June 23, 2009
Can't Handle Netflix
Ezra Klein, the President's economy-apologist-in-chief at the WaPO, cannot quite handle the complexities of movies by mail:
My Horrible Relationship With NetflixMatt Yglesias has a quick post on the Netflix movies he rented this weekend. I don't. Because I've had the same three sitting in my drawer for almost two years now. That's literally hundreds of dollars I've donated to Netflix to help subsidize the fees of people who actually use the service. Meanwhile, one of the movies is cracked and I can't find the envelopes for the other two. So I continue my philanthropic donations to the Netflix Fund for the Needy. And every month, I loathe myself just a little bit more.
All pretty handleable at the website, Mister K. I've got my things I put off, too. But you could have fixed this faster than blogging it.
Via @mkhammer who says "Isn't this same relationship @ezraklein wants lots of young, healthy people to have with insurance?"
Dang. Whaddaya think will be next? A car czar who knows nothing about cars? A treasurer who doesn't pay his taxes? An attorney general who doesn't understand the law? A Supreme Court Justice who doesn't feel constrained to pay attention to the law?
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Posted by: Keith at June 23, 2009 6:27 PMThere are insufficient profanities to preface "idiot" when describing this waste of DNA. Just when you thought Ezra Klein was only one of the stupidest people alive, he had to do this in an attempt to lock the top spot.
Keith, you forgot: a CIA head who's just a PR spokesman, not someone actually capable of directing intelligence.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 24, 2009 10:48 AMPerry, I'm from California; hearing ANY reference to Leon Panetta that includes the word "intelligence" is simultaneously laughable and scary.
Can we all agree that the words "Czar" and "Idiot" have become synonyms?
Posted by: Keith at June 24, 2009 11:58 AMVox Populi
Scrivrner.net posts:
Ezra Klein says that the latest poll results find that national health care is very popular with the public, so failing to enact it would be "resolutely, aggressively, anti-democratic" -- a denial of our responsibility in a democracy.Paul Krugman says that the latest poll results find that the public prefers reducing the deficit over increasing government spending. But the voters "don't know much" about policy, "So the moral for Obama is, of course, to ignore this poll" -- anything else would be a denial of our responsibility in a democracy.
Discuss.
Heh - great juxtaposition.
Though the original post does not say, I suspect that Klein is refering to a recent NYT poll. As it turns out, that poll showing strong support for a national healthcare system was taken from a sample comprised fo 46% Democrats and 24% Republicans (or thereabouts). There are two ways to monkey with a poll: jimmy the sample or jimmy the question. Of course, you always have the option of ignoring the result in either case, as Krugman suggests, by deeming the sample to be idiots.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 23, 2009 3:09 PMDo you all remember this poll out of the NYtimes saying we all wanted guaranteed health care and would be happy to pay as much as $500 more per year for it.
Sheesh.
Idiots. You're right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin
Who wouldn't be happy paying $500 per year for healthcare? That's about half of the monthly premium for a family. But then you have to ask yourself, "How much care could any system afford to give me for $500 per year?" Idiots indeed.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 23, 2009 4:52 PMMy wife and I have a high-deductible plan that costs a hair under $10,000 a year. The bulk is paid for by my employer.
Basically, we pay the first $2300 per calendar year, and above that, 20% up to $2300 per calendar year. It's a good plan for us, just in case something happens. People just don't realize how expensive a fully comprehensive plan is. We have a legally binding agreement that if either of us gets cancer, needs a heart operation, etc., our insurer is going to pay for it.
The plan would be less expensive if, first, we could buy the policy from someone out of state, and second, if insurers started rating policyholders on risk. They can do that now, I think since 2006, but it hasn't caught on. Previously, smokers, non-smokers, people with family histories of heart disease and/or cancer, were lumped into the same category.
But hey, this is the age where Obama will help us pay for our mortgages and put gas in our cars.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 25, 2009 12:54 PMJune 10, 2009
JK Defends David Letterman from Swift Boaters
Sort of. He's an irrelevant, not-funny, non-entity. And the YouTube clip of his attacking Governor Palin's daughter certainly yells "creepy old man" more than "hip, sophisticated cultural icon." (Aren't you glad I am not "defending" you?)
But conservatives are over-reacting when they paraphrase it as a joke about rape. Even without it, the joke is out of bounds. And I will join with my social conservative buddies in the big GOP tent to ask why the feminist left is so silent because the Palins are Republicans.
But my Twitter is atwitter and they all use the word rape which Letterman did not imply. The joke plays off the family's fecundity and supposed promiscuity. Any allegation of coercion works against the joke, not for it.
I'm not defending the humor value or appropriateness of the joke. But I do think that a lot of conservatives are overreaching. I call it "Swift Boating" because the Swift Boat Veterans had legitimate, verifiable complaints about Senator Kerry's character and service record. Because they overreached and claimed things which could not be proven, their legitimate points were dismissed.
Mary Katherine Ham and Jim Treacher have been guilty of this. It has been a huge twitter topic for days, and Treacher links today to a Doctor Zero post on Hotair. It's overwrought.
I'd in fact like to hear about this 10% not true. Perhaps I didn't hear them all, or if I did hear that 10%, the other 90% was so slam-dunk that the 10% didn't surprise me.
Letterman made a stupid attempt at a joke, which turned out to be about statutory rape. The Palin daughter at the ballgame was her 14-year-old, not Bristol. Even if he referred to her non-adult daughter, at minimum it was tasteless and stupid, and any man with a shred of decency would offer a genuine apology.
Letterman, though, offered a non-apology designed only to boost his show's ratings. Were I the father of a girl so insulted, I'd appear on Letterman's show only to make him apologize through newly broken teeth.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 11, 2009 4:19 PMJK,
That's why I'm only halfway agreeing with you. Letterman surely didn't MEAN to make a joke about rape.
Or slutty Latino ball players for that matter.
But you're asking the conservative blogosphere to back off.
Why?
Shame is what's needed here and Letterman is getting a good dose. People may well be tuning in to see what it's all about but they surely aren't finding him edgy and hip.
Some bloggers go ballistic about a lot of things and this is just one more. I don't believe that having your standard ranters adding this to their rants is going to bring a black eye onto conservatives in general.
That just circles you back to "Attention, all conservatives. Behave as civil adults and you'll get ahead".
No - they stay above the fray and soon are tarred and feathered as racist, uncaring, old white guys.
Feminists are not going to hold Letterman accountable for bad taste, so let those who care do so without worrying about how the conservative movement might be seen by liberals.
Posted by: Terri at June 11, 2009 4:40 PMI'm asking the conservative blogosphere (which has a pretty poor record of listening to me) to keep their complaints responsible. You can say it was tasteless, out-of-bounds and not funny. You can even go on the show and, responsibly, break some teeth.
My objections are:
-- that they are objecting to a joke he did not make;
-- that we are hurtling into socialism and allowing 31-year old Yale dropout Hillary Clinton campaign managers to "rewrite the rules of Capitalism" and some bloggers itch for a culture war.
Terri, they ARE finding it edgy and hip. Letterman is cool again. People who haven't given him a passing thought in years are now all buzzing about him. Read some of the liberal blogs--they're saying Palin brought this on herself, she put her family in the spotlight and therefore had it coming. A self described liberal feminist woman called in to Hannity today saying this very thing, and writing it off as the price of being in the public eye.
Palin is a joke to these people--an incompetent naif who can see Alaska from her house. That's how they will always think of her, just like Dan Quayle will forever be known as the man who couldn't spell potato. That liberals are not held to these same exacting standards is well known and frustrating, but if you think we have even a fraction of the power necessary to "shame" them into decent behavior, then you have not been paying attention.
Liberals are the hypersensitive jackasses who find offense at every little thing. Not conservatives. Sticks and stones; ultimately Letterman's joke says more about Letterman than it does about the Palin family. Let that be what people remember, not the wounded sensibilities of conservatives.
jk--I've been a lurker for a long time. Three Sources is one of my favorite daily reads. Thanks for the linky love.
Posted by: Lisa M at June 11, 2009 7:14 PMSorry - 1 more comment.
JK, the joke was made and it can only be assumed it was about the 14yo - hence, rape. Technically. He owns it. If people want to call him on it - I say go for it. Someone ought to say something and they are. Good for them.
Most people don't understand the rush towards socialism. They want their "free" health care.
Lisa,
Liberals always find themselves hip and edgy. This isn't new.
At least Letterman didn't call Sasha and Malia little nappy headed ho's.
Posted by: Jeff H at June 12, 2009 5:33 PMJune 8, 2009
Et Tu, AP?
This Associated Press article does not read like an Administration press release. Anomoly or sign of the times?
Obama repackages stimulus plans with old promises[...]
By now, according to earlier White House economic models, the nation's unemployment rate should be on the decline. The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today's unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.
Some analysts believe the White House is still not being realistic, that Obama will be lucky if any real job creation from his recovery effort is seen by the end of the year, let alone the employment explosion he predicts.
"I think these estimates are overly optimistic," said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor.
"Overly optimistic"?!? The figures of "jobs created or saved" are pure fiction unsupportable by any evidence or objective analysis.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 8, 2009 7:19 PMRemember your Bastiat. Any jobs created by the stimulus have an equal offset in economic production lost to other jobs in the economy.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 8, 2009 10:36 PMJune 5, 2009
Hollywood and Media Leftism
Here is a 31 minute video that I highly recommend. Peter Robinson provides a very thoughtful interview with Andrew Brietbart.
There's no foaming at the mouth, but it is a very reflective and serious discussion of the severity and effects of a left-controlled entertainment sector. I know that's long -- it is worth it.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: Link fixed, sorry!
JK, while I have no ill thoughts regarding your musical talent, I think you might just have provided us with a different link than you meant to.
Posted by: T. Greer at June 9, 2009 12:55 AMDangit! Link fixed.
I really wanted you to see it tg. You had posted an interview segment where you rightfully praised Al Jazeera's Riz Khan for providing an uplifting and informative view of the Indian Elections. This segment does not provide a diversity of opinion, but it shines a lot of light.
Posted by: jk at June 9, 2009 11:54 AMJune 1, 2009
Reagan's Fault!
Both Don Luskin and the Heritage Foundry Blog have a little sport with Paul Krugman's column today. The Foundry says "We Didn’t Know Krugman’s Nobel was for Fiction" and Luskin calls it "One of Paul Krugman's most evil columns yet, this morning, in which he blames Ronald Reagan for today's financial crisis, thanks to his signing of the in 1982,"
Clearly, everything was going along just fine, until that no-good B actor deregulated the banking system. We'd have been fine with Freddie and Fannie, we could handle the CRA, monetary policy is pretty much irrelevant. But the Garn-St. Germain Act set the stage...
Hey now, I find that unfair. Reagan was a decent actor IMO, above the B-movie norm. So I'd have phrased it that he was an actor who happened to be in B-movies.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 2, 2009 12:59 PMMay 19, 2009
May have to get cable back...
I remember not thinking too much of this guy's FOXNews show, but watching his ReasonTV interview, I will give it another shot.
He makes the Penn Gilette error of promoting libertine as much as liberty, but he is dead on on DAWG, media, and Bill Maher. Woo Hoo.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: By the way, I can watch FOXNews (and Kudlow and ESPN and..) on my wife's cell phone. Not a bad deal.
Gutfield & Red Eye are the only thing I watch on Fox.
I DVR it, it's a really fun show...
Posted by: AlexC at May 21, 2009 1:00 PMMay 14, 2009
Thou Shalt Not Think Anti-Stosselian Thoughts
I am a big fan of The Speculist blog. But I think Phil Bowermaster uncharacteristically misses today on an Insty-linked whack at John Stossel.
I'll sit still for a few criticisms of Stossel, even though he is the only light of liberty on network TV. I thought his flagship efforts to get daredevils to foot the cost of their rescues was, if not wrong, the wrong place to put emphasis. We are talking small beans and local control; I cannot get really worked up over it and realize that I might very well do something stupid someday...maybe...
But Bowermaster goes after Stossel's assertion that "America Needs to Do Less for Its Senior Citizens." He parses a paragraph pretty closely to make his point that end-of-life health care is extremely expensive and having just had his father rescued from Cancer, that we might look for ways to provide it instead of vilifying geezerdom.
Fair point, but his argument gets pretty personal. Stossel is painting Seniors as "The Other" (oh jeez, we're doing LitCrit on 20/20 now?) And his comparison of 6:1 spending on seniors vs. children is some Pelosiesque attempt to accuse them of stealing from children.
I will quote that great champion of the Right Wing, Garrison Keillor. Even he lambasted the AARP once as a group of folks who lobby kids to provide more than we'd ever agree to give even our own parents. I think you could suggest that Stossel took the wrong track on Medicare but you cannot look me in the say that his premise is wrong. We are set to bankrupt the country and strangle wealth creation because no legislator dares ask that maybe Warren Buffet could pay for his own doctor or that some of us might have to gasp! consider working past 62.
It is intergenerational theft through state coercion. Nice that it makes Bowermaster feel good, but I am going to have to go with Stossel on this one.
Garrison Keillor ... Right Wing? SIR! You jest!
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3671.html
Jest I do, mdmh. My point was that even a loony lefty like Keillor saw the AARP agenda as a step too far.
In fairness, I must admit that I went on an internet search for the exact quote. Searches for Garrison Keillor and AARP turn up many many links to fawning articles in the AARP magazine and no links that I could find to his disapprobation.
It seems we have always been at war with Eurasia...
Posted by: jk at May 15, 2009 12:48 PMMay 7, 2009
John Stossel
The MSM's one voice of sanity has a special this week: You Can't Even Talk About It!" Taboos include:
AMERICA NEEDS TO DO LESS FOR ITS SENIOR CITIZENS. You thought Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme? Medicare makes Madoff's look small. Maybe we should call Medicare: "Bernie Madoffcare." ...PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUITS. "Sometimes the laws that are intended to help women like me actually end up hurting women like me. All of a sudden, a potential employer is looking at me and thinking ... 'she just might turn around and sue us. That makes it less likely that I'm going to get hired.'"
