Presidents and their recreation

So the buzz on the net this weekend concerned 44 taking his wife to NYC to see a Broadway show. See, he had promised her during the campaign that if he won he would take her. Just like he promised the people who voted for him that if he won he would close Guantanamo Bay and do something with the detainees other than military tribunals and he would bring our boys home from Iraq and vigorously pursue our real enemy, Osama bin laden. Well, he had to keep one campaign promise, didn't he?

Air Force One

Reports are surfacing that a 747 and an F-16 flew around the air space of lower Manhattan this morning. No advance warning of the flyby was given, but afterwards the FAA announced that it was an "approved military photo op" using one of the airliners used as Air Force One. On this occasion 44 was not on board. The White House declined to comment and reaction in the press is sketchy at this time. Needless to say, many NYC residents became apprehensive at the sight of a large commercial airliner flying low near Manhattan. If 44 was aware of the mission, a fair question would be: What was he thinking?
More updates are sure to follow.
Update: last night on the CBS Evening News a very serious looking Katie Couric assured us that 44 was "furious" about the incident. Well, that should settle things. No hard hitting investigations about why the executive branch was caught flat footed by a stupid stunt. And in case you were concerned, the major networks spent half of their programs covering the ongoing swine flu epidemic; 44 announced at a speech he gave at the National Academy of Science that there was "no cause for alarm."
This piece at the NY Times gives a surprising amount of credit to 43 for laying the groundwork for a federal response to infectious diseases like the swine flu. So far, 44 has refrained from given credit to 43, although he has been free to blame 43 from economic and diplomatic problems he faces.

Another one bites the dust

44 made many campaign pledges. Somewhere, someone is keeping score of how many he has abandoned now that he is in office. Let's go over three examples. First, he pledged to close the prison for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He has ordered it closed, but after a study is carried out. In the meantime, the US has a number of detainees it holds at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan, and they aren't going anywhere soon. This observer has tried to perceive a difference between holding war on terror detainees in Afghanistan versus Gitmo and can only see that its easier for journalists and other anti-American activists to travel to Gitmo. They certainly aren't at risk of being killed by terrorists on their way there. This suggests that the Gitmo detainees will eventually be taking a long trip to Afghanistan for the duration.
Second and third, he promised to name China as a manipulator of currency and to re-negotiate NAFTA. This article documents what happened to that promise once 44 was in the White House. Bear in mind, he has done the right thing in flipping on the issue, but does it give people confidence they can believe anything he says?

To the Shores of Tripoli

Drama on the waters off the coast of Africa continued into the weekend as Somali pirates, defeated in their attempt to hijack a US commercial ship, kidnapped the captain and drifted a few hundred yards from US Navy vessels. US Navy and FBI hostage negotiators attempted to talk the pirates into giving up without success. The captain jumped out of the life boat but was hauled back in after shots were fired. There is no word on whether he was hit by gunfire.
Now there is news that a US tugboat towing a barge has been hijacked by another group of pirates.
Meanwhile, 44 gave his weekly radio and internet address. No mention of the hijackings and hostage taking was made. Instead, 44 shilled his recent European trip, during which the leaders of Europe turned their backs on his request for boots on the ground in Afghanistan. To 44, the trip was a success.

I Want to Hold Your Hand

When 43 grabbed the hand of Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2005 you would have thought that he had been caught in the stall of the men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport with him. Here is the response from CBS News at the time. Now fast forward to the 2009 G-20 summit in London and watch as 44 does a 90 degree bow in front of the King of Saudi Arabia. Watch the videos where he does a short head bob to Queen Elizabeth and her consort Prince Philip. Notice any difference? Search CBS News for salacious chuckling over the Stepinfetch routine performed by 44. There is none. Just Old Man Double Standard, he just keep rolling along.

Schadenfreude

Here, here and here.

