Wednesday, October 22, 2014

I SUSPECT THE TERRORISTS IN CANADA DIDN'T CROSS THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER

You're probably aware of this:
... a man with a rifle shot a soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial in downtown Ottawa, before seizing a car and driving to the doors of Parliament Hill's Centre Block nearby.

MPs and other witnesses reported several shots fired inside Parliament, and a gunman has been confirmed dead inside the building, shot by the House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms, according to MPs' eyewitness accounts....

Ottawa Civic Hospital confirmed two people have been taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, one with a gunshot wound.

Ottawa police confirmed shots were also fired in three locations: the war memorial, inside Centre Block and near the Rideau Centre east of Parliament Hill, although earlier reports of shots inside the shopping mall have been denied by police. The downtown area remains in police lockdown....
This follows an incident in Quebec in which a man rammed a car carrying two Canadian soldiers, one of whom later died. The assailant, who was shot dead by police after he reportedly approached them brandishing a knife following a high-speed chase, was a convert to Islam who'd begun expressing radical Islamist views and had tried leaving Canada for Turkey. (Early this month, Canadian authorities were expressing concern about ISIS-inspired "knife and gun" attacks.)

Now, we've been told by a lot of blowhards in America -- hello, Scott Brown -- that ISIS members are going to attack Americans after crossing into the country via the Mexican border. We've also been told that the reason we need to fear Americans traveling to ISIS-held territory is that Americans are likely to acquire fighting skills they'll subsequently use against Americans.

We don't know who's responsible for the shootings in Ottawa today. We do know that the car attack on the soldiers wasn't by someone who slipped into Canada illegally, and wasn't by someone with "battlefield experience" -- the assailant was a Canadian national named Martin Couture-Rouleau, who owned a pressure-washing company that was struggling. He wasn't a soldier, and he seems to have been prevented from fighting with ISIS.

Maybe the assailants today have military experience -- but it isn't necessary if you want to do some harm. Nor is sneaking over a border. The ISIS message crosses borders digitally. We fear the wrong things.

*****

I wonder how we can quell the desire of at least some young people to fight for ISIS, overseas or in their own countries, as long as ISIS (at least in some people's eyes) offers an idealistic, optimistic vision of a better life, and possibly a materially better life. I'm absolutely not saying that I believe that message -- I'm saying that some people find it plausible. You can blame them for falling for this message, but I'm not sure you can blame them for wanting to think there's a better life somewhere. Apart from the global rich, how many people right now, anywhere on earth, are satisfied with their lives? How many people like their governments? Who are the admirable political leaders right now?

The New York Times has a story today about Tunisians who are disillusioned with their government four years after the Arab Spring. Large numbers of them -- many unemployed or underemployed -- are leaving to go to ISIS-held territory. They seem to think the streets are paved with gold there:
In interviews at cafes in and around Ettadhamen, dozens of young unemployed or working-class men expressed support for the extremists or saw the appeal of joining their ranks -- convinced that it could offer a higher standard of living, a chance to erase arbitrary borders that have divided the Arab world for a century, or perhaps even the fulfillment of Quranic prophecies that Armageddon will begin with a battle in Syria....

Mourad, 28, who said he held a master’s degree in technology but could find work only in construction, called the Islamic State the only hope for "social justice," because he said it would absorb the oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies and redistribute their wealth. "It is the only way to give the people back their true rights, by giving the natural resources back to the people,” he said. “It is an obligation for every Muslim."

Many insisted that friends who had joined the Islamic State had sent back reports over the Internet of their homes, salaries and even wives. "They live better than us!" said Walid, 24.

Wissam, 22, said a friend who left four months ago had told him that he was "leading a truly nice, comfortable life" under the Islamic State.

"I said: 'Are there some pretty girls? Maybe I will go there and settle down,'" he recalled.
Some are coming back disillusioned after experiencing the reality of life under ISIS:
Imen Triki, a lawyer at a nonprofit that has represented more than 70 returning Tunisians, ... estimated that as many as 60 percent of those who come back profess disappointment at the strife between the Islamic State and its former partner, the Nusra Front, the Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebel group. "They never thought there would a fight between Muslims," she said. "They find that they have been deceived and sold like mercenaries."

Charfeddine Hasni, 30, an information technology worker who said he backed the Islamic State, acknowledged that friends had returned dismayed. "They thought it would be like joining the side of the Prophet Muhammad, but they found it was divided into these small groups with a lot of transgressions they did not expect, like forcing people to fight," he said, recalling one friend killed by his own fellows in the Nusra Front. "But they are not a real army, so they are hard to control, and these are personal mistakes," he added.
But they want a better life. Who else, in a sink-or-swim post-crash world, offers any reason for optimism? ISIS is awful, but to some people it's the only ray of hope. You want to beat ISIS? Offer a real ray of hope.

****

UPDATE: The shooter in Ottawa today was Not a border-crosser, apparently:
Law enforcement and U.S. government sources tell CBS News the dead shooting suspect is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, born 1982, and he is believed to be Canadian-born.

AND: The shooter is a Canadian convert to Islam who (like Couture-Rouleau) had his passport seized by the Canadian government, which regarded him as a "high-risk traveler." So no border-crossing and no "battlefield experience" in this case, either.
HEATHER MacDONALD IS JUST KEITH ABLOW WITH INTELLECTUAL CRED

Heather MacDonald, a right-winger widely respected as an intellectual, has now weighed in on Ebola, and her conclusion is just a seemingly high-minded version of what Keith Ablow was ranting about last week: she believes that we're at risk of Ebola exposure because the public health field is lousy with anti-colonialism, or something very similar:
The public-health establishment has unanimously opposed a travel and visa moratorium from Ebola-plagued West African countries to protect the U.S. population. To evaluate whether this opposition rests on purely scientific grounds, it helps to understand the political character of the public-health field. For the last several decades, the profession has been awash in social-justice ideology. Many of its members view racism, sexism, and economic inequality, rather than individual behavior, as the primary drivers of differential health outcomes in the U.S. According to mainstream public-health thinking, publicizing the behavioral choices behind bad health -- promiscuous sex, drug use, overeating, or lack of exercise -- blames the victim.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Communities Program, for example, focuses on "unfair health differences closely linked with social, economic or environmental disadvantages that adversely affect groups of people." CDC's Healthy People 2020 project recognizes that "health inequities are tied to economics, exclusion, and discrimination that prevent groups from accessing resources to live healthy lives," according to Harvard public-health professor Nancy Krieger....

