AnnotatedOpinions.com

A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that an alarming number of Americans believe scientists have falsified their data to sell global warming to the public. . .   

Why is there so much confusion about whether the planet is warming? We believe a big part of the problem centers on the use of earth surface temperature data as a direct measure of warming. . .  

One doesn’t need to measure thousands of temperatures to find conclusive evidence that the planet is warming. The earth does the averaging for us. Many physical and biological characteristics show that the earth is warming and has been for decades. . .  

In order to convince a skeptical public that global change is real, scientists and funding agencies need to invest more in field measurements and monitoring rather than computer modeled predictions. . .  

[AO: Alas, if only it was that straightforward. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons global warming skeptics don’t believe in global warming is that they refuse to believe in it unless it can be completely and conclusively proven. Since they refuse to accept any available evidence as conclusive proof of global warming, they reject it.  

In a way, they are like those who smoked cigarettes for years knowing that cigarettes “could” cause cancer but because they lacked specific evidence that cigarettes “did” cause cancer, they saw no reason to change their smoking habit. Unfortunately for many such persons, the evidence they were willing to accept came too late.  

Recognizing that as long as global warming is not completely and conclusively proven significant numbers of people will continue to be skeptical of it, perhaps the best approach may be to address the source of people’s skepticism directly, rather than generating more evidence in support of global warming that is unlikely to be seen as conclusive by skeptics. ]

A year ago this month, the air over American liberalism was thick with champagne corks. Barack Obama the newly elected president was poised to be inaugurated, and he in turn would inaugurate the long-prophesized new progressive era. A year later, the champagne corks are hardly flying, and if this is to be morning in America for American liberalism, it seems to have come with a pretty nasty hangover. . .  

In 2008, liberals had more reason to hope. . . A little more than a year later, we surely have been hoing leftward. But it already seems as if the American people are sick of it. The 2009 off-year elections might not have been a repudiation of Obama, but they were definitely not an embrace of Obamaism. Meanwhile, by nearly 2 to 1, Americans say the country is on the wrong track. . . .   

[AO: We agree with the opinion’s writer, Jonah Goldberg: over the last year or so, there has been no giant leftward shift in U.S. politics. But the statistics he quote should be placed in context.  

Goldberg’s claim is that Americans are sick of Democrats. He marshals polling data to support that point. He insinuates that Americans want to put an end to Democratic control of government. But does the data really support this? Let’s take a look.  

Goldberg states that “by nearly 2 to 1, Americans say the country is on the wrong track.” This statement is based in part on an average of polls by RealClearPolitics.com. One of the polls showing the highest number of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction is NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll. That poll shows that only 33% of Americans agree that the country is headed in the right direction (55% agreed that the country is on the wrong track. 10% said “mixed” and 2% responded “unsure”). After noting that, according to the poll, 55%, not 66% as some might be tempted to assume, of Americans agree that the country is headed in the wrong direction, the next questions that come up are (1) “is this unusual” and (2) “who do these people think are responsible.”   

The NBC/Walls Street Journal Polling data goes back to 1999. The data shows that excluding the Obama effect, a huge jump between January 2009 and February 2009, when the number of Americans agreeing that the country was headed in the right direction increased from 26% to 41%, the last time more than 33% of Americans agreed that the country was headed in the right direction was January 2005. That’s right, January 2005. In other years, during most of the booming years of the last decades, more Americans thought the country was headed in the wrong direction than do now, a time when we are still recovering from a very significant recession.  

The poll also has something to say about who respondents blame for the country’s problems. 47% of respondents approved of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president (46% disapproved). 43% want next year’s congressional elections to produce a Democrat-controlled Congress (41% favored a Republican controlled Congress).  

These polling numbers are close. There is no reason for complacency by Republicans or Democrats. However, the thrust of Goldberg’s argument, especially when considered in light of the data showing that slightly more Americans approve of the job Obama is doing and want Democrats to retain control of Congress, is not supported by the polling data. ]

Despite a first year filled with divisions, denunciations and impassioned polarization, it’s not too late for Barack Obama to formulate the bipartisan foreign policy that he promised as a presidential candidate and that Americans say they crave. To do so, he should take inspiration from the best-received speech of his presidency, resist the unbecoming temptation of blaming bad news on his predecessor, and emulate the triumphant example of a long-ago Republican president. . .  