Special Olympics

44 went to California the other day to attend some town meetings that were being staged to help him promote his response to the recession and to pushing his budget proposals. He also found time to appear on the Tonight School with Jay Leno, something he (and other candidates) had done during the campaign. Mr. Leno provided a friendly forum for 44 to discuss his life in the White House and touch on a few topics of interest, like his work to restore calm to the financial markets. The audience was raucously pro-44 from the get-go, paralleling his rock star status seen during the last year. 44 worked without his familiar teleprompter and things seemed to be going well for him. Mr. Leno was a gracious host and didn't ask the kind of tough question one might hear on Face the Nation or Meet the Press, nor was anyone expecting him too.
When the topic turned to life in the White House and 44's love for basketball, Mr. Leno asked if the White House bowling alley might be sacrificed to put in a basketball court. 44 then offered the news that he had been practicing and bowled a 129, "sort of like Special Olympics or something." Mr. Leno laughed, the audience laughed and the conversation went elsewhere.
There was not the hush that occurs when a speaker commits a verbal sin, and in the case of the unrestrained public, a loud scolding voice from an outraged listener. Imagine, if you will, the kind of response had the guest been 43 and he had referred to his successor as a "colored man." Bear in mind that the term "people of color" is perfectly acceptable to audiences where there is a high proportion of leftward leaning listeners. However by substituting a prepositional phrase for an adjective, the first rendition becomes hate language at worst, a sign of unspeakable offensiveness at best.
One can only guess at the kind of reaction taking place backstage, where 44's staff was no doubt watching on a monitor. They are not employed by 44 to be unmindful of errors and one has to believe they were looking for a way to edit out 44's last remark. If there was any attempt to strong arm the Tonight Show staff into removing the Special Olympics reference, it hasn't been made public. Neither 44 nor Leno seemed to think it worthy of corrective action during the show. However, as recounted by the New York Times, during the return trip to Washington on Air Force One, calls were made. The Times' story appeared on page A10 of the March 20 edition and editorial comments were noticeable by their absence.
Nothing more is likely to happen now that apologies to the Kennedy family (the patron saints of the Special Olympics). After all, if Senator Ted can survive the plunge of his car into the waters of Martha's Vineyard from the Chappaquidick Bridge in 1969, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown and go on to receive a Knighthood of the British Empire, what difficulty is there in forgiving 44 for mocking the abilities of the disabled? It was the kind of WASP country club humor that powerful men share when they think they are alone and unobserved by the prying eyes of community watchdogs. The same watchdogs who would grab onto any verbal miscue by a member of the ruling class and shake like a dead rat until it fell apart in their mouths. 44 had merely to order one of his minions to issue the apology and the matter lay as silent as a mummified Egyptian prince.
On one hand it is refreshing to see 44 show that he is, after all, just a human being. On the other, the outrage of the defenders of the public trust has been revealed again to be relative to the political orientation of the speaker, producing a double standard for conduct that is disturbing.

Of stem cells and other myths

Yesterday 44 appeared in a ceremony to sign an order rescinding the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, in place since 43 stopped government money in 2001. It was the lead story on the CBS Evening News and on many local news shows as well.
As would be predictable from the emotional fervor that holds both sides of the debate, the proponents of funding embryonic stem cell research pulled out all the stops in cheer leading the move. In a non-scientific poll carried out in this blogger's household, the impression created by the coverage of the event was that 43 had, by executive order, blocked stem cell research from taking place in the United States.
The facts are these: embryonic stem cell research has never been banned in the United States. Research using pre-existing cell lines derived from embryonic stem cells has continued to receive federal funding. Nothing has prevented embryonic stem cell research from taking place in other countries or in privately funded labs in the United States. Federal funding using stem cells derived from other sources, like umbilical cord blood, has continued unchanged since 2001.
Why the hoopla? Why the rolling out of the proverbial kid in a wheelchair to herald the change? In part it seems to be a continuation of the desire of many of the previous administration's enemies to dance on its grave. It is also part of an odious tradition carried out by researches to tie their requests for basic science research to feelings of pity for those afflicted with diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes, cystic fibrosis. The reality is that no clinically significant treatments have arisen from stem cell research, so to show a videotape of the actor Michael J. Fox writhing in distress with his Parkinsonian symptoms and imply that a cure was just around the corner had not 43 "banned" research, is disingenuous at best and cynically manipulative to boot.

Health Care "System" abuse

44 is not the first president to advocate reform of the health care "system" in the United States, nor will he be the last. This blogger feels an urge to explore what is meant by the phrase "health care system" as it relates to the practice of medicine. I fear that the term "health care system" (I'll call it HCS hereafter) is roundly abused by nearly all who use the term.


Definitions first: a system is defined in several ways: "A regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole (gravitational, thermodynamic for example)."


Or: "A group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network, especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose."


Finally: "A form of social, economic or political organization or practice."





A HCS, I would argue, should consist of the elements listed in the above definitions. How about this: a group of organizations dedicated to the practice of medicine which form an integrated network to provide those services. There is no distinction in the definition between government and private involvement, nor is there any explicit reference to the financial aspects of such a system. Implicitly a financing mechanism ought to included in the explanation of how the system is sustained.





What other systems are comparable to the HCS and how were they developed and how are they organized? There is, of course, a system of government and laws that were established by the US constitution. Financing of the government is carried out through taxes raised by Congress, as provided in the constitution. The legal system outside of government, meaning the people who work in courts and law offices, contains both public and private elements. Courts, judges, bailiffs and others who work in and around the court system are paid salaries raised by taxes. Attorneys for all other matters, unless they are working pro bono, charge fees based on hours worked. The cost of a legal proceeding to an individual in a civil or criminal matter is born by the person hiring the attorney. The only exception is in criminal matters where the defendant can't afford an attorney and one is appointed. Many lawyers who represent clients seeking financial damages work on a contingency basis: if they win, they share the award. If they lose, they get nothing and do not pass on the costs of arguing the case to the client.



There have no been widespread calls for reform of the legal system, except that it works with extreme deliberation and not with what would be called speed. Lawyers' fees vary considerably from firm to firm and even within a particular firm. An experienced divorce lawyer might charge a client $300 per hour or higher whereas a neophyte or an associate might command half or less for the same unit of work, even though the results are the same. Except for attorneys taking cases on contingency, the end result does not dictate the fee.