THE BEST WAY TO SAVE MANY ENDANGERED SPECIES IS TO EAT THEM.
International bans on the trade of rare animal parts (tiger organs, elephant tusks, rhino horns) have been about as successful as the international war on drugs...RESCUING IDIOTS. Thrill-seekers hoping to surf the most difficult ocean wave, bushwhack through treacherous back-country terrain or catch the biggest ice-water fish … sometimes take unnecessary risks, disregarding weather forecasts or warning signs. If they need to be rescued, let's bill them for the cost of the rescue. New Hampshire does that. I confront the rescued, who say "no!" tax dollars should pay.
LET THEM DO STEROIDS. After years of hand-wringing over 'roids in baseball, the Olympics, and other sports, isn't it time to acknowledge that athletes will always look for ways to get a competitive edge ... and instead of treating them like children, let them go ahead and JUST DO IT? ...
RADIATING FOOD MAKES IT SAFE TO EAT. The CDC says that every year, millions of Americans get food poisoning. 5,000 die. Last month President Obama told us the fact that 95 percent of food is NOT inspected by the FDA, is "… a hazard to the public health … " But he didn't mention that there is one way to make food safe: irradiate it.
April 30, 2009
Longmont Times-Call Auditions for MSM
Blog friend Terri takes some humorous and effective whacks at the small Longmont Times-Call, hyping a front page story about recession-fueled military recruitment.
Nice caveat..."some". So you’d think they'd have one example anyway, right??
Sadly, no.
Small town papers are certainly not immune from MSMism. There are some microscopic papers in Lafayette and Louisville that are slightly to the left of Pravda.
Read the whole thing -- sorry it took me three days to link it.
Good catch Terri. As much as I prefer reading a hardcopy newspaper to hyperlinked virtual stories I just can't bring myself to subscribe to any of them. This is a perfect example of why that is so.
April 6, 2009
So Goes the Nation
There might be some hope. The generation that gets its news from comedy shows was treated to a satire of corporatism!
Hat-tip: Professor Mankiw
April 2, 2009
Media Health a Leading Indicator of Societal Change?
It probably has not escaped anyone's attention that traditional liberal media outlets are falling off the financial cliff while more centrist or right-leaning sources are doing OK (WSJ, Fox News, Limbaugh). This link has an excellent summary of the situation.
At first, The Refugee speculated that this was because more conservative readers understand the need for businesses to make money and are therefore more likely to pony up for a subscription. Liberals have a greater penchant for an entitlement mentality and therefore expect things for free or to be provided by the government. But, he concluded that this was an unfair, snarky little remark. (Go ahead, LatteSipper, let him have it!)
However, could it be that the health of media outlets is a leading indicator of societal change? In the stock market, transportation activity is a leading indicator of economic activity, whereas employment is a lagging indicator. The Refugee is no media scholar, but the current long-term drift to the left seems to have started in the 20's and 30's when socialism/communism came into vogue and the media started moving left.
In the above-referenced piece, only 20% of Americans believe "all or most" media reporting. Perhaps the current trend in the media indicates that national mentality is moving back more toward the middle. Wishful thinking by The Refugee? Hopefully not.
March 31, 2009
Quote of the Day
So let's recap - Krugman was wrong about the previous strategy having been "always bonds", wrong about the switch to equities being executed at the market peak, and wrong about possible losses amounting to "hundreds of billions" of dollars, we presume. He also misspelled "Guaranty". But he did find an opportunity to explain how stupid conservatives are. Mission Accomplished! -- Tom Maguire
March 25, 2009
Newspapers: Who Cares?
If your face is too ugly to be on TV or your voice too gravelly to be on the radio, you can still write copy for them or the teleprompter (hell, be a Presidential speechwriter even!)... because those media models seem to be surviving.
With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks."This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.
A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.
Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.
So a newspaper's liberal bias becomes more important in the articles.
Does anyone else remember the Candlestickmaker and Whale Oil Distillers Revitalization Acts of 1880 and 1894? The Telegrapher and Railroad Brakeman's Relief Act of 1902?
Yeah, I don't either.
Zen Pundit (and commentators) called it first.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 25, 2009 7:06 PMTaranto had a nice riff as well.
Posted by: jk at March 25, 2009 7:55 PMErm, I've only been using the example of horses and buggies for...47 months now.
"A century ago, would we have subsidized horse carriage manufacturers, or whip-makers, because they couldn't compete against the new automobiles?"
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 26, 2009 11:04 PMMarch 24, 2009
Quote of the Day
Commenter V the K (don't know, don't want to know) at GayPatriot on the paucity of MSM coverage for Tea Party protests:
You know what would be a fun experiment though? Call the media and let them know there’s going to be a big protest against the War in Afghanistan, or against “Big Oil,” or against “fat cat executives.” Something like that. Then, when the media shows up, all the protesters drop their left-wing cause signs and pick-up their tea party signs.
March 10, 2009
Freeman Pulls Appointment
I don't like to overestimate the influence of bloggers and new media -- but I think they can claim credit for this:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.
Obama's Jew-hatin' pick will not head the NIC. Conventional MSM took no interest in this story at all. I think it was kept alive by blogs, (and perhaps talk radio). Bret Stephens had a devastating piece in the WSJ Ed Page today that Chinese dissidents disapproved the pick and can hardly be considered part of the all powerful Israeli lobby.
March 3, 2009
Reason 147 not to read the articles
The good folks at Playboy have the scoop of the century. Rick Santelli? The Tea party? Protests? All a big plot -- a shadowy, nefarious conspiracy to take down The One:
As you read this, Big Business is pouring tens of millions of dollars into their media machines in order to destroy just about every economic campaign promise Obama has made, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. At stake isn't the little guy's fight against big government, as Santelli and his bot-supporters claim, but rather the "upper 2 percent"'s war to protect their wealth from the Obama Adminstration's economic plans. When this Santelli "grassroots" campaign is peeled open, what's revealed is a glimpse of what is ahead and what is bound to be a hallmark of his presidency.
Don't rush out to buy the next issue so you can drown yourself in all this lascivious content. It seems they have airbrushed the story out of existence. But Megan McArdle had a copy open in a browser...
Hat-tip: Insty
I read a similar story yesterday at Michelle's:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/02/the-tea-party-bashers-clueless-bitter-and-wrapped-in-tinfoil/
The efforts to discredit the Tea Party movement is in full force. I think what we're seeing is efforts to turn a lie into accepted truth by frequent repetition.
Posted by: Keith at March 3, 2009 1:06 PMFebruary 26, 2009
Schadenfreude Free zone
I love Journalism qua Journalism, and I was conditioned to appreciate growing up in a two-paper town. The Post and Rocky collapsed ownership a few years ago and became less competitive with each other. Yet it was still a two paper town.
On the other hand, Mister Truman, I'm a new media guy and think the dailies have dug their own grave with lousy, biased content and pursuit of a broken business model. When a paper closes down in San Francisco, Honolulu, or Ash Debula I say "Viva Schumpeter, the lying, lazy weasels reaped what they sowed!"
In the end, I'll admit to being saddened by the news that Denver's worse paper is shutting down after 150 years (Colorado has only been a State since 1876).
The Rocky Mountain News publishes its last paper tomorrow.Rich Boehne, chief executive officer of Rocky-owner Scripps, broke the news to the staff at noon today, ending nearly three months of speculation over the paper's future.
"People are in grief," Editor John Temple said at a news conference later.
The Refugee will admit some sadness at the demise of the The Rocky. With better-balanced news coverage and a more reasoned editorial board (Vincent Carroll), The Rocky is far preferable to The Post. Moreover, The Refugee still likes to spread out the paper in front of his breakfast and peruse the news before starting the day in earnest. It's an ambiance that you just can't get with a computer screen.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 10:32 AMI have not subscribed to either of the dailies in a decade. I thought I remembered The Post being less biased -- holy cow, they employ David Harsanyi!
For spreading out, you can't beat a broadsheet. I read the Wall Street Journal online but always love to grab a paper copy in the airport or Starbucks.
On the serous side. I do love to whack the lazy, biased, groupthink MSM but I think the business model is so flawed and the competition is so severe that I cannot imagine Denver supporting two local papers. It's more about Joseph Schumpeter than Bernie Goldberg -- is it not?
Yes, the print media has never figured out how to give away content and make money, if you catch my drift. Craig's List has probably done more to kill newspapers than anything else, however. In The Rocky's case, they had a $22 million news room and a $22 million loss last year... hmmm.
On the Schadenfreude side, it's nice to see the San Francisco Chronicle take a digger, perhaps soon to joined by the LA Times.
As good as Harsanyi is, he is a token at The Post.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 2:27 PMFebruary 20, 2009
Corrections
ALG News reported, mistakenly, that the new CIA Director, Leon Panetta, had a daughter that was associated with the dictators of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. In fact, as reported by Accuracy in Media, Mr. Panetta has no daughter. ALG News would like to apologize to Mr. Panetta for erroneously reporting this in error. -- Americans for Limited GovernmentAnd:
John Gibson Did Not Compare Eric Holder To Monkey With Bright Blue Scrotum -- HuffPoAny more questions?
February 13, 2009
"Our Margaret"
SugarChuck and I used to exchange emails about "Our Margaret," by which we meant Peggy Noonan, years ago when I only feared that she was going off the deep end. I've said it 100 times, but her book on Reagan "What I Saw at the Revolution" is one of the greatest political books ever. Her lyrical columns on post-9-11 America still stand strong. Her writings on Catholicism, the Pope, and the miracle of Guadalupe got me as close to "my childhood's faith" as anything.
But she has become the Wall Street Journal's Helen Thomas! I usually avoid her column entirely, but the new Murdoch-approved format makes it more difficult. Today, she opens with the savage, atavistic elitism which first alerted me to a problem:
A moment last Monday, just after noon, in Manhattan. It's slightly overcast, not cold, a good day for walking. I'm in the 90s on Fifth heading south, enjoying the broad avenue, the trees, the wide cobblestone walkway that rings Central Park. Suddenly I realize: Something's odd here. Something's strange. It's quiet. I can hear each car go by. The traffic's not an indistinct roar. The sidewalks aren't full, as they normally are. It's like a holiday, but it's not, it's the middle of a business day in February. I thought back to two weeks before when a friend and I zoomed down Park Avenue at evening rush hour in what should have been bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Now admit it -- if you heard such Upper-West-Side blather on NPR you'd grab for a barf bag. Decades-old Reagan cred does not make it okay. Then, the heart of the story is how that horrible woman who had all those damned kids!
What we fear we're making more of these days is Nadya Suleman. The dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always wanted a big family. "Suley" doubletalks with the best of them, she doubletalks with profound ease. She is like Blago without the charm. She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She leaves anchorwomen slack-jawed: How do you rough up a woman who's still lactating? She seems aware of their predicament.
I have not encountered "The Octomom." I do find it very easy to avoid things like that (are we into blue-horse territory here?) but Noonan's revulsions speaks more about Noonan than Suleman. Like Governor Palin, this is a woman who is on television and yet is completely unknown at fasionable cocktail parties. Quel Horror!
Taking about the same amount of virtual newsprint, as usual on Fridays, is Kim Strassel's smart, well reasoned piece on the politics of the stimulus. It should embarrass somebody to publish them side by side.
I've felt the same for several years now, nearly to a T. Her past columns were tremendous and moving, esp. right after the passing of Reagan. Her post 9-11 posts were chilling and bracing with barely-contained rage and resolve.
I've just stopped reading her. I hope she improves, or she'll be consigned to a bad-poetry-on-NPR-weekends gig. I'm getting the feeling at times from Mr. Will as well, and generally don't read him either. Young guns, as Hugh Hewitt suggests, is where we need to spend our time and effort.
I don't know if you guys are young or not, but you make me feel like I am!
Posted by: nanobrewer at February 13, 2009 4:44 PMYup. Mister Will is many furlongs down that road as well.
Thanks for the kind words and welcome to ThreeSources (love the handle!) I think I am the oldest around here and I graduated high school when Jimmy Carter was President.
Posted by: jk at February 13, 2009 4:57 PMFebruary 9, 2009
Editing
Russ Roberts (who I recently discovered is a former professor and friend of a friend) takes an AP story about the staggering economic depredation recent job losses. and edits it, as a real editor would if they had any left at the Associated Press.
Too good to excerpt -- read the whole thing.
Hat-tip: Everyday Economist
Already been there; check out my own editing.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2009 11:29 AMJanuary 26, 2009
Pretty Fair AP Coverage
Taranto gives the folks at AP some pretty good and well deserved whacks today for Pliability Journalism.
But I have to say, this lead is clear and accurate:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants automakers to make greener cars at a time when General Motors and Chrysler are hanging by the thread of a massive government loan and auto sales have plummeted to their lowest levels in more than two decades.Obama's plans could bring smaller cars, more hybrids and advanced fuel-saving technologies to showrooms, but car shoppers will probably pay more upfront because the new rules are expected to cost the hamstrung industry billions of dollars.
Tell it like it is! I thought I was reading the Washington Times...
Dayum. These two reporters won't last long if they keep writing like that...
The new first commandment of journalism, after all, is "Thou shalt not question The One."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 27, 2009 4:01 PMJanuary 24, 2009
Greener Pastures
For ThreeSources friend Howard "Extreme" Mortman. He'll be missed but I congratulate him for his new gig: C-SPAN. Director of Communications.
Big time, Bill, big time.
very, very kind.
thank you!
let's stay in touch.
-- Howard
Amen!
