Phony outrage bothers me because it is simultaneously false and hypocritical.  And it gets attention.  A man holding a sign and shouting is bound to have a television camera pointed at him, no matter how ridiculous his claims.

It would be easy to dismiss those in the “Tea Party” movement as simple phonies.  After all, members of that group, which burns President Obama in effigy, only a few years ago claimed that any criticism of the president was “unpatriotic”, and that those who opposed George W. Bush’s policies were “with the terrorists”.  That is phony outrage, pure and simple.

But the Tea Party movement presents another, equally troublesome phenomenon: ignorant outrage.  As Bruce Bartlett, the outspoken Republican and former Reagan adviser, writes at Forbes.com, most Tea Party people completely misunderstand the issues about which they are so angry.  Members of the Tea Party movement were surveyed about taxes under President Obama, and, “no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are”.  When asked, for instance, whether, under Obama, taxes are higher, lower, or the same, two-thirds thought taxes were higher.  In fact, as Bartlett points out, “federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president”.

Meanwhile,

Tea Partyers were asked how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009.

Tuesday’s Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

As Bartlett points out, “it’s hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality”.  I’m not so sure.  How often do talk radio hosts criticize Democrats for raising taxes?  A lot, from what I can tell.  And yet, “there hasn’t been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993″.  Nevertheless, politicians and pundits drone on and on about how high taxes are burdening families, and driving down the economy.  Those politicians and pundits know better (or ought to).  Their outrage is phony.  But the public–which by and large, doesn’t read the newspaper, or know the first thing about economics, history, geography, or almost any other subject–hears the talking heads and believes.  Thus, phony outrage becomes ignorant outrage.

Don’t get me wrong.  I wholeheartedly support righteous indignation.  That is, if you really believe something, state your position honestly, and advocate for your cause, I will, at least, respect your efforts.  However, as the saying goes, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.  Be honest; be consistent.  That goes for both sides.

But not everyone likes the idea of the Olympics moving from city to city, country to country.  In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Monday, former Olympic rower, Charles Banks-Altekruse, argues that the Olympic games–both summer and winter–should move permanently to Switzerland.

Banks-Altekruse correctly points out that the Olympics are hugely expensive events that can be financially crippling to the host cities and countries.  Part of Greece’s present fiscal turmoil is due, no doubt, to the 2004 games in Athens.  Meanwhile, I clearly remember how worried people were about whether the Olympic facilities and venues would be complete in time for the games.  The paint was still drying when the 2004 Olympics began.  That Greece had to build arenas and a stadium from scratch is emblematic of what makes the Olympics so costly for host cities.  Beijing built hugely expensive facilities that now lie dormant.  Sochi is building a new Olympic park from scratch that will, no doubt, cost a fortune. Rio de Janeiro will spend billions of dollars it simply doesn’t have to host the 2016 summer games.

Atlanta spent tons of money, too, but did things a bit smarter.  The stadium that hosted the opening and closing ceremonies as well as track and field in 1996 was converted to host baseball after the games concluded.  Other Olympic events were held at facilities at universities in northern Georgia.  Los Angeles, too, used existing infrastructure in 1984, and made money.  But times have changed, and expectations have changed.  I suspect that, like professional sports teams do, the International Olympic Committee now expects the latest and greatest, and an old stadium–the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was over sixty-years-old when the 1984 games began–simply wouldn’t do.

Meanwhile, Banks-Altekruse argues that potential political conflicts like the one that thwarted his Olympic hopes in Moscow in 1980, and kept Eastern Bloc nations away from Los Angeles in 1984, make it essential that the Olympics find a permanent, neutral home.  I acknowledge that that was a big shame, and, in retrospect, neither of those cities was the ideal choice, since the IOC certainly must have realized that boycotts would occur.

But I think the political climate around the world have changed in the past twenty-five years, and I doubt that we will see another significant Olympic boycott, unless future games are, somehow, awarded to Tibet or Somalia.

And, though the financial issue is a serious matter, I don’t believe that that justifies moving the Olympics permanently to Switzerland, which would, according to Banks-Altekruse, be able to afford its hosting duties by averaging out the construction costs over a long term.

No, I think too much is gained by having the Olympics move around the world.  The experience seems richer, and the international goodwill, I believe, is genuine.

Obviously, President Obama hasn’t accomplished peace in the Middle East, or achieved nuclear disarmament.  Obviously, nine months in office isn’t much time to solve the complex issue of Islamic extremism.  Obama himself said that he didn’t feel he deserved it, and, indeed, it seems odd, particularly when some past recipients devoted their entire lives to peace, like Martin Luther King, Jr.  But the committee evidently believes that, tangible results or not, Obama has promoted peace, if only by turning America’s diplomatic posture from one of reckless aggression to one of respect for our allies.  The award citation reads in part: “Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”  If that’s the criteria the committee set, then that’s the criteria.

