Another Terribly Misleading, and Ill-Informed Column From the Denver Post

David Hirsanyi yesterday tells the Denver Post's readers some extraordinary things with respect to the Sarah Palin Phenomenon. Let's break it down.

He starts with a far overdone point, about stereotpyes:

These days, where you fall on the crucial issue of Sarah Palin tells the rest of us all we need to know about your character. You're either a:

A) Scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist, or a

B) Radical, tea-bag-loving simpleton.

Yes, you are. To some of the simpletons in the media, perhaps, who have to find false equivalency and oversimplification in everything; or to those on the extremes of both parties (which in the case of the Right would now probably be a majority of that party today). But to anybody else, this is an asinine assesment.
 
Plenty of people simply believe, correctly, that Palin is phenomenally gifted when it comes to spin and rhetoric (hence perhaps why some of her appeal to much of this same far right) but extemely lacking when it comes to substantive understanding, knowledge, or objective insight.
 
Many others, perhaps more versed in the facts than one should be today in order to be able to comfortably read columns such as those by Hirsanyi without wanting to vomit, are also aware that almost everthing that Palin stated in the first half year since she burst on the scene publicy in August of 2008 (and much of what she has stated since) has been misleading, or manipulative.
\
None of this has anything to do with scum sucking, or radical tea bagging. 
 
The media is often accused of being unfair to Palin. And it is true that the media does not give Palin a pass on virtually everthing, as it does many others on the far right -- afraid of being branded as "liberal."  (It does so for two reasons. One -- the profound level of ignorance that Palin exhibited, and two, the disdan and contempt for a media simply doing its job -- albeit marginally at that -- that Palin routinely exhibited, as if in her world a media exists solely to provide the information that one wants, in the manner that one wants it provided.  Exactly the opposite of what a media's job in a free society is, and exactly what the media's job in an authoritarian society is.)
 
But if the media really focused on the many misleading statements by Palin, and the facts, as it should, and should have, back in 2008, there would be far less ignorance when it came to Palin than there is.
 
For example, Hirsanyi is correct to insinuate that Palin critics are far overplaying the significance of the fact that a little over half of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of her, and even more don't see her as qualified for the presidency. But many of those who do have a favorable opinion of Palin base this upon her rhetoric that they have heard, rather than the actual facts underlying that rhetoric, which have not been so revealed. Facts which more accurately paint her as the highly authoritarian, intensely hypocritical, extremely, if not purposefully manipulative, and deeply misinformed figure, rather than some rugged individualist thinker that she and her supporters like to portray her as.
 
Hirsanyi clearly must also feel like Palin's personal protector, because here is what he has to say about Levi Jonhston, the father to Palin's grandchild:

[He is] a man whose only discernible talent is the possession of operational sperm and the ability to humiliate the former vice presidential nominee.

Johnston is not writing columns in the Denver Post, holding himself out as some sort of informed voice.  So why is Hirsanyi attacking him? Because people love to attack people that we perceive as "dumber" than us.
 
It is a disgusting trait when those being attacked are not holding themselves out as experts or as an authority, or telling other people what to think, or, such as in Hirsayni's case, writing ignorant, and manipulative columns in one of the nation's largest newspapers.
 
Johnston is still largely a kid, and this is just a gratuitous shot at an easy target.  But why does Hirsanyi feel compelled to rag on the guy? 
 
Hirsanyi then next, sarcastically asks:

And how could a major magazine like Newsweek be expected to use a cover photo of Palin campaigning or spending time with her Down syndrome child when editors could simply borrow a shot of the 45-year-old mother of five decked out in her exercise tights — nudge nudge, wink wink — from a Runners World piece and slap the headline "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?" onto it?

Here is the answer Hirsayni:  Because Newweek is not Palin's propaganda tool of the fundamenta. wing of the Republican Party.  Bad as it is, it is a news magazine, and it still fits that purpose. If it was the former (much like Fox is today, teaching people like Hirsanyi what media that "says what they want to hear, how they want to hear it" sounds like, and convincing them it is news), then perhaps a nice cover phot of Palin spending time with her Down syndrome child might be a better shot.

Was Palin decked out in ":exercise tights" a proper picture for the front page? We don't know. We do know that Palin has used her looks to her advantage. This is not necessarily wrong. But then it should not necessarily make it wrong for Newsweek to run this otherwise clearly public picture. As for the somewhat slanted Newsweek title, that is another story.  (But for those do see Palin as a problem, whether for the Republican Party, or for Democrats (sadly, Democrats are not yet hip to that possibility), or for America, it is solved by covering the facts. Palin is not a cause of rampant ignorance; along with Glenn Beck, she  is a profound reflection of it.)

Hirsayni also contends:

Who knows what is to become of Palin? Today, though, there is little doubt the left is using her to create ugly stereotypes and attack limited-government types across the country.

Hmmm. This is somewhat of a limited government blog. And this blog will make the point (and back it up with more facts than could be fit into 50,000 of the latest misleading sound bite headlines or "populist" figures spins) that Sarah Palin is the poster child for ignorance. So is she being used here to attack limited goverment types across the country?

The fact of the matter is that many "Limited government" types support increased authoritarianism, and in many ways increased government power -- in almost all respects but the one or two where it makes the most sense for a government to exercise some role. That is, those areas which we must share collectively, like the environment. Or where it makes more sense to handle collectively, and where this creates more freedom than it impinges upon. Such as in food safety and accuracy of representation. (It doesn't pay on on invidivual basis, for example, to go out and test all the food one buys,  nor does it years after the fact to sue after one has lost a family member to excess carcinogen induced cancer, years after billions have been made,and reorganized under other corporate entities).

Figures like Palin, and Glenn Beck, only further promote and feed into this ignorance.  And the less the media does its job helping to objecitvely inform the public,and illuminate wildly misleading rhetoric such as Palin and Beck's, the more this ignorance will be fed, rather than checked.

As an example of just how sad the state of affairs today has become, consider that Beck himself is actually a "part of" that very same "media."  Of course, consider the fact that it is the part of the "media" that operates the way Palin, and it appears Hirsanyi, want it to operate, as noted above. That is, telling them exactly what they want to hear, and how they want to hear it; again exactly the opposite of its function in a free democracy.

As another example of the sad state of affairs, consider that such an ignorant, misinformed piece by Hirsanyi in the Denver Post is what passes for "balance" today.

And it is part of exactly what some on the rtight (usually the far right) did in 2004. Create a shield of insulation from the need to actually look at the facts. Thus anything substantive said against Bush in 2004 was simply because "one hated Bush." (Sadly, also played into by some on the left proudly proclaiming their hatred of Bush, instead of merely focusing on effectively communicating, rather than takin for granted, why). And now anything which makes an effective case against Palin, can be dismissed by Hirsanyi and his clones, ludicrously, as a means simply to create ugly stereotypes and attack limited government types across the country.

