JustOneMinute

Phony ObamaCare Success Statistics

Today is notionally the final day for ObamaCare sign-ups, so the usual suspects in the national media are engaging in some "how're we doin?!?' reporting cheerleading. At the risk of being struck by a pom-pom let me single out the LA Times - their story which has seized the post position at Memeorandum, deserves special mention for this dubious stat:

At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand’s unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law’s implementation.

Sicne their headline included the factoid that "At least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started", that 4.5 million from Medicaid is a big deal. But how meaningful is that estimate?

A huge caveat that ought to be attached to that number (but hasn't been) comes from what has become known as the "woodwork effect" - with all the hue and cry about ObamaCare, people who were previously eligible for Medicaid have "come out of the woodwork" to sign up. An ardent ObamaCare booster might insist that they only way we could have ginned up all that publicitity was by crafting and cramming down a complex, unpopular bill; here on the third planet, we will argue that a much less complex PR campaign could have boosted Medicaid enrollment with a lot less controversy.

But on to some numbers; here is Think Progress citing this report from Avalere Health in early March:

A new analysis by Avalere Health finds that the Affordable Care Act’s open enrollment season is boosting Medicaid signups even in the states that have refused the health law’s optional Medicaid expansion.

“Enrollment of new Medicaid beneficiaries continues in both expansion and non-expansion states,” said Jenna Stento, senior manager at Avalere Health, in a statement. “Medicaid applications have increased 27 percent on average from October to January compared to application rates before ACA. Application rates in expansion states increased 41 percent over the same period.”

Stento told ThinkProgress that enrollments even in non-expansion states grew by 13 percent from October through January, compared to previous months.

Avalere estimates that between 700,000 and 800,000 Americans in non-expansion states who were already eligible for existing Medicaid programs, but never actually signed up for them, enrolled between October through January. This is a phenomenon that health care experts refer to as the ACA’s “woodwork effect,” wherein eligible populations come “out of the woodwork” amid persistent national and local coverage of the health law’s signup period. Some of these people may simply not have known that they previously qualified for government health care benefits, or didn’t know how to sign up.

Expansion states saw much bigger enrollment hikes, with somewhere between 1.7 million and 2.7 million signing up for Medicaid for the first time, since some people in those places became newly eligible under expansion. All told, between 2.4 million and 3.5 million of the poorest Americans started receiving Medicaid coverage for the first time during the first four months of Obamacare’s enrollment season.

The population split between expansion and non-expansion states seems to be roughly equal (based on learning that the overall average increase of 27% comes from subgroups of 13% and 41%, as well as this map and this list.)

So if we assume 800k 'woodworkers' for the non-expansion state, how many similar people came out of the woodwork in the expansion states? One might argue that, lacking other information, it is plausible to assume that the proportion is the same. So, with total expansion of 3.5 million as of January (the high estimate), we would be estimating 1.6 million 'woodworkers' and 1.9 million people that are newly eligible under the revised and expanded law. The woodworkers represent 46% of the total.

But wait! One might argue that the states that expanded Medicaid have a long, proud history of generosity with other people's money and would have worked hard over the years to sign up as many eligible people as possible. In which case, substantially all of the 'woodworkers' will be found in the non-expansion states; this puts them at 23% of the total at the end of January.

Now, did the composition of Medicaid enrollees change substantially in February and March? Who knows? But lacking final reports, a fair range for the number of newly-insured 'woodworkers' would be 23% to 46% of the 4.5 million figure cited by the LA Times. That would lead to a 1 to 2 million reduction in the new Medicaid enrollment and consequently a 1 to 2 million reduction in the headlined 9.5 million figure.

Like the LA Times will note this.

 

 

Sunday Morning

The NY Times explains that reliable Republican farmers in California want immigration reform to ensure cheap, exploitable labor. Whether the Times' Upper West Side base is unclear, although access to cheap fruits and vegetables may be a progressive selling point.

The Big Splash Theory

Here is a very cool story from CNN about a 14 year old with a million dollar idea:

Teen to government: Change your typeface, save millions

(CNN) -- An e. You can write it with one fluid swoop of a pen or one tap of the keyboard. The most commonly used letter in the English dictionary. Simple, right?

Now imagine it printed out millions of times on thousands of forms and documents. Then think of how much ink would be needed.

OK, so that may have been a first for you, but it came naturally to 14-year-old Suvir Mirchandani when he was trying to think of ways to cut waste and save money at his Pittsburgh-area middle school.

And eventually, they get to the point - by changing fonts the government could use less ink, saving a bundle:

Using the General Services Administration's estimated annual cost of ink -- $467 million -- Suvir concluded that if the federal government used Garamond exclusively it could save nearly 30% -- or $136 million per year. An additional $234 million could be saved annually if state governments also jumped on board, he reported.

All very cool, and props to the young man. However, this is hardly his first moment in the spotlight - Suvir and his older brother Rishi have been winning piano and science competitions for years. (How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice. Like Suvir.)

And the brothers come by their talent honestly - mom is a former English professor and dad is a highly regarded business prof at the University of Pittsburgh.

So, although we applaud this young mans drive and talent, we do hope that progressives keep in mind we are seeing a predictable consequence of assortative mating, namely, reduced social mobility and the inheritance of success.

News By Omission

The NY Times evaluates Saudi grievances with Team Obama but it is what is missing that is interesting - nowhere are the issues of Israel and Palestine raised as a sticking point.

That seems odd since just last December a prominent Saudi prince (and former Ambassador to the US) was blasting Obama for indecision on Israel specifically and the Middle East generally:

MONACO — An influential Saudi prince blasted the Obama administration on Sunday for what he called indecision and a loss of credibility with allies in the Middle East, saying that American efforts to secure a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would founder without a clear commitment from President Obama.

It is not as if the topic is being omitted because the talks are going swimmingly; from two days past:

With Mideast Peace Talks Faltering, Kerry Will See Abbas

Yeah, yeah, the talks will falter until the next triumphal breakthrough, only to falter again. Our only hope is that the next triumph and collapse will be timed so that Kerry can collect a Nobel Peace Prize and then go away and leave the rest of us alone. Hard luck for Hillarity!, but maybe her contribution can be recognized too, as soon as it is found.

No Honor Among, Well, Progs

While we all mock the latest (but probably not the last) delay in Obamacare deadlines, ponder this - the Administration has unilaterally extended the sign-up deadline for anyone who wants a delay:

The Washington Post reports that the administration will rely on the “honor system” to determine if people enrolling past the deadline are hardship cases, with no attempt to check if they started the enrollment process before the deadline or if they are telling the truth.

My alma mater, the University of Virginia, relies on the honor system. The penalty for a violation is expulsion. The penalty for violating the Obamacare honor system is nonexistent.

Well, honr codes are a matter of penalties and attitude - after all, the people who cheat on this have to live with themselves for the rest of their life. But what is that attitude? Earnest progressive Matt Yglesias had no qualms whatsoever about claiming a fake baby for purposes of increasing his Amazon discount (Amazon endorsed this becasue waddya gonna do, but expressed the hope that "We are using the honor system, and we expect the vast majority of users to be honest."

Yeah, yeah - there is nothing as powerful as a rationalization whose necessity has come. Here was Matt later explaining why he was not a moral midget:

I think it's pretty clear that Amazon is a sophisticated firm that's perfectly capable of coming up with a better verification process if it really meant to limit the program to authentic parents. What it's doing is a little bit of price discrimination. People who take the trouble to sign up for Amazon Mom get a discount. The program is targeted at parents because parents are thought to be a more price-sensitive group.

Oh, why not just cite "Steal This Book" and explain that Amazon is rich, Jeff Bezos is rich, so screw 'em.

An back to the current topic - is the US Government a sophisticated entity with the ability to verify people's situations? Sure, as if Team Obama is going to endure the televised spectacle of a weeping mom with three kids and no insurance in early April. I suppose I could try the same ploy come the April 15th tax filing deadline, but my demographic and political affiliation suggests i will be told to go stuff myself - some of these government deadlines are real, at least for some of us.

Well, then, are people who sign up late "just because" and then lie about it guilty of any moral transgression? Oh, please - if progs perceive them as merely ripping off the Evil Insurers, then no, its all good.

But if late enrollees are collecting subsidies from the taxpayer? I am sure it is still all good, since anyone with an income low enough to be eligible for subsidies is a victim of our oppressive racist/sexist/classist/ageist/homophobic/generally deplorable society. Honor? Please. The greater (I probably should say "only") honor is in advancing the progressive agenda.

LEADERSHIP IN ACTION: Harry Reid demonstrates his failing memory, or honor, or both.

SETTING 'SPECIOUS' TO ELEVEN: Back on the Amazon doscount, I can't read this from Josh Barro without wanting to harm myself:

To address Weinstein's substantive argument for a moment: He says using Amazon Mom even if you don't have a kid is like taking a retailer's veteran discount even if you're not a veteran. I agree the latter behavior is immoral. The retailer is offering that discount as a thank-you for veterans' service, and if you're not a veteran you're basically taking a gift that wasn't offered to you.

But is Amazon Mom really a similar "thank you" to parents, or is it just a price discrimination strategy premised around the idea that parents (and especially moms) are more likely to be price-conscious? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. And while I think price discrimination is a-OK, I don't think consumers have any obligation to help businesses implement their price discrimination strategies.

Please. Businesses just want to say 'thank-you' to veterans and it never crossed their minds that this might build good-will, or broaden their market appeal, or bring in a free-spending customer base, or price discriminate in favor of a budget-constrained customer base, or anything else. Contrariwise, who would ever want to say 'thank-you' to a mere mother? What is the heroism or public service in going through labor and delivery? Josh Barro has thought it over and price discrimination it is.

If You Are Seeking Some Sneering, Condescending Stupidity...

Patterico busts the Juice Voxers for misrepresenting the US national debt but lets them off easy for their sneering, condescending tone. Let me put it this way - the video in question sounds as if it was narrated by PajamaBoy. And maybe it was.

Left unanswered by the Juice Voxers - if the US national debt equals the debt held by the public, at $12.5 trillion, why do we have these scuffles about the debt ceiling, currently at $17.2 trillion? (Hint: The Social Security trust assets are a big part of the difference).

And when did debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund lose its sacrosanct status in the progressive catechism? Geez, I can remember when Bush wanted to reform Social security back in 2005, the progressive screaming point was that the trust fund debt was utterly comparable to Treasury debt, even though it is not. To be fair, maybe the catechism changed when Obama decided to ignore the fact that the Social Security trust assets are already included in the debt ceiling and pretended that failing to raise the debt ceiling would jeopardize payments to grannies and grandpas.

