theRepublicans always caricatured Hillary as—preachy, screechy and angry.

We'll ignore Maureen Dowd's dopey Diana characterization, and focus on this: "morphed into what the Republicans always caricatured Hillary as—preachy, screechy and angry."

"What the Republicans" (actually, only some Republicans -- namely, right wing Republicans) "caricaturized Hillary as - preachy, screechy,and angry."

Yet here is Dowd, in the very same column in which she later notes this fact, writing: "Hillary, who so often... came across as aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing."

Ah, but that's not a "Republican caricature" of Hillary Clinton. Rather, it is just a Dowd observation, right? Or perhaps just a pandering, kowtowing media characterization --or should we say "caricature"?
-----------------

So we peeked at Dowd's column (sometimes one can't help looking at the car wreck across the highway.) Here is another incredible statement:

Sarah, who was once a blazingly confident media darling

Really? Conventional wisdom (namely, the "wisdom" that the far right has been screaming at the top of its lungs since the day after John McCain somewhat"spontaneously" announced little known -- including, to McCain himself, apparently -- Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate) has it that the press has had it in for Palin from almost the start. We don't agree with the "conventional wisdom" here. But to call Palin a media darling?

That is pretty funny.

Palin's coverage may have been favorable relative to the facts (a claim that even the " left" is content not to make - preferring, as always to fight the battle under the framing of its political opponents), but the facts were, and are, extraordinarly unfavorable. Yet to Dowd, Palin was a media darling? Her column only gets worse from there, to ridiculously drawing made up parrellels between the two women, besides, of course, the painfully obvious ones.

It seems this NY Times columnist simply makes things up, to arrange her prose in nice, flowing, sentences. This is what it seems, much editorilization in America has come to in the 21st century. Dowd just does a particularly good (or should we say "bad") job of it.

notes from althouse piece on scary logic of far right - obesity, divorce

There has long been a debate as to how much of a role the government should play in helping to promote health. Note also that helping to promote it is far different than dictating it. Obesity, according to some experts, is a health crisis in this country. And obesity is perhaps a relevant, practical inquiry in a nation that spends almost a fifth of its entire GNP, directly or indirectly (and we think, rather haphazardly), on health care; including more money shelled out by the government on it than on anything else save national defense. To inquire how to promote better health, does not necessarily mean infringement upon personal freedom. Can the government go too far in addressing obesity? Yes. But one could list an endless number of possibilities with respect to any statement made on any subject,in this vein. The question is what policies, and what is being stated?

SCARY LOGIC FROM THE FAR RIGHT ON GOVERMENT INTRUSION

One of the greater ironies of our time is how the far right appears to be only very selectively concerned with government intrusion into the lives of individuals in a country of liberty and checked, limited, government powers -- the founding premises of our nation.

That being said, selective concern is far better than no concern.

Except many of the instances of expressed concern seem to be misleading, or logically stretched. Curiously enough, they also almost always seem to be directly aimed at an overall policy, government or politician that the far right itself politically opposes.

Here's a quick example of both of these points, at once.

Yesterday, we noted how the very popular blog Althouse cited the Washington Post, while missing essentially the entire point of the linked piece, and then some.

Today, Althouse, presumably as non satire, promotes the following monstrosity:

Think about it. Yesterday, we were talking about how the government "has ways of changing behavior" to deal with the supposed medical expenses studies attribute to obesity.If studies show that divorce damages health, then horning into our marriages will become the government's business too. Obviously another blue pill. You expect us to pay for the red pill, when there's a blue pill?

We certainly understand the well warranted concern over government dictating what people can and can't do. But while the very general idea here, in theory, is solid, the example given is absurd.

The claim made in the first part of the above quote, that "yesterday, we were talking about how the government 'has ways of changing behavior'" regarding obesity and health, is extremely misleading. And the connection, after that, to the idea that therefore, studies show that "divorce might be bad" health wise, is incredibly specious, or simply flat out stone cold illogical (aka, preposterous.)

The Wall Street Journal article discussed "yesterday" quotes someone from a non profit Trust concerned with promoting health, not, "the government." Calling that "the goverment" is wildly irresponsible.

The relevant portion of the WSJ article:

Unless you address obesity, you're never going to address rising health-care costs." Obesity-related conditions now account for 9.1% of all medical spending, up from 6.5% in 1998, the study concluded.

Health economists have long warned that obesity is a driving force behind the rise in health spending. For example, diabetes costs the nation $190 billion a year to treat, and excess weight is the single biggest risk factor for developing diabetes. Moreover, obese diabetics are the hardest to treat, with higher rates of foot ulcers and amputations, among other things.

