And it goes on and on, with the press seeking advice as to how they can knock down "disinformation," with special emphasis on Sarah Palin's "death panels" remark.

If anyone has asked about the White House's own misinformation -- why it continues to insist its plan will reduce the deficit, when the CBO says it will at least add it and will possibly explode it -- I haven't heard it.

Incidentally, let me mention something about Sarah Palin's remark. It's a two-way remark, operating at two different levels:

1) It's a catchy way to describe Obama's plan to make some room in his bloated budgets for trillions in new spending by simply cutting Medicare and Medicaid spending by fiat, as supposedly "wasteful." One may (if one is prissy) object to the heated nature of the phrase, but it's a perfectly acceptable bit of political neologizing for a point widely conceded, including by liberals, as true.

2) It could conjure images of federally-coerced mass euthanasias.

Now, the thing is, the media is reacting as if 1) Sarah Palin obviously meant meaning Two, and 2) even if she didn't mean that, it's just the worst thing in the world to even use words that could suggest that.

This is bullshit. The Democrats, from 2001 until 2008, have played with two-way meanings in demanding inquiries into what Bush knew of 9/11, counting on the fact that this would be taken by some as an endorsement of Trutherism.

And "he lied us into war" was obviously heated, overstated, and deliberately phrased to suggest a 9/11 plot to gin up support for the Iraq War.

And the media did not scold Democrats for deliberately choosing their words to play both ways: to play to more reasonably-minded voters, suggesting all that was sought was an investigation into how the intelligence community reacted in the months before 9/11; and to play also to the absolute paranoid nutter fringe who believed Bush planned 9/11.

Not a single word of scolding for their deliberate, poll-tested formulation that would play to both crowds. No demands that they make it clear they absolutely disown and disavow the latter interpretation. No media hectoring that they choose their words with more precision, and use less heated rhetoric, to tamp down Truther lunacy.

And of course the rules are always different for a Republican, especially a Republican despised by the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself). Now the rule is that she has to disown a catchy formulation for fear she's providing succor and moral support to people who fear a Nazi-style mass-euthanasia of impure undesirables.

Well, to hell with the MSM. If I had seen them patrolling Democrats' soft endorsements of Trutherism so vigorously, I would say they are being consistent and have earned the right to act as referees, calling low-blows and rabbit-punches.

But they haven't. They consistently play the Democrats' game in pushing the Democrats' message to both the center and the far left, making sure the right message plays for the right crowd, never making it into a wedge issue and demanding the Democrats choose the center or far left. (Compare to the media's interest in Birtherism -- here they want to press the point, because they want Republicans on record as either alienating those who don't buy the conspiracy theory or alienating those who do. But Democrats are always permitted to have their cake and eat it too.)

But I'm supposed to be all upset because Sarah Palin chose a dramatic term to describe the Obama plan's (genuine) central pillar of paying for medical insurance for the uncovered poor by taking it from the currently-covered seniors?

No. I decline to do so.

If Sarah Palin's message plays two ways: Tough shit, MSM. You should have taken notice of two-way messaging earlier.

The MSM only seems interested in florid partisan beliefs when they can be used against the right. When florid paranoias run rampant on the left, they studiously ignore them.

The right's more energetic supporters they call "crazies."

The left's more paranoid headcases they call "fellow Democrats" and "esteemed fellow citizens who have every right to be suspicious."

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 731 words, total size 4 kb.

Before my misinformation gets any further out there:

Hi all,

First time poster -- just wanted to correct something that Ace had mentioned yesterday, and which Drew follows up on here: Patent term in the US is normally 20 years from filing, and can be adjusted outwards due to delays in the prosecution of the patent. The actual 'effective' term of drug patent seems less because Pharma has to file the patent soon after making the invention (or face the possiblity of losing patent rights), but they are unable to market the drug until the FDA type approvals are completed. So the amount of 'enforceable patent time' on a drug patent varies on a case by case basis, based upon the filing time and the FDA approval process, but isn't necessarly capped at 7 years.

I think the comment by BHO yesterday must be a random aside, because as US patent attorney 1) I haven't heard this discussed in any of the Patent Refrom bills, and 2) it would be a real mess to implement....

Posted by: bsclark12

He's right.