The real uglines is ignorance. And Palin, as non ugly as she may otherwise be, as earnest as she may be, and as admirable as she may be, as Hirsanyi also points out, for her undoubted "charisma and her roots," has uttered a profoundly high number of ignorant and often highly manipulative statements passed off as populist "straight talk." Palin has a right to speak her mind, however misinformed that mind may be.  But there is a certain ugliness in accomodating this, in not pointing it out, in accepting it as okay merely because of that "charisma and roots" and her popularity -- popularity fueled by that very same ignorance.

Ugliness is ignorance. Ignorance by those who claim to know, and continually hold the bully pulpit over others.

Hirsanyi, essentially, concludes his piece with this:

Palin claims that a presidential run is "not on my radar screen right now." She may have gone rogue on John McCain — joining the rest of America — but Palin will have to work to articulate her positions, show more intellectual curiosity and fuse her magnetism with more substantive thinking.

But due to the stupendously nasty campaign waged against her, she might not get the chance.

In Hirsanyi's world, Palin joined the rest of America, by "going rogue" on the McCain campaign. Except for one thing. Palin went rogue by going to the right of McCain.  McCain garnered the Republican nomination, and campaigned for President, by going radically to the right of his former self. So this was "joining" the rest of America?  Or is this just more ignorance on the part of Hirsanyi, in the Denver Post. 

Palin -- who has had her book mentioned more than almost any figure in recent modern history, who is on the cover of magazines, who is repeatedly asked to be on talk and news shows, all unlike countless other Americans who may be far more profoundly competent at actual governing as well as insightful idea generation, than Palin -- may not get a chance, according to Hirsanyi, to "show more intellectual curiosity," and more "substantive" thinking. 

Hirsanyi is living in a dream world. Unfortunately, that dream world is slowly starting to ruin America.

The "nastiness" leveled at Sarah Palin does not come close to the nastiness leveled against Hillary Clinton for several years, or even President Barack Obama today. And much of that nastiness (which as actual nastiness is in no way here condoned), is in fact simply pointing out the facts of the matter. Facts which Americans should know. And which most still don't.

What Needs to be Addressed to Solve Health Care, and Some Ludicrous Claims Highlighted by the Washington Post

A Washington Post editorial on health care reform this past weekend, noted the following:

As an example of the hyperbole, take the ludicrous assertion by Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) that the Democratic measure "is the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington." Come on. The proposal has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and the AARP, hardly wild-eyed radicals.

The editorial is right to point out the absurdity of Boehner's statement.  Not to mention the irony, given that Boehner was a staunch supporter of the controlling, highly restrictive, and power amassing Bush Administration, as well as a supporter of almost every congressional bill this decade that either was highly intrusive and/or expanded government power over individual rights -- something the Post neglected to mention.

But is it really necessary for the AARP and the AMA to have endorsed the proposal in order to be able to point out the ridiculous rhetorical overdosing by Boehner over it?

Hardly. Whether this or that group does or does not endorse a bill does not reflect the accuracy or absurdity of such a statement, which instead requires an examination of the role of government currently in health care, and the facts.  Something that seems to be short supply these days, when it comes to this same media.

As a separate issue, it is valid to point out that the reasonably conservative AMA endorses the bill. But why must the Post then link this point directly to the inane, and wholly gratuitious assertion that the AMA and the AARP are not "wild eyed radicals"? 

Does this need to be stated? And are other opponents of the far right wing Boehner "wild eyed radicals"?  Where are these "wild eyed" radicals? 

Fairly few and far between, it seems, and largely insignificant. Although on the other side of the equation -- and also largely unmentioned by the Post -- there seem to be quite a number of them on talk radio propogating similar outrageous claims on a routine basis.

Not to mention some more in Congress, including those who outlandishly assert that the Democratic measure "is the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington."

The Post also has its laundry list of concerns with the current proposal. But what the paper misses is that one of the biggest failures of this bill is that it not only fails to address the biggest cause of excessive health care costs -- rampant middleman health insurance for routine health care -- but in essence it adds to it.

The fact is, health care in this country DOES NOT operate under real capitalism now. Almost no one bargains with their doctors. Few have the chance to compare costs. Most are hostage to their insurance companes. And these insurance companies are already often dictating the terms of medical decisions, leaving consumers -- who have given their health dollars to the insurance company rather than directly to their own medical care -- left holding the bag for which there is no money left when coverage, treatement or needed tests are denied. 

If there is going to be health insurance, and the government is going to be involved, spending several hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money annually (and rapidly rising) as it does now -- spending more on health care than anything other than national defense and the fully separately funded Social Security -- it has to be non profit. And more limited.

Catastrophic coverage by the government, or by insurance companies, still makes more sense than the current system that we have -- whereby consumers held hostage economically by insurance companies wind up paying ever and ever increasing fees, while all kinds of often ridiculous and wholly wasteful attendant costs are incurred at almost every step of the way. And all at a profit for large health insurance conglomerates that are essentially covering things that individuals should be paying directly themselves -- into either their own actual health care and or prevention -- while at the same time having the effect of making things far more expensive for government by increasing health care costs across the board.

No one wants to say it.  Particularly the health insurance industry lobby which Congress seems to have its hands deep in the pockets of. (Just google health insurance industry related donations to Congress). But Health insurance, apart from health insurance which covers each individual only for what for them would be catastrophic, is essentially an enormous, needless waste, that greatly compounds our overall private and public costs .

Fixing the system, and the incredible waste in our country on health care relative to the results obtained -- now near 18 percent of our entire GDP -- requires fixing this.

Not adding to it.

Iran Holding Journalists Captive for No Real Reason

As this country moves closer and closer to corporate controlled news, Iran seems to be exhibiting even more profound government controlled news; and is behaving more like an autocracy and less like the democracy that many in Iran -- at least back when George Bush famously called it part of the "Axis of Evil" -- wish it to be. 

Calling out the worst in Iran, a country overflowing with a younger population that wanted to be more like the West in many ways, was probably not a wise strategy move.  Today, continuing to speak out nationally about the perceived need to "bomb Iran," is probably not a wise strategy either.

But these days, it seems, we increasingly seem to be looking at these foreign policy issues from our own perspective only (witness our strategic decisions on and handling of Iraq, for one example), and thus if Iran feels imposed upon by being dictated to by world opinion on weapons, we are oblivious to it. If threats of military action against Iran will lead to increased solidarity within Iran towards the outside world, we are oblivious to it.

Thus some of our rhetoric only tends to further hostility, causing the pronouncement of further animosity toward Iran in a sort of self perpetuating cycle.

At the same time, evidence is creeping up in Iran of exactly the type of increasingly authoritarian and controlling rule that it in some ways has historically been reflective of, and was trying to move away from.  And there is probably nothing else to create internal Iranian solidarity toward a government that it may not even like, than the perceived threat from the outside world.

As an example of this increasing government control, we see actions like these:

Iranian officials arrested a Japanese and two Canadian reporters during anti-government demonstrations this week and charged them with "unauthorized reporting," the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported Friday.

Is this a real report? Note that the Fars News Agency is described in the Washington Post article as "semi-official." 

The article's author, Thomas Erdbrink, was not available for comment, but an assistant at the paper stated that the news source is referred to as "semiofficial" because it is considered to have ties to the government, and is not completely independent as the agency claims. It is likely standard form, as the BBC appears to refer to the News Agency as "semi-official" as well.