In the remainder of his term, Barack Obama can deliver more of the concord his campaign promised if he avoids self-defeating bitterness toward his predecessor, rejects grand, unattainable international schemes and, in the soft-spoken Eisenhower tradition, reconnects with the pragmatic, conservative disposition of the American people.  

[AO: Michael Medved, the writer of this opinion in USA Today, is correct. If President Obama stops highlighting Bush-era mistakes, gives up on achieving any significant international agreements, and becomes a conservative, he can achieve unity. Unfortunately, it will be a unity between Obama and conservatives, not liberals and conservatives, because Obama will have become a conservative.]

The Senate health care bill betrays the promise of fundamental “change” Democrats made during the 2008 election. It cloaks a handout to the health industry in the veneer of “reform.”  

Though it includes some positive subsidies and regulatory tweaks, the bill creates few mechanisms to halt premium increases, bust insurance monopolies and end price discrimination — and it includes no public insurance option. . .  

For these reasons, the Senate must vote “no” and start over. . .  

Notice the loudest argument against that move is procedural, not substantive. . . insisting their bill is our “only hope.”  

The “only hope” rationale, of course, is an artificially manufactured assumption, not some Law of Nature. . .  

[AO: A number of arguments against the health insurance bill seem to be premised on what is not included in the bill. Paraphrasing the writer, David Sirota, Congress should start over because Democrats promised more and the current bill does not include all, or at least some, of the important promises Democrats made. As Sirota explains, many counter that this bill is our only hope.”  

Here’s a suggestion, let’s combine the believe of those who think that we can easily start over with those who think the current bill is our “only hope.” Add to that the recognition that the problem many have with the bill is not what’s in the bill but what’s missing from the bill and voila! I offer a two part health insurance bill.  

What do I mean you ask? Well, we pass the bill we have (to satisfy the “only hope” camp) then immediately go to work adding the pieces that are missing (to satisfy the “must start over” camp). Think about it this way, if we could pass health insurance reform by next fall by starting over that satisfies those who what to start over, we can have that same outcome by passing the current bill and immediately going to work to add the missing pieces. Indeed, my recommended approach might take less time to have all the pieces passed into law. Moreover, it satisfies a significant number of people who want the current version passed plus it hedges against the possibility that by not passing the current bill and starting over we may end up with no reform at all for the foreseeable feature.  

What says you? ]

We’re spending more than a trillion to “stimulate” things. Jobs. Car sales. Real estate. Even to prop up an ungovernable Afghanistan.  

We could spend a tiny fraction of that to fix one of the things most important to most of us everyday — weather forecasts.   

Short-term forecasts, like the predicted early hit of winter last week, generally are helpful although often inaccurate. Long-term forecasts usually are more harmful than helpful. . .  

Last week, the often quoted Colorado State University Hurricane Forecast Team, now in its 27th year, made these predictions for 2010:  

• Six to eight hurricanes.  

• At least one to hit the USA.  

Last year, the same forecasters predicted this:  

• Seven hurricanes. There were only three.  

• At least one to hit the USA. None did.  

Such preseason forecasts do triple damage. They give insurance companies an extra argument for raising rates. They have many of us spend money for unnecessary preparations. . .  

[AO: The problem with throwing money at long-term weather forecasts is that it is not clear that this is possible. Indeed, based on years of research and what we have to show for that research, one might conclude that spending valuable currency on long-term weather forecasting is a waste of resources in light of other immediate needs.  Just because we can't do something well doesn't mean that what it needs is a stimulus.

Moreover, the “damage” the writer, Al Neuharth, identifies is not enevitable. That is because insurers know, and we also know, that long-term weather forecasting is unreliable. As a result, anyone who takes specific actions in response to such forecasts should do so knowing that those actions may be entirely unnecessary. In other words, whatever actions are taken, those action should be discounted by the probability that the expected outcome will come to pass. This is what we humans do in our daily activities.  

For example, we are willing to drive cars without excessive protection because even though driving is dangerous and can lead to injury, the probability of significant injury is low. Race car drivers, on the other hand, because of the likelihood of crashes usually wear special protection when they race. Note that the protection is not necessarily worn because of the high speeds at which racers drive. Driving at a high speed alone without an accident will not result in injury.   

