-
sponsorship
Mary Katharine Ham, in the Weekly Standard, is the latest to blast Huffington Post for its practice of drumming up hits with NSFW pictures of naked and semi-naked women:
After all, The Huffington Post is run by a stand-up, professional, liberal, feminist woman—Arianna Huffington. Surely, her site would be irreproachable on such matters.
Hmm. One thing I've noticed about Arianna Huffington is that she tends to downplay the outrage over sex scandals, even Republican scandals like Mark Sanford's, more than I would like. I'm entertaining the possibility that this is a principled position--Huffington simply does not get censorious about sex, nudity, or even marital infidelity. I don't know if that makes her post-feminist or pre-feminist. But I think it gets her off on the charge of hypocrisy when she runs slideshows of celebrity breast implants. If you can find an example of Arianna getting huffy about objectification of women (or men) or sexual shenanigans--even Republican shenanigans--then I'm wrong. But I don't think you will. (First place I'd check: Clinton and Lewinsky.)
P.S.: Another typical argument against HuffPo goes like this: It's OK to have a news site, and it's OK to have a site for naked celebrities. But political sites and news sites shouldn't have naked celebrities.
"I'd argue that the kind of Internet traffic HuffPo trafficks in is below a political site of the caliber it purports to be, period.-"--Ham
"So, what do nipple slips and boob jobs have to do with liberal politics?"--Amanda Hess, Washington City Paper
This sort of argument seems open to the response Robert Nozick made when defending doctors who are in it for the money (as opposed to healing the sick). They're not doctors, you say? OK. Let's call them schmoctors. They are fulfilling the Aristotelian purpose of schmoctoring, which is to make a lot of money by treating people. Similarly, let's not call Huffington Post a "news" site, let's call it ... I don't know, a "views" site. Not opinion & news but opinion & news & newsy nudity! Sort of like a laundromat/bar or bookstore/coffeeshop. If that gives Arianna a competitive advantage over her more prudish, anti-objectification competitors ... well, maybe that's where the market will go. It's not like she's alone in pursuing this ... hybrid business model. So far, it seems relatively harmless to me. (If the site glorified boorish or worse behavior by men, which was the big problem with the Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson Supebowl incident, that would be different.). ...
P.P.S.: What's worse: funding your journalistic efforts by showing Beyonce nip slips, or funding your journalistic efforts by preying on the fears and ambitions of parents who'd like to use their financial resources to gain an advantage in the allegedly meritocratic college rat race? Discuss. ... 6:22 P.M.
___________________________
Latino voters overwhelmingly think health care should have priority over immigration reform. Only "14% mentioned immigration as the top issue." And if no immigration bill passes by the 2010 election, "42% would think it´s understandable" (while "28% would say the president reneged on his promise"). I don't see how that adds up to the "dire" consequences La Opinion foresees for Dems among Latinos if "comprehensive" immigration reform doesn't happen (especially if health care does). Seems more like the opposite: even among Latinos, Dems have some room to punt on the issue. ... 6:20 P.M.
___________________________
Reality Show Idea of the Day--from Dish Rag. "The Gate Crashers." As long as it's not just the Salahis. ... I'd tune in for the episode where secretly uninfluential faux-intellectuals try to crash the Worst Party Ever! ... 6:17 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
I think Ezra Klein misstates OMB director Peter Orszag's position--which Orszag presented on his blog and in a phone call responding to Virginia Postrel (who argued that if there's so much money to be saved in health care, as demonstrated by waste in Medicare, why doesn't the administration start by eliminating the waste in Medicare?). Klein writes:
The cost reforms, by contrast, are being done cautiously, cooperatively, and with a focus on Medicare. ....
Which is why it's a bit bizarre to read Postrel writing that "if more-efficient government management can slash health-care costs by addressing all these problems, why not start with Medicare?" When it comes to cost, they actually are starting with Medicare. They hope that the efficiencies work and are voluntarily adopted by private insurance. But there's no actual mechanism to make that happen.
My impression (which could be wrong!) is that there are two sorts of cost savings Orszag has in mind. 1) A bunch of "scoreable" Medicare and Medicaid cuts** that will save $5-600 billion over 10 years and (along with some revenue increases) pay for expanding health coverage over that period; and 2) A collection of more ambitious "game changer" reforms*** that aren't part of that next-10-year calculation but will "lower the rate of health care cost growth" in the long run. These game changer reforms are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid, as I understand it--indeed, I think it is Orszag's position that you can't do them if you limit them to Medicare and Medicaid.
This latter assertion appears to be a central pillar of "Orszagism," which is defined the claim that (as Ryan Lizza puts it) "health-care reform is deficit reduction,"-- that without Obama's sweeping health care reforms we just can't "bend the cost curve" down enough in the long run. If the "game changers" could simply be limited to Medicare and Medicaid, you could simply implement them without reforming the rest of the health care system--Postrel's point--thereby more or less totally undermining Orszagism. Expanding health care coverage and cutting long-term federal health-related budget costs would be two distinct, separable policy initiatives (one reliably expensive, one seemingly speculative).
The assertion--that you can't just do the cuts in Medicare--isn't really defended in Orszag's recent posts, though he promises more dialogue in the future. Orszag also has to convince people that a) his "game changers" actually will cut costs--in Medicare, or anywhere b) without compromising health or medical progress and c) without engaging in the nasty treatment-denying behavior HMO's got in trouble for a decade or so ago. ... Update: I forgot d)--and they'll cut costs so much that they'll more than compensate for the obvious ways universal health insurance will increase long-term health costs (i.e., by increasing the number of consumers demanding medical services and enabling them to exert political pressure, not necessarily illegitimate, to pay for particular expensive treatments, including treatments Orszag's various cost-conscious reforms might deny). ... Best of luck to him.