Whether the potential tie to the government increases or decreases the likelihood of the story being true is unclear, as there are arguments in both directions: given the propaganda aspect, it could be falsely reported to have a chiling effect on foreign journalists, while on the other hand it is news that does not reflect well upon the government, making it thus less likely to be made up.

Erdbrink's article in the Post also seems to suggest that the Fars News Agency is actually "state run" -- althought it is not clear what this means. And wikipedia, in the link above, suggests that "The [Far News]agency is well known for saying lots of lies and for unreliability."

Either way, whether it is just the threat, or, far more likely, the actual capture of foreign journalists, it is chilling news. 

Additionally Erdbrink reports:

On Wednesday, authorities temporarily blocked all access to e-mail programs such as Gmail and Yahoo during the demonstrations to prevent people from sending images to foreign media organizations.

The Demonstration, apparently, was in response to a state sanctioned event commemorating the 1979 Embassy takeover, by those who don't think the current government is legitimate. 

One wonders -- given the antipathy that we have seen from the far right toward President Obama (and likely would have seen toward a President Kerry)--  if the situation in 2004 were reversed, with Kerry winning, and disputed vote blocking measures propelling him to victory in the election swinging state of Ohio, what we would have seen in America subsequent to that.

At least on the protest side, would it have been much different than in Iran?  Even today, the far right is doing everything possible to question the legitimacty of the current administation regarding an election which had no real outcome controversies as otherwise occurred in both 2000 and 2004.  (Witness the incessant attachment to the "birther" assertion -- That Obama's birth certificate is "not real" and thus he can not be President, for one.  The antipathy toward the Obama Administration's legitimacy is so out of control that even an National Review Online article that mocks the birther controversy as "lunacy" then itself, incredibly resurrects the question as "legitimate.")

Although again not nearly as pronounced in the U.S, very vague similarities between our two countries appear on the news side as well:

As more and more corporate takeover of our news here is occasioned -- something which undermines our necessary Fourth Estate check upon everything but perhaps upon what is needed most by government (protecting capitalism by promoting free competition, and protecting for externalities such as the environment and possibly health and safety) -- maybe, to a much lesser degree, we are becoming more like Iran in the sense of Authoritarian, top down, and concentrated, power and control.

It is certainly what the increasingly vocal far right in this country seem to want. And this story is being repeatedly missed -- most of all, of course, by that same increasingly corporate conglomeration controlled media.

How to Lose Wars and Miss What is Going On

Short version as to how to do this: Listen to David Brooks. But then, David Brooks never was much one for logic and real understanding.

Here is Brooks on the "more important trait" for a President to have, according to his "research:"  "tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion."

So long as one also has the judgment to know which circumstances to apply this toward; otherwise, in matters of foreign policy and war in the 21st century, it is a train wreck. (Yet here the Washington Post's fairly hawkish David Ignatius, also today, takes an unusually "untenacious, non fixated, flinching, convictionless" approach to perpetuating the Afghanistan war: supporting McChrystal's call for troop inscreases, but willing to considerably alter course a year from now based on conditions if this turns out to have been the wrong call.)

What Brooks is trying to say, to spin it for him, is "exhibit clarity, vision and the strength to employ the right judgment." But what he actually writes is an extremely foolish litmus test. It is how wars are lost. It is how problems are exacerbated.It is how lives are ruined forever and fundamental underlying problems, military and otherwise, become further entrenched.

This appears to be yet another classic armchair warrior view. One that automatically believes that "clarity, vision and the strength to employ the right judgment," mean inflexibility, intransigence, shallowness of thought, and stubborness in the face of evolving circumstances and changing facts.  And that here, the right answer on Afghanistan, in black and white, is "whatever Brooks" (or the foreign policy "experts" he looks up to), think that it is -- and that anybody who does not unyieldingly fixate on this exact same view regardless of circumstances, is not exercising better judgment, but lacks the necessary prerequisite to be able to make decisions in this regard in the first place.(Leaving one to wonder exactly what decisions need to be made, if one is instead supposed to simply "fixate.')

It might be the right call to be "resolute" and stick with Afghanistan until the square of this country is somehow forced into a round hole (but if so, probably not under the current game plan), and it may not be. But Brook's inherent thesis that because there is a "military action," that this thus becomes the right course by implicit definition, is maddeningly shortsighted, and dangerously naive and sophomoric.

Glenn Greenwald today makes an excellent point as well about how Brooks "does what journalists are supposed to do" and cites a bunch of "expert sources," not a single one of which are named -- for no real good reason; although Greenwald supplies a pretty darn good one:

In a shocking coincidence, the views of these unnamed, handpicked, anonymous "experts" all happen to coincide perfectly with Brooks's own warrior views and, more generally, with clichéd neoconservative pablum.

Yep, that is pretty much what, to use Brooks words, what, "journalists are supposed to do," right?

David Brooks: Doing What He Does Best

David Brooks doing what he does best; and that is, miss the real story.

Brooks: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, have no power because they can not merely summon a wish, and have millions act upon their specific command.

Wow, Brooks is amazed, and so reasons they have no real power or influence because they are not Merlin the Magician! (Except when it comes to turning non truths into believable assertions, that is. Then, sometimes, they are pretty Merlin like.)
He also suggests:

They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.

No, they are enabled by those who do not directly address and illustrate the pattern of wildly manipulative, and often profoundly ignorant representations engaged in, or who dismiss them as "unimportant" and to be ignored because, well, those same "slightly educated snobs" (who write for the NY Times, in this instance) don't tend to listen to them.

Beck is a somewhat deranged, rhetorically gifted genius, who has a very difficult time not only telling fact from fiction, but from not relying upon those fictions to support his often incendiary and outrageous views. He taps into a nerve, because hyperbole and outrageousness aside (which also, to many, make him appealing), he reaches a general distrust and concern that people have, as well as plays upon the very ignorances that he himself does great service to wildly exacerbating.

And it is in this quality — their effect upon general mainstream information and perception, and the overwhelmingly influence upon the nature of our debate that this small handful of not very well informed by wildly accusatory and fanciful pundits otherwise thus have — that these pundits are far far more important than they should be. Not in their ability to singlehandedly, and magically, make millions change their primary voting predilections near instantaneously, as Brooks otherwise ludicrously reasons.

It should also be noted that Brooks essentially uses the example of John McCain, somewhat exaggerating these pundits’ scorn for him, to make his point. But for the 2008 primaries and general election, McCain easily pulled the most dramatic character change, from a somewhat media beguiling and crafty statesman, to blatantly Machievellian figure, perhaps ever occassioned on our national stage.

And he did so why? Because he was not far right enough otherwise to win the nomination. And what are Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity, essentially?  Far right.
But Brooks missed that little detail, too.  [The people that argue that because Beck sometimes rips into Republicans --notice it 's almost never far right Republicans -- plays to populist undertones, or makes wildly hypocritical libertarian leaning suggestions, he is not simply a slightly libertarian tinged far right winger, are misssing what Beck does as well.]