The new study's look at per-capita spending may offer a shock to the wallets of people who haven't yet heeded straight health warnings.

"Health care costs are dramatically higher for people who are obese and it doesn't have to be that way," said Jeff Levi of the nonprofit Trust for America's Health, who wasn't involved in the new research. "We have ways of changing behavior and changing those health outcomes so that we don't have to deal with the medical
consequences of obesity," added Mr. Levi, who advocates community-based programs that promote physical activity and better nutrition.

It was awkwardly stated -- and maybe he even meant worse by it; but "ways to change" certainly can mean mean "ways" without compulsion. In any event, once again, it is a Trust for health, not the government.

But it was precisely that "chilling locution" that set off the wave of fright of the possibility of, say, "the government telling people they could not get divorced," because, like a million other things, divorces are correlated with slightly higher disease rates. (And we don't even know if the lack of a divorce in an otherwise unhealthy living situation, might or might not be similarly correlated, since there is no way to account for this variable, it seems.)

This leap to divorce -- aside from the over ominous reading of a non profit Trust analyst (who may or may not (but probably) meant promotional advocacy means), with the government itself -- is simply a ridiculous leap of logic. It helps illustrate how the far right's thinking is often grounded in hysteria and specious speculation, that the far right itself often confuses for "common sense.'

We see it done on a repeated basis.

Normally, it just goes right on unchecked, for the most part; even, sometimes, helping somewhat to frame our national discussion. (Since, as long as loud enough voices say it just convincingly enough, our media likes to then parrot it as reasonable and one "side" to some debate.)

On this little bit of "chilling locution"/divorce zaniness, it was of course promoted by that overly popular bit of horse malarkey, instapundit itself. Shocker, that. Note to Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds -- who actually teaches law -- perhaps you should read the things that you link to? Although, in quite a telling symmetry, it is clear that this site that you linked to, also does not.

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund is to Political and Media Objectivity, what Sarah Palin is to Serving out Full Terms as Governor

The chasm between prematurely ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's rhetoric, and reality, is so large given her status as one of the GOP frontrunners, that it is frightening.

Below is an example of precisely the type of media that Palin does not viciously condemn; does not blatantly mislead about; does not frighteningly misunderstand the entire purpose of and premise behind; and which, irony of ironies, is precisely what Palin likely envisions when she nevertheless speaks of something entirely disparate, about that very same media itself.

That is, media not doing its job, and not serving as an independent, objective, fourth estate check upon power and the powerful, upon government, upon groupthink run amuck, and upon misrepresentation and untruth, but rather a media that says what Palin wants to hear, in the way that she wants to hear it. In other words, exactly what defines a state run media in non democratic regimes.

The scary thing is Palin, and her followers -- like the Wall Street Journal's Fund -- do not seem to see the extraordinarily ignorant hypocrisy in Palin's statements, including this one - a statement that here Fund promotes as if it were quite reasonable, coming from Palin:

Ms. Palin appeared liberated by leaving office and used blunt words to take her media critics down a peg. “You represent what could and should be a respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy,” she said. “Democracy depends on you, and that is why -- that’s why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin’ things up.”

She didn’t stop there. “One other thing for the media, our new governor has a very nice family, too, so leave his kids alone,” she told the enthusiastic crowd gathered at a picnic grounds in Fairbanks. Ms. Palin will no doubt have a future as a stump speaker and political commentator in the lower 48, and her media critique certainly will find receptive audiences.

For just the tip of the iceberg -- but enough to objectively (something that Fund routinely appears on the road to being incapable of doing) establish a bit of the case above, see this piece with respect to Palin's statement to the media to "quit making things up."

Perhaps Fund should read it. Along with a bit more in regard to the actual facts, the actual media coverage of Palin, and the rhetoric that Palin has repeatedly used. (It is almost like while the rest of us are composed of flesh and blood -- most of us anyway -- or, alternatively, a few key atoms in various combinations, Palin is composed of something entirely different: Pure, unadulterated rhetoric. It is like in the science fiction movies where "it" is not a being, but a pure energy field -- except Palin is instead a pure rhetoric field. )

It works, of course, because in that same media itself -- including those, like Fund, who might be about as politically (and journalistically) objective as as Fox guarding a hen house is on reporting about a missing hen -- are those who buy it.

Yet It is rhetoric like Palin's, and the sheep like mentality that does not look behind it at the facts, that has changed the nature (and, ultimately and quite ironically given Palin's constant yammering to the contrary, the freedom) of every once great nation or society the world has ever seen.