Posted by: AlexC at January 25, 2009 11:32 AMJanuary 9, 2009
Sad News
Attila @ PillageIdiot has decided to hang up his blogging shoes. He goes out with the self-deprecating humor I enjoyed:
I've enjoyed writing at Pillage Idiot, but four years is a long time, and I feel I've run out of things to say. Some might suggest I ran out of things to say over four years ago. Maybe they're right.In addition, writing under a pseudonym turns out to be more stressful than I'd anticipated. It's sort of like being a spy, but without the glamor, without the money, and without the treason. On the other hand, if I'd used my real name, people would have known I was a total idiot instead of merely suspecting it.
He'll be missed!
January 8, 2009
Media Elites vs Regular Joes
Always good to see the media elites lash out when regular joes (no pun intended) try to do reporting.
"How dare he! We went to journalism school!"
Joe the Plumber, whose pronouncements during the campaign established him as the most influential political pundit since Bart Simpson, plans to save journalism - from itself. London's Guardian says Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is "dropping his unlicensed plunger and picking up a reporter's notebook" to cover the latest eruption of violence in the Gaza strip for conservative Web site pjtv.com. Joe the War Correspondent, who will immerse himself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for 10 whole days, promises to report "without a politically correct filter." Joe, who became a mascot for John McCain's campaign when he challenged Barack Obama's economic plan, tells NBC News he will try to explain Israel's reason for the offensive against Hamas. "I get to go over there and let their 'average Joes' share their story, what they think, how they feel, especially with world opinion," he said. "It's very tragic," he said of the rising death toll. "But at the same time what are the Israeli people supposed to do?"
Thanks for the reporting Tirdad Derakhshani.
Paragraphs and carriage returns.
We could have used two or three of them.
He must have missed that day in J-school.
I see from the same link that:
Jennifer Garner and husband Ben Affleck, both 36, welcomed their second daughter on Tuesday, People mag reports. The baby, who was born in Los Angeles at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, has yet to be identified to the masses by name.
These are professional journalists, kids, don't try this at home!
Posted by: jk at January 8, 2009 6:13 PMJanuary 5, 2009
In the lap of Big Corn
Instapundit links to a Popular Science post discussing "If You Dropped a Corn Kernel From Space, Would it Pop During Re-Entry?" I love that the page has banner ads for popcorn from shopping.com.
I'm sensing a cabal...Professor Reynolds, Senator Grassley, some guy named Orville....
December 23, 2008
You Read Blogs Too Much
If you get this, you need a life: Jeffry Goldberg in his Atlantic blog:
This is James Bennet, editor of The Atlantic.Most readers know that the views expressed on Jeffrey's blog are his own and don't always reflect the views of The Atlantic. Such is the case with regard to Jeffrey's comments on the relative merits of hummus and baba ghanoush. Our institution has partnered with the makers of baba ganoush, as well as tabouleh and fattoush, on a number of projects, and we have a great deal of respect for their excellent work product, including the entire spectrum of Middle Eastern salads and paste-like foods, with the exception of halvah. We at The Atlantic do not take sides in the ongoing dispute between partisans of hummus and partisans of baba ghanoush. These food products are key leaders in the Middle East food products industry, and we look forward to eating them in the future.
Yes, I read blogs too much, I think it is hilarious. Backstory.
December 20, 2008
Post-Partisan
The headline caught my eye: Obama signals new approach to science Popperian epistemology is out? Huh, what?
It turns out that President-elect Obama is -- well, let the AP tell you:
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama today named a Harvard physicist and a marine biologist to science posts, signaling a change from Bush administration policies on global warming that were criticized for putting politics over science.Both John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government response.
The Bush science people were political, but Holdren is a scientist!
Colleagues say the post is well-suited for Holdren, who at Harvard went from battling the spread of nuclear weapons to tackling the threat of global warming. He's an award-laden scientist comfortable in many different fields.
The hopelessly-pro-Bush partisans at the New York Times, however, may not be so keen on the pick. John Tierney asks "Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not..." Tierney mentions -- and the AP and Denver Post omit -- Holdren's experience in scare-mongering and junk science:
Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s. Dr. Simon, who disagreed with environmentalists’ predictions of a new “age of scarcity” of natural resources, offered to bet that any natural resource would be cheaper at any date in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and asked Dr. Holdren, then the co-director of the graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, and another Berkeley professor, John Harte, for help in choosing which resources would become scarce.In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.
This is great because I love to bring up Paul Ehrlich to fervent DAWG believers and you know I love a good segue. Ehrlich's catastrophic and catastrophically wrong predictions seem comical today. It's not about the strike price of Tungsten. Ehrlich thought we'd all starve to death in the 1990s.
It seems fitting and proper that an Ehrlich associate would be promoted to science advisor in an Obama Administration (where's that in the Constitution again?) but absurd that we have to read about his appointment as a triumph of science over politics.
Read the whole Tierney piece just as much as you can stand of Hope Yen's AP story.
December 18, 2008
Lexus, Schmexus...
At at loss for what to get the Spousal Unit for Christmas, The Refugee chanced upon a small ad in the WSJ from Avantair. "Give the gift of travel," it says. Fifteen hours of private jet travel for just $72,750 all with the convenience of a card. Sure. He'll slip one of those little beauties into The Mrs.' stocking. Won't she be surprised.
If Mrs. Refugee gets 15, I suppose the blog brothers will be settling for the 10 cards this year. Sigh, I guess we are in a recession.
Posted by: jk at December 18, 2008 6:18 PMDecember 17, 2008
Bush's Fault
I read about Lou Dobbs all the time, but I never watch him. Here, the doyen of domestic border security calls for the impeachment of President Bush -- over tomatoes!
This earns the populist a #4 in The Media's Top 10 Worst Economic Myths of 2008. Great stuff! Hat-tip: Samizdat Jonathan Pearce
Apparently the guy really is a dumb as they say. Of the millions of pounds of fruits and vegetables that come over the border, he wants to impeach Bush for not finding the few pounds tainted with a microscopic organism. The Refugee suspects, however, that Dobbs views Mexican-grown tomatoes in the same light as illegal aliens.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 17, 2008 7:25 PMWas it Federalist #10 or #69 where the Executive was charged with making sure nobody ever eats anything bad? I get all those mixed up.
With the new guard, I suppose we'll have the department of bad cheese stationed in our homes to sniff the milk and check the sell-by dates.
December 16, 2008
The Telegraph Imitates ThreeSources!
You wait long enough, you see everything. Toby Harnden gives our President props for his handling of flying footwear:
Barack Obama may be the new Mr Cool on the block but you have to give President George W. Bush his due for a supremely self-composed and dignified reaction to the Baghdad shoe thrower.Not only did he duck two fast-moving and pretty well aimed pieces of footwear but he discreetly waved away his lead Secret Service agent, who was ready to bundle him out of the room. Bush then quipped: "That was a size 10 shoe he threw at me you may want to know."
Then, Harnden picks up a couple of points I thought would be limited to the wingnuts at ThreeSources:
No doubt much will be made of the irony of the Iraqis hitting the downed statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes when Baghdad fell to US forces on April 9th 2003 and then, five years and eight months later, shoes being hurled at Bush.But ask yourself this question: How would al-Zaidi have fared if he'd hurled a pair of shoes at Saddam?
Yeah, it's the Telegraph, but we're still talking British press. Then, the website offers the video of Shoeless Joe al-Zaidi juxtaposed with the American military reception I posted.
Merciful Zeus! Hat-tip: Instapundit
December 10, 2008
The American Magazine
I have bored ThreeSourcers for a few years with suggestions to subscribe to and read The American Magazine (formerly The American Enterprise). I laughed when Johngalt and Dagny talked it up a few months ago.
But it pains me to say that editorial quality is slipping. Nick Schultz took over as editor several issues ago, and I have a world of respect for Schultz from his TCS days. But the last issue disappointed and today's featured email story shows why.
Desmond Lachman states "Now is the time for a bold new economic strategy. Let's hope that Team Obama delivers one." Lachman is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, suggesting he has an IQ way above mine and a more serious education. (To be fair, there are some better educated squirrels, but you see what I'm saying.)
Turning to the article to see Lachman's "bold new economic strategy" one finds it missing. He offers a three point strategy for new SecTreas Timothy Geithner. The first I disagree with:
First, there must be a large fiscal stimulus package, worth at least $500 billion, designed to boost consumer spending and aggregate demand in the short run.
I guess we're all Keynesians now, President Nixon. This is the AEI? The second and third points are not worked out in much detail. Or any:
Second, the strategy must include clear prescriptions for unclogging the credit markets and rejuvenating bank lending. This will entail a wholesale rethinking of the Treasury Department's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which has failed to deliver its intended results.Third, the strategy must include a plan to curb the sharp decline in U.S. home prices that continues to erode consumer confidence and compound bank losses.
After we throw half a trillion out of the sky, we'll have to rethink TARP and fix falling home prices. Are you getting this down, Mr. Geithner?
I don't mean to beat up on Lachman. But this briefly awesome magazine now reads like a sequence of blog posts. This story I complain about is 640 words counting the pull-out quote twice. I read blogs all the time and look forward to a magazine to get a little more depth on a story. The subject certainly deserves it.
November 21, 2008
Post Cable
I'll put this under "Media" but it may belong more to technology (or personal economics).
My introductory rate on cable-TV expires next week (have I really lived here six months?) and I could not find a replacement at a price point that I like. So it is goodbye to Larry Kudlow. I ordered an antenna on Amazon and I intend to live on broadcast, internet and purchased programming.
I debated getting the AppleTV box when I moved but found the TiVo handles that task and plays well with cable. So I'm keeping the TiVo, which gets me access to YouTube and a bunch of Internet video (The Onion, NYTimes Politics, &c), plus paid downloads from Amazon Video-on-Demand. I figure I can buy a lot for the $65 I won't be sending Comcast.
I will miss Kudlow, big time. I'll haunt CNBC.com for clips and will of course read his blogs. There are a couple shows on FOXNews that I like but I don't think I'll die without The Beltway Boys. The Journal Editorial Report will be missed, but they put a lot of video online.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb suggests in The Black Swan that we should read less newspapers and more books. My cable bill will buy a new book each week and more time to read.
Unless the Avs make a run for the Cup this year, I think I am cool. You can place your bets on how many Kudlowless days jk can take.
November 20, 2008
Welcome to the Blogroll
I've been enjoying the thoughtful comments from Keith and am adding his blog, STAND, to the blogroll. I also encourage ThreeSourcers to check out the blog of Alhambra Bible Fellowship, where he is Pastor (that's right, guys, let's show a little decorum around here...)
I'm humbled, and thank you - but don't feel obliged to worry about the decorum on account of me. The ambience here is great just the way it is, and I wouldn't spoil it for the world. Besides, I also frequent some pretty harsh blogs; I'm not as fragile as the job title conveys.
Besides, you've read my comments here - you've let me shoot my mouth off without banning me...
Posted by: Keith at November 20, 2008 4:14 PMFear not. I'm pretty sure there won't be any more decorous behavior around here than usual. Our heroes are the Flyers fans who boo Santa Claus.
Posted by: jk at November 20, 2008 4:36 PMNovember 19, 2008
The Doctor is In
Professor Mankiw links to a site that analyzes your blog and you. Here's what they think of ThreeSources:
INTP - The ThinkersThe logical and analytical type. They are especialy [sic] attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.
We really only seem arrogant, impatient and insensitive to morons who don't understand what we are talking about. I ain't too worried.
Great minds obviously think alike - both mine, stand.townhall.com and alhbible.wordpress.com, also score as INTP (though the graphical charts come out very different.
I'm going to waste the whole night testing sites I read...
Posted by: Keith at November 19, 2008 7:36 PMIt seems pretty interesting. My first thought was that it's like Astrology: tell people how swell they are and they think "wow, this really works." I ran it on my lovely wife's blog and it seemed 3 for 3 (Mankiw, 3Sources, tatergosum).
I'm not sure about the next two but I don't know the people that well. Of course, we Geminis are pretty naturally skeptical...
Posted by: jk at November 20, 2008 11:10 AMI'm not so sure the analysis of my Eidelblog is completely right. It's true a lot of my posts can be economically "theoretical" and "abstract," but I apply principles to the real world all the time.
INTJ - The Scientists
The long-range thinking and individualistic type. They are especially good at looking at almost anything and figuring out a way of improving it - often with a highly creative and imaginative touch. They are intellectually curious and daring, but might be pshysically hesitant to try new things.
The Scientists enjoy theoretical work that allows them to use their strong minds and bold creativity. Since they tend to be so abstract and theoretical in their communication they often have a problem communcating their visions to other people and need to learn patience and use conrete examples. Since they are extremly good at concentrating they often have no trouble working alone.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 20, 2008 1:57 PMNovember 14, 2008
Now They Tell Us!
Reason's Brian Dougherty is creeped out by Obama worship:
I've watched with growing distress this past week as many interesting cultural iconoclasts I admire for various reasons who can usually be counted on to be aware and skeptical of government power to at least some degree, from John Perry Barlow to Adam Parfrey to Oliver Stone, have swooned over the mighty Obama and his world-changing powers (my misery over this is maximized by many friends and acquaintances who are not public figures as well).Being surrounded by a creepy-happy adoring Cult of the Great Leader makes me...uncomfortable, to be sure. Via Will Wilkinson comes a particularly awful example of Obamania, in which we are advised via Beatles lyrics both of our responsibility to not let Obama down, and also showered with the adoring love we must express for him.
I hear you, bud. What really grabbed were several reader comments. The second:
Now they tell us! I vaguely seem to recall Reason pretty much pulling out all the stops to oppose McCain and support BHO.What Reason could have done - but did not - is illustrated in the graphic here in a post relating to Weigel's thread of today.
Number three:
Honestly, the writers and editors of Reason should have seen this coming. Do any of them seriously believe a cult of personality of this sort would have grown up around McCain?It was OBVIOUS this would happen. There's more to come too.
I feel sorry for everyone except those who work for Reason. Reason is guilty of criminal negligence with regard to BO.
