de facto nationalization continues apace: U.S. federal government to “start a billion-dollar government drug development centre to help create medicines,” writes Gardiner Harris of the New York Times

U.S. private sector outlays for research and development into new drugs is plummeting—is anyone surprised? So the Obama White House announces plans to fund a U.S. federal government enterprise to develop new drugs. The Obama White House’s analysis on which this move is based assumes a misappropriation of resources among U.S. drug-makers, when the reality is not only more complex than the alleged greed of an industry, but also flatly contradicts the the premises of ObamaCare itself.

Caption: Desolation is the new black. (Image credit: Zacodin.)

[...] The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development centre to help create medicines, writes Gardiner Harris of the New York Times by way of the Denver Post, in a story titled Federal agency to spearhead new drug-development centre

Obama: the lame duck session of the 111th Congress concludes in awesomeness

The lame duck session of the 111th Congress closed on major victories for the U.S. president and his party including Senate ratification of the New START treaty, the extension of unemployment benefits and stimulus funding in exchange for extending for 2 more years Bush-era tax relief for all, the repeal of “Don’t ask Don’t Tell” (DADT), and a comprehensive food safety bill. The victory for the Republicans on the extension of Bush-era tax relief, and the collapse of consensus for an omnibus spending bill that delays consideration on the budget until the 112th Congress, gave moderate Republicans political cover to vote with Democrats on these other bills—in logical terms, the successful assertion of Republican unity on the issues of taxes, and government spending, negated the basis of Republican unity more generally. In other words, the need for a symbolic show of unity—the basis for Republican unity for the past 2 years—had been negated by actual legislative accomplishments, on the key issues of tax rates, and government spending, made possible by the decision returned on November 2 2010.

Caption: Obama’s New START resets the U.S.-Russian arms control regime to an era of linkage between offensive and defensive systems. Hey, what could go wrong?

Yet somehow the president’s account of the accomplishments of the lame duck session of the 111th Congress assumes a different character altogether

Contra Obama himself, Obama’s messaging was flawless—on the power of the progressive imagination in public discourse

Obama blames his messaging for the historic losses of his party on November 2 2010. His messaging, I would argue, is flawless. The logical basis of progressive argument reveals why this is the case.

Caption: On the elegance, and the profound symmetry, of circles.

Joe Manchin: No, I would not have voted for ObamaCare—more on how we’re all Tea Partiers now, even the Democrat running to fill West Virginia Senator Byrd’s seat

Persuasion entails drawing, and clarifying, distinctions, so that your audience can distinguish among choices. In a campaign this is the case unless, or until, your opponent develops a position on an issue that polls decisively more popular than your own. Then, in the idiom of campaigners, you elide distinctions by “hugging” your opponent on their winning issues even as you deemphasize that issue and attempt to maneuver the discussion to an issue where the distinctions play in your favour and not your opponents. “Hugging,” however, has conceptual and even empirical limits, chief among them being the perception that you have surrendered all principle by reversing yourself on a major policy initiative just to win an election—Take West Virginia’s popular governor, Joe Manchin, for instance.

Caption: At what point do my concessions pass into something other? At what point am I simply being dishonest, whether to you, or to myself?

What does rule by administrative fiat look like?—Ableson of the New York Times: White House allows big firms to dodge health reforms

Caption: Applicants line up for waivers. Welcome to the new regime of rule by administrative fiat, my brothers and sisters. “The Secretary shall determine” reads the health reform legislation in lieu of rules, standards, or guidelines. Just pray that the Secretary’s in a good mood

a triumph of unity born of the courage of true conviction: Democrats spend huge sums to oppose, and promote, ObamaCare

This, my brothers and sisters, is the very definition of a total rout.

Caption: Just which side of the river do we want to be on?

Julian Pecquet of the TheHill.com: “Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured”

You can read about it in a Pecquet masterpiece of irony and black humour, titled Health law risks turning away sick.

Irony, a master-trope, and a relation of negation, this is not that.

yours &c.
g.

UPDATE: Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding, as reported by Carla K. Johnson for the Associated Press.