Month: February 2010

George Packer has a brilliant post on DC journalists confusing perceptions with reality:

It would be strange if the Times’s coverage of the financial crisis, which has been stellar, focused entirely on things like Richard Fuld’s handling of his P.R. problems while Lehman was going down. And it would be strange if the paper’s coverage of Afghanistan, which has also been stellar, focused entirely on things like Hamid Karzai’s use of traditional Pashtun rhetoric in his effort to ride the wave of public anger at the Americans. Imagine Karzai’s recent inaugural address as covered by a Washington journalist:

“Speaking at the presidential palace in Kabul, Mr. Karzai showed himself to be at the top of his game. He skillfully co-opted his Pashtun base while making a powerful appeal to the technocrats who have lately been disappointed in him, and at the same time he reassured the Afghan public that his patience with civilian casualties is wearing thin. A palace insider, who asked for anonymity in order to be able to speak candidly, said, ‘If Karzai can continue to signal the West that he is concerned about corruption without alienating his warlord allies, he will likely be able to defuse the perception of a weak leader and regain his image as a unifying figure who can play the role of both modernizer and nationalist.’…"

Today on the Dish, Nate Silver assessed the impact of the Bayh departure. Klein and Cohn checked in on HCR, Cowen crunched the numbers on lives likely saved (more here), Tumulty reported rising premiums, and Reihan called out Dems for “faux bipartisanship.” Joe the Plumber and TeaParty.org’s founder turned on Palin.

In Israel-related commentary, Andrew Sprung reflected on the dynamic between Islamists and neocons, a reader chimed in, Johann Hari recounted his experiences with the anti-semite smear, Wayne Dynes examined the multiple gods in the Hebrew bible, and Andrew addressed a debate between Walt and Judis at length.

In assorted coverage, Beinart exposed the wedge between Cheney and Bush over terrorism, an Alaska blogger highlighted the rift between Palin and her former speechwriter, Larison defended the Leveretts against Andrew, and Balko calculated the number of innocent people in prison. The Dish spotted another good omen for ending DADT, heard a heartbreaking story centered on healthcare reform, watched David Cameron give an impressive PM pitch, and aired the horrendous piece of journalism behind the anti-Muslim incident in Nashville.

Readers dissented over ugly criminals, the Onion investigated the latest threat to marriage, and we discovered another poseur. Don’t miss these flying dogs and these un-flying mosquitoes. And here’s the weekend wrap if you missed it.

— C.B.

Fantastic news from Pakistan:

The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials. The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials. It was unclear whether he was talking, but the officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. Most immediately, they hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group’s spiritual leader.

How the Cheney right has had the gall to claim that Obama has not been as ruthless as he has been effective in the real war on terror is beyond me. And why the Washington MSM buy this unhinged FNC/RNC narrative and somehow treat a fantastically incompetent war criminal like Dick Cheney as some kind of authority on national security is … well, it says a lot about what's wrong with Washington journalism.

Of course, one dreams of getting Mullah Omar. And if Obama manages to capture Osama, well, we might just muster the political and moral fortitude to send Cheney to the Hague where he belongs.

Michael McWilliams, an assistant professor of health care policy and of medicine at Harvard Medical School, counters Megan:

From the sizable observational literature, McArdle selects just one negative study to suggest insurance coverage may not affect mortality (Kronick 2009).  Yet several other observational studies that controlled for an equally robust set of characteristics have consistently demonstrated a 35-43% greater risk of death within 8-10 years for adults who were uninsured at baseline and even higher relative risks for older uninsured adults with treatable chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension (Baker et al. 2006; McWilliams et al. 2004; Wilper et al. 2009).

Ackerman vents:

A journalistic pet peeve: saying something is “interesting.” That tells a reader absolutely nothing. You owe it to your audience to explain why the Thing-Itself is interesting; what precisely is interesting; and if there’s a value judgment lurking behind the “interesting” designation, what that might be.

Alex Knapp fisks the Daily Mail‘s global warming reporting.

Reihan makes several strong points:

[W]hen the president claims that the Senate health-care bill he still hopes to salvage includes many Republican ideas, he's stretching. Republicans wanted interstate competition for insurance policies, allowing New Yorkers to buy South Dakota policies that have fewer expensive mandates. The bill allows states to form interstate compacts, allowing New York to decide that New Yorkers can buy policies from certain other states—almost certainly other states with similarly stiff regulations. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters always choose to play the hapless Washington Generals, this isn't a real competition: It has the form of a Republican idea, but not the substance.

And liberals offer a pretty good reason for not allowing real interstate competition: It might mean that all of the healthiest people in a state will flock to buy barebones policies registered in states with lax regulations, leaving the state government to deal with the oldest and the sickest. Rather than acknowledge this deep difference, however, the president insists that he's incorporated a Republican idea. Roughly the same thing applies to other supposedly conservative ideas in the Senate bill. There is something condescending about this faux bipartisanship. It fools no one but the gullible or the deliberately obtuse, and it obscures a real and legitimate debate. Congressional Republicans will concede nothing because they believe they're right. They will not give political cover to Blue Dogs for voting for a health-care reform bill they're convinced will prove economically ruinous for the country.

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don’t Love Each Other