Another dialogue straight outta Grade 2!

MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2012

The New York Times does it again: Just a guess:

For many people, it’s hard to see how low-IQ the New York Times actually is. (We refer to the pompous newspaper’s political coverage only.)

The New York Times carries a great reputation. Beyond that, it constantly signals to its readers that it, and they, are quite bright. (Example: In yesterday’s groaning column by Dowd, readers were handed an Arthur Miller reference.)

It's often hard to see that an empress is wearing no clothes. How dumb is the Times’ political work?

For one example, examine the “Public Dialogue” from yesterday’s Sunday Review.

The dialogue began on Tuesday, with a low-IQ submission from ethical wizard Bruce Weinstein. Weinstein sounds like a fairly bright fellow. One of his books bears the august title, Ethical Intelligence.

In fact, his submission was straight outta Grade 2. This is a large chunk:
WEINSTEIN (8/6/12): As we near the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, it is time for President Obama and Mitt Romney to commit themselves to being truthful in their stump speeches, advertisements, media interviews and all other aspects of their campaigns.

Each has a lot of work to do. A recent Times article, “The Other Rivals: Fact and Interpretation,” described the many ways that both the president and Mr. Romney have misrepresented the facts in their public presentations. Both camps must stop this shameful practice immediately.

From here on out, the primary question each man should ask is not, “How can I distort my opponent’s track record and my own to my advantage?” but rather, “What is my vision for America, and how can I represent it most accurately?”

I realize that a call for truth-telling in politics may be dismissed as unrealistic and naïve. But with so much at stake in our nation’s future, we can no longer afford the luxury of cynicism.

Why can’t 2012 be the year that ethical intelligence rather than unbridled ambition fuels the race for the White House?
It’s hard to know what to make of such a childish submission. Maybe the voters could also get free root beer after casting their ballots!

Weinstein's submission was rather light. On Sunday, the Times published ten responses.

Go ahead—see what you think. We’ll offer these broad reactions:

In our view, the responses from the two academics were straight outta Being There. (The president of Mount Holyoke!)

Also:

Predictably, the Times published several responses blaming the public for all the dissembling. It wasn’t until the tenth letter (out of ten) that a single word was said about the role the press corps may play in all this.

That word was buried within another blast at the unworthy, unwashed electorate. This is the way the Times is:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: Perhaps Mr. Weinstein is correct that “a call for truth-telling in politics may be dismissed as unrealistic and naïve.” But the bigger question is, Can the public handle the truth? Given the low level of discourse in politics, right now voters can’t even handle the lies because they lack the necessary filters to help them understand the key points.

Much of the fault rests with our media, which in the recent years have drifted into solid left and right camps and can’t be trusted to provide dissection of the murky outpourings from all political parties.

Unfortunately, there is no good reason for politicians to tell the truth. To quote Mark Twain, “Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.” And right now the politicians don’t consider the American public to be worthy.
Wow! That said, that is the only letter which mentions the possible role of the press. Even then, the writer mainly trashes the public—and he seems to think that the problem with the “media” only began “in recent years.” (He seems to be talking about openly partisan media, rather than traditional news orgs like the Times.)

Weinstein is a money-making popularizer—a writer of fatuous pseudo-books. The Times may have gotten some sharp responses to his rather fatuous post—but what do you think of the ten they posted?

All in all, we would say this: Very, very light. And let us add this final point:

Contempt for the average voter is the defining mark of the pseduo-liberal. We liberals love to loathe the rubes. It makes us feel like we're bright.

They often loathe us in return. Pray for Barack Obama!

17 comments:

  1. The Swiftboat stuff worked. So did the War on Gore. That means enough rubes bought it, and a less feckless mainstream media probably would have made no difference with those voters. Why shouldn't we, except tactically, which is what you cynically are really talking about, loathe those rubes? How can one have respect for voters who get their opinions from Fox News and think the Affordable Care Act has death panels?

    Unless, of course, both sides are equally at fault.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Death panels. That's a catchy name for a real process.

    In a health care system with government set rules, all people will not receive any medicine or treatment that they seek without regard to cost and efficacy.

    Sometimes, that means denying treatment to someone because it's not worth the money, judged from "society's" point of view.

    I don't see why liberals don't defend the concept. It's elemental to every health care system with government set rules.

    Check out the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK. That's their business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't see why liberals don't defend the concept."

      Paul Krugman, sort of:

      http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/krugman-death-panels-vat/2010/11/14/id/377008

      Delete
    2. In any system of insurance, somebody is going to have to make those decisions. Somehow when an unaccountable bureaucrat working for an insurance company makes the decision, that's the free market at work, but when an unaccountable government worker makes the same decision, using the same or similar criteria, that's oppressive government one step from 1984 (the book, not the date).

      Delete
    3. "when an unaccountable bureaucrat working for an insurance company makes the decision, that's the free market at work"

      The "insurance company" is bound by contract. i.e. "accountable". In turn, the correct role of government is to enforce contracts serving as a disinterested party in any dispute.

