Sunday, October 19, 2014


In comments yesterday, Never Ben Better posted a disheartening story from Maine:
A teacher at Strong Elementary School was placed on a 21-day paid leave of absence after parents told the school board they were concerned that she might have been exposed to Ebola during a trip to Dallas for an educational conference....

Jackie King, a spokeswoman for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, said the Dallas conference is being held at the Hilton Anatole Hotel, where participants also are staying....

The hotel where the teacher stayed is about 10 miles from Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where the first case of the virus was diagnosed....

About 363,000 passengers arrived on international flights into Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in August, the latest month for which statistics are available. About 5 million domestic travelers passed through the airport in the same month....
In addition to telling us that this town is in a panic despite the fact that the teacher in question stayed ten miles away from the hospital where Thomas Eric Duncan was treated, the story recounts other incidents of Ebola panic:
A Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist for the Washington Post, who photographed Ebola victims in Liberia in September, was disinvited from a photojournalism workshop at Syracuse University even though he showed no signs of the disease for 21 days after his return to the United States.... In Hazelhurst, Mississippi, a crowd of parents pulled their middle school students from class Friday after learning that the school's principal recently had traveled to attend a family funeral in Zambia, which is in southern Africa and about 3,000 miles from the outbreak in West Africa.
And here's a guy named Matt Dexter who has a child in that Maine teacher's classroom, and who, in his ignorance, probably reflects the way much -- most? -- of America is thinking right now:
"I'm really tired of people telling everyone, on the news, starting at the national level, 'zero risk, low risk,'" he said. "The bottom line is that there is risk. Are we more capable of handling this than Africa? Sure, but why walk around blind and jam people into hot spots we can't control? It all comes down to personal responsibility."
I know the press wants to report on what is happening, and speculate on what might happen, but it's obvious now that what the public needs from the press is a reminder of what isn't happening.

Thomas Eric Duncan flew from Monrovia, Liberia, to Brussels, Belgium, on September 19, then flew from Brussels to Dulles Airport in D.C. The next day, September 20, he flew from D.C. to Dallas.

He arrived in Dallas -- infected with Ebola -- 29 days ago.

The incubation period is, at most, 21 days.

There are no Ebola cases in Belgium. There are no Ebola cases in the D.C. area. The only people with Ebola in Dallas have been Duncan and two nurses who treated him when he was unquestionably gravely ill, and when the nurses may not have mastered the protocols for protecting themselves from a highly contagious patient, or may not have had adequate protective gear and other safeguards.

The point is, we know that Thomas Eric Duncan did not communicate Ebola to anyone in his travels -- no one on any plane he flew on, no one in any airport he passed through. The people he had contact with until he was finally admitted to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on September 28 -- 21 days ago -- have shown no signs of Ebola, and that includes his relatives and his fiancee -- who seems fine, by the way, but can't get anyone to rent her an apartment.

I know that, by now, much of America probably thinks that "we don't really know" what the incubation period is, just as they think "we don't really know" how Ebola is transmitted. But no matter what they think, they need to be reminded that there are no non-medical personnel who've contracted Ebola via Thomas Eric Duncan. Not his relatives. Not his fiancee. Not the people at the apartment complex where he was staying. Yes, it's true that the people who delivered food to Duncan's family after his hospitalization and later cleaned the apartment are still not past the 21-day maximum incubation period-- though they've had time to develop symptoms, and none have.

If the authorities are lying to us about how Ebola is transmitted, where are all the other cases?

With some people, it's probably hopeless to point this out -- they'll say there are other cases, but they're being covered up. (So why weren't the cases of Duncan and his nurses covered up? Why aren't the scares all over the country being covered up?)

But I have to think that some people would understand if they were reminded that the disease is being transmitted pretty much exactly the way the authorities have always thought it's transmitted, and isn't being transmitted ambiently, just as the experts told us.

Ebola was discovered in 1976. Do most Americans know that -- know that scientists have had 38 years to figure out what it does? Could the press please remind the public of the fact that this virus hasn't been a mystery to scientists for decades?

I have hope, because I lived in New York, which was an epicenter of AIDS as the disease was emerging. People panicked about casual transmission of HIV -- but, eventually, they didn't. Increased understanding can happen -- but people need to see what the virus does and doesn't do. The press needs to report the latter as well as the former -- and, by the way, so does the Obama administration.


MORE: I wonder if we need someone like Oprah to make this case. It's easy to imagine Oprah in her heyday flying down to Dallas, meeting with Duncan's fiancee and others who'd had contact with him -- and hugging some of them on camera, while also bringing on an expert to explain the transmission process and incubation period. Everyone in America would know that Oprah hugged a close contact of an Ebola patient. She'd say she had no fear because the incubation period was up, and then we'd see that she didn't get sick. A celebrity interviewer who did this now woul be doing America a world of good.

Saturday, October 18, 2014


This Politico story is just silly:
Rick Perry's Ebola test

Ebola came to Texas. And Rick Perry went to Europe.

Now the Republican governor, a likely presidential contender, is back in Austin and scrambling to avoid a damaging perception problem like the "oops" moment that doomed his first shot at the White House.

At first, Perry seemed to have everything under control. When a man in Dallas was diagnosed with the deadly virus, Perry held an Oct. 1 news conference, assuring the public that "there are few places in the world better equipped to meet the challenges posed by this case." When more people were quarantined, he launched a task force and told Texans to "rest assured our system is working as it should."

But then he left Sunday for a long-planned 7-day trip designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials. During his absence, two more cases of Ebola were confirmed, both of them involving Texas nurses who had dealt with the first patient.

The governor cut his trip short and rushed home on Thursday, only to encounter criticism for leaving in the first place....
As long as we have a Democratic president, no Republican officeholder is going to be held accountable by Republican primary voters for failing to do the right thing on Ebola, no matter what he or she may have done or failed to do. Republicans running in 2016 who've had to deal with Ebola are going to be judged on one criterion: How much did you distance yourself from the president? It doesn't matter whether Obama and his administration handle Ebola flawlessly from here on in -- the test will be whether you denounced Obama at every possible opportunity and said that everything he was doing was wrong.

On that test, it's not clear that Perry gets a passing grade:
Unlike other possible Republican presidential contenders, he has laid off the hot rhetoric blaming the Obama administration, instead calling for calm. He told reporters about a phone call he had with Obama, signaling his new, harder-line stance on handling Ebola -- by calling for a travel ban on visitors from countries most deeply affected — without focusing on the differences he has with the White House.
It may be silly to take Rick Perry's presidential ambitions seriously at all, but even if you do, he's not going to be judged on "crisis management" in this situation, as the article suggests -- he's going to be judged on how much he hates Obama. That's how every Republican presidential aspirant is judged on pretty much everything.

