For many months, advocates of health care reform have implored President Obama to outline in greater detail the provisions he's prepared to push and defend. So far he has largely resisted, offering broad principles but still leaving the details to Congress. But the time of hanging back is quickly coming to an end if he hopes to find the 60 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate.

More on Max Baucus

Have you heard that print media is having a hard time these days? Too bad -- I'm really going to miss it. I'm particularly going to miss the way in which one person's tossed off newspaper could be your travel companion or dinner date, encouraging you to tip your toe into oceans of information you'd never thought about.

Case in point: up until recently, I knew nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt. If I ever saw anything about her online, I'd never think to click on it. Why strain my finger muscles?

But, last night at a bar where I was having dinner, there was a newspaper on my seat and I started to read it. Why? Because reading is better than not reading? And therefore, when faced with text, I feel the need to consume? I don't know. It was in French -- I'm visiting friends in Brussels at the moment. Maybe I just felt like reading what the Belgian press has to say about Jon and Kate Plus Eight. Indeed, the entertainment section seemed to be the only one that was fully intact.

My point: Had I been spending that time on the Internet, I never would've learned anything about Jennifer Love Hewitt! As if The New York Times homepage doesn't have enough for me to read? So ... much ... information. It's so great, right? Really, I just open up that tab on my browser in the morning and then run and hide in my closet in fear. But I like to make people think I read such things.

The text about Hewitt was just staring me down at this cafe table. I had to do it.

This is what I learned:

Don't pay attention to the red color. I couldn't figure out how to turn the flash off so I just held my scarf up in front of it. Shut up.

Dopay attention to the following line, which I will translate for you using my vocabulary-of-a-tipsy-
16-year-old-American-exchange-student French skills.

"Le matin, avant que je quitte la maison, je dis cinq chose que j'aime de moi-même..."

equals:

"In the morning before I leave home, I say five things that I like about myself..."

Already, I have so many questions. Is there anyone else there when she is announcing these five things? Does she do it in her home, as opposed to outside of her home, because she doesn't want anyone else to hear her? If so, then why is she about to say these things to a reporter?

Now, she gives an example:

"Comme tu as vraiment des jolis yeux."

Or, as we say in America: "Like, you have such pretty eyes."

Dear readers, Jennifer Love Hewitt is trying to pick herself up at a bar. She has just done her bit to combat women's right to anything. You know how many guys are out there right now saying, with heavy Belgian-French accents, "Dude! Girls really do dig that line! They're even saying it to themselves!"

Thanks, Jennifer.

Or should I say: Thanks, Love? After I got home, I did use the Internet. And here is my problem with "news" on the internet: I learned so much more than I ever wanted to know. You see, I never before would've clicked on the news story about Jennifer Love Hewitt (not that this really constitutes a "news story," but these are trying times for papers). However, that doesn't mean that on my own I might not necessarily devote too many minutes of my life to some kind of scavenging-in-the-wilds-
of-the-web Indiana Jones-style adventure. My crazy journey took me to ... IMDB. According to IMDB:

"Jennifer Love Hewitt got her first name from her older brother Todd Daniel Hewitt (b. November 8, 1970), who picked the name after a little blonde girl he then had a crush on."

Okay, that's fine enough. I mean, I'd be a little weirded out if a guy told me that he was so into me that he had his mother name his baby sister after me. But, you know, that's me.

But then we get the rest of the story:

"Her mother selected her middle name, Love, which she goes by offstage, from her best friend at college."

Juicy stuff, right?! I'm so glad we have the Internet to feed us so, so much well-edited, well-culled information. First of all, there are a couple of commas missing in this sentence. I'm sure the IMDB editing person is chewing his pencil in fear that his boss is going to read this. I think that what we are supposed to understand here is that Jennifer's mother's middle name is Love. Oh, no wait. Jennifer's mother's friend's name was Love, and therefore Jennifer's mother, whose middle name isn't Love, gave her daughter, Todd's sister, the middle name of her friend. Okay?

