Detailed Abstractions

Ok…. so not really, but what he stated isn’t too far off as ghosts are just as factual as the “imbalances” he claims are responsible the global recession.

Strauss-Kahn,_Dominique_(official_portrait_2008)

So what did he say?  Well, as usual, his improvable opinion, has to wrapped up in provable facts; the “global imbalance” (whole thing here via International Business Times):

…while the recovery is underway, it is not the recovery we wanted. It is a recovery beset by tensions and strains—which could even sow the seeds of the next crisis.

True.  Not only true, but also the reason why Egypt can’t be obviously predicted, as even the protesters are fighting amongst themselves.

Why?

Because the protests were born out of economic conditions and not a desire for freedom or Sharia Law.  This is why you can see the same unrest in Yemen, Jordan, the Sudan, and other countries.

This isn’t to say that a small faction, even a weak faction in Egypt like the Muslim Brotherhood, could never end up in charge.  They could.  They could use the fractured protesters against themselves towards their own aims and possibly turn Egypt into an Islamic state much like Iran.

This is a real fear.  & combine this possibility with two major changes coming to the Middle East:

1.  Iran getting *nuclear weapons with little more than talk from the international community; demonstrating they believe they are in a comfortable position of strength.

*(in 2015 or  2012, whether you believe public reports from Israel or the UK respectively)

2.  *Possible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, leaving Iran very strong militarily.  They will immediately become the largest and most capable military force than all others in the region (great article via Stratfor).

*(Iraq doesn’t wish to be controlled by Iran anymore than the US wants this to happen.  So it’s possible the Iraqi parliament votes to keep US troops in country for insurance.)

People are naturally worried.  Either one of these alone is reason enough to fear instable states might flow towards Iran’s ideology, but when combined with everything else, concern is warranted.

The media of course has done what they do best.  Put up a false dichotomy by breaking this into only two sides; Egypt is becoming either an Islamist State or a Free Paradise.  The facts on the ground don’t support any particular conclusion at this time, but it’s tougher to write about that.

Just remember when reading the press reports that just a few short years ago most of these people were telling all of us how great Iran would become after the Green Revolution…. but I digress.

Our IMF Chief continues, using the factual and obvious instability in many countries, by warning of global imbalances, specifically (speech cont’d):

Growth in economies with large external deficits, like the U.S., is still being driven by domestic demand. And growth in economies with large external surpluses, like China and Germany, is still being powered by exports. As the IMF warned in the years leading up to the crisis—and as the G-20 has emphasized—these global imbalances….

Which is another fact.  There are trade imbalances between many countries with respects to China and Germany.  But then his facts stop, even though his words do not. (more…)

Well, we’re a week out from the terrorist attack launched by one lone individual on a small political gathering in Arizona and the trend is clear:  idiocy continues to press forward, non-exploitation of this tragedy seemingly illusory.

This time up, it’s Representative Peter King of NY.  Not to be outdone by Paul Krugman’s idiocy, Mr. King is trying to parlay one lone gunmen into a brand new set of gun control laws (here):

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the gun-free zone in the immediate vicinity of federal officials…. he planned to introduce legislation next week incorporating his proposal….

It should seem obvious that this legislation has little chance of preventing or even acting as a deterrent to another such terrorist act, but not surprising the legislation is being pushed anyway.

As is usual with any legislation, it existed prior to the ‘crisis’ which was used as reasoning to pass it right now.  Truly the only way in which this is related to the Arizona shooting at all is in timing (article cont’d):

But many lawmakers have been concerned about the safety of themselves and their aides since Saturday’s shootings in Tucson and might be more open to King’s proposal than they would have been a week ago.

In a more perfect world, maybe we could point to this as the exception of a reasoned public debate, unfortunately this is just one of the idiotic ideas being pushed.

Their commonality?  Almost all arguments brought to the public so far ignore the very essence of a society: its culture.

Which is insulting to a degree; to think that given the wrong language or opportunity to carry a weapon near any sacred politicians, the average citizen might well use violence as a standard debate tactic.  However in America, and indeed most civilized societies, a basic thought is held by the vast majority of citizens is that the proper response to speech is speech.

For instance, we all know exactly what it means to say “sticks and stones” and as a society, we have a pretty firm belief that no matter what someone says to you, no matter how disgusting, no matter how insulting, violence is never an appropriate response to words.