The public-health profession has a clear political orientation, so it's quite possible that its opposition to a visa and travel moratorium is influenced as much by belief in America's responsibility for the postcolonial oppression of Africa, and suspicion of American border enforcement, as it is by a commitment to public-health principles of containment and control.
MacDonald starts by telling us that a couple of CDC health programs don't want to address the problems caused by certain personal behaviors -- but if you look at them, you see that they're very much focused on overeating and lack of exercise. What they're not focused on is blaming individuals for eating poorly, or for not being active. The point of the programs is to nudge people toward healthier habits, and make exercise options and better food more readily available. I'm not sure exactly how a finger-wagging focus on "individual behavior" would work -- public shaming? scarlet letters? signs hung around fat people's necks in the public square? -- nor do I understand how it would improve public health. But it sure would help divide the country into the worthy and the unworthy, which is the kind of sorting that's the basis of all modern conservatism.

MacDonald goes on to discuss other ways in which the evil liberals of public health have failed to sort the citizenry into the saved and the damned:
During the height of the AIDS epidemic, the public-health profession abjured any focus on abstinence as a means of stopping the spread of the disease. This silence was contrary to decades of public-health response to venereal disease, which stressed individual responsibility, as well as contact tracing, to prevent further infections.
Oh, right -- instead of recommending safe sex, the public health community should have told high-risk groups to give up sex altogether -- presumably forever, since it's a quarter century after the first AIDS diagnosis and we still don't have a cure. I assume this would include entire entire African heterosexual populations, although I assume MacDonald is thinking more about those awful gays.
The American Journal of Public Health recently published a study coauthored by Columbia University professor and longtime police critic Jeffrey Fagan arguing that young black men who have been stopped and questioned by the New York Police Department suffer from stress and anxiety. The more times an individual gets stopped, Fagan claims, the more stress he may feel. The study did not consider whether individuals who have been stopped numerous times by the police may be anxious because they are gang members operating in a world where retaliatory shootings are common.
Right -- all Those People are in gangs, so stress them out as much as you want. It's cool. They're used to it.

The idea undergirding all this is that authorities should respond to every societal problem by punishing someone, a necessity liberal squishes just don't recognize. In the case of travelers from West Africa -- the overwhelming majority of whom are disease-free -- I guess the "individual behavior" they're being punished for is not having the moral fiber to be born in a white First World country.
I TOLD YOU THERE'D BE NO CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP

Least surprising news imaginable, from The Hill:
Tea Partyers have learned to play nice after a cycle of knockdown, drag-out fights with the Republican establishment that have gotten them nowhere.

Sensing a GOP majority in the Senate is within reach, conservative groups have put down their bombs and are working together with establishment actors to make that happen -- even backing formerly sworn enemies in some races.

In New Hampshire, Tea Party Patriots (TPP) has launched a ground effort to help elect Republican Scott Brown, who has drawn the ire of conservatives for backing stricter gun control in some cases. In North Carolina, TPP and others are actively supporting Republican Thom Tillis, who was far from being the conservative pick in his primary. He faces Sen. Kay Hagan (D).

The Tea Party Express (TPE) is now actively backing Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) -- little liked among Tea Partyers -- and former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R), for Senate.

At the very least, Tea Partyers are showing a willingness to "hold their nose and vote," as FreedomWorks Executive Vice President Adam Brandon put it, because of the understanding that a Republican-controlled Senate with some impurities is better than nothing at all.

"Our members have told us that right now, having a Republican-controlled Senate and firing [Majority Leader] Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are their top priority," Jenny Beth Martin, TPP president, told The Hill....
What did I tell you a year ago?
Trust me, these folks are going to work this out. First of all, crazy-base disappointment with the GOP is not exactly new. Crazy-base voters thought John McCain was a pathetic RINO. Did they bolt for a third party? No. They felt the same way in 2012 about Mitt Romney. Did they bolt then? No. They never bolt, because they hate liberals, Democrats, and the Democratic voter base as they perceive it (i.e., non-white moochers) far more than they hate one another.
They fall in line -- and they vote. They vote every time.

Republicans have found their sweet spot -- establishment figures are (or eventually learn to become) just like teabaggers except on issues that become embarrassing to the GOP in polite circles, like shutting down the government and playing games with the debt ceiling, while the teabaggers stay pure on everything. The chattering classes think teabaggery has been tamed and the Republican Party is now reasonable, and the teabaggers themselves see that they're succeeding in dragging the party even further to the right. And on Election Day, it all comes together -- until the Democratic base gets a clue and learns to turn out in non-presidential years. But when will that ever happen?

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

FOX NEWS ADDS "HELL IN A HANDBASKET" QUESTION TO MAKE OBAMA'S ISSUE RATINGS LOOK WORSE

Fox News reports a key result from its latest poll:
The world's "going to hell in a handbasket," according to a majority of voters in the latest Fox News poll.

And that's draining support for President Obama’s policies.
This is true -- but not quite in the way Fox wants you to think it is.

Yes, it's true that, according to the poll, "58 percent of voters feel things in the world are 'going to hell in a handbasket,'" while 35% of respondents say that "everything will be all right." (No choice in the middle was offered.) This is just the latest in a series of push-poll-y questions in Fox surveys. (An example from a while back: "Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?")

But it's the placement of this question that's important here. In a 42-question survey, this was question #4, right after questions about approval of Obama and Congress and a question asking about the direction of the country.

Why put the "hell in a handbasket" question near the front of the survey? Presumably so it will influence respondents' answers on questions starting with #5:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing on the following issues?
5. Handling the Islamic extremist group ISIS
6. Foreign policy
7. The economy

8. Do you think the country is better off or worse off today than before Barack Obama was elected president?
And so on.

In 2009, in reference to a similar planting of a provocative question in a Fox poll, Nate Silver wrote,
... when you ask biased questions first, they are infectious, potentially poisoning everything that comes below. I don't particularly care if Fox News wants to ask leading or even outrightly biased questions -- but they have to ask them after any questions they expect the policymaking community to take seriously.
Pew and other pollsters have told us about question-order effects. The National Council on Public Polls warns journalists to take note of question order when considering poll results:
Sometimes the very order of the questions can have an impact on the results. Often that impact is intentional; sometimes it is not. The impact of order can often be subtle.

During troubled economic times, for example, if people are asked what they think of the economy before they are asked their opinion of the president, the presidential popularity rating will probably be lower than if you had reversed the order of the questions. And in good economic times, the opposite is true.

What is important here is whether the questions that were asked prior to the critical question in the poll could sway the results.
Fox knows this. Fox knows this very well.
HEY, NOTHING RACIST ABOUT THIS, RIGHT?
(updated)


From the "Daily News Briefing" at Herman Cain's "Best of Cain" site:




I have no words.

