Month: July 2010

Susan Gardner makes a compelling argument with some truth to it:

The fact is, men are living less than three years longer, women about five. Yes, there are more people living longer because they didn’t die at age 3 of whooping cough or polio, but the life expectancy for an individual has not been extended very much at all once age 65 is reached. Disturbingly, pushing the retirement age out five years as is currently proposed actually means an individual male retiree today is at risk of being cheated of two years more retirement than our supposedly drastically shorter-lived forebears received more than half a century ago.

Joyner carefully explains why this overstates things:

For those born at the turn of the 20th Century, less than fifty percent could expect to see one dime from Social Security.   But the vast majority could expect to pay into the system, supporting existing retirees, for twenty to thirty years. For those born in 1949, though, more than 70 percent expect to live to 65. For those born in 2006, it’ll be more than 90 percent.

Yes, those who retire will only get benefits longer.   But vastly larger numbers will actually draw benefits.   From a purely actuarial standpoint, that makes a huge difference.

Pete Guither isn't buying Mark Kleiman's argument:

So… the federal government, unhappy that marijuana profits have stopped going to murderous Mexican drug cartels, and instead are going to California citizens, will start cracking down on marijuana trafficking?

It's not his editing. He doesn't have the full video.

The AP:

In endorsing Republican candidate Kelly Ayotte (AY'-aht), Palin also strayed a bit from the facts in praising her for having "won" a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. As state attorney general, Ayotte defended a law requiring parental notification for teenagers seeking abortions. But it was repealed after the U.S. Supreme Court sent it back to a lower court.

Bernstein guesses that epistemic closure on the right will cost Republicans Senate and House seats.

A reader writes:

I think that Ms. Palin is handling the matter perfectly.  Why in Heaven's name would she fulfill what you call her "burden of proof"? Why would she "clear up a question for which there must be a mountain of readily available medical records"? The political calculus – one that seems entirely accurate – is that she does not benefit from proving that she is Trig's mother and that she benefits from refusing to prove that she is Trig's mother.

If she is not Trig's mother, then any effort to prove that she is increases her vulnerability to exposure. Exposure, whether done voluntarily (because she confesses) or involuntarily (because she is incontrovertibly discovered) hurts her, probably irreparably. If she is Trig's mother, then any effort to prove this fact not only doesn't benefit her politically (since those who doubt Trig's maternity won't vote for her regardless), but it diminishes her core narrative that the media is out to get her and her family.  She gets tons of sympathy from the Trig rumors, even from people who don't particularly like her, so why give that up?

You and all others who care about Trig's maternity have the right to pursue the story.  And certainly, if you can demonstrate that she is not, then you have accomplished a good thing by exposing a political lie.  But if you think that she's going to help you undo her because she somehow "ought" to, then you're certifiable.

Another writes:

Enough already!  If indeed there is "overwhelming and easily available material evidence to resolve the matter entirely" then, for God's sake, go out and find it!  Spend a couple of months tracking down the story like a real journalist.

As it happens, I think you're right; I think there IS something fishy about the whole story, but sitting at your computer whining about it isn't going to get the job done. Dumping on other journalists for not doing their jobs isn't going to do it either. If you think this story is important, and obviously you do, then do the country a favor and go get it. Work your contacts, get the interviews, do the leg work, get the evidence for or against and then write the damn story. Make some history!

Another:

I came to the US in 2001 as a foreign correspondent for an Australian newspaper. Yet I've found the deference to authority and sheer ineptitude of US mainstream journalists both disturbing and sad: disturbing because their collective failure has such serious consequences, and sad because they have turned their backs on the very impulse to expose the truth that drives so many to enter the media in the first place.

It's also not that people don't understand the dynamic between reporters and sources, and the trade-offs inherent in that relationship. It's tough to fearlessly expose the truth when you have to simultaneously maintain your day-to-day contact with sources that you rely on to actually do your job. Should there be those trade-offs? No. But they exist. Absolutely.