To juxtapose, let’s look at the Islamists.

Their  religious and moral leaders constantly tell followers that violence is an appropriate solution to perceived or real slights.  They argue not just that violence is an answer, but specifically that it is a respectable solution even when it’s being used against those who are only using speech.

Remember the Mohammed cartoons?  That was 2005, but even in mid-2010 (more…)

As most know, on January 8th, in a grocery store parking lot, a gunman, opened fire on a small political gathering.   He wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others, and killed 6, including a 9 year old child.

Our media?  Apparently falling all over themselves to be the very first to diagnose the entire event down to political ideology, caused by heightened rhetoric, hopefully with easily attacked names attached, all without anything remotely resembling even a slight understanding of the shooter.

It is impressive in not only how fast this meme started, but also the complete coverage of it.  Almost anywhere you read this news or watching it discussed on tv, the attempt to blame is either extremely obvious or being discussed as being extremely obvious.

Liberals blame Sarah Palin, which the right absolutely abhors….  And besides, according to them, the shooter was a leftist anyway (irony?).

But wait!  If you don’t like that, it’s ok, because really the level of vitriol is the real problem.  Ask the Collegian, this conversation has to take place….  after of course the author talks about Glen Beck and Fox News’ level of rhetoric (irony?).

Irregardless, this conversation is important – just listen to the investigating sheriff, and you suddenly learn it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault.

(side bar: Notice that word “investigating” always precedes the Sheriff… as if the mere act that the crazy guy with a gun pulled the trigger in his jurisdiction, gives him the right, knowledge, or understanding of political rhetoric and its ramifications)

Ahh, the Sheriff, proving, just like Katrina where rumors ran rampant due in large part to public officials, the propensity for public officials to cast off the shackles of thoughtful and deliberate actions and act irrationally.  Just listen to the Sheriff’s words “I have a feeling” and “millions agree” – as if this would be considered “proof” of anything.  Not to mention the fact that a public official should be duty-bound and intelligent enough to know not to make things worse through public speculation.

 But I digress, because in case you didn’t know, there’s a reason for his behavior too.  The Sheriff is a leftist.  & like other leftists, whether the level of rhetoric is high or low is meaningless, because it’s time for gun control.

Neither of which will work of course, because the real problem is that violence is rooted in American culture – so basically it’s everyone’s fault….

Though Jon Stewart assures us it’s not the level of rhetoric which is to blame, & he does have friends; according to a recent poll, 60% agree with this thought as well.

But let’s do note at least one decent posting on the subject, discussing this tragedy in light of other mass murderers (small mass, think group), including the divergence between what we thought we knew instantly and what we found out (here).

Aside from the few however, it appears stating openly “we don’t know enough and will not speculate” isn’t near as interesting nor attention grabbing as the fear inducing meme that speech, tv, political rhetoric, guns, or anything else which is all around you, is in fact out to get you.

It just goes on and on and on and on….  & just like the debates about which party is more closely linked with the actions of Hitler; is it Bushitler the warmonger?  Or the Democrats and the “can’t smoke in private restaurants” crowd? 

Or arguments about who Jesus would vote for; is it the downtrodden protectors the Democrats or the “teach a man to fish” Republicans?

Or what Jesus would drive; a Prius for the environment or an F150 for a carpenter? 

All impossible to answer, all nothing more than mere guilt/credit by association, yet the fight is feverish as many try to answer this very question about one lone gunman.

& All of it presented to you, with the air of intelligent thought and analysis, by the self-proclaimed 4th Estate.

Not that I expect much out of press unwilling to engage in critical thought on even the smallest of issues, but this tax debate and almost every press outlet’s discussion of it refuses to acknowledge even basic points in a logical way.

Fact – the real discussion is about extending the tax cuts passed in 2001 & 2003 during the Bush Administration (here); I.E. maintaining the status quo. 

The press?  [all emphasis added]

The AP reports  (here) :

WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax deal struck by President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans essentially gives Americans a pay raise.