_______
** As described in a recent presidential letter, these "scoreable" shorter-term cuts include
reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage private insurers; strengthening Medicare and Medicaid payment accuracy by cutting waste, fraud and abuse; improving care for Medicare patients after hospitalizations; and encouraging physicians to form "accountable care organizations" to improve the quality of care for Medicare patients ....
Plus "another $200 to $300 billion" in Medicare and Medicaid savings to be announced soon. ...
***--The "game changers," as described by Orszag, include
steps such as health IT, research into what works and what doesn’t, prevention and wellness, and changes in incentives so that Americans get the best care not just more care.
2:42 A.M.
___________________________
It's Pedal to the Metal for the New Chrysler! Obama spokesperson: "We are delighted that the Chrysler-Fiat alliance can now go forward, allowing Chrysler to re-emerge as a competitive and viable automaker." [E..A.] Viable? Competitive? Hello? We are writing this down. Words like that will be remembered in two years, if Chrysler even makes it that far. ... 2:41 A.M.
___________________________
Arianna vs. the Anti-Objectification Cheesecake Police: All the best fights are intra-left these days. ... P.S.: kf last month, City Paper this month. ... 2:27 A.M.
___________________________
John Dickerson: "Did Google do it for Deeds?" No. ... 2:18 A.M.
___________________________
GM Design Chief Ed Welburn did not not not accuse a HuffPo blogger of racism (sorry TTAC). ... But he did cite his grotesquely cheesy, cartoonish new Camaro as an example of what can be created in GM's "cutting edge 21st century environment." ... Welburn seems like a nice guy. But I would say the Camaro is a firing offense (though,, if he's a UAW member, it will take 6 unexcused Camaros). ... 2:16 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Chrysler Bailout is "capitalism at work," writes private equity macher Scott Sperling in the WSJ. Here are some of the more questionable sentences in his essay:
Without a drastic restructuring neither Chrysler nor GM would have a chance for long-term success ...
These decisions include "right sizing" industry capacity by cutting many union and white-collar jobs and closing numerous manufacturing plants and dealerships; making the unions accept lower wages and benefits so that these companies can compete ... [E.A]
The cuts current union members were forced to accept were not impressive. Before the deal, Chrysler's UAW workers made $28 an hour. After they deal, they'll make $28 an hour. They gave up a scheduled increase in wages, plus a couple of scheduled bonuses. That explains why Chrysler's Belvidere, Illinois workers told TV station WIFR that "the plan is not nearly as drastic as they expected." ...
As for Chrysler's "chance for long-term success," it appears vanishingly small. Italian manufacturer FIAT is supposed to save Chrysler with new products, but according to a recent Automotive News article, "four of the six new vehicles from Fiat will enter the small-car segment," which is highly competitive but "covers only 14 percent of the entire U.S. light-vehicle market."
"The volumes need to be big for Chrysler to survive," [market analyst Tracy Handler] said. "Will they be? I have doubts about that."
See also this BBC article ("it's madness"). Pathetically, Chrysler hopes that even if they don't save the company the new small cars will "[b]urnish the environmental image of Chrysler brands," says Automotive News. Unfortunately, the pipeline for those brands' other, larger, products--burnished or not--is pretty much empty.
If Chrysler workers were paid, say, not $28 an hour instead of $24--still not bad--the firm might actually have a "chance for long term success" through charging lower prices. But that wasn't a sacrifice Obama was ready to ask (even if Belvidere workers were apparently willing). ...
Final obvious point: I don't want to sound like Veronique de Rugy here, but who will pay the price if when this half-baked "restructuring" fails? In normal "capitalism at work," those who would pay the price will be those who made the deal and put up their money--the capitalists. (Query: Would Scott Sperling invest his firm's money in this dubious proposition?) If When Obama's plan fails, the monetary loss will fall not on Obama, but on the taxpayers. It will likely be made up somehow by the taxpayers (via higher tax assessments or inflation). That's not "capitalism at work." It's something else at work. But I'd be all for it, if I thought it really would work. It won't, and it will be Obama's fault. (He'd certainly get credit if it succeeded.) ... 6:05 P.M.
___________________________
Buried Lede of the Day: Thomas Edsall, summarizing a new Pew poll, notes the Dems have gained some support recently! While Republicans have lost ground! And voters care more about the economy than "moral values."
We knew that. What we maybe didn't know is this:
Conversely, public support for labor unions appears to be weakening: the percentage of people agreeing that "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person," has dropped from 74 percent at the start of this decade to 61 percent this year. The decline was sharper --- from 76 to 53 percent, a 23 point fall -- among independent voters than among either Democrats or Republicans. [E.A.]
Some 61% say labor unions are "too powerful," a big jump from 52% in 1999. ... Support for unions, says Pew, is at an "all-time low.". ... Also, perhaps counter-intuitively, "'the overall balance of public opinion on the government's responsibility to provide for the needy has shifted to the right' despite the onset of a severe recession." This rightward movement appears to be the result of growing fear among the above $75K set (a big set) that the poor have become too dependent on government programs. ...
Hmmm. Democratic. But skeptical of unions. And worried about welfare dependence. ... What kind of Democrats are these? ... 6:04 P.M.
___________________________
Arianna's secret weapon: Are you running a political site and worried about reversing the "inevitable post election traffic decline"? Arianna Huffington has the solution. ...
There are things Don Graham won't do, and this is probably one of them. Which is why Huffington Post will always have an edge on WaPo (and the rest of the MSM). She's not scared to go there. ... 5:49 P.M.
___________________________