Fund, as an allegedly independent journalist, is a bit of a cheerleader for it, without even knowing it. Fund's bs meter is not only broken; so long as it meets his political orientations, he's got a bs feeder, which apparently sniffs it out and promotes it.

And then, of course, there are some others, such as conservative columnist Katherine Parker, who seems to want to like Palin, but nevertheless, aptly penned perhaps the most applicable line about Palin yet put to print.

Yet Parker is either not very objective; or, perhaps more likely, not excessively knowledgeable with respect to all the facts. And was "relieved" at Palin's vice presidential debate performance, and praised it -- as apparently, truthfulness, or again, knowledge, was not relevant to Parker's assessment (or again, more likely, unknown to her.) Yet contrast the absurd standard that Parker starts with; "What did they do with the other Sarah Palin? I mean the one who bases foreign policy experience on the proximity of Russia to Alaska" with this from the link just cited:

Most media outlets [etc.] repeated the [idea] that ...Palin “exceeded” expectations...and that there were no real gaffes. ...[And] there were no gaffes:...by the standard which expected Sarah Palin to be incapable of uttering a coherent sentence. But let’s apply a different standard, one which some might have the temerity to suggest is more applicable to the actual situation: That is, what might be expected and required of .... someone who's the right arm to, and a heartbeat away from, the most important job in the world.

Contrast that idea,with Parker's positive assessment of Palin's debate performance, because Palin did not (once again) say that she had relevant foreign policy experience because "Alaska is close to Russia." ("Close to" hundreds of hundreds of miles of some of the most barren, desolate, largely uninhabited tundra on earth, and further away from Moscow than Washington, D.C, is from London.)

And then Parker had this to say about Palin:

Does that mean she's ready to lead the free world should circumstances warrant? that question remains. Right next to same question about Barack Obama.

Granted, Parker is a conservative, so she is not supposed to be hawking Obama. Though -- unreported by the general media, and largely ignored by active Democrats, who somehow neglected to see the relevance in terms of building credibility with those whom the Democrats need to reach -- Obama was supported by an unusually high number of knowledgeable, leading Republicans. (Some of whom are now questioning that support, as are some Democrats, at least. But we forget that Obama inherited a lot of problems, that are quickly transitioning over to being "his." Particularly with Democrats once again losing the battle of framing -- or perhaps, not even fully knowing how to wage it, or recognizing its prominent existence in the first place.)

And Parker certainly was entitled to her legitimate doubts. But to place Palin, given the ex-Alaska Governor's incredibly poor grasp of facts, constant reliance upon almost zealous belief, continual habit of misrepresentations, lack of relevant experience and almost complete and utter lack of any world knowledge, equally alongside Obama in terms of being ready to lead the "free world," is a bit much.

Yet here is what a few days prior, Parker had, much more insightfully, penned about Palin, which pretty much sums it all up:

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

John Fund, who writes for the Wall Street Journal, and about Wall Street, apparently bought it; hook, line, and sinker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps that is no longer clearly the case.

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

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

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

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

Riot of the Year -- Palin's Directive to Media

Or, we should say, it would be a riot if it were not so serious, and this person was not actually considered a potential leader of the GOP.

Here are Palin's words to a media that -- despite constant cries and whines to the contrary, has actually gone rather softly on her IN RELATION TO THE FACTS. "Quit making things up."

Palin, without, of course, supporting her accusation, was referring to the media "making things up" with respect to American Soldiers.

Last year, Sarah "Quit Making Things Up" Palin, stated that Obama's statement that our air raiding Afghanistan villages was resulting in too many civilian casualties, was a "a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment." Eight days before Obama's comment, the Washington Post reported on its Sunday front page

A mounting toll of civilian casualties, mostly in bombing raids... have inflamed public opinion, turned many Afghans against the foreign forces [note; that's us], and further strained [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai's credibility.

Of course, remember that when asked what source of news she reads, Palin could not cite a single one.

Palin also does not appear to listen to our top military commanders, either: In September of 2008, Afghanistian Senior Commander David McKiernan (who in the vice presidential debate, Palin called "McClellan") asserted that there were mounting civilian casualties in Afghanistan, due to an over reliance upon air power. The next day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, issued an apology to the Afghanistan government for the excessive casualties -- the ones that, in Palin's world of "making things up," didn't exist. (That's "straight talk" for ya: Something that Palin is a virtuoso at claiming she delivers, and the exact opposite, in actually delivering.)