Has Team Left finally grasped these point, or is this just more of Matt's flexible advocacy?

New Insights From Mr. Peanut

Jimmy Carter was in Washington to chat with his friends at the WaPo. His lips were moving so we know he was saying something foolish. Here we go, as reported by the Times, on a possible Presidential pardon for Edward Snowden:

Carter Says He Would Think About Pardoning Snowden

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG  MARCH 26, 2014

WASHINGTON — Former President Jimmy Carter, on a swing through the nation’s capital to promote a new book, said Wednesday that he would consider a pardon for Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor who leaked classified information about the National Security Agency. But Mr. Carter said that he was not certain he would grant one.

...

On Mr. Snowden, Mr. Carter at first said he would not pardon him, “because you can’t pardon someone who hasn’t been tried and convicted.”

Oh, please, read the Constitution or the newspapers, Jimmeh. Do the names "Ford and Nixon" ring a bell? Geez, that led to your (misbegotten) election!. How about "Bush and Weinberger"? Or did you hear the one about Clinton and Marc Rich?

Pressing on:

But, he added, if Mr. Snowden came back to the United States, was tried, found guilty and faced a death sentence, “I would certainly consider a pardon, yes.”

“But I can’t say what I would do,” Mr. Carter said, “because I don’t have the information that President Obama has about the damage that has been done to our security apparatus.”

He would "consider a pardon" if Snowden were sentenced to death but "can't say" what he would do? This, from the guy who just last fall was calling for an end to capital punishment? These plot twists are tricky. Then again, a commutation is not a pardon, so maybe Jimmy would knock the sentence down from death to life without granting a full pardon.

And as a bonus, I am 99% confident that this next assertion is pure fantasy, but lack the time to pin down the last 1%:

Mr. Carter, 89, has made no secret in recent days of his disdain for the N.S.A., telling television interviewers during his book tour that he now relies on the “snail mail” of the United States Postal Service, rather than email, for sending sensitive messages. During a midday appearance at The Washington Post, he warned about the reach of the security agency.

“If you sent an email today, they recorded it,” the former president said. “If you’ve made a telephone call today, they’ve recorded it. They record the entire thing. They don’t go back and listen to your words — they say — but if they want to, later on, they can go back and listen to the exact words. I do think that needs to be corrected, and I hope President Obama will do it.”

I know the NSA keeps their own database of the metadata, which is the billing records routinely recorded by the telecom companies. But I don't recall reading that the telecoms or the NSA are routinely recording each and every call made in the United States, which is the obvious context of Mr. Peanut's remarks.

It has been reported that the NSA did "swallow up" all the phone communications in one target country on a rolling 30 day basis, and saved a tiny fraction of the voice clips for more than 30 days. But even that effort virtually exhausted their data analysis and storage capabilities; the idea that such a program is being employed in the US would merit a major headline, if true.

And even if every Valley Girl's chat with her latest girlfriend about her latest boyfriend was being recorded as per the NSA program employed abroad, Jimmy's claim that "if they want to, later on, they can go back and listen to the exact words" would only be true within the thirty day rolling window.

Ah, well. Thinking about Jimmy inspires an arithmetic problem. A stopped clock is famously right twice a day. Clearly, Jimmy has not achieved that standard. But how often is a clock that loses one second every hour right, and is Jimmy more accurate than that?

The NLRB v. the NCAA

I am in favor of anything that sticks it to the NCAA:

College Players Granted Right To Form Union

By BEN STRAUSS and STEVE EDER  MARCH 26, 2014

CHICAGO — A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board ruled Wednesday that a group of Northwestern football players were employees of the university and have the right to form a union and bargain collectively.

For decades, the N.C.A.A. and college sports have functioned on the bedrock principle of the student-athlete, with players rewarded with scholarships to compete for their university. But Peter Ohr, the regional N.L.R.B. director, tore down that familiar construct in a 24-page decision. He ruled that all Northwestern’s scholarship football players should be eligible to form a union based on a litany of factors, including how much time they devote to football (as many as 50 hours during some weeks), the control exerted by the coaching staff and their scholarships, which Ohr deemed a contract for compensation. “It cannot be said that the employer’s scholarship players are ‘primarily students,’ ” the decision said.

The NCAA has captured a goose laying golden eggs, and they will be under increasing pressure to share them. Can Athletic Directors continue to balance their budgets on the backs of poor, disproportionately black football and basketball players while subsidizing the lily-white swim teams that don't generate enough revenue to buy a dozen half-caf lattes at Starbucks?

THE TAXMAN COMETH...Since you ask, here are the IRS rules for the tax treatment of scholarships and fellowships. This is important:

A scholarship is generally an amount paid or allowed to a student at an educational institution for the purpose of study. A fellowship is generally an amount paid to an individual for the purpose of research.

If you receive a scholarship or fellowship grant, all or part of the amounts you receive may be tax-free.

Qualified scholarship and fellowship grants are treated as tax-free amounts if the following conditions are met:

• You are a candidate for a degree at an educational institution that maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of students in attendance at the place where it carries on its educational activities; and
• Amounts you receive as a scholarship or fellowship grant are used for tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance at the educational institution, or for fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses at the educational institution.

 However!

You must include in gross income amounts used for incidental expenses, such as room and board, travel, and optional equipment, and generally, amounts received as payments for teaching, research, or other services required as a condition for receiving the scholarship or fellowship grant. Also, you must include in income any part of the scholarship or fellowship that represents payments for services.

I wonder how many folks (athletes or otherwise) are reporting room and board subsidies as ordinary income.

Presumably, unionized athletes could be compensated like a PhD on a fellowship - the tuition portion of the scholarship award continues to be tax-free but any payments above that are taxable.

Failing To Man Up In The Other Blue Heaven

The NY Times prompted high blood pressure across the Upper West Side with this ObamaCare horror story from California:

[My dog] has the kind of health care that I’d hoped the Affordable Care Act would usher in for those who, like my wife and me, have to buy health insurance on the open market. I’d long been frustrated at how health care shackles people to corporate jobs. I believed this legislation, signed four years ago this month, would free people to pursue their dreams, start new companies and not worry about the health insurance penalty.

What I didn’t count on was that it would make things harder for me and my wife.

First, we were notified that we would be kicked out of our existing $263-a-month Anthem Blue Cross plan because it didn’t meet the minimum standards of the new law. No problem, I thought. The plans in the new Covered California exchange would most likely be better and cheaper.

But we were shocked at what we confronted. The least expensive premium for a couple like us in our 40s would be about $620 a month. And because our household adjusted gross income is likely to be over the $62,040 cutoff this year, it’s doubtful we’ll end up with a subsidy to help offset that price increase.

We can see the progressive pushback already - anyone making over $62K per year is rich and ought to thank America, then get back in their private jet and fly to Aspen.

Or, they will wonder why this Evil Republican insists on lying to the rest of us, since he clearly has a better plan now. Or maybe that is not so clear:

I know that Obamacare is helping a great number of people. I understand that for the first time millions of people are getting health insurance. It’s the one thing that gives me solace.

But let’s not pretend that this new policy is the affordable health care savior that many of us were hoping for. For us, our new plan is a big financial hit for a product that does not make it any easier to get basic health care.

It’s still hard to understand what coverage we have. It’s like trying to read tea leaves. Benefits descriptions can be contradictory and run nearly 200 pages long. One summary attached to my online account seems to say that if I go to the emergency room, I could potentially owe thousands of dollars. Another document suggests that I’m responsible for only $300. I’ve had two representatives give me two different explanations. The more I questioned these well-intentioned people, the more I realized how confused, overwhelmed and at times plain wrong they were.

Here’s what I’ve been able to piece together. Previously, our family deductible totaled $13,600 for outpatient care and $6,600 for hospital care (with a maximum combined out-of-pocket cost of $13,600). Under our new plan, we have a deductible of $10,000 (and an out-of-pocket maximum of $12,700). In both cases, having deductibles that high means this is largely insurance to make sure that we don’t go bankrupt if we become very ill. Yes, the new plan has more coverage, including pediatric vision. But we don’t have children, and I’d trade coverage for things like substance abuse treatment and mental health in return for lower premiums.

So he had a high-deductible "junk" plan costing $263/month but now he has a high-deductible Obama-apporoved plan costing $620/month. With pediatric coverage!

The idea that this left coast progressive can bring the right coast home to reality on the absurdities of Obamacare strikes me as madly optimistic. The Annointed have their talking points and will be sticking to them! Still, the fact that the Times was willing to let this whiner splash some of their ink is an interesting straw in the wind. If Obama is losing the Times...

Separate But Unequal In My Blue Heaven...

Cue "Southern Man":

Report: NY schools are most racially segregated

By KAREN MATTHEWS / Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) -- New York state has the most segregated public schools in the nation, with many black and Latino students attending schools with virtually no white classmates, according to a report released Wednesday.

The report by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles looks at enrollment trends from 1989 to 2010.

Can we have an inflammatory comparison? Yes we can!

"In the 30 years I have been researching schools, New York state has consistently been one of the most segregated states in the nation - no Southern state comes close to New York," Orfield [co-director of the Civil Rights Project and an author of the report] said.

And can we have a statistic of dubious significance? Yes we can!

He and his fellow researchers say segregation has the effect of concentrating black and Latino students in schools with high ratios of poor students compared with the statewide average. Black and Latino students who attend schools that are integrated by race and income level perform significantly better than their peers in segregated schools, the authors note.

So it helps to have a few white and Asian kids around. This is because (a) the paler kids just love to tutor their darker-complected peers, or (b) black and Latino parents who can afford to move to more expensive neighborhoods are likely to be relatively disciplined high-achievers with high-achieving kids. Tough call.

The de facto segregation is a consequence of the housing market, which may be an explanation but is not a justification. Fortunately, California and New York are under the control of progressives so we know this will be solved promptly.

Stop Him Before He Surveils Again

Obama announced that he would work with Congress to end the bulk collection of metadata by the NSA. Weird - one might have thought the NSA was in the Executive Branch under Obama, but who knows what powers they hold now.

The NY Times editors are equally mystified:

If President Obama really wants to end the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records, he doesn’t need to ask the permission of Congress, as he said on Tuesday he would do. He can just end it himself, immediately.

Well, yes he can. I guess Mr. Executive Action lost his pen and no longer trusts his phone. Or maybe this is one more show to dazzle the few remaining rubes.

AND NOBODY SAW THIS COMING... U.S. to Extend Sign-Up Period For Insurance

WASHINGTON — With less than a week left for people to sign up for health insurance, the Obama administration said Tuesday that it would allow more time for those who had tried to apply but were blocked by technical problems with the federal exchange.