Contrast that with people who work in health care. Many work for hourly wages, including physicians who work for institutions. Traditionally, doctors have been paid on a fee for service basis, with room for negotiation. But with the advent of major medical insurance, things started to change. Increasingly, the doctor dealt more with the insurance company rather than directly with the patient. When the US government became involved in a major way as a third party payer, in 1965 with the passage of Medicare by Congress. The doctors of the time signed on gladly, because at first they were guaranteed some payments rather than having to go out and collect on their own from patients. Looking a graph of health care cost inflation versus the overall cost of living, it's easy to see that the two lines were identical until 1965, when the slope of the health care inflation line increased dramatically. Now, 44 years later, the lines are as far apart as ever.



It is the desire to reign in costs that has driven the movement to designate medicine as a system and further to claim that it is "broken." Looking at life expectancy, death rates from major diseases in all age groups, the health of the US has never been better. It is a vast improvement over life in the pre-WWII era, when infectious disease took a heavy toll among the very young and the elderly. One unintended consequence of the inflation of health care costs has been the artificial rise in charges because of discounts demanded by third party payers, both private and government. It works like this: a procedure is billed by a physician or hospital at $100. The third party payer negotiates a rate of 60% of usual charges and pays $60. The next time the provider of services organizes his charges, the price is raised to $120. 60% of that is $72, and so on. Eventually the charge reaches astronomical levels and the individual without insurance is asked to pay the full, non-discounted rate, which leads to an inability to pay bills. People start to forgo health care insurance because the premiums rise higher than the out of pocket costs. A vicious cycle is started.



To the welfare state oriented policy makers and politicians, the "obvious" solution is to turn medical care into a regulated utility like the power company, with rates that are set by commission, not market conditions. Hence their framing of the problem as a "system" that is broken. What is broken is the connection between the real consumer of health care and those who write the checks. True, the consumer pays the bill eventually, but the cost is often disguised as forgoing higher salaries in exchange for the employer buying group rate insurance for employees. By the end of the 20th century, even the deep pockets of employers had been emptied. Continued improvement in medical technology, application of that technology to individuals near the end of life and an insatiable pressure from consumers to be served without any delays with the very best combined to escalate costs. Highly visible spokesmen advocating universal health care coverage pointed to the alleged lower costs of health care in other countries while ignoring the mandatory rationing that delayed or denied care in those countries as well as the very different national demographics that produced higher than expected infant mortality in US urban areas. Comparing that to, for example, a homogeneous population in a north European country made it seem that the US system of financing health care was responsible for the higher mortality numbers.



Over time, by the act of repeating numerous myths in mass media outlets, the proponents of universal health care and a reform of the non-existent "system" for health care set the agenda for what is about to take place in Washington. One of the more pernicious myths that has a life of its own is that US health care is error ridden and causes 100,000 deaths annually because of preventable mistakes. The emphasis is on the alleged preventable nature of these mistakes. The origin of the myth is an observational study published in the venerable NewEngland Journal of Medicine in the mid-1970s. The researchers were attempting to get a handle on the scope of injuries and deaths in hospitals in New York State. They examined all hospital deaths and discharges from a select number of hospitals in the state and asked their investigators, who were all physicians, to flag any deaths that seemed to be related to the medical interventions being performed and any that occurred in patients whose true diagnoses had been delayed either in hospital or before admission. The physicians, being hyper critical of their fellows as is typical when this sort of exercise is carried out, produced a number of deaths deemed "preventable" from the standpoint of there possibly have been earlier intervention in a disease or a procedure carried out that may have caused or hastened a patient's death. This was irrespective of the actual diagnosis. In other words, if a patient was actively dying of an incurable disease and there occurred any complication that hastened the death, for example a catheter infection in a terminal cancer patient, the death was deemed due to medical error. Similarly, if a patient's cancer was diagnosed out of the hospital at any time after the symptoms, however vague, were reported to any physician, that death was counted as a medical error. So the design of the study had a systemic bias in the direction of over-reporting deaths as due to medical error. If a person on the street is asked the meaning of the 100,000 deaths per year statistic, he is likely to believe the deaths all occurred in healthy people who were admitted for elective procedures and died in the hospital. The 100,000 figure was derived by dividing the numbers of deaths per hospital discharge at the particular teaching hospital and multiplying the number by all hospital discharges in New York State. So the bias in hospital selection was added to the bias in case selection. A different study using similar methods but using hospitals in Colorado arrived at an estimate of annual fatalities due to medical errors half that of the first study.

Remember that these were estimates only, using a single teaching hospital in a large urban area. Remember as well that the reviewers were counting fatalities that in many cases would have occurred anyway, albeit a day or two later. In the world of real medicine, the state of Minnesota has been requiring for several years that all hospitals report adverse events, some fatal, some not fatal. The average number of deaths per year has been about 20. This may still be too high, but it is about 1% of the 100,000 nationwide deaths if the numbers are multiplied by 50 states. And what is even more interesting is that in spite of Minnesota hospitals spending large amounts of time and treasure on fixing the problem, the numbers have not gone down, and in some years have increased.