Oh, so now we're getting well-written, thoughtful, detailed arguments for why a travel ban won't work?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for this article on the subject by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn. Among other things, it addresses the argument that commercial flights aren't needed into and out of West Africa because aid workers can take charters:
Lots of people wonder, couldn't the U.S. government just arrange other transportation -- maybe a modern-day version of the 1948 Berlin airlift? I've put that question to a number of officials and experts and the answer I keep hearing is "no." In the real world, they say, making these arrangements would be difficult and solutions would be inadequate. It's not as if assistance is this highly organized campaign, with all the necessary aid workers and their supplies lined up at Dover Air Force base, just waiting for C-17s to take them across the Atlantic. The flow of people and wares into West Africa is a constantly changing, unpredictable blob that's heavily dependent on freely available commercial transportation. Replacing that would take resources and time, the latter of which the region really doesn't have.
A very good Politico story on the same subject runs some numbers, citing Robert Mann, an aviation consultant:
"If you literally sequester the markets, which is to say remove all scheduled service, you really eliminate the possibility of practical access to those markets by public health officials and public health [groups] who are trying to help," Mann said. "You would force them into the charter market, which is very expensive and in some cases also not very practical."

Mann said the economics of chartering a plane to operate in West Africa are particularly challenging -- and, by extension, especially expensive, likely rising quickly out of reach for most non-government organizations or aid workers.

He said a 16-seater plane capable of flying from North America to Western Africa nonstop, chartered from a reputable firm, would cost around $12,000 per hour for a 16-hour round-trip flight, not including ground handling costs, plus fuel costs for the return trip. He said some charter companies might be reluctant to even offer services to an Ebola hotspot, for the same reason an airline wouldn't care to fly there.

"It's really not practical for 16 people to pay what may be $200,000 to charter a jet -- and compare that to the fares on scheduled airlines," which might be about $1,200 per person.
Yes -- $200,000 to charter a jet for 16 people is $12,500 a person, as opposed to $1,200. It's more than ten times as much. And aid groups are cash-strapped as it is. Who among the ban-the-flights crowd is prepared to pony up the difference, or put up resources (or advocate the allocation of tax dollars) to ensure enough flights?

And both pieces address the question of what happens to countries in the hot zone. Here's Cohn:
A travel ban would also hurt the region economically. And while it might seem frivolous to worry about dollars (or other currencies) when it comes to matters of life and death, the issues are inextricably linked. The more the people of these countries face deprivation, whether its lack of jobs or lack of food, the more they will push to leave. It's not at all far-fetched to imagine huge refugee flows out of these countries -- the kind that even tight border controls couldn't fully stop. That would increase the chances that Ebola ends up in other African nations, including those with large urban centers and strong ties to global networks. Think of Ebola taking hold in the slums of Lagos or Nairobi, and how quickly it would jump from there to the rest of the continent and then beyond. It's just one more example of how a travel ban, quite apart from its devastating effect on the region, could actually result in more cases eventually showing up on American shores.
But in all likelihood it's too late for arguments like this. The train has left the station. The hysteria-mongers had a jump on thoughtful liberals, centrists, experts, and wonks -- the right-wing screechers been spreading fear and yelling "Seal the borders!" while Thomas Feiden and other Obama administration officials have been defending the lack of a travel ban with vague general statements lacking detail about what a post-ban world would look like. And the mainstream press has been slow off the mark as well. The right set the terms of this debate -- as the right sets the terms of most debates.

Just as the Obama administration failed to anticipate an infected person getting through screening, failed to anticipate confusion surrounding a complex series of Ebola protocols, and failed to anticipate the inability of a non-specialized hospital to handle an Ebola patient in a health care system known for cost-driven corner-cutting, Team Obama also failed to anticipate the right pouncing on Ebola in the way it has, and thus driving public opinion. I think this administration is pretty good at reacting -- the health care website got fixed, the screws on Putin got tightened, the current level of Ebola contact-tracing is probably now at least as strict as it needs to be, if not stricter -- but anticipating problems is, to put it mildly, not the Obamaites' strong suit.

And the fact that right-wingers, on nearly every issue, drown out everyone else with their cynical faux-anguish is something center and left journalists never anticipate. And I have to ask: How do you miss this when it keeps happening? How do you not realize that you have to write stories as if at least a third of your audience has already been terrified and misinformed by the right, and constantly needs to have misconceptions corrected in great detail? How can something that happens so often possibly be a surprise every time it happens?

All of you, please: Be ready for the possibility that things will go very, very wrong. It often happens in the real world. It nearly always happens in the dissemination of information that has potential political consequences, thanks to the right.

Friday, October 17, 2014


Here's an utterly unsurprising headline from The Hill: "GOP Blasts Obama Ebola Czar Pick." Tweets are quoted:

There's absolutely no one, doctor or otherwise -- or at least there's no one apart from movement-conservative Republicans like Ben Carson -- who actually would have been acceptable to the GOP. And yet when the appointment was announced, the voice of the mainstream, CNN, greeted the news as if the entire Beltway would stand up and cheer:
Klain is highly regarded at the White House as a good manager with excellent relationships both in the administration and on Capitol Hill. His supervision of the allocation of funds in the stimulus act -- at the time and incredible and complicated government undertaking -- is respected in Washington. He does not have any extensive background in health care but the job is regarded as a managerial challenge.
Tell us the truth, dammit. Find a bland, neutral way to say that Republicans are always gunning for the president and would howl in outrage at any choice for this position. Saying that isn't being partisan -- it's reporting incontrovertible facts.

The public needs to know this. It's misleading to portray the Republican Party as a mild, reasonable, slow-to-anger political organization whose members just happen to squeal like stuck pigs in unison every six hours or so because Obama does outrageous things precisely that often. The president has made plenty of mistakes, and naming Klain could, for all I know, be one of them (though if his job is managing bureaucracies, with the medical expertise left to others, maybe he is a fine pick) -- but the political story of our time is the Republican Party's attempt to neutralize a Democratic presidency by making it incapable of functioning. There is no issue on which Republicans will ever rally behind the president (no, not even Secret Service protection; Republican concern for the president's safety were merely a means through which to criticize his administration). Implying that Republicans will ever accept anything Obama does is like implying that ISIS might give up beheading people if enough parents plead. Don't say something like that just to be evenhanded, because what's more important is that it's not true.

A Daily Caller story is at going viral on the right:
US Ebola Hospital Laid Off Staff Due To Obamacare, Now Has Staff Constraints

The Nebraska hospital at the center of U.S. medical efforts to fight Ebola recently laid off staff due to budget cuts caused by Obamacare, and its Ebola-fighting resources are now limited due to staff constraints.

The Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha recently treated journalist Ashoka Mukpo after the NBC News freelancer contracted Ebola. The center is one of the only hospitals in the country that can adequately treat Ebola patients in its biocontainment units.....

But the center's Ebola-fighting capacity is limited due in part to staff constraints.

"That's pretty much the level of staffing that we have as well," said the center's biocontainment unit nursing director Shelly Schwedhelm, referring to the center’s capability to hold only two or three Ebola patients at once.

The Nebraska Medical Center announced 38 layoffs, including those of top officials, in October 2012 with more possible layoffs to come. The center directly blamed the layoffs on decreased revenue from Obamacare's reduction of Medicare reimbursement rates....
Is this story accurate? Is the Nebraska Medical Center's biocontainment unit short-staffed because of Obamacare?

No. Here's what the biocontainment unit's nursing director actually said about limitations on the Center's ability to take on Ebola patients, according to the story the Caller linked:
Shelly Schwedhelm said the med center's 10-bed unit is "prepared to take on more than one patient." But Schwedhelm said the autoclave equipment -- the technology that sterilizes items with high-pressure steam -- would limit the unit's capacity to two or three Ebola patients at once.

"That's pretty much the level of staffing that we have as well," Schwedhelm said.
Right -- as Rachel Maddow explained at some length last night, this unit maintains sanitary conditions by autoclaving gowns, gloves, human waste -- pretty much everything that comes into the unit. That's the reason for the patient limit: how much its autoclave equipment can handle. Presumably the staffing level is adjusted accordingly.

Were there layoffs at Nebraska Medical Center? Yes -- the hospital announced the layoff of 38 people (out of a staff of 5,200) in October 2012, "citing reducing costs, changes in the marketplace and a reduction in the growth of Medicare spending," according to AP. But as an Omaha World-Herald story preserved at Free Republic makes clear, it's a distortion of the facts to say flatly that the layoffs were the result of Obamacare:
Reimbursement rates for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people age 65 or older, have been targeted under federal health care reform. It's possible that the rates will be further reduced Jan. 1 when automatic spending cuts are scheduled to go into effect. Couple that with ongoing federal deficit-reduction discussions, and hospital officials recognize the need to look hard at controlling costs, said Adrian Sanchez, a spokesman for the Nebraska Hospital Association.
(Emphasis added.)

Right -- Republicans demagogue this issue shamelessly while demanding cuts of their own. The Paul Ryan budget passed by the Republican-controlled House in 2012 had the same Medicare cuts. And Republicans howl endlessly about deficits.

So this Daily Caller story is dishonest in more than one way. Just another day at the office for the right-wing noise machine.

Thursday, October 16, 2014


Ebola contracted by health care workers in supposedly well-prepared hospitals. Rumors of even more Ebola cases. Flyers continuing to arrive from West African countries. Much of America seems to think that all these things are happening here because of Barack Obama's singular refusal to do the right things. But as the Daily Beast's Barbie Latza Nadeau noted yesterday, all this is happening in Europe, too:
If you were surprised to hear the news that a Sudanese United Nations worker died of the deadly Ebola virus in a Berlin hospital on Tuesday, you might be even more surprised to learn just how many Ebola patients there are elsewhere in Europe.

The World Health Organization maintains that there are eight confirmed cases of the deadly virus in Europe tied to the current outbreak: two dead missionaries in Spain, one dead doctor in Germany, one cured man and one doctor in treatment in Germany, two tropical disease doctors in treatment in Holland and a Spanish nurse, Teresa Romero Ramos, under treatment in Spain. Romero Ramos contracted the virus from one of the dead Spanish missionaries. There are also at least a dozen or more suspect cases scattered around European hospitals that may or may not evolve into the full-blown virus.
A week and a half ago, I wrote about the case of Romero Ramos, and about Spanish nurses com plsining that safety in their hospitals was compromised, a problem they blamed on austerity-driven budget cuts. Their complaints sound awfully similar to what nurses and other health care workers are saying in America, although here the problem is for-profit-medicine corner-cutting, not central-bank-imposed austerity. (See, for instance, this grim e-mail from a Talking Points Memo reader whose wife works in a hospital that's clearly not prepared for Ebola.)

There's probably more Ebola than we know about in Europe:
... There is at least one nurse under quarantine in Germany who treated the deceased doctor there. If she is infected, she will now be the fourth health worker outside of West Africa who contracted the disease in a sterile hospital...
The other three are Romero Ramos and the two nurses in America. But that may not be the extent of it:
... As of Wednesday, there were suspected Ebola patients in hospitals in Cyprus, Rome, Brussels, Paris and London. The corpse of a British man who died in Macedonia is being flown to Frankfurt for Ebola testing. More than 100 people who were in contact with the Spanish nurse are under surveillance, being asked to take their temperatures twice a day; 16 people are under quarantine, including her beautician and housekeeper.
Conservatives (and quite a few non-conservatives) regard President Obama's refusal (so far) to ban travelers from affected countries as an act of incomprehensible recklessness, or even as a deliberate betrayal of the American people. But although conservatives have made much of the suspension of flights in and out of West Africa by certain national airlines, flyers from affected countries are still reaching Europe, and European heads of state don't seem to be in a hurry to tighten the restrictions:
One of the biggest concerns in Europe is the frequency of air traffic with West Africa. European hubs are a natural stopping point for many flights from Africa to other regions. A number of routes by major carriers have been suspended, but many still run flights. The United Nations and the World Health Organization have urged airlines not to cut off West Africa, pleading that continuing flights is the only way to save lives.

On Tuesday afternoon some of Italy’s emergency plans were put to the test when a Turkish Airways flight from Istanbul to Pisa made an emergency landing in Rome. According to the airport authority, two passengers from Bangladesh -- a mother and daughter -- started exhibiting Ebola symptoms. When they told flight attendants they had been to West Africa, alarm bells rang and the flight was diverted. They were taken off the plane by emergency officials dressed in biohazard suits and first screened at Rome’s airport before being rushed to Rome's Spallanzani hospital in a special ambulance. The rest of the passengers were asked to leave contact information in case the two suspect passengers test positive for the deadly virus, so they can be contacted if they need to start taking their own temperatures. The Turkish Airlines flight then continued on to its final destination.

The same day, Ebola panic struck the Glasgow airport after a passenger on a Dutch KLM flight fell ill. After emergency workers rushed to the scene and secured the area, the patient was diagnosed with the flu, not Ebola....
You can argue that the Europeans are reckless, too. But you can't argue that President Obama's actions attain some special level of recklessness.