Several states running their own exchanges, including Maryland, Minnesota and Nevada, have taken similar steps in the last two weeks.

Open enrollment was scheduled to end on Monday for all Americans. The White House had previously insisted that the deadline was firm and would not be extended.

Looks like the pen or the phone is back in action (and the tedious text of the law and announced rules are irrelevant) when Obama wants results.

PILING ON: Via Matt Drudge we flash back a few weeks to a time when HHS believed they lacked the power to unilaterally extend the sign-up deadline. Ah, well, that was then; obviously, the "Send better lawyers" plea was heeded.

Frequently Unasked Questions

The First Lady, talking to a school audience in China, described the history of discrimination in the US but explained that we are moving on to a better place:

...Because in America, we believe that no matter where you live or how much money your parents have, or what race or religion or ethnicity you are, if you work hard and believe in yourself, then you should have a chance to succeed.  We also believe that everyone is equal, and that we all have the right to say what we think and worship as we choose, even when others don’t like what we say or don’t always agree with what we believe.

But [she] warned that not everything is perfect. "Now of course, living up to these ideals isn’t always easy.  And there have been times in our history where we have fallen short.  Many decades ago, there were actually laws in America that allowed discrimination against black people like me, who are a minority in the United States.  But over time, ordinary citizens decided that those laws were unfair.  So they held peaceful protests and marches.  They called on government officials to change those laws, and they voted to elect new officials who shared their views," she said.

"And slowly but surely, America changed.  We got rid of those unjust laws.  And today, just 50 years later, my husband and I are President and First Lady of the United States.  And that is really the story of America –- how over the course of our short history, through so many trials and struggles, we have become more equal, more inclusive, and more free."

On the topic of religious freedom as it is lived today, the Supreme Court may have to restrain her husband. Or not.

But the real laugher would have ocurred if one of the Chinese students in the audience had asked her opinion of affirmative action, which works to keep hard-working Asians from advancing themselves into top schools. No such luck.

The Eternal Genius Of The Spotless Mind

Don Rumsfeld, who may not be known for reflecting upon his own mistakes, is colorful in pointing out those made by others:

(CNSNews.com) - Donald Rumsfeld, who served as U.S. Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush, blames poor diplomacy by the Obama administration for the current strained relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Our relationship with Karzai and with Afghanistan was absolutely first-rate in the Bush administration," Rumsfeld told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren on Monday. "It has gone down hill like a toboggan ever since the Obama administration came in."

Is Rumsfeld suggesting that (here we go...) Obama is a luger? Speaking of heading downhill, the other Donald continued:

The U.S. has status of forces agreements with more than a hundred countries, Rumsfeld noted. "A trained ape can get a status of forces agreement," he said. "It does not take a genius. And we have so mismanaged that relationship."

"Trained ape" can't be the way he wants to go due to obvious and inevitable racial outrage, and the video is not at all exclulpatory. As to substance, well, even the NY Times admitted that the SOFA with Iraq was handled poorly and driven by domestic politics in Iraq and the US rather than national security concerns.

As to Karzai and Afghanistan, one might have hoped that Team Obama had learned a thing or two about hammering out a SOFA, but maybe not.

Forward To A Safer World

The NY Times describes the 'progress' made by Team Obama in pursuit of the President's nuclear weapons- free vision. I can't pick a favorite for "Most Ludicrous", but three passages stand out. First:

THE HAGUE — Japan announced on Monday that it would turn over to Washington a large cache of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium, a decades-old research stockpile that is large enough to build dozens of nuclear weapons, according to American and Japanese officials.

The move is the biggest single success in President Obama’s five-year push to secure the world’s most dangerous materials...

Japan won't be nuking us or anyone - whew! Yes, obviously this has symbolic significance to true 'bad guys' like Iran or North Korea, who in turn won't be swayed by the Japanese example. And since you ask:

The nuclear fuel being turned over to the United States, which is of American and British origin, is a small fraction of Japan’s overall stockpile.

And the second nominee:

Mr. Obama’s initiative to lock down plutonium and uranium around the world was supposed to have been just the first step in an ambitious agenda to seek “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” as he said in Prague in 2009. Now, the downturn in relations with Russia has dashed hopes of mutual reductions in the world’s two largest arsenals. At the same time, North Korea has resumed its program, Pakistan and India are modernizing their weapons, and the United States Senate has not taken up any of the treaties Mr. Obama once described as vital.

No treaties from the Dem-controlled Senate? More on that:

But Mr. Obama’s agenda has also run into major troubles in the Senate. In 2009 and 2010 the White House promised to reintroduce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was defeated in the Senate during the Clinton administration. It has never been put back in front of the Senate, for fear of a second rejection. Even seemingly noncontroversial legislation, including passage of two nuclear terrorism conventions that deal with the physical protection of materials, has been stuck.

The Times is ready to throw up their hands:

“The Obama team came in thinking a lot of things would be easier than they turned out to be,” said Matthew Bunn, a professor at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

That was 'arrogant cowboy diplomacy' when Bush did it, probably because the 'naive' label did not hang well on Cheney, Runsfeld and Powell.

And our third nominee:

Nonetheless, the effort to secure dangerous nuclear materials in Russia and the former Soviet states has been one of the big successes of the post-Cold War era, Just last year Ukraine, then still under the control of the now ousted President Victor F. Yanukovych, sent more than 500 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from a reactor back to Russia. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons — left over after the fall of the Soviet Union — two decades ago. Had the weapons and materials remained in Ukraine, the current standoff with Russia might have taken on far more dangerous dimensions.

Peace through disarmament, and how did that work out? Maybe if the Ukraine had nukes this Crimea debacle wouldn't have happened at all. And maybe the Times wants to mention the quasi-border guarantees offered by the US. Or not.

The nuclear freeze was big on college campuses during Obama's formative years and he has learned nothing since.

Winning The Future, Abroad

The maybe not so widely read South China Morning Post reports that China has accelerated their commitment to developing a thorium reactor:

The deadline to develop a new design of nuclear power plant has been brought forward by 15 years as the central government tries to reduce the nation's reliance on smog-producing coal-fired power stations.

A team of scientists in Shanghai had originally been given 25 years to try to develop the world's first nuclear plant using the radioactive element thorium as fuel rather than uranium, but they have now been told they have 10, the researchers said.

"In the past the government was interested in nuclear power because of the energy shortage. Now they are more interested because of smog," said Professor Li Zhong, a scientist working on the project.

The Telegraph and the Guardian in the UK picked up on this but the major US news outlets have ignored it. Somewhat understandable, since there don't seem to be any easy laughs in explaining the thorium breeding cycle and the Evil Koch Brothers aren't involved. Japan and India are also pushing on thorium, so the good news is that if the engineering problems can be solved they will be. The bad news is that the US will continue to lead from behind on this, at least until we get a new President.

 

Saturday Afternoon

March Madness continues and the WaPo joins in.

FWIW, this database is of operating companies, not leaseholders; finding the Evil Koch Brothers as a major player is a lot trickier here although I assume a shameless progressive or, pardon my redundancy, a WaPo reporter could manage it.

Another Faith-Based Initiative From Obama

Obama continues his own War on Reality while hyping the Republican War on Women. Here he is on equal pay for equal work, speaking down in Florida:

So this is a family agenda.  But it starts with making sure that every woman is getting a fair shot.  It’s time for a woman’s economic agenda that grows our economy for everybody.  Now, that begins with making sure women receive equal pay for equal work.  This is a really simple principle.  This should not be confusing. (Laughter and applause.)  It’s not that complicated. 

Today, more women are their family’s main breadwinner than ever before.  But on average, women are still earning just 77 cents on every dollar that a man does.  Women with college degrees may earn hundreds of thousands of dollars less over the course of her career than a man at the same educational level.  And that’s wrong.  This isn’t 1958, it’s 2014.  That’s why the first bill I signed into law was called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- (applause) -- and it made sure that it was easier for women to sue if they weren’t being paid the same as men.

Groan. Even the faithful are jumping ship on this discredited "77 cents" meme. But can we count on the Times to present this with a big Smiley Face? Yes We Can!

ORLANDO, Fla. — President Obama has vowed to make 2014 a “year of action,” using his executive authority to bypass a Congress where his agenda is so stalled that even the confirmation of his surgeon general nominee is held up. But at a Thursday speech at a community college here in Central Florida, the limitations of that so-called pen and phone strategy were clear.

While Mr. Obama talked up his efforts to improve women’s economic opportunities through his executive authority, he was still leaning on the most enduring tool in the presidential kit — the pulpit — in order to get Congress to take action.

Pointing out that women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the president called on reluctant lawmakers to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would strengthen earlier bans on disparities in pay.

No context or criticism of that "77 cents" claim is presented. And we must award bonus points to the Times for their context-free assertion that Obama's "agenda is so stalled that even the confirmation of his surgeon general nominee is held up". That confirmation is stalled in the Dem-controlled, filibuster-free Senate because nervous Red-State Democrats think the nominee is one more lib too far.

SINCE YOU ASK: Equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963. My cursory research indicates that the Paycheck Fairness Act restricts one of the safe harbors included in that act:

Under the Equal Pay Act, the law that makes it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work, an individual subject to wage discrimination must establish that “(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.”[1]  Even if the individual makes each of these showings, the defendant employer may avoid liability by proving that the wage disparity is justified by one of four affirmative defenses—that is, that the employer has set the challenged wages pursuant to “(1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.”^[10]

Congress intended the Equal Pay Act to serve a sweeping remedial purpose. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Act was designed to remedy what was perceived to be a serious and endemic problem of employment discrimination in private industry—the fact that the wage structure of “many segments of American industry has been based on an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman even though his duties are the same.”^[11]

Despite the Equal Pay Act’s broad language and purpose, courts have narrowed and constrained the law in ways that undermine its fundamental goals.  In particular, some courts have interpreted the “factor other than sex” defense to permit employers to pay discriminatory wages for a limitless number of reasons.^{[citation needed]}  The Paycheck Fairness Act would close this loophole by ensuring that employers relying on the “factor other than sex” defense may not pay men and women doing substantially equal work different wages unless the wage differential is justified by a job-related reason, such as education, training or experience, and consistent with business needs. 

Democrats need to believe in this persistent, wide-spread discrimination against women just as they need to believe in widespread racism as a matter of self- and base-motivation. Reality is butting up against religion here.