If by Beck and the like being “enabled” by “educated snobs” who continue to dismiss them as being “so obvious” to people, while not — particularly in the media – making the effective case as to how wildly misinformed and misleading these same pundits are, particularly given their enormous audiences and constant mentions — then yes, Brooks is correct here. But Brooks does not state anything like this.  But perhaps it is high time some of our “real” pundits like Brooks, however, started to.

Electric Vehicles Work, Major Advancement Highlights Need for Better Policy

For years we have been hearing how "batteries are too expensive or not sufficiently long lasting" for electric cars.

This was always incorrect. Well over half a century ago it was not clear if the major power source for vehicles was going to be electric, gasoline, or something else. The reason gasoline happened to take hold was because it was ridiculously cheap, while the enormous environmental (and later national security) costs were a) considerably lesser,and b)otherwise simply not integrated into the prices, or considered.

An electric car that could meet the performance/expectations cost that consumers have come to expect, could have been built at any time. The answer, at least until gasoline is no longer available, was simply to put a genset auxiliary motor on board; to power the vehicle, and to simply recharge the battery, if or when the charge gets too low.

The idea behind this is to capitalize on the increased efficiency -- and thus decreased pollutants, decreased electrical power generation source CO2 output (even when the electrity is produced by fossil fuels), and reduced fuel costs -- of electric motors over over internal combustion engines. (This improvement, albeit less, is still present even when the power plant source electrical generation is fossil fuel based, due to the enormous inherent inefficiencies in internal combustion engines.)

The Chevy Volt, due out late next year, is the first modern, mass production vehicle to utilize this very simple and highly practical concept. A concept that allows for reliance upon more efficient electrical power for short trips (in the Volt's case, 40 miles or so), while not otherwise limiting vehicle range.

For many drivers, most of the normal usage can be covered via charge, as the average commute in the U.S is less than 40 miles. For those times when additional range is needed, the auxiliary engine kicks on to maintain a constant level of battery charge. (During which time, in the Volt's case, the vehicle is still reasonably efficient, gaining an estimated 48-50 m.p.g., which blows away most other cars on the road today).

Moreover, if vehicles are charged at night, the energy and environmental gain can be much higher, as plants typically don't "shut down" at night due to great efficiency losses, and sometimes burn extra capacity to keep the cycle going. This is otherwise a complete net loss in terms of energy, pollution, and CO2 emissions, since it is essentially energy that is being "burned off." Here that same energy would go toward charging batteries of cars, that in essence, from an efficiency and enviromental standpoint, will be running on "free energy" (and, since electrical charging costs are typically very low at night, very low dollar cost energy to the end use consumer as well.)

Of course, more promisingly, if the energy production comes from cleaner and renewable sources, then the net efficiency, environmental, and carbon output gains are greatly magnified. And one of the main arguments for electric cars is being to inspire greater accompanying development of these capacities --

For example, a windfarm, already built, running excess power at night, might charge a car that the next day will essentially be driven with the only net result of that car's usage, in terms of energy loss of pollution, being the release of particulate matter from its tires. That is, close to zero net energy usage, and otherwise zero polluting car, in terms of its usage. This is an extraordinary improvement over typical vehicle miles driven today.

Sure the Volt's pricing point seems too high (and likely is), but this is the first time it's really been done; it was GM that did it -- a company that we just had to heavily bail out; and again, the true benefits of this car's decreased energy and environmental footprint are not being integrated into its costs structure so long as highly damaging gasoline -- in environmental, climate change, and national security terms -- remains relatively inexpensive.

So why wasn't this done before? For the same reason that the benefits of the Volt are largely being missed. There was simply entrenchment of the idea of almost complete reliance upon gasoline. Again, more importantly, the enormous external costs of gasoline usage are not properly factored into its price, and this is still the case today (even as, with climate change, its already large costs are increasingly rising). In effect, gasoline usage, because its real costs are not utilized into its cost structure is still, in theory, very heavily subsidized.

But now there may be a simpler, better, and additional answer to the already fallacious assertion that "batteries are too expensive or not sufficiently long lasting," while creating the potential for far more impressive electric capabilities and costs. As noted on this site,and elsewhere:

A Swiss company says it has developed rechargeable zinc-air batteries that can store three times the energy of lithium ion batteries, by volume, while costing only half as much. ReVolt, of Staefa, Switzerland, plans to sell small "button cell" batteries for hearing aids starting next year and to incorporate its technology into ever larger batteries, introducing cell-phone and electric bicycle batteries in the next few years. It is also starting to develop large-format batteries for electric vehicles.

A practical series of lithium ion batteries in an electric vehicle -- that is sufficient to power the car at least a few hundred miles -- for the most part represent the bulk of the cost of an otherwise practically made electric vehicle. Reducing the cost by half would make even advanced battery technology vehicles practical in terms of cost alone; and would, obviously, greatly extend what are already decent ranges for such vehicles as well.

Even an improvement of 50%, at half cost,would reduce the cost of a 200 mile range lithium ion vehicle, by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars, while extending the vehicle's range to close 300 miles. This firm is claiming a 300% energy storage improvement.

The problem with zinc-air batteries has been the ability to re-charge them:

Unlike conventional batteries...zinc-air batteries rely on oxygen from the atmosphere to generate current. In the late 1980s they were considered one of the most promising battery technologies because of their high theoretical energy-storage capacity...The battery chemistry is also relatively safe because it doesn't require volatile materials, so zinc-air batteries are not prone to catching fire like lithium-ion batteries.

Because of these advantages, nonrechargeable zinc-air batteries have long been on the market. But making them rechargeable has been a challenge.

The company believes that it may have solved this problem. Even if it has not, by taking zinc-air batteries through over 100 charge cycles, it has moved us a lot closer.

They will begin by making tiny batteries, such as for hearing aids, and working on larger batteries, such as for electric bicycles and cell phones, in the next few years. The company is "also starting to develop a large-format battery for electric vehicles."

James McDougall, [ReVolt's] CEO, says that the technology overcomes the main problem with zinc-air rechargeable batteries--that they typically stop working after relatively few charges. If the technology can be scaled up, zinc-air batteries could make electric vehicles [far more practical].

Of course, the sooner our policies reflect the realities of our enormous reliance upon foreign oil (which in turn is just slightly less oil than is used by our transportation industry alone), the more market incentive there will be to move in this less destructive direction, than the path, in terms of environmental damage and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, that we are currently on.

The more incentive, the faster and more practically such developments and growth will occur, and the more market innovation, further multiplying the process, will follow. That starts with good policy, which means no more subsidization of destructive of oil and gasoline (or even coal, frankly); but instead, penalties ("disincentives"), with revenues to in turn be utilized toward the promulgation and reward of cleaner alternative end usage.

End market usage motivation is critical here, because that targets the neeeded result -- clean energy -- without trying to micromanage the means to get there. It's less government command and control intervention, with more positive market effect. On the flip side, it is even more effective to inspire better end use decisions via the penalization, or tax, of the utilization of any finite, environmentally destructive, polluting, heavy greenhouse gas emitting, and national security compromising fossil fuel.

