Maureen Dowd, "A Wit for All Seasons": Welcome to a World of Superficiality in Which Jesters Are Kings

Stephen Colbert has been tapped by CBS to replace David Letterman as host of the "Late Show," and his selection appears acceptable to both right and left. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "America’s heartland has nothing to fear from Stephen Colbert" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-americas-heartland-shouldnt-fear-stephen-colbert/2014/04/11/1f70ab98-c1ad-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html), Kathleen Parker writes of her appearance on "The Colbert Report":

"To put it plainly, the fellow who will be sitting in the 'Late Show' chair is nothing like the character on the 'Repor(t),' which is both a delightful and grievous prospect. Many will mourn the exit of Comedy Central’s Colbert, but millions more will celebrate his new role. Having met the real-life Colbert, the lad who grew up in Charleston, S.C., I’m confident viewers will find him every bit the Everyman as was all-time favorite Johnny Carson.

The one time I appeared on 'The Colbert Report,' Colbert met me in the green room beforehand and, speaking as the polite Southerner he is, said, 'Now, I’m going to be in character onstage, so don’t let me put words in your mouth.' You can’t say I wasn’t warned."

Parker's conclusion:

"The notion that a fake persona’s comedy routine is a threat to the American heartland bears a striking resemblance to the sort of literal-mindedness that leads to inquisitions and the Taliban. If you can’t take a joke, you could always change the channel. But you’ll miss all the fun."

Meanwhile, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Wit for All Seasons" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/opinion/sunday/a-wit-for-all-seasons.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd also describes her appearance on "The Colbert Report":

"I DON’T remember much about being on Stephen Colbert’s show.

It all passed in a blur of fear.

I remember him coming into the makeup room to remind me that he was going to be in character as a jerk.

I remember that he held up my book about gender and asked if it was 'soft-core porn.'

I remember he asked me if I wanted to hold his Peabody and I told him I did, so he jumped up to grab the TV award from the mantel."

Dowd goes on to say:

"Carson was the Walter Lippmann of comedy, wielding enormous influence over the reputations of politicians he mocked. Stewart and Colbert took it a step further. They became Murrow and Cronkite for a generation of young viewers."

Stewart and Colbert have become today's Murrow and Cronkite? Perhaps Dowd is correct. Today, public opinion and politics are being shaped by one-liners instead of serious analysis.

But why should we be surprised? Could it be that the brains of many youngsters are not accessible to anything beyond superficial comedy routines?

In a Washington Post article entitled "Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/serious-reading-takes-a-hit-from-online-scanning-and-skimming-researchers-say/2014/04/06/088028d2-b5d2-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html?hpid=z4), Michael S. Rosenwald writes:

"Humans, [cognitive neuroscientists] warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia.

'I worry that the superficial way we read during the day is affecting us when we have to read with more in-depth processing,' said Maryanne Wolf, a Tufts University cognitive neuroscientist and the author of 'Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain.'

If the rise of nonstop cable TV news gave the world a culture of sound bites, the Internet, Wolf said, is bringing about an eye byte culture. Time spent online — on desktop and mobile devices — was expected to top five hours per day in 2013 for U.S. adults, according to eMarketer, which tracks digital behavior. That’s up from three hours in 2010."

Books? Analysis demanding prolonged thought? All a thing of the past.

Welcome to a world of superficiality in which jesters are kings.

Obamacare: Eugene Robinson ("The GOP’s Health Crisis") Vs. Kathleen Parker ("The Poetry of Bad News Around Obamacare")

Are you looking for an example of egregious liberal wishful thinking at The Washington Post? You need go no further than Eugene Washington's latest WaPo opinion piece entitled "The GOP’s health crisis" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-gops-health-crisis/2014/02/13/09c6a2c4-94f9-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html), where we are told that a WaPo news report entitled "Health insurance enrollment on target in January" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-enrollment-on-target-in-january/2014/02/12/8162eb3e-9400-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html) by Amy Goldstein supports the premise:

"The Republican Party’s worst nightmare is coming true. Obamacare is working."

Hold your horses, Eugene! Did you actually take the time to read Ms. Goldstein's article, which informs us:

"In issuing the latest report, the government’s top health official and several aides said they did not yet have data to answer two critical questions: Of the people who have signed up, how many have paid their first premium so that they actually have coverage? And how many of them previously lacked insurance, as opposed to having simply switched insurance plans?

Nonetheless, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the numbers 'very, very encouraging news,' and she said, 'We are seeing a healthy growth in enrollment.'

Sebelius and the report focused attention on a slight increase in the proportion of young adults signing up for coverage — a part of the population whose participation is widely considered essential to keeping the marketplaces working well, because they tend to be healthy and, thus, inexpensive to insure.