WSJ (here):

Tax-cut optimism fueled a rise in short-term U.S. Treasury yields…

Kansas City Star (here):

This week’s tax-cut compromise would contribute almost $1 trillion to the nation’s federal budget deficit over the next two years and add sharply to the mounting national debt…

CNN (here):

News of a high-cost tax-cut deal between President Obama and the Republicans…

DesMoines Register (here):

Forget federal deficit: Tax cuts all around!

& these are just five examples in a long line of examples.  I could honestly publish ten more articles today alone about “tax-cut” idiocy, but won’t (maybe two more though).

Truth is, it’s frustrating to see professional writers who are unable to use language in any way consistent with reality, which I don’t think is asking too much.   

I’m certainly not asking for all writers to agree with me (that in itself might freak me out a little).  It’s their right, at the discretion of their employers, to write what they wish.  So they can and should write articles against the compromise or the extension of the tax cut policy in general if that’s what they believe.

I’ll still argue they’re wrong of course due solely to the economics of the situation, but here I’m wondering why we can’t at least expect the press to use terms like “cut” only when a true “cut” actually exists.

The logic is beyond simple – there are no tax cut proposals on the table.  None.   This is not about cutting anyone’s taxes.

Secondarily, this cannot increase the debt at all.  As logic dictates by not giving money to the government which they do not now have nor have they requested, you have in effect done absolutely nothing.

Makes me want to rob them, turn around later and give only half their stuff back…  When they looked frustrated and confused and finally asked with anger, “Where’s the rest?”

I’m simply reply, “It would cost me way too much to give you everything” and calmly walk away.

It’s a little amusing that in the same issue (June 2010) of the Atlantic, they print an article by Michael Kinsley without any substantial facts to support any of his claims while simultaneously printing an article dealing with the decline of the news industry.  It’s quite possible the news industry is failing to attract consumers due to idiotic articles such as this, but either way.

Mr. Kinsley has a thorn in his side, better known to most as the Tea Party.  This movement, like most, has hitched on popular dissent on the current government.  They’ve successfully beaten Republican incumbents in the primaries as the rightful tide against any incumbent moves forward.

Just as the free love and peace movement hooked on to Vietnam, the Tea Party has picked up widespread dissent and is attempting to parlay this into a game changing group.  We could argue ad infinitum about which came first, the movement or the dissent, but every movement is intertwined in history with what is happening and can never be completely separated from it.

For Mr. Kinsley though – the Tea Partier is just right-winger exploiting a specific moment in time to bring us back to the stone age with the alluring subtitle (whole thing here):

There’s nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots.

Now, I’m not one to question Mr. Kinsely’s patriotism or the Tea Partier for that matter, but I seem to recall that questioning someone’s patriotism just because they disagree with current government policy was tantamount to treason… times change I suppose.

Irregardless, the most infuriating thing about his propaganda is the lack of anything substantial or real, combined with an unwinding of recent history.  He starts with this:

….A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment….

I’m unsure what he means by embarrassment as even opponents admit 30% of the voting population was aware of the Contract during the 1994 election.  Also, his link to wiki, shows most of the contract was passed.  A lot of it was vetoed by President Clinton, some of it wasn’t.  But most of it was passed through the house as they promised they would.  Seems odd to call promises kept as embarrassing, but maybe his idea of embarrassing is different…. well, I was going to write different from mine, but in this case it would have to be different from the definition.

Either way – the true villain, is the Tea Partier:

…On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government….

I guess I love gimmicks to – because banning congressional earmarks, engaging term limits, and forcing a balanced budget all seem like decent ideas to me.  Maybe I’m not smart enough to know that the government should stop printing money when they have none or stop spending money on museums when we theoretically can’t afford to pay teachers or police officers, but these certainly seem like good ideas.

Why is the Tea Partier a villain…. apparently ageism:

…First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming….

So for those counting – Contract With America – successful but embarrassing.  Kids yelling end war, cool.  Adults yelling stop spending money you don’t have, tantrum.

What else….

…Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots….

Now we have a contradiction.  In the first few paragraphs he rightfully sees the Tea Party movement as anti-big government, but now…. he can’t seem to find any common ground the individuals hold.

Maybe there’s more?

…A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested….

Nope – like the rest of the tripe that preceded this idiotic passage, it’s nothing more than his “feelings” which he is trying, very hard to prove are in fact real.  The level of dishonesty & arrogance needed to think that people in the 1960′s were mostly altruistic, while people today are just self interested rises to the level of delusion.