****

UPDATE: Oh, of course:



EXPOSING A CONSPIRACY THEORIST DOESN'T REALLY HELP IF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHY THE THEORIES ARE CRAZY

I'm glad David Corn of Mother Jones is reminding us of this, but I wonder how much good it will do once the presidential campaign gets under way:
As [Senator Rand Paul] moves toward a White House bid, journalists scrutinize his every wiggle and whisper. But one core component of his political personality has largely escaped exploration: The senator is close to being a full-blown conspiracy theorist.

In 2010, before winning his Senate seat, Paul sat for an interview with Luke Rudkowski, a libertarian YouTube personality who specializes in quizzing political leaders about the plot to establish a "one-world socialist government." Rudkowski asked what Paul knew of the Bilderberg Group, a collection of government and business leaders whose annual conference is a favorite target of conspiracy-mongers. Paul replied, "Only what I've learned from Alex Jones." That's right: Alex Jones, the radio host who claims that Bilderberg is a key part of a global plot to create a "scientific dictatorship" that will exterminate the "useless eaters," a.k.a. 80 percent of the human population.

Paul described the group to Rudkowski in unequivocally Jonesian terms, as "very wealthy people, who I think manipulate and use government to their own personal advantage. They want to make it out like world government will be good for humanity. But guess what? World government is good for their pocketbook." The previous year, Paul had appeared on Jones' radio show, noting that he had watched his host's videos and expressing support for the effort to "expose people who are promoting this globalist agenda." (In turn, Jones urged his listeners to send money to Paul's Senate campaign.)
Here's the problem with bringing this up: Most Americans don't know what the Bilderberg group is, and don't know why believing the Bilderbergers are at the epicenter of a globalist conspiracy is crazy. For that matter, they don't know who Alex Jones is -- or maybe they know him just as that guy who got into a one-sided shouting match with Piers Morgan on the subject of guns shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre. (Nothing Jones said was very different from the NRA's own propaganda, or the gun utterances of most Republican officeholders, so while he came off as a hothead, I don't think he came off as a conspiratorialist.)

When the public doesn't already understand that a crazy idea is crazy, it's hard to use belief in that idea against a candidate. That's why Joni Ernst is a slight favorite to win the Senate race in Iowa, even though she's said delusional things about the UN's Agenda 21. Hardly anybody knows what Agenda 21 is. Hardly anyone understands that it's innocuous. You can't tell voters that Ernst believes a cockamamie conspiracy theory when they don't know it's cockamamie.

Corn goes on to tell us that Rand Paul has worried about the imminent formation of a "North American Union" with a single currency:
Paul also has embraced one of the conspiracy theories promoted by his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul: that leaders from the United States, Canada, and Mexico are seeking to merge their countries into a socialist megastate that would issue the "Amero" currency to replace US and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso. (Anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly and Jerome Corsi, who led the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, are among the key proponents of this idea.)

At an appearance for his father's 2008 presidential campaign in Bozeman, Montana, Rand Paul was asked what steps his dad would take to thwart the scheme to impose a North American superstate. The first thing to do, he said, was "publicizing that it's going on" and pushing Congress to "stop it." He insisted the Amero push was "a real thing" but cautioned, "If you talk about it like it's a conspiracy, they'll paint you as a nut. It's not a conspiracy, they're out in the open about it. I guarantee it's one of their long-term goals -- to have one sort of borderless mass continent." He did not specify who "they" were.
But people don't know that's crazy. We have NAFTA. What's the difference? Why is NAFTA real and this is crazy? People don't understand. It would be hard to get them to understand. And no one's really tried.

You're not going to get a careful, detailed story debunking conspiracy myths about Agenda 21 or the North American Union or the Bilderbergers from The Washington Post or The New Republic or The New York Times Magazine or CNN -- maybe stories would appear if a high-profile candidate invoked one of these theories in the heat of a closely covered campaign, but that's not what's happening. (Rand Paul, as Corn notes, stopped talking about these conspiracies once he became a serious Senate candidate. That's also what Ernst has done.)

As long as these ideas are under the elite press's radar, there won't be debunkings. Even Vox, which sells itself as the site where everything you might see mentioned in the news gets explained, has nothing about the Bilderberg group or the Amero. The phrases "Agenda 21" and "North American Union" have never appeared at Vox.

If the mainstream media won't deign to debunk these myths because doing so feels like slumming, the myths will fester -- and the public won't know that candidates who've taken the myths seriously are engaging in crazy talk. Ernst is skating; unless the media's approach to conspiracies starts to change, Paul will, too.

Monday, October 20, 2014

BELTWAY JOURNALIST AND GOP AGREE: REPUBLICANS ARE MORE POPULAR, EVEN WHEN THEY LOSE

National Journal's Shane Goldmacher has just published a gushy, breathless puff piece on Joni Ernst, Iowa's Republican Senate candidate:
What the Republicans ... have going for them this year is Ernst herself, a folksy state senator and lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard who has emerged as one of the breakout stars of 2014. She burst through a crowded Senate GOP primary with an ad touting her farm-girl roots castrating hogs. "Let's make them squeal!" she said of Washington spenders. The ad drew national attention (627,000 YouTube views and counting) and a deluge of donations.

Most recent polls have shown Ernst narrowly ahead and her supporters more energized. She is more liked than disliked by Iowa voters, while Braley's favorability rating is underwater in most surveys....

"She's become a rock star, certainly among Republicans," says [David] Oman, her finance director....

Ernst has excited not just GOP insiders but Iowa voters. A recent NBC/Marist poll showed a huge enthusiasm gap, with more than 60 percent of Ernst backers saying they were actively supporting her, versus 34 percent who were more opposing Braley. The reverse was true for him. More than 60 percent of his supporters were mostly opposed to her, rather than actively for him.
And according to Goldmacher, anyone who thinks Ernst is extreme or fringe-y is just trying to ruin everyone else's sense of delight in her wonderfulness:
Democrats have tried to cut Ernst down with a campaign to cast her as an extremist. They have some politically potent fodder, including video of her speaking about the possibility of privatizing Social Security and her support for "personhood" legislation, which could ban some forms of birth control (Ernst says she is in favor of birth-control access). She's suggested that states could nullify federal law and raised the specter of impeaching Obama. She also suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, before trying to backtrack.
Ed Kilgore is outraged at the notion that calling Ernst an extremist is somehow out of bounds, given the positions she's embraced, and he notes that Ernst's embrace of the insane Agenda 21 conspiracy ought to be disqualifying all by itself. BooMan also finds it appalling that Goldmacher allows her to skate on these matters.