Of the people who selected a health plan last month, 27 percent were between the ages of 18 and 34 — the group considered young adults — compared with 24 percent for the previous three months combined. Both figures are substantially less than 40 percent, the level that research has suggested is desirable to help health plans sold through the exchanges keep their prices stable.

Although January was the first month that enrollment exceeded federal predictions, the number of people who signed up was lower than in December."

Goldstein's article is the basis for Robinson's cheer? Surely, he must have been thinking of some other article.

Meanwhile, Kathleen Parker is also weighing in on Obamacare this weekend. In a WaPo opinion piece entitled "The poetry of bad news around Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-poetry-of-bad-news-around-obamacare/2014/02/14/15aa9b3c-95c5-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html?hpid=z4), Parker cogently concludes:

"In the meantime, what the economy needs least is a federal program that prompts lower- and middle-class workers to drop out of the workforce. This is in addition to the many who are losing their jobs involuntarily or having their hours cut by their employers who want to avoid the mandate to buy insurance or the fine for failing to do so.

Again, this is a simple matter of incentives and survival, which President Obama seems to have recognized in postponing the mandate for midsize businesses until 2016. Or perhaps he is trying to head off another health-care controversy before the midterm elections? Shucks, do you suppose?

Add to the above the CBO’s report in May that 31 million people will not have health insurance in 2023.

Any one of these things would be bad news. Combined, they boggle the well-ordered mind. If I may invoke our Fairy Godmother again, Pelosi was the most honest of all when she warned us that 'We have to pass the bill [Obamacare] so that you can find out what is in it.'

Today, knowing what we know, we are left with what we used to call a million-dollar question, though it is much more expensive now: How does one defend spending $1.2  trillion for a health-care overhaul that disincentivizes people to work and that leaves us with 31 million uninsured?

One writes poetry."

So, do you believe Robinson or Parker? I know on whom I'm placing my bet.

Maureen Dowd, "High School Maniacal": Narcissism and the Undoing of a Republican Presidential Candidate

Do we ever forget our high school years? Recently, I was stunned to learn that my first love had passed away more than a decade ago. How could this be? I still remembered her red hair and smile, and notwithstanding the passing of the years and my own graying hair, in my mind, she had never grown old.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "High School Maniacal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/dowd-high-school-maniacal.html?ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd examines how New Jersey Governor Christ Christie continues to live out his high school years in an ongoing squabble with "old schoolmate and handpicked point man at the Port Authority, David Wildstein" over Bridgegate. Dowd writes:

"It’s risible but sort of alarming that, decades later, Christie is boasting that he was more of a big shot than Wildstein in high school, putting down the guy he created a job for, and going out of his way to say they were not even friends back when they were both connected to the Livingston Lancers — Christie as an ebullient, trim catcher; Wildstein as a quiet, bespectacled statistician.

. . . .

Bristling with narcissism and punitive aggression, he drove his point home: 'We didn’t travel in the same circles in high school. You know, I was the class president and athlete. I don’t know what David was doing during that period of time.'"

Yikes! This was the front runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2016? If Christie had any good sense, he would acknowledge his ultimate responsibility for this fiasco and retire from public office.

Meanwhile, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "In Christie saga, keep calm and gossip on" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-keep-calm-and-gossip-on/2014/02/04/3ba39658-8ddd-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html?hpid=z2), Kathleen Parker entertains the very real possibility that Christie didn't know of Wildstein's behavior:

"As the Christie scandal machine grinds on, his polling numbers un-shockingly are plummeting. Once in the lead in a fantasy presidential race, he now trails Hillary Clinton 39 percent to 55 percent. In the race for the GOP nomination, he trails Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul, tying with Jeb Bush.

But the night is young. It remains entirely possible that Christie is telling the truth. And evidence may or may not exist. Which means a new narrative must fill the void. It goes like this: Even if he’s telling the truth, Christie created the culture in which his people felt free to abuse power."

A "new" narrative? For me, this has been and always will be the "only" narrative. Presidents, secretaries of state, secretaries of health and governors must take responsibility for all that happens under their watch.

But Christie has no more good sense than Hillary, who, notwithstanding her ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, should also call it quits, or Kathleen Sebelius, who should have resigned long ago over the Obamacare rollout debacle.

The West is being devastated by a plague of narcissism, characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and the need for constant attention, and there are those who believe that owing to its prevalence, it should no longer be deemed a personality disorder.

Ultimately, it is this me-first culture - not Putin or Khamenei - that will bring the temple down on our heads.

May the Lord have mercy on us!