Running With The Big Dogs

The bubble in China is going to the dogs. BIG dogs. We are talking about two Tibetan mastiff puppies recently sold at auction:

The price tag on the black-and-tan pup (described as golden-haired elsewhere) was 12 million yuan ($1.9 million), while the red mastiff sold for 6 million yuan ($967,620, roughly) — so $2.8 million for two pups. And that was after some bargaining, as the owner originally wanted 18 million yuan for the black-and-tan dog, the report said.

The mastiff is considered a primitive breed, with legend saying both Genghis Khan and Buddha owned one. Wikipedia points out that the dog is not really a mastiff at all, but was misnamed by early Western visitors to Tibet, as the term means something like big, powerful dog. Big indeed, as males can reportedly reach 33 inches and 275 pounds. And clearly, breeding a dog like this can reap profits.

 

Bringin' The Smart Diplomacy

Joe Biden is bringing the smart diplomacy to nervous Eastern Europeans (aka 'prospective western Russians'). Let's cut to this pearl from Poland:

[Biden] said that Russia stands alone, “naked before the world,” in its aggression.

Naked? Well, maybe shirtless...

Tuesday AM

Away we go. With a nod to Gary Taubes I should note that saturated fat has saddled up the comeback pony and is riding it hard. That inspires a 2011 flashback. mAnd here is some lovely sugar-bashing from Britain, circa 2012.

Sunday Morning And A New Story Arc

More info on the missing Malaysian Airlnes Boeing 777, and a cool map based on last known contact.

The northern arc is well within range of the restive Uighar province in northwestern China.

The southern arc seems like a very long way to go to commit suicide.

My current virtually baseless guess - the plane flew north and was shot down by China, which is now intent on keeping that news as their little secret. The plane would probably have passed over Myanmar, which seems to have an air defense system capable of tracking a missing Boeing, but would their government be forthcoming with their data, especially if the Chinese were urging them to keep it quiet? I don't know.

And with the current drama over the crimea, is the US going to be the one to point the accusing finger at China, even if we had proof, which we probably do not?

Saturday Afternoon

Away we go, probably to Central Asia or the Indian Ocean.

Pinging The Satellites

The search for the missing Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 goes on:

Satellite Firm Says Its Data From Jet Could Offer Location

SEPANG, Malaysia — As the hunt for the missing Malaysia Airlines jet expanded into the daunting vastness of the Indian Ocean, a satellite communications company confirmed on Friday that it had recorded electronic “keep alive” ping signals from the plane after it disappeared, and said those signals could be analyzed to help estimate its location.

The information from the company, Inmarsat, could prove to be the first big break in helping narrow the frustrating search for the plane with 239 people aboard that mysteriously disappeared from radar screens a week ago, now hunted by a multinational array of ships and planes that have fanned out for thousands of square miles.

More Of Obama's Pre-Election Posturing Unravels

Saturday comes a day early this week as the Times runs two stories criticizing the Adminstration's phony effort against this or that.

First, from the field of Smart Diplomacy versus Cowboy Diplomacy:

U.S., Rebuffing U.N., Maintains Stance That Rights Treaty Does Not Apply Abroad

By Charlie Savage

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration declared Thursday that a global Bill of Rights-style treaty imposes no human rights obligations on American military and intelligence forces when they operate abroad, rejecting an interpretation by the United Nations and the top State Department lawyer during President Obama’s first term.

The administration affirmed that stance in a meeting in Geneva of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Thursday. The United States first expressed the stance in 1995 after the Clinton administration was criticized for its policy of intercepting Haitian refugees at sea, and the Bush administration later amplified it to defend its treatment of terrorism suspects in overseas prisons.

The Times emphasizes that this is a Clinton-Bush interpretation. And Obama did close Guantanamo. In his mind, anyway.

And closer to home, and homes, is this:

U.S. Criticized for Lack of Action on Mortgage Fraud

By Matt Apuzzo

Four years after President Obama promised to crack down on mortgage fraud, his administration has quietly made the crime its lowest priority and has closed hundreds of cases after little or no investigation, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog said on Thursday.

The report by the department’s inspector general undercuts the president’s contentions that the government is holding people responsible for the collapse of the financial and housing markets. The administration has been criticized, in particular, for not pursuing large banks and their executives.

“In cities across the country, mortgage fraud crimes have reached crisis proportions,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said at a mortgage fraud summit in Phoenix in 2010. “But we are fighting back.”

The inspector general’s report, however, shows that the F.B.I. considered mortgage fraud to be its lowest-ranked national criminal priority. In several large cities, including New York and Los Angeles, F.B.I. agents either ranked mortgage fraud as a low priority or did not rank it at all.

Eric Holder gets a special whacking:

The inspector general focused much of its report and most of its recommendations on fixing internal systems that produced inaccurate data that wildly overstated the government’s results.

Mr. Holder, for example, announced in 2012 that prosecutors had charged 530 people over the previous year in cases related to mortgage fraud that had cost homeowners more than $1 billion.

Almost immediately, the Justice Department realized it could not back up those statistics, the inspector general said. After months of review, it became clear that only 107 people were charged.

The $1 billion figure, it turned out, had been drastically inflated. It was actually $95 million, the inspector general said. Yet Justice Department officials repeated those claims for months, even after it was obvious the figures were wrong, the inspector general said.

Exaggerating their achievements? Hard to believe.

 

Russian Troop Exercises Near (Current) Ukrainian Border

Oh, boy:

Russia Massing Military Forces Near Border With Ukraine

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ALISON SMALE  MARCH 13, 2014

MOSCOW — Russia’s Defense Ministry announced new military operations in several regions near the Ukrainian border on Thursday, even as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany warned the Kremlin to abandon the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries or face diplomatic and economic retaliation from a united Europe.

The operations came as Ukraine’s acting president, Oleksandr V. Turchynov, said in a statement on his official website that he believed Russian forces massed near the border were “ready to intervene in Ukraine at anytime,” and that he hoped diplomatic efforts by Ukraine and sympathetic nations would “stop the aggression.”

I assume that Kiev is safe, but the south-eastern Ukraine has a history (and ethnic composition) not quite as potent as the Crimea, but maybe close enough for Putin's purposes.

The Chinese are warning against sanctions; maybe Kerry can reassure them by promising something "unbelievably small". hey, if Kerry can get 'em laughing and lighten the mood, whjo knows?

If I were to presume to advise Putin, I would tell him that, despite Russia's long and troubling history of scuffles and invasions from France, Germany, Sweden, the Turks no doubt others, Europe is through; they won't be bothering Russia for a century, unless it is under a Crescent flag.

China, on the other hand, has been a useful counterweight to the US but they are still ascending and are clearly a more menacing long-term rival to Russia than either the US or Europe. So he should choose wisely amongst his possible allies.

However, that is all very long term. Right now, in choosing among his long term goals Putin is reacting to weakness and deferring to strength, so here we are.

The Mandate Lives, Subject Only To Its Demise

The Times manages to keep a straight face while telling us that

Health Mandate Won’t Be Delayed, Sebelius Says

Yeah, yeah, I bet she did, too. To the text!

WASHINGTON — Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said Wednesday that the Obama administration would not extend the deadline for people to sign up for health insurance or delay the requirement for most Americans to have coverage.

And she declined to say whether the administration was still committed to its original goal of enrolling seven million people in private coverage through federal and state exchanges by March 31.

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Sebelius said categorically that the administration would not delay the “individual mandate,” under which most Americans must have insurance or pay a tax penalty. In addition, she said that officials would not extend the six-month open enrollment period, scheduled to end on March 31.

Right. As the WSJ recently reported (but not the Times), the new rules allow pretty much anyone who wants to opt out to claim a hardship exemption. Per the hardship exemption form the easiest claim for a beleaguered middle-class, middle-income non-complier is probably

(3) You received a shut-off notice from a utility.

The required documentation is:

Copy of shut-off notice from a utility company

No need to shiver in the dark. I have received a few of these disconnect letters over the many years. Forget to pay a few bills, maybe take a vacation a month later, and eventually the tone of their letters changes from peppy to snippy. At which point, memory suitably jogged, I pay them. To quote a great leader, ooops.

So anybody with a bit pf a planning horizon can easily pick up a disconnect letter or two. A claim of domestic violence requires no documentation at all, but I would not suggest putting that allegation in any kind of official document unless it were true.

And people who had other insurance cancelled can simply assert that they consider the new alternatives unaffordable.

This next bit is poignant:

However, a few Democrats also expressed disappointment and frustration at the way the health law was being carried out. “So much of the original promise of the Affordable Care Act has been undermined by faulty implementation that has sometimes been indifferent to local concerns,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas.

“At best,” Mr. Doggett said, “less than 10 percent of exchange-eligible Texans have selected a plan. In other words, more than 90 percent of the people whom we wrote this law to get exchange coverage have not been covered.” In parts of the state, he said, it is nearly impossible for consumers to obtain “in-person assistance” in selecting a health care plan.

Do keep in mind, Democrats oppose Voter ID laws because they think their constituents won't be able to figure out how to comply by getting a photo ID. Yet they were expected to navigate the HealthCare.fail / Medicaid maze? Maybe the Dems were on to something here...

Is Someone Bringing Back "Lost"

The mystery of the missing Malaysian Airways jet deepens. I suspect a major studio is promoting "Lost - The Movie".

From the WSJ:

U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines 3786.KU -4.08% Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. BA +0.53% 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.

That report is denied by Malaysian authorities.

 

The Power Of Positive Polling

Interesting perspectives on health:

What’s worse for your health: a candy bar or a joint?

The new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll produced a surprising answer. Sugar. When Americans were asked their opinion on the most harmful of four substances, tobacco (49%) and alcohol (24%) came in first and second place, followed by sugar (15%) and marijuana. Only 8% said marijuana was the most harmful substance.

Interesting. Presumably this reflects some combination of realized and potential harm - if marijuana use were more widespread it might (or might not!) be associated with more deaths, such as from traffic accidents.

However, based on CDC stats tobacco owns the top spot:

Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.^1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:¹

• More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)

I think a case could be made that sugar caught a break by coming in behind alcohol. Here is the CDC on alcohol:

There are approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.¹ This makes excessive alcohol use the 3r d leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.²

Alcohol is only third? What is second?

Per the footnote, from a Mar 2004 study:

RESULTS:

The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (365 000 deaths; 15.2%) [corrected], and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%).

So how many of those 365,000 deaths due to poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle can be attributed to sugar? If sugar accounts for at least 25% of this obesity/lifestyle problem (and it might!) then that puts it ahead of alcohol on a total deaths basis.

Since you ask, we also see this:

illicit use of drugs (17 000).

That is all illicit drugs, not just marijuana. Good call by the vox populi.

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY... Sugar was one of the foundations of the Trade Triangle that included bringing slaves to the Western Hemisphere, so its long term impact on Western society began a few centuries back and continues today.