Truth is Mr. Kinsley, we all operate on incentives and most of our incentives are self interested.   Research and historical evidence proves this has been and stays true today.  You can find some semblance of altruism in certain scenarios, like throwing yourself on a live grenade to save others, but even this has some self interest as you are trying to save your family (in combat, your comrades are family).

So what is the Tea Party about?

….“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility….

I only break this paragraph to note – he makes a very bold statement, yet follows it up without even one well worded sentence explaining why he thinks conservatives outdo liberals…. I suppose we should just take his word for it.  After all:

…To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?….

Yet another assertion without proof.  The Tea Party has worked within side the current system, have worked and are working to elect those they agree with and remove those they don’t.  I have yet to hear even one crazy person who has been to one Tea Party group say democracy is bad or should go away…. though it’s honestly possible I suppose that the Tea Party movement’s participants understand that the US isn’t a democracy and Mr. Kinsley doesn’t.

I could go on – he wrote more and it’s just as lacking as the rest of it.   It’s honestly hard to even write a critique of something so full of emotion, so incoherent and random, which is also completely devoid of any evidence to prove his assertions.

Each sentence is full of assumed assertions which are not only not proven, but easily obtained evidence suggests his assertion false.  The only thing that shows is his intolerance to views with which he disagrees.

& yet they sit and wonder…. why doesn’t anyone ready newspapers and magazines anymore?

Over time I’ve come to the conclusion that where news entities fail miserably is in their analysis with international politics.  Most pundits, writers, journalists, etc, seem to be able to semi-grasp domestic policies, albeit still in the usual, overly simplistic, fits-to-the-narrative type of way, but lose all rationality with respect to international affairs.

Interestingly enough, I think their failures in both domestic & international analysis stem from the same basic cause, oversimplification.  But it would seem that the degree to which it effects each type of analysis differs due to the lack of incentives private interests have in resolving inaccurate reports on international issues.

Thinking about the counter thought to international policy, domestic policy, we see incentives existing to resolve press inaccuracies.  For instance, if the press pushes inaccurate opinions and analysis which oversimplifies a given topic, a special interest group or two, plus at least one political party, and finally non-profits everywhere will try to enlighten by showing the fallacy of the common narrative.

This is because people rightfully see domestic issues as more directly impacting their lives.  The corollary is that our politicians, our leaders, our special interests, and our non-profits tend to focus where we as a society focus.

The problem that can stem from this seems intuitive – inaccurate press on international issues should be held as highly suspect, but get printed without much serious disagreement.   Since very little counters popular wisdom, this gives the press a power to change opinions and as well as spread myths.

This leads to all kinds of odd conclusions, with large swaths of people all over the planet prone to believe in things without substantial proof nor any degree of rational logic.

For instance believing that western countries are somehow to blame for poor countries with constant internal strife and corrupt governments which inefficiencies and lack of resources.  Or said another way, people all over believe in a zero sum game.  This is true not only in the international sense, but also when dealing with immigration and free trade issues.

Mistaken assumptions such as zero-sum games also lead to beliefs about what one thinks a President can actually do, versus what reality tends to dictate what will actually be done.  This leads to politicians making believable, yet highly impossible claims about given international situations.  This has been done to all recent Presidents, including President Obama when pulling a missile defense shield out of Poland & Czechoslovakia was made to appear as a rash decision amounting to abandoning our allies, when in fact it wasn’t a bad decision when concluding what options were open and what were the greatest threats to our security and security in the region (wrote about it here, though Mr. Obama went and said it had nothing to do with Russia… which was just amazing… wrote about that here).

It leads to pundits everywhere snidely remarking how this action wasn’t “tough” or that action was going to anger others because it was “unilateral”.  With little recourse, journalists  print all sorts of things without taking into any account the actual framework through which any given action action was taken, under what circumstances, with what available options, or really they just leave out anything resembling actual analysis.

Unfortunately, it seems no organization is immune.  A recent piece published in the Economist titled  Even greater expectations discussing the idiotic Nobel Prize Committee decision, is a far cry from the analysis for which the Economist is known.