This has gone somewhat far afield from the question of financing HCS, but it serves as a reminder that not all problems as defined by politicians, are problematical. Good statistics on medical errors are important: why, then, do the proponents of universal, government sponsored HCS continue to use statistics that are wildly inaccurate and out of date? A cynic would suggest that the erroneous numbers make a stronger case for changing what in fact does not meet criteria for needing change. The ideologues pushing for socialized medicine need to scare the population into accepting an alternative that will lead to rationing of care and higher overall taxes. So why not engage in some harmless exaggeration? It's worked so far for the climate change lobby in terms of convincing people that the planet is on its death bed, and therefore carbon taxes are the only solution.

44 is letting his policy wonks do the wet work of eliminating the opposition on this one. If enough people have been scared by the shibboleths of medical errors and money wasted by insurance companies, they may well win the day and clamp the manacles of over-regulation on what is now the best health care on the planet, system or not.

On the Road part II

As noted in the New York Times 44 has pledged to get out of Washington frequently. The article details his latest swing, the most recent stop in Arizona to announce a mortgage rescue plan. Whether or not his absences from Washington will draw any fire depends in part on the watchful eyes of his opposition and in part on the never sleeping news media. 43 was criticized for his absences, in particular when he went to his ranch in Crawford, Texas. The presumption was that he was "on vacation" and behaving much as the rest of us do on vacation by doing nothing that resembled the work for which we are paid to do.

This blog will informally track the whereabouts of 44 over the course of his term and produce an apples-to apples comparison with 43 at a later date.

Stimulation and then some

44 is off to Denver to publically sign his economic stimulus bill, which critics have labelled "porkulus" because of the many pet projects funded which seemingly have nothing to do with stimulating the economy, and everything to do with adding to the entitlement burden on taxpayers. As a sidelight, his choice of Denver as the site to sign the bill has some up in arms, recalling campaign promises by 44 to post bills on a website for 5 days before signing them.

On the Road Again

Like Willie Nelson, 44 couldn't wait to get out of the house and off to a campaign stop, even if only for a day. He chose Elkhart, Indiana as the location for a town meeting style exchange with sympathetic citizens, and later referred to the city in his East Room prime time news conference. Elkhart indeed has fallen on hard times, suffering a 15.3% unemployment rate. 44 mentioned that Elkhart is the "RV capital of the US", an ironic distinction given his insistence elsewhere in his press conference remarks that the US had to advance further along in energy conservation measures, particularly when it comes to use of foreign petroleum. Maybe he intends for Elkhart's unemployed to work in factories that produce the fluorescent light bulbs that will be mandatory in a few years. He didn't say.

Nevertheless, it was an impressive display by 44 as he chided his Republican opponents for running the national debt to $1 trillion (that's $1,000,000,000,000) but being critical of his economic stimulus package. To the degree that the economy is in free fall, every day spent arguing about the means to recover is another day longer before things turn around. On the other hand, those brave enough to withstand the heat have to muster an argument that 44's plan will waste time doing exactly the wrong things to pull out of the recession. Among economists there is disagreement that cleaves along predictable fault lines. There is Paul Krugman, who thinks 44's plan doesn't do enough in terms of government spending. He unabashedly favors more, not less, government involvement in health care financing, for example. On the other end of the spectrum, a column in the Wall Street Journal by Nobel laureate Gary Becker presents a different take on the same problem.

So what are non-economists supposed to do? If 44 is the surgeon with a scalpel and the US economy is a sick patient, the obvious thing to do is let him operate. he made that plain in his remarks and in the question and answer period. He, as he so bluntly put it in a conversation with some Republicans, won the election and he gets to be in charge of the toys for the time being.

The press in attendance were respectful, not fawning as much as during the campaign, as if they were starting to wake up from their trance and remember to ask tough questions of the President. A couple of partisans, one from CNN and one from the Huffington Post, asked questions that would have painted 44 into a corner. One was about the prohibition of taking photographs of "flag-draped coffins" returning from Iraq, as if the question hadn't already been rendered moot by the recent reduction in numbers of coffins returning. The deaths that day of four US serviceman in an IED explosion equalled the combat deaths in Iraq in the entire month of January, a fact that 44 could have pointed out, but didn't. He merely deflected the question by saying that the policy was "under review", a polite way of saying "shut up." 43 would have risen and taken the bait, much to the delight of his many critics in the media. The other question was more argumentative, asking if 44 agreed with a proposal by Senator Leahy for a "truth commission" to investigate the administration of 43 for various alleged abuses. The questioner clearly hoped for just such a witch hunt and lynching party, but if he thought 44 was going to buy a ticket, he was sorely disappointed in 44's demurral from the festivities.

The most entertaining moment in the entire news conference when 44, after recognizing Helen Thomas of the AP and answering her question about Afghanistan, he brushed aside her attempt at a followup as if she were a whelp and not a dried up fossil occupying valuable space in the room.