The "Bridge to Nowhere," that in speech after impassioned speech Palin riled her supporters with her boldly and almost zealously repeated"principled" opposition to? Palin was a firm supporter of it until the issue was over -- until it became a national issue, until Congress made clear that it was withdrawing any more support for the project (and thus, no longer a matter of "pork," Alaska would have to pay for it), and even until shortly after John McCain scathingly mocked it himself on the campaign trail.

Last year, to Joe Biden's point that the McCain campaign opposed granting bankruptcy judges the power to change interest rates and principal on borrower’s primary residences, Palin, who clearly did not know, again, simply "made something up," and stated: "that is not so." It was so. And McCain's campaign corrected Palin the next day.

Here's Palin completely "making stuff up" on Energy -- the topic on which she is an alleged expert -- and then continuing to do so, even after being corrected.

Climate Progress.org calls the Washington Post editorial page a "joke" for running an energy piece by Palin. Is it?

The piece was against capping carbon (perhaps not a good position, but that is not the issue with the piece.) Palin, the "quit making things up" ex-Alaska Governor, was asked this by Gwen Ifill during the vice presidential debate. "do you support capping carbon emissions? PALIN: I do. I do."

And the list goes on... and on.... and on....

Yet Palin, as with many things rhetorical, has reduced attacking the media to art form and unequivocal passion until the media, even if it does not do its job and stays soft, simply states Palin's version of reality. This is perhaps more troubling in a popular figure than many, Republican or Democrat alike, seem to recognize:

In fact, to this same media which almost universally proclaimed her "performance" both reasonable and gaffe free, Palin has repeatedly vented in this manner, as if in a "democracy," the role of an independent press -- which Thomas Jefferson considered so important that he proclaimed given a choice between the two, he would choose it before government itself -- is to merely parrot the points of candidates and the government that the candidates and government want the people to hear; that is, the operational principle of almost every governmental system the world over, that is in fact not a democracy.

....Actually, it is manipulation, and misinformation like Sarah Palin delivered in spades to the American people, that is the problem. Not to mention our putting up with it.

Bill Kristol -- Expert on Health Care Issues, Or Another Famous Pundit Who Has Almost No Clue What They are Talking About?

Kristol asserts that the "the deepest vulnerability of Obamacare is that it (intentionally) puts us on a course towards government rationing of health care. " The word "intentionally" in the parenthetical is Kristol's, also. Wonderful how he knows this.

He cites the following language from a Ted Kennedy - Bob Shrum health care article as proof of his naive explanation and prognosis on rationing:

For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days--at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions

Kristol finds this idea frightening, neglecting to note that health care insurers already practice forms of selective rationing all the time, but with their bottom line duty being profits, not maximizing the benefit of the health care with the costs.

He may or may not have a point with respect to the government potentially making too many decisions (which is part of why we recommend this) in what is otherwise a sea of misinformed conjectures, but contrast Kristol's analysis of how the government -- which already spends hundreds of billions a year on health care -- trying to save money, is bad, with an example of health insurer practices in order to save money:

Bayonne Medical Center filed a federal lawsuit yesterday accusing Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey of intimidating patients into leaving the hospital early and avoiding its emergency room in an effort to save money.

The suit alleges Horizon routinely sent couriers to hospital bedsides to warn patients they could incur massive bills if they did not transfer out of Bayonne, which does not participate in the insurer's payment network. Hospital officials said the tactics violated state law and in some cases seriously jeopardized patients' health.

Here's the hospital --which also clearly has a vested interest in this -- spin on it:

Bayonne Hospital Center and Hospital Patient File Federal Lawsuit to Protect Bayonne, New Jersey Residents From Life-Threatening Business Practices of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of NJ.

Suit Charges Horizon with Systematic Attack on Emergency Care in Quest for Profit

Here's the legal complaint filed by the hospital, against the insurer.

Of course, with respect to Kristol's unsubstantiated and a bit hypocritical assertion that health care reform "puts us on a course of government rationing of health care," that same assertion was also aggressively postulated with respect to the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid over four decades ago.

Once again, we say the problem is over insurance, not the extent to which the government decides to foot some health insurance costs as an option for some otherwise struggling to do so.

The Politics of Waterloo and Health Care?

On the other hand, the issue seems to be about the best way to improve the health care mess - whether there's far too much government expenditure on it already, not enough coverage or ability to afford good health care on the part of citizens, or both -- rather than the President's "waterloo."

But seriously, speaking of the Washington Post, are they trying to become the new official voice of ignorance?

The AP' s Washington Bureau Chief simply continues to amaze.

Much more problematic is that those concerned with the importance of a rigorous, independent, and at least reasonably objective press, continue to put up with this partisan shrill clothed in the camouflage of a reporter, much less the all important role of Washington Bureau Chief for the Associated Press.