But I want to point out another aspect of Goldmacher's argument. He flatly calls Ernst a "better candidate" than Democrat Bruce Braley -- but he needs an explanation for why she's not running away with the election. His explanation is this:
... Iowa Republicans [are] still smarting from two straight cycles of defeat that they blame on superior Democratic infrastructure. "The Obama machine, organization -- whatever you'd like to call it -- took us to school in 2008 and again in 2012," says David Oman, who cochaired Mitt Romney's Iowa campaign last cycle.

... as they are in Senate races across the country -- Colorado, Alaska, North Carolina, to name a few -- Democrats here are hoping smart tactics can offset a national mood that favors Republicans. And in Iowa, fears of the Democratic machine lurk not far below the surface....
Right. If Braley wins, it's not going to be because that's a genuine expression of Iowa's popular will. He's going to win because Democrats always gin the system with their mysterious, sinister get-out-the-vote tricks and wiles.

This line of argument dovetails nicely with Republican vote trutherism (Democrats win because of massive voter fraud!) and its lite, polite variants (Democrats win because they give so much free stuff to moochers! Republicans lose some elections in the overall vote count, but win the votes of the right people, so, really, the GOP wins!). Either way, America -- or "real Americans," at least -- prefer the GOP no matter what the vote totals say. Democrats don't have a mandate to govern even when they win (because they don't really win), and Republicans have a mandate even when they lose.

EBOLA-FREE NIGERIA DIDN'T SEAL ITS BORDERS

Time's Alexandra Sifferlin reports good Ebola news:
The World Health Organization declared Nigeria free of Ebola on Monday, a containment victory in an outbreak that has stymied other countries' response efforts....

For the WHO to declare Nigeria as Ebola-free, the country had to make it 42 days with no new cases ..., verify that it actively sought out all possible contacts, and show negative test results for any suspected cases....

Nigeria had 20 cases of Ebola after a Liberian-American man named Patrick Sawyer flew into Lagos and collapsed at the airport. Health care workers treating Sawyer were infected, and as it spread it ultimately killed eight people, a low number next to the thousands of cases and deaths in other countries....
Sifferlin notes that Nigeria did a lot of things well, getting doctors trained early (by the World Health Organization and Doctors Without Borders) and declaring a health emergency immediately.

But Nigeria didn't seal its borders:
Keeping borders open. Nigeria has not closed its borders to travelers from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, saying the move would be counterproductive. "Closing borders tends to reinforce panic and the notion of helplessness," Shuaib said. "When you close the legal points of entry, then you potentially drive people to use illegal passages, thus compounding the problem." Shuaib said that if public health strategies are implemented, outbreaks can be controlled, and that closing borders would only stifle commercial activities in the countries whose economies are already struggling due to Ebola.
Let me just remind you that Nigeria shares a continent with eleven other countries where Ebola has been detected:



We share a continent with no such countries. In fact, there are no such countries in the Western Hemisphere.

And yet the majority of Americans want the borders sealed. It wasn't done in Nigeria -- and it wasn't necessary.
THE HEADLINES FADE, THE FEAR LINGERS

Politico just conducted a poll of states with competitive Senate races and competitive House districts. The results could have been a lot worse for Democrats. The respondent pool skews a bit more rightward than the country as a whole: of the 17 states surveyed, 10 voted for Mitt Romney in 2012; 32 of the 62 House districts are currently represented by Republicans. Within the respondent pool, 38% call themselves "conservative" (in line with national numbers), but another 12% are moderates who say they lean conservative, so half the pool is at least somewhat conservative. And 40% of respondents consider themselves born again or Evangelical (Pew puts the nationwide percentage at 26.3%). And yet 47% of respondents "strongly" or "somewhat" approve of President Obama's job performance. What's more, when asked to choose between the Republican and Democratic candidate (or the independent in the case of the Kansas Senate race), Democrats win, 41%-36%. With leaners, it's still Dems, 44%-41%.

And yet fear persists. I understand Ebola fear being on people's minds, but this seems really irrational:
Eighty-four percent of voters say the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a "serious" threat to the U.S. homeland, including 43 percent who say it poses a “very serious” threat. Just 12 percent said the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is not a serious concern....

And the same pool of voters that expressed intense resistance to U.S. military intervention overseas in a July POLITICO poll now say they are more concerned about terrorism against the homeland (60 percent) than the possibility of another "drawn-out U.S. war in Iraq" (39 percent.)
More than a month ago, we saw ISIS members beheading Westerners in their sphere of influence. Fearmongers told us that ISIS was sending people into America, or had already done so. The Mexican border was invoked. Ebola was mentioned.

So, um, where's the stateside ISIS terrorism?

Here's the thing: We don't notice when things we fear don't happen. When we're on alert, we don't notice the seemingly unremarkable, even when it's relevant to our concerns.

It's somewhat like Sherlock Holmes's incident of the dog in the night-time:
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
In the Conan Doyle story "Silver Blaze," a dog doesn't bark when a famous racehorse is abducted. Sherlock Holmes knows that the person who moved the horse was not a stranger to the dog. But it's a detail everyone else overlooks.

We're missing the dogs that aren't barking. ISIS isn't killing people in America. Ebola isn't spreading, and the vast majority of people exposed to it here are still in good health. But once fear is stirred up, it lingers. Reassuring news doesn't have anywhere near the same impact.

Republicans stoke fear all the time because they know this. They've had a lot to work with lately. But their direst predictions aren't coming true.

Too bad we won't notice -- soon we'll just let them scare us about something else.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

IT'S TIME FOR THE PRESS TO START TELLING US WHO DOESN'T HAVE EBOLA

In comments yesterday, Never Ben Better posted a disheartening story from Maine:
A teacher at Strong Elementary School was placed on a 21-day paid leave of absence after parents told the school board they were concerned that she might have been exposed to Ebola during a trip to Dallas for an educational conference....

Jackie King, a spokeswoman for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, said the Dallas conference is being held at the Hilton Anatole Hotel, where participants also are staying....

The hotel where the teacher stayed is about 10 miles from Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where the first case of the virus was diagnosed....

About 363,000 passengers arrived on international flights into Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in August, the latest month for which statistics are available. About 5 million domestic travelers passed through the airport in the same month....
In addition to telling us that this town is in a panic despite the fact that the teacher in question stayed ten miles away from the hospital where Thomas Eric Duncan was treated, the story recounts other incidents of Ebola panic:
A Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist for the Washington Post, who photographed Ebola victims in Liberia in September, was disinvited from a photojournalism workshop at Syracuse University even though he showed no signs of the disease for 21 days after his return to the United States.... In Hazelhurst, Mississippi, a crowd of parents pulled their middle school students from class Friday after learning that the school's principal recently had traveled to attend a family funeral in Zambia, which is in southern Africa and about 3,000 miles from the outbreak in West Africa.
And here's a guy named Matt Dexter who has a child in that Maine teacher's classroom, and who, in his ignorance, probably reflects the way much -- most? -- of America is thinking right now:
"I'm really tired of people telling everyone, on the news, starting at the national level, 'zero risk, low risk,'" he said. "The bottom line is that there is risk. Are we more capable of handling this than Africa? Sure, but why walk around blind and jam people into hot spots we can't control? It all comes down to personal responsibility."
I know the press wants to report on what is happening, and speculate on what might happen, but it's obvious now that what the public needs from the press is a reminder of what isn't happening.

