After "insulting" seniors below, now I take a shot at the younger generation - in this case Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein, who come to pre-excuse a potential political failure by the Obama Administration on health care. Yglesias cites Klein:

I don’t know how many times a president has to fail to solve this problem before we admit that it’s not a matter of presidential messaging, or toughness, or will, or strategy. FDR, Truman, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all took runs at this prize. All of them failed.

This is ridiculous. 2008 is not 1994. Or 1976. And so on. And to say FDR "failed" or LBJ "failed" on health care reform is beyond ridiculous. Hell, if Obama can achieve "the failure" LBJ did, how exciting would that be?

Here's a question though, why are Yglesias and Klein intent on excusing a potential Obama failure on health care reform? What do they know that we do not? We know Klein is an Obama Administration apologist and pet (I'm sorry if that offends, but that is simply what the evidence demonstrates.) Is the inside word that health care reform is gonna fail? And if so, do Rahmbo and Axelrod really think that whispering this nonsense into the ear of young Klein is gonna ameliorate the resulting political debacle? Really?

Speaking for me only

This is the type of response I would expect from the Media:

As to the emerging meme that the media is playing up this sensationalism while ignoring the real story — the horrific plight of women in Africa — it’s nonsense. Of course the latter is much more important. But it’s not news.

Absorb that sentiment for a moment. And then consider it is NOT from a member of the Media, but rather from James Joyner who then expands on this thought in responding to this comment - "Its only news because you say so:"

Well, me and every editor and news producer on the planet.

Joyner does not recognize that is in fact the problem - every Media type thinks that way. It is the classic response to media criticism - that's just the way it is. 'The way it is' is atrocious and unacceptable. That is the point of the criticism.

Speaking for me only

Via Yglesias, Andrew Sabl calling the seniors opposed to health care reform (what I have termed Laffer-ism, but "Selfish Socialism" works for me too) selfish socialists:

Some of the most virulent opponents of health reform are the elderly, who already have government-provided health insurance. While some may be too silly to know that that's what they have, a great many assuredly do know it, and are happy to pull up the ladder behind them. Medicare is already very successful and very generous. Under universal coverage, it's unlikely to get much better (except for prescription drug coverage, but not all the elderly take a huge number of pills). And it could, for all one knows, get worse. To avoid that risk, better that some youngsters go without.

This reasoning, though, is brutal--too brutal to acknowledge. While we're a pretty selfish country, "I'm all right, Jack" is not an argument people comfortably make when others' lives are at stake. But "if this passes, they'll euthanize me and my friends" is another kind of argument altogether. It's false, but easy to seize on as a morally comfortable pretext for opposing a bill that threatens one's self-interest.

Let the generational pie fight begin.

Speaking for me only

Remember the bombings last month at the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott in Indonesia? Police now say a mild-mannered hotel florist was a key plotter.

Police on Wednesday disclosed that Ibrohim — Suhandi's roommate and friend of three years, whom he described as a "polite" man who used to give flowers to their neighbors on Valentine's Day — had smuggled in the explosives used in the bombings. He allegedly orchestrated the attacks with Southeast Asia's most wanted terrorism suspect, Noordin Muhammad Top.

The florist was killed in a police raid last weekend. It was initially thought that the raid killed a top-level al-Qaida person, but DNA tests showed it was the florist, now described as a "planner and arranger" of the bomb plot.

Federal officials are in Michigan today touring the Standish maximum security prison scheduled to close in October:

The officials are from the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security. The prison is the only employer in the town. But the prison guards think their jobs would still be toast because the feds would bring in their own guards. There's also fear that the feds would seize some homes near the prison to expand the prison's perimeter.

From the comments, this excellent post on the NYTimes web site is pointed out to us. I recommend it be read by all. It makes some good points about "the question" brouhaha and gets the facts straight - something the Media does not do very well. But just as importantly, it links to this video, which, unfortunately, will not make the evening news or be the subject of a Maureen Dowd column.

Speaking for me only

The latest Gallup poll demonstrates, for the umpteenth time, that political analysts and reporters do no understand polling:

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic. Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. . .

The reporter who wrote this, Susan Page, is a classic CW type who basically spouts whatever her colleagues are saying. This is another example. My reaction to the poll is this - only 34%? That's great news for Obama. These type of polling questions are simply restating the basic question - do you oppose health care reform? Only 34% say they do? That's not bad at all. As for the "independents" nonsense - it is important to realize that true independents are a small percentage of "independents." 75% of "independents" are weak Dems or Republicans. This silly trope is trotted out all the time. Anything else worth noting in this Gallup poll? Let's see on the flip.

Sometimes cooperating with the Government doesn't pan out the way you thought it would. Bernie Madoff's CFO Frank DiPascali, Jr. learned that the hard way Tuesday.

After pleading guilty to an Information containing ten counts (pdf), carrying a possible sentence of 125 years in prison for which his sentencing guideline range would be life in prison, and agreeing to forfeit $170 billion (with a "b" as the judge pointed out) plus another $250 million, the issue of bail pending sentencing came up. The transcript of Tuesday's hearing is here (pdf).

DiPascali, 52, is cooperating, in hopes of avoiding a life sentence. He worked for Madoff for 30 years and admitted participating in the fraudulent scheme and cooking the books for 20 of them and lying to the SEC in 2006. He saw the light in December, 2008 -- 8 months ago. Since then, he's been a model citizen, reporting almost daily to meet with FBI agents and help them unravel what he and Bernie did. The Government agreed to recommend bail (pdf).

The Judge was having none of it. Not because he wanted to punish DiPascali, but because he doesn't trust the fraudster or his recent conversion to Truth, Justice and the American Way. [More...]

Like Jeralyn, and unlike apparently most every other Democratic blogger, I am not in Pittsburgh. I would like to have seen how Bill Clinton and some of those bloggers get along tonight.

I may watch it here.

This is an Open Thread.

NYTimes' Judith Warner:

[A] peculiarly gendered form of trivializing scorn still tags our secretary of state. Just two weeks ago, The Washington Post had to remove from its Web site an ostensibly humorous video sketch by two of its prominent political journalists that juxtaposed a picture of Clinton’s face with a bottle of derogatorily named beer. This sort of thing bodes badly for the country’s ability to treat her — and the issues she most passionately champions — with appropriate respect.

“We have our own work to do at home,” [Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s new ambassador at large for global women’s issues,] told me. “We trivialize the importance too often of these issues: the ‘women’s issue’ — you put it in quotes, that little category over there, the box you check. What we have to do is realize these are the issues; if we want societies to prosper and if we want our own security, we have to raise the status of women.” . . . Can all this complexity attract — much less sustain — the attention of the public?

Maybe — if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment.

This piece seems directed at Maureen Dowd.

Speaking for me only

I'm fixated on crime today, so here's an open thread for those of you with other things on your mind. All topics welcome.

Virginia must have a secret stash of money somewhere. The Republican candidate for Governor, Bob McDonnell, along with the Republican candidate for Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, are proposing new mandatory minimums for second time drug offenders and lifetime GPS monitoring for violent sex offenders.

Their goal: to make Virginia “one of the most hostile environments in America” for drug dealers.

They also want to speed up the process of terminating parental rights for abusive parents.

McConnell is the current Attorney General in Virginia and a former prosecutor. The Washington Post has more on his plan, including the Democrats' opposition because it doesn't have enough funding for police.