Stagnant Wages, Or Stagnant Talking Points

Obama has a pen and a phone and the NY Times, which reports that Obama thinks it is time for more people to get a raise. Or at least, time for employers to be saddled with more paperwork:

Obama Will Seek Broad Expansion of Overtime Pay

WASHINGTON — President Obama this week will seek to force American businesses to pay more overtime to millions of workers, the latest move by his administration to confront corporations that have had soaring profits even as wages have stagnated.

On Thursday, the president will direct the Labor Department to revamp its regulations to require overtime pay for several million additional fast-food managers, loan officers, computer technicians and others whom many businesses currently classify as “executive or professional” employees to avoid paying them overtime, according to White House officials briefed on the announcement.

Spending other people's money! We quickly segue to the likely price of meals:

Conservatives criticized Mr. Obama’s impending action. “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, who warned that employers might cut pay or use fewer workers. “If they push through something to make a certain class of workers more expensive, something will happen to adjust.”

In ObamaWorld a bunh of employees who were previously taking home X will suddenly get X+ and a bunch of fat cats (presumably the Koch brothers and Mitt Romney's sons) will just have to make do with a bit less.

Here on the lonely streets of Realityville we expect job restructurings and administrative headaches. And even this supporter of the proposal needs to think through his talking points:

Jared Bernstein, the former chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the former executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, embraced Mr. Obama’s move.

“I think the intent of the rule change is to make sure that people working overtime are fairly treated,” he said. “I think a potential side effect is that you may see more hiring in order to avoid overtime costs, which would be an awfully good thing right about now.”

So some folks near the bottom of ther pay ladder will have a new job-sharing scheme imposed on them, cutting their total hours and almost surely cutting their pay. Oh, that's a win for the little guy, all right.

Let's have a brief To Be Fair interlude:

Under the new rules that Mr. Obama is seeking, fewer salaried employees could be blocked from receiving overtime, a move that would potentially shift billions of dollars’ worth of corporate income into the pockets of workers. Currently, employers are prohibited from denying time-and-a-half overtime pay to any salaried worker who makes less than $455 per week. Mr. Obama’s directive would significantly increase that salary level.

...

Mr. Bernstein, now a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group, and Mr. Eisenbrey wrote a paper last year urging the administration to raise the salary threshold for overtime to $984 a week. Their study estimated that in any given week, five million workers earning more than the current threshold of $455 a week and less than $1,000 a week are likely to be exempted from overtime. President Bush raised the threshold to $455 in 2004.

Mr. Bernstein said, “Remember, inflation has eroded this threshold a great deal over the years, so it’s hard to see why it’s unfair to make that adjustment.”

I don't remember inflation being real high between 2004 and 2014 but I guess that is the talking point du jour. This inflation calculator says a 25% adjustment would be about right, but progs want to round that to 100%, so hey, hey. As to why this government interference in the private labor market makes any more sense than raising the minimum wage, well, I don't want to ask. Generosity with other people's money is a core progressive value.

And can we pry a correction out of the Times? These two paragraphs meld truth and, hmm, non-truth (my emphasis):

Since the mid-1980s, corporate profits have soared, reaching a post-World War II record as a share of economic output. The profits of the companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 have doubled since the recession ended in June 2009, but wages have stagnated for a vast majority of workers in the same period. Recently, workers’ wages fell close to an all-time low as a share of the economy.

In 2012, the share of the gross domestic income that went to workers fell to 42.6 percent, the lowest on record.

Yeah, yeah, stagnant wages, especially if you focus on take-home pay and ignore health, pension and Social Securioty benefits.

Per the recent GDP report, we see that the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports both "Compensation of employees" and "Wages and salaries" (Table 10, p. 14 of 16).

Compensation is about 53% of GDP; as to its trend, I eagerly await reader assistance (or stronger coffee) to come up with a times series. "Wages and salaries" in 2012 was 42.6% of GDP, just as Messrs. Shear and Greenhouse reported.

So this phrase - "workers’ wages fell close to an all-time low as a share of the economy" may be true; their follow-up - "the share of the gross domestic income that went to workers fell to 42.6 percent" is simply not consistent with BEA reporting.

We eagerly await a Times correction. And a Knicks playoff run. And a 90 win season from the Mets. And the Easter Bunny will be hopping by any day now...

Upcoming ObamaCare Waivers

CNN covers tomorrow's ObamaCare waivers today:

Why casino workers hate Obamacare

...

Union workers picketed outside the Stratosphere over the weekend, ahead of a March 20 vote that would give the union the right to call a strike.

At issue are Obamacare fees and mandates that have greatly increased the health insurance fund's expenses in recent years. What's angering the local, along with many unions nationwide, is that the fund doesn't qualify for federal subsidies to cover low-income workers that for-profit insurers do. The union fund wants these subsidies to help offset the added costs.

Those subsidies, which go directly to insurers, help lower-income Americans purchase insurance on the individual market through state and federal exchanges. But since union plans are considered employer-sponsored plans, there is no federal money to subsidize its members.

So far, White House officials have not made an exception for the unions.

So far. Last fall the Administration took a tougher line, but that was several political eras ago and we've all passed a lot of water since then. Obama has a pen and a phone, midterm elections to win survive and no seeming limit to his "transitional" authority over ObamaCare. Some Friday afternoon this waiver will be announced. Hmm, when is the Fourth of July [FWIW, the money bet is, the Fourth. Of July.]? Or what could more appropriate than Labor Day weekend?

Here's Your Play of the Day

The Today Show had this but will it make Sports Center's Play of the Day?

High school wrestler's touching gesture moves crowd to tears

A Minnesota high school wrestler came up short of his dream of a state title last week — but it was his touching display of sportsmanship afterward that ensured his season would end with a standing ovation. 

After Blaine High School sophomore Malik Stewart was pinned by Michael Albertville High School's Mitchell McKee in a championship match, Stewart didn't sulk or storm away in frustration. Instead he shook hands with McKee and his coaches, and then walked over and offered a handshake and a hug to McKee's father.

Steve McKee is battling terminal cancer and served as his son's inspiration on his journey to a state title. 

The crowd at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul rose to give both wrestlers a standing ovation. Tears streaked the faces of many in attendance who understood the situation.

...

Stewart lost his own father to a heart attack when he was 7 years old, so he could empathize with McKee. Several coaches in attendance complimented the young athlete on his composure and thoughtfulness in a pressure-packed setting. 

"When you go out there, you want to win. But if you don't win, you have got to be a good sport and you be polite,'' Stewart said. "That's the biggest part."

Derek Jeter could pass this kid the torch.

 

 

Yes, Earthquakes And Fracking Are Related

It is warming outside but Hades is freezing over because I am taking the side of Nancy Pelosi's daughter in a silly and bad-mannered dispute over the link between fracking and earthquakes.

The normally invaluable Twitchers start us up with this:

‘Lunacy!’ Science-denier Pelosi daughter blames earthquake on fracking, cries sexism when schooled

Really? She claims she was noting a general link between earthquakes and fracking, not a specific link between the earthquake which caught her eye and fracking. Could a 140 character Twitter post actually be ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations? I bet that has never happened before.

Here is the epicenter of the TweetQuake:

#BREAKING: 6.9 #earthquake off Northern CA coast per #USGS http://ktlane.ws/1fhFh3z  //another reason I oppose #fracking on the fault line

As to the assertion that she "cries sexism when schooled", let's look at the timeline of call and response on her Twitter timeline (I have no idea how to freeze this in time so link-rot will kill this post quickly, but let's press on).

As best I can tell, Ms. Pelosi relatively quickly Tweeted this:

Interesting but unsurprising that folks who troll a comment about our fragile environment go immediately to personal #sexist insults.

However, in the expanded conversation to the previous Tweet I do see this:

 

PB & Chelly ‏@chelseagrunwald

@Matthops82 @sfpelosi's ignorance of science, another reason women should stay in the kitchen. WAIT NEVER CASTED BLAME. @exjon

I am not sure what the joke is there but I think one is intended. In any case, holding all of your respondents responsible for the most daft thing said is a classic Internet ploy but maybe a bit stale. That said, there are subsequent examples of unambiguously sexist and offensive stuff I deplore but will not repeat here. And on the fourth hand, a few bad apples shouldn't typify the barrel (unless spoilage is contagious...? #CitySlicker).

As to the basic science, a recently publicized study by the US Geological Survey is not confusing:

Abstract

In November 2011, a M5.0 earthquake occurred less than a day before a M5.7 earthquake near Prague, Oklahoma, which may have promoted failure of the mainshock and thousands of aftershocks along the Wilzetta fault, including a M5.0 aftershock. The M5.0 foreshock occurred in close proximity to active fluid injection wells; fluid injection can cause a buildup of pore fluid pressure, decrease the fault strength, and may induce earthquakes. Keranen et al. [] links the M5.0 foreshock with fluid injection, but the relationship between the foreshock and successive events has not been investigated.

...

Hence, we argue that the M5.0 foreshock, induced by fluid injection, potentially triggered a cascading failure of earthquakes along the complex Wilzetta fault system.

As to what that means for California, ask a geologist, not me. Maybe fracking sometimes wakes up a geologically somnolent area but has little additional impact on an active area which is already experiencing a lot of slipping and sliding. Or maybe even one extra earthquake in California would be one earthquake too many.

I don't know. But suggesting Ms. Pelosi is a left-wing nutjob for worrying about it is absurd. And insisting that she clearly linked fracking to this specific earthquake off the Cali coast is a stretch. Time to move on, and IMHO there are plenty of folks who might want to revisit their tone.

The Department Of Redundancy Department, Failed Metaphor Division

I am stuck on the second sentence here, on a piece about the US, Russia and the Crimea by Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Let's take it from the top:

Crimea, a Pyrrhic Victory?

WASHINGTON — However the Ukraine crisis ends, it is now clear that Russia is not the partner America has expected. Both countries have crossed a Rubicon, and there is no going back.

"Both countries have crossed a Rubicon, and there is no going back"?!? Uh huh. What's next - There Is No Alternative and there is nothing else to be done, either? We have reached a turning point which calls for a change in direction?

C'mon, crossing the Rubicon means that there is no going back. Let's verify that and doublecheck it with Wikipedia:

The idiom "Crossing the Rubicon" means to pass a point of no return, and refers to Julius Caesar's army's crossing of the river in 49 BC, which was considered an act of insurrection. ... The river is perhaps most known as the place where Julius Caesar uttered the famous phrase "alea iacta est" – the die is cast.