Unfortunately, "tax" has become a bad, or loaded word, in America. But this is all semantics. Every time a drop of oil, drop of gasoline, or crud of coal is utilized, it is a far greater tax that is being imposed in the form of these various, and very real, albeit not immediately measureable harms. Thus it's not so much a tax, as it is a re-balancing of the natural market imbalance when such an enormous externality -- as exists in the case of the continued use of fossil fuels -- accrues. To not address the problem, inane and almost meaningless rhetorical slogans such as we hear from the likes of AEI and others aside, is rather foolish head in the sand behavior, as we very slowly begin to undermine the very world in which we live. The only real question is how best to achieve the necessary (and rather quick) transition over to clean, renewable (and "growh generating"), energy sources.

But this misnomer idea of a "tax" comes in, and it reframes the entire debate: since tax is an easy, appealing sounding, one second sound bite, and the far more important overriding concepts above, regarding how these destructive fossil fuels are in effect being heavily subsidized (which in pure economic terms amounts to a tax upon everything else) is not.

So it's not a question of "tax" or "no tax." (Hence, along with the fact that "penality" is a negative connotation word,one of the reasons why the more accurate term "disincentives" should be used).

It's a question of how we stop using fossil fuels. 1) Let the market do it with the proper policy incentive. This is something, so long as all of the heavy external costs of these fossil fuels are not integrated into the pricing structure, it by definition can't efficiently do completely on its won. And this is why excessive fossil fuel over reliance has led to the wildly destructive results, and hidden pollutions and health care and quality of life costs and other environmental harms, that we are very slowly starting to see today. Or 2), alternatively, simply regulate and proscribe the detrimental behavior.

It seems sensible all around to let the market inspire it. Thus the issue needs to be framed in terms of market solutions, properly motivating the market so that the excessive external costs are no longer being ridiculously subsidized, versus government command control solution, which will never fly because it is "too much government telling people what to do."

The first approach described above -- raising revenue off of harmful fossil fuel activies and thus taxing all other behavior and income earning, less, as a result (while some on the far right nevertheless still jump and up and down and screams "tax" while not understanding the issue) -- does not do tell people what to do; it is less onerous; it is far more efficient; and it is much easier to explain.

White House Advisor: Really Poor at Framing?

White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett says "of course it is true that Fox is biased." 

But that's not the problem with Fox. The problem with Fox is that it is an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

That's a huge difference. Of course, the case needs to be made. but that seems to be another "challenge" on the part of Democrats, along with framing.

Then Jarrett uttered some words that might get the "democratic base" all teary eyed with positive political passion, but which will likely chill a whole lot of other Americans, including many who voted for Obama.

I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we're gonna speak truth to power

It's almost like Democrats took lessons on how to play into right wing and far right wing caricatures of them. Yes, this is a popular phrase, and yes it has been used by some notable (and well spoken) politicians, but it is not appropriate here, and it sounds far more out there in this context than it really is. It makes it seem that to those not already fully on board with the White House that the White House has a rather controlling agenda.

Of course, active Dems keep getting their feedback from other active, fully committed Dems, who tend to see things the same way, so nobody is pointing out to Jarrett how this actually hurts the White House's message, hurts them with their case to Fox, and plays right into Fox's attacks back on them (which don't bear repeating here.)

Jarrett also helped those who want to make the case against the White House. But at the same time, she also did something more important. She aligned Fox with the rest of the media, when the real problem is that the rest of the media is not doing a sufficient job covering the media story that is Fox. This is two terrible strategic accomlishments with one move.

Jarrett told Brown that the White House will go after any network, not just Fox News, that distorts the truth.


"We're calling everybody out," she said. "This isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox

In other words, now the case is not about Fox, because what Fox does is pose as political and policy news station when it is actually in large part an ideologically motivated and highly manipulative advocacy station, but the case it about the entire media. This builds solidarity between Fox and the rest of the media, when exactly the opposite is required (let alone the fact that Fox often goes after the rest of the media, which in turn is too scared to make a real story out of Fox's constant distortions). And it also makes it seem now that the issue not so much how bad Fox is (see above again for what it does), but simply that the "media is bad" and it is thus about a thin skinned White House that seems to be attacking media and viewpoints that it does not like.

This plays directly into Fox's characterization of what the White House is doing. And it bolsters the alarming argument, false as it is, that the White House is trying to have a chilling effect upon independent reporting and disparate viewpoints.

Top Civilian in Zabul Province, Matthew Hoh, Resigns: We Fouled Up On Afghanistan

We fouled up on Afghanistan.

How?  We have been there for eight years. Even if our ends are seemingly helpful to the Afghan people, we are bombing and fighting over there, and there has to be some resentment. 

The window to help and resurrect Afghanistan, sans Taliban rule, was not eight years long. Yet we did not focus on Afghanistan sufficiently back when it mattered. Many people at the time made this argument. Unfortunately, few were in the Bush Administration.
Now, right or wrong, Matthew Hoh, a Political Officer in the Foreign Service and Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province, has resigned.  His reasons?

Hoh said that his act of protest and decision to speak out were painful, even "nauseating" at times, but he was strongly motivated by the friends he had lost on the battlefield and the mental anguish he has experienced since returning home. "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right,' " he explained, adding that he "is not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love."

Hoh will meet with Joe Biden's foreign policy adviser this week, and will advise a reduction in troops. He said he feels the U.S. "has an obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," but that Afghans are resistant to what they see as a military occupation.

Hopefully Hoh is incorrect, but after eight years of lack of focus, this is an understandable and even somewhat predictable outcome.

Here is Hoh's letter of resignation. In it, he noted the following:

Like the Soviets [who were also in Afghanistan, perhaps for lesser reasons, for an extended time], we continue to bolster and secure a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.

Among the prominent people that brushed off Afghanistan, back when it should have been clear (and to some of us, it was) not to take Afghanistan for granted, was none other than 2008 Republican Party Presidential Candidate John McCain.

McCain seemed to disparage the complexity of Afghanistan and the challenges we faced there, and seemed to ignore its history, from the very start. On October 1, 2001, he did not think that Afghanistan was much of an issue or the main challenge, and stated:

That's where the tough part of this whole scenario is going to begin. And that is that, after the Taliban are overthrown -- which I believe they will be -- I have very little doubt in my mind -- after bin Laden is either taken prisoner or killed and his network is destroyed, then what's next? Obviously, Iraq is still bent on.. [developing WMDs], Iran is..... [MSNBC, Hardball 10/03/01]

In April, less than two weeks after we went into Iraq, McCain stated:

But nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America and nobody is running terrorist training camps to orchestrate attacks on the United States of America. [Fox, Hannity and Colmes, 4/03/03].

Perhaps somewhat true at that moment, but neither was this the case with Iraq. And it had been the case for Afghanistan, which is precisely why we went in there to begin with. In fact, it was in Afghanistan, aided, supported, and assisted by the Taliban, where al-Qaeda trained, and in fact did plan and launch its depraved September 11, 2001, attack.