Paul Krugman, "The Big Kludge": Or What Happens When a Community Organizer Becomes President

Do you think Apple or General Electric would ever consider appointing a charismatic community organizer with no managerial experience as their CEO? I don't think so, because their boards of directors would be wise enough to know that any such appointment would likely lead to chaos within their companies.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Big Kludge" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/krugman-the-big-kludge.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman ponders why America doesn't simply offer free medical insurance to all Americans. Krugman writes:

"Of course, we don’t have to imagine such a system, because it already exists. It’s called Medicare, it covers all Americans 65 and older, and it’s enormously popular. So why didn’t we just extend that system to cover everyone?

The proximate answer was politics: Medicare for all just wasn’t going to happen, given both the power of the insurance industry and the reluctance of workers who currently have good insurance through their employers to trade that insurance for something new. Given these political realities, the Affordable Care Act was probably all we could get — and make no mistake, it will vastly improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Still, the fact remains that Obamacare is an immense kludge — a clumsy, ugly structure that more or less deals with a problem, but in an inefficient way."

Hmm. "Make no mistake, [Obamacare] will vastly improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans"? In fact, Krugman is correct: Obamacare could ultimately improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans, but at the cost of tens of millions to other Americans, unless that cost is simply added to America's national debt, which is currently over $17 trillion and rising by the second.

Medicare and Medicaid are popular? For sure, but they are also plagued by fraud. As stated in a Forbes article entitled "Medicare And Medicaid Fraud Is Costing Taxpayers Billions" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/05/31/medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-is-costing-taxpayers-billions/2/) by Merrill Matthews:

"How much Medicare and Medicaid fraud is there? No one knows for sure. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report claiming to have identified $48 billion in what it termed as 'improper payments.' That’s nearly 10 percent of the $500 billion in outlays for that year. However, others, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, suggest that there is an estimated $60 to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare and a similar amount for Medicaid."

Yes, there is an ongoing problem involving the manner in which the US government has tackled health care issues.

But back to Krugman, who concludes his op-ed piece by declaring:

"A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn’t have to be that way."

Big government doesn't have to be "bad"? Possibly, but Obama is certainly doing his best to prove the opposite. As observed by Kathleen Parker in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The White House Comedy Club" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-white-house-comedy-club/2013/10/25/4765e700-3db2-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?hpid=z3):

"We reportedly eavesdrop on our allies and force citizens to buy insurance through a system we can’t manage. We concoct character-smearing rumors and attach them to our political adversaries. And that’s just the executive branch. Most important, we have damaged our bonds of trust with nations we need to keep as friends.

Any one of the above would make for a very bad week in governance. Combined, they suggest an uncomfortable conclusion to the world we purport to lead: The lights are flickering in the city on the hill, and our ship of state is foundering."

And as noted by Jackson Diehl in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Foreign policy based on fantasy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-foreign-policy-based-on-fantasy/2013/10/27/cfd74b06-3cc2-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html?hpid=z3):

"Israel and Saudi Arabia worry that Obama will strike a deal with Iran that frees it from sanctions without entirely extirpating its capacity to enrich uranium — leaving it with the potential to produce nuclear weapons. But more fundamentally, they and their neighbors are dismayed that the United States appears to have opted out of the regional power struggle between Iran and its proxies and Israel and the Arab states aligned with the United States. It is the prospect of waging this regional version of the Cold War without significant U.S. support that has prompted Saudi leaders to hint at a rupture with Washington — and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to talk more publicly than ever about Israel’s willingness to act alone."

Yes, Obama's Middle East policy has spawned antagonism from traditional American allies and chaos throughout the region. It is no accident that an al-Qaeda affiliate caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Iraq over the past two months (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/car-bombs-kill-scores-in-baghdad-in-sign-of-crisis-in-iraq/2013/10/27/7ae9c376-3cb3-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html?hpid=z1). Yup, we're talking about that same al-Qaeda, which, according to Obama while campaigning for reelection in 2012, was "decimated" and "on the run" (see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/intel-clashes-obamas-election-year-al-qaeda-claims/?page=all).

Bush was responsible for the mess in Iraq? I agree, but what does that matter five years into the Obama administration? Let's not forget who was responsible for escalating America's inane, boots-on-the-ground involvement in Afghanistan.

Big government does not necessarily have to be bad? I agree. But when big government is managed by a community organizer with no management experience, don't expect things to go right.

Instead, expect "I didn't do it," or its variant, "I didn't know about it." (Ask Jay Carney for a copy of the White House transcript of Obama's recent conversation with Merkel in which Obama tried to explain away US eavesdropping on Merkel's cell phone.)

Expect the "Big Kludge."

Gail Collins, "Frankenstein Goes to Congress": Is Obamacare a Zero-Sum Game?

