Contradictinggg Oneself

So, according to GreGG Easterbrook:

(1) Paternalism is a very bad, no good, horrible thing when applied to health care, and everyone, rich and poor, should pay out-of-pocket (!) for services that are legally required to be standardized (!!) so that they can negotiate for their health services the same way you'd bargain shop for, say, a television (!!!),

(2) Paternalism is a very good, not at all bad, terrific thing when applied to young adults who could easily be plying their trade in the NBA, because Grggggg doesn't like the quality of play in a sport he doesn't care about in the first place. [Isn't this the argument that the erudite and not at all crazy Buzz Bissinger absolutely demolished on the same day that this idiotic Easterbrook article was published? -- ed. True, that op-ed has data and logic ... but it forgot that JaVale McGee does not entertain Gregg the same way a player with a degree in communications does!]

It's pretty simple: the father of a family of four should be totally accountable to market forces in determining whether to get that growth looked at, but LeBron James must be protected from himself.

What's not to love?

Mickey Kaus Turning Into Richard Cohen Watch

Mickey simply does not care for doctor's waiting rooms:

Shouldn't doctors give patients waiting to see them little hand-held beepers or vibrating devices like those some crowded restaurants give you when you're waiting for a table? That way you could wander around nearby instead of staying in the unventilated waiting room filled with coughing, sneezing people. ...


BONUS: Aren't doctor's waiting rooms one of those few places where everyone is treated equally and people of all classes mingle (like the post office, the DMV, and other "public spheres")? Wouldn't having everyone leave (perhaps to wait in their luxury cars, away from the poors!) destroy Mickey's precious social equality?

Mickey Asks, FMK Answers

Mickey:

This chart seems to be going in the wrong direction for health care reform, even if you discount the lopsided FOX poll (for Nate Silverish reasons--they only get the big support/oppose question after asking a series of spoiling questions). ...

Huh? This chart? The chart where you can actually discount lopsided Fox polls? Hmm ... I wonder what that chart would look like ...

/click

/click

/click


Right is the wrong direction? Straight sideways is the wrong direction? An uncomplicated rendering of the linear progression of time is the wrong direction?

Does this suggest that the much-derided insurance industry study (suggesting premiums would rise after reform) had an impact?

... Nope.

Glad I could help!

The Far Center

Christopher Beam, stretching so far that I think he pulled his hamstring:

Swine flu may have an unexpected side effect: political unity. The far left and far right agree that they're sure as heck not getting vaccinated against swine flu.

Wow, the far left hates the swine flu virus? I'm a Radical IslamoMarxist Money Liberal Fascist and I had never really thought about it before ... I better read up before the next drum-in!

For examples of the "far right", Beam cites Alex Jones and Pat Buchanon. No, wait, he cites Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, easily the two most popular members of the conservative media. Swing and a miss.

For examples of the "far left", Beam cites Peter Singer and Amy Goodman. No, wait, he cites Dr. Frank Lipman and Jim Carrey. [*The* Dr. Frank Lipman??? -- ed. In fairness, he also cites Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who at least is a blood relative of somebody that someone might associate with the left.] Swing and a miss.

So, in crafting this pinnacle of a-pox-on-both-your-houses faux-centrist horseshit, he identifies mainstream conservative lunacy as the "far right" and considers the star of Lemony Snicket as emblematic of the "far left."

When the Garmin lady tells Chris Beam to "bear right" or "turn left" does he just run the car into a ditch?

Doubling Down

Looks like some lowly bloggers have the temerity to question Mickey's slapdash ACORN/Franken analysis. What say you, Mickey? Is it something that condescendingly dismisses their legitimate criticisms of your line of argumentation? It is? Terrific:

Dan Kennedy and Oliver Willis have never heard of absentee ballots (not to mention the fun you can have with same-day registration).

In the original post, Mickey used his ignorance of absentee ballot and same-day registration procedure as circumstantial evidence of a nefarious scheme. [Hey! Questions remain! Questions that Mickey will never bother to find an answer to! -- ed. Obvious questions, even!]

But now Mickey -- who once again seems to operating under the assumption that there was no hard-fought months-long review of the Minnesota election, much less a review that focused almost entirely on absentee ballots -- is actually using the mere existence of absentee ballots and same-day registration in a state where ACORN has an office as per se proof of perfidy.

This defensive leap from wink-wink speculation ("if there were funny business" ... ) to outright citizen-of-the-land-of-make-believe (what, exactly, is "the fun you can have with same-day registration"?) is subtle, but it's the little things that make reading Mickey worthwhile.

That, and the stupid.

The New York Times Is No Longer Trying

Oh, come on:

I am not unemployable. I have a master’s of fine arts and spent two years in the Peace Corps.

At least *try* to pretend you aren't the paper of record for clueless liberal caricatures ...

Aw, Cute

Hey, look! A disreputable paper's even more disreputable celebrity news auxiliary lifted a particularly noxious section of idiocy almost verbatim from one of Mickey's worthless posts!

Does Mickey respond with a blend of pride and annoyance?

He does?

Awesome. Here's what Mickey wrote:

Did ACORN chicanery elect Al Franken? That's the import of this tactfully phrased Minneapolis Star Tribune column.** Franken won by 312 votes. ACORN claimed to have registered 48,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1% were ineligible but cast ballots, or had ballots cast for them illegally, and survived the recount process ... that's 480 votes, almost certainly overwhelmingly cast for Franken.

What do you suppose it was about this vibrant prose that attracted the obviously discerning editors of this prestigious journal?

- The October 2008-style conspiracy theorizing about ACORN and stolen elections?

- Mickey's obvious inability or unwillingness to distinguish between falsified voter registrations and actual voter fraud?

- How he completely ignores the thorough review of ballots and subsequent court fights that lasted for 10 months after this election?

- The way he ridiculously pulled a statistic out of thin air ("just 1%"!) to aid in his "analysis"?

- How one of his sources is an obviously insane marginal figure who has naturally become a folk hero to the please-God-let-there-be-a-military-coup crowd?

- The way Mickey walks right up to saying that Al Franken was illegitimately elected and ... doesn't ... *quite* ... say it ... ?

In any event (and the answer, for the record, is "all of the above, and did you hear that Democrats are Marxists who want to kill your grandmother?"), here's Mickey on the NYP's plagiarism:

kf Tuesday, Page Six today (Doris Kearns Goodwin style!)

You see, Mickey won't come out and angrily accuse the Post of lifting his entire story without even bothering to change Mickey's patently stupid math -- that might offend the death panel enthusiasts and hyperbolic outrage factories that have hilariously become Mickey's peers -- so he makes his accusation in the form of an out-of-the-blue cheap shot at a known liberal. Ha ... ha?

Once upon a time, Mickey had much stronger opinions on the subject:

Plagiarism's supposed to be theft, right? If it is theft, how can it be merely "careless" to cut and paste somebody else's graf into your story?

Oh, but that's when it was the New York Times ... my mistake ...