Another War of Jenkins' Ear

Resist The Pointless

Posts Tagged ‘health care

Obama, Babies & A Dirty Secret: What Exactly Is Fox News Suggesting Here?

with 3 comments

From the front page of the Fox Nation website:


Okay, so you see a picture of Obama, a bunch of innocent looking babies and a headline that suggests there’s some kind of “dirty secret.”  What exactly is Fox News suggesting here?  Well, nothing untoward, of course – surely this is all innocent.  They can’t possibly be suggesting that Obama is going to do something “dirty” with your babies, right? [I’m not even going to touch the subtle (or not so subtle) racial aspects of this picture.]

I’ll just click the link, see what the article is about. Ah, it links to an analysis of the health care reform bills by noted health care policy scholar, Chuck Norris.

Perhaps Fox News is just confused about the concept of a dirty secret.  There’s nothing in the legislation that involves Obama doing something “dirty” with “young children.”  Nor, is the legislation much of a secret, since it’s all public.  Perhaps they should speak to childrens author and Fox News host Bill O’Reilly about the meaning of “dirty secrets.”  An allegation that O’Reilly sexually harassed an employee is an example of a “dirty secret.”  Health care reform, however, isn’t.


Written by Angelo

August 12, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Glenn Beck Compares MOMA To Health Care Reform…

with 3 comments

In part of a running series, I’ll be directly challenging some of the more absurd connections that Glenn Beck makes.

This morning, Glenn Beck posted the following argument on Twitter (emphasis added):

Tried 4 4th time to go to the MOMA in NYC. Had 2 wait in line for Free ticket.Couldn’t wait.Wouldn’t let me buy.Soon-this will be 4 bandaids

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Angelo

August 8, 2009 at 10:21 am

Three Up and Three Down

leave a comment »

Three stories I somehow like, and three stories I somehow don’t. Chosen fresh daily.

Up: A monkey urinated on the Zambian president. What can I say, political scalatogical events make me laugh. Sue me. You want a serious one? OK, here’s John Dickerson and Peter Orszag discussing health care over the next few days.

Down: If you ever wonder why Afghanistan is going to be difficult for the Americans, British, and other forces there, read this. The frustration of the British in the article is palpable – I can’t even imagine how it is seeing fellow soldiers dying in a situation like that. I like this article for it’s realism, it’s in the down category for how difficult and frankly depressing it makes me feel about Afghanistan. I still think it’s a war that has to be fought, but is there a way to “win”? If not, what does that mean? Along those same lines, an American drone in Pakistan killed 60, half of which were civilians.

Up: Matt Taibbi takes on Goldman Sachs … and Felix Salmon applauds? Salmon’s conclusion: “The best we can hope for, I think, is that Goldman will unilaterally decide to be a force for good in the world, rather than an inflator of bubbles and profiteer in busts.”

Down: Greenwald alert: People within the British government are upset that the Freedom of Information act in the country is used to criticze government and not to understand it. How naive are these people?

Up: Daniel Larison pushes back against the idea that Khamenei can’t be negotiated with, and that negotiating with dictators leaves “blood on your hands.” He has a valid point that a strongly moralistic foreign policy was out of favor for a while, but I would caution that it’s an idea that weaves it’s way into and out of favor over time. The 1890s to the 1910s, for example, strike me as a time when foreign policy was often dictated by morality.

Down: Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, dolls, and ACORN.

Bonus ups: I had marked this Ramesh Ponnuru op-ed in the Times for it’s clarity regarding judicial thinking on issues of race, but then Jonathan Chait went and singled it out before I got to it. The entire op-ed is worth reading. Additionally, Chait singles out an interesting counter-intuitive point regarding the health care public option and how it, if formulated wrongly, could provide a boon for insurance companies.

Written by John Whitehouse

June 24, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Three Up and Three Down

leave a comment »

Three stories I somehow like, and three stories I somehow don’t. Chosen fresh daily.

Up: President Obama is shooting down foolish questions from the press, but he can’t do that to genuinely tough questions.

Down: Woman has twins using fancy DNA; Press gives credit to the fancy DNA.

Up: Matthew Yglesias points out that whatever the faults of the Waxman-Markey bill, the Senate version will assuredly be where the problems arise.

Down: Greg Sargent thinks that Obama will be attacked for setting up a Huffington Post question.  To his credit, Paul from Powerline finds the answer lacking, not the question.

Up: The Richard Nixon tapes are hilarious. Socially, it’s notable how far we’ve come in the time since he was elected.

Down: John from Crooks and Liars is “sick of hearing that Congress is writing the bill” and thinks Obama will lose the left without a public option. Well, his personal feelings are irrelevant in this matter, and Congress really is the one writing the bill. The relevant comparison is when Bush tried to pass Social Security after the 2004 election – he couldn’t get it done. Congress really does write the legislation and the relevant body is the Senate. Obama has next to no leverage over them. You can tout a “mandate” all you want and cite polls but that doesn’t automatically lead to support.

Written by John Whitehouse

June 23, 2009 at 6:14 pm