Thing is, I just don't buy it. Have you ever seen a more Jennifer-looking person in your life?

I got kind of uncomfortable when I read the following a little lower down the page:

Trivia:
Sent 3 dozen pink roses to Gwyneth Paltrow the night before Paltrow won the Oscar in 1999. Hewitt also wrote her a two page letter praising her as a role model and admiring her work. Paltrow sent a reply a week later, and Hewitt framed it -- "it's my favorite thing." When the two actresses met for the first time at the 2000 Golden Globes, "she came up to me and gave me a hug for the flowers. I thought I was going to pass out. I was absolutely going to have a heart attack."

After this, I had to waste more of these precious last days of my twenties learning even more about Love. Jennifer. Whatever. Like, the following Wikipedia nuggets:

In 1991, Meldac funded the recording of Hewitt's first album Love Songs, when she was just 12.

Of course, I needed to lengthen my journey by looking up who Meldac is. Guess which: a) My uncle's canasta buddy or b) Japanese record company whose only other album was by Bob Marley. Take your time ...

Next?

The album was only released in Japan in 1992 where Hewitt became a pop star. Her explanation for her success in Japan is that the Japanese "Love perky music. The poppier the music, the better."

Huh. Okay. I mean, I guess this means her music is perky? I would've thought she was more of the Yoko Ono type. Why do I feel like I need to know? Please God, let me have the strength to not go onto Pandora. Oh, phew: it doesn't work in Belgium. Who knew.

But wait! There's more!

After she joined the cast of Party of Five in 1995, she signed to Atlantic Records, who rushed her first single and second album, Let's Go Bang, out in October.

Again, we have some grammatical issues here. Roll over, William Safire: I think an infinitive has beens split. But the main thing of note here is the album name. If my math is correct, she was 16! "Let's go bang?" Really?

Juggling her music career with her acting career, she recorded her follow-up in 1996. The first single,
"No Ordinary Love," failed to chart and led to the album doing the same.

But wait! Isn't that a Sade song? No wait! That's bad! I didn't realize this story was going to have a sad ending! Then again, we're only up to 1996...

How could I ever have been satisfied with only the tiny bit of information conveyed on that bitty piece of newsprint at the bar?

One day when I'm old and gray, I'm going to look back with such fondness of all the time I spent learning new things on the Internet. Won't you?

More on Newspapers

        Health and medical journalists are not presently providing the public with what might be the most important health advice that they should be given during the flu season:   people with the flu should avoid taking fever-reducing drugs, such as aspirin or acetaminophen (aka Tylenol^TM), except in rare situations. 

      It is widely recognized that fever is a vital defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection.  A fever enables the body to increase its production of interferon, an important antiviral substance that is critical for fighting infection.  Fever also increases white blood cell mobility and activity, which are instrumental factors in fighting infection. Jane Brody, a long-time respected health columnist for the New York Times, reported back in 1982 on the healing benefits of fever.  She noted, “a number of physicians, including pediatricians, are now suggesting that moderate fevers be allowed to run their course, for they may shorten the illness, potentiate the action of antibiotics and reduce the chances of spreading the infection to others.”[1]

      Recognition that fever is beneficial has been known for more than 2,000 years, and historically, the healing benefits of fever are so substantial that many patients have actually been treated with ''fever therapy'' to aid their recovery from such ailments as cancer, syphilis, tuberculosis and even mania.[2] [3]  However, in the 1800's, aspirin compounds that rapidly reduced fevers became commercially available, and the medical view of fever changed dramatically. Since the mid-1800s, drug companies have successfully convinced conventional physicians and the general public to become vigilant in bringing down fevers, even sometimes using such drastic measures as cold baths and alcohol rubs along with aspirin.

      In reference to the flu and fever, the bottom line is that it makes little sense to aggressively suppress the body’s natural defenses against viral infection.  There are, of course, some exceptions here.  For instance, it may make sense to seek medical care if one’s fever is above 104 degrees for over six hours or in any fever in an infant under four months of age. 