School for scandal

The latest of 44's picks for a high administration post has bitten the dust. Nancy Killefer, the "performance officer" at the White House, has withdrawn her name from consideration after news reports surfaced that she had failed to pay employment taxes on household help, among other indiscretions. Timothy Gaithner managed to be confirmed as Treasury Secretary despite serious omissions of information about income were uncovered. Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle led the pack of tax cheats with his failure to report over $140,000 in income, including a chauffeur driven auto. An old campaign spot has surfaced, depicting Senator Daschle driving his beater Pontiac around the capital city, demonstrating how committed he was to saving money. It is wet-your-pants funny.

All kidding aside, isn't it ironic that left wing pundits and bloggers love to rail about how the affluent members of society need to pay more taxes , and then the agent of change in Washington appoints individuals who aren't even paying what they owe under the current system.

Super Sunday

NBC, as part of its pre-Super Bowl hype, presented a brief interview of 44 by Today show host Matt Lauer. The video clip can be viewed here. Mr. Lauer would have the world believe that he is a serious journalist in the tradition of David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. For anyone still disposed to agree with that claim, watching a fawning Matt Lauer launch a powderpuff pitch at 44 with his opening question ought to dispel that notion.

But perhaps it is unfair to single out Matt Lauer for the practice of suspending journalistic standards that were enforced to the maximum degree during the eight years of the administration of 43. He is not alone in rushing to the front of the stage, desperate for recognition by the rock star president. In fact, he uses the term "rock star" to describe 44, who does nothing to discourage the comparison.

My friends at Powerline have some sharp observations about the lack of interest displayed by 44 in the ice storm devastation which just occurred in the state of Kentucky, particularly as it was given minimal air time compared to the post Hurricane Katrina coverage. It seems to this amateur weather observer that the ice storm, although terrible, didn't match the top to bottom property devastation of Katrina. But the point is well taken that there was widespread loss of power, not insignificant in wintertime, and the Kentucky National Guard had to be mobilized. In fact, the response of the local authorities was appropriate and a concerted effort by the federal government was not necessary, as it should not have been necessary post Katrina were it not for the rank incompetence of the New Orleans and Louisiana governments. That was the real scandal of Katrina, but it was not the one called for by the mass media narrative that blamed 44 for everything, including the storm (global warming, according to Al Gore), the levee failures (the feds should have been proactively fixing them, even though it is the local government's responsibility by law) and the isolation of people at the New Orleans convention center (where they had been ordered to go by the city government).

The media coverage was appropriate for the level of damage from the storm, just as the Katrina coverage was over the top. To paraphrase Rahn Emanuel, 44's chief of staff, a disaster is a great opportunity. In the case of Katrina, it was the opportunity of a lifetime for faux journalists like Anderson (Gloria Vanderbilt's son) Cooper to make their bones at the expense of a sitting president. Had the levees held, there still would have been a heck of a mess to clean, but not the video opportunities to show families who ignored evacuation orders being plucked from rooftops by helicopters dispatched by the very government being maligned by the journalists. There also wouldn't have been the spectacle of the media trying to shoot fish in a barrel by relaying monstrous and false rumors of carnage, rape and starvation at the iconic convention center. When the light of day finally revealed the stories to be uniformly false, it was as if there had never been any reporting of babies being raped by sex offenders. Nothing was said, no retractions or apologies for lying on camera were offered.

43 took it all in stride, trying to be magnanimous and reach out to the legitimate storm victims and not engage in a vigorous defense of his government. Instead, the nay sayers commanded the high ground, and used it to their advantage. If 43 had a flaw (he had many, as do we all) it was not standing tall and outing those who lied about him. When the lies were repeated day after day, they achieved status as truths, part of the mythology about the deficiencies of 43's term.

The opposite of BDS

As foolish as the unrestrained hatred of 43 has been the enthrallment of 44 by his supporters, as chronicled here in the New York Times. The two moods are sides of the same coin, minted during the frustration of the 2000 election results and polished daily by the true believers of the Left. Now one of their own has the reins of government and the rest of us will pay the piper.

Munich redux

44 gave a 17 minute interview last night to Hisham Melhem of Al Arabiya TV last evening. Reaction in the mainstream media was generally muted and mildly positive. The AP story failed to comment on the portion of the interview that dealt with 44's promise to make a major speech in an Islamic nation within the first 100 days of his term.

Q Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.
Q Afghanistan?
THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now. We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.

By my calculation, 44 has until the end of April to fulfill that campaign promise.

Here is another snippet of the interview that opens a window into 44's mind:

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.
And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

And again:

Q They[Zawahiri and bin Laden] seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --
Q I know, I know.
THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

Here 44 is taking the line that the Arab-Israeli conflict is about the Palestinians wanting a place to conduct business and trade and that the jihadists will fail to gain support because they aren't building schools and clinics for the people of Afghanistan. The counter argument to that point of view is that the Arab/Palestinian point of view is a tribalist one that is fighting for the annihilation of Israel and the West because they are infidels and non-believers. 44 is adopting a Kumbaya vision of the world as a place that will operate in harmony if we just sit down peacefully and talk. This is in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary. Bin Laden doesn't want clinics and schools unless they are run by Sharia law. If a westerner shows up, no matter if he is Christian, Jew or atheist, he will sooner or later be killed. If the Palestinians merely wanted to live in peace with the Israelis, they could have been doing so 60 years ago. Instead, they insist through their leaders and their actions that they seek the elimination of the Jewish state so they can continue to live a hand to mouth subsistence existence as they have for thousands of years. Their wealthy Arab "brothers" in the oil producing states understand this, which is why they have never offered the Palestinians even temporary refuge. They will produce money to fund terrorism, but not a dime for economic betterment.