Expect more partisan drivel from Gail Collins in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Frankenstein Goes to Congress" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/collins-frankenstein-goes-to-congress.html?_r=0), in which she again goes to bat for President Obama, with whom she and other Times editorial and op-ed staff held a recent "off-the-record" meeting (see:(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media). Concerning the shutdown and Republican efforts to defund Obamacare, Collins begins and ends:

"Our question for today is: Why don’t the Republicans just throw in the towel? Really, this is not going well for anybody.

. . . .

They’ve created a monster. And now the rest of the country is turning into peasants with torches, storming their castle."

The "peasants" are storming the castle? Hmm, let's think about this.

A few ground rules:

• I support universal health care.
• I am worried by America's national debt, which is now just a tad under $17 trillion.
• I don't like Republicans or Democrats.

Okay, now let's talk.

The computer glitches involving Obamacare enrollment? Insatiable demand which caused the system to buckle, or, faulty software that was not properly tested? Amost certainly the latter - the website has been taken down over the weekend for repairs (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57606175/obamacare-website-goes-down-for-repairs/) - but surely the software ultimately can be patched.

Software, however, is not my concern. Rather, as even Paul Krugman asked yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/paul-krugman-reform-turns-real-welcome.html):

"What we still don’t know, and is crucial for the program’s longer-term success, is who will sign up. Will there be enough young, healthy enrollees to provide a favorable risk pool and keep premiums relatively low?"

Or stated otherwise: Are there enough healthy youngsters willing to pay more in order to subsidize the unfavorable risk pool, thereby preventing a fiscal disaster, i.e. Democratic Senator Max Baucus's "train wreck"?

Or taken a step further, can payments from healthy youngsters ensure that Obamacare is fiscally neutral, i.e. a zero-sum game that does not contribute to further expansion of America's national debt, which is already unsustainable?

As recently observed by Kathleen Parker, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2):

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll."

Could it be that Collins's "peasants" are not so stupid after all, and cognizant of America's debt problems, they have no intention of "storming the castle"?

Could it also be that these "peasants" are smart enough to realize that the likelihood of Obamacare becoming a zero-sum game is almost non-existent, and that the program, which requires more thought as evidenced by its troublesome inauguration, is indeed apt to become Max Baucus's "train wreck"?

Who was it who once said, "You can fool some of the peasants all of the time, and all of the peasants some of the time, but you can not fool all of the peasants all of the time"?

Sorry, Gail, they're not "peasants," they're people, and they're much smarter than you think.

Paul Krugman, "Reform Turns Real": Welcome to Krugman's Alternate Reality

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Is there anyone more delusional than this Nobelist? Well, today Krugman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Reform Turns Real" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/krugman-reform-turns-real.html?_r=0), is now telling us:

"But Obamacare isn’t up for a popular referendum, or a revote of any kind. It’s the law, and it’s going into effect. Its future will depend on how it works over the next few years, not the next few weeks.

. . . .

So Obamacare is off to a good start, with even the bad news being really good news for the program’s future. We’re not quite there yet, but more and more, it looks as if health reform is here to stay."

"Obamacare is off to a good start"? Kathleen Parker, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2), made the case that Obamacare needs to be delayed and not defunded. Parker observed in no-nonsense fashion:

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll.

Some of the reasons:

●Many companies are cutting worker hours to below the threshold (30 hours) at which they're required to comply with Obamacare. (SeaWorld is cutting hours for thousands of workers.)

●Others are cutting workers completely to avoid compliance or to reduce costs associated with the expanded coverage. (The Cleveland Clinic cited Obamacare as one reason for offering early retirement to 3,000 workers and hinting at future layoffs.)

●Many young people, unemployed or earning little, will have trouble paying premiums once open enrollment for health insurance exchanges begins Oct. 1. Even discounts won’t be enough for some, who then will face fines or have to turn to parents who face their own insurance challenges. List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330 per month, according to a recent Avalere Health study. For someone who is 60, premiums will run about $615 a month. Forget retirement."

Obamacare is "the law, and it's going into effect"? This purported concern for the rule of law was also voiced in a prior Krugman's op-ed entitled "One Reform, Indivisible" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/opinion/krugman-one-reform-indivisible.html?_r=0), in which he declared:

"On the unstoppability of Obamacare: We have this system in which Congress passes laws, the president signs them, and then they go into effect. The Affordable Care Act went through this process, and there is no legitimate way for Republicans to stop it."