Thomas Eric Duncan flew from Monrovia, Liberia, to Brussels, Belgium, on September 19, then flew from Brussels to Dulles Airport in D.C. The next day, September 20, he flew from D.C. to Dallas.

He arrived in Dallas -- infected with Ebola -- 29 days ago.

The incubation period is, at most, 21 days.

There are no Ebola cases in Belgium. There are no Ebola cases in the D.C. area. The only people with Ebola in Dallas have been Duncan and two nurses who treated him when he was unquestionably gravely ill, and when the nurses may not have mastered the protocols for protecting themselves from a highly contagious patient, or may not have had adequate protective gear and other safeguards.

The point is, we know that Thomas Eric Duncan did not communicate Ebola to anyone in his travels -- no one on any plane he flew on, no one in any airport he passed through. The people he had contact with until he was finally admitted to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on September 28 -- 21 days ago -- have shown no signs of Ebola, and that includes his relatives and his fiancee -- who seems fine, by the way, but can't get anyone to rent her an apartment.

I know that, by now, much of America probably thinks that "we don't really know" what the incubation period is, just as they think "we don't really know" how Ebola is transmitted. But no matter what they think, they need to be reminded that there are no non-medical personnel who've contracted Ebola via Thomas Eric Duncan. Not his relatives. Not his fiancee. Not the people at the apartment complex where he was staying. Yes, it's true that the people who delivered food to Duncan's family after his hospitalization and later cleaned the apartment are still not past the 21-day maximum incubation period-- though they've had time to develop symptoms, and none have.

If the authorities are lying to us about how Ebola is transmitted, where are all the other cases?

With some people, it's probably hopeless to point this out -- they'll say there are other cases, but they're being covered up. (So why weren't the cases of Duncan and his nurses covered up? Why aren't the scares all over the country being covered up?)

But I have to think that some people would understand if they were reminded that the disease is being transmitted pretty much exactly the way the authorities have always thought it's transmitted, and isn't being transmitted ambiently, just as the experts told us.

Ebola was discovered in 1976. Do most Americans know that -- know that scientists have had 38 years to figure out what it does? Could the press please remind the public of the fact that this virus hasn't been a mystery to scientists for decades?

I have hope, because I lived in New York, which was an epicenter of AIDS as the disease was emerging. People panicked about casual transmission of HIV -- but, eventually, they didn't. Increased understanding can happen -- but people need to see what the virus does and doesn't do. The press needs to report the latter as well as the former -- and, by the way, so does the Obama administration.

****

MORE: I wonder if we need someone like Oprah to make this case. It's easy to imagine Oprah in her heyday flying down to Dallas, meeting with Duncan's fiancee and others who'd had contact with him -- and hugging some of them on camera, while also bringing on an expert to explain the transmission process and incubation period. Everyone in America would know that Oprah hugged a close contact of an Ebola patient. She'd say she had no fear because the incubation period was up, and then we'd see that she didn't get sick. A celebrity interviewer who did this now woul be doing America a world of good.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

THE ABILITY TO SAY "OBAMA SUCKS" IS REPUBLICANS' PREFERRED CRISIS-MANAGEMENT SKILL

This Politico story is just silly:
Rick Perry's Ebola test

Ebola came to Texas. And Rick Perry went to Europe.

Now the Republican governor, a likely presidential contender, is back in Austin and scrambling to avoid a damaging perception problem like the "oops" moment that doomed his first shot at the White House.

At first, Perry seemed to have everything under control. When a man in Dallas was diagnosed with the deadly virus, Perry held an Oct. 1 news conference, assuring the public that "there are few places in the world better equipped to meet the challenges posed by this case." When more people were quarantined, he launched a task force and told Texans to "rest assured our system is working as it should."

But then he left Sunday for a long-planned 7-day trip designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials. During his absence, two more cases of Ebola were confirmed, both of them involving Texas nurses who had dealt with the first patient.

The governor cut his trip short and rushed home on Thursday, only to encounter criticism for leaving in the first place....
As long as we have a Democratic president, no Republican officeholder is going to be held accountable by Republican primary voters for failing to do the right thing on Ebola, no matter what he or she may have done or failed to do. Republicans running in 2016 who've had to deal with Ebola are going to be judged on one criterion: How much did you distance yourself from the president? It doesn't matter whether Obama and his administration handle Ebola flawlessly from here on in -- the test will be whether you denounced Obama at every possible opportunity and said that everything he was doing was wrong.

On that test, it's not clear that Perry gets a passing grade:
Unlike other possible Republican presidential contenders, he has laid off the hot rhetoric blaming the Obama administration, instead calling for calm. He told reporters about a phone call he had with Obama, signaling his new, harder-line stance on handling Ebola -- by calling for a travel ban on visitors from countries most deeply affected — without focusing on the differences he has with the White House.
It may be silly to take Rick Perry's presidential ambitions seriously at all, but even if you do, he's not going to be judged on "crisis management" in this situation, as the article suggests -- he's going to be judged on how much he hates Obama. That's how every Republican presidential aspirant is judged on pretty much everything.
NEVER SEE IT COMING

Oh, so now we're getting well-written, thoughtful, detailed arguments for why a travel ban won't work?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for this article on the subject by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn. Among other things, it addresses the argument that commercial flights aren't needed into and out of West Africa because aid workers can take charters:
Lots of people wonder, couldn't the U.S. government just arrange other transportation -- maybe a modern-day version of the 1948 Berlin airlift? I've put that question to a number of officials and experts and the answer I keep hearing is "no." In the real world, they say, making these arrangements would be difficult and solutions would be inadequate. It's not as if assistance is this highly organized campaign, with all the necessary aid workers and their supplies lined up at Dover Air Force base, just waiting for C-17s to take them across the Atlantic. The flow of people and wares into West Africa is a constantly changing, unpredictable blob that's heavily dependent on freely available commercial transportation. Replacing that would take resources and time, the latter of which the region really doesn't have.
A very good Politico story on the same subject runs some numbers, citing Robert Mann, an aviation consultant:
"If you literally sequester the markets, which is to say remove all scheduled service, you really eliminate the possibility of practical access to those markets by public health officials and public health [groups] who are trying to help," Mann said. "You would force them into the charter market, which is very expensive and in some cases also not very practical."