I was disgusted by about every issue of Reason through the election. I enjoyed the latest issue last weekend now that the election is over. I guess I don't hold a grudge. But the commenters are 100% spot on. Matt Welch has written an anti-McCain book, Rep. Bob Barr was targeting GOP voters, and the LP expressly voiced intent to tip the election to Senator Obama to demonstrate their power.
There was the occasional soft criticism of Senator O, but this was juxtaposed with feature-length jeremiads against the "Mythy Maverick." I can see MSNBC being in the tank for Obama -- they believe in government control -- but I was astounded that Reason would do so much to elect a (sorry, Latte and Heretic, I need a wide brush here) socialist.
Yesterday they were upset that his chief of staff is a drug warrior. Now, they have just discovered the cult of personality? Reason remains a great read, but its editorial staff, like the LP, is not to be taken seriously.
Libertario Delenda Est! (If anybody can help me with the grammar -- how many Romans?-- before I make that a category, I'd appreciate it)
I agree completely. While I have never been Reason's biggest fan, they lost me utterly this year. Underlying their support for Obama was this quaint idea that the GOP needed to be "punished" for straying too far off the free market track. Sadly, this is utter nonsense- a quick history review shows us that this has never worked. Heck, you need only to look at the most recent electoral crashes to see what happens to the losing party. Following the Reagan glory days, we find the Democratic presidential candidate stating he was for small government. Following the Republican washout of '06, the Republicans vote for John McCain, the most moderate of all the GOP primary candidates.
Seriously, what are those folks over at Reason thinking? Parties look at the results of an election in order to understand what the public wants from them. When it comes time to write planks in 2012, they will be paying one hell of a lot more attention to America's new progressive majority than they will to the few thousand libertarians who voted against them in order to make a point.
~T. Greer, reading tea leaves
November 13, 2008
Mr. Eisenstadt, Please Call Your Office...
It would appear that all of the "leaks" regarding the McCain campaign were part of very clever hoax. It is interesting to note how quickly the MSM pounced on negative reports about Palin, even though they seemed unbelievable. But the right, including your Humble Refugee, are not without blame either, as we just as quickly believed that someone could be out there saying such things from the McCain camp.
Beyond the obvious lesson of "fact checking," this episode teaches how damaging a false story can be and why the MSM watchdog needs a watchdog of its own.
Unless of course, this is a hoax...
Wow! I loved this:
An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. "It had not been vetted," he said. "It should not have made air."
I'm sure they would have rushed just as quickly to air a negative comment abound Senator Obama. News is a fast business. 24 by frickken' 7.
Posted by: jk at November 13, 2008 11:55 AM
Is that for real? "Someone received an email from a colleague" is about as reliable as "I read it on the internet." Are these people journalists or "just" bloggers?
And no mention that "someone in the newsroom" has been fired? WTF? Are these guys UAW members or something?
Posted by: johngalt at November 13, 2008 2:10 PMNovember 9, 2008
Okay, we sucked!
Wow, I saw a little of this on the FOXNews crawl, and now Insty links. The WaPo Ombudsperson, Deborah Howell:
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
Whole thing, trust me.
November 5, 2008
Good Vibes Have a Short Shelf Life
The Boston Herald reports on bitter clingers for McCain who just can't accept this brave new world:
Some stood with arms crossed, anger etched on their faces. Others expressed disappointment, even fear. Still others wiped away tears and grumbled when John McCain congratulated his opponent, America's first black president, for making history.
Wow! Crossed arms! Those Republicans are really really mean. As we were promised riots in the event of a McCain upset, I'm thinking I can handle some -- even severely -- crossed arms.
I will say that McCain's concession speech was perfect and classy. He was stunned when the crowd booed President-elect Obama. I have my gripes with Senator McCain as a candidate and as a Senator. But he proved himself to be a classy guy and a true patriot.
"Still others wiped away tears and grumbled when John McCain congratulated his opponent, America's first black president, for making history."
Once more, Obama's supporters, especially the mainstream media, always have to bring race into it. What a spin to imply "racism" on the part of McCain's grumbling supporters!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 5, 2008 4:55 PMOctober 31, 2008
Give Light
I can't stop wondering how the Obama-Khalidi videotape situation would be handled if it were in the possession of a Scripps newspaper rather than the Los Angeles Times. Growing up in Denver I became accustomed to the phrase "Give light and the people will find their own way" printed in the masthead of the Rocky Mountain News. Naive youth that I was, I believed for many years that ALL newspapers adhered to this ideal. Silly me.
So today I sought out the LA Times motto. I couldn't easily find it on the paper's own website but here I found it quoted as, "Largest circulation in the west." Not quite as inspirational is it?
In this jaded era I found it refreshing to read the story of the Scripps motto:
Words are so often turned to such shabby or trivial ends that it's sometimes worth celebrating those with substance and a pedigree. Consider the Scripps motto: Give light and the people will find their own way.Those words first appeared on a newspaper masthead June 22, 1922. They were placed there by a New Mexico editor who refused to damp down truth even when the mighty threatened to smash the lantern.
As the story goes, Carl Magee first attacked U.S. Sen. Albert B. Fall in his Albuquerque newspaper over the Fall machine's misuse of water rights to wrest the votes of New Mexico farmers. When Fall became interior secretary, he leaned on banks to call-in their loans to the paper.
(...)
"Scripps saw a man in New Mexico making a tough fight for the people of New Mexico, for principles in which the organization believed. They asked him orally about terms. He wrote a letter and Roy Howard scribbled 'OK.' Then they wired money to his paper. Sounds suspiciously like idealism."
(...)
Years later, Dante scholar H.D. Austin from the University of Southern California attributed the line to the following passage in Purgatory XXII67-69: "Facesti come quei che va di notte che porta il lume dietro e.a se non giova ma dopo se fa le persone dott." A literal translation of this would read: "Thou didst as one who passing through the night bears a light behind, that profits not himself but makes those who follow wise."
It is speculated that Carl Magee had read and liked the passage but might have forgotten its source, author and exact wording. Or, being an editor, he may have streamlined it for his editorial purposes.
In any event, the "give light" motto served Carl Magee's purposes and – more than 80 years later – continues to do so today for The E. W. Scripps Company.
So the natural question to the LA Times is, "What don't you want the people to see?"
I stopped reading the Rocky awhile back. I see web articles and my relatives mail me clippings. Do you think they would hold to their motto?
Even in my 20s, working in media and spending a lot of time in Newspapers (as a flack) I was always taken by the inscription over the door of the Denver Post's old downtown building:
O Justice, when expelled from other habitations, make this thy dwelling place.
Sadly, I have little hope that either paper would live up its lofty ideals.
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2008 2:15 PM
Well, that one from the Post depends on one's definition of "justice." Barry Obama claims to fight for "social and economic justice" by "spreading the wealth around."
Conversely, the Scripps motto is more like the old Fox News "you decide" slogan. All they have to do is "give light."
Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2008 11:50 PMOctober 24, 2008
Ees Not My Yob!
Megan McArdle, my favorite libertarian Democratic Obama supporter, is not in the tank.
I was at a friend's birthday party last night, and another financial/political journalist and I were marvelling at the way that Obama has been able to get away with complaining about deregulation while sharing a ticket with The Man from MBNA. Why haven't journalists pointed this out? I asked. He shrugged, and then said it's really McCain's fault--it's his job to make that case, and he hasn't.
That would be funny were it not so sad. The Tanning Bed Media (don't say I ain't hip to the memes) can send 30 reporters to Alaska to see if Bristol's ex-boyfriend's mother-in-law's cousin's landlord once swore in front of a child, but it's somehow Senator McCain's job to point out the startling differences between his opponent's rhetoric and actions.
No. There is still no such thing as a "libertarian Democratic Obama supporter," no matter how much McArdle screams it at the top of her lungs.
Now I know for sure what my friend Billy Beck has said all this time: she's an idiot. Especially now, with Obama having unveiled his "soak the rich" tax plan that actually means "soak the PRODUCERS and INVESTORS," no one, NO ONE who claims to believe in individual liberty could possibly think Obama will be AT ALL good for this country, let alone vote for that socialist.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 24, 2008 1:14 PMI find it hard to get my head wrapped around it as well, Perry. But I will defend Ms. McArdle as filling a necessary position in my new world order. I posted awhile back that "The Libertarian Party Must Be Destroyed." (Why did I not think to title it Libertaro Delenda Est" I was snoozing.)
I want big-L libs to return to the major parties. I find it more natural to be a little-l-big-R, but I cede that McArdle (or somebody else, I am unfairly putting words in her mouth) could feel that abortion rights, civil liberties, church-state separation, gay rights and the like are more important than economic destruct--I mean issues. Those people should join the Democrats and push them to embrace market principles as I push the GOP to support liberalized immigration, gay rights and back off the drug war.
Absurd. Like before, as I recall, you're enumerating perfectly liberal issues, but not libertarian. Libertarianism is not just about social freedom. If there's no economic libertarianism, it isn't libertarianism at all.
Both parties are so committed to raping the taxpayer and redistributing the wealth that there's no way true libertarians can rely on either.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 25, 2008 11:54 AMOctober 22, 2008
American Journalism Dismantled by ... a Democrat
If John McCain is going to win this election it will be with the help of great Americans like Orson Scott Card. A science fiction writer (who's work dagny likes) he's also a Democrat and a newspaper columnist published in North Carolina. And according to Rush Limbaugh (where I first heard this) he's far enough left to be pro gun control. And yet, he takes American newspapers apart:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
(...)
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
(...)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
(...)
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
(...)
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
Every blogger should link this column.
Every American should send it to his local newspaper.
October 21, 2008
Ethical Conundrum Solved
Bloggers -- and I am not immune -- love to celebrate the missteps and economic failures of traditional media. The New York Times Stock Chart is a better laugh to me than all the comics the paper lacks. The disappearance of any viewers younger than 90 for the evening network snooze fests from Brokaw and Couric and Williams are chocolate covered frozen schadenfreude on a stick.
Yet, as news consumers and specifically as bloggers, we require a robust hard news reporting segment and would revel in moderately objective and accurate news gathering from the major dailies and networks.
I've got your ethical prescription: enjoy the demise of the Associated Press! Glenn Reynolds links to another daily dropping its subscription:
Unhappy with both the A.P. service and its price — more than $800,000 a year at a time when The [Columbus] Dispatch’s finances are severely pinched — the paper on Friday took the once-unthinkable step of saying it would drop the service.
The AP had led the way in bias and groupthink. Indeed, its very existence is anti-Hayekian, giving a few individuals massive control of the voice and direction of national newscasting. Papers could replace the AP's homogeneous, biased garbage with original reporting. And there are moves afoot to syndicate these features from the bottom-up instead of the top-down.
So feel free to cheer as the AP goes down in flames. Coverage won't get any worse -- and may well get better. Tell 'em jk says it's okay.
October 16, 2008
The Associated Press
I don't think they're still teaching the "inverted pyramid" in J-school. Here's the AP lead paragraph:
WASHINGTON - The Secret Service is looking into a second allegation that a participant at a Republican political rally shouted "kill him," referring to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Paragraph #9:
So far, the Secret Service has not found anyone else who heard "kill him" Tuesday except for the Times-Tribune reporter.
In other news: JENNIFER LOPEZ HAS BEEN SHOT!
UPDATE!
Jennifer Lopez has NOT been shot, not even slightly. I was confusing her with President McKinley. I apologise for any distress this caused.
October 13, 2008
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Suddenly, "President Obama" is not the worst thing imaginable. This is:
Columnist Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize
UPDATE: I had to see Don Luskin's take. He does not disappoint:
And even as a public intellectual, the prize is inappropriate, because never before has a scientist operating in the capacity of a public intellectual so abused and debased the science he purports to represent. Krugman's New York Times column drawing on economics is the equivalent of 2006's Nobelists in Physics, astromers Mather and Smoot, doing a column on astrology -- and then, in that column, telling lies about astronomy.
jk: It just goes to show that the other Nobel prize categories are going the route of the peace prize. Arafat? Carter? Puh-leeze. Winning a Nobel prize is something akin to a movie winning the Cannes film festival, or Sundance. Extra points seem to be given for being counter-culture, anti-American, or simply wrong-headed.
I've come to the conclusion that these prizes are the elitist version of the Project Runway or Top Chef "reality" shows - every season, three quarters of the viewer are left screaming at their televisions "how could you people pick that moron? I'll never watch your show again!" - and then come back next season to do it all over again.
Posted by: Keith at October 13, 2008 11:42 AMI'm just glad poor Yasser Arafat is not alive to see his honor debased so...
I should be more serious. Krugman was once a serious economist and his contributions on trade are well regarded and needed as we fly into protectionism. But does anybody believe for one second that he was honored for his academic contributions and not for his Anti-Bush rants in the New York Times? Bueller?
JK, it's scary how we shared nearly the exact wording. I wrote Luskin this morning, "Or is the economics prize going the way of the peace prize, i.e. having no credibility because it invariably goes to some leftist schmuck?"
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 13, 2008 1:40 PMSomething to add. I was telling a friend at lunchtime, when he called to see if I'd heard Krugman got the econ prize, that Krugman's "real" economics work never impressed me. Yes, he did a lot of analysis and a bit of modeling that bolsters the concept of free trade, but that's only empirically proving what is conceptually obvious.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 13, 2008 1:47 PMHey, lets look at the bright side- a blogger has won the Nobel Prize for Economics! Talk about glass ceilings- We are all that much closer to a Nobel Prize!
~T. Greer, ignoring Krugman's NYT days.
Oops. Meant to say pre-NYT days.
~T. Greer, typing to fast for his own good.
Posted by: T. Greer at October 13, 2008 2:26 PMOctober 2, 2008
I Was Racist. And I am Sorry
Another ThreeSources friend (a powerful blog like this can have three of four) sends a link to Ifill's defending her impartiality:
"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."