I know you are wondering - with the phrase "the die is cast", was Caesar referring to the throw of a dice in a game such as backgammon (where it is bad form to try and catch them out of mid-air, so once they are thrown you live with the consequences), or was he alluding to molds and molten metal? [And what did he really say, anyway?]

The experts say that he had gambling in mind, which is especially appropriate since the whole notion of leading his army against Rome was a gamble.

Back to the Crimea, I haven't read far enough to see whether it is Russia or the US that is experiencing a Pyrhhic victory. Or maybe the author's point is that we already know that whoever "wins" will still lose a lot. Still, we have two quick allusions to Roman wars so that is something.

I suggest a rewrite along the lines of "Into the Valley of Death rode the hopes of six hundred diplomats, which then died". Redundancy and a Crimea reference!

OK, THIS STUNS ME: I know I will never be a dean of anything after reading this:

But to change Mr. Putin’s strategic calculus, America must expose his hubris and convince him of the high cost to Russia of his foreign policy.

First, we must counter his overconfidence in the growing dependence of Europe and Asia on Russia’s vast energy reserves. Europe has invested its future in natural gas, which Russia alone can provide at prices and quantities that can keep European economies competitive. But the United States can rewrite its laws to allow energy exports and invest in liquefied natural gas terminals for ships carrying the fuel to Europe. America’s gas would be more expensive than Russia’s, but the mere fact of an alternative would sap Russia’s leverage to blackmail Europe with threats of price rises or cutoffs.

After Russia, Iran has the world’s second-largest gas reserves, and it, too, might compete with Russia to supply Europe and Asia. Mr. Putin understands this; in 2007, he went to Iran offering to temper the international pressures on that country, to give Iran an incentive to shun two proposed pipeline projects pointing toward Europe. Russia has since offered financial support for pipelines to Armenia and Pakistan, as an alternative. The last thing Mr. Putin wants for Iran is an end to its isolation from the Western economies.

Indeed, an Iran in conflict with the West has been a strategic godsend to him. So long as Iran’s rich gas reserves remain off limits to Europe, Russia can hold the Continent hostage. Meanwhile, he can barter with the West for concessions to Russia’s own interests, in exchange for his collaboration on matters like Iran’s nuclear program.

The West has to change that equation, and use Iran to its advantage instead. The merest hint that Iranian gas might soon flow to Europe and Asia would begin to do that. And if nuclear talks succeeded in bringing Iran fully back into the global economy, Russia’s hold on Europe would be a thing of the past.

So we should segue from Russia holding Europe hostage to Iran holding them hostage? And we should expect Putin to continue to hold our coats while we reason with Iran?

Dare we fret about an alternative scenario in which Obama's efforts to isolate Iran completely collapse due to Russian support for Iran and Europeans being Europeans, after which the Middle Eastern dominoes go nuclear?

From where I sit Obama is counting on Putin to bail him out with both Syria and Iran. And this gives us leverage?

This is addressed a bit later:

From the start, Russia saw the Syrian uprising as a black-and-white choice between the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and a takeover by Sunni Islamic extremists, and put its bets on Mr. Assad’s butchery. That has won it few other friends in the Middle East, but until now, American acceptance of Russia as a partner has protected it from much damage to its relationships in the region. America must free its Syria policy from the drag of its Russian anchor.

The deal brokered by Moscow to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons was an achievement, but it came at the cost of legitimating Russia’s position on Syria. In reality, Russia has been no help in finding a political solution that would end the killing there. It has no intention of pushing Mr. Assad into a deal. And after Ukraine, it should come as no surprise if Syria starts to backtrack on its chemical weapons promises.

The United States should declare an end to its partnership with Russia on Syria, escalate diplomatic and military pressure on Mr. Assad and seek a diplomatic solution on its own. There is precedent for doing without Russia; NATO did so in Kosovo.

Oh, yes, that's right - Obama should promptly switch to Plan B C D on Syria; the Russian involvement on chemical weapons was really just meant to throw Putin a bone and had nothing to do with Kerry and Obama being lost on the world stage.

His Big Finish:

For too long, America has played down its difficulties with Russia. But Russia now poses a clear and present strategic challenge to the United States that is at least on par with any from Iran or China. American foreign policy needs to accept the challenge and pivot to Russia.

And who could have seen that coming?

Boo, Wall Street. Yay, Uhh, Evil Corporations....?!?

The NY Times knows that hedge funds are bad and their top dogs are worse, so they have no trouble drawing the battle lines in their front page story on hedge fund hero Bill Ackman versus Herbalife. However, I am utterly mystified as to how they sorted out good and evil. Their gist, as best I can determine:

After Big Bet, Hedge Fund Pulls the Levers of Power

Staking $1 Billion That Herbalife Will Fail, Then Lobbying to Bring It Down

Putting their money where their mouth is - sounds ominous!

...

The letter [from Congresswoman Sanchez to the FTC] was a small hint of Mr. Ackman’s extraordinary attempt to leverage the corridors of power — in Washington, state capitols and city halls — for his hedge fund’s profit after taking a $1 billion financial position called a short, a bet that will pay off only if Herbalife’s stock drops.

Corporate money is forever finding new ways to influence government. But Mr. Ackman’s campaign to take this fight “to the end of the earth,” using every weapon in the arsenal that Washington offers in an attempt to bring ruin to one company, is a novel one, fusing the financial markets with the political system.

Others have criticized the business practices of Herbalife, a company that sells vitamins and other health supplements through independent distributors, many of whom are lower-income Latinos or African-Americans. But Mr. Ackman’s attack is unprecedented in its scale, and Herbalife officials strongly deny his accusations that the company is a pyramid scheme that stays afloat by constantly recruiting new distributors.

Novel! Extraordinary! Unprecedented! So Mr. Ackman's behavior is nothing at all like, for example, the millions spent invested by multiple law firms rounding up plaintiffs and lobbyists for their incredibly lucrative war against Big Tobacco. Ahh, well, that was different, because tobacco is bad. But if Mr. Ackman's allegations are correct - IF they are correct - then Herbalife is also bad and shutting them down would also be in the public interest. Does the Times even examine that possibility? Not in this story.

And why are Team Herbalife cast as hapless victims of a Wall Street billionaire? BusinessWeek looked at Herbalife a year ago and noted this about CEO Michael Johnson:

His total compensation in 2012 was valued at about $10.3 million. In 2011 he exercised a batch of stock options and earned almost $25 million.

He took home another $44 million in 2013, so that adds up to a mere $79 million in the last three years. He presumably owed some taxes, so this hardly makes him a billionaire. But he is surely an Evil One Percenter who may or may not be making his fortune by exploiting blacks and Hispanics. Why the Times leaves this unexplored is a mystery.

Also a mystery - a dueling news service, Reuters, ran this just yesterday:

Ackman outspent by Herbalife in lobbying battle

By Svea Herbst-Bayliss BOSTON Sun Mar 9, 2014

(Reuters) - Hedge fund manager William Ackman, who is betting $1.16 billion that Herbalife is a fraud, spent $264,000 last year on lobbyists to press his case against the company, according to government documents filed in recent weeks.

That amount is dwarfed by the nearly $2 million Herbalife spent in 2013 on federal lobbying as the nutrition and weight loss company fought the billionaire investor's claims it runs a pyramid scheme. In an illegal pyramid scheme members earn more for recruiting new members into the scheme than for selling the products outside the network.

To recap, a possibly evil company run by a rich guy spends million on lobbyists defending itself from a crusader in the public interest who just happens to be a billionaire hoping to make hundreds of millions for his investors if his crusade pans out. (Ackman has announced that he will donate his personal profits on this to charity, but of course a buttressed reputation and happy investors won't be priced in to that contribution).

So how does one pick a side? And how does one keep a straight face while pretending that running to Washington for help in a business scuffle is novel?

To their credit, the Times does not hide that most of the lobbyists hired by Ackman fall on the Democratic side of the aisle, since that is where the administrative power currently lies.

Baffling.

LET'S NOTE: The Times was not providing for comments on this story (but now they are). However, their Deal Book flags the story and the first reader comment is so Pavlovian I almost wonder if it is authentic (No, I don't):

It's one thing to defend a vulnerable social group from exploitation, but using that vulnerability as a pretext to exploit the same group for one's gain is unconscionable. William Ackman is a sleazy operator, able to pull strings because he has the financial resources to do what an average citizen couldn't. I would call for an investigation into his questionable relationship with Representative Sanchez and others who did Ackman's bidding. If he was throwing money around to influence his agenda, some of it may have wound up in an elected official's hands. I hope that Herbalife's stock soars through the roof.

Yay, millionaires! Boo, billionaires.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Some hedge fund billionaires are backing Ackman and some are investing in Herbalife; I am neither a long, a short, nor a billionaire.

 

Crisis De-Escalated

He had it all, just like Bogey and Bacall:

WH defends Obama's Key Largo vacation

White House spokesman Josh Earnest defended President Obama's weekend vacation in Key Largo, despite the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, arguing Obama would be able to monitor events from Florida.

“What the president will be doing this weekend in Florida is essentially what the president would be doing back at the White House. It's just that the weather will be a little warmer,” Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Obama still has his pen and his phone. And he still doesn't have any plan, so he might as well be useless down in the Keys.

We file this under "Most Improable White House Claim Ever, Or At Least, Today:

“We have complete confidence the president can handle all the responsibilities he has," Earnest said.

Waddya mean "We"? Surely he's not earnest.

The Dawn Comes Up Like... Well, Not Thunder, But Something Early

Spring forward! Clarice Feldman describes nuclear fall-out and "A Hack Too Far" in her weekly Pieces.

SO WEEDY WE BLAME ANAEROBIC RESPIRATION: In the course of describing Obama's disabilities with spelling and classic rock, The Hill also notes that the White House transcript has declined to memorialize the Big Guy's problem:

WH transcript scrubs Obama's botched 'respect' misspelling

By Justin Sink

The White House stenographer appears to have given President Obama a little too much "respect."

Introducing soul legend Aretha Franklin at a White House performance Thursday night, the president flubbed the spelling of her signature song.

"When Aretha first told us what R-S-P-E-C-T meant to her..." Obama said, prompting laughter from the crowd.

The president's face betrayed that he had misspelled the anthem, but he did not stop to correct himself...

Instant comedy gold which will live on YouTube but not elsewhere:

But anyone reading the official transcript of the event provided by the White House would have had no idea of the president's mistake. In that version, the president correctly spells out the word.

"When Aretha first told us what “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” meant to her, she had no idea it would become a rallying cry for African Americans, and women, and then everyone who felt marginalized because of what they looked like or who they loved," the White House transcript reads.