 

Calling Dr. Gupta:  CNN’s Correspondent Gives Himself Questionable Medical Advice

      “Fever phobia” is so rampant that many usually intelligent people, including physicians and medical reporters, forget what they know about the inherent defenses of the body when they become sick. 

       On September 23, Sanjay Gupta, MD, CNN’s chief medical correspondent, described his own experience in getting the H1NI flu while reporting from Afghanistan.[4]  Although Dr. Gupta reported that he experienced a “high fever,” he never gave specifics, but it is unlikely that over 104 degrees.  The fact that Dr. Gupta was away from home and in war zone probably led him to want some relief of his fever, and because of this, he choose to take Tylenol.  However, he certainly didn’t help himself by taking this drug to suppress his fever.

        It is therefore no wonder that he became the sickest he has ever become.  Taking drugs that suppress fever disables the body’s own defenses in fighting infection.  It is akin to unscrewing the warning oil pressure light in your car as a way to get rid of that irritating red signal.  Such “treatment” is not curative, and in fact, it can lead to much more serious problems. 

        Ironically, the word “symptom” derives from the words “sign” or “signal” …and just turning “off” a sign or signal is simply not smart, even if double-blind studies show that unscrewing the warning bulb is “effective” in turning the light off. 

        Ultimately, Dr. Gupta missed a great opportunity to educate the public about not taking fever-reducing drugs, except in certain extreme fevers.  Perhaps this article will “light a fire” underneath him to do so.

 

The New Drug Pushers:  Parents

        In a 2007 survey of Australian parents published in a pediatrics journal, a shocking 91% of parents used fever-suppressing drugs in the treatment of their children’s fever.  Even more startling is the fact that this survey found that the medications were refused or spat out by the child in 44% of the cases, and yet, 62.4 of the parents actually used force to get their child to take these drugs, using different methods of ingestion (29.5%) or by using a suppository (20.8%).[5]

        It is interesting to note that children tend to have an inherent fear of doctors, and this fear may not simply be the result of getting injections from them.  This fear may be an instinctual fear that what doctors offer them may not really be good for them, despite the seemingly short-term benefits of many drugs.  It may be time for us to listen to our children.

 

Serious Problems from Aspirin and Acetaminophen

        Many people minimize the problems from these common drugs, but do so at their own and their family’s peril.

        Children who get a viral infection and are given aspirin can lead to Reye’s syndrome, a serious neurological condition that can cause death.  Aspirin is also known to thin the blood and increase the chances of various bleeding disorders.  Its use more or less doubles the risk of a severe gastrointestinal event, which in most cases can lead to hospitalization. Lower doses that people take to reduce heart problems only seem to decrease these risks by a small amount.

         Many people take acetaminophen because it is not associated with increased bleeding.  However, the general public is usually not aware of the fact that poison control centers in the US receive more calls as a result of an overdose of this drug than any other drug.[6]  This same problem exists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.  Most commonly, overdoses of acetaminophen can lead to acute liver failure.  In children, it has been associated with increased asthma and eczema symptoms. 

 

Safer Solutions for the Flu…

         Instead of using conventional drugs that suppress fevers or that inhibit other important defenses of the body, it makes more sense to use some type of natural medicines that mimic and augment the wisdom of the body. 

         Homeopathic medicines are my own favorite method to augment the body’s own defenses so that they can more effectively heal themselves from various ailments, including the flu.  Because of the similarity between the 1918 flu and the H1N1 flu, it may be helpful to reference homeopathy’s impressive successes in treating people during the 1918 flu.[7]  The death rates in the homeopathic hospitals in the US were only around 1%, while the death rates in conventional hospitals were closer to 30%.  Another important fact from that era is that New York City had the lowest mortality rate during the 1918 flu than any city in the U.S., and this impressive statistic is primarily due to the fact that this city’s health commissioner at that time was Royal Copeland, MD, a renowned homeopathic physician, who later became a thrice-elected U.S. Senator (Franklin D. Roosevelt was even his campaign manager during his first election as senator).[8]  Copeland asserted, “There can be no doubt that the superiority of homeopathy in a purely medical condition is just as great as it was fifty years ago.”