Be curious no more, Ms. Ifill. As part of the "one-day blog chatter [...] to destroy [your] reputation," I'll admit it was racism, pure and simple.
Were a white man moderating the debate with a book on "Great War Heroes in 21st Century Politics" slated for release on Inauguration Day, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. Or, certainly, the New York Times. Or the Obama campaign.
Call me The Man. I'm just here to keep the sisters down.
UPDATE: I've received permission to include the emailer's letter:
This is Gwen Ifill's response to criticism over her conflict of interest in tonight's debate? She was aware enough of the appearance of impropriety to skip mentioning her forthcoming book to the Commission on Presidential Debates, what our mothers would have called dishonesty by omission, and when she is confronted with her duplicity she wonders "if it's because I'm black." This should be stunning, but it is not. She should be scorned and removed from the debate but she will remain. The malignant MSM should finally be recognized for threat it is, but it will continue to flourish, continue to push centralization, and continue shilling for the consolidation of power and "some pigs are more equal than others" elitism. The Gregorys and the Greenspans will enjoy Washington society with the Brokaws and the Rathers and those of us who would like to see just a bit of fair play are stuck with the Three Stooges on Fox and Friends to point out the emperor's nakedness. God help us.On a separate rant, as disturbing as Sarah's Supreme Court response to Katie Couric was (don't you think a former mayor and sitting governor should have shouted Kelo at the top of her lungs?) Joe Biden's response to the same question was far more disturbing and she didn't bat an eye, or follow his response with further questioning as to why the issue of violence against women needs to be Federalized in the first place or how it could possibly be piggybacked on interstate commerce. Frankly I doubt she even understood what he was suggesting.
October 1, 2008
Gewn Ifill -- Unsuitable Moderator
My heart sank when I first heard that PBS's Gwen Ifill was to host the VP Debate. I don't know if many ThreeSourcers subject themselves to politics on PBS, but Ifill is the worst of the worst for liberal bias.
I have fought with "talk radio Republicans" over immigration and, now, the Paulson Plan. But I understand there is a groundswell to oust Ifill; Rush and Hugh can sign me up for this. FOX & Friends (yes, I was concerned enough about overseas markets to flip on the perky three this morning) highlighted that she has written a book subtitled "Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." The book is about successes by African-American politicians, which is fair enough.
But the book (to be released on Inauguration Day) calls Senator Obama "a transformative figure." Well, I am sure he is. But I am not sure that Ifill, with a demonstrable financial and emotional interest in his election is a good choice to moderate a debate.
I guess Kos was busy, though now that I make that joke, I'd suspect he would be better.
UPDATE: Enumerating my new found friends, I forgot Michelle.
UPDATE II: Un. Be. Leave. Able.
Hat-tip: Gateway Pundit
UPDATE III: New found friend Greta Van Susteren: "in law, this would create a mistrial."
UPDATE IV: James Taranto differs. In "Some conservatives see injustice in the pursuit of moderation," Taranto concedes most of the points but claims that the concern is overwrought , based mostly on the lack of importance for a debate moderator.
A little perspective is in order, however. The analogy between a debate moderator and a judge is overwrought. Unlike a judge, a moderator decides nothing beyond what questions to ask and how to keep the debate flowing. To put it another way, voters, unlike jurors, can make their decision on whatever basis they choose. They are not subject to instructions from the bench.
I yield to no one in my appreciation for Mr. Taranto but am not swayed. Even he concedes "If you're a stickler about journalistic conflicts of interest, you can make a good case that Ifill was not the ideal choice of moderator." Put me down as a stickler, James.
September 28, 2008
Yet Another Huck-a-Whack
The Parsin' Parson is much better suited to hosting a talk show than governing, I should be glad.
But my TiVo recordings of "The Beltway Boys" and "Journal Editorial Report" this weekend all came up Huck. There are only three* good shows on FOXNews, are you telling me that two of them have been cancelled?
* Beltway Boys, Journal Editorial Report and Special Report with Brit Hume. FOX News Sunday is broadcast on the FOX Network
September 26, 2008
Media Bias
|
Those Right wing nutjobs at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page have gone too far. The Murdoch takeover has become all too apparent.
Today's lead editorial has a trademark woodcut illustration of Senator Obama. Yet the forces of Murdoch bleed the illo into the text to highlight the Senator's large ears. This is why the founders fought against factionalism. |
"All the better to listen to Ahmandinejad with, my dear."
Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2008 2:31 AMSeptember 18, 2008
Other Than That, He's a Big Obama Fan
I have had some harsh words about FOXNews, but I cannot tell a lie -- I enjoyed this commentary
Hat-tip: Cap'n Ed Morrissey
September 12, 2008
Mainstreaming It
Mike Rappaport on the Gibson Palin interview:
So, according to Wikipedia at least, I had been right. It was associated with several different notions. And more importantly, Sarah Palin was correct to ask Gibson, which aspect of the doctrine? If Wikipedia is correct, Gibson owes Palin another apology.What is going on with Gibson? My guess is that there are at least two reasons for his hostility. First, he cares about his peers in the MSM and they want him to be harsh to Palin. He is trying his best, and that involves some inaccurate and unfair questioning. Second, he was chosen to interview Palin, and that makes him suspect with the others. To show that he really is no pushover, he needs to be harsher than he should be.
Of course, there are boobs out there who don't realize the tricks that are being played. For example, Andrew Sullivan thinks Palin should have known what the Bush Doctrine was, but doesn't that suggest he is misinformed about it? The rest of Sullivan's post has similarly weak points, including his claim that she doesn't know what the presidential oath says.
I suppose one would be wrong to expect an ABC anchor to be as authoritative and factual as Wikipedia.
Everybody is talking about the Gibson interview, which I did not see, and I have not heard a word about the 9/11 Presidential Forum, which I might have been the only American to watch. Juan Williams called it a snore-fest. Brit Hume, when told the campaigns were striving for comity and avoiding controversy, asked his correspondent "well, can't you drum some up?"
Too nicey-nice I suppose. I'll suggest both candidates di pretty well. Perhaps Senator Obama was able to recapture some of his "cool" in the non-combative venue. He was pretty charming in front of a self-described "home crowd" at Columbia.
Yet, I was astonished at the cluelessness of the media moderators. PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff and Richard Stengel, editor of TIME magazine were clearly both auditioning for the role of Ellsworth Toohey when Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie get around to filming "The Fountainhead." It was a great example of bias in that it was not intentional, but they clearly don't think anything ever gets done unless there is a government program. Woodruff could not accept Senator McCain's assertion that America was "exceptional" as not "you're saying we're better than other countries."
People really do get their news from Time and NPR and feel that they're informed. But their leading lights were pretty dim last night.
Count The Refugee as the other person to watch the snore-fest. Obama did well, as jk noted, but the moderators seemed more pointed toward McCain and more conversational with Obama. They read McCain's responses on a couple of questions to Obama before he answered, which seemed to be a very unfair advantage.
McCain articulated some populist positions that made The Refugee cringe (i.e., elevating the "Office of Volunteerism" [or whatever the names is] to a position 'just down the hall.')
The Refugee had to chuckle when Obama seemed to suggest that the way to improve volunteerism is to pay 'em more...hopefully, it was just a misunderstanding...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 12, 2008 2:23 PMSeptember 7, 2008
NYTimes Gets It Right
We beat up on the Gray Lady around here, but Don Luskin points out that they got it right with this editorial:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren't qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens?
...Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn't stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia's Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission....What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn't a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
Sadly, they published this in July 1984...
September 2, 2008
Kicking Ass And Taking Names
I'm going to shut up a little this week and enjoy the pictures and insights of "our brother in St. Paul," AlexC. Well done, sir.
UPDATE: Brother ac politely declines my offer to let him do all the work...
August 20, 2008
Vote Charlie for Hot Blogger!
ThreeSources friend Charlie "Tecumseh" on the PA turnpike has been nominated for the HotBloggerCalendar.
Vote for him if you can -- I could not figure out the site (perhaps voting is not open yet?) We'll keep you informed...
August 4, 2008
WaPo Headline
Y'know, I almost hate to beat up on the venerable Washington Post. They have provided more honest coverage of post-surge Iraq and the Obama campaign than most other media outlets.
But today, a Rasmussen Poll shows Senator McCain with his first lead, and my WaPo email leads with the headline: Obama Leads, Pessimism Reigns Among Key Group. It seems -- can I get a "mirabile dictu?" -- that the überliberal, collectivist Senator has a lot of support from "low wage" workers.
Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.
There wouldn't be, I don't know, the slightest chance that a lot of these people are on
The new poll included interviews with 1,350 randomly selected workers 18 to 64 years old who put in at least 30 hours a week but earned $27,000 or less last year. As a group, they are somewhat less likely to be Republicans than all adults under age 65 and are also less likely to be registered to vote. As many call themselves conservatives as liberal, and nearly four in 10 said their views on most political matters are "moderate."
Quite a scoop, WaPo, quite a scoop!
July 20, 2008
The New Graeme Frosts II
(This is a long update to the post below, "The New Graeme Frosts.")
I wondered how long it would take to see the "bloggers are mean to the overweight" meme. Eidelblog links to a Kevin Hayden post dated 7:16 last night.
In the process, they neglect to consider the high percentages of Ohio families reporting similar financial difficulties, even those with family incomes between $40K and $79K. Paying for gas, getting a good job or getting a raise, paying for healthcare or insurance has grown difficult for between 1 and 4 and 1 in 2 Ohioans in that middle class income range.They neglect to mention that the daughter seems motivated to work and to educate herself, while refusing to get pregnant to gain more assistance.
Leaving aside the unclaimed abstinence medal, there really are two stories here. Perry is right to focus on "state worship" as enabling these people to make bad decisions with little or no consequence. I'm equally interested as a media story. NPR wanted to run this story so very badly. I'm sure they advertised for someone to feature. And I am sure they were delighted to get Angelica and Gloria.
I am pretty uncomfortable piling on those two women, because -- unlike the Frosts -- they didn't put themselves up (Does NPR pay? I hope so in this instance.) And their plight is pretty sad. I will not agree with the commenters on Gateway Pundit who claim these two live a princely life because their percentage of fixed payments to income is low. I flatly condemn the cruel sexual comments.
My complaint is with NPR. Hayden has a point that it is more difficult to assemble a healthy diet on less money. They can't really afford a health club and personal trainer, and starchy, high carbohydrate foods are the cheapest. BUT THAT WASN'T THE STORY! Had NPR done a feature on those who find it hard to eat healthfully in Bush's Amerikkka, that would have been an option, and Ms. Nunez and Ms. Hernandez would have been great "gets."
But NPR was sworn to show starvation. That supports their call for more government help and puts the current administration’s policies in a bad light. So they comb the Buckeye State for a family to feature and these are the best they can find. Hayden tells us that a quarter of Ohio families are in that predicament -- so why did NPR choose Nunez and Hernandez?
I suggest that perhaps there are not millions of starving families in Ohio and that NPR had to scrape pretty far down the barrel.
May 5, 2008
Dumbest. Idea. All. Week.
Don Luskin ups the ante. In a rare display of Internet understatement, he thinks this qualifies only for worst idea of the week:
The time has come for the nation's wealthiest colleges and universities to rescue its leading newspapers — resources almost as vital to higher education's purpose as libraries, laboratories, classrooms, and concert halls. The plan I have in mind would call upon the richest institutions to set aside 3 percent of their endowments to buy The New York Times. That's for a start. Additional purchases of other newspapers by other endowments should follow.
Man, why didn't we think of that?
May 1, 2008
Huh? What?
AP: Consumer spending up but much of gain reflects higher prices
WASHINGTON - Soaring prices for food, gas and other everyday needs pushed consumer spending to a faster pace than expected in March.The Commerce Department reported Thursday that consumer spending was up 0.4 percent, double the increase that economists had forecast.
NYTimes: Low Spending Is Taking Toll on Economy
For months, beleaguered American consumers have defied expert forecasts that they would soon succumb to the pressures of falling home prices, fewer jobs and shrinking paychecks. Now, they appear to have given in.On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that the economy continued to stagnate during the first three months of the year, with a sharp pullback
UPDATE: The Associated Press has changed the headline to "Soaring prices for food, gas push consumer spending higher" I'm sure they apologize for any implied optimism.
Headline of the Week
Larry Kudlow mentioned it on his show last night, and Instapundit links today:
Jimmy P: Dude, Where's My Recession?Remember, the shorthand rule for declaring a recession is back-to-back quarters of negative growth. The semiofficial recession judge, the National Bureau of Economic Research, has a more complex formula, but I am not sure it has ever declared a recession when the economy never actually shrank. And consider this: The Intrade online betting market now says there is a meager 25 percent chance of a recession—using the negative-back-to-back-quarters definition—in 2008.
Of course, even the +0.6 growth didn't stop Kudlow's permabears from asserting recession on the show last night.
April 21, 2008
Best Blogger Ever
It really may be Jeff Goldstein. He explains his site and ties it into my favorite novel:
If you’ve ever read, say, Gravity’s Rainbow or Foucault’s Pendulum, you’ll note that the first fifty or so pages are incredibly slow going and, from a purely passive reading level, difficult to get through. The reason is, I think, that both Pynchon and Eco are actually taking that opportunity not only to provide narrative exposition, but instead are interested in teaching you how to read the text: they are introducing you to the peculiar grammar of the work — the way it operates linguistically, the way connections are made in that narrative universe, the way temporality will be approached and approximated, the way movement in point of view will be signaled, etc.
[...]
I try to attract those readers willing to take the leap or invest the time.And of course, I in turn reward your loyalty and determination by disappearing for months at a time.
Hat-tip: Instapundit (who's not too bad either).
Well... I'm at his site enough to qualify as a stalker, but as Gomer once said, "I like him. I don't love him, but I like him."
Still no "thrills up my leg," Ardsgaine, but I have really enjoyed his stuff over the years, and the Gravity's Rainbow riff is well done.