It's not the first time the official White House transcript has edited presidential misstatements. During the state visit of French President François Hollande last month, Obama referred to French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville as "Alex." But the White House transcript released shortly after used the Frenchman's correct first name.

OK, that's intereting. Pathetic, but interesting. However, in a bid for balance The Hill adds this:

Critics of the Bush administration accused the White House of altering a 2005 transcript of a briefing with former press secretary Scott McClellan, who was asked about whether Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, an adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, had conversations about former CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Independent transcription services Congressional Quarterly and Federal News Service transcribed McClellan as answering, "that's accurate," but the official White House transcript claimed the spokesman answered, "I don't think that's accurate.

Hmm. My recollection was that Scott McClellan was the White House press flack, not the President. Oh yes, The Hill remembers that too, since they mention "the Bush administration" rather than "the McClellan administration". So as examples of parallel behavior this already falls a bit short.

But is the example otherwise comparable? Not really - Scott McClellan was talking over, under or around a question from Dick David Gregory and there is a legitimate dispute (Think Progress 1, 2) as to whether the videotape caught all the audio. McClellan either said "That's accurate" or "No, I don't think that's accurate". The best coverage (or at least, the one I liked best) was here:

The official transcripts archived at the White House website tend to be relatively trustworthy representations of public speaking by President Bush and other officials. The transcribers apparently feel no compulsion to clean up the notorious disfluencies of the President (as with his recent substitution of "marriage" for "merits" when introducing Samuel Alito, or his frequent use of the singular copula with a plural noun phrase). But there's a controversy over the White House transcript of a press briefing by the President's mouthpiece, Scott McClellan, and it's not over some nitpicky grammatical point like subject-verb agreement. Rather, it's over a statement that could have serious legal implications in the ongoing CIA leak investigation.

Interesting that Bush's flubs apparently lived on. Anyway, the post author eventually posts in full the thoughts of a reader. The gist - the sound quality is uncertain, McClellan's lips may or may not have been moving prior to any sound being picked up (the idea that McClellan was a bit of a ventriliquist's dummy has an objective basis, as we watch him speak), the stenographer claims to have heard McClellan say "No, I don't think...", and most importantly, it is clear from the body language and subsequent back and forth that McClellan does not think its accurate and Dick Gregory does not think McClellan will acknowledge that it is accurate.

So, devoid of any context whatsoever, a listener might concluse that the White House transcript is wrong. Watching the tape and seeing the actual exchange, it is clear to me that the answer is not clear, but that whatever McClellan said (as he interrupted Gregory), what he was thinking was "No, I don't think that is not accurate".

And to go so far beyond the point that only physicists have a hope of saving us, McClellan was right in asserting that Gregory was wrong. From the earlier linked article we glean this:

McClellan would not say if he misspoke, but told NEWSWEEK he "disagreed" with Gregory's statement that Fitzgerald had described Plame as a "covert officer."]

This takes us back in time, but my strong recollection is that McClellan was correct at that point. Prior to and during the trial Fitzgerald did all he could to keep the question of Ms. Plame's status out of the discussion, insisting that this was a trial on perjury, not any kind of Intelligence Identities Protection Act case (for reasons to vexing to rehash, but this post represents a notion unearthed nowhere else).

This Feb 2007 article by Byron York ("What the CIA Leak Case Is About") summarized the state of play several years after McClellan disagreed with Gregory, or didn't:

From the first day, [Judge] Walton has said that jurors will not be allowed to know, or even ask, about the status -- covert, classified or otherwise -- of Valerie Plame Wilson, the woman at the heart of the CIA leak case. "You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them," he told jurors in his opening instructions.

A few days later, on Jan. 29, Walton told everyone in the courtroom that the jurors are not the only ones in the dark about Mrs. Wilson's status. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. Two days later, he added, "I to this day don't know what her actual status was."

Walton's reasoning is this: The trial is about whether Libby lied to the grand jury in the CIA leak investigation. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged anyone with leaking the identity of a covert or classified agent. Libby isn't on trial for that, so jurors -- and judge -- don't need to know.

It was only in the post-trial sentencing memorandum that Fitzgerald claimed Ms. Plame had 'covert" status, which is a phrase with nuanced meanings. The CIA mainatins that "covert" is synonomous with "classified", so any agent with classified status is covert. The IIPA, on the other hand, has a more detailed definition, which Ms. Plame almost surely did not meet, or what was Fitzgerald so coy?

This bush was circled many times in subsequent Congressional hearings hosted by Waxman. I summarize my case for aggressive agnosticism here.

I will let Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby of the WaPo summarize the dispute:

Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.

"Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials. Plame, who joined the agency right out of Pennsylvania State University, underwent rigorous spycraft training to become an officer in the Directorate of Operations. (The term "agent" in the CIA is only applied to foreign nationals recruited to spy in support of U.S. interests.)

Regardless of the terminology, the Identities Act proved irrelevant in the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Fitzgerald prosecuted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff for perjury and obstruction of justice based on answers about the case that Libby gave to the FBI and the grand jury. Nonetheless, some of Libby's supporters have invoked "covert" as if it were central to his indictment and conviction.

Well, leaking classified information unwittingly to a reporter and fellow American is a very difficult crime to charge under the Espionage Act or other statutes and there was an idea that Fitzgerald ought to have been investigating an underlying crime. But if people made false statements to the FBI during an investigation that had almost no chance of leading to an indictment, well, indict 'em anyway, right? For getting bad legal advice, if nothing else.

The Malaysia Airlines Crash

Here's a troubling detail from the news of the Malaysia Airlines crash:

BEIJING — Malaysian officials investigating the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines plane Saturday said they were not ruling out terrorism — or any other causes — as reports emerged that two Europeans listed on the passenger manifest were not aboard and may have had their passports stolen.

...

According to the airline, other passengers on the flight included 38 Malaysians, five Indians, seven Indonesians, six Australians, four French, two Ukranians, two Canadians and two New Zealanders. There were also a Russian, an Italian, a Dutch and an Austrian aboard, the airline said.

However, shortly after the list was published on the airline’s website, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported that Luigi Maraldi, 37, who was listed on the manifest, was in fact not on the plane (link in Italian). The agency said he had phoned his family to say he was alive and well in Thailand.

Austria’s APA news agency made a similar report about an Austrian citizen listed on the passenger manifest, Christian Kozel, 30 (link in German). APA reported his passport was stolen about two years ago in Thailand.

So apparently two passengers were travelinng with stolen passports, which is unsettling. However, what is missing is a baseline. The use of these stolen passports was discovered because the passenger list is under a microscope and receiving worldwide attention. It may well be that all sorts of underworld types travel all over Asia and the world every day on stolen passports with no one the wiser and no planes going down. Put another way, had this plane simply landed safely would anyone have noticed that a passport stolen two years ago had been used by one of the passengers?

 

The stolen passports absolutely might have been used by terrorists; planes don't crash every day, so suspecting terrorism is not unreasonable. But I don't think that based on this coverage we have nearly enough information to judge how common the use of stolen passports in international travel might actually be.

LATE UPDATE: The Times digs in and learns this:

Use of Stolen Passports on Missing Malaysian Airliner Highlights Air Security Flaw

...

Interpol created a database of stolen and lost passports in 2002 that has grown to more than 40 million documents available for governments to screen for terrorists, smugglers or swindlers who travel the world illicitly. But according to the international law enforcement agency, only three countries — the United States, Britain and the United Arab Emirates — systematically screen travelers against the agency’s database of stolen passports.

The two men with stolen passports who boarded the missing Malaysia Airlines flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing over the weekend did not have their passports screened. And last year, Interpol said, passengers around the world were able to board planes more than a billion times without having their passports checked against the database.

...

One of the many vexing mysteries of the plane’s disappearance was the hunt for the true identity of the two passengers who used passports stolen from European tourists in Thailand in the past two years. A senior American law enforcement official said Sunday that Thai officials were investigating a so-called passport ring operating on the resort island of Phuket, where both passports were stolen and where, he noted, false documents were routinely used by drug smugglers.

So apparently stolen passports are routinely used by criminals, not just terrorists.

No R-S-P-E-C-T

Obama can neither spell "RESPECT" nor get any. More comic genius here.

The Secretary Time Forgot

The NY Times reports on the view from down the memory hole, bemoaning the lack of authentic Russian experts in these troubled times:

Russia Experts See Thinning Ranks’ Effect on U.S. Policy

...

But while the control of Crimea by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has brought America’s Russia experts in from the cold, the news media spotlight has also showed important shifts in how American academics and policy makers think about Russia, not to mention the quality and quantity of the people doing the thinking. Among those experts, there is a belief that a dearth of talent in the field and ineffectual management from the White House have combined to create an unsophisticated and cartoonish view of a former superpower, and potential threat, that refuses to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

“It’s a shorter bench,” said Michael A. McFaul, who returned from his post as the American ambassador in Moscow on Feb. 26, as the crisis unfolded. He said the present and future stars in the government did not make their careers in the Russia field, which long ago was eclipsed by the Middle East and Asia as the major draws of government and intelligence agency talent.

“The expertise with the government is not as robust as it was 20 or 30 years ago, and the same in the academy,” Mr. McFaul said.

However, the Times is able to think back to happier days:

“It is certainly harder for the White House, State Department and intelligence community to find up-and-coming regional experts who are truly expert on that region,” said Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and President Bill Clinton’s Russia point man. “It’s a market problem.”

Compounding the effects has been a lack of demand for Russian expertise at the very top of the foreign policy pyramid. Successive White Houses have sought to fit Russia into a new framework, both diplomatically and bureaucratically, as one of many priorities rather than the singular focus of American foreign policy. Since Mr. Clinton empowered Mr. Talbott, the portfolio has shrunk, and with it the number of aides with deep Russian experience, and real sway, in the White House.

Strobe Talbott?  I know what you are thinking (unless you are one of the rare JOM readers who is also an Upper West Side progressive) - wasn't there someone in the Bush White House with a smidgin of Russian expertise? Be patient, a hint is coming:

While President George W. Bush looked into Mr. Putin’s soul, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke his language and President Obama sought a so-called reset of relations, they all found themselves discouraged that Mr. Putin, and Russia, did not behave the way they thought they should.

Condi Rice! That is the former Secretary of State, NSC head, and Bush alter-ego who came to prominence as a Russia expert in the first Bush regime. OK, earnest libs don't want to hear from her (Iraq, enhanced interrogation, drone executions of Americans... oops), but that doesn't mean she does not exist. Well, other than in TimesWorld.