They rightfully begin with the question the world was asking, “Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?”, but delve quickly into non-international events dressed up to seem as if change had already happened:

…Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia…

Continuing with this as reasoning:

…Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy…

Which to date has not only done absolutely nothing to help international cooperation, but has made our interests tougher to protect.  In nearly every UN Conference on whatever, for instance the G-20 dealing with the economic crisis, the US asks for a lot of cooperation and everyone goes their separate ways.

In some ways this is to be completely understood.  American solutions for economic issues will differ from that of Germany or the UK.  Even though the same basic problem afflicts most countries during the global recession,  their banking industries are setup with much different regulations, making the solutions for one country not necessarily compare to another country.  The separate policies might even be attempting the exact same “type” of solution, for instance increasing capital requirements, but under different systems any one specific solutions will affect different countries differently.

When it comes to reaching our hand out to those regimes, we see that North Korea, Russia, and Iran have been openly hostile to any US intents.  Iran’s deadline of October the 1st to fess up or face sanctions has come and gone, even while it was precipitated by Iran admitting to an additional enrichment facility.

And all this, including that all important warming of US-Russian relations, Russia has stated publicly the will continue to trade with Iran, meaning they will back them, if the UN, lead by the US impose stricter sanctions against Iran.

Now these situations are fluid to some extent, especially between cautious friends such as US-Russia and most of the controversial moves taken by Iran & North Korea would likely have happened to test any new US President’s resolve.

The issue is that by glossing over the realities we end up believing in myths.  Think about all that talk about “unilateral” action as if it’s a huge negative due to the controversy surrounding the last semi-unilateral decision to be made, without understanding that this is exactly as we should expect it.

No country should do something the US requests if they know in the end the analysis states otherwise.  On the international stage, Europeans, Cechs, Persians, Africians, indeed every person deserves the same representation we deserve – for their representatives to look out for their interests.

Now this can and does lead to all kinds of international policies from all different governments that appear wrong or unseemly when in truth it’s a playing field for which no one actor controls the rules which leads to countries making decisions that seem antithetical to their stated morals or goals.

It also allows one country to look at another as particularly egregious, regardless of their country’s current international policies.   It should be obvious that while beating up on your own politicians on domestic policy makes sense, doing so on the international stage is just beating yourself up.  Even if well-deserved, it’s easier to beat up on other country’s policies than it is to self reflect.

In some ways, national feeling probably affects this as well.  When most countries populations have enough information to dislike a number of other countries, going against that grain can be seen as being unpatriotic.  You certainly wouldn’t see a major political figure like Tony Blair coming to the US to air Britain’s dirty laundry or Putin to do the same in the US against Russia.

It also allows for journalists to paint country X with any brush they choose.  This helps some countries as the press will like some allies, but can obviously hurts or diminish countries for which popular sentiment doesn’t exist.

In the end, what it does is allow for a type of international superiority by enhancing nationalistic feelings.  When only reviewing other countries’ by hand picking policies, self-selecting cultural attributes, last recent controversy, crazy politicians, one can get the opinion of their general greatness over all those “other” people.

Lastly, and in my opinion, the most unfortunate consequence of this misinformation, is our inability to actually analyze international issues.  In between these simplistic news stories real trade-offs on the international stage are being made and constantly simplified.  From a high-level view the policy might appear to be utterly wrong, but in reality  might not be so.  It might simply be the least bad of all the bad options.  & it might really be the policy itself which is wrong.

For real analysis however, historical context, actions taken versus realistic options available, trends, and a number of other data points are required.  Without honest sourced information cost/benefit analysis simply isn’t possible.

For those interested in what some “journalists” are claiming to be “fishy” emails as such, here comes Slate to the rescue.

In an article titled Obama Wants to Kill Your Grandma, author Mike Madden does his best to stump for health care reform by building, then burning several men mad of straw.

The five myths he sees?

Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother

Myth 2: The government — i.e., you — will have to pay for abortions.

Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance.

Myth 4: The government can’t possibly run a healthcare program.

Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care

I consider myself pretty well informed and have yet to hear any of this crap, but lets assume it is being talked about.  Are they truly myths?

Skipping the first one completely as no one who understands rational thought honestly believes that politicians would endanger themselves by pushing for legislation they knew would kill their constituents.  Even with my very low thoughts about most politicians and their ability to critically think, politicians are rational.  & rational politicians can’t get re-elected if they purposefully wish to kill their citizens.