But I think that the committee also intended to send a message about what they–and really the rest of the world–would like to see from the United States.  I believe Senator John McCain understands this quite well:  “I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to.  I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order”.

Americans should be pleased, as Senator McCain says.  But, as has been demonstrated recently, there are some whose disdain for Obama exceeds their love for America.  The people who cheered when Chicago lost its Olympic bid showed their true colors.  Disapprove of Obama’s politics if you want; it is perfectly patriotic to disagree with a president or a legislature when you do so in an intellectually honest manner.  But I cannot respect anyone who would rather America lose than Obama win.

A sitting American president has once again won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the appropriate response is not derision, but careful consideration of what message has been made.  President Obama didn’t solicit this award, and I’ll bet that if it were up to him, he’d rather they have picked someone else.  But the Nobel Committee made their choice, and now Obama’s presidency will take up the crusade.  If promoting peace is his “call to action”, as he put it, so much the better.  And, if you don’t think America’s cause is peace, then I feel sorry for you.

The facts are these: If you’ve ever been to Chicago, you know it’s an amazing city, and would be a great Olympic host.  But Rio was going to win the Olympics no matter what.  South America has never held an Olympic games, and, really, it was due.

Obama wanted to go to bat for his home town and his country.  The leaders of the other bidding countries did the same thing.  This isn’t a big deal.

I am extremely troubled by the misinformation–lies, really–being spread about the proposed health care reform slowly winding its way through Congress.  The misinformation takes many forms, but at its heart lies a straw man.  That is, some of those who strongly oppose health care reform are deliberately distorting what reform would mean in an effort to make change appear undesirable.  So, for example, they make outrageous claims that, under the Obama plan, the elderly will face forced euthanasia (or any sort of euthanasia), when, in fact, all the proposal would do is give patients the option of discussing advanced directives regarding life-support should they ever suffer a perpetual coma.  There is nothing wrong or even scary about that.  In fact, in the wake of the Terry Schiavo calamity, you would think that everyone would be in favor of such a logical proposal.  But, by misinterpreting what the legislation would do, those making false claims are able to frame the debate in new terms.  If all you hear are people screaming at their congressmen at town hall meetings, you, too, might walk away with the wrong ideas of what health care reform would look like.  (There is a curious similarity between some of those screaming about health care and others screaming about President Obama’s citizenship.)

Another common refrain amongst those who–for whatever reason–oppose reform is that citizens of other nations which have some form of national health care (“socialized medicine!”) or single-payer program (which isn’t even on the table here in the USA, though, mark my words, it will happen in my lifetime) receive much worse care than Americans.  Generally, these arguments point to the “long waits” that patients must endure before receiving essential treatment.  I don’t doubt that patients needing elective operations occasionally have to wait their turns.  But I strongly suspect that the more horrifying claims are greatly exaggerated.  Moreover, when you consider that many tens of millions of Americans are not able to receive those procedures at all, waiting a few weeks doesn’t seem that bad.

But, others who claim that “America has the greatest health care system in the world”, which is demonstrably false if you use almost any measurable criteria, like to make different, more terrifying false claims.  A hilarious one appears in the latest Investors Business Journal.  It suggests that the British public health system is terrible because of “rationing”, and that “the stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied care altogether read like a horror movie script”.  If, the article states, the bureaucrats don’t believe your life is worth saving, they cut you off, and “you get to curl up in a corner and die”.  Now, you might expect such a shabbily written and poorly researched article to cite ridiculous and unreliable tabloids like the New York Post, and this one does.  And you might also expect it make the sinister insinuation that American patients will be “compelled” to pull their own plugs, so to speak, and this one does that, as well.  But you probably would not have believed that anyone who receives money to write words could make a mistake this stupid:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Investors Business Journal probably ought to have asked British scientist Stephen Hawking, who lives in the United Kingdom, where they have the National Health Service, if he agreed with that premise.  He would probably have told them that he “wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS”.  That is, in fact, exactly what he told The Guardian.  The ignorance of facts displayed by the Investors Business Journal is not unlike that demonstrated by those fools who claim that, even if President Obama was born in Hawaii–which they’re not willing to concede–he cannot be an American citizen because his father was Kenyan, which is clearly wrong.