And yet that's pretty much the mainstream view all over America.


The (subscriber-only) cover story of the latest issue of Time is posted now. It's about Rand Paul. And here's the cover:

As Tom Kludt notes at Talking Points Memo, Time is hardly being original here: a month ago, Politico Magazine also called Paul "the most interesting man in politics." Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post called Paul "the most interesting man in the (political) world" back in June. Reason called him the "Most Interesting Man in the Senate" back in 2011.

So it's a cliche by now -- but why this cliche?

I think, in large part, it's the bro (and bro-admiring) nature of many Beltway journalists. The folks at Reason would have embraced the libertarian-ish Paul no matter what, but Cillizza, Politico, and Time are part of a press corps that I'm convinced is looking for a frattish guy to escort us out of the Obama era (and save us from that icky old lady Hillary Clinton) -- and if a possible bro savior has been found, what higher, bro-ier compliment can the journos pay him than to apply an honorific derived from a series of beer commercials, and, moreover, a series of beer commercials obviously inspired by the even more bro-ish Chuck Norris Facts joke series?

I say this all the time, but I'm going to keep saying it: There's an excellent chance that the 2016 election is going to be a rerun of 2000, with the press coming to the conclusion that the Democrat is a buzz-killing, nut-crushing schoolmarm, and with a Republican bamboozling the reporters into thinking that he's both a thoughtful right-centrist and a guy you'd really, really like to have a beer with. If it's not Rand Paul, it might be Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Chris Christie. But the template is JFK: cerebral and charismatic.

Bros and bro fanboys will downplay any signs of right-wing extremism in their designated bro hero, and will see any modest accomplishments as signs of potentially world-historic political talent. Check out the breathless talk from the author of the Time story, Michael Scherer -- obviously more of a bro hero-worshiper than an actual bro -- on today's Morning Joe:

SCHERER: ... politics is about storytelling, and the stories almost never change, and here's a guy who's really trying to change the whole narrative of how we think about Republican Party vs. Democratic Party. He's going around the country talking to conservative, all-white, straight-and-narrow, preppy audiences and saying, "We've got to embrace the freaks and the weirdos and the longhairs and the guys with tattoos." He's going, like other Republicans have done unsuccessfully, to minority communities, saying, "I want to do a bunch of things you haven't heard Republicans say in the past need to be done." He's going to young people around the country. And more important than that, I think, is that Republicans -- he's not the first person to try and color outside the lines, but Republicans, because they're in this sort of demographic bind, are actually listening to him, and he's got a soapbox and he's actually making changes.
He's actually making changes. Yeah, you can see how much Republicans have started following Paul's color-outside-the-lines lead in the huge shifts they've made on the issues of ... er ... um ... well, I'm sure I'll think of something.
SCHERER: ... Interviewing him is like being in a graduate seminar on, sort of, how you can still be a conservative and hold these views without being inconsistent. To get from Point A to Point B, to explain himself, he doesn't really contradict himself, but it takes three or four jumps to really slice the issues he's after, and it's a far more intellectual approach to politicking than we've seen.
(Yes, you heard that right: Rand Paul is "intellectual," and "intellectual" is now a good thing for a politician to be. Barack Obama, call your agent.)

I keep alluding to 2000, but I can't deny that this sort of thing happened on Bill Clinton's behalf in the run-up to the 1992 primaries, when insiders started getting serious mancrushes on him. It also, obviously, happened to Barack Obama in 2008, big time. But if it happens in 2016, the designated bro savior is going to be a Republican who'll be far more extreme than the journalists crushing on him will ever acknowledge (or notice).

So beware -- the next presidential election is not in the bag for Democrats. This is why.


UPDATE: I reread this and realized I didn't make a very strong case for Rand Paul as bro-ish regular guy. For that, I guess, you have to turn to his trolling of Michelle Obama on the issue of food.

Frickin' hilarious!

On Tuesday, Keith Ablow, the house psychiatrist at Fox News, went on Fox's radio affiliate and ranted for twelve minutes in a way that Josh Marshall correctly characterized as "Fox 'Doc' Goes Full Stormfront":
Dr. Keith Ablow, a member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, on Tuesday said that Obama won't protect Americans from Ebola because "his affinities" are with Africa, not the U.S. "He's their leader."

"He has it in for us as disappointing people. People who've been a scourge on the face of the Earth," Ablow said on Fox News Radio's The John Gibson show. "In his mind, if only unconsciously, he's thinking, 'Really? We're going to prevent folks suffering with illnesses from coming across the border flying into our airports when we have visited a plague of colonialism that has devastated much of the world, on the world? What is the fairness in that?'"

“How can you protect a country you don't like? Why would you?" Ablow asked....
Ablow said of America, "We don't have a president."
"We don't have a president?" Gibson asked.

"We don't have a president who has the American people as his primary interest, who believes the country has Manifest Destiny and has been a force for good," Ablow insisted.

The Fox News doctor went on to speculate that Obama had only been elected because Americans were victims of Stockholm Syndrome....
Yup, we voted for Obama because 9/11 scared us into trying to appease our attackers:
"We said to ourselves, and the world, 'Look at this guy. We're going to elect this guy president. Why would you attack us? We're not even voting for somebody who likes us. This guy, who has names very similar to two of our archenemies, Osama, well, Obama. And Hussein. Hussein. Surely you won't attack us now because we've got a shield here of a guy who, as the leader of our country says we're bad.'"
This is a follow-up to a similar opinion piece Ablow wrote for the Fox News website.

All I can think is that Dinesh D'Souza can go off to his community confinement center with his head held high.

Four years ago, D'Souza published a Forbes cover story titled "How Obama Thinks," which accused President Obama of imbibing the anti-colonialism of the father he barely knew and building his entire worldview out of that anti-colonialism. "For Obama," D'Souza wrote, "the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West."

When D'Souza wrote this, and published a book with the same argument called The Roots of Obama's Rage, many conservatives were appalled. Heather Mac Donald called the Forbes article "Dinesh D'Souza's poison."
Sickeningly, while "How Obama Thinks" is useless as a guide to the Obama presidency, it is all too representative of the hysteria that now runs through a significant portion of the right-wing media establishment. The article is ... an example of the lunacy that is poisoning much conservative discourse.
David Frum wrote, "When last was there such a brazen outburst of race-baiting in the service of partisan politics at the national level? George Wallace took more care to sound race-neutral." The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson reviewed The Roots of Obama's Rage, writing, "On the evidence of his new book, we can't be sure if Dinesh D'Souza is a hysteric or a cynic."