I don't know why "7 years" got lodged into my head. Apologies. I think maybe that might have been a claim about the how little time some drug-makers get the benefit of their patent, i.e., after FDA approval and getting it marketed, but before your patent runs out, but as I was wrong in the first place I don't really want to speculate further.

Posted by: Ace at 08:08 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Formerly of Hot Air, now a macher in the Texas GOP.

I had passed along a thought mentioned by DrewM., hoping he could pass it up the GOP food chain. It's not completely relevant, but the idea was this:

Please pass this up the foodchain. A coblogger wrote it. But maybe
he's not the author of it.

Health care in the US is covered by three main systems-- Medicare,
medicaid, and private insurance.

two of these systems are bankrupt, and will be unable to make payments
beyond 2032 (insert correct date here, I don't know).

the third is solvent, and can make all of its payments for the
foreseeable future.

Barack Obama's plan is to take the one system meeting its obligations
and fold it into the two systems that are bankrupt.

etc.

Anyway, here's where you guys come in. He wrote back (and gave permission to quote him):

You know, it's been said before but your commenters may be the smartest commenters in the 'sphere. That's a sharp insight and it's so simple the media might actually run it whole, so that it gets through to the public. I do a fair amount of media hits in this job, and I'm going to work that into my repertoire. I'll also pass it around here and to the various elected shops.

He's also going to try to work in DrewM.'s point on a radio show later this afternoon:

By the way, I just found out I'll have a radio hit on a big Dallas station during the first half of the 2 pm hour (that's central time, so 3 where you are). The station is KRLD, so if you or the morons want to listen live here's the link-- http://www.krld.com/. I'll be debating some lib about ObamaCare, so the three systems insight is likely to come up. Maybe right off the top, depending on how the host tosses to me.

Once you're at the station's link you have to click on the Listen Live link, which brings up a CBS Radio player that's kind of annoying. I don't see a way to direct link the stream, unfortunately.

So, he says you may be the smartest commenters in the sphere, and he's loving DrewM.'s idea.

Hah: An Idea So Moronic It's Kind of Clever: Honestly, any excuse to dress up in Logan's Run costumes is a good one as far as I'm concerned.

Has anyone thought of wearing "Logan's Run" outfits to town halls? Complete with 'lil flashy things on their palms?

...Cuz that's "government health care" that I want to be a part of...

Regards,

Reverend Darkness

Maybe I can get Tricorner Tea Party Babe to dress up in one of Jenny Agutter's plunging-neckline diaphanous space-dresses.

She will have no idea what the hell I'm even talking about, of course.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:48 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

Underwater with that group for first time: 45% support, 48% oppose. He's lost 19 points net (decreased support, increased opposition) this month.

Independent voters are even less impressed with Obama's handling of the economy: while Obama's overall rating on the economy is 52% approve/ 42% disapprove, with Independents in New Jersey it is reversed: 51% disapprove while 42% approve.

A small plurality of Independents (37%) think Obama's policies have helped the economy thus far (31% think they've hurt) but, interestingly, when asked to determine whether they believe the President's policies will help or hurt the economy "looking ahead," Independents tip slightly against Obama: 42% say his policies will hurt the economy, 39% say they will help.

Time was, back when some of you were knee-high to a June-bug, New Jersey was a swing state. It's not anymore, of course. It's nearly as liberal as Massachusetts.

This may or may not mean that Obama is about to lose true independents (those who don't lean either way). One could guess that many of NJ's independents are more liberal than the typical independent; on the other hand, it could be that NJ's independents are actually kinda conservative on most issues, but reject the Republican brand due to the national GOP stand on social issues. (NJ is, as many northeast states are, very socially liberal.) In which case, this would merely be another example of natural-but-reluctant Republicans turning against him.

Either way, it's not good for Obama. I very much doubt New Jersey will be in play on the national level anytime soon, but this could well be a weather-vane flip telling us that Obama's national support among independents is about to not only drop again, but drop significantly.

If that's the case, he's about to lose another 4% of his approval rating.

I would like to thank the NJ GOP for its splendid AstroTurfing operation, AstroTurfing several millions of voters who are now pretending to be disatisfied with Obama's performance.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

NJ In Play? While NJ is trending blue, YRM makes the case that it's not so far blue that it's lost.