      In a government situation, what contract applies? What disinterested third party resolves disputes?

      Delete
    4. The insurance company has a duty to maximize profits for its shareholders and is only bound by contracts to the extent that anyone can enforce them.

      The government has no profit incentive at all. They can afford, and mostly try, to take the route of public good.

      Having said that - what those panels do is not a cost/benefit analysis in terms of asking is this life worth saving. That's actually a lot closer to what insurance companies do. They are, after all, trying to maximize profits.

      What government run panels attempt to do is set standards of care based on accumulated data and prevent fraud/abuse. There's so much fraud/abuse going on in the privately run systems we have that it accounts for a significant amount of the cost difference between those systems and the more-publicly run ones we have.

      You don't really seem to have any real familiarity with these issues beyond the talking points.

      Delete
    5. To say that insurance companies are only bound by contracts to the extent that they can be enforced, may allow you to make things sound more ominous, but you're not really saying anything.

      Insurance companies have business owners and shareholders as their customers since most private insurance is obtained via an employer.

      It's not in the interest of any insurance company to welch on a contract with Kraft than it would be for any other purveyor of goods and services to do such a thing.

      However, unlike most markets, with these particular dynamics, an individual does not deal directly with the provider of their services. We depend on employers (who receive tax incentives) for that.

      Whether with Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, care will always be rationed. Shore up Medicare and Medicaid, but also give individuals the tax incentives that businesses receive so that they can own their own policies and so the industry can compete for their business.

      Delete
    6. "The insurance company has a duty to maximize profits for its shareholders "

      Difficult to do with accumulated punitive rulings resulting from habitual contract violations.

      "and is only bound by contracts to the extent that anyone can enforce them. "

      Insurance companies are sued all the time. The on going risk of litigation against an insurance company is part of the business. Whether or not the court system does a good job in bringing forth and ruling on cases against insurance companies is worthy of discussion but a separate issue.

      "The government has no profit incentive at all."

      An incentive that is yet to be shown to be bad in and of itself. We can't be sure about *any* of the incentives government may have one way or the other.

      "They can afford,"

      Only to the extent that there is faith in their currency and subject to shifting political wills.

      " and mostly try, to take the route of public good."

      Why does anyone have faith that a faceless government tries to do "public good"? Who is the arbiteras to what is "public good"?


      "You don't really seem to have any real familiarity with these issues beyond the talking points."

      Back at you.


      Delete
    7. "Difficult to do with accumulated punitive rulings resulting from habitual contract violations."

      Yeah, poor health insurance companies. They can hardly turn a profit any more because of all the verdicts and settlements they have to pay for "habitual contract violations."

      "Why does anyone have faith that a faceless government tries to do "public good"?"

      Faceless? I know the face very well of the U.S. Rep who represents me and the two U.S. Senators as well as the President of the United States. And all 535 House and Senate members got elected by people who should know their faces very well.

      How about a faceless insurance company making these decisions? Like the time my wife gave birth to our second child at midnight and our doctor had to come up with a "medical reason" to keep her in the hospital beyond the 24 hours the insurance company would cover so that she wouldn't have to be discharged in the middle of the next night?





      Delete
    8. "Yeah, poor health insurance companies. They can hardly turn a profit any more because of all the verdicts and settlements they have to pay for "habitual contract violations." "

      The issue was whether or not there was recourse for contract violations in the judicial system. If you are claiming there is not you have not provided evidence for that.

      " I know the face very well "

      In knowing the faces, are you saying that you are perfectly happy with every single thing that government does because of your certainty that they are motivated to act for the public good?

      "doctor had to come up with a "medical reason" "

      The gynocologist is not the insurance company. And he pays an especially high price for his malpractice insurance. I'm glad it all worked out for you, but at least you would have had recourse in the courts if it didn't. I am not sure that would have been the case in a government run system.

      Delete
    9. Anon 8:24 am, however did you get the notion that CMS would have treated your wife differently?

      Delete
  3. tl;dr:

    Some us are willing to pretend there is a real debate to be had about whether free-market economics can produce a sane, humane healthcare system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This will probably come as a shock to you, however...there are a few people in the world who won't accept your self-referential comments as being the last word on any topic.

    Not even if you were holding a stone tablet and a chisel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I absоlutelу love уοur site.. Pleaѕаnt сolors & theme.
    Did you create this amazing site yourself? Pleasе rеply back as
    I'm trying to create my own site and would like to know where you got this from or just what the theme is named. Cheers!
    My blog post : paydayloans

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do consider all оf the cοnсepts you have ρreѕentеd to your pοst.
    They are νeгу conνincing and саn cеrtainlу wοrk.
    Nonetheleѕs, the postѕ аre
    vегy quick fοr novіcеs.
    May just you please lengthen them а little fгom
    ѕubsеquent time? Thank уou for the ρost.


    mу weblog - diet plans

    ReplyDelete
  7. Amazing! Its truly aweѕome paragraph, I have got much clеaг iԁeа concernіng frоm this article.


    My web-sitе: same day loans
    Also see my site: same day loans

    ReplyDelete