But, of course, Newt Gingrich took D'Souza's argument and ran with it:
Gingrich says that D'Souza has made a "stunning insight" into Obama's behavior -- the "most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama."

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks.
Two years later, Gingrich ran a surprisingly successful presidential campaign. Meanwhile, D'Souza milked the anti-colonialism theme for two rather popular "documentary" films and another book.

And now the D'Souza thesis is so much a part of the right-wing narrative that Ablow can invoke it without even naming its originator. To right-wingers, it's no longer a strange but curiously compelling argument made by that D'Souza fellow -- it's accepted fact. It's been thoroughly worked into the Obama master narrative on the right.

Bravo, Dinesh. The well is fully poisoned now. You did what you set out to do.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014


I have nothing much to add to what I'm sure you've already read about the mishandling of Thomas Eric Duncan at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital:
A statement outlining a litany of damning assertions was read by Deborah Burger, co-president of National Nurses United. The Oakland-based nurses union does not represent the Dallas nurses, who are nonunionized, but has been vocal about what it says are hospitals' failures to prepare for Ebola.

The Dallas nurses asked the union to read their statement so they could air complaints anonymously and without fear of losing their jobs, National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro said from Oakland....

The nurses' statement alleged that when Duncan was brought to Texas Health Presbyterian by ambulance with Ebola-like symptoms, he was "left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area" where up to seven other patients were. "Subsequently, a nurse supervisor arrived and demanded that he be moved to an isolation unit, yet faced stiff resistance from other hospital authorities," they alleged.

Duncan's lab samples were sent through the usual hospital tube system "without being specifically sealed and hand-delivered. The result is that the entire tube system ... was potentially contaminated," they said....
I'm amused, however, to see this union and its officers being quoted favorably by outraged conservatives at Right Wing News, CNS News, Free Republic, and other sites on the right. Do these righties know anything about their new favorite whistleblowers?

Burger advocates single-payer and opposes the Keystone pipeline, as does DeMoro. They also advocate a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street financial transactions. In a Washington Post op-ed published Monday, DeMoro tied our Ebola problems to the private, for-profit nature of our health care system:
... Ebola is exposing a broader problem: the sober reality of our fragmented, uncoordinated private health-care system. We have enormous health-care resources in the United States. What we lack is a national, integrated system needed to respond effectively to a severe national threat such as Ebola.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues guidelines but has no authority to enforce them. Hospitals have wide latitude to pick and choose what protocols they will follow; too often in a corporate medical system those decisions are based on budget priorities, not what is best for the health and safety of patients and caregivers. Congress and state lawmakers put few mandates on what hospitals must do in the face of pandemics or other emergencies, and local health officials do not have the authority to direct procedures and protocols at hospitals.

Where other countries -- notably Canada, which took action after its vulnerabilities were exposed by the 2003 SARS epidemic -- have empowered their public health agencies to coordinate local, state and federal detection and response efforts for pandemics, the United States cut funding for its already-weak system. Federal funding for public health preparedness and response activities was $1 billion less in fiscal 2013 than 2002....
Why do we know what went on in Texas Health Presbyterian when Thomas Duncan came in? Because a union was able to tell us. Conservatives would prefer an America in which no health care workers were unionized at all. They should remember that when they're quoting National Nurses United.

I think it's going to happen, but after the elections. Here's why:
More Americans now say that they believe U.S. military action against ISIS should include American combat troops on the ground, according to a new NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-one percent of respondents believe both troops on the ground and airstrikes are necessary for the mission against ISIS, versus 35 percent who think it should be restricted to airstrikes; another 15 percent say no military action should be taken.

That’s a reversal from the NBC/WSJ poll in September, when 40 percent wanted just airstrikes and 34 wanted both airstrikes and combat troops.

The seven-point increase in those also wanting U.S. ground troops has been fueled mostly by groups that make up the GOP base. More self-described Republicans (up 14 points), men over 50 years old (up 18), white men (up 17) and seniors (up 10) now advocate for troops on the ground in the fight against the terror group. There's been virtually no change since September among Democrats, young people, and white women....
Ground troops won't be sent as long as the president thinks doing so will alienate Democratic voters -- although I have to wonder how much of a factor it would be for most Dems, especially in the red and purple states where the key Senate races are. Most Democratic voters aren't committed progressives who are politically engaged at all times. The group of people who fall into that category is a small sliver of the Democratic base. I think a lot of Democratic voters will find themselves drifting into acceptance of a ground war with ISIS in the near future. Meanwhile, the pressure will build from the rest of the public. Today's big New York Times story about U.S. soldiers finding decayed pre-1991 chemical weapons in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam is even part of the process of getting the public ready for a wider ISIS war:
Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States' encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
George W. Bush left office six years ago. If we thought mass wariness about war was a permanent condition in America, we were crazy. This will be an issue in our politics until there's a sense that ISIS isn't a threat to Americans. War is winning the battle for America's hearts and minds -- as it usually does.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014


The newest Des Moines Register poll of Iowa Republicans says Mitt Romney is their first choice for 2016. But note who's #2:

I keep telling you about this guy -- as I wrote in August,
A couple of weeks ago, he won the presidential straw poll of the Western Conservative Summit; before that, he nearly won the Republican Leadership Conference straw poll, losing to Ted Cruz, 30 to 29%.... I've already seen a couple of "Ben Carson for President" bumper stickers, including one in a rural, 99.99%-white part of upstate New York. He's had two #1 New York Times bestsellers, and the Draft Ben Carson for President Committee has been surprisingly well funded.

... I'll be beside myself with glee if he somehow makes it onto the GOP ticket, because he's incredibly divisive -- a young-earth creationist who compares Obamacare to slavery and gay marriage to bestiality, a guy whose says liberals are
the most racist people there are. Because you know, they put you in a little category, a little box, "you have to think this way, how could you dare come off the plantation?"
All of which means he could probably finish in the top tier in the Iowa caucuses.
He's a pure creation of the right-wing media, which wants to put an African-American face on the wingnut message, something Carson is extremely eager to do. He's a conservative Christian, which means that he could win Iowa the way Santorum won it two years ago and Huckabee won it four years before that. At that point, he's going to help set the terms of a lot of intraparty debates for the GOP.

And in that position, he's going to say things a lot of things like what he said in August to Fox's Neil Cavuto about an Ebola terrorism scenario he thinks is plausible:
CARSON: So if there were a container of contaminated urine, and somehow it managed to find its way to someplace a lot of damage could be done.

CAVUTO: Now, that would be a stretch for the series of events to make that contagious, or would it?