Several other, very notable statements, seemed to belie an understanding of what the challenge in Afghanistan was, including calling it "so far a remarkable success" on an ABC just a few weeks before we went into Iraq, and two and a half years later, on CNN, stating "Afghanistan, we don’t read about anymore, because it’s succeeded." More details found here.

Why is this worth mentioning?  Because in 2008, our national media annointed John McCain our nation's top, unquestionable, military strategy and foreign policy expert, and not only pushed this same angle as the McCain Campaign, but even protected McCain from questioning or facts suggesting otherwise.

The same media that the far right, and the McCain campaign, argues, and actually believes, was "unfair" to it.

While at the same time, the media, ever defensive, ran articles headlined with the question as to whether or not it was being unfair to the McCain Campaign. And while Democrats, once again, played right into framing of the far right, by arguing points on their terms. Not by asserting how in fact McCain received oftentimes ridiculously favorable treatment relative to the facts, but by making the argument that "the media was not unfair to McCain," thus strenghtening the idea, from a non partisan perspective, that whether or not the media was unfair to McCain is the question, rather than reshift the focus onto the far more pertinent one as to whether it was in fact lopsidedly favorable to McCain relative to the facts, and if so, why.

Our Society is Getting out of Control -- School Policies Getting Nuttier and Nuttier

The law was introduced after a third-grade girl was expelled for a year because her grandmother had sent a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it. The teacher called the principal — but not before using the knife to cut and serve the cake.

Then there is Zachary, the avid six year old who was so enthusiastic about joining the cub scouts that he brought his swiss army knife to school to use the fork in it to eat at lunch, and was expelled for 45 days.

Just read the whole article.

Noted on InstaBS as well -- a site that doesn't only scour the Internet far and wide for anything that is far right wing slanted and skewed, logically twisted on its head, and notated therein as reasonable, but often for interesting stuff too -- which here states: "the excuses offered for this piece of idiocy are even more daming than the idiocy itself."

Actually, no, they are not. They are highly insufficient, which is what makes what is idiocy on its face, still idiocy. But they are not more damning than the idiocy itself, which is the problem. The issue of how to deal with potential weapon violence in school is very real. But the inflexible, and over the top, solutions favored don't seem to be a sensible approach, at all.

When a six year old kid in an article makes more sense than all of the adults involved in setting the policy, perhaps it is time to reevaluate our approach.

HardBall's Chris Matthews is not Helpful, to Anyone

In the 90's Chris Matthews could not get past Bill Clinton's private if disreputable behavior, and simply would not let of of it for the remainder of the decade, and beyond.

It is wrong for someone on the far right to do this, but at least they have the benefit of being driven by pure partisanship, and perhaps even a mildly Taliban like tinged belief that the President's private, legal, scurrilous behavior is so much our national business that we should devote two years to wrecking the presidency over it.

(On the pretense of an "untruth" in (1) a civil case, in a (2) deposition, on a (3) matter tangential to the issue in litigation, and a (4) matter of the utmost personal and private nature -- something which not one person has yet been able to provide an example of a successful prosecution for, in our entire American history. And for good reason; it's absurd. But our nation looked past that for two years, driven by far right framing, and a scandal obsessed and easily kowtowed media, that this same far right -- confusing occasional recitation of unfavorable facts (while omitting far more) with "bias" -- likes to correctly label a scourge, but for incorrect reasons. And which media, seeing this, like the dunce that it collectively is, then loudly, in turn proclaims, "see, we get criticized by all sides [though this blog is assuredly not a "side," nor part of one], we must be doing something right!")

Matthews? He's just simply wrong, much of the time, on everything. Which for a relatively smart guy, is quite a track record.

A simple google search of Bob Somerby's "Daily Howler" site and Chris Matthews will tell you all you need to know about Matthews.

But here, yesterday, is Matthews saying rather oafish things again. This blog says it like it is on Rush Limbaugh (see second half of this piece in particular). But still, this, by Matthews, is totally uncalled for, and not funny. (Although the headline to the video does seem a little bit misleading. But it is trivial in comparison to Matthews' statements).

Matthews seems to suffer from that common affliction of believing that everything that is "obvious" to him is obvious to everyone else, and that therefore nothing need be show with respect to Limbaugh. Clearly, this is far from the case. Still, perhaps the word "clearly" is inappropriate, since "clearly," it is not apparent to many that it is far from the case.

And that is the problem, Matthews' ridiculous James Bond movie villain fantasies aside.

The Fox Story is Still Being Missed -- Baltimore Sun Critic a Classic Dupe

This blog is no fan of Baltimore Sun TV Critic David Zurawik, who exhibits a strong bias, and strange leaps of logic.

So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."

Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!

Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.

With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."

Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):

I wonder if [Anchor Shepard] Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one.

Aside from the fact that someone can be a staunch Republican and disagree vehemently with some unlicensed plumber that doesn't know jack squat about policy or the facts, people need to communicate the following sentence, repeated from above, to Zurawik, and to others:

[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.

What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.

Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________

Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.

We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.

Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.

The Fox Story is Still Being Missed -- Baltimore Sun Critic a Classic Dupe

This blog is no fan of Baltimore Sun TV Critic David Zurawik, who exhibits a strong bias, and strange leaps of logic.

So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."

Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!

Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.

With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."

Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):

I wonder if [Anchor Shepard] Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one.

Aside from the fact that someone can be a staunch Republican and disagree vehemently with some unlicensed plumber that doesn't know jack squat about policy or the facts, people need to communicate the following sentence, repeated from above, to Zurawik, and to others:

[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.

Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.

What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.

Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________

Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.

We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.

Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.

Health "Insurance" is Part of the Problem, Not the Solution

Health Insurance insures people for trivial things that should be self paid, and adds countless billions of unnecessary middleman waste and seemingly non ending doctor office paperwork, while at the same time often dictating to people what procedures, and even, sometimes conditions, 'are and are not" covered, thereby defeating the purpose in the first place.

It seems the answer to solving our problem of excessive and spiraling health care costs, while at the same time many Americans are receiving sub par (or no) health care, does not lie in the direction on increasing health insurance, let alone mandated private, health insurance.

Also, they should be getting special treatment if they are non profit, keeping costs down and the quality of care up,and not commonly refusing to cover care that patients - who are often paying a small fortune for this health insurance (directly, or indirectly)- and their doctors decide is medically sensible.

One of the Stupider Science Statements Made in a While, in a "Super" Book, No Less

Here is the statement, and it comes from the new "book," "Superfreakonomics":

A lot of the things that people say would be good things probably aren’t,” Myrhvold says. As an example he points to solar power. “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat — which contributed to global warming.

This is wild. This person, former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myrhvold, as told by ClimateProgress.org (a somewhat hysterical, mildly partisan, but extremely well researched site) was called as "smart as" anybody else out there, by Bill Gates. Apparently not, when it comes to matters of energy.

This line of reasoning by Myrhvold, who clearly has no clue about the subject matter, is similar to the one that confuses calories with kilocalories (a thousand calories); reads about how it takes a few calories to heat up ice cubes consumed in a drink, and suggests that one can therefore drink ice cold bud lite all day long and not put on a single calorie. (Nice idea, but you can't.)