44's approach seems to parallel that of Neville Chamberlain as he negotiated away the freedom of Czechoslovakia with Adolf Hitler in the name of "peace in our time."

Mr.44's War

The war in Iraq has receded from the limelight as the US news media have effectively ended their coverage of events taking place. A search of the New York Times the other day revealed only this item about 44 meeting with some of his advisors about his plan to withdraw US troops within 16 months. Perhaps a latter day Captain Ahab needs to affix a gold sovereign, or whatever coin was used in Moby Dick to the mainmast and award it to the first sharp eyed reader who spots the word "victory" in any document produced by any politician of the Democrat persuasion. To be sure, victory in Iraq must be tempered by the realization that it is an unstable republican for whom democratic institutions are a new experience. There will be violence and turmoil for some time. But the aims of the Bush administration to midwife the birth of a viable alternative to the ruthless dictatorship of Saddam appear to be striking the target. Visions of an apocalyptic retreat from the embassy roof are going to have to be placed on hold, forever, one hopes. Yet there does not appear to be any joy in the writings of the opponents of the war. One senses an air of disappointment, almost, that the surge of troops into the country in 2007, succeeded in turning the tide. CBS News broadcast a report alleging that veterans committed suicide at a much higher rate than the general population, with the obvious inference that the [immoral] war in Iraq had transformed any number of mentally healthy soldiers into depressed, suicidal wrecks. A Columbia journalism professor writing on the Huffington Post went into great detail about how not only suicide, but homicides, sexual abuse and other maladies were all a direct consequence of the war. The CBS methodology attempted to separate suicides by non-veterans and veterans, which on the surface appears to be legitimate until one asks the question: what aged veterans are they talking about. Turns out the age group with the highest suicide rate in the country is males of 65 (29/100,000). Imagine how many of them are veterans? The CBS study implied that the Iraq war was an etiological factor, but really never addressed it from a statistical point of view.





Media reports on the carnage in Iraq are now relegated to the back pages. icasualties.org , a website that keeps track of military and civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, has counted four US military combat deaths so far this month. There have been nine deaths of US forces due to hostile fire or explosions in Afghanistan. Even as allegations of civilian deaths from coalition forces make their way into print, there has been no outpouring of outrage by the aggrieved doves in the US congressional delegations.

As the United States shifts more brigades into Afghanistan, watch what happens to the base of support 44 enjoys now as the body count increases and as more civilians die because terrorists use them as human shields. Finally, look how long it takes 44 to make any progress with the Gitmo detainees, especially if there are no countries willing to take them.

The more things change....

....the more they stay the same. Here's what happened when a reporter from Politico tried to ask 44 a question in the White House press room the other day. Oh well, he's just learning how the system works. Quit being so hard on him.

Blackberry

44 has apparently arrived at a compromise that will allow him to use his beloved Blackberry device to communicate with some on his staff. Some of the technical and security issues are discussed at layperson level here. It is easy to think of some nightmare scenarios arising from a hostile force successfully hacking into his PDA. Whenever someone builds what appears to be an unbreakable code, someone else comes along and breaks it.

This has implications not only for the security of national intelligence, but also for the personal safety of the President. Just imagine the consequences if his wireless communication provided a physical target for terrorists with a SAM.

The other point to consider is the ultimate fate of the communications. By law public access to presidential communications, including e-mails, is guaranteed after a statuatory waiting period. 44 is aware of this, since he repealed a presidential order issued by 43 as an attempt to protect communications involving controversial firings in the Justice Department. This has nothing to do with the future text messaging habits of the First Daughters, that being a matter under control of the First Lady.

Update: here's another article on the same subject.

44 as kitsch

Here is a perspective I never considered but which has compelling truth to it.

Mulligan

44 decided to pre-empt any small minds who might have seized on the inaccurate rendition of the Presidential oath to claim that he wasn't really President by taking the oath again in the presence of a camera and several witnesses. It wasn't clear who was ready to make the challenge, but like a careful attorney, he was leaving no room for an attempt.

There have been a number of lunatic theories advanced about 44 since he announced his candidacy. They have proliferated across the internet as fast as the so-called 9/11 truther websites, a 21st century equivalent to the JFK conspiracy theories. One of the more persistent rumors has been that 44 is not a natural born US citizen, that he was born in Kenya and his birth certificate was faked. The specific website at the link does not assert 44 was born outside the US, it only suggests that he may have been, the innuendo being more effective than an outright declaration in terms of creating doubt. The New York Times indulged in this sort of rumor mongering when it published an article that detailed hints and suspicions that Senator John McCain had a sexual relationship with a female lobbyist. No proof was offered by the article other than the allegation that some of his aides were worried about appearances. It was an effective way to smear the candidate without actually accusing him of wrongdoing, and he responded in anger, which was probably the goal of the writers in the first place. It's not likely the article had an effect on McCain's chances for election, although at the time (February 2008) he was still involved in the primary campaign and neither party had selected a standard bearer. The Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for the nomination before 44 used the Democrat's unique method of selecting delegates to sew up the nomination.