Posted by: jk at April 21, 2008 3:42 PMApril 11, 2008
Sunny Optimism
The WaPo highlights "A Weekend to Start Fixing the World"
Financial markets are tumbling. The world economy is starting to sputter. Food prices have shot up so far, so fast, that there are riots in the streets of many poor nations.It's a hard time to be one of the masters of the global economy.
Those leaders -- finance ministers from all over the world -- are gathering in Washington this weekend to sort out their reactions to the most profound global economic crises in at least a decade. The situation could reveal the limitations that international economic institutions face in dealing with the risks inherent to global capitalism.
Don't buy any green bananas, kids, this old world is not gonna be around much longer.
Sadly, the real threat is that our 535 world fixers in Washington (before the guests arrive) will read the WaPo and feel compelled to do more fixing. Starbucks has capitulated to Lassez Faire, lets think about calming down and giving markets a chance to work.
April 7, 2008
Kudos to CBS News!
I am serious as a heart attack. This is a superb bit of reporting:
Ow! It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
I'm always good for a segue, this made me think of Arnold Kling's awesome piece on Inequality and Excess (of political power).
Can you name the members of the County Council in Montgomery County, Maryland? I can't name very many of them, and I live there. Still, getting elected to the County Council in Montgomery County, which is pretty far down the ladder in terms of political power in the United States, enables you to control more annual spending than the wealth of Donald Trump or Steven Jobs.At the Federal level, the Budget is $3 trillion. If you divide that by 535 (the number of Senators and Congressmen), then on average each legislator controls over $5 billion in spending per year. That is more than even the world's richest person could spend annually.
Kling starts with the Clinton's $109 Million income between 2000-2007. This generates a lot of ink, but the CBS story -- and would I ever doubt a CBS story? -- says Rep. Murtha brought $159.1M to PA-13 in earmarks in one year.
Those Clinton speeches start to look like good value. Hat-tip: Greyhawk via Insty
Grand larceny in broad daylight - and all we can do about it is run 3-minute news segments and blog like madmen.
The founders rolled over in their collective graves upon passage of the 16th Amendment. How much longer until Americans roll over on Congress?
Posted by: johngalt at April 12, 2008 12:41 PMApril 6, 2008
Quote of the Day
Every four years, we are assured that "this will be the dirtiest campaign ever" when history is always full of more acrimony and more biting invective. We get Scarlett O'Hara-esque vapors if McCain is called a warmonger, or Senator Clinton is accused of "misspeaking" or if we claim that perhaps, Senator Obama might not actually walk on water.
Too bad they did not have blogs in 1856 -- this should have received more currency:
"No greater service could be rendered to the cause of truth than by putting Greeley where he ought to be. He is a liar and the truth is not in him. He is a mush toad spotted traitor to the Constitution. And he is a knave beyond the lowest reach of any comparison I can make. Shall this political turkey buzzard be permitted to vomit the filthy contents of his stomach on every decent man in the country without having his neck twisted?" -- Judge Jeremiah S. Black of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court defending his friend and Democratic nominee, James Buchannan from attacks by Horace Greeley.
From J.S. Black to J. Reynolds, June 9, 1856, Black MSS, Library of Congress. Quoted in Carl B. Swisher's "Roger B. Taney" Macmillan Company, 1935.
Nice!
Reminds me of one of my favorite insults:
"No one can have a greater opinion of him than I, and I think he's a filthy little beast."
Posted by: johngalt at April 6, 2008 2:22 PMMarch 27, 2008
AP Economic Wisdom
The Republic is truly doomed. I was with some relatives yesterday who are pretty well informed. Not news junkies or blog fiends, but good, average-American, read-the-papers-watch-the-news types. They discussed how bad the economy is and the evils of predatory lending.
The lead Yahoo/AP headline today is pretty instructive: "Economy sputters with 0.6 percent growth"
I suppose you can call < 1% sputtering -- but I read it and thought "well, that's not recession." And when you get to the fourth paragraph, the AP confirms:
Under one rough rule, the economy needs to contract for six straight months to be considered in a recession. The government will release its estimate for first-quarter GDP in late April.
Under another rough rule, Zero degrees Celsius is considered "freezing," and 4 + 7 is generally considered to be around 11.
An instructive article would have pointed that out in the lede. 0.6 is sluggish but a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Instead we get speculation:
WASHINGTON - The economy nearly sputtered out at the end of the year and is probably faring even worse now amid continuing housing, credit and financial crises.
We speculate in the lede, provide a poor definition of recession in paragraph four, and put a negative headline on it -- yup, it's an AP story. Kind of surprising they didn't mention Abu Ghraib...
In France, 0.4% economic growth per quarter is called something else: normal.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 27, 2008 1:22 PMMarch 15, 2008
Words Matter
Blogging sucks. Every time I procrastinate in writing something, I always find it more thought out and better written (or is that “written better?”).
BeldarBlog says "Lies about "the George W. Bush Recession™ of 2008" are well underway." I link not to promote a rosy economic scenario, but to highlight something that disturbs me. Take it away, Beldar:
The word "recession" has a very, very specific meaning in classical economics. In fact, this same article admits that (emphasis mine), just before it starts to lie: "Although the classic definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of declines in the gross domestic product ...." If these people were being candid, they would complete this sentence by saying, "... but in this article we're using that same word, 'recession,' to mean something different, something poorly defined, something vague, and something ominous, all because it suits our purposes better and we don't mind being liars."
I read the same story in the Wall Street Journal and had the same thought. Even on Kudlow and Company, where I expect a little better, they are pretty cavalier about the technical and the casual use of the R word.
The thesis of the WSJ article is that "a majority of economists" in a forecasting survey say that the US is already in recession. Aggregate Economic predictions, huh. Insert joke here.
UPDATE: Steve Horwitz at the Austrian Economics Blog asks if we'd expect the following headlines:
"Three-quarters think Swayze X-ray shows pancreatic cancer""Three-quarters think the barometric pressure is falling"
Good stuff (HT: Everyday Economist)
There you have it - "The economic analysis is settled." (At least until January 20th, when it MIGHT be "re-evaluated.")
Posted by: johngalt at March 15, 2008 2:55 PMThis reminds me of Warren Buffett's comments from a few weeks back where he argued that we were in a recession even if the technical definition wasn't satisfied. If I was the reporter on the Buffett story, the headline would have read:
'Buffett: If we redefine recession, we are currently in a recession.'
Posted by: HB at March 16, 2008 2:54 PMHeh. And if we redefine "hurricane" to mean four inches of spring snow, Colorado is having its first hurricane.
Posted by: jk at March 17, 2008 10:27 AMFebruary 7, 2008
Hooray for Hugh!
I was going to post this yesterday but it is more germane today. Even before Governor Romney left the race, his übersupporter, Hugh Hewitt, was reminding his readers about the stakes. Hugh gives seven reasons to support the nominee, I'll excerpt one:
Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for "fairness."
Dale Franks at Q&O again asks how Hewitt can switch so quickly.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7824
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 8, 2008 1:35 PMI'm a pretty unlikely Hugh defender, but it does not surprise me at all. Your candidate drops out, a clear front-runner is created, and you choose to support the front-runner.
It is very consistent with his "Painting the Map Red" book he penned before the previous election. Hewitt, like me, sees a lot of danger in electing a Democrat in 2008. He wanted Romney, I wanted Giuliani, but we are both prepared to support McCain. So as to avoid Clinton or Obama.
Nope, no whiplash here -- and I am not even a lawyer.
Well, as I've been saying, optimism must be tempered by reality.
Perhaps Hewitt did realize the inevitable, but he's always been a bit of a shill anyway. What gets me, and I've said this before, is that a self-professed staunch conservative will support a moral conservative who governs like a socialist. Romney's economic record is undesirable, but maybe he can just flop again on abortion and social issues, and become Hillary's running mate since they have the same "health insurance" vision.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 1:52 PMFebruary 6, 2008
Headlines Headlines Headlines
You don't say?
Police: Crack Found in Man's Buttocks
(tip to JJP)
Sorry, buddy, I posted this a few days ago...
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2008 11:55 AMGah! How embarassing!
Posted by: AlexC at February 7, 2008 12:45 PMYou can tell who the two intellectuals are around here, huh?
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2008 1:58 PMFebruary 4, 2008
How Not to Smuggle Cocaine
Mr. Taranto finds the funniest of his headlines ever:
Police: Crack Found in Man's Buttocks
Somewhere, Mencken is smiling...
Nancy Reagan was right!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at February 5, 2008 10:00 AMShe usually was, man, she usually was.
Posted by: jk at February 5, 2008 12:19 PMJanuary 15, 2008
Who Let This Guy on the NYTimes Ed Page?
That weird, swishing sound you hear is the entire population of West Manhattan spewing coffee out on their [Perry E, can you help me out -- what would they eat for breakfast?].
Imagine, you open your New York Times to catch up on the latest foreign policy truths from Thomas Friedman, get the state of the economy from Paul Krugman, see who MoDo is shredding today, and -- wait a minute! What is this? Bill Kristol?
Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq.And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.
Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!
Hat-tip: Larry Kudlow
January 10, 2008
Merry Christmas, From Rupert
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page has a new look and a new price.
We're rolling out a new Web site for the Journal editorial page, offering all of our editorials and op-eds, video interviews and commentary. Please enjoy our message of free people and free markets -- for free.
January 4, 2008
Jonathan Last Blogging at Standard
Galley Slave, Weekly Standard writer, and jk-Buffy-sire, Jonathan V. Last, is slumming. The Weekly Standard's Campaign Standard blog has made some arrangement to get Last doing some political blogging. I'm rather glad. Here he is on Obama Triumphant:
Portsmouth, N.H.
It's 5 degrees outside, the intersections near the Pan-Am hangar where Obama's first event is this morning are plastered with placards urging us to "Stop Global Warming," and I'm parked next to two Priuses. Welcome to Obama Nation.A lot's being said about Obama's youth bulge in Iowa last night. He took 57 percent of the under-30 vote while Hillary Clinton took just about 50 percent of the over-65 vote. (Including, one assumes, a monster margin in the 100-and-over vote.)
Great stuff, I hope they keep him throughout the campaign.
January 3, 2008
Vanity Fair
Vanity Fair magazine introduces Karl Rove as follows:
A principal architect of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, Karl Rove, 57, has charted a long course from the internship he landed with the Republican Party in Utah almost four decades ago. Here, the president’s former deputy chief of staff reflects on his fear of going broke, his impatience, and his voracious reading habit.
Rove's answers to the questionnaire are pretty interesting. At least they were fair, huh Karl?
Hat-tip: Instapundit
December 28, 2007
I Agree With Glenn Greenwald
Stop the presses! Moonbat lefty, Glenn Greenwald, has penned a paragraph with which I cannot disagree. I was going to attack Peggy Noonan's insane WSJ Editorial this morning. Maybe after a few cups of coffee, I might have said something like:
What a stupid and vapid woman this is, but respected and admired by our media class because she fits right in with them — endlessly impressed by her own sophistication, maturity and insight while drooling out platitudes one never hears except in seventh-grade cafeterias and on our political talk shows. As always, this isn’t worth noting because the adolescent stupidity on display here is unique to Noonan, but precisely because it isn’t. This is how our national elections are decided: by people like her, spewing things like this.
That's Greenwald, quoted in a Protein Wisdom post which is concerned with whether (as Greenwald charges) Noonan used a pejorative term when she said John Edwards was "poofing" his hair on YouTube.
Without delving into poof etymology (Rule #2, No Poofters!) I can't fault Grunewald’s distain for today's column. It's a crowning achievement in years of decline for Noonan. Look at my posts from three or four years ago, and you'll see she was one of my favorite writers.
Now I think she is becoming the Republicans' Helen Thomas. Today she enumerates which Presidential candidates are "reasonable" enough to be President. Biden: yes, Dodd: yes, Clinton: yes but no... She dismisses Edwards for the famous YouTube hair care tutorial, but not policy.
I've made the comparison before, but again, read Noonan. then compare to a typically smart column from Kim Strassel comparing Senator Obama's "New Ideas" to classic, boilerplate liberalism.
The torch has been passed, the runner has left the county, the tables have been picked up and the spectators have gone home. Strassel is the political voice of the WSJ Ed page.
December 21, 2007
Putting the But First
No, I'm not offering a lesson on skating backwards, just giving some props to AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger. Most AP writers will provide some good economic news, followed by but, as in "GDP growth was revised up to 7.9% today, but concerns about Abu Ghraib, global warming, and lead paint in Chinese toys still rattled consumers."
That's child's play. Crutsinger provides some good news, but he goes butt first, to prevent your giddy enthusiasm from making you drop the paper and missing the dark cloud behind the silver lining:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consumers put aside worries about slumping home sales and soaring gasoline prices and headed to the malls in November, pushing spending up by the largest amount in 3 1/2 years. The better-than-expected surge lessened fears of an imminent recession.
I'd comment further, but I am so worried about slumping home sales and soaring gas prices (in my neighborhood, they have "soared" from $3.09 to $2.89), I can't really continue. Have a good weekend, y'all!
November 15, 2007
VDH
Professor Hanson points out that the gains in Iraq are not getting the press that Abu Ghraib did. Ever cautious, he wonders if we have indeed passed a turning point:
Nevertheless, we may be witnessing one of those radical, unforeseen reversals in America's wars that have often changed our history.The White House was burned by British forces in late August 1814; a little more than four months later, the British were routed at New Orleans. During the Civil War, the Union army was on the ropes in July 1864 yet outside Atlanta by September. The Germans were driving through France in March 1918, but fleeing toward the Rhine by August. The communists took Seoul in early January 1951, yet were pushed back across the Demilitarized Zone a little more than three months later.
Of course, we don't know the final outcome in Iraq, given the remaining problems of Shiite militias and diehard al-Qaidists - and the question of our own remaining resolve.