NJ is in play if Obama ends up like Jimmy Carter in my opinion, we've actually put up fights there the last 16 years that it's become a solid blue state:

1992- Clinton takes it from Bush by 3 points and it's considered to this day by many to have been one of the states that Perot may have stolen from Bush

1996- Clinton easily wins NJ but w/ 53% of the vote, w/ Perot taking a good 8-9% of the vote

2000- Gore easily wins NJ w/ 56-57% of the vote

2004- Kerry wins NJ w/ only 53% of the vote w/ Bush putting up an impressive showing

2008- Obama easily wins NJ w/ 57% of the vote

i think we can make some gains in the state as the giovernor's race heats up w/ a unpopular democrat incumbent in Corzine and the recent take down of various corrupt political factions there that benefited dems

I guess it's not full-on liberal, but it does seem to have a solid 51% liberal majority.

Posted by: Ace at 07:40 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 3 kb.

Just two days ago the pharmaceutical industry thought they cut a deal with Obama to have to fork over "only" $80 billion in cost savings. In return they would be left alone and even toss in $150 million in commercials supporting Obamacare.

Well, Obama wants to alter the terms of the deal and the drug makers can only pray he doesn't alter it too much.

"In terms of savings for you as a Medicare recipient," President Obama told a town hall attendee yesterday, "the biggest (change) is on prescription drugs, because the prescription drug companies have already said that they would be willing to put up $80 billion in rebates for prescription drugs as part of a health care reform package."

Then the president said, "Now, we may be able to get even more than that.”

...Former House Energy and Commerce chairman Bill Tauzin, R-La., now the head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said his industry had committed a specific amount of money and part of the deal was Democrats would refrain from seeking more than $80 billion.

That would preclude, for instance, a campaign pledge by then-Sen. Obama to re-negotiate the cost of pharmaceuticals through the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

"$80 billion is the max, no more or less," Tauzin said to the New York Times. "Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

In addition to maybe getting more than the agreed to $80 billion, Obama said yesterday he'd like to cut the number of years a drug company can protect its drugs through patents from the current 7 20*.

in fact, one of the things I want to do is to speed up generics getting introduced to the marketplace, because right now drug companies -- (applause) -- right now drug companies are fighting so that they can keep essentially their patents on their brand-name drugs a lot longer. And if we can make those patents a little bit shorter, generics get on the market sooner, ultimately you as consumers will save money.

People think industry groups and other lobbies pay money to buy things and they do sometimes but an awful lot of money is spent by groups simply trying to avoid having the government rip them off.

Why exactly the drug makers thought they could buy Obama off for $150 million is beyond me. Sure one would have thought the deal would have lasted more than a day or two but no one could have seriously thought the Democrats would feel bound to this in a year or three or five or whenever the money started running short for ObamaCare.

Free tip for industry groups: Just because the guy says he likes you and will kill you last, doesn't mean he will.

*Based on some comments, 7 years is not the right number and it may not be all that easy for Obama to change to terms of the patents. That said, the thrust of the post still stands...PhARMA thought they had a solid deal with Obama but Obama still thinks there's room to tinker with the terms.

Below the fold...a dramatization of the Obama/Pharma relationship. Ironically, it comes from the comments courtesy of "Obama" (aka Z Ryan). more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:35 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Between Cash for Clunkers and now $200 for every child on welfare in NY we must be living in flush economic times. I mean, we're just handing money out left and right but mostly left, IYKWIMAITYD.

"It's free money!" said Alecia Rumph, 26, who waited in a Morris Park, Bronx, line 300 people deep for the cash to buy uniforms and book bags for her two kids.

"Thank God for Obama. He's looking out for us."

Thousands of people lined up at banks and check-cashing shops to withdraw the cash that magically appeared on their electronic benefit cards.

Some rushed out because of rumors the money would vanish by the end of the day.

"Rumors, there's always rumors," said Teresa Medina, who waited four hours at a Pay-O-Matic in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, to get $600 for her three teenagers - just in case they were true.

The no-strings-attached money went to families receiving food stamps or welfare.

Every child between 3 and 17 was eligible for $200, which worked out to 813,845 kids across the state - including 498,866 in the city.

The total bill came to $175 million dollars, $35 million in donations from George Soros and the rest from the so-called "stimulus" plan.