Party's Over

44 reported for his first full day of work and made some courtesy calls to middle eastern leaders as well as made good on one campaign promise: freezing any last minute changes in Federal regulations made by the outgoing administration and halting current prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees in anticipation of issuing an order to begin (somehow) to close the facility. What will happen to the still dangerous inmates is, of course, a matter of conjecture.

One of the more bizarre (and there were many choices) aspects of the inauguration was the creation of a myspace page by the actor Ashton Kutcher expressly for the purpose of making a public pledge to serve the nation in a manner chosen by the individual. He begins the piece by explaining how as a teenager he thought he might join the military, but changed his mind because he "might be commanded to take the life of another." His forthright explanation of his cowardice disguised as pacifism is commendable. One wonders how Bruce Willis, ex-husband of Kutcher's wife Demi Moore would react to hearing this admission. One caution: if you watch the video on the site, be sure you don't have a mouthful of liquid lest you spray the contents all over your computer screen. People with bladder control issues are urged to either void first or else change into a dry adult diaper. Here's an interesting "transcript" from Iowahawk of the video. Read at your own risk.

Inauguration Day

The mantle of power has shifted. 43 left the ceremony by helicopter a half hour ahead of schedule, much to the delight of the NY Times live-blogger Katherine Seelye, who reported that the crowd responded with a chant usually heard at sporting events at the conclusion to a one sided contest. No doubt she was only being thorough to include that factoid in her report. 43 has the lowest approval rating since 33 left office in 1953, so the emotion of the crowd was understandable, even if ill-mannered and boorish.



44 attempted to rise above the partisanship of the crowd and the reporters by delivering a long awaited inaugural address that would set a course for his administration. 44 has long been known for his rhetorical and writing skills, along with being a student of history. His sense of developing a motif for his presidency was evident from the moment he chose to announce his candidacy on the steps of the capitol in Springfield, Illinois, continuing through the long campaign until he rode the rails from Philadelphia to Washington DC the weekend before his inauguration.



When it came time to deliver his speech, there was little 16 there, and even less 35. 16's two inaugural speeches were framed by the cataclysm of the Civil War and didn't mention the economy of the country except as it related to the issue of slavery. 35 cast down a gauntlet in front of the Soviet bloc while at the same time offering an olive branch to avert mutual destruction by nuclear war. In spite of the fact that the previous administration had presided over not one, but three recessions, 35 made no mention of economic distress. Whether or not that played a role in the election squeaker that 35 won, I don't know. As James Carville famously said during the campaign of 1990 "It's the economy, stupid."



44 was able to garner the nomination of his party by running against the war in Iraq, a popular stance among the Democrats, if not the entire country. The issue of the war diminished as the campaign progressed as the fruits of "The Surge" finally produced a reduction in sectarian violence and elements of Al-Qaeda were eliminated from Iraq by the Iraqis as well as US troops. The financial crisis that hit the US economy in the middle of the election campaign and effectively sank the hopes of the Republicans, who were guilty by association in the minds of the voting public, was a boon to 44 and delivered the winning margin. Once again Mr. Carville's dictum was proven correct.



The speech was not the best one ever given by 44. There were a couple of dissonances that were hard to digest. In an effort to be inclusive, he mentioned Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and non-believers--but not Buddhists? How about the Wiccans and Druids? He'll be getting a letter from the Ba'hai anti-defamation league next week. In another paragraph he spliced together all the problems he faces and outlined the steps needed to surmount them. In this, his speech was similar to the first inaugural of 42, albeit with darker war clouds and economic hardship at the core.



He tossed a bone to the netroots who bankrolled his election with contributions concealed by fraudulent credit card identities in two paragraphs: making a veiled reference to the Patriot Act, the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and the use of waterboarding he declared: "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That was all well and good, but wouldn't it have been simpler to state directly his intention to repeal the law and close the base, if those were his intentions? Only if he doesn't plan to do those things. Just as the close of the war in Iraq has removed the urgency of ending it, so also does the fact that the abominations he criticizes were successful in preventing new terror attacks make it safer for him to close Gitmo, while quietly transferring the terrorists to a different facility.



The speech was not a smackdown of the previous administration in a direct sense. Like all good leaders, 44 implied that there had been malpractice afoot, but nothing which was actionable in the present administration. Like the doctor who tells the patient before him that he arrived for treatment at the last possible moment, he offered a chance for cure, even though the illness is grave. He offered a critique of capitalism and the harshness of its down cycles, much as 32 did in his first inaugural address, chastising the moneychangers for their "stubbornness" and "incompetence." 44 departs from 32's script in ignoring rural/agricultural America in favor of lumping a host of problems together that he plans to solve.

The speech sounds different from the way it reads, given 44's considerable skill as an orator, at least when he has a teleprompter in front of him. Contrast that with the nail screeching reading of the inaugural poem. It was as forgettable as it was awful. Enough said.