If you want to see why Myrhvold's statement is ridiculous, click here.

We'll just share one reason, in case it was not obvious. (Don't feel bad if it was not. One of the smartest guys ever -- according to Bill Gates -- missed it, and an idiotic book that will soon be a best seller actually quotes it as logical.)

What was the absorbtivity or emissivity of the material that the panel covered up? If you look on Google images, you’ll see that PV panels [[which are often blue, not black] are often — if not usually — put on roofs or over ground that is quite dark, often black. In a large fraction of cases, the panels contribute less heat reradiation than what they are covering would.

The original book Freakonomics was creative, but in some ways, inane. Most people missed why. It compares intangibles with tangibles, and presumes that because we have to make choices with respect to intangibles with tangible items, that these valuations are equatable. (That is the short version of why it is based on a dumb concept, anyway). This column also shows why Superfreakonomics is, more obviously, a dumb book.

It will sell though. The worst --but most convincing -- crap usually sells the best. That's the way it tends to work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps that is no longer clearly the case.

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

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

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

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

On CNN, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell Implies Much of What We Suggested regarding the Bizarre Arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates

Donkasaurus, yesterday:

What is in question, is the degree to which Gates -- who perhaps felt himself a victim of differential treatment because he was Black (and we are not sure that the police report itself establishes otherwise) -- over reacted. And why Officer Crowley persisted in making an issue of what was clearly an agitated, perhaps over-reactive Harvard race scholar, after what really mattered -- the "break in" -- was quickly solved.

Colin Powell, on CNN:

[Gates]...might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer, and that might have been the end of it. I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal.

Powell implies, particularly from the context, that racism almost either had to have played a role, or that it was reasonable for Gates to assume that, even if, he seems to suggest, it may not have been best exercise of judgment on Gates part to perhaps act it out dramatically. Powell also states: "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would have thought at that point some adult supervision would have stepped in and said, OK, look, it is his house. Come on."

This seems sensible to us. As we noted below:

We think the police report itself is dispositive. Gates' allegedly obnoxious behavior, in his own home, after apparently being suspected of breaking and entering into his own home, is rather specious grounds for arrest; something motivated the officer -- whether he was peeved that the resident was giving him grief, or something else -- to unnecessarily continue to be abrupt and unfriendly and unapologetic (perhaps mirroring Gates), and arrest Gates even after the easily rectifiable case of mistaken identity was quickly resolved and the matter was over. (Additionally, racially overtoned inconsistencies in the police report, are noted elsewhere in the link.)

From a comment to the Huffington Post article on CNN's interview:

The issue in the Gates' controversy is not one racial profiling but how white police officers treat African Americans in policing encounters. Citizens are not under any obligation to refrain from expressing anger to police officers at perceived mistreatment. Given the large number, and diversity, of African Americans who are confronted annually by white police officers, whether for good or bad cause, it's unrealistic to expect the majority of them to bear perceived mistreatment with a stiff upper lip.

As we have said many times, the issue is how Crowley (who was the one with a duty of professional responsibility, and not the one who was being questioned on suspicion of having broken into his own home) -- treated Gates, and why.

And we still don't understand why, after the officer clearly (even by his own police report) realized -- or could have double verified with the head of Harvard Security as Gates suggested -- the matter continued. Gates being upset in his own home over the incident, overreactive or not, is understandable, not a crime. This should be particularly obvious to somebody who -- as excusants for Crowley are otherwise happy to point out, claiming it somehow "proves" that racism can not have played a role -- teaches a course on racial profiling and sensitivity! (Once again, see the link below; for some of the transcipt of the 911 call establishing that there was repeatedly expressed ambivalence over whether it was even a break in or someone returning from travel -- with suitcases -- whose key got jammed, and racially tinged interpretations in the polic report that seem to directly conflict with the evidentiary record. )

CROWLEY-GATE VI: Yes, the Gates Tapes Have Been Released to the Media, And....

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

What is clear is that the caller, Lucia Whalen...did not know the race of two men she saw trying to push in the front door of Gates's house.... Crowley did not know the race of the suspects when he answered the call.

What we wonder, and Althouse, fails to wonder, is why then does the police report very clearly state:

Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me it was she who had called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black men with back packs on the porch of [17 ] Ware Street.

Our question is this: If that is not what Whalen said, despite the police report to the contrary, what does that indicate about the incident?

If it was what Whalen said, why does the media keep harping on the "fact" that "Whalen did not know the race of the two men she saw trying to push open the front door of Gates' house"?

Perhaps we are over reading into this, but we don't see the relevance of whether or not Crowley knew "the race of the suspects when he answered the call."

He answered a call about a possible break in. It was legitimate.

What is in question, is the degree to which Gates -- who perhaps felt himself a victim of differential treatment because he was Black (and we are not sure that the police report itself establishes otherwise) -- over reacted. And why Officer Crowley persisted in making an issue of what was clearly an agitated, perhaps over-reactive Harvard race scholar, after what really mattered -- the "break in" -- was quickly solved.

A look at the Washington Post article itself, that Althouse so comfortably cites, without, clearly, having read, adds a new layer. It starts with:

The role of race in the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. became more difficult to untangle Monday with the release of the tape of the emergency call that brought Cambridge, Mass., police to his door.

How is this the case, one might wonder? Krissah Thompson of the Post continues:

The tape revealed that the woman who reported seeing two men trying to break into a house did not know their race. When pressed twice by the dispatcher to identify the men by race, Lucia Whalen said: "Um, well, there were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all."

It seemed, from Althouse, that it was very likely that the caller did not identify the suspects, but thought they "may have been "African American" and so gave the officer additional information upon entering the scene. Now it seems harder to fathom how a caller who could not even hazard an accurate guess as to race when pressed, suddenly had changed her tune.

Of course, perhaps the caller was able to gather more information after placing the call. Which leads us back to the original query. How does the case become "more difficult" to untangle simply because the caller (and thus Sergeant Crowley) did not initially know the race of the two men involved?

Crowley was responding to a legitimate possible breaking and entering call. He was to learn of the race quickly upon arrival, and all that is in question follows the acquisition of that knowledge. Thus, it's irrelevant as to whether upon first being called, he know of the suspects' race or not.

What it does raise is the question of blatant inconsistency in the police report (or possibly, but less logically, on the part of the caller) -- which would be quite relevant if the caller was unable to further observe the potential suspects after she placed the call.

The Post is further relevant on this point -- and it raises questions that Althouse clearly missed, that go to the very heart of the point that the column centered around. (Hint for bloggers: If you want to build an audience, decide what your point of view is years in advance, jot down a few provocative, knee jerk, polarizing sentences, and add a few quick links that seem to support it; this clearly seems to be the winning model online -- reason No. 57 why the "left" is mistaken that online blogging can, without systemic changes, adequately replace the role that traditional media -- our independent press, and fourth estate -- so critically serves. On the other hand, if you want to actually say something of value, or that is not misleading, at least read the sources you link to.)