CARSON: Well, again I say you always have to guard for the worst case scenario. So, you know, someone comes up to a lab worker. He knows he's got the urine. "How would you like to have a million dollars?" A little transaction there. I mean, somebody's going to say "That's crazy. That can never happen." Such things have been known to happen. We have to guard against worst case scenarios.
Yup, it's going to be an interesting Republican primary season.




Alec MacGillis has a piece up at The New Republic titled "Republicans Need to Call Off the Voting Wars -- for Their Own Good." Even the title is naive -- yes, Republicans should drop this effort, for the good of democracy, but that's not going to happen, and they're certainly not going to do it "for their own good" because the downsides MacGillis lists really aren't likely to be disturbing Republicans' sleep.

MacGillis's Reason #1:
1. The voting wars are a costly, bureaucratic nightmare.

Conservatives claim to disdain bureaucratic waste and costly litigation -- which is exactly what the voting wars have devolved into. Every few days, it seems, brings a new court ruling on a state's voting laws, often reversing another ruling of just a few days or weeks prior. This back and forth is not just hard to keep track of -- it is also causing no end of bureaucratic disarray, which comes at a price to the taxpayer....
Oh, please. Isn't this exactly the argument that's often made against the death penalty -- that Death Row inmates tie up the courts in endless litigation, which means they're more burdensome to taxpayers than prisoners serving life sentences? Guess what -- when money is spent this way, conservatives don't care; the desire for vengeance against The Other trumps any interest in fiscal prudence. (It's not just war that makes right-wingers forget en masse that they prefer small government.)

MacGillis's Reason #2:
2. The absence of voter fraud is becoming impossible to deny.
Why? Because federal judges have looked at empirical evidence and concluded that voter impersonation is all but nonexistent in America?

Silly Alec -- that's not how the public decides these matters. The public, or at least the white conservative/moderate public, decides these matters based on how often stories about voter fraud seem to be in the air -- and Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media (not to mention ambitious right-wing prosecutors and elected officials) make sure that the subject keeps coming up.

In the past month, Fox has worked three voter fraud stories. This one ("No ID? Maryland Gins Up Voters, and Potential Fraud") doesn't even allege any actual fraud -- it just says that Maryland's ID laws make fraud possible, with no evidence that anyone is exploiting the alleged weaknesses. This story is titled "Voter Registration Fraud Probe Looms Over Tight Georgia Senate Race"; it concerns an investigation by Georgia's Republican secretary of state of a voter registration drive conducted by associates of the pastor of Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church. So, is there fraud? Here's what a non-Fox source, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, says:
Investigators backed away Wednesday from allegations a Democratic-backed group may have organized voter registration fraud, saying they can confirm 25 applications of more than 85,000 submitted to the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.
Oh. So 0.03% of the applications were incorrect -- or, to put it another way, 25 voters in a state of 10 million people. Yeah, right -- that's going to fraudulently tip an election.

The third Fox story is "Dem Conn. State Rep Arrested For Allegedly Voting 19 Times." Actually, what seems to have happened is that a Connecticut assemblywoman was charged with voting eight times in a district other than her own; there are also "10 counts of primary or enrollment violations and one count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence," according to the New Haven Register. The stories don't say that she voted multiple times, or that she pretended to be someone she wasn't. She allegedly voted where she didn't live, that's all. She was allegedly caught doing so in a state without strict voter ID laws. She faces jail time and fines. So where's the huge widespread, election-tipping threat to democracy?

But tell enough of these stories and heartland right and center think the problem is widespread. And how are they likely to respond? By voting Republican -- because the GOP is the party that makes a big deal about its opposition to this sort of thing.

MacGillis says the GOP should give up the voter fraud fight because "Rand Paul says so" -- meaning that Paul recognizes that this fight keeps non-white voters permanently alienated from the GOP. But the GOP has put all its chips on the opposite strategy: give up on non-whites, enrage as many whites as possible, and try to get whites voting GOP as monolithically nationwide as they do in the South.

And is it working? Well, Republicans have the House. They control the majority of state houses and state legislatures. They're favorites to take the Senate. Maybe they can't win the White House next time, but if they run the rest, why should they care?

MacGillis's other reason is "The GOP's voter suppression efforts are motivating Democrats." Well, if that turns out to be true in this year's midterms, not just in the last and next presidential cycles, then, perhaps, there'll be a rethink. Democrats would have to score many huge upset wins because black voters are angry about vote suppression. One or two upsets won't be enough.

Of course, those Democratic wins will then be blamed on fraud. Also, wonkier Republicans will say, "See? Voter ID laws don't really suppress non-white turnout." And so the cycle will continue, unless non-white turnout rises so high so consistently that even Republicans can't bear to keep up the fight.

Yes, I'm going there. Yes, I'm questioning the timing of this:
... On Tuesday at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, the Romneys are launching the Ann Romney Center for Neurological Diseases, a research facility that will focus on finding cures and new treatments for Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease (known as ALS), Parkinson’s disease and brain tumors.

Fresh off a presidential effort that raised nearly a billion dollars, Ann Romney hopes to raise $50 million to lay the groundwork for the center’s research into the five diseases that affect about 50 million people in the U.S.

Romney describes the center as her answer to the scores of MS patients who approached her on the campaign trail, desperate for advice and guidance from a fellow MS patient....
I understand that multiple sclerosis is a great burden to Ann Romney, even though she's able to afford the best care and therapies. I also recognize that the establishment of this center could help bring about significant breakthroughs in the treatment of terrible illnesses.

But I'd like the timing of this announcement to generate at least a tiny fraction of the skepticism occasioned by the timing of Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy. Because while it's true that this is an act of generosity, it's also true that the Romneys are just loving this little comeback tour they're on, and bringing a veneer of high-mindedness to a lot of down-and-dirty campaigning. I happen to think that Mitt Romney, despite the decent-guy act, is the angriest, most vengeance-minded presidential loser since Nixon lost to Kennedy, and yes, I'm ranking him ahead of John McCain, whose emotional excesses seem much more free-floating and much less specifically targeted. McCain wants war with President Obama, Democrats, ISIS, Iran -- whaddaya got? Mitt Romney, on the other hands, wants a rematch with Obama. No, that's not right -- he wants to win his one contest with Obama retroactively. In the public's mind, he wants the results of the 2012 election overturned.

Beating Obama by proxy in this year's midterms, beating him in polls, and possibly beating his likely successor in polls -- a new Des Moines Register survey says Romney would top Hillary in Iowa by 1 point -- this is what Romney wants. The press has been saying for a year now that Romney wants to play "kingmaker," and, yes, I think he very much wants to get Republicans elected, but the king he wants to make is himself. He wants to be widely regarded as the guy who should be president. If he attains that, he probably has pretty much everything he ever wanted out of the presidency without having any of the job's burdens. He has his due.