In fact, it has been the Obama administration which has delayed implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act (see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/08/05/delay-of-obamacares-employer-mandate-exacerbates-an-already-bad-situation/ and http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960). And as was pointed out by George Will in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-unconstitutional-steps-worse-than-nixons/2013/08/14/e0bd6cb2-044a-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html?hpid=z2):

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: 'I didn’t simply choose to' ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, 'this was in consultation with businesses.'

. . . .

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: 'Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?' The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority."

Or in other words, Obama can sponsor and sign into law the Affordable Care Act and then delay implementation of its unpopular provisions, until after the 2014 midterm elections.

And then there is the $64,000 question which even Krugman acknowledges in his opinion piece:

"What we still don’t know, and is crucial for the program’s longer-term success, is who will sign up. Will there be enough young, healthy enrollees to provide a favorable risk pool and keep premiums relatively low?"

Or stated otherwise: Are there enough healthy youngsters willing to pay more in order to subsidize the unfavorable risk pool, thereby preventing a fiscal disaster, i.e. Democratic Senator Max Baucus's "train wreck"? I also don't know the answer.

Gail Collins, "Knowing When to Worry": Did Gail's Op-ed Violate New York Times "Ethical Journalism" Guidelines?

Shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded? The attempt by the US House of Representatives to kill Obamacare is draconian and apt to do more damage than good. Of course, Obamacare is a disaster, and there is a reason why the Obama administration continues to delay its implementation (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960).

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Knowing When to Worry" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/opinion/collins-knowing-when-to-worry.html?_r=0), Gail Collins mocks the effort by the Republican-controlled House to quash the Affordable Health Care Act. Collins drolly writes:

"The bill the House sent to the Senate on Friday doesn’t even make much sense. The 'defund Obamacare' part looks as though it was written by squirrels. If it became law, Obamacare would actually continue to exist. At most, the administration would be crippled in their early efforts to get younger uninsured Americans to sign up for health coverage. (This would presumably give the opposition more time to run those ads that show a young woman being given a pelvic exam by a monster Uncle Sam doll.) And, meanwhile, the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program would be thrown into chaos, as well as payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients."

But are the Republicans as loony as Collins makes them out to be? Have a look at Kathleen Parker's most recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2), in which Parker makes the case that Obamacare needs to be delayed (actually, what is being done by the Obama administration) and not defunded. Parker observes in no-nonsense fashion:

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll.

Some of the reasons:

●Many companies are cutting worker hours to below the threshold (30 hours) at which they're required to comply with Obamacare. (SeaWorld is cutting hours for thousands of workers.)

●Others are cutting workers completely to avoid compliance or to reduce costs associated with the expanded coverage. (The Cleveland Clinic cited Obamacare as one reason for offering early retirement to 3,000 workers and hinting at future layoffs.)

●Many young people, unemployed or earning little, will have trouble paying premiums once open enrollment for health insurance exchanges begins Oct. 1. Even discounts won’t be enough for some, who then will face fines or have to turn to parents who face their own insurance challenges. List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330 per month, according to a recent Avalere Health study. For someone who is 60, premiums will run about $615 a month. Forget retirement."

Parker's conclusion:

"If we can delay sending cruise missiles to Syria pending a better solution, perhaps there’s some sense to delaying a health-care overhaul that creates unacceptable collateral damage to citizens and that is not quite ready for public consumption."

As acknowledged even by the Obama administration, as evidenced by its delays in implementing the law, Parker is right.

But let's go back to Collins. Did Collins's op-ed violate the "Ethical Journalism" guidelines (http://nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf) of The New York Times? Item 6 of the handbook of the Times provides:

"[N]o one may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government."

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama consulted on August 29 with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. It would appear that as a result of this "off-the-record" meeting, Obama suddenly decided to seek congressional approval for his proposed "limited" strike against the Assad regime.

The meeting, in which Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, not a particularly bright light (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), participated together with op-ed staffers, including Collins, and members of the editorial board, was not reported by the Times.

A simple question: Is it acceptable for the editorial and op-ed staff of the Times to meet with the president, offer their advice, and then opine - almost always favorably - on the president's actions? Can it be said that this advisory session deprived all of its participants of whatever was left of their impartiality?

What advice concerning Obamacare was given to the president during this shindig by New York Times staffers?

Care to answer, Gail?

Charles Blow, "50 Years Later": Compare with Kathleen Parker's "Obama’s Race Remarks Exacerbate Tensions"

My goodness gracious, it's time for yet another JG Caesarea Challenge Round!

Read Charles Blow's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "50 Years Later" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/blow-50-years-later.html?_r=0). As we near the 50th anniversary of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, marked by Dr. King's world-shaking "I have a dream" speech, Mr. Blow would have us know:

"I’m absolutely convinced that enormous steps have been made in race relations. That’s not debatable. Most laws that explicitly codified discrimination have been stricken from the books. Overt, articulated racial animus has become more socially unacceptable. And diversity has become a cause to be championed in many quarters, even if efforts to achieve it have taken some hits of late.

