Don't Believe Your Eyes, Read the Caption

    Scott Johnson at Powerline posted twice this week under the heading "Terrorist Theater."  The subject was "Palestinian fauxtography," the phenomenon of staged photos that seems to characterize an inordinate portion of the photojournalism relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Powerline has raised the topic numerous times over the years.  The photo in question is below and was captioned "A Palestinian girl tries to push an Israeli soldier at a demonstration in the West Bank village of al-Masara…":

    Johnson and Dr. Allon Friedman, the skeptic in Johnson's post, question the circumstances surrounding the photo and the caption's characterization of the events.  A video of the scene would surely be enlightening and might resolve some of the objections raised by Dr. Friedman.  However, another European Pressphoto Agency photo taken around the same time requires less interpretation to debunk the caption:

    The EPA caption on this photo is: "Palestinian children cheer with portraits of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the West Bank city of Hebron, 02 December 2012, after the United Nations vote upgrading Palestinian status to nonmember observer state."  However, although the lead girl in the photo might be said to be "cheering", look at the child two behind the lead girl.  This child (a girl, I believe) is clearly sobbing, not "cheering."

    As if it's not bad enough that little children are pressed into service exalting terrorists, now the press must mischaracterize their orchestrated actions when one of them goes off script.

The Sadder But Wiser Girl

    While reading a John Hinderaker post at Powerline on Paul Krugman's attempted takedown of Mitt Romney for lying at last week's Presidential debate, one sentence leaps out at me.  Krugman excoriates Romney for pretending his proposals deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions in relation to medical insurance.  Krugman explains why Romney's free market solutions and limited governmental role is in fact no solution at all:

Also, many Americans have health insurance but live under the continual threat of losing it. Obamacare would eliminate this threat, but Mr. Romney would bring it back and make it worse. Safety nets don’t just help people who actually fall, they make life more secure for everyone who might fall. But Mr. Romney would take that security away, not just on health care but across the board.

    In that single sentence, Krugman gives away the game of the liberals: "Safety nets don’t just help people who actually fall, they make life more secure for everyone who might fall." While in one sense a truism, it is the utopian dream of the left in a nutshell.  Reduce or remove the risks of life so everyone can be more secure.  But universal achievement of that dream can't happen without universal coercion.

    To quote the lyrics from the Sadder But Wiser Girl from The Music Man, "A girl who trades on all that purity, Merely wants to trade my independence for her security." Krugman and other liberals can certainly sweet-talk the issue.  Everyone gives up some freedom so that everyone gets their fair share of security.  The problem is, as it has always been, where does it end?  Once health insurance is guaranteed, regardless of health, what about a house?  What good is health without a place to live?  And food to eat?  And child care?  Maybe even a nice vacation now and again.  Welcome to European Social Democracy.

    Social Democracy is still the Goal That Dare Not Speak Its Name, even among liberals in America.  It's still too soon to be that brazen.  But certainly we are well down that path already, and Obamacare is a huge step further down.  Let us hope that America wakes up and realizes what is happening before she herself becomes that sadder-but-wiser girl, perhaps more secure, at least temporarily, but certainly far less independent.