Hat-tip: Hugh
November 14, 2007
Layers
This is an effect of the layers upon layers of editorial oversight in the mainstream media.
In a Nov. 13 story, The Associated Press incorrectly reported that Paris Hilton was praised by conservationists for highlighting the problem of binge-drinking elephants in northeastern India. Lori Berk, a publicist for Hilton, said she never made any comments about helping drunken elephants in India.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say there isn't a binge-drinking elephant problem in India.
Just a hunch.
Don Luskin tells about the New York Times reporting that VP Al Gore will be donating his salary to charity, but not mentioning that it is his charity. Layers and layers.
Posted by: jk at November 14, 2007 1:38 PMOctober 25, 2007
Beauchamp Rapprochement?
I will still spew a few angry words at the cowardice of Franklin Foer and the mendacity of the once proud "The New Republic."
But this Michael Yon piece on Private Beauchamp has silenced me forever on his score. Read the whole thing -- and send him $50 -- but the short version is that his commander gave him the chance to go or stay. And he chose, another time, to stay in Iraq and continue a difficult mission in our nation's uniform:
Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake.Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.
You shut up one blogger, soldier. Thank you for your service.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
October 24, 2007
It's True! I Read It In TNR!
Drudge says he's got the goods on TNR's latest fabulist.
I love this story. I'll never tire of it.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
October 13, 2007
An MSM Moment
Kind of like a "Senior Moment," I suppose -- I had an MSM moment this morning.
My recording of the Rockies game ended with two outs and two strikes on the last batter in the bottom of the 11th. I first ensured that our incredible team prevailed and they did.
Then I saw the lead Yahoo head: Ex-general: 'No end in sight' in Iraq Wesley Clark? No, General Sanchez.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
I certainly respect the General and his service but this was a disappointing attack on the administration. Or was it? Terri @ I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err links to two stories which say the General attacked first-- and most vocally -- the press. Funny how that gets left out. Powerline:
The Washington Post's headline was typical: "Former Iraq Commander Faults Bush."Actually, I don't believe Sanchez ever mentioned Bush by name, although, as I say, he was critical of just about everybody. But it would be hard to tell from press accounts of Sanchez's speech that he was mostly critical of...the press.
John Hinderacker provides much of the text of the speech, and General Sanchez did start on the press.
It is still a disappointment to read this story when General Petraeus’s efforts seem to be bearing fruit. McClellan - Grant?
October 11, 2007
You live long enough...
You see everything!
Mickey Kaus lectures National Review for not being tough enough on Senator McCain vis-ŕ-vis immigration:
I think they're cheap dates. McCain obviously still believes his semi-amnesty is the essence of "real immigration reform." Is he saying it will have to wait until the border are actually secured? No. He only requires "trust" that the borders "will" be secured, trust that will be accomplished by any number of government confidence-building measures (success in Iraq, cutting spending, better FEMA disaster response) that have nothing to do with actually securing the border. ... I don't trust his definition of "trust," and he seems willfully oblivious to the difficulties facing any successful enforcement attempt--including a half-decade of lawsuits from many of McCain's pro-comprehensive allies. ..
Yeah! And the cut-and-run crowd at The Weekly Standard is just not committed to the war! How about those right-wing capitalist kooks at The Nation?...
I'm going back to bed.
October 1, 2007
Good News Leads the AP
I chide them when they bury it, I have to give props when they do it right. The top Yahoo/AP Headline as I post is: US, Iraqi Civilian Deaths Fall Sharply.
BAGHDAD - Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.
The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.A total of 64 American forces died in September — the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.
The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to 922 last month, a decline of 53.3 percent. The breakdown in September was 844 civilians and 78 police and Iraqi soldiers, according to Iraq's ministries of Health, Interior and Defense.
Memphis, however, is a quagmire.
September 23, 2007
NYTimes: "We made a mistake"
As Instapundit says "Oops." As The NY Daily News says The old gray lady has some explaining to do.
Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.The MoveOn ad, which cast Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and attacked his truthfulness, ran on the same day the commander made a highly anticipated appearance before Congress.
But since the liberal group paid the standby rate of $64,575 for the full-page ad, it should not have been guaranteed to run on Sept. 10, the day Petraeus warned Congress against a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Times personnel said.
"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.
Hey these things happen. I'm just extremely certain they do not happen too frequently to an advocacy group that disagrees with the NYTimes Ed Page.
Added to the price discount controversy is this observation by the Times' own Clark Hoyt "that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, "We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature."
Posted by: johngalt at September 24, 2007 3:12 PMAugust 22, 2007
T-N-RRRRRRRRR!
TNR has broken its silence on the Scott Beauchamp contretemps. Jonathan Chait writes a hit piece on William Kristol:
Kristol's sensibility is perfectly summed up in one representative passage from a recent issue. The topic was The New Republic's decision to publish an essay by Scott Beauchamp, an American soldier serving in Iraq, detailing some repugnant acts he said he and his comrades committed. Legitimate questions have been raised about this essay's veracity. (We've been publishing updates on our continuing efforts to get answers to them at tnr.com.) But Kristol rushed past these questions, immediately declaring the piece a "fiction." Offering up his interpretation of why tnr would publish such slanders, he concluded, in an editorial titled, "They Don't Really Support the Troops":
How dare he expose our making s**t up to advance our political agenda! Read the whole thing, if you can. It seems they were just "edifying their readers."
August 21, 2007
T-N-AAAAAAAAARGH!
False Dawn.
by the Editors.
Why the U.S. Must act in Darfur -- right now!
Well, something sure is false. Say, when TNR supported the liberation of Iraq.
I have complained before that it is disingenuous for them to demand action in Sudan when they have abandoned the effort in Iraq. That's old news and seeking consistency of reason from the left is a loser's game.
BUT! After l'Affaire Beauchamp, you'd think they'd be concerned about another brave generation of idealistic American soldiers, marines and airmen becoming ensconced in the depravity that is war. Why Beauchamp turned into a complete asshole in a staging base. Surely we can't subject innocent troops to this.
I linked to The Nation this morning and told my emailer that at least they were honestly whacked. TNR's fall defies description.
August 8, 2007
Happy Birthday, Insty!
As the breast blogger said (I cannot quite find the link, sorry) "Glenn wouldn't link to me if I were on fire and was liveblogging it." AlexC has scored the coveted Instalanche on both ThreeSources and Pstupidonymous.
But I come to praise Glenn, not spam him in link-whoring messages. Seriously, his six years of prolific and intelligent production on Instapundit has altered our world as significantly as most politicians, media figures and business leaders.
He has kept his edge and his cool. I disagreed with him violently on immigration, but on about everything else he either hits me where I live, or gives me a new way to think it. I started reading Andrew Sullivan more than Professor Reynolds, but I think I've read every post of his for the last four years at least.
Well done, sir.
August 7, 2007
We've Always been at War with Eurasia!
A search on The New Republic for “Shock Troops” turns up no results; they’ve apparently removed Scott Beauchamp’s articles without a word.
A once proud magazine. Marty Peretz, come home, we need you.
Who is this Scott Thomas fellow you speak of?
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 7, 2007 8:39 PMIt must've been a dream. I thought TNR hired the husband of one of its writers to do dispatches from Baghdad. He went all John Kerry and wrote of atrocities that were disproved.
I have to stop eating Thai food beofre bed...
Posted by: jk at August 8, 2007 10:39 AMAugust 6, 2007
White Kossaks
Trouble in Kos land: A By-lined story in the WaPo reports "A Diversity of Opinion, if Not Opinionators"
"It's mostly white. More male than female," says the former high school math and science teacher turned activist. "It's not very diverse."There goes the open secret of the netroots, or those who make up the community of the Internet grass-roots movement.
For all the talk about the increasing influence of this growing group -- "We are a community . . . a movement . . . an institution," Cooper said in a speech Saturday night -- what gets scant attention is its demography.
I am not ready to concede that they have such great diversity of opinions either. Some think Bush is a fascist, some think he is the antichrist?
Will Somebody Please Tell Ann and me
(And I'm totally surprised to read that there was another debate. I am constantly paying attention to the news and want to watch all the debates, yet I knew nothing of this one. How do they expect normal people to notice?)That's Ann Althouse, after celebrating a few good GOP lines from yesterday's debate.
I, too, found out there was a debate ex post facto, as it were. I have missed two Democratic debates and one Republican. Like Althouse, I consider myself pretty well tuned into politics. Can't they put ads on beer cans or something?
NYTimes Headline
Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping
I suppose that's accurate, it seems it could have been worded differently.
At least they acknowledge that its a LEGAL reach for a change.
Usual NYT stuff is "W=1984"
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at August 7, 2007 9:59 AMAugust 5, 2007
The Blame Game
Terri at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err, gets the segue prize today (It is unfortunately not a Segue) for her post The Blame Game: She ties the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mark Steyn, Senator John McCain, a reporter for the Arab News, and Senator John Edwards into a single post. Kids, don't try this at home.
Truly - it's an honor!
I'd like to thank today's news sources for making the post so easy to write that I actually posted on a Sunday!
And thank you of course to the academy at Three Sources without which I would still be humble.
August 2, 2007
TNR Stands by Story
"Kuwait, Iraq -- one of those sandy, hot countries..."
The New Republic has completed its review of the "Scott Thomas: Shock Troops" story and has found only one error. The mess hall where the diarist claims to have personally mocked a woman who was disfigured with war wounds was in Kuwait, not in Iraq. "We sincerely regret this mistake."
The manufacturer of the Bradley vehicle says it is agile enough to hit a dog, so the story of a US military professional who routinely risks his life, civilians and the crew for sadism stands.
No doubt it could be true. I still find it instructive that TNR can find little space for military victories, heroic exploits, or the overwhelming kindness shown by soldiers and contractors, yet they can make space for a column disparaging the troops. At least the story has a happy ending:
Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...
UPDATE: Dean Barnett, who has really owned this story, provides a more thorough and harsher reaction to the TNR defense.
UPDATE II: ThreeSources friend Perry is not buying it.
July 30, 2007
Long Tail in Accuracy
Mickey Kaus makes an interesting point. Print editors introduce ambiguity and error when they edit a piece to fit in a restricted space.
We don't kill no widows in these parts: Note to NYT's Andrew Adam Newman: That's my quote, buddy--which explains why Steven den Beste, to whom you attribute it, had those two little marks on either end.... P.S. This is the classic sort of error usually introduced by an editor trying to save space. Print editors do have to save space. But web editors don't. That's a major, unremarked virtue of blogs over newspapers when it comes to the newspaper's alleged unique selling proposition: accuracy. In fact, the need to fit copy to a limited space is a powerful error-creating machine in both dailies and magazines. Harried print editors compress, and get it wrong. Or they fool around trying to simplify attribution and get it wrong. Or they guiltlessly edit quotes within quotation marks and (by definition) get them wrong. ... In cyberspace,, if it takes one more line to get it right, you can take one more line. I haven't killed a widow in so long I've forgotten what it feels like.
People look at the "demand-side" of The Long Tail. Maybe it is the business I am in, but I am more intrigued by what enables it.
The move from scarcity to abundance is the foundation of Long Tail businesses. Wal*Mart has to fight scarcity of shelf space, as does the video store. Amazon, iTunes, and Netflix have an abundance of (virtual) shelf space and can pursue long tail strategies. The blogger likewise has an abundance of column inches.
July 26, 2007
I Can't Even Cancel
Sadly, I let my TNR digital subscription lapse a few months ago. They booted the price up a bit and I was going back and forth whether I would renew. It has lost some of its luster after Peter Beinart left, and the loonies are getting many more column inches than they used to.
Now that "Scott Thomas" has outed himself, I wish my subscription were current. I would love to cancel in high dudgeon. We have not discussed it at ThreeSources, but I bet you've all followed the story. The pseudonymous Thomas wrote "anecdotal diaries" of life in Iraq as an American soldier. In his stories, he and his compatriots disrespected Iraqis and acted dishonorably and unprofessionally. He claimed that he himself had cruelly insulted a woman who had been disfigured by an IED. His friends destroyed infrastructure in their Bradley fighting vehicles and always swerved to kill dogs. He didn't get to "Gengis Khan," but it was only a matter of time.
Now that many military bloggers have disputed his tales, he takes to the TNR blog to out himself and defend his fellow soldiers against charges that they are -- it gets pretty weird here -- charges that they are honorable and decent. It seems those who say the military is not loaded with psychopaths and sadists are chickenhawks.
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.
We are too psychotic sadists, dammit! How dare you question my lack of patriotism!
Beauchamp/Thomas is a Private and he may have actually done or seen some of the unprofessional incidents he describes, though I suspect some serious hyperbole. Most telling is that TNR -- the least moonbatty of Democratic mags -- chooses to represent our brave men and women by this cowardly example. The commenters on The Plank are all rallying around Beauchamp and ridiculing those who have dared question his perfidy.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett have covered this well. Hugh links to a Wikipedia entry on TNR "controversies."
All right, now that he's outed himself...
Court-martial the little **** for whatever he claimed to do, which is what should have been done to John Kerry after his Congressional testimony in the 1970s.
If his claims are not true, then he's lying, and worse, lying about his fellow soldiers. That's "conduct unbecoming." A CO will take issue either way with troops insulting a disfigured contractor, or one of his troops lying about the others doing it.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 26, 2007 5:10 PMAbsolutely right.
Posted by: jk at July 26, 2007 5:13 PMJuly 18, 2007
Bias?
Bias? At the A.P.?
It was good to, finally, see an announcement of the captured al Qaida leader. In a bylined story for the AP, Robert Reid opens right out of Journalism 101:
BAGHDAD - The U.S. command announced on Wednesday the arrest of an al-Qaida leader it said served as the link between the organization's command in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's inner circle, enabling it to wield considerable influence over the Iraqi group.
Okay, enough news. Let's get to the real story -- the perfidy of the Bush Administration:
The announcement was made as the White House steps up efforts to link the war in Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, with a growing number of Americans opposing the Iraq conflict. Some independent analysts question the extent of al-Qaida's role in Iraq.