What can one say about a nation of reporters who have collectively willed one man into office and then pretend to write objectively about him? Only that they fell over each other trying to pile superlatives higher than the once mighty World Trade Center Twin Towers, and then at the end of each piece cautioned the viewer or reader not to have too many great expectations after all. It was a day of firsts, none the least being the complete surrender of the press to the will of a politician. A fawning K. Couric interviewed 44 and the toughest question she could ask was how his smoking cessation was going. His non-response to her nagging answered the question and she failed to call him out for being evasive. This, I'm afraid, is what will pass for journalism in the next eight years. I say eight years with confidence because the only way 44 can fail to be re-elected is to be found in bed with an underage boy. Barring that, this blog will continue for another 1461 days.

Loose lips sink ships

The vice president-elect may need to be issued a second muzzle, given this.

Prologue II

It was another day of celebration in the capital city, chronicled by CNN and others. The air was less frigid than the day before and celebrants on the mall provided enthusiastic interviews to Anderson Cooper, who served as a roving reporter while his colleagues remained glued to their director's chairs elsewhere. Among those, Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O'Brien vied for the honor of who could deliver the most glowing and optimistic forecast for the coming administration. To be sure, Ms. O'Brien was careful to remind the audience that progress in America would continue to be a non-linear phenomenon, and in all liklihood it was going to take years to reverse the problems [created by 43 and his party].

Don't just take my word for it. Over at Powerline they have had their ears on the rail, listening for the noise of the media train rumbling into the city here.

All the while, 44 and an entourage of well wishers listened to a concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial. The artists were from all musical brands: Garth Brooks, Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi were listed as participating. Unfortunately, the performance was being taped by HBO for viewing later by subscribers to their premium channel and not audible to the masses glued to the CNN feed. Wolf Blitzer on several occasions pointed this out in his most apologetic voice. Apparently change comes slowly to the world when it comes to making profits in the music and entertainment industry.

Prologue

43 has been driven from the White House and is spending the weekend at the Camp David retreat before returning to Texas where he will spend the balance of days in obscurity, except when a reporter feels the urge to explain the shortcomings of 44's administration by pointing out just how terrible things were in the previous eight years. Beyond that, he will be permitted to work on his memoirs, ride his mountain bike and clear brush on his ranch.
The "historic" arrival of 44 in Washington occurred yesterday by special Amtrak train, taking eight hours to traverse the distance from Philidelphia to Washington. That is slower than Lance Armstrong could do with the Tour de France peleton, but not bad for a pubicly subsidized train. The entire event was covered by an intrepid CNN crew, seated outside in the freezing cold while the fortunate media types invited to ride the train were comfortably munching snacks and feeling good about the whole affair. Poor David Gergen, the token conservative on the panel, was sniffing every five seconds from an upper respiratory infection. No one offered him a facial tissue during the time I watched. The other panel members were Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Soledad O'Brien and Donna Brazille. Ms. Brazille is a current DNC bigwig and former Clinton operative. Her adversarial pedigree perhaps excuses her absolute failure to demonstrate an attitude remotely objective when it comes to the adminstration of President 44. What I couldn't figure out was why that exuberance caused her to abandon any shreds of common sense when it came to fantasizing about some of the activities to be undertaken by 44. She opined that he would take the opportunity to mingle with the citizenry of Washington in coming months, perhaps meandering over to a nearby farmers' market to buy green peppers from the vendors. She described Washington in such glowing terms that for a moment I forgot that its 2007 murder rate of 31/100,000 residents was fifth from the top of large US cities. I suspect the Secret Service might have an different opinion from Ms. Brazille regarding the wisdom of 44 walking the streets of Washington without a contingent of well-armed guards. Recall that in 1981, a deranged young man named John Hinckley was able to seriously wound President 40 and several others in front of a hotel in Washington. Despite having one of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation (although recently overturned) Washington is still a very dangerous city.
The tenor of the conversation in the group resonated with the general feelings extant in the press at large that the new administration will, just by being there, transform many of the challenges faced by the United States. Granted, a good leader can, by charismatic appeal alone, change the behavior of the citizenry and motivate them to perform at levels unobtainable by a less skilled leader. The great appeal of a leader like President 40 has been attributed to this principle. On the other hand, if the policies of a leader result in poor outcomes for a majority of the citizenry, no amount of charisma can sustain his position of influence and maintain high popularity levels. 44 begins his term with a high popularity rating in all polls conducted. One would expect that the pundits and publishers who supported his candidacy from the beginning will attempt to excuse failures on the basis of the previous administration's incompetence. Certainly those in attendance at the rooftop colliquy were of that mind. Ms. Brazille, the most highly partisan of them, can be expected to maintain her allegiance despite any evidence to the contrary. As for the rest of them, since the role of the mass media has evolved into one that amplifies any and all missteps by those in power, they will have no choice in the coming years but to climb out of the tank where they have resided as forecasters of the arrival of the chosen one, and begin to take him apart, piece by piece, until what remains will be fertilizer for historians.