But my worry is that we have hit a ceiling of sorts. As we get closer to a society where explicit bias is virtually eradicated, we no longer have the stomach to deal with the more sinister issues of implicit biases and of structural and systematic racial inequality.

I worry that centuries of majority privilege and minority disenfranchisement are being overlooked in puddle-deep discussions about race and inequality, personal responsibility and societal inhibitors."

Okay, what's missing from this opinion piece?

First, there's not even a single mention of the fact that America today has a second-term African American president. Insignificant? I don't think so. This is huge.

But there's more . . .

Just over a month ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Whole System Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?_r=0), Mr. Blow wrote concerning the George Zimmerman acquittal:

"This case is not about an extraordinary death of an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, in America, people are lost to gun violence every day. Many of them look like Martin and have parents who presumably grieve for them. This case is about extraordinary inequality in the presumption of innocence and the application of justice: why was Martin deemed suspicious and why was his killer allowed to go home?"

Well, in the US there is a presumption of innocence, and "beyond reasonable doubt" remains the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. Zimmerman claimed that he was pinned on his back. His nose was broken, and the back of his head was lacerated. Was he acting out of fear, or, was he capable of the "intention" needed for conviction? Was there reasonable doubt?

Again, there is racism in America, and perhaps Zimmerman should never have stopped Martin, but did an "imperfect" American jury system reach the wrong verdict, or did the prosecution fail to meet its immensely difficult burden of proof? Did the prosecution "overreach" when deciding which charges to bring against Zimmerman?

Now have a look at Kathleen Parker's Washington Post opinion piece of today's date entitled "Obama’s race remarks exacerbate tensions" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obamas-race-remarks-exacerbate-tensions/2013/08/23/7491bb2e-0c1f-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html?hpid=z2). Ms. Parker writes:

"If I had a son, he would look like Christopher Lane, the 22-year-old Australian baseball player shot dead while jogging in Oklahoma.

If I had a father, he’d look like Delbert Belton, the 88-year-old World War II veteran beaten to death in Spokane, Wash.

. . . .

These are all true statements if we identify ourselves and each other only by the color of our skin, which increasingly seems to be the case. Even our president has done so.

Barack Obama helped lead the way when he identified himself with the parents of Trayvon Martin, shot by George Zimmerman in the neighborhood-watch catastrophe with which all are familiar. Stepping out from his usual duties of drawing meaningless red lines in the Syrian sand, the president splashed red paint across the American landscape:

'If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.'

In so saying, he essentially gave permission for all to identify themselves by race with the victim or the accused. How sad, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the march Martin Luther King Jr. led on Washington, that even the president resorts to judging not by the content of one’s character but by the color of his skin — the antithesis of the great dream King articulated."

Query: Where is there any reference to the deaths of Lane and Belton in Mr. Blow's op-ed? Answer: There is none.

"Puddle-deep discussions about race and inequality"? Mr. Blow's op-ed regrettably is little more than this.

Kathleen Parker, "For Hillary Clinton, the Time May Finally Be Right": Or Wrong

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "For Hillary Clinton, the time may finally be right" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-for-hillary-clinton-the-time-may-finally-be-right/2013/03/22/9b123bcc-930a-11e2-ba5b-550c7abf6384_story.html?hpid=z2), Kathleen Parker writes of Hillary's chances to be elected president in 2016:

"Not incidentally, the women’s vote is hers. Even Republican women would find it hard not to cast a ballot for Hillary. If not her, then who? And when? The Republican bench may be full, but, with the exception of Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor, it seems full of vice presidents rather than presidents. A Bush-Clinton contest might drive the country into dynastic delirium, but there would be a certain poetic symmetry: Finally the right Bush and the right Clinton.

Clearly, the “Hillary Clinton for president” proposition poses more questions than answers. But the calculus comes down to this: She has been working toward this moment essentially all her life, diligently clearing away the brush blocking her path. The zeitgeist is ready for a female president. Most important, she can win — and few think the country would be worse for it."

Come on, Kathleen, we're still years away from 2016, when, as you acknowledge, Hillary will turn 69. So much can change in the interim.

Sure, Hillary is as narcissistic and nasty as any other leading Democratic or Republican contender, and she will need to confront unresolved issues involving Benghazi ("What difference at this point does it make?”). On the other hand, she is also capable of making decisions, something that Barry has yet to learn.

Will she run? Much of the calculus will involve the state of the economy, which, although no longer comatose, is apt to remain bedridden. And then there is the question of how Iran ultimately plays out.