And the Beltway press is absolutely on his side.

Here's the media lovingly retransmitting his lame joke about Obama at an Iowa rally for extremist Senate candidate Joni Ernst, a gag about Obama, Phil Mickelson, and Andre Agassi that's been floating around the Internet for at least three years (the golfer used to be Tiger Woods), and that sounds as if it started life as a kneeslapper about LBJ, Arnold Palmer, and Rod Laver. (Fun fact: one source for the joke is a site called Stuff Old Guys Like. Oh, and here's a version set in the Philippines.)

And here, in The Washington Post, is the 83,647th breathless is-he-running? story about Romney.
Officially, Mitt Romney returned to Iowa, the quadrennial presidential proving ground, to give a boost to Joni Ernst. But at a closed-door breakfast fundraiser here Monday, the first question from a donor had nothing to do with Ernst’s Senate campaign.

"When you get elected to the Senate, your job should be to convince Mitt Romney to run for president again," a donor told Ernst, according to several attendees. The Republican candidate said she would, while Romney laughed.

When Romney and Ernst gathered in a West Des Moines boardroom with about 40 agriculture executives Sunday night, one businessman after another pleaded with Romney to give the White House another shot.

And at a rally for Ernst in Cedar Rapids on Monday, the state legislator who introduced Romney said, "If his address was 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I would sleep a lot better." After Romney and Ernst finished speaking, some activists chanted, "Run, Mitt, run!" ...
On the other hand, here's Ann Romney in the L.A. Times story about the new neurology center:
On another matter that has been the subject of much political babbling lately -- a potential third run for president by her husband -- Ann Romney was happy to wave off the possibility.

"Done," she said. "Completely. Not only Mitt and I are done, but the kids are done," she said, referring to her five sons. "Done. Done. Done."
But apparently not being a candidate just makes running like a candidate seem more high-minded for Mitt. He's not a grubby politiian -- he's a gray eminence!

It's often said that Republicans can't really make a comeback at the presidential level until they're perceived as standing for something, not just against Democrats. That's a lot of noble-sounding nonsense. All they have to do is find an appealing candidate -- and right now they think they have one: the last guy. He's freed from the burden of actually having to run on the Republican agenda, and the party is doing a better job of trying to manufacture consent by getting the press to write "we all like Romney now" stories, which make casual observers think liking Romney is now A Thing. There's no Democratic effort to define Romney, as there was in 2012, so he's been allowed to become the gracious, above-the-fray shadow president, with Ann, now cutting ribbons on a medical facility and thus making a great show of generosity, as the noble shadow First Lady.

And if the 2016 election were held today, with Mitt and Hillary as the candidates, I honestly think that Romney would win the vote of the press corps, or at least its white males. I'm increasingly convinced that 2016 is going to be a rerun of 2000, with Hillary being treated by the media as the unloved, mocked Al Gore. The only problem is that the boys on the bus need a Republican to root for. I think they'd be delighted if it were Mitt.

Monday, October 13, 2014


I think the GOP, or one Republican at least, has finally figured out how to reach that elusive youth market: just microtarget the most dickish, loutish youths you can find and they'll be extremely receptive to the Republican message.
New Hampshire GOP candidate Scott Brown ditched the usual campaign trail stops on Saturday and instead attempted to bond with a younger, rowdier set of voters at the University of New Hampshire homecoming tailgate....

Brown attended the party at the invitation of the school's College Republicans, and by all accounts, attracted a large, enthusiastic crowd. But as anyone who has ever attended a college tailgate knows, it can be hard to control what's going on around you....

In video posted by the New Hampshire Democratic Party, as Brown walked through the sea of tailgaters, there were shouts of "F**k Jeanne Shaheen!" and "Elizabeth Warren sucks!" referring to the Democrat from Massachusetts who unseated Brown from his Senate seat in that state in 2012.

The language became even more graphic at points, with one man shouting "F**k her right in the p***y" (00:04 in the video above), although it wasn't clear if he was referring to Shaheen or Warren. At 01:07 in the video, a man also appears to refer to Shaheen as a c**t....

Republicans have been wasting their time trying to send the message that the party embraces multiculturalism, recycling, and New York Times reading, or hipster beards and wardrobes, or young women. Really, this is the way for the party to go: focus on the most boorish young males, tell them (in code, if necessary) that you share their misogyny and respect their sense of entitlement, and voila: you'll pick off frattish jocks, woman-bashing gamers, and the men's rights/pickup artist crowd. Republicans should just target obnoxious white dudes in the youth demographic -- the same thing they do with all other age groups. Then just keep working to suppress everyone else's vote and they'll be golden.

It should have been obvious that Brown is a perfect candidate for this approach -- though another guy who's probably well suited to this approach is Paul Ryan, the frattiest 2016 wannabe. I suppose that's why he's favored by Republican millennials over all the party's other presidential aspirants, according to that recent Fusion poll. Maybe Ryan should drop the phony earnestness act and embrace his inner lout.


Charlie Pierce is upset, with good reason, because the extremism of Joni Ernst has not prevented her from being a slight favorite to win the Iowa Senate race, as the mainstream press looks on without alarm. Pierce is also upset because Cory Gardner, an equally extreme Senate candidate in Colorado, is a favorite to win as well (and is the choice of the Denver Post editorial board). Pierce thinks media insiders decided a long time ago that the GOP was going to take the Senate, and now, in the face of strong Democratic campaigns in battleground states, the press is trying to make that prediction come true:
I don't think it's entirely out of line to believe that a lot of people in my business need the Senate to change hands in November to vindicate how smart they were in February.
Kevin Drum thinks there's a simpler explanation:
Maybe. Or it might just be the usual preoccupation that political reporters have with process over substance. For example, Steve Benen notes today that Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes recently dodged "a straightforward question about whom she voted for in the 2012 presidential election" and got hammered for it. But in Iowa, when Ernst refused to say if she wants to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency or what she'd do for those who'd lose health care coverage if Obamacare is repealed, the reaction was mostly crickets.

The difference is that Grimes was clumsy over her handling of a process issue: her support for a president of her own party. Reporters feel free to go after that. Ernst, by contrast, was crafty over her handling of policy issues: in this case, environmental policy and health care policy. Likewise, Gardner is being crafty about his handling of abortion and contraceptive policy. That sort of craftiness generally invites little censure because political reporters don't want to be seen taking sides on an issue of policy -- or even rendering judgment about whether a candidate's policy positions have changed. In fact, being crafty on policy is often viewed as actively praiseworthy because it shows how politically savvy a candidate is.
Here's my theory: What Grimes said is very easy to grasp -- did she vote for a president most people in her state despise, or didn't she? Occasionally, Republicans get in trouble for saying and doing things that are easily graspable. Christine O'Donnell flirted with witchcraft. Todd Akin said that only certain rapes are "legitimate rape," and those don't lead to pregnancy. These are things you don't need to understand politics to get.