So, if someone reads an email that states, “Democrats want your grandma to die” and believes it, I think the fault lies with them and not the idiotic author.

On Myth #2 (abortions will be paid for): Since most Democratically controlled state government gives money to Planned Parenthood and one of Obama’s first act as President was to remove the executive order President Bush signed disallowing international funds to be used for abortion, this doesn’t seem all that “mythy”…

Please note:  I’m not making any judgment on abortion here, but it seems reasonable to expect prior behavior to continue.

On Myth #3 (the plan will ban private insurance):  I haven’t honestly heard it expressed in this way.  Most people who are against the plan for this reason, haven’t said the plan expressly forbids private health insurance, only that the government would be competing on an even playing field.  First, they wouldn’t pay taxes.  Second, they would have tax payer dollars to finance any potential loses.

Both of these things makes it nigh impossible for a private industry to compete with a public one.  Therefore, it’s predictable that this is the end result of the legislation and not a myth at all.

On Myth #4 (government can’t run health care):  The author uses Medicare & VA health care as reasons it’s possible.  It’s obvious that he is either completely unaware of Medicare’s cost overruns adding an unfunded liability to future generations of 30 trillion more than expected, but he apparently also missed the part when every politician in the country was screaming about how bad VA care is.

It’s also obvious, he’s never been to a VA hospital for care.  Either way, this is an opinion and in no way a myth.

Finally, the last one, Myth #5 (unlike private insurance, the government will ration care):  This myth is well worded for people unwilling to honestly debate health care.  For those willing to look at health care rationally though, the statement includes a false assumption, thereby invalidating it completely.

From mu understanding, no opponents have claimed that private insurance isn’t a rationing system.

Far from it, most of the opponents against government run health care seem to be the only ones willing to tell the truth.

The truth – health care will always be rationed.  Since there will always be an infinite want for health care, but for obvious reasons finite resources, rationing has to exist whether it’s private rationing or public rationing.

So the idea that this is a “myth” is simply another straw man playing with matches.

For those willing to go further, the real question is whether the market is more efficient at doing this job and therefore likely to be able to actually cover more people than the inefficiencies of the government itself.

The author may certainly disagree that the market provides a better solution, but it is not a myth.

It seems that for America, debates on major policy decisions are inversely proportional with rational thought.  For instance, on just two large questions – “Should we use pre-emptive strikes?” or “Should we completely remake health care” the main pieces of the debate has been obfuscation, logical fallacies, and messenger assassination. Which would make complete sense if we were a third world country where facts are hidden.

Since we’re not, it’s odd that for all the well meaning people who honestly believe that this is one of the largest questions of our time, the debate is nothing but a bunch of rhetorical gymnastics.

One last thing - when ever anyone is discussing any particular legislation and its potential future effects one must keep in mind that no one can prove or disprove any future hypothetical wrong.  The best thing we can honestly do when evaluating future predictions is to understand that most of them will be wrong for lots of reasons.

One important principles that should be kept in mind when passing 1200 page legislation aimed at completely overhauling 1/7th of the economy are unintended consequences.

This principle was demonstrated very well recently with a small program known as Cash for Clunkers.  Passed to remove older cars from the road to increase gas mileage of the current fleet, it actually produced several unintended consequences… some good, some bad.

Good:  It was a quick stimulus to the automobile industry

Bad:  It appears that most people traded in a 3rd truck for a new SUV.  It appears that the gas mileage differences are negligible.

Bad:  By taking $1000 cars, which poorer folks or younger kids, could use to get to work and/or school and giving them a value of $3000-$4500, we’ve hurt the poors chances to become mobile.

& many more, some of them we don’t even know or have yet to fully realize.  The reason is obvious, 536 people (Senate, Congress, & the President), no matter how smart, have enough brain power to effectively move the market in any direction they wish for the betterment of any particular group.  I wish we had people this smart, but even Einstein would be unable to effectively predict policy outcomes due to the myriad of people who will use those policies in their independent rational way.

As with all propaganda, calling things lies that you can’t disprove and burning randomly built straw men all make for very nice rhetorical tricks, but rational people should know better.

Mark this as reason #6358, why most media outlets prove my point that “journalist” is becoming a pejorative term.

What happened?