Fournier's just doing his thing, which is practicing his often wildly misleading and skewed presentations, housed as "news." It's those who put up with him which is the real issue.

What do you do? Those with the power, make the case, and make it stick. That's all. Don't make it to your fellow choir mates, make it to America. Turn it into a story.

I suppose we could document several hundred instances, with hundreds more links and relevant facts, to emphatically back this up. But, really, what's the point. Do you really want to read it?

"Palin Bashing is Women Bashing." Okay.

Christian Science Monitor: "Langhorne, Pa. - Let's call it what it is: sexism in the media. No matter your political stripe, pundits are skewering Sarah Palin. Again. Back in the media spotlight for announcing her resignation as governor July 3, she's become easy fodder for misogynistic bashing."

Bob Somerby had an interesting column (see 2d half of his piece) on this very same point (emphasis added).

"'COHEN (7/7/09): ...Was it okay with the GOP if the person a heartbeat away from the presidency was—pardon me, but it's true—a ditz with no national experience whatsoever? You betcha. The party had cracked up, accepting a nullity because she was antiabortion over a seasoned senator and former governor because they were not. Ideology won. The nation lost.'

...Palin was a horrible candidate...But someone like Cohen can’t voice such a judgment about a woman without quickly turning to familiar sexist language. He asks our forgiveness as he does, thus showing he knows there’s a problem.

“Pardon me,” the elite pundit says, calling Palin “a ditz.” “Pardon me”—but the statement "is true.”

Now that is a teachable moment.

And, of course, Cohen’s so dumb that he seems to think that a stereotypical insult of that type can actually be a matter of “fact.” You really have to be dumb—and uncaring—to say something like that."

Harsh, but Somerby is right. Someone being a "ditz," by definition, can not be a matter of "fact," but not, apparently, to Cohen, who, um, uh, errr, is a bit of a ditz. In our humble opinion, by the way, as all such proclamations are. As per usual, Cohen's also wrong as to why the "party" accepted the nomination (while at the same time missing the fact that quite a number of very prominent republicans, increasingly, lambasted the choice); because Palin brought an "energy" (manipulative as it is, see this above) and it was McCain's choice, not theirs.

Still, what the Christian Science Monitor is missing, and what the media still has not very well covered, are the facts. Let's take a look back when they really mattered, then and today.

As noted above, the point is...

Update, to this Post below.

Apparently, some Senators are also alleging outright that the concealment by the CIA broke the law.

Additionally, as this constitutional issues Salon columnist aptly notes, the Attorney General may be part of the administration, but also acts independently in matters of prosecution.

"It seems to be pure, unadulterated spin," in reference to this, by Instapundit, is what we wrote below.

The Washington Post, despite widespread efforts to paint the contrary picture, has hardly been an Obama Cheerleader. But according to the Post, whaddya know, "Recent Disclosures Prompt Obama Administration to Rethink Approach to Inquiries." You mean, not poll numbers, but things like "fresh disclosures about CIA activity that had been hidden from Congress for seven years"? Or the suggestion by the House Intelligence Chairman, less than a week ago, that the CIA "lied to lawmakers," apparently backed up by the director of the CIA"? Or perhaps reports that, of course, warrantless survelliance has been far more widespread than had been represented, and previously thought, at the same time its efficacy and effect have possibly been greatly exaggerated? And that there may even have been "hints" of "political pressure in preparing...threat assessments that helped form the legal basis" for continuing the classified [and quite possibly unconstitutional] program?

Nah, it's just poll numbers. Instapundit. Your one stop shop for pithy commentary, witty observations, and non stop far right wing subjective partisan b.s.

It seems our suspicions below were correct; it does appear to be a case of simple, unbridled, deeply seated skepticism, perhaps even well ahead of the facts.

Speaking of Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit.... what a skeptic, searching far and wide to find the most "fitting" quotes for the unbiased benefit of readers everywhere.

We'll keep our eyes open on the issue. But there has been a non stop and sometimes reasonable call to at least look at the torture question, so are we? And is the Attorney General, in contemplating it, really looking at Obama's poll numbers?

The case could be made, but so far, it seems to be pure, unadulterated spin. I'm just sayin'.

And speaking of torture, "American Conservative" (also mentioned just below) has this interesting twist to add, in its August 1 edition.

Law Professor and "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds seems like a pretty intelligent, witty guy. But someone needs to explain the concept of "variance" to him, to say the least. (It's a theme we have seen repeatedly). It is funny though.

But really, now.

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

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

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