Also, the problem of Bill's philandering would have to be handled, no easy chore, unless he were to mysteriously meet the fate of Varys in "Game of Thrones."  Ouch.

Is Obama the Most Dysfunctional President in Contemporary American History?

Why listen to Jeffrey? He's just another a neocon. Sure, he favors gay marriage, is pro-choice, opposed the Second Gulf War, opposes US ground involvement in Afghanistan, and deplores the ravenous conduct of avaricious US financial institutions, but he has also dared to question the One. Jeffrey is "bad" and will never set foot in the White House.

Actually, the state of the union is bad. In fact, it is terrible owing to the arrogance of a president, who never possessed the skill set to be president.

The sequester? I don't know how many jobs will be lost or exactly what further damage will be done to a reeling economy. As observed by Charles Blow in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Poison Pill Politics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/opinion/blow-the-sequester-poison-pill-politics.html?_r=0):

"The deadline has passed. The sequester is in effect. And Congress is not in session.

We now know that our political system is broken beyond anything even remotely resembling a functional government.

The ridiculous bill was designed as a poison pill, but Republicans popped it like a Pez. Now the body politic — weak with battle fatigue, jerked from crisis to crisis and struggling to recover from a recession — has to wait to see how severe the damage will be."

But unlike Bob Woodward, Blows lacks the courage to acknowledge that the sequester was Obama's idea.

What about Woodward? What are the full implications of this imbroglio? As noted by Kathleen Parker in her latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why the 'threat' on Bob Woodward matters" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-obama-white-house-threat-to-bob-woodward-matters/2013/03/01/f5d36d5e-82b3-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?hpid=z2):

"This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is deemed unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And, thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has."

Yes, the First Amendment is under attack.

Obama's new cabinet of thick-witted white guys? They are indeed the worst and the dumbest. We have John Kerry, who called Bashar al-Assad his "dear friend" and who is given to inventing new countries (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/vice-president-joe-biden-just-fire.html), as secretary of state. We have Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semitic imbecile, as secretary of defense. And Jack Lew, the former chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments, who doesn't "believe that deregulation was the proximate cause" of the 2008 American economic meltdown (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/obama-nominee-jacob-lew-f_n_732594.html?view=print&comm_ref=false), as secretary of the treasury.

Access to the president? An ambassadorship? All you need to do is pay money (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?pagewanted=all and http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/28/sources-obama-picks-for-ambassadorships-include-top-donors/?hpt=po_c2).

A rogue Iranian regime building nuclear weapons? The recent P5+1 talks in Kazakhstan brought no results, although the P5+1 is no longer demanding the closure of the underground Fordow facility. That Obama is one tough negotiator who knows how to bring those crazy mullahs to heel. Yeah, right.

Bottom line: I used to think that the cataclysm would come after my lifetime and that my children would be forced to deal with it. No more. Obama is literally bringing the house down.

Paul Krugman, "The Ignorance Caucus": Hillary Doesn't Suppress the Facts?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Ignorance Caucus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman would have us know that Democrats believe "at least in principle, in letting its policy views be shaped by facts," whereas Republicans believe in "suppressing the facts if they contradict its fixed beliefs." In furtherance of his thesis, Krugman concludes his essay by citing Hillary Clinton:

"In her parting shot on leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton said of her Republican critics, 'They just will not live in an evidence-based world.' She was referring specifically to the Benghazi controversy, but her point applies much more generally. And for all the talk of reforming and reinventing the G.O.P., the ignorance caucus retains a firm grip on the party’s heart and mind."

Okay, I understand: Republicans "suppress" the facts, and Democrats don't.

But as long as Krugman is citing Hillary in support of his argument that Democrats are in favor of letting the facts be known, let's have another look at Hillary's testimony at the Senate Benghazi hearings. Just in case you missed it:

Senator Johnson: "We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that. An assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days, and they didn't know that."

Hillary: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans."

Senator Johnson: "I understand."

Hillary: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Query: How do you figure out what happened in Benghazi and prevent it from ever happening again if you refuse to ascertain whether the deaths stemmed from a spontaneous protest or a planned attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate? It makes a big difference. In fact, I would say that it makes all the difference in the world if you want to take smart, effective measures to bolster US embassy defense and "to prevent it from ever happening again."

More facts suppressed by the Obama administration? As observed by Kathleen Parker in a February 9 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton and the ghosts of Benghazi" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-hillary-clinton-and-the-ghosts-of-benghazi/2013/02/08/423e3bc6-722c-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Americans got a clearer picture of what transpired last Sept. 11 during testimony Thursday by retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said he personally delivered the news to Obama that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack during a 30-minute briefing that also included Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The president said, 'Do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,' and that was that. He and Panetta didn’t speak again that night — and neither Dempsey nor Panetta spoke to Clinton at all."