But this other stuff is complicated. The EPA? What would it mean to ordinary, mostly apolitical citizens if it were shut down? What exactly is Agenda 21 and why is it crazy that Ernst has railed against it? How many ordinary citizens can answer that? Why is fetal personhood such a big deal anyway? Why would ordinary apolitical citizens get upset at Gardner's support for something like that, when the word "personhood" sounds benign, not extreme?

The problem is that non-conservative voters simply aren't political to the marrow of their bones the way conservatives now are, thanks to Fox and talk radio. Your Fox-obsessed uncle is as capable of giving you a two-hour lecture on Benghazi or Fast & Furious or the case of that Marine vet who got caught in Mexico with a gun and has been in prison for months. Fox watchers know this stuff off the tops of their heads the way Deadheads can recite 1971 set lists from memory. That's because the right-wing media has found a way to make conservatives care about politics at a detailed (if factually distorted) level.

Left and center voters aren't like that. If the subjects are complex, of course candidates can fudge them, because the public isn't primed to be suspicious. The public brings very little knowledge of these subjects to the discussion.

The mainstream press is failing voters, though I'm not sure it's because (or at least not just because) the MSM wants the GOP to win -- I think it's because the MSM is in no way a force for advocacy the way Fox News is. A small audience turns to lefty online sites and MSNBC prime time and gets the dirt on subjects like this, but the MSM never, ever talks about personhood, or the Agenda 21 conspiracy, or the likely nature of an America if right-wing government cutters really got out the meat cleaver, or a hundred other subjects on which the right is extreme.

And so extreme GOP candidates fudge, and then they skate. The public would have needed a lot more background information a lot earlier for this not to be the case.

At Politico Magazine, Bobby Jindal tries to persuade us that the uniquely depraved Barack Obama is mismanaging the funding of the CDC while Ebola runs rampant:
... In a paid speech last week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ... claimed that the spending reductions mandated under sequestration "are really beginning to hurt," citing the fight against Ebola....

Her argument, like those made by others, misses the point. In recent years, the CDC has received significant amounts of funding. Unfortunately, however, many of those funds have been diverted away from programs that can fight infectious diseases, and toward programs far afield from the CDC's original purpose.

Consider the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a new series of annual mandatory appropriations created by Obamacare. Over the past five years, the CDC has received just under $3 billion in transfers from the fund. Yet only 6 percent -- $180 million -- of that $3 billion went toward building epidemiology and laboratory capacity....

Instead, the Obama administration has focused the CDC on other priorities. While protecting Americans from infectious diseases received only $180 million from the Prevention Fund, the community transformation grant program received nearly three times as much money -- $517.3 million over the same five-year period.

The CDC's website makes clear the objectives of community transformation grants. The program funds neighborhood interventions like "increasing access to healthy foods by supporting local farmers and developing neighborhood grocery stores," or "promoting improvements in sidewalks and street lighting to make it safe and easy for people to walk and ride bikes." Bike lanes and farmer's markets may indeed help a community -- but they would do little to combat dangerous diseases like Ebola, SARS or anthrax.
Okay, let's back up.

First of all, Jindal is trying to bamboozle you here. If you read this hastily, you might think that the majority of the CDC's entire budget goes to this awful, horrible Obamacare program. But Jindal's talking about one portion of what the CDC receives annually -- $517.3 million over the past five years, or about $100 million a year. The CDC has a budget of $6.85 billion (which still reflects budget cuts from the sequester). The money spent on the community transformation grant program is a small slice of the CDC's total budget.

Second, it's not an Obama-era innovation for the CDC to be focused on trying to get people to live healthier lives in order to reduce the incidence of chronic diseases. Long before Barack Obama even entered politics, the CDC had a National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Here are doctors from the National Center contributing to a 1993 report titled Measuring the Health Behavior of Adolescents: The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Here's a 1999 CDC report from the National Center titled "Physical Activity and Health," which encourages people to exercise. Here's a 2002 report -- yes, it was completed during the Bush presidency, after 9/11 -- on the effects of secondhand smoke, with contributions from the National Center.

So there's nothing new about the CDC paying attention to health problems that aren't spread by scary viruses.

But what's the point of the program that has Jindal's knickers in a twist? Here's what the CDC says:
The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established under Section 4002 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).... By law, the Prevention Fund must be used "to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public health care costs."
Right -- we spend a lot of money treating preventable medical conditions in younger people. A lot of that money comes out of taxpayers' pockets. If, say, high blood pressure contributes to 350,000 deaths a year (we've had one Ebola death so far this year), should we ignore high blood pressure because it doesn't give us nightmares? With regard to health care, do we not want to try to "bend the cost curve"?

In fact, Jindal agrees that public health efforts of this kind are worthwhile -- at least if they're not run by evil Democrats in evil Washington, D.C.:
Make no mistake: These types of projects may represent worthwhile endeavors -- when funded by states, localities or private charities. And I certainly believe in the goals of wellness as one way to improve health and reduce costs. Here in Louisiana, we've launched the Well-Ahead Louisiana program, working with local businesses and organizations on ways to promote healthy lifestyles.

But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose. Unfortunately, this administration seems intent on not choosing, instead trying to insinuate Washington into every nook and cranny of our lives.
Here's where Jindal is really trying to bamboozle his readers. This is Washington "trying to insinuate Washington into every nook and cranny of our lives"? Public health programs focused on wellness should only exist in states that choose to have them? Medicare and Medicaid money disbursed from Washington goes to residents in all fifty states. Medicare is a federal program. And even states that didn't go for the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare still get a hell of a lot of Medicaid money. Medicare spending in Louisiana is $11,700 per enrollee. Medicaid payments per enrollee are $5,196 in Louisiana -- and the feds pick up 69% of that. So Jindal shouldn't try to tell us that public health is none of the feds' business.

Meanwhile, Well-Ahead Louisiana, according to a press release from Jindal's own office,
establishes healthy living designation criteria for organizations to follow that will result in better health outcomes for Louisiana residents. Examples of healthy designation criteria include breastfeeding friendly policies, tobacco-free environments, employee wellness and consistent healthy food offerings. These changes will make smart choices an easier part of living and working in Louisiana.
I guess it's horrible if Washington does this, but if Baton Rouge does it, it's just fine.