Mann said the economics of chartering a plane to operate in West Africa are particularly challenging -- and, by extension, especially expensive, likely rising quickly out of reach for most non-government organizations or aid workers.

He said a 16-seater plane capable of flying from North America to Western Africa nonstop, chartered from a reputable firm, would cost around $12,000 per hour for a 16-hour round-trip flight, not including ground handling costs, plus fuel costs for the return trip. He said some charter companies might be reluctant to even offer services to an Ebola hotspot, for the same reason an airline wouldn't care to fly there.

"It's really not practical for 16 people to pay what may be $200,000 to charter a jet -- and compare that to the fares on scheduled airlines," which might be about $1,200 per person.
Yes -- $200,000 to charter a jet for 16 people is $12,500 a person, as opposed to $1,200. It's more than ten times as much. And aid groups are cash-strapped as it is. Who among the ban-the-flights crowd is prepared to pony up the difference, or put up resources (or advocate the allocation of tax dollars) to ensure enough flights?

And both pieces address the question of what happens to countries in the hot zone. Here's Cohn:
A travel ban would also hurt the region economically. And while it might seem frivolous to worry about dollars (or other currencies) when it comes to matters of life and death, the issues are inextricably linked. The more the people of these countries face deprivation, whether its lack of jobs or lack of food, the more they will push to leave. It's not at all far-fetched to imagine huge refugee flows out of these countries -- the kind that even tight border controls couldn't fully stop. That would increase the chances that Ebola ends up in other African nations, including those with large urban centers and strong ties to global networks. Think of Ebola taking hold in the slums of Lagos or Nairobi, and how quickly it would jump from there to the rest of the continent and then beyond. It's just one more example of how a travel ban, quite apart from its devastating effect on the region, could actually result in more cases eventually showing up on American shores.
But in all likelihood it's too late for arguments like this. The train has left the station. The hysteria-mongers had a jump on thoughtful liberals, centrists, experts, and wonks -- the right-wing screechers been spreading fear and yelling "Seal the borders!" while Thomas Feiden and other Obama administration officials have been defending the lack of a travel ban with vague general statements lacking detail about what a post-ban world would look like. And the mainstream press has been slow off the mark as well. The right set the terms of this debate -- as the right sets the terms of most debates.

Just as the Obama administration failed to anticipate an infected person getting through screening, failed to anticipate confusion surrounding a complex series of Ebola protocols, and failed to anticipate the inability of a non-specialized hospital to handle an Ebola patient in a health care system known for cost-driven corner-cutting, Team Obama also failed to anticipate the right pouncing on Ebola in the way it has, and thus driving public opinion. I think this administration is pretty good at reacting -- the health care website got fixed, the screws on Putin got tightened, the current level of Ebola contact-tracing is probably now at least as strict as it needs to be, if not stricter -- but anticipating problems is, to put it mildly, not the Obamaites' strong suit.

And the fact that right-wingers, on nearly every issue, drown out everyone else with their cynical faux-anguish is something center and left journalists never anticipate. And I have to ask: How do you miss this when it keeps happening? How do you not realize that you have to write stories as if at least a third of your audience has already been terrified and misinformed by the right, and constantly needs to have misconceptions corrected in great detail? How can something that happens so often possibly be a surprise every time it happens?

All of you, please: Be ready for the possibility that things will go very, very wrong. It often happens in the real world. It nearly always happens in the dissemination of information that has potential political consequences, thanks to the right.

Friday, October 17, 2014

SURPRISINGLY, PEOPLE WHO HATE EVERYTHING OBAMA DOES SAY THEY HATE SOMETHING OBAMA DID

Here's an utterly unsurprising headline from The Hill: "GOP Blasts Obama Ebola Czar Pick." Tweets are quoted:





There's absolutely no one, doctor or otherwise -- or at least there's no one apart from movement-conservative Republicans like Ben Carson -- who actually would have been acceptable to the GOP. And yet when the appointment was announced, the voice of the mainstream, CNN, greeted the news as if the entire Beltway would stand up and cheer:
Klain is highly regarded at the White House as a good manager with excellent relationships both in the administration and on Capitol Hill. His supervision of the allocation of funds in the stimulus act -- at the time and incredible and complicated government undertaking -- is respected in Washington. He does not have any extensive background in health care but the job is regarded as a managerial challenge.
Tell us the truth, dammit. Find a bland, neutral way to say that Republicans are always gunning for the president and would howl in outrage at any choice for this position. Saying that isn't being partisan -- it's reporting incontrovertible facts.

The public needs to know this. It's misleading to portray the Republican Party as a mild, reasonable, slow-to-anger political organization whose members just happen to squeal like stuck pigs in unison every six hours or so because Obama does outrageous things precisely that often. The president has made plenty of mistakes, and naming Klain could, for all I know, be one of them (though if his job is managing bureaucracies, with the medical expertise left to others, maybe he is a fine pick) -- but the political story of our time is the Republican Party's attempt to neutralize a Democratic presidency by making it incapable of functioning. There is no issue on which Republicans will ever rally behind the president (no, not even Secret Service protection; Republican concern for the president's safety were merely a means through which to criticize his administration). Implying that Republicans will ever accept anything Obama does is like implying that ISIS might give up beheading people if enough parents plead. Don't say something like that just to be evenhanded, because what's more important is that it's not true.
HOW IS THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA LYING TO YOU TODAY?

A Daily Caller story is at going viral on the right:
US Ebola Hospital Laid Off Staff Due To Obamacare, Now Has Staff Constraints

The Nebraska hospital at the center of U.S. medical efforts to fight Ebola recently laid off staff due to budget cuts caused by Obamacare, and its Ebola-fighting resources are now limited due to staff constraints.

The Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha recently treated journalist Ashoka Mukpo after the NBC News freelancer contracted Ebola. The center is one of the only hospitals in the country that can adequately treat Ebola patients in its biocontainment units.....

But the center's Ebola-fighting capacity is limited due in part to staff constraints.

"That's pretty much the level of staffing that we have as well," said the center's biocontainment unit nursing director Shelly Schwedhelm, referring to the center’s capability to hold only two or three Ebola patients at once.

The Nebraska Medical Center announced 38 layoffs, including those of top officials, in October 2012 with more possible layoffs to come. The center directly blamed the layoffs on decreased revenue from Obamacare's reduction of Medicare reimbursement rates....
Is this story accurate? Is the Nebraska Medical Center's biocontainment unit short-staffed because of Obamacare?