Yes, I know it's cold hearted to begrudge poor people a couple of hundred bucks but despite what the woman quoted in the story says, there is no such thing as free money. One way or another that money is coming from somewhere and out of someone else's pocket. Those people, you know the ones who work and pay taxes (the forgotten man, if you will) just don't count or something.

It must be nice being a Democrat, not only do you flat out buy votes but you use other people's money to do it.

It's almost like Obama meant it when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around".

Posted by: DrewM at 06:35 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

More than a donor; a critical cog in Obama's campaign machine.

"I don't want people to get the idea I'm calling on nothing but plants!" Chuckle chuckle chuckle.

Why would we possibly get that idea? That's crazy-talk, that's what that is.

Grassroots Activism

Joo keep using that word. I dunna think it means what you think it means.

Cash-Money Activism: Totally organic grassroots support.

And like all organic products, it's much more expensive than the regular kind.

Thanks to jenjhis.

Magic Bus: Isn't it great that Obama's supporters can spontaneously organically intuit when a "grassroots bus" is coming to pick them up for a town hall?

Thanks to Tinian.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:53 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 2 kb.

The Department of Homeland Security had no particular groups or individuals under investigation and used no collected data on "right-wing extremists" threatening national security to create the report. Rather, they just read news articles from the main stream media like MSNBC and CNN (and sometimes not-so-mainstream media like the "Vernon County Broadcaster"). However, by far the most frequent source for the report was articles and blog posts from the Southern Poverty Law Center, according to a FOIA response obtained by Americans for Limited Government.

The response is here (PDF). According to DHS:

[W]e have identified 217 pages of material responsive to your request [for all data, studies, reports or other documents used or reviewed to draft the report]. Of those pages, I have determined that all 217 pages are releasable in their entirety, all of which are publicly available...As the responsive documents are publicly available, we have not enclosed hard copies with this response. We are providing the following website links for the 217 pages of publicly available responsive material.

The list does not have functioning hyperlinks, but ALG has helpfully provided a summary table of them here (PDF).

I was particularly struck by the inclusion of articles like this one from the NY Times which recounts the increase in gun sales just days after a particularly gun-unfriendly president was elected. No mention is made in the article, so far as I can tell, about "right-wing extremism." DHS relied on several similar articles.

From the list, it looks like they had some interns google articles and grab a bunch from the SLPC. Then somebody wrote up a hit-job on the Right because...well, we don't know who wrote it or who directed that it be created or when. That information was not in the FOIA disclosure.

At least we know why the report was so short (only ten pages) and unprofessional (no citations to sources). It took no specialized knowledge or skill to create. Just an internet connection and a desire to brand the Right as fringe and dangerous. Remember that we might not even know about the report if members of local law enforcement hadn't leaked it. And it was conveniently timed to coincide with the Tea Parties in April.

One other thing I didn't find when I scanned through the list, however, was anything which would lead to the conclusion of the DHS report that veterans face "significant challenges reintegrating into their communities" which could lead them to become "terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks".

The reports and blog posts listed in the release on extremists in the military come from the SPLC which found that members of white supremacy groups and other extremist groups were attempting to join the military to get weapons training. In other words, these sources are about people who are extremists first and then joined the military--not the conclusion of DHS that veterans are prone to transforming into "terrorists" after service.

So if DHS didn't get that sweeping conclusion in the news articles and SPLC posts it relied on to create the report, where did it get it? Did DHS leave something out of this FOIA release? Or did it just make the conclusions up out of whole cloth?

Thanks to the Very Nice Deb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:25 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:13 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Well genghis is still out in the field so I'll put up the ONT. Otherwise Gabe will do it and we all know what that means - use of correct grammar, homework assignments, and required readings on 19th century Law of the Sea. So just be thankful I got here first.

Here are a few items for your enjoyment:

Item #1: Interesting and Eerie Abandoned Places Around the World
'Urban exploring' is where people explore abandoned buildings and facilities and document what they find. Mostly it's taking picture and leaving everything as is. I've had an interest in this for a couple years and it turns out that genghis does as well. When I was in Japan a few months ago I even dragged the GF to Yashima where there is an abandoned resort on top of a mountain. If there's interest maybe I'll post the pictures sometime.

Item #2: How To Make The Perfect French Fries
These look pretty damn good, but they forgot the one step that might push the fries over into perfection: In step 3 be sure and wrap each fry in bacon before dipping it into the oil.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:51 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.