On The "Its Only 5% Argument"

I keep hearing jack asses like Joke Line downgrading the public option because it only will be available to 5% of the country. Now admittedly if I had my druthers I would want that percentage higher if not a total single payer system. But lets keep some real perspective about this. In real numbers that is 15 million people or more. 15 million people. And those 15 million are by and in large the folks who really need health care the most.

Think about that for a second. A study came out a few weeks back that said 40,000 people die every year from a lack of health care. Now how many of those 40,000 come out of the 15 MILLION that would have access to the public option do you think?

Let me put it in analagous terms. If there was a product on the market that was killing 40,000 people a year against theiri will but didn't affect the rest of us would you think it would be ok for the government not to address that? If there was a product on the market that put 15 Million people a year at risk of not only loss of life but loss of lively hood with bankruptcy and financial ruin, do you think it would be ok for the government to turn a blind eye?

I know we live in a "I got mine" society but surely most people give a damn about 15 million American citizens among us.........don't they?

Also go read this

Joe Klein Needs To Read This

Now that Joke Line has beclowned himself over the White House vs FoxNews story perhaps he should read this post from Dan Froomkin. Well actually I am pretty sure that as a Villager in good standing Joke Line won't change his stance because the script says all journos should say the White House is stupid for "picking this fight". But at least he will have some material to site once public sentiment turns and the decision to push back on FoxNews is seen as a smart one in hindsight and as usual he does his usual flip flop with the shift in the journalistic winds.

Are there any good journalists left in the mainstream media?

Joe Klein, Blogger For Swampland, Hates Bloggers

Or I should say left wing bloggers.

You have to check out this ancedote about Joe Klein from Aimai over at No More Mister Nice Blog. Its the way you would imagine a discussion about liberal and progressive bloggers would go with Joke Line but never really thought you would hear about.

Last week I went to a cookout on the beach here with some old friends (Sausages and seafood, but no cocktail weenies!) Every year they do a cookout, and then a birthday party, and for years I've known that one of their guests was Joe Klein. I never mixed it up with him because, after all, well...the opportunity never presented itself and while I'm pretty aggressive in print no one really goes up to someone and picks a quarrel with them, do they? Or maybe they do. Yes, I guess they do. I was standing at the cookout minding my own business when Klein started pontificating for the rubes on how “surprising” and “shocking” it was that Grassley, of all people, should have come out and endorsed the “death panels” lie. I walked up and said “why are you surprised?” [edited to remove typo] to which he, in best pundit debater fashion (never allow yourself to admit you were just posing!), shot back “who says I'm surprised?” I said “well, you did. You just started your lecture saying “Its surprising.”” Its not surprising, the republicans have nothing left to lose and nothing left to gain at this point outside of pleasing the crazy base and attacking Obama and the dems.”

We were off and running. He then said that its true the fringe republicans were “crazy” but perhaps no crazier than the “crazy left” under Bush. I thought he meant the “truthers” so I said “name me one person in congress or the Senate who was as crazy on any topic as these Republican senators and Congressmen who sign on to the birther and deather stuff are now?” Evading this question he said “well, Glenn Greenwald is crazy—he's a civil liberties absolutist.” Now, me, I come from a long line of civil liberties absolutists so I said “I admire Glenn Greenwald's work immensley but it must be very embarrassing for you, of course, because he's been eating your lunch for years.” (!) I think this must be something of a sore point for him. He began shrieking “Glenn Greenwald is EVIL! EVILl!..do you know what he did? He “sicced” his blog readers on my EDITOR and she was going through a DIVORCE at the time.” Really? I said, politely, that was very wrong, if it happened.

“We kept it very quiet” he said, backing off the claim of any real harm and, as a twofer, managing to imply that only those "in the know" had been kept informed.

People around us were clamoring to know what the debate was about so I laid it out, chapter and verse: I explained the Klein was upset because he had been caught out shilling for the Republicans on National Security Matters and on the FISA court legislation in particular and that he was still upset because he'd been held up for ridicule for his absurd statement that there was no problem with the secret Bush programs although he didn't know anything about them. And that this extended to the actual retroactive FISA legislation, which he also said was fine but didn't know anything about. This seemed to inflame things somewhat. Can't see why. He began shrieking at me that he hadn't been wrong, he'd been misled by a “democratic staffer” but really, I just began laughing at that point because “I didn't read the legislation” like “the dog ate my homework” is rather a lame explanation for a grown man, let alone a self described journalist.

I re-iterated that I was a big admirer of Glenn's work and that he had just received the I.F. Stone award for his excellence. That really got Klein's goat and he started screaming that he had been one of Izzy's readers for years and that Glenn was no Izzy, that he was crazily anti-national security which Izzy wouldn't have been, and at any rate I shouldn't talk about things I don't understand and I should realize that Klein has been on the right side of every argument since the Vietnam war.