Courtesy of Ms. Thompson, of the Post:

Whalen.... had been vilified in online comments and blogs as a racist "white woman" who saw "two black men" trying to enter a home and assumed they were breaking and entering...[then] issued a statement knocking down a line in the police report filed after the incident. It describes Whalen telling Crowley, who responded to her call, that she saw "two black men with backpacks." The lawyer, Wendy J. Murphy, told CNN on Monday that Whalen did not identify the men by race at any point. Cambridge police officials, who released the tape of the 911 call, have said they stand by the report.

The 911 call clearly backs up Whalen. Lopsidedly. On the other hand, Whalen may have observed the suspects further. But there would be no reason for Whalen to falsely change the record with respect to after the call; it was what prompted her to make the call in the first place that matters (one would think), in terms of any otherwise rather irrelevant criticism directed at her. And on the call, she indicated that the suspects had already entered the house, and there is nothing, apparently, to indicate that he came out of the house prior to the officer's rather timely arrival, thus nothing that would have given her much further information as to his race. It thus seems unlikely that she subsequently stated "what appeared to be two black men."

Note also that the 911 call indicates that the witness clearly saw two suitcases -- not back packs -- something that seems much more likely for a 58 year old professor coming back from his travels; and also that it is pretty clear that there was doubt as to whether or not it was a break in from the start:

Caller:...I noticed two suitcases So I’m not sure if these are two individuals who actually work there, I mean who live there.
Dispatcher: You think they might’ve been breaking...
Caller: I don’t know, ‘cause I have no idea, I just noticed...
...
Dispatcher: And what did the suitcases have to do with anything?
Caller: I don’t know. I’m just saying that’s what I saw. I just [inaudible]
...
Caller: ... I don’t know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key
Caller: I just saw it from a distance...this older woman was worried, thinking someone’s breaking in someone’s house...she interrupted me, and that’s when I had noticed. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have noticed... So I was just calling ‘cause she was a concerned neighbor, I guess.

From the police report: "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black men with backpacks on the porch."

As noted earlier, we think the police report itself is dispositive. Gates' allegedly obnoxious behavior, in his own home, after apparently being suspected of breaking and entering into his own home, is rather specious grounds for arrest; something motivated the officer -- whether he was peeved that the resident was giving him grief, or something else -- to unnecessarily continue to be abrupt and unfriendly and unapologetic (perhaps mirroring Gates), and arrest Gates even after the easily rectifiable case of mistaken identity was quickly resolved and the matter was over.

However, from the 911 call alone, we see that at least three separate things likely contradict what was alleged in the one sentence of the police report that we have some outside objective information on:

1) It is very likely that the caller did not tell the officer that the two men "appeared" to be Black.

2) It is extremely unlikely that this witness suddenly (and rather illogically) decided to change her testimony from what was almost assuredly two suitcases, to "two back packs" -- which conjures up quite a different impression from suitcases (particularly in combination with the caller's expressed doubts in the 911 call).

3) It is likely that the caller did not tell the officer that she observed two men "on the porch," as she had been very clear to the 911 dispatcher that she had not seen them outside: "Caller: Umm, I don’t know what’s happening. I just have an elder woman, uh, standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number, 17 Ware St., and they kind of had to barge in. And they broke the screen door and they finally got in and when I had looked, I went further, closer to the house a little bit, after the gentlemen were already in the house."

Criminology Professor Lorie Fridell puts it best, in conclusion to the Post article:

"Racially biased policing exists -- but sometimes it is perceived where it doesn't exist," she said. "It is very hard to identify when a particular incident is in fact a manifestation of racially biased policing because the answer is inside the officer's head."

Still, it is interesting that the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto can know what is inside of this particular officer's head, in this otherwise fairly inexplicable incident.

CROWLEY-GATE V: The Wall Street Journal Blog Professes to Know What Truly Motivates Men's Souls

Not that we wish to pimp the Wall Street Journal; but we often do, and the Rosa Parks take is an interesting read.

We don't necessarily agree that the rather unnecessary arrest of Professor Gages in his own home for disorderly conduct after being questioned on suspicion of breaking and entering into his own home is "reverse Rosa Parks."

But it is with this analysis that we take issue:

By now it is clear that Gates erred in accusing Crowley of racial animus or profiling. The worst that can be said about the officer is that he acted stupidly by remaining on the scene once he had established that Gates had every right to be there

It was likely an exercise of extremely poor judgment to remain on the scene "once he had established that Gates had every right to be there." (Being as it was his home, and all. We also wonder what was said in the way of apology to Gates, or with respect to the idea that he was no longer under suspicion for breaking and entering into his own home -- something which seems to be woefully absent from even the police report perspective). We even made this suggestion, rather pointedly. But what we think Taranto might be missing, is this rather elementary inquiry:
Why did he remain on the scene? Because someone who is known to have an expertise in the field of racial sensitivities, and even teaches an apparently well received class on racial profiling, did not understand why Gates -- even if he overreacted (and it seems fair to conclude, Gates did) might have been so upset?

Taranto seems so certain that racism was not involved -- we're not at all sure how. But might not racism be one very likely reason as to why the officer remained on the scene after the incident -- that is, after a clear, "classic case" of misunderstanding" -- was cleared up?

Because Gates was mad and giving the officer perhaps some unwarranted grief? Because the officer wanted to exert an authority (clue up Eric Cartman here: You will respect my a tor eh tay!)? We don't know. We only wonder how the WSJ's Taranto, so clearly, does.

On the other hand, while we agree with Gates that [it would be fallacy] to believe that we live in a post racial world -- obviously -- we agree with Taranto that Gates' claims that there have not been fundamental structural changes in America, might be somewhat questionable.

Gates is one of the better known scholars of race in America. We think rather ironically -- even more so than the fact that Crowley, his new drinking buddy with President Obama (if Gates drank) teaches a class on racial profiling and racial sensitivity . We are not sure what he means by this, but we're not at all sure he's completely correct, either.

Health Care Transparency?

We are not huge fans of the new health care proposals -- not that we are necessarily opposed to the ideas. We just don't understand them. Maybe we're dense, but the hunch is that most don't really understand them either.

But, without getting into the nitty gritty of whether this is correct or not (which would require oh so much research, and heck, we never do that, unlike the blogosphere which is just full of , objective, crack research and support), the question does arise:

Since this well written piece is obviously done by a skeptic of the Obama Administration, a serious skeptic, why is it that it seems to be the right wing of the Republican party that cites back to key, critical statements; then attempts to show, rather then tell; and that understands the importance -- in connecting with those who otherwise are at first ambivalent -- of using the statements of one's opponents whenever possible, to make one's point? (We have a hunch.)

It's an intriguing, and funny, read. We'll provide a quick sampling of its more serious point, but really, you have to read it. The squirrel part is comical. (Not quite hysterical a la the cat scene in "Meet the Parents;" but then again, this is on the boring subjects of politics, and policy, so a rather large adjustment seems only fair).

And it has to be poor eyesight on my part, since I plainly remember during and after the campaign promising the following:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

We're all for openness.

Harry Truman said it best (or at least he said it): "Secrecy, and a free, democratic government, don't mix." They Don't. And they haven't all decade.

But this applies to all administrations. Not just the administrations of one's political opponents.