No. Here's what the biocontainment unit's nursing director actually said about limitations on the Center's ability to take on Ebola patients, according to the story the Caller linked:
Shelly Schwedhelm said the med center's 10-bed unit is "prepared to take on more than one patient." But Schwedhelm said the autoclave equipment -- the technology that sterilizes items with high-pressure steam -- would limit the unit's capacity to two or three Ebola patients at once.

"That's pretty much the level of staffing that we have as well," Schwedhelm said.
Right -- as Rachel Maddow explained at some length last night, this unit maintains sanitary conditions by autoclaving gowns, gloves, human waste -- pretty much everything that comes into the unit. That's the reason for the patient limit: how much its autoclave equipment can handle. Presumably the staffing level is adjusted accordingly.



Were there layoffs at Nebraska Medical Center? Yes -- the hospital announced the layoff of 38 people (out of a staff of 5,200) in October 2012, "citing reducing costs, changes in the marketplace and a reduction in the growth of Medicare spending," according to AP. But as an Omaha World-Herald story preserved at Free Republic makes clear, it's a distortion of the facts to say flatly that the layoffs were the result of Obamacare:
Reimbursement rates for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people age 65 or older, have been targeted under federal health care reform. It's possible that the rates will be further reduced Jan. 1 when automatic spending cuts are scheduled to go into effect. Couple that with ongoing federal deficit-reduction discussions, and hospital officials recognize the need to look hard at controlling costs, said Adrian Sanchez, a spokesman for the Nebraska Hospital Association.
(Emphasis added.)

Right -- Republicans demagogue this issue shamelessly while demanding cuts of their own. The Paul Ryan budget passed by the Republican-controlled House in 2012 had the same Medicare cuts. And Republicans howl endlessly about deficits.

So this Daily Caller story is dishonest in more than one way. Just another day at the office for the right-wing noise machine.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

THERE'S EBOLA IN EUROPE, BUT AMERICANS SEEM TO THINK U.S. EBOLA IS OBAMA'S UNIQUE FAILING

Ebola contracted by health care workers in supposedly well-prepared hospitals. Rumors of even more Ebola cases. Flyers continuing to arrive from West African countries. Much of America seems to think that all these things are happening here because of Barack Obama's singular refusal to do the right things. But as the Daily Beast's Barbie Latza Nadeau noted yesterday, all this is happening in Europe, too:
If you were surprised to hear the news that a Sudanese United Nations worker died of the deadly Ebola virus in a Berlin hospital on Tuesday, you might be even more surprised to learn just how many Ebola patients there are elsewhere in Europe.

The World Health Organization maintains that there are eight confirmed cases of the deadly virus in Europe tied to the current outbreak: two dead missionaries in Spain, one dead doctor in Germany, one cured man and one doctor in treatment in Germany, two tropical disease doctors in treatment in Holland and a Spanish nurse, Teresa Romero Ramos, under treatment in Spain. Romero Ramos contracted the virus from one of the dead Spanish missionaries. There are also at least a dozen or more suspect cases scattered around European hospitals that may or may not evolve into the full-blown virus.
A week and a half ago, I wrote about the case of Romero Ramos, and about Spanish nurses com plsining that safety in their hospitals was compromised, a problem they blamed on austerity-driven budget cuts. Their complaints sound awfully similar to what nurses and other health care workers are saying in America, although here the problem is for-profit-medicine corner-cutting, not central-bank-imposed austerity. (See, for instance, this grim e-mail from a Talking Points Memo reader whose wife works in a hospital that's clearly not prepared for Ebola.)

There's probably more Ebola than we know about in Europe:
... There is at least one nurse under quarantine in Germany who treated the deceased doctor there. If she is infected, she will now be the fourth health worker outside of West Africa who contracted the disease in a sterile hospital...
The other three are Romero Ramos and the two nurses in America. But that may not be the extent of it:
... As of Wednesday, there were suspected Ebola patients in hospitals in Cyprus, Rome, Brussels, Paris and London. The corpse of a British man who died in Macedonia is being flown to Frankfurt for Ebola testing. More than 100 people who were in contact with the Spanish nurse are under surveillance, being asked to take their temperatures twice a day; 16 people are under quarantine, including her beautician and housekeeper.
Conservatives (and quite a few non-conservatives) regard President Obama's refusal (so far) to ban travelers from affected countries as an act of incomprehensible recklessness, or even as a deliberate betrayal of the American people. But although conservatives have made much of the suspension of flights in and out of West Africa by certain national airlines, flyers from affected countries are still reaching Europe, and European heads of state don't seem to be in a hurry to tighten the restrictions:
One of the biggest concerns in Europe is the frequency of air traffic with West Africa. European hubs are a natural stopping point for many flights from Africa to other regions. A number of routes by major carriers have been suspended, but many still run flights. The United Nations and the World Health Organization have urged airlines not to cut off West Africa, pleading that continuing flights is the only way to save lives.

On Tuesday afternoon some of Italy’s emergency plans were put to the test when a Turkish Airways flight from Istanbul to Pisa made an emergency landing in Rome. According to the airport authority, two passengers from Bangladesh -- a mother and daughter -- started exhibiting Ebola symptoms. When they told flight attendants they had been to West Africa, alarm bells rang and the flight was diverted. They were taken off the plane by emergency officials dressed in biohazard suits and first screened at Rome’s airport before being rushed to Rome's Spallanzani hospital in a special ambulance. The rest of the passengers were asked to leave contact information in case the two suspect passengers test positive for the deadly virus, so they can be contacted if they need to start taking their own temperatures. The Turkish Airlines flight then continued on to its final destination.

The same day, Ebola panic struck the Glasgow airport after a passenger on a Dutch KLM flight fell ill. After emergency workers rushed to the scene and secured the area, the patient was diagnosed with the flu, not Ebola....
You can argue that the Europeans are reckless, too. But you can't argue that President Obama's actions attain some special level of recklessness.

And yet that's pretty much the mainstream view all over America.

MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE 2016 ELECTION WILL BE BRO'D, JUST LIKE THE 2000 ELECTION
(updated)


The (subscriber-only) cover story of the latest issue of Time is posted now. It's about Rand Paul. And here's the cover:



As Tom Kludt notes at Talking Points Memo, Time is hardly being original here: a month ago, Politico Magazine also called Paul "the most interesting man in politics." Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post called Paul "the most interesting man in the (political) world" back in June. Reason called him the "Most Interesting Man in the Senate" back in 2011.

So it's a cliche by now -- but why this cliche?