         One of today’s most popular homeopathic medicines for the flu is the popular Oscillococcinum, a medicine that has been used by homeopaths since the 1920s.  There have been four controlled studies that have shown that this medicine is effective in reducing the symptoms of influenza as compared with those people given a placebo.[9] 

         The effectiveness of another homeopathic remedy, called Gripp-Heel, was compared with that of conventional treatments in a prospective, observational cohort study in 485 patients with mild viral infections and symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle pain, cough or sore throat.[10]  As evaluated by the practitioners, 67.9% of patients were considered asymptomatic at the end of Gripp-Heel therapy vs. 47.9% of patients in the control group. Practitioners judged homeopathic treatments as 'successful' in 78.1% of cases vs. 52.2% for conventional therapies. Tolerability and compliance were 'very good' given for 88.9% of patients in the homoeopathic group vs. 38.8% in the conventional treatment group.

         The above homeopathic medicines are primarily helpful during the first 48 hours of onset of the flu.  Other homeopathic medicines to consider during this time and afterwards include:  Gelsemium, Bryonia, Ipecacuanha, Arsenicum album, Eupatorium perf., Rhus toxicodendron, and Baptisia (homeopathic medicines are traditionally listed by their Latin names so that consumers and doctors will know the precise plant, mineral, or animal species of every medicine).  Each of these medicines has a history of efficacy in homeopathic doses for treating the specific syndrome of symptoms that each has been found to cause when given experimentally in overdose to healthy people.  To determine the details of each of these medicines, please consult a homeopathic guidebook, such as Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines by Stephen Cummings, MD, and Dana Ullman, MPH or the Complete Homeopathic Resource for Common Illnesses, by Dennis Chernin, MD, MPH.

 

REFERENCES: 

---

^[1] Brody J. Fever: New View Stresses its Healing Benefits.  New York Times, December 28, 1982.

^[2] Hobohm U. Fever therapy revisited. British Journal of Cancer (2005) 92, 421–425. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602386

^[3] Brody J. Fever: New View Stresses its Healing Benefits.  New York Times, December 28, 1982.

[4] http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/23/i-went-to-afghanistan-and-all-i-got-was-h1n1/

[5] Walsh A, Edwards H, Fraser J.  Over-the-counter medication use for childhood fever: A cross-sectional study of Australian parents.  J Paediatr Child Health. 2007 June 29. 

[6] Lee WM (July 2004). "Acetaminophen and the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group: lowering the risks of hepatic failure". Hepatology 40 (1): 6–9. doi:10.1002/hep.20293.

[7] Marino R.  Flu pandemics: homeopathic prophylaxis and definition of the epidemic genius . Int J High Dilution Res 2009; 8(28): 100-109. http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/354/399

[8] Robins N. Copeland’s Cure: Homeopathy and the War between Conventional and Alternative Medicine. New York: Random House, 2005, p. 154.

[9] Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4  http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html

[10] Rabe, M. Weiser, P. Klein, Effectiveness and tolerability of a homoeopathic remedy compared with conventional therapy for mild viral infections. Int J Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;58(9):827-32.

More on Swine Flu

The plot thickens. The top bidder for Chicago's old post office says he has the money to seal the deal but thinks the price is too high. Meanwhile, the back-up bidder is claiming victory.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF.

How do we build a new economy out of the collapse of the old economy? How do we start fresh to begin creating jobs again, while building in economic and environmental sustainability, as well as workplaces that respect human needs and rights? How do we change things so that we all get to share the benefits of the economy rather than just contributing to the increasing wealth of a few vastly wealthy people?

While we look for a vision for a new economy, we should examine what has worked in the past. America had periods in which regular people enjoyed sustained increases in their standard of living. For a long time it was a conventional wisdom that each American generation would do better than the previous generation, more people would receive good educations, medical care would get better, the middle class would grow, leisure time would increase, poverty rates would decrease, retirement would be easier, etc.