So Important They Aren't Bothering To Track It

You may have thought that a major impetus for healthcare reform was the looming spectre of 30 or 40 million Americans who lacked insurance. It may even be that that notion was planted by Presidential rhetoric such as this, from a 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress pitching health care:

We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people.  There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.  In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point.  And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.  In other words, it can happen to anyone.

So how is ObamaCare doing at enrolling the uninsured? Don't ask, because they can't tell:

"That's not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way," Cohen [of HHS] told the insurance-industry crowd on Thursday when asked how many of the roughly 4 million enrollees were previously uninsured.

Why would they want to know whther they were meeting their goals or not?

AllahPundit has a more vigorous beatdown here.

POIGNANT: The Times editors admit that the delay in banning junk, skimpy, sub-standard plans is purely political but back it anyway because Obama, Evil Republicans, duh. Do they have any reservations about this endless exercise of transitional powers by the President? Any concerns that one day an Evil Republican President might impose an endless transition on gun control or environmental regulation or expanded access to abortion? Those are worries for another day.

They do preserve their sense of humor, or at least tickle ours, with this:

Administration officials point to an analysis by the RAND Corporation, which estimated that enrollments in the exchanges could drop by 500,000 people because of the extension last November. That’s a small segment of the roughly 11 million people who have health insurance policies from the individual market, usually under one-year contracts. There is always enormous turnover in the individual market; about half of the policyholders leave the market within 18 months, usually because they get a job with health benefits or become eligible for Medicare.

Uh huh. Sooo 1980's. Every free-lancer who is now their own brand, including many former NY Times employees who took the buy-out rather than face the ax, are now candidates for the private insurance market. Will most of them land new jobs with benefits, or be free-lancers for life?

Who Writes Their Material?

The NY Times covers the tough talk coming out of Washington in response to the Crimea crisis:

ROME — The United States escalated its response to Russia’s military and economic threats to Ukraine on Thursday, announcing it has imposed visa bans on officials and others deemed responsible for actions that have undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Hit the oligarchs where it hurts! No more Broadway plays for them or Fifth Avenue shopping sprees for the wife (or arm candy). Get out EU allies to close off Paris, London and Milan and we can force these guys to spend their loot in Hong Kong.

The punchline is here:

The announcement, a senior official said, should prompt individuals in Russia and Crimea to wonder if they are going to “find their name on a list.”

I think plenty of Russians and Ukrainians have had that worry for decades. But it's not lists kept by Barry and Johnny that have them worried.

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL: Instead of suspending visas, make each visa come with two Knicks tickets? Geez, what would the World Court say? And don't escalate by mentioning the Mets here.

More ObamaCare Delays, And A Concession To Unions

As Nancy Pelosi of the House explained, we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. And now various Democratic Senators have convinced Obama that we need to delay the bill to avoid finding out what's in it. The lead is that what the White House described as "junk" insurance plans will remain legal for two more years; buried is the news that unions have won an exemption from various fees which will be passed on to the less well connected:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, grappling with continued political fallout over its health care law, said Wednesday that it would allow consumers to renew health insurance policies that did not comply with the new law for two more years, pushing the issue well beyond this fall’s midterm elections.

The reprieve was the latest in a series of waivers, deadline extensions and unilateral actions by the administration that have drawn criticism from the law’s opponents and supporters, many saying President Obama was testing the limits of his powers.

The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in trying to build support for the Affordable Care Act and the uproar over his promise — which he later acknowledged had been overstated — that people who liked their insurance plans could keep them, no matter what.

Buried in the coverage is Obama's war on women:

The health care law sets dozens of federal standards for insurance, requiring coverage of services in 10 specific areas and providing many consumer protections not found in older policies.

Under the transition policy announced by Mr. Obama in November, insurers “may choose to continue coverage that would otherwise be terminated or canceled.” Insurers were allowed to renew existing policies even if they did not provide the “essential health benefits” prescribed by law. In addition, the administration said, insurers could continue charging women more than men for those policies and could charge higher premiums based on a person’s health status, in violation of the new law.

A White House official said Wednesday that it would allow insurers to continue existing policies with renewals as late as Oct. 1, 2016, so individuals and small businesses could have noncompliant coverage well into 2017.

And very deep in the Times coverage is the union bone:

Under another policy announced by the administration on Wednesday, certain health plans will be exempt from new fees imposed on insurance companies and on many self-insured group health plans. Labor unions had been lobbying for such an exemption, saying the fees could be “highly disruptive” to Taft-Hartley plans administered jointly by labor and management representatives in construction, entertainment and other industries.

But Republicans denounced the change. “The administration’s decision to carve out its union cronies from the Obamacare fee is beyond egregious and will leave others with self-insured plans on the hook to foot the bill,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota.

Yeah, well, those "others to foot the bill" should have backed Obama. More on the background here.

As to how or why this is all legal and Constitutional, don't ask:

The move reflects the administration’s view that a divided Congress would not be willing to make changes to the law, but lawyers questioned the legitimacy of the action and said it could have unintended consequences in the long run.

“I support national health care, but what the president is doing is effectively amending or negating the federal law to fit his preferred approach,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “Democrats will rue the day if they remain silent in the face of this shift of power to the executive branch.”

Mr. Turley said Mr. Obama was setting precedents that could be used by future presidents to delay other parts of the health care law or to suspend laws dealing with taxes, civil rights or protection of the environment.

Should that day come the Times will bleat pitiably. But this is not that day.

I Blame The Do-Nothing Congress. Or Bush.

Having deployed the nuclear option to avoid a filibuster, nervous Senate Democrats deploy an IED on one of Barack's own:

The Senate rejected President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Wednesday in a stunning 47-52 vote in which seven Democrats abandoned their leadership.

The vote was all the more remarkable for the five Democrats in tough reelection races this year who voted in vain to move Debo Adegbile’s nomination forward.

So five vulnerable Senators were left hung out to dry? Geez, the rats couldn't even coordinate their abandonment of the sinking ship.

Their votes now become ammunition for Senate Republicans, who argued Adegbile was unfit to serve because of his legal work in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.

The vote was a stinging defeat for the White House that showed President Obama is politically out of step with some centrist Democrats heading into the midterm elections. 

He still can't figure out those centrist Dems and now Obama is having trouble with some of the Senators bitterly clinging to their seats.

I Believe It Is Peace For Our Time

The Crimea has a special place in Russian history. Per David Brooks, Putin has a much grander vision but right now, Putin seems to be offering Obama an off-ramp (rather than the other way around): accept the revised status quo, dial back the bloviating, and move on.

Sufficient unto the day are the snacks thereof for the Russian bear. By way of comparison, Hitler expanded Germany in patient steps over several years, remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936, annexing Austria in the spring of 1938, and picking up the Sudetenland that fall.

If Putin really wants to bite off the eastern Ukraine, he need not hurry - Obama is unlikely to be a less lame duck in six months or a year. So Putin can let the world recalibrate to the new status quo and then impose a new recalibration when it suits his vision or political needs. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Ukraine won't be re-integrated in Greater Russia in a week. But it is hard to see why Putin would stop now, forever.

TROUBLING: Hillary Clinton Compares Russia Moves To Nazi Aggression. I'm on the same wavelength as Hillary?

GUTLESS: Perhaps fearing a Godwin's Law disqualification, Hillary backs off the Hitler talk. But wait a second! Comparing a tin-pot tyrant like Assad to Hitler has obvious flaws. But with Putin we are talking about the leader of a former superpower contemplating its former greatness and seeking a rematch. Why is the comparison to post-WWI Germany out of bounds there?

The Next Escalation Involves Giving Putin A 'Big Bird'

Obama explains that the Ukraine crisis is as easy as ABC.

Lest you doubt that the President and his advance team could be such amateurs - and this is a topical moment to be practicing your Russian sayings, like "Trust but verify" - the AP has this photo at their website:

It's kind of sad to think The Beast has been converted to a clown car.

It Only Hurts When She Stops

This article about a teen runner with multiple sclerosis is amazing:

For Runner With M.S., No Pain While Racing, No Feeling at the Finish

by Lindsay Crouse

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — When a pack of whip-thin girls zipped across the finish of the 1,600-meter race at a recent track meet here, the smallest runner’s legs wobbled like rubber, and she flopped into her waiting coach’s arms. She collapses every time she races.

Kayla Montgomery, 18, was found to have multiple sclerosis three years ago. Defying most logic, she has gone on to become one of the fastest young distance runners in the country — one who cannot stay on her feet after crossing the finish line.

Because M.S. blocks nerve signals from Montgomery’s legs to her brain, particularly as her body temperature increases, she can move at steady speeds that cause other runners pain she cannot sense, creating the peculiar circumstance in which the symptoms of a disease might confer an athletic advantage.

But intense exercise can also trigger weakness and instability; as Montgomery goes numb in races, she can continue moving forward as if on autopilot, but any disruption, like stopping, makes her lose control.

“When I finish, it feels like there’s nothing underneath me,” Montgomery said. “I start out feeling normal and then my legs gradually go numb. I’ve trained myself to think about other things while I race, to get through. But when I break the motion, I can’t control them and I fall.”

At the finish of every race, she staggers and crumples. Before momentum sends her flying to the ground, her coach braces to catch her, carrying her aside as her competitors finish and her parents swoop in to ice her legs. Minutes later, sensation returns and she rises, ready for another chance at forestalling a disease that one day may force her to trade the track for a wheelchair. M.S. has no cure.

What?!? I'm afraid to ask, but they answer anyway:

The numbness is particularly dire for midrace falls. At her state cross-country meet last year, she clipped the heel of a fellow runner in the lead pack and crashed. Facedown with her legs splayed, she could not get up. Runners sprinted by, and she slipped from all-state contention. Seeing a rival pass was enough to get her to use a nearby fence to pull herself up and cruise into 10th place.

It was a lesson in resilience. “Now I know I can do it,” she said. “It may take a little while, but if I fall, I know I can get up.”

And she is the real deal:

Last month, Montgomery, a senior at Mount Tabor High School, won the North Carolina state title in the 3,200 meters. Her time of 10 minutes 43 seconds ranks her 21st in the country. Her next major competition is the 5,000 meters at the national indoor track championships in New York on March 14, when she hopes to break 17 minutes.

Lots more here.

You Go To Peace With The President You Have

I don't think Russia or China are too worried about Barry pushing back hard, or at all. Not to mention Syria and Iran.

We elected a Blame America First Democrat, and here we are.

That said, Putin is undoubtedly trending pootly on Twitter so the White House is probably celebtrating Obamas's victory in the latest news cycle.

Marching Into the Weekend

We are roaring into the weekend like a lion. Or will be, once we locate the Advil and the snow shovel...