Former President Bill Clinton, and a entourage of former Clinton advisers, went to North Korea in order to seek release of two American journalists who were sentenced to 12 years hard labor for allegedly  crossing the border (here & here)

North Korean dictator, and all around worthless despot, released the two women into the former President’s hands (here).

The President, with the two journalists held a joint press conference as soon as the plane landed (here).

What is the current media speculation?

Well, of course it differs by source.  The left leaning sites tend to applaud the former & current Presidents, while those leaning towards the right wonder what damage this might have done.

This is true, not just of blogs known for their inability to think critically such as The Daily Kos or The Free Republic, but also main stream news outlets.

From the WSJ:

…But the important question going forward is whether Mr. Clinton’s visit was merely the down payment Kim extracted from the Obama Administration for a potentially larger set of American concessions….

& even if it was a private meeting without input from the current administration:

…Yet Mr. Clinton’s visit is a message unto itself. It will bolster Kim’s bid to dissolve the six-party negotiations in favor of the direct talks with the U.S. he has long sought. It will also dismay some in South Korea and Japan, which have their own hostages in North Korea and will wonder why Mr. Clinton couldn’t obtain their release as well.

If it turns out that if a new nuclear negotiation really was begun during Mr. Clinton’s visit, it will also send the signal to North Korea that the worse its behavior, the more it stands to gain from the U.S. And it will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages….

& from former experts, John Bolton in the Washington Post (here):

…Former president Clinton was met at Pyongyang’s airport by notables led by Kim Kye Gwan, the North’s long-time chief nuclear negotiator, an unmistakable symbol of linkage. In Pyongyang’s view, the two reporters are pawns in the larger game of enhancing the regime’s legitimacy and gaining direct access to important U.S. figures…

What do we really know?

Well, it is highly unlikely that the Obama administration and the State Department did not know before hand that this was happening.

The NK dictator himself has been housing the two journalists in a guest house, instead of the prison labor camp where they were sentenced.  Additionally, in order to travel to North Korea, State Department approval is required.

Based on those two facts, it appears that everyone knew what was happening and what the trip was for.

Beyond conjecture though, many news outlets have moved further to suggest that we have somehow weakened our bargaining position with North Korea for extending the visit from the former President.  Additionally, since the first person to great Mr. Clinton was met by  Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator, there must be more to the story.

While it is certainly true that North Korea sees a high level visit from even a former President as a victory,  Kim Kye-gwan was likely there as a fluent English speaker to serve as a translator.

His being there could potentially mean something more, but it’s unlikely it does mean more.  Even if Mr. Clinton knew foreign policy topics would be up for discussion,  there isn’t any reason to believe he would be allowed to actually negotiate any agreement.

It should also be clear that while Kim Jung Ill is a worthless tyrant, he is not irrational and therefore is aware of this as well.

Lastly, we know the US is seeking to negotiate with North Korea very differently than we have in the past.  Our goal for some time now has been to force NK to the negotiating table to sign a treaty which will not be implemented in phases, but an all-or-nothing approach to minimize North Korea’s ability to get something, only to renege later.

North Korea on the other hand, wants diplomatic status in the international community and value even the appearance of high level talks as this leads them in that direction.

To demonstrate just how high the place perception on the value scale, see no further than the current head of the Special Envoy to NK.  Nominated by President Obama,  Stephen Bosworth is maintaining not only his new government job, but also retaining his university position as well.

To Kim Jung Ill, having a part-time diplomat trying to negotiate with his world power status country that is NK, is insulting.

So from all appearances and known facts with minor conjecture, it doesn’t seem as if anything was wrong with Obama’s approach.

North Korea received their high level visit, while the Obama administration can deny any linkage between Clinton & their administration.  Two journalists who were going to face 12 years of potentially fatal hell, have been released to their families.

& this is a potential sign, though more information is needed, that back channel negotiations can start again, to hopefully minimize the nuclear threat NK can pose to the region.

This is how foreign policy works with “terrorist” regimes.  While the US, under all Presidents claim they will never negotiate, we always do, as we have to deal with anyone capable of hurting the global economy and our allies.

If the journalists don’t like this because it runs counter to their current understanding of reality, I suggest they rethink their view of reality rather than put the Obama administration into a preassigned hole of being weak on foreign policy.