But this pattern stopped. Beginning in the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s incomes began to stagnate, wealth increasingly concentrated at the top, working hours and workplace pressures steadily increased, availability of good health care started to decrease, etc. The standard of living of most Americans began to and continues to decline. At the same time corporations became more predatory as consumer protections vanished. Meanwhile outsourcing, deunionization and other anti-worker policies led to increasingly unpleasant, stressful and unrewarding worklives for more and more people.

Many of today's problems are traceable directly to the policy results of anti-government propaganda that was blasted out from well-funded conservative think tanks starting in the 1970s. The anti-government campaign led to defunding of many national, state and local government programs that improved education, helped the poor or enriched people's lives. We suffered deregulation in many areas where the government had protected consumers, workers, investors and the environment. Huge reductions in taxes for the wealthy were either offset by tax increases for the rest of us or government borrowing. And that borrowing has led to increasing problems of paying the interest and threats to funding even basic programs like Social Security and education.

So what worked, before the conservatives trashed the place?

Regulation

One thing we know for sure now, learned the hardest way thanks to the financial crisis: regulation worked. Regulation was necessary, it worked, it kept firms from taking risks that could bring down the economy. And we can also see now how regulations protected consumers from predatory corporate activities, workers from wage theft or unsafe working conditions, and the environment from exploitation and destruction.

Taxes

Before Reagan the tax rates at the top were very high. After you reached - and took home - a certain very high income you paid a high percentage of the rest in taxes. This had many beneficial results - even for the people who paid higher taxes. Government could afford to keep the physical, education and legal infrastructure in good condition without borrowing. Government could afford to invest in programs that improved our standard of living, health, knowledge and technology, which helped businesses grow. Businesses thrived in such well-watered soil.

The high tax rates also kept the bad side of human nature in check. When it took years to build up a fortune businesspeople had to rely on the health of the greater community to nurture their own wealth-building enterprises and keep them thriving over a long period. They had to think and act long-term. The roads needed to be kept in repair, the schools needed to provide excellent education to potential employees, the courts needed to be functional to enforce contracts, and they wanted the communities they were going to have to stay in to be pleasant places to live.

But once taxes were lowered vast windfalls could be realized from a single event and it made more sense to try to fleece the community with quick-buck schemes than to rely on it. We began to see corporate raiders break up solid, ongoing companies, steal pension funds, etc., while encouraging communities to cut spending on schools, roads, etc. It became more profitable sell off or outsource our manufacturing capacity. And then, as things fell apart, the few who benefited could just fly away in their private jets or sail away in their huge yachts. The greater community was no longer any use to them except as crops to be harvested. Vulnerable consumers are the only crop that is coming up in this economy.

Big Government

Government is We, the People making the decisions. "Big government" is simply another way of saying that more of the important decisions are made by the people. Shrinking government means handing the decisions over to big corporations. In the real world this is the choice. And in the real world big corporations make decisions that benefit them, and only them. Before you badmouth government think carefully about what the alternative is.

Old-Fashioned Government Planning

As I said in a post a few months ago,

The phrase "industrial policy" sounds so Walter Mondale, 1970s, smokestacks and brick factory old-fashioned. I suspect the subject turns people off, eyes glaze over, hands reach under the table for iPhones and Blackberries...

But here we are without an industrial policy. How's that working out for us? Every other country has one. China seriously has one. We instead have huge trade deficits. We don't make things here so we have to borrow money to buy things made elsewhere.

To add insult to injury, recently Deutsche Bank released a research note advising investors that the U.S. was not a good investment because of our lack of a government industrial policy. See Deutsche Bank: Absence of US Clean Energy Policy Will Send Global Capital Elsewhere.

While we envision a new direction for our economy, maybe we should also be looking at returning to a few old-fashioned ways of doing things, too.

More on Taxes

CHICAGO — (AP) The mayor, the president and Oprah Winfrey may hope to return to Chicago from Copenhagen with the 2016 Olympic Games, but some around town hope the International Olympic Committee deems the Second City the second city.