Yes! I should read his stuff on the Vietnam war!” I said that I was, in fact, one of his readers—that I read his column and his blog and that it was precisely because I did know his history, in detail, that I accepted Glenn's critique of him, which of course has always been extensively documented and linked. And then, in what might be the piece de resistance of this little interaction, he screamed “you don't read me! You read WIKIPEDIA! AND THAT'S LEFTIST.” He then added that he had always been anti war and that I should “read his [Klein's] stuff from 1993." Hmm....1993, were we at war with Iraq then? I rather thought that was a different time, and even a different president. I take it that the rationale behind that bizarre interjection is that, as far as Klein is concerned, most of this is really old history at this point and what he really wants to be talking about is health care reform.

After this the e discussion, such as it was, devolved into the usual journalistic posturing and ranting against “those bloggers” who “don't do research” and who “don't have editors.” (There were many other well respected journalists at this dinner but they don't deserve to be dragged in here) to which I responded “jeezus christ on toast points you can say that to me after it came out today that John Solomon, then of the Washington Post, was writing fawning letters to the White House explaining to them how he could spin the US attorney scandal anyway they wanted? And hellooooo? Judy Miller?” Klein actually backed down on this topic and we agreed that McClatchey had done very good reporting but the main thing I took away from the discussion is that for journalists like Klein the world is divided into practitioners/insiders and totally ignorant outsiders. He was surprised that I brought up the Solomon story, or that I took seriously the Judy Miller issue, because in his world that's really inside baseball. In fact when I pointed out how abysmal the Washington Post's editorial page had been, under Fred Hiatt's tenure, he and another Journalist standing nearby assured me that Fred is an “editorialist” so the ordinary rules don't apply and I don't need to tar the whole paper with his sins. Its as thought they imagine that each story is a stand alone piece and that there's a hard and fast line between opinion and “fact” when every day, and every way, we've seen any pretense to that distinction run right into the ground. Has any adult person thought that since Media Whores Online (of sainted memory?).

Well you at least have to give the man points for consistency. Joke Line has actually come a long way since he first stated blogging at Swampland. He is at least willing to admit every blue moon when he gets something wrong now. But at heart he has this elitist attitude about the mainstream media of which he is a member in good standing in contrast to his readers and liberal and progressive bloggers. He holds himself and his profession up as some kind of gold standard while trying to pooh pooh any instances where he and his industry get the story completely wrong. To this day he won't concede that he screwed up his FISA article, choosing instead to blame everyone but himself. But really that is just the going mindset of Villagers anyway its just kind of amusing to see him verbalize it in an real life in person exchange with one of his readers.

Almost Admirable?!

Really Joe Klein?

The Mark Sanford case is a bit different from the others, and almost admirable. Not for him the usual "I made a mistake" dodge, not for him the exploitation of a staffer or a child. This is a guy who clearly fell in love, and seems unable to hide it very well.

Riddle me this Joe. If YOUR wife was carrying on a sexual relationship for over a year and you found out about it and then SHE flew to Argentina so she could get it in with "Rico" one last time on Mother's Day weekend and didn't tell you nor anybody else. And if she ended up having to stand in front of cameras and tell the world that she cheated on you for over a year.....would you find THAT "almost admirable"?

What a load of bullshit is being shoved down our throats. The same Village idiots who wanted President Clinton strung up and beaten because he got head a couple of times are now oh so forgiving and understanding of Governor Sanford because he was "in love".

Yeah well tell that shit to the wife he committed himself to for life.

Tell that to the kids he couldn't even find the time to call on Father's Day while he was with his mistress.

We are talking about a guy who was most recently seen trying to deny his state badly needed stimulus funds. We are talking about a guy who was as holier than thou as you can get when he was voting for President Clinton to be impeached. We are talking about a guy who has spoken out against empathy in recent weeks.

The victims in this story are Jenny Sanford and her kids, not the bastard who ruined their lives.

I won't even get into the Bill Clinton analogies but its absolutely fucking AMAZING that Republicans can totally fuck over their wives and kids and the Villagers NEVER hold it against them. From Newt to Rush to Ensign to Vitter to now Sanford, you damn near have to pull teeth to get MSM types to mention their past transgressions. Hell every single time, and I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME, Joe Klein mentions Newt Gingrich he makes it a point to say he is smart/briliant/very intelligent. But does he ever mention he is a sorry son of a bitch who cheated on every wife he has ever had and brought divorce papers to his first wife while she was in the hospital battling cancer?!

HELL NO.

Give me a break. Mark Sanford is a dick who doesn't believe in empathy, so I am sure as shit not going to spare any of mine for him.