Month: February 2005

What the heck is Hindrocket smoking?

by

I don’t mean to beat up on Hindrocket of Power Line, but his portrayal of the objections to elevating Judge Gonzales to AG is simply bizarre.  The objections to Gonzales do not consist solely of disagreements with Gonzales’ alleged conclusion that the Geneva Convention does not apply to "enemy combatants" in the service of "pseudo-states," … Read more

The Insurgency Re-Excused

by

In an exercise that borders on selective, if not purely revisionist, history, wretchard at the Belmont Club plays off a Newsweek article to argue that what made the Iraqi insurgency possible was "the gift of time." In other words, because Blair insisted Bush go through the UN charade and because France, Germany, and Russia were … Read more

Who You Calling a Dog?

by

hat tip to constant reader wilfred for this very entertaining diversion~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the grand tradition of asking folks "If you were a tree, what kind would you be?" comes What Dog Are You (see link near bottom of right-hand column). Apparently I’m a Newfoundland (a thin one, thank you): A large and beautiful beast, the … Read more

Blog Ethics

by

Via Atrios and Kevin Drum, a story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

“As a graduate student in public affairs at the University of Minnesota, I recently heard an in-class presentation by John Hinderaker, who, with partner Scott Johnson, runs the Powerline blog. Powerline played a role in breaking the Rathergate affair and was recently named “Blog of the Year” by Time magazine.

Prior to Hinderaker’s presentation, the week before the November elections, I visited the Powerline site. To my surprise an Oct. 27 post covered alleged voter fraud in Racine, Wis., my hometown. The charges involved the registering of illegal aliens to vote. The story seemed outrageous, so I made a few phone calls to check it out.

What I discovered was troubling. There was no factual basis for the voter fraud allegations. Powerline posted the story based on the word of a single individual employed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This was hearsay at best, posted as “news” at a time when voter registration efforts by the Democrats and 527 groups were coming under fire by conservatives.

At class I asked Hinderaker if posts to Powerline were fact-checked. He was dismissive of the question, so I asked if he was aware that the Racine voter fraud story was inaccurate. He stated that he was not, slapped his hands together and stated that the blogosphere was all about speed and therefore did not allow for fact-checking. Mr. Hinderaker went on to say, “Our readers let us know when we get it wrong.”

And therein lies the cautionary Catch-22: Bloggers may serve as media watchdogs, but who will watch the blogs? Do you have time to fact-check what you read online?”

Hindrocket disputes this:

“The piece accuses us of a failure to fact-check. The author refers to a news story we linked to last October which related to voter fraud in Wisconsin, and says that she “made a few phone calls” and determined that “[t]here was no factual basis for the voter fraud allegations.” No hint as to whom she called, or what information she learned that demonstrated that the allegations in the news story were false.

We are, of course, preparing a response. It will focus, I think, on the fact-checking that the Strib did before they printed Ms. Gage’s attack on us. I talked to Commentary Editor Eric Ringham today, and he acknowledged that the Strib didn’t do any fact-checking at all before they accused us of not fact-checking. That’s right: None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. And Ms. Gage, if that’s really her name, has no knowledge about the voter fraud scandal which has now resulted in a federal criminal investigation.”

Since he has not posted the promised response yet, I don’t know whether he will also dispute Gage’s account of what he said. This is important: if he did in fact say that “the blogosphere was all about speed and therefore did not allow for fact-checking”, that is, in my view wrong, and it should also be very important to Powerline’s readers. If not, that would also be good to know. One way or the other, I hope he addresses this question.

It’s also worth noting that I haven’t found any evidence that the allegations he discussed in the post Gage refers to have “resulted in a federal criminal investigation.” (There was a federal investigation into other allegations of voter fraud in Racine, which has resulted in criminal charges.) As far as I can tell, this was the response to the allegations Gage was talking about:

“Also Thursday, the Racine County district attorney’s office said it has had difficulty proving allegations by a Michigan organization that Racine members of Voces de la Frontera, a group that aids migrant workers, committed any violations in registering voters.