As in second to Rio de Janeiro. Or Tokyo. Or Madrid.

The opposition is not as visible as the "We Back the Bid" signs plastered across town. But in a city all too familiar with stories of public corruption and problems with public services, there is serious concern the games can only mean more troubles – and bills – for residents.

"I know it's going to cost us money somehow," said Joseph Patrick, a 51-year-old stay-at-home dad. "The government doesn't have a job (so) the only place they can get money is from us."

A new Web site – Chicagoansforrio.com – is the talk of the town and features the game "Match the Olympic host with its estimated budget overrun." About 170 protesters marched outside City Hall on Tuesday night, many insisting that no matter what organizers say, the games will push people from their homes, lead to more corruption and raise taxes.

"I don't believe anything the city and the 2016 committee says," said Larry Rivkin, who grew up in Chicago.

At least one person was later arrested for trying to interfere with workers erecting Olympic symbols in a downtown plaza.

It's not that the bid does not enjoy wide support. Laid-off laborer Dennis Ries, 45, said the Olympics would bring jobs. Resident Molly Mason, 53, sees the games enhancing tourism and public transportation.

"There's no downside, only upside," Mason said.

Others note protests routinely accompany Olympic bids.

"The Olympics always galvanizes all sorts of opposition," said A.D. Frazier, chief operating officer for the 1996 Atlanta Games.

In Chicago, though, the opposition seems to be getting stronger.

A poll released this month by the Chicago Tribune showed residents almost evenly split, with 47 percent in favor of the bid and 45 percent against; that's a drop from the 2-1 support the newspaper found in a February poll.

The 2016 bid committee said its own poll last week shows support from 72 percent of Chicagoans. But even that segment has concerns.

Seconds after saying the games in Chicago would be "thrilling," Susan Blaine was wondering what tens of thousands more riders will do to an already overwhelmed public transportation system.

"A Cubs game turns my commute to chaos," said Blaine, 51. "You're belly button to belly button."

For others, concerns about taxes have only intensified since Mayor Richard Daley flip-flopped in April, telling the IOC he'd sign a contract promising the city would take full financial responsibility for the games after long maintaining he wouldn't.

"For a lot of people that was definitely a major moment, when they said, `Wait a minute, we're going to be ... on the hook financially for a very large amount,'" said Anna Tarkov, who writes The Daily Daley blog and opposes the bid.

Organizers have tried to allay such fears, but it can be a tough sell at a time of headline-grabbing corruption cases, the biggest one involving former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich – a Chicagoan accused of trying to sell President Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder.

"I just think that the history of corruption sets the stage for a brutal series of events like misuse of funds and insider dealings," said Brian Hayes, 53, of Chicago.

Frazier, of the Atlanta Games, doesn't think the opposition matters to the IOC.

"They will probably be disappointed if there wasn't anything," he said.

Members of a group called No Games Chicago hope he's wrong. They're headed to Copenhagen to tell the IOC that Chicago is in such financial straits that it cannot afford the games and is such a hotbed of political corruption that it doesn't deserve them.

"We are bringing materials to back up our claim that Chicago is not fit to host the games," said Tom Tresser, an organizer for the group.

More on Olympics

Oh for the love of God. Did you look at the New York Times' Op-Ed section on Wednesday?! I know I've been writing about that dumping ground a lot lately, but the editors published an article today that -- if America does escalate the conflict with Iran -- will go down in history as one of the most fact-free, shameful pieces of propaganda in that paper's history. It contains, literally, nothing other than irresponsible speculation and conjecture, and follows the Iraq script so closely that it might as well have been written by Curveball. Who had the courage to rehash an argument that has already been shown to absolutely, tragicomically absurd? The same fuckers who did it the first time! I'm not kidding! Hahahahahahaha! [BANG!]

The piece was written by Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy, who I had never heard of until this morning. Gare and Val run Iran Watch, whose tagline is, "Tracking Iran's Mass Destruction Weapons Capabilities." So...you know...they're like, totally not biased. What is Gary's track record? Wait for it. Wait...for...it.