It is, of course, appropriate to discuss what this health care reform will cost and how we will pay for it.  And it is entirely understandable that many who oppose abortion would be troubled to think of their money going to cover abortions.  I resent that even a penny of my tax dollars goes to pay for chemicals that the state of Florida uses to kill human beings strapped to a table.  So, their concerns are fair, and we should discuss our options.  But intellectual dishonesty makes legitimate debate impossible, and the fanatics who insist nothing is wrong with what we have, or who seek to make the perfect the enemy of the good, are only making things worse.

Last week I read about two people in south Florida who had their mortgages modified.  One woman’s interest rate dropped 11% when her terms were changed.  Another man saw no change in his monthly payment because the bank added so many fees and penalties.  She kept her house; he went into foreclosure after all.

Rep. Cantor is right that the default rate on modified mortgages is high, but only if your definition of “modified” is very broad:

“It’s becoming more and more clear to us that if you do real modifications the default rate is significantly lower”, said Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, who has led a group of state officials pushing the industry to modify more loans. “They shouldn’t be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same”.

The facts are that genuine modifications keep 75% of borrowers in their homes, and allow them to stay current.  If the “modifications” Rep. Cantor criticizes fail, it’s because they aren’t modifications at all.

I think Barack Obama is a smart, capable man.  I want him to be surrounded by other smart, capable people.  Tom Daschle doesn’t seem very capable to me.

Second, what is wrong with this Timothy Geithner guy?  If you’re just some regular dude, I can understand being confused about what has and hasn’t been withheld from your paycheck.  But this guy is supposed to be running the Treasury Department?  I think an awareness of your personal tax liability should be among the minimum qualifications to hold that job.  Meanwhile, it seems the common denominator amongst all rich and powerful wankers is undocumented household employees.  Two tips:

1. If you’re rich enough to hire household help, you’re rich enough to hire a U.S. citizen.  Don’t be so cheap.
2. President-elect Obama should drop this guy.  There’re better people out there.

I guess it doesn’t matter any more what President Bush thinks or does.  Since the beginning of 2008 it seems that the public has written him off, and has been eagerly awaiting the day when he leaves the White House and our lives.  The next president will have a lot of work to do, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense, I suppose, to exert a great deal of energy holding the bad actors of the Bush Administration accountable.  How criminal Bush has been himself is unclear.  Contrary to his frequent pronouncements that his “job is to protect the American people”, the president swears an oath only to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.  In that light, many of Bush’s activities can be seen to be a violation of that oath.  It would feel good to see John Yoo, David Addington, Paul Wolfowitz and others in prison, but the damage is already done.

It’s one thing to make poor decisions or promote flawed policies.  Imagine, for example, that Bush had had his way in 2005, and his Social Security privatization program had been authorized.  Millions of Americans would be worse off today.  That would have been bad policy, but at least it would have gone through the proper channels and had a fair hearing.  It is another thing entirely, in my opinion, to have behind-the-scenes  wheeling and dealing with mid-level Justice Department lawyers to authorize warrant-less wiretapping, or instruct the CIA to kidnap civilians off the streets and fly them blindfolded to secret prisons in foreign countries to be tortured.  That all once seemed very John Clancy, but we now know it to have happened while Bush was president.  His shoulder-shrugging notwithstanding, a lot of people have been harmed by his policies.  With less than a week to go, it all just seems so sad.

Following a US presidential election, like the one we had last week, when the results come in from states across the country, and one candidate passes the required 270 mark in the electoral college, they are the winner.  Sure, the electoral college doesn’t formally convene until December, but last Tuesday night it was clear that Senator Obama was the winner, and will be president elect.

Here’s where it gets a little foggy for me:  So, Senator Obama is watching CNN, and he sees Wolf Blitzer and John King analyzing the maps, and projecting winners in each state until, finally, the 270 mark is passed. What happens then?  Obviously, Senator Obama–and everyone else–knows he’s won.  But is there some sort of formal procedure that’s followed?  Yes, the loser generally concedes, as John McCain did in a speech that exhibited a great deal of class.  And President Bush called Senator Obama, too.  But neither of those events are necessary.  I mean, even if, hypothetically, John McCain had stood up in that Phoenix hotel ballroom and said, “I declare myself the winner!”, it wouldn’t have mattered; 346 electoral college votes say otherwise.  But does some government official call up Barack Obama and say, “We’re watching CNN.  They say you have the votes, so, if you’re going to be home tomorrow morning, we’d like to come by and start telling you the all the classified state secrets you’re going to need to know”?  Something like that must happen, because, sure enough, the day after the election the NSA or CIA or some agency was briefing President Elect Obama.

Are there any authorities on US presidential history reading?