The New Yorker forgot the 20 second rule --

In the chaos of American media, most of us make decisions about what we see and hear within 20 seconds. That's longer than most of us will spend on a website we don't like. And it's how fast we absorb information, or dont.

It's not that American's can't decipher the irony in the New Yorker's cover drawing.

It's that most of us are too distracted and too busy to take the time to decipher the irony. So we take the easy out, and guess wrong.

That's why so many people are outraged at the cover. It will make its mark in our distracted brains, and many of us who've seen the image float by, will add it to our own roster of impressions about Obama. And it will reinforce all the worst.

Too bad.

Posted at July 15, 2008 2:09 AM in response to The New Yorker and The Height of Elitism

SILLY & confusing

Posted at July 11, 2008 7:26 PM in response to Obama is no better than McCain

When you own 8 homes and have millions in the bank, you don't need a loan. So maybe that's the criteria.

Posted at June 10, 2008 12:37 AM in response to McCain Hits Obama -- Very Softly -- Over Reports About His Veep-Vetter's Loan

Why are the DEMOCRATS the first to be targeted with this new concern for the use of staff time?

If the DOJ were targeting Dems and Repubs equally, I'd find the quest more believable.

Posted at May 9, 2008 9:37 PM in response to WaPo: Feds Probing Lawmakers' Use of Staffers

Vote at CNN.COM where they ask "Are Al Gore and the climate-change panel deserving winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?" (Currently 58% say 'yes'.)

CNN's front page story from readers suggests that the praise is undeserved:

Many readers offered congratulations to the former vice president, while others expressed disdain for him. Some readers said it was a poor choice, while others flat out dismissed global warming as pseudoscience.

This is followed by 3 nasty reader quotes, before the 4th reader quote appropriately praises the Nobel Committee's choice of Gore.

McCain proudly says that he thinks the Burma monks should have got the award, and he hopes that Gore will now embrace nuclear power.

Posted at October 12, 2007 6:32 AM in response to Gore Nobel Discussion

WE DO NOT CHOOSE HEALTHCARE BY COST.

Sadly, cost is a minor factor in selecting health care, Congressman.

If our insurance covers Hospital A and Doctor B, that's where we go. Then we get hit with all the ancillary charges. But we do not have an alternative.

If we go to the cheaper Hospital X, then our Doctor B can no longer care for us, and we get NO coverage at all for the procedure.

Problem is that for every medical visit, at least 1/3 of the cost is for the paperwork to file for the dozens of insurance companies, so the doctor and we can hope that the medical visit will be covered.

In Italy, when we went for medical care, we had NO Co-PAY, NO Paperwork, got the xray to take home. That is what medical care here should look like under a single payor plan.

Posted at August 6, 2007 9:00 AM in response to Universal Access to Affordable Care: A Declaration of Health

I'm not sure this is about Angelides. It's about Arnie's star power and the press' continuing interest in getting so close to a big movie star hunk.

Gov. S. has been brilliant in manipulating the media, which showers him with attention and affection no matter what he does.

The Democratic legislature passes landmark anti-pollution legislation which Arnie signs ... and the press reports it as Arnie's achievement (which by the way the legislature helped with).

Today's paper reports that Arnie is in charge. No word on anything that Angelides says or does.

Posted at September 3, 2006 12:34 PM in response to CA: Progressive Agenda in Bills Going to Governor

TERM LIMITS are not the answer.

If you don't like the Senator, then VOTE THE GUY OUT -- as I hope that Connecticut voters will do.

In California, term limits have made excellent politicians play 'musical chairs' to maintain a presence in the state and to continue to serve the electorate. It's a silly effort to keep well-liked politicians from staying in office.

Posted at June 23, 2006 10:50 AM in response to My Lieberman Problem -- And Ours

DUBAI = UNION BUSTING?

Is this port deal also a way of busting the Longshore Unions? I recently heard a longshoreman on the radio saying that if the Dubai contract goes through, the country can dismiss all the union workers and hire at whatever wage and conditions they wish.

Posted at February 23, 2006 12:13 PM in response to Breaking News: Corporations Found Running Ports!

The U.S. is the only first-world country that does not provide for its citizens health care.

U.S. unions made an error, 40 years ago, by insisting upon health coverage through employers – rather than national health insurance, which is what European unions demanded.

Now our companies are hobbled by huge health care costs (or they foist those costs on taxpayers, as Wal-Mart has done, by providing little or no health care to employees). Those costs put us at a tremendous disadvantage – and people who are employed dare not retire or leave their jobs, because they can’t get health care!

We do ration health care here – both by the cost that limits good care to rich people, and by the machinations of insurers, who demand authorizations and co-pays that take time and money before the patient is finally treated (if treatment is agreed-to).

The bottom line is, unfortunately, the financial welfare of the insurance companies. It should be the physical welfare of our citizens.

Posted at February 17, 2006 12:12 PM in response to The Reality of Health Care Rationing