The Federation for Immigration Reform alleged that two of its members posed as people who are not eligible to vote who then worked through Voces de la Frontera to register voters in Racine and Milwaukee.

The district attorney’s office said in a statement that an audiotape from FAIR purporting to document the violations is difficult to hear and contains “no clear evidence that a crime was committed.””

Leaving these issues aside, however …

Read more

Rachel Corrie Still a Registered Voter

by

Thurston County Last Name First/Middle Name Number Street City CORRIE RACHEL A 125e State Ave NE Olympia The above data is what you get (as shown by Stefan Sharkansky) when you enter "Thurston County" and "Corrie" in the Sound Politics Voter Database. What you will find is that the young woman–who came out on the … Read more

Hillary: A Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing?

by

First and foremost, apologies if any Republicans feel offended by the wolf/sheep dichotomy in the title. I’m sure plenty of GOPers are perfectly docile and woolly. 😉
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hillary’s been seen sporting a more conservative power suit lately, and it ain’t sitting too well with some of us counting on her to use her star power to promote a more liberal agenda. Not that we should be surprised. Both she and her husband  have always been more moderate than liberal in my eyes, and (like most politicians, both sides of the aisle) she’s nothing if not willing to spin her message to suit her audience, but if I wanted an Arlen Specter-esque Democrat Senator, I’d move to Connecticut.

Clinton’s strategists insist that she’s merely continuing in her efforts to paint a fuller picture of herself since leaving the White House, but the fuller picture of herself seems mostly limited to insisting she’s religious:

Read more

Below The Radar

by

While everyone is preoccupied with Social Security, another Bush agenda item is moving quietly forward. From the LA Times:

“Emboldened by their success at the polls, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress believe they have a new opportunity to move the nation away from the system of employer-provided health insurance that has covered most working Americans for the last half-century.

In its place, they want to erect a system in which workers — instead of looking to employers for health insurance — would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible “catastrophic” insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.

Elements of that approach have been on the conservative agenda for years, but what has suddenly put it on the fast track is GOP confidence that the political balance of power has changed. (…)

Critics say the Republican approach is really an attempt to shift the risks, massive costs and knotty problems of healthcare from employers to individuals. And they say the GOP is moving forward with far less public attention or debate than have surrounded Bush’s plans to overhaul Social Security.

Indeed, Bush’s health insurance agenda is far more developed than his Social Security plans and is advancing at a rapid clip through a combination of actions by government, insurers, employers and individuals.

Health savings accounts, known as HSAs, have already been approved. They were created as a little-noticed appendage to the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.

HSAs have had a strong start in the marketplace. Although regulations spelling out how they would work were not issued until mid-2004, as of Sept. 30, about 440,000 people had signed up. And more than one-quarter of employers say they are likely to offer them as an option.

The accounts are available only to people who buy high-deductible health insurance, either through an employer or individually. Consumers can set aside tax-free an amount equal to their deductible. Employers can contribute to workers’ HSAs but do not have to. Unused balances can be rolled over from year to year, and employees take their HSAs with them when they switch jobs.

The idea that losing one’s job would not automatically mean losing protection for medical costs has bipartisan appeal. “Portability” was a key feature of President Clinton’s ill-fated healthcare reform plan. But the GOP approach is significantly different: Whereas Clinton would have required all employers to chip in for universal health insurance, Bush wants to leave responsibility primarily to individuals.

“This is certainly getting a lot of attention from employers,” said Jack Rodgers, a healthcare analyst for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

One reason is potential cost savings to employers.

A typical catastrophic health insurance plan carries an annual deductible of about $1,600 for an individual when purchased through a large employer. That means the worker pays the first $1,600 of healthcare expenses each year. By contrast, under the more comprehensive, employer-provided health insurance programs common today, the company begins to pay after about $300 in expenses have been incurred. Deductibles for families are considerably higher under both types of plans.”

This is a very, very significant change. One of the considerations driving it is a desire to do something to contain the cost of medical care. Oddly, though, this shift does not affect the health insurance plans the government actually runs. What it does affect is the health insurance available to the rest of us through our employers.

Read more