Similarly, insurers and individuals must consider the likelihood of damage when taking action in response to long-term weather forecasts. Such consideration can limit any resulting damage. ]

One day soon, the checklist that I use to screen my patients against common diseases might be dictated by federal mandate. [AO: And one day soon we may discover a huge source of fuel here in the United States allowing us to say “no” no Middle East oil. Who knows? Anything can happen in the uncertain future.] 

Page 17 of the Senate health bill refers to ratings that will affect insurance coverage for “(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.” What will come of
tests that are graded C’s and D’s? [AO: All of those against the government only paying for medical treatment that is supported by scientific evidence raise your hands. I rest my case.]  

Today, I use my own checklist based on 20 years in practice. When my female patients are younger than 21 and sexually active, I refer them to a gynecologist for a yearly pelvic examination and a Pap test. At 40, I order a mammogram as well. All patients over 50 are sent for a colonoscopy. Elderly patients are prone to both depression and falls, so I screen them for these issues.  

Unfortunately, in my examination room of the near future, my hands may be tied. I will want to order the same screening tests and procedures, but I might need another checklist of the services that my patients can’t receive because Medicare or private insurance will no longer pay for them. [AO: And how is that different from what happens now? Recall that many states have had to pass legislation to require private health insurers to cover certain treatments that states consider important. What do good doctors do now when a patient walk into their office and has private insurance coverage that will not pay for a necessary diagnosis or treatment and the state has not passed legislation requiring that all private health insurers provide that coverage? I suspect doctors will continue to do what they do now.]  

In the current health care debate, much has been made about overuse or over-interpretation of tests. Yet the problem isn’t with the tests, but with the doctor who orders them for the wrong reasons. If, however, physicians are driven by fear of malpractice into excessive testing, then the problem should be addressed with tort reform. . . A doctor who fails to administer tests that later reveal cancer, for instance, will still be held liable, even if the insurer denies the test in the first place. [AO: Good point. Under the current system, a doctor who has done nothing wrong cannot be held liable. Why do we need tort reform if, as the writer suggests, after tort reform only doctors who have done something wrong will be liable. What’s missing? What’s the point of tort reform?   

Tort reform, all too often, is about making it harder for patients who have been injured by their doctor to recover for the injury or it is about limiting what a patient can recover from a doctor who has wronged him or her. It is not about only holding doctors liable when they have done something wrong.]

“There is no normal anymore.”  

That statement, it seems to me, goes a long way toward explaining why so many Americans are angry, confused and worried today. . .   

There is nothing normal about an economy in which the federal government takes over giant automakers, bails out too-big-to-fail banks, buys up nearly all mortgages, keeps short-term interest rates at zero and prints over a trillion new dollars. . .  

There is no normal in American politics anymore, either. Both major political parties gravitate toward their extremes . . .  

It is not normal for our soldiers to endure three, four, five deployments to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military is stretched to the breaking point and our wars are unwinnable. . .  

. . . our culture has gone alien. Hollywood churns out a gutter-flow of violence, vampires and video sex. . .   

The 2008 presidential election was about “change.” The elections of 2010 and 2012 could be about getting control of too much change and returning to normal.  

[AO: The writer, James Gannon, makes a determined plea for a return to normalcy. But this begs the question: What is normal. At one point, Gannon suggests that before the 2008 elections, things were normal. According to him, in 2008 we voted for change and everything became abnormal. What we need is for the 2010 and 2012 elections to focus on “getting control of too much change” and we’ll be on the right track back to normalcy, Gannon tells us.  

But what is normal? The signs of “change” the writer list include “an economy in which the federal government takes over giant automakers, bails out too-big-to-fail banks . . .,” “Both major political parties gravitate toward their extremes . . .,” “our soldiers [] endure three, four, five deployments to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .,” and “Hollywood churns out a gutter-flow of violence, vampires and video sex. . ..” These all were with us long before 2008. In fact, few to none of these are the result of the vote in 2008 for “change” as they predate it.  

But has America or the world ever been normal? Before Iraq and Afghanistan, there was Vietnam and Korea and the World Wars  before those. Were those times normal? Before terrorism there was the war on drugs, war on organized crime and others. There were upheavals in the markets and numerous depressions and recessions in our past. Were those times normal?   