I think, in large part, it's the bro (and bro-admiring) nature of many Beltway journalists. The folks at Reason would have embraced the libertarian-ish Paul no matter what, but Cillizza, Politico, and Time are part of a press corps that I'm convinced is looking for a frattish guy to escort us out of the Obama era (and save us from that icky old lady Hillary Clinton) -- and if a possible bro savior has been found, what higher, bro-ier compliment can the journos pay him than to apply an honorific derived from a series of beer commercials, and, moreover, a series of beer commercials obviously inspired by the even more bro-ish Chuck Norris Facts joke series?

I say this all the time, but I'm going to keep saying it: There's an excellent chance that the 2016 election is going to be a rerun of 2000, with the press coming to the conclusion that the Democrat is a buzz-killing, nut-crushing schoolmarm, and with a Republican bamboozling the reporters into thinking that he's both a thoughtful right-centrist and a guy you'd really, really like to have a beer with. If it's not Rand Paul, it might be Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Chris Christie. But the template is JFK: cerebral and charismatic.

Bros and bro fanboys will downplay any signs of right-wing extremism in their designated bro hero, and will see any modest accomplishments as signs of potentially world-historic political talent. Check out the breathless talk from the author of the Time story, Michael Scherer -- obviously more of a bro hero-worshiper than an actual bro -- on today's Morning Joe:



SCHERER: ... politics is about storytelling, and the stories almost never change, and here's a guy who's really trying to change the whole narrative of how we think about Republican Party vs. Democratic Party. He's going around the country talking to conservative, all-white, straight-and-narrow, preppy audiences and saying, "We've got to embrace the freaks and the weirdos and the longhairs and the guys with tattoos." He's going, like other Republicans have done unsuccessfully, to minority communities, saying, "I want to do a bunch of things you haven't heard Republicans say in the past need to be done." He's going to young people around the country. And more important than that, I think, is that Republicans -- he's not the first person to try and color outside the lines, but Republicans, because they're in this sort of demographic bind, are actually listening to him, and he's got a soapbox and he's actually making changes.
He's actually making changes. Yeah, you can see how much Republicans have started following Paul's color-outside-the-lines lead in the huge shifts they've made on the issues of ... er ... um ... well, I'm sure I'll think of something.
SCHERER: ... Interviewing him is like being in a graduate seminar on, sort of, how you can still be a conservative and hold these views without being inconsistent. To get from Point A to Point B, to explain himself, he doesn't really contradict himself, but it takes three or four jumps to really slice the issues he's after, and it's a far more intellectual approach to politicking than we've seen.
(Yes, you heard that right: Rand Paul is "intellectual," and "intellectual" is now a good thing for a politician to be. Barack Obama, call your agent.)

I keep alluding to 2000, but I can't deny that this sort of thing happened on Bill Clinton's behalf in the run-up to the 1992 primaries, when insiders started getting serious mancrushes on him. It also, obviously, happened to Barack Obama in 2008, big time. But if it happens in 2016, the designated bro savior is going to be a Republican who'll be far more extreme than the journalists crushing on him will ever acknowledge (or notice).

So beware -- the next presidential election is not in the bag for Democrats. This is why.



****

UPDATE: I reread this and realized I didn't make a very strong case for Rand Paul as bro-ish regular guy. For that, I guess, you have to turn to his trolling of Michelle Obama on the issue of food.





Frickin' hilarious!
CONGRATULATIONS, DINESH D'SOUZA. YOUR WORK IS DONE.

On Tuesday, Keith Ablow, the house psychiatrist at Fox News, went on Fox's radio affiliate and ranted for twelve minutes in a way that Josh Marshall correctly characterized as "Fox 'Doc' Goes Full Stormfront":
Dr. Keith Ablow, a member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, on Tuesday said that Obama won't protect Americans from Ebola because "his affinities" are with Africa, not the U.S. "He's their leader."

"He has it in for us as disappointing people. People who've been a scourge on the face of the Earth," Ablow said on Fox News Radio's The John Gibson show. "In his mind, if only unconsciously, he's thinking, 'Really? We're going to prevent folks suffering with illnesses from coming across the border flying into our airports when we have visited a plague of colonialism that has devastated much of the world, on the world? What is the fairness in that?'"

“How can you protect a country you don't like? Why would you?" Ablow asked....
Ablow said of America, "We don't have a president."
"We don't have a president?" Gibson asked.

"We don't have a president who has the American people as his primary interest, who believes the country has Manifest Destiny and has been a force for good," Ablow insisted.

The Fox News doctor went on to speculate that Obama had only been elected because Americans were victims of Stockholm Syndrome....
Yup, we voted for Obama because 9/11 scared us into trying to appease our attackers:
"We said to ourselves, and the world, 'Look at this guy. We're going to elect this guy president. Why would you attack us? We're not even voting for somebody who likes us. This guy, who has names very similar to two of our archenemies, Osama, well, Obama. And Hussein. Hussein. Surely you won't attack us now because we've got a shield here of a guy who, as the leader of our country says we're bad.'"
This is a follow-up to a similar opinion piece Ablow wrote for the Fox News website.

All I can think is that Dinesh D'Souza can go off to his community confinement center with his head held high.

Four years ago, D'Souza published a Forbes cover story titled "How Obama Thinks," which accused President Obama of imbibing the anti-colonialism of the father he barely knew and building his entire worldview out of that anti-colonialism. "For Obama," D'Souza wrote, "the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West."

When D'Souza wrote this, and published a book with the same argument called The Roots of Obama's Rage, many conservatives were appalled. Heather Mac Donald called the Forbes article "Dinesh D'Souza's poison."
Sickeningly, while "How Obama Thinks" is useless as a guide to the Obama presidency, it is all too representative of the hysteria that now runs through a significant portion of the right-wing media establishment. The article is ... an example of the lunacy that is poisoning much conservative discourse.
David Frum wrote, "When last was there such a brazen outburst of race-baiting in the service of partisan politics at the national level? George Wallace took more care to sound race-neutral." The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson reviewed The Roots of Obama's Rage, writing, "On the evidence of his new book, we can't be sure if Dinesh D'Souza is a hysteric or a cynic."

But, of course, Newt Gingrich took D'Souza's argument and ran with it:
Gingrich says that D'Souza has made a "stunning insight" into Obama's behavior -- the "most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama."

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks.
Two years later, Gingrich ran a surprisingly successful presidential campaign. Meanwhile, D'Souza milked the anti-colonialism theme for two rather popular "documentary" films and another book.

And now the D'Souza thesis is so much a part of the right-wing narrative that Ablow can invoke it without even naming its originator. To right-wingers, it's no longer a strange but curiously compelling argument made by that D'Souza fellow -- it's accepted fact. It's been thoroughly worked into the Obama master narrative on the right.

Bravo, Dinesh. The well is fully poisoned now. You did what you set out to do.