I think these guys are just having these military successes to fuel their propaganda machine. Good thing the AP is not going to let them get away with it!
July 13, 2007
The Torch Has Been Passed
I made a formal and overly dramatic dissolution of my punditry ties with Peggy Noonan on June 1.
One of the things I meant to say in that post was that a reasonable comparison of Peggy Noonan with "Potomac Watch" author Kimberly Strassel would show that the torch has been passed. Peggy Noonan's "What I Saw at the Revolution" had a profound effect on me and did much to make me the partisan hack that I am today. After 9/11, her columns, collected in "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag," were a good forum for her powerful and romantic writing.
But I dare you to compare the two today (is it sexist for me to single out two blonde women writers?) and make a credible claim that they belong on the same ed page. Both are on the free site today, let’s compare.
Kim writes a tightly thought and constructed column about campaign finance reform, and the irony of its deleterious effect on Senator McCain's Presidential campaign. I'd use it as a textbook example of a great column.
State your premise:
John McCain's campaign fell into disarray this week, kicked off by the news it had raised a scant $24 million so far. Mark these money woes down to any number of problems, but don't entirely discount the McCain-Feingold effect.
Acknowledge contrary indicators:
Let's stipulate that most of the good senator's troubles stem from high-profile policy disagreements he's had with his own base. He's tweaked noses on global warming and slapped faces on immigration. His admirable decision to stand strong on Iraq has been undermined by his tendency to stand weak on national security issues such as interrogations and enemy combatants. And economic conservatives just don't trust a guy who won't admit that cutting taxes is good.
She then seriously discusses the importance of the topic to key constituent groups and the political implications. Then, she compares beliefs of McCain Feingold from other top tier candidates, before a strong conclusion:
Whatever the effect, Mr. McCain must surely be considering the irony of his current situation. Mitt Romney has also burned through money quickly, and in theory should be looking at a low bank balance. But Mr. Romney can write himself a check at any time--one of the few things McCain-Feingold allows.Mr. McCain might well have some billionaire supporters who'd be only too happy to give him a big financial boost at this crucial time, though they won't be allowed to thanks to finance restrictions. The senator has family money, though it's not clear he'd tap that to keep his bid running. For now, he's stuck raising it the hard way, under a system that much of the GOP hates.
Succinct, informative, cohesive. If I taught a class, I'd bring this in as an example.
Our Margaret, on the other hand, has a good little cry, because that mean old President Bush has the temerity to be jocular in a press conference when SHE IS STILL SO ANGRY AT HIM! MEN!!!!
His stock answer is that of course he feels the sadness of the families who've lost someone in Iraq. And of course he must. Beyond that his good humor seems to me disorienting, and strange.In arguing for the right path as he sees it, the president more and more claims for himself virtues that the other side, by inference, lacks. He is "idealistic"; those who oppose him are, apparently, lacking in ideals. He makes his decisions "based on principle," unlike his critics, who are ever watchful of the polls. He is steadfast, brave, he believes "freedom isn't just for Americans" but has "universal . . . applications," unlike those selfish, isolationist types who oppose him.
Noonan points out that we cannot fire the President right now (a point Cindy Sheehan made on Kudlow & Company last night) but she knows we all want to. She talks to a rock-ribbed-republican in Georgia who doesn't believe the President. A Rock ribbed republican! She and Mrs. Rock Rib both grit their teeth when the President is on.
Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.
Methinks it is time to, perhaps, fire Ms. Noonan.
July 6, 2007
Wage growth falls 0.1%; poor, minorities hardest hit
Some pretty good jobs numbers today -- that is, unless you are reading them in the New York Times:
Wage gains for most Americans last month were slow, and are most likely still trailing inflation. Compared with June 2006, average hourly earnings for workers in nonmanagement jobs increased 3.9 percent, to $17.38, less than the 4 percent advance in May.
Ahh yes, the heady, halcyon days of last monthwhen wage growth was 4.0% instead of 3.9 -- you can just feel the stagnation in the air.
Hat-tip: Don Luskin, who points out "according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation is running at 2.7%. How is it that a 3.9% wage increase is "trailing" 2.7% inflation?"
June 25, 2007
Media Complicity
Roger Simon has a superb post on the media's deafening silence when their time came to defend Salman Rushdie against what Simon calls "enemies of the Enlightenment." Simon refers to a quote from Glenn Reynolds that bothered me in the same and a different way. Over the weekend Professor Reynolds said:
"Frankly, I think the best argument for electing a Democrat as President is that as long as a Republican is in office the media powers-that-be will refuse to condemn even the worst atrocities on the part of Islamists, for fear of helping the real enemy in the White House."
That upset Simon and me as lovers of freedom -- and further upset me as a partisan hack. Must we really put Senator Obama in the White House to nationalize medicine in the name of freedom? That's a level of Pragmatism I'm not ready to try.
Simon continues to darkly -- but not unconvincingly -- claim that the Iraq War was doomed because of media bias, exacerbated by administration partisanship.
The same prejudices that Rutten describes in his Rushdie article are the ones that have seriously undermined the possibility of victory for democracy in Iraq. A media that could call obvious fascists and religious fascists "insurgents" (a term once reserved for Pancho Villa) in the interest of "objectivity" encouraged a specious atmosphere of moral equivalence to democracy from the start. Whether this was conscious or unconscious is beside the point. Whatever it was, our enemies, the enemies of the Enlightenment, seized on it for propaganda purposes and continue to do so. (Note that in the new Daniel Pearl movie, Pearl's beheading is not even shown - that was praised as tasteful by Roger Ebert.) And, as everyone knows, the playing field of asymmetrical war is the media, far more than the battlefield. Only in the world of public opinion can we be defeated.
Dark days. Simon quotes Arthur Miller and it's not out of place.
Banned by PBS, Bumped by FOX
Warning: an angry rant follows. Those seeking polite, well reasoned commentary should click over to Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter or something.
Will somebody please tell me what lottery we lost? Right of center folk get the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh; the crown jewel is FOXNews. My Boulder County compatriots get NPR, PBS and, well, everything else.
I HATE FOX NEWS! I like Brit Hume's show; I record it every day and watch it three or four times a week. I watch "Beltway Boys" and the "Journal Editorial Report" every week, and I watch Chris Wallace's Fox New Sunday every week. It runs on FOX Network but it seems fair to credit FOXNews with its production.
EVERY OTHER MINUTE IS PURE CRAP.
I accepted this Faustian bargain and chose to watch the shows I like. That's the deal with television. I don't have to watch "Two and a Half Men" because the same network shows the Broncos. I always chuckle that the most "conservative" show on TV has got to be Larry Kudlow's "Kudlow & Company" on CNBC. But FOX pre-empted all my shows this weekend, because 23 hours of tabloid news is not enough for them some days.
My heart goes out to the friends and the family of the pregnant woman in Ohio who was abducted and killed. I don't mean to minimize the tragedy in any way. It's a horrible crime; I certainly hope the perpetrators are found and punished. Beyond that, I don't need to know or care to know the names and the details. I cannot believe the family wants Geraldo, Greta, and me in their living room.
Beltway Boys was pre-empted at 4PM Mountain. I'm used to this and know I can try to record it again at 9:30 after WSJ Editorial Report. Surprise! They were still yapping through both of those. I found and recorded another replay at 4AM and, mirabile dictu, it ran.
I am ranting. It's only a TV show. What really got me was that I had also recorded "Muslims Against Jihad," which PBS had spiked for reasons many thought were PC and appeasement of victim groups. FOX didn't mind hyping the show:
Tune in this weekend, as FOX News Channel presents the documentary the Public Broadcasting System didn't want you to see.It's a film about the difference between moderate Muslims and the radicals who want to kill us. It asks where are the moderate Muslims and why aren't they speaking out against the jihadists? And it was financed with $675,000 of taxpayers' money.
Of course, that would have meant that FOX would have HAD TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THE ATTRACTIVE, WHITE, MURDER VICTIM FOR 90 MINUTES. Even at one in the morning (three Eastern), we couldn't have that. So I recorded an hour and a half of "Breaking News" that was at least 12 hours old.
FOX.
Congratulations, you too have discovered that FoxNews is crap.
Not for it's "conservative" bias, but for the same reason all 24 hour news is crap.
They have a day to fill... and sometimes there isn't that much going on.
... that and they program based on people tuning in and out throughout the day... not actually watching it all day long. (though some do)
Posted by: AlexC at June 25, 2007 1:46 PMA good friend of this blog has assured me in private that Greta Van Susteren has all those women locked up in her basement.
In FOX's defense, I like the headline on the SCOTUS free speach decision: "Court Snuffs Out 'Bong Hits'"
Posted by: jk at June 25, 2007 2:47 PMWould you believe that when I tuned in to FNC this morning I was surprised to learn that the woman's body had been found - on SATURDAY? Yes, I actually managed to avoid the breaking news. I spent Friday through Sunday baling and stacking 1500 bales of hay. The only news I got was between innings of Rockies games on the radio. (Speaking of which, can we have the Yankees back? Those Blue Jays and their plastic grass and plastic dirt really jacked with the Rox.)
I watched FNC when it was new. It was fresh. It was awesome. Now, it's CNN with a slightly traditional tone, although Bill Hemmer's arrival from CNN was an ominous sign. I still think he's a plant.
Posted by: johngalt at June 25, 2007 3:24 PMI'm with AlexC. 24 hours of news shows for maybe 2 hours of actual "Headline News" is too much!
I think the last time I watched news on TV was to get pictures during Katrina.
June 21, 2007
How About a Short Krugman ETF
I'm not making fun of Paul Krugman's height (blog friend Perry Eidlebus tells Don Luskin that he is lying when he claims to be 5' 7"). I am making fun of his poor predictions. Both Luskin and Larry Kudlow celebrate the four year anniversary of his claim that "In short, the current surge in stocks looks like another bubble, one that will eventually burst."
Luskin's reply is more colorful, so I will use it:
Brilliant. Just f***ing brilliant. The total return to the S&P 500 since then has been about 66%, including dividends. Gee -- I sure wish I'd sold everything four years ago like Krugman said to do.
He seems wrong with sufficient frequency that I'd like to start a fund that would do the opposite of what he says. Users could short Krugman easily and I could deduct TimesSelect from my taxes.
"You lied."
"I exaggerated."
I didn't exactly say he lied, or did I, but standing on the same stage, I definitely seemed taller. Still, isn't Krugman a bit old to be thinking so childishly about it? Short stature is something you can't do anything about, but your weight is completely under your control except in exceptional medical circumstances.
BTW, the night I met Krugman was when I got him to autograph a copy of his book, my gift to a good friend. Oh, the relish in my reply, after he asked my friend's name. "Don Luskin."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 22, 2007 2:58 PMROFLMAO -- I would've loved to have seen that.
Posted by: jk at June 22, 2007 3:37 PM"Lied" might be a little strong. Luskin quotes your letter as:
You're right, that has to be with elevator shoes. When I met him at that Social Security debate, he definitely seemed shorter than I, and I'm 5'5". Granted, I don't know for certain, but like with all things Krugman, we should automatically be skeptical. His track record is all about purporting things to be true, which the rest of us counter with actual facts.
Exactly. Now, MoDo would've gotten the benefit of the doubt. Posted by: jk at June 22, 2007 3:54 PM
June 11, 2007
Arlen Specter is now "Top Republican"
The AP Headline reads "Top Republican to vote against Gonzales"
Leader McConnell? No, following the link I found out that Senator Arlen Specter is the top Republican. Well, he is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. I fear it's gone to his head. He talks about himself in the third person now:
"If you ask Arlen Specter, do I have confidence in Attorney General Gonzales, the answer is a resounding no," Specter said during a news conference in Philadelphia. "I'm going to vote that I have no confidence in Attorney General Gonzales."
If you ask jk, that's never a good sign.
He's a "Top Republican" to the MSM world because that godd***ed RINO thinks like a good little Demo-Socialist!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 11, 2007 8:31 PMMay 31, 2007
Dueling Headlines
AP goes with "Economy has worst growth since 2002"
WASHINGTON - The economy nearly stalled in the first quarter with growth slowing to a pace of just 0.6 percent. That was the worst three-month showing in over four years.
But I'm tempted to go with "Economy Grows for 23 consecutive Quarters." Yeah, that's Pollyanna on steroids, but once you get past the lede, the news is not so bad:
[..] fewer people signed up for unemployment benefits last week. New filings dropped by 4,000 to 310,000. That suggests the employment climate is weathering well the economy's sluggish spell.[...] construction spending edged up by 0.1 percent in April, down from a 0.6 percent gain in the previous month. Spending by private builders on nonresidential projects and spending by the government on big projects each climbed to all time highs in April but that strength was tempered by continued weakness in residential construction.
In the GDP report, many economists believe the first quarter will be the low point for this year. They expect growth will improve but still be sluggish.
[...] Investment in home building was cut by 15.4 percent, on an annualized basis, in the first quarter. However, that wasn't as deep a cut as the 17 percent annualized drop initally [sic] estimated. And, it wasn't as severe as the 19.8 percent annualized drop seen in the final quarter of last year.
[...] Consumers boosted their spending by a 4.4 percent growth rate in the first quarter, the most in a year. Consumer spending accounts for a major chunk of economic activity.
[...] Companies profits gained a bit of ground in the first quarter. One measure showed after tax profits rising by 1 percent, up from 0.8 percent in the fourth quarter.
Not mentioned were the record closes for the DJIA, S&P 500 and Russel2K.
May 22, 2007
NYTimes: Right on Gouging
Surprised?
The Grey Lady gets bashed enough around here, one must remember that it really is a great newspaper. Today, they're correct on "price gouging" and appropriately dismissive of anti-gouging legislation.
It goes without saying that gasoline retailers and oil companies will seek to maximize