The problem is that the US media has just given up. It's forsaken any pretense at objectivity by dutifully "reporting" both sides of an issue, as though crack-pot ideas are worthy of the same prominence as verifiable facts. And, at the same time, journalists seek to be respected not for what they do, but who they are.

We used to say journalists who switched to public relations had joined "the dark side": it was where you went once you succumbed to the dollar-laden lure of being paid to twist and manipulate facts, rather than report them. Yet I find the mainstream media in the US – both inside and outside the beltway – now indistinguishable from the dark side. Fox shills shamelessly for the right, MSNBC for the left. The Wall Street Journal op-ed page believes it can create its own reality, while The New York Times adjusts the facts to suit whatever an administration tells it to.

Against this current, I can only applaud your continuing effort regarding Sarah Palin and the plain weirdness of the Trig situation. Whether you like Palin or not and whether you believe her or not is immaterial. The point is that she's a public figure who has used her Trig prominently to advance her career. Asking for the truth is what journalists do. If you want to be a stenographer, the line for Palin's press secretary forms to the right. Anyway, it's a long-winded way of saying: keep fighting.

Another:

Keep on refudiating!

A reader writes:

I find it interesting that you and Hitchens talk about Mel Gibson in psychodynamic terms – as though either of you are qualified to evaluate his rantings from a clinical perspective.  In his more lucid moments, Gibson has admitted to being diagnosed with Bipolar disorder.

This doesn't excuse his behavior, but it certainly explains it a lot better than most commentary on the subject so far.  His behavior – certainly his rage – is actually rather common in the manic phase of unmedicated (or self-medicated) bipolar disorder.  How he medicates himself for this illness is something he hasn't really discussed, but it's clear that he is mentally ill – not just an oddball or a fascist (obviously, these are not mutually-exclusive categories – I'm just saying there is far more to the Gibson outbursts than you or others seem willing to speak about).

I lived with someone with Bipolar disorder for twenty years. I do not believe that the fascistic pornography and attack on the Gospels in "The Passion" has anything to do with bipolar disorder, nor do I believe it is relevant or exculpatory when someone has admitted to physically attacking a woman. He needs police intervention to protect the lives of others around him.

Levi's mom and sister talk to Inside Edition about first hearing about the engagement on the cover of Us magazine. Jesse Griffin shares what's in store:

… Levi's most recent girlfriend (before he lost his mind), is giving an interview this evening on Inside Edition as well, and divulging the things that Levi told her about the Palins. Oh THIS might ruffle a few feathers in the new love nest! Apparently the young lady's name is Brianna, and she is gorgeous!

Elsewhere in the tabloids, Bristol's rep kills rumors of a reality show. Money quote from Page Six:

"Don't think we should do it. Neither of them have personalities," said one cable honcho.

Here's part two. Marcy Wheeler's criticism:

I’m beginning to agree with Rayne’s comment of the other day that the only explanation for the length of the WaPo series on contractors is to please the Pulitzer committee. The other most (perhaps more) likely explanation for the style of the piece is that editors have tried so hard not to piss off the security establishment–and to stop short of voicing the conclusions that Dana Priest and William Arkin’s work support–that they’ve turned Priest and Arkin’s work into a bunch of disembodied fluff.

Peter Feaver's response to yesterday's article:

The major claim that the complexity of the intelligence community has made it hard to manage in a centralized fashion is neither new nor proven in a novel way. I am sympathetic to the charge — anyone who has worked in government understands how complex the national security establishment is and can probably name a publication or an organization that, in one person's humble opinion, could be dropped without fatally wounding national security. The difficulty is that when you aggregate across a variety of experienced perspectives, you do not come up with a common list of things to axe. One man's meat is another man's fluff, and vice-versa. You need look no further than this very series to establish this fact. The Washington Post team have spent two years talking with scores of people and compile all of the complaints without producing (yet, yet … perhaps the best is yet to come) any coherent and viable set of reforms.