The fact is, the world is constantly changing. What the writer cites as signs of recent change are changes that predate the Obama Administration and reflect long-term reality that is anything but normal.  

America and the world will never return to normalcy. The world will continue to change. We must do what we have always done. We must embrace change and work to thrive on it. ]

[AO: I should state at the outset that I have been and continue to be in favor of a “strong” counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan. I have articulated some version of this or some form of support for the war in Afghanistan numerous times including here, here and here, just to list a few recent posts. So, like Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security chief and the writer of the op-ed I address below, I am not in favor of a “counterterrorism-lite” strategy for Afghanistan. However, I have a number of disagreements with his arguments which I present below. ]  

In September, a Colorado-based Afghan immigrant was arrested and charged with plotting a terrorist attack in the USA. According to the allegations, Najibullah Zazi was recruited and trained by al-Qaeda in Pakistan to carry out this mission.   

Late last month, authorities charged two other U.S. residents in an unrelated plan to carry out terrorist attacks against Denmark. These defendants also had allegedly traveled in Pakistan and had links with an al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the region, Lashkar-i-Taiba. . . [AO: These anecdotes, while seeming to support stronger US military presence in Afghanistan, actually are not convincing. Basically, they show that the threats are from Pakistan and not Afghanistan. We’ll discuss this further below.]  

Some believe that we can . . . engage[e] in “counterterrorism-lite” that is focused just on eliminating al-Qaeda operatives on the ground. But three fallacies underlie this position.  

Myth No. 1: Since current al-Qaeda safe havens are largely in Pakistan, we just need to continue our efforts there, rather than worrying about a sideshow in Afghanistan. . . .  

Relieving that pressure in Afghanistan would undercut the Pakistani counterterrorism offensive by creating an escape route for al-Qaeda and the Taliban to move back into Afghanistan. Only continued pressure on both sides of the frontier will degrade the freedom of movement by these terrorists. [AO: But a  counterterrorism light approach does not equal “relieving” the pressure. A counterterrorism-lite approach could continue to provide strong pressure on al-Qaeda and Taliban that prevents them for returning Afghanistan to the state it was in before the US military arrived. Further, a counterterrorism-lite strategy could still apply even more pressure than the Pakistani are applying, making it less likely that al-Qaeda and the Taliban will want to return to Afghanistan. ]  

Myth No. 2: Since our core enemy is al-Qaeda, we can separate it from the Taliban and other extremist groups, and restrict our focus to al-Qaeda alone.  

The distinction among these groups is not as clear as some believe. . . While some Taliban might be peeled away from cooperation with al-Qaeda, the latter will continue to be a source of training, operational and ideological support for many extremists in the tribal regions. [AO: But this illustrates exactly
why al-Qaeda is not the Taliban. It has resources that Taliban lacks because it is not the Taliban. Furthermore, if the Taliban can be separated from al-Qaeda, it will no longer need al-Qaeda’s training, operational and ideological support.   

To the extent that al-Qaeda then remains a source of threat to the region, that threat will have to be addressed accordingly. Separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda will go a long way towards making it possible to eliminate the latter.]  

Myth No. 3: We can withdraw from securing Afghanistan because we will be able to kill terrorist leaders in training compounds by using drones or special forces teams operating with surgical precision.  

A re-Talibanized Afghanistan would present a different landscape from the one we face now. Al-Qaeda and other groups would not be confined to discrete compounds or camps. They would likely follow the precedent of Hamas, and embed themselves in the dwellings, schools, hospitals and other structures of the civilian population. Trying to kill or capture terrorists operating within the population would be messy, with a high civilian casualty rate. . .

[AO: So, this appears to skip a set or two. For one, the current government in Afghanistan would have to be replaced before the scenario the writer describes can become a dangerous reality. Is that a presupposition of the writer’s argument? This is unlikely considering that as long as US troops remain in Afghanistan, even for a counterterrorism-lite strategy, the Taliban cannot return.   

To the extant that the argument envisions a complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, I would not call that a counterterrorism-lite strategy and as I understand, this is not one of the options being considered.

So, in summary, it doesn't appear that a counterterrorism-lite strategy is a nonstarter, at least not based on these arguments against it. However, I am still in favor of a strong presence in Afghanistan.]