"MSM did the same with "pulling the plug on grandma," whereby anyone who knew the facts already knew it was a false rumor spawned by pundits with purely political motivations. Nevertheless: Here is expert A who says it is not based in fact, and here is expert B...

I object to this characterization for a couple of reasons. Who the hell says there are just two sides to any issue? That is what's called a false dichotomy, and it represents a logical fallacy. I agree that issues are often presented this way, but you accepted the premise.

Secondly, as to "pulling the plug on Grandma" THIS IS EXACTLY what is needed. If we can't get some real cost savings, some curtailment of service then we're just playing around the edges. Of course the proposal is to restrict services in accord with the pre-stated wishes of the patient.

That's ok. But we must admit that one significant problem with Medicare is that it is a sure payer, and that herculean efforts, especially toward the end of life are uncritically paid.

I've read that 90% of all heart surgeries are essentially unneeded and unhelpful. But those pay big bucks so they get performed.

We're having an unproductive conversation when we fail to take hard positions that don't challenge us to save some money. I know another big aid in cutting cost. Bring back the Eisenhower tax rates. He had set the marginal tax rate at 92% on incomes over $200,000. This might be equivalent to $2 million/yr today. There was no incentive to make much more than that.

This could/would lower the expectations of the elites who have the ability to pay themselves whatever they wish. Though, with a salary cap, they would have little interest in exceeding this. Otherwise, corporate executives don't have the self discipline to limit their appetites.

7 of the 9 jurists in the Asian equivalent of the Nuremburg tribunals found that Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor. Our oil embargo had so crippled and threatened their economy they had cause to act. Remember an embargo IS an act of war.

Further, consider that after WW1 we closed ALL our eve's dropping, signals intel operations save those directed toward one country, JAPAN. I'm not saying we knew the attack was coming--though we certainly did at the last minute but were unable to relay that intel. But, all our most precious carriers were out to sea. Our Naval production was ample and had introduced new classes of ships.

Investigate the state of the art ships versus what was lost--I don't fully know the answer to this, though I'd be willing to bet some money on my suspicions.

WW2 was two wars, the European war to defend our Euro friends, and the war to protect European colonialism in Asia.

I am a bit disappointed no one found my comment regarding professional agency of journalists versus columnists and those serving think tanks. What is so deceptive is that these agents for think tanks are represented as fair minded journalists.

Finally, I believe we nuked the Japanese to send a message to the Soviets.

I've long enjoyed the weekend roundup though it's always irked me the way, today Tony Blankley, Chris Hayes or some right wing propagandist would spew mistruths, obfuscations and red herrings.

Then I realized, we had David Corn, a journalist with Mother Jones with an admitted liberal bent. Some female journalist with some paper and then the token Right wing columnist.

Three reporters right? NO! If we asked them the liberal and the woman would call themselves journalists, though the conservative guest often wouldn't describe himself as such. Two reporters and someone who is ostensibly a reporter, but who often has ties to Heritage, or some other think tank.

Glenn, you need to weigh in on this for the audience, and perhaps should make a thread on this--look at it from the professional/agency angle. A journalist is a member of a pretty watered down profession when we consider the fiduciary duties. A journalist's principal is the reader and the truth. But, a commentator has no such duty. If they are in the employ of a think tank, presumably their principal is the think tank and/or it's donors.

So the conservative is an advocate for his client on the show while the journalist are self limited. The conservative's duty is to present the most salable, plausible SOUNDING case for his clients.

The problem is these guests are presented as all equals, though they don't see themselves as such. A couple of days ago the question was asked, how did we get in this financial mess. I would suggest it was precisely that we had propagandist and pitchmen widely presented on news shows as journalist, or fair minded academics. But, many of these are/were serving somebody, as seldom is this made clear.

To be fair, any "news" show should name the top 5 contributors to the Brooking Inst., Heritage Found., and the like. I don't really mean to limit this to conservative groups and foundations. It just particularly struck me on Diane Rhem's show.

I am actually perhaps more interested in disclosing the contributors to "liberal" think tanks as these guys often betray their constituencies by advocating for their war contractor donors, high financiers and the like. I rather expect the Right to do what it does and come from where it does. It's the lack of any real opposition or opposition party that troubles me.

"They include the death of an Afghan man who was stripped naked, dragged across a concrete floor and chained there by CIA operatives in a secret prison north of Kabul known as the "Salt Pit"; he was left on the floor overnight and froze to death."

DAMN, I guess we have to condemn this treatment of people, cause I REALLY think we should do this to anyone who lied us into war, to the venal madmen who cheered atrocity, torture the destruction of innocent peoples here and abroad.