Only Republicans suppress the facts? Yeah, right.

Gail Collins, "Fitness for Office": What About Rosenthal and Friedman?

Does your girth in any manner impact upon your personal code of ethics or soundness of judgment? Sure, compulsive overeating or binge eating disorder can lead to obesity and type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, and certain kinds of cancer, but do extra pounds or kilograms render someone unfit for government service? We're not talking about an Ironman Triathlon.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Fitness for Office" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/collins-fitness-for-office.html?_r=0), Gail Collins writes:

"But about Chris Christie. He’s also being talked about as a possible presidential candidate. Now there’s a physical challenge for you. Have you noticed what the job has done to Barack Obama? We aren’t thinking about the 2016 election yet, out of deference to national sanity. When we do, we will have to take the fitness matter seriously."

Indeed, government is what you make of it. The job has turned Obama into a physical wreck, or is it the cigarettes? As observed by Kathleen Parker in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton and the ghosts of Benghazi" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-hillary-clinton-and-the-ghosts-of-benghazi/2013/02/08/423e3bc6-722c-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?hpid=z2), Obama didn't seem to take recent events in Benghazi too close to heart:

"Americans got a clearer picture of what transpired last Sept. 11 during testimony Thursday by retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said he personally delivered the news to Obama that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack during a 30-minute briefing that also included Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The president said, 'Do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,' and that was that. He and Panetta didn’t speak again that night — and neither Dempsey nor Panetta spoke to Clinton at all."

Were a gangly, cigarette-smoking Obama to be replaced by a hefty, donut-eating Christie, this would again mark another swing of the American political pendulum, but would we really need "to take the fitness matter seriously"?

Closer to home, Gail, who is also no featherweight, might want to take another gander at Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times, and at Thomas Friedman, whose chin has gone the way of the dodo bird, before indulging in another obsessive, Seamus-style series of attacks against Christie's corpulence.

Kathleen Parker, "The character assassination of Hillary Clinton": Get Real, Kathleen

"I didn't have sex with that woman." Yeah, right. "I remember landing under sniper fire." Almost as honest as Hillary's marriage to Bill. Not that I have anything against the Clintons. Politicians lie. That's what they get paid to do.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The character assassination of Hillary Clinton" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-hillary-clinton-and-our-rush-to-judgment/2013/01/01/c6903218-5449-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html), Kathleen Parker derides those who have heaped scorn upon Hillary Clinton during her hospital stay:

"But the attacks on Clinton during her illness, essentially attacks on her character, have been cruel and unfair. What must the world think of us?"

Hey, let's ignore the character attacks on this modest, self-effacing, servant of the people, and just look at the facts. Parker begins by stating:

"The new year began not with a cannonball off the 'fiscal cliff' but with an outbreak of conspiratorial cynicism.

This time it’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose fall and concussion, followed by a blood clot between her brain and skull, has prompted an embarrassment of theories."

Whoa! Who says the blood clot followed the fall and the concussion? As observed in a prior Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hillary-clintons-blood-clot-most-likely-in-a-leg-experts-say/2012/12/31/d2c853ea-5376-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html):

"Head trauma can cause blood in a venous sinus to clot, but it almost always has to be severe enough to cause a skull fracture, said Aaron S. Dumont, director of cerebrovascular surgery at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

'It’s probably a coincidence,' he said of Clinton’s fainting spell and the clot. He noted, however, that her history of a blood clot in the leg may indicate a predisposition to clotting."

Parker continues:

"Clinton, who fainted as a result of dehydration after a bout of flu, hit her head and suffered a concussion, after which a blood clot was discovered. She had to be hospitalized while blood-thinning medications were administered and monitored."

Again, full stop! Can we be so certain that Clinton fainted as a result of dehydration after a bout of the flu? Get real. There is a greater likelihood that she fainted from the preexisting blood clot.

Blood-thinning medications were administered? Again problematic. As noted by Dr. Kent Sepkowitz (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/31/how-serious-is-hillary-clinton-s-blood-clot-and-hospitalization.html):

"But anticoagulation is never given to persons with clots around the brain. They are either watched without intervention or surgically evacuated."

A "routine" MRI following dehydration? Please . . . something other than dehydration was obviously suspected.

Yes, nothing quite makes sense here. My guess is that doctors happened upon the subdural hematoma when searching for the reason that she fainted, and this tendency toward clotting could rule out Hillary's chances of running for president in 2016, not that this would trouble Hillary or Bill in the least.