He used to run Iraq Watch! Guess what their mission was!?!?!?! To track Iraq's weapons of mass destruction! I'm not kidding. It's the same guy, literally, doing the same thing, literally. A detail like this would be cut from even the hackiest political satire for being to obviously absurd. Why, why, would the Times hand over their paper to him given his record, his clear thirst for Arab/Persian blood, and the fact that right now the country is following a disturbingly similar script as the one that lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

I almost don't want to move on to the article. It's so, fucking, bad. Oh lord. OK, let's do this. Hold your nose, 'cause here comes the cold water. The first line really tells you everything you need to know about the piece as a whole:

"THE disclosure of Iran's secret nuclear plant has changed the way the West must negotiate with Tehran. While worrisome enough on its own, the plant at Qum may well be the first peek at something far worse: a planned, or even partly completed, hidden nuclear archipelago stretching across the country." [emphasis added.]

Oh fuck, oh fuck! We're all totally fucked! Bomb that country now before it's too late! There "may well be" dangerous things there that we don't know about. The wild speculation continues in paragraph 3.

"Perhaps Iran was planning to install more efficient centrifuges at the plant, like a version of the P-2 machine used by Pakistan." [emphasis added.]

Yes, perhaps, perhaps, per-haps.

"Clearly, the new plant makes more sense if it is one of many. If Iran built a second plant of the same size as the Qum operation and ran them in tandem, the production times described above could be almost halved. And if Iran had a string of such plants, it would be able to fuel a small arsenal quickly enough to reduce greatly the chance of getting caught." [emphasis added.]

And if Optimus Prime were real, then he could just fuckin' drive up all like a fuckin' truck an' shit, and then once he got inside he could just be like, "Oh yeah! It's Optimus Prime in the house!" And IF that happened it'd be so fuckin' sweet, and then we could bomb those Browns into a real live Democracy, by gawd.

"This would also limit the damage if one site were discovered or bombed, because its loss might not affect the others. Such a secret string of plants, however, would probably require a secret source of uranium." ... The Qum plant might also be linked to Iran's known enrichment plant at Natanz... ... By feeding this uranium into the new Qum plant, Iran could fuel one bomb in about seven months, even at the present low production rate. If the rate were quadrupled, as Washington is projecting, the plant could fuel a five-bomb arsenal in less than a year. ... But because the Natanz plant is being watched over by international inspectors, diversion of its material would probably be detected... ... Having begun the Qum plant to supply a bomb's fuel, wouldn't Iran also create what's needed to produce the rest of the bomb's components? [emphasis added.]

Really look over those quotes. What, what is happening in this Op-Ed? We start from an unfounded assumption, that the plant "may well be" one part of a nefarious network of plants, and we end up with the vile innuendo, "wouldn't Iran also create what's needed to produce the rest of the bomb's components?" It should make any thinking person sick to their stomach that the Times would publish such ridiculous speculation. A first year philosophy student couldn't get away with this fallacious of an argument. By the time the reader gets to the last rhetorical question, the existence of an evil, vast network of undisclosed America-killing factories is no longer in question. Oh, it exists, the authors assure us. But what evidence have they provided? Literally none.

Can we prove or disprove the authors' claims? No, not exactly. Although it is theoretically possible that they are describing reality as it is, we as readers are given no reason to believe that is what's happening. And, put in context, we should believe the authors are doing the exact opposite: describing a paranoid fantasy world populated with Evil Geniuses bent on the destruction of America and Israel at all costs.

Never once does it cross the authors minds that the constant threats of war and sanctions from the US and Israel might lead the Iranians to build a protected nuclear power plant. Never once does it cross their minds that Iran notified the IAEA well before they were required to under international law. And, most remarkably of all, never does it cross their minds that Iraq was a massive failure on every level that has resulted in untold levels of suffering in that country--and America as well--and that the US will be dealing with the blowback and crippling cost of our occupation for decades to come.

None of that crossed the minds of the editorial board of the New York Times, either. Which, all things considered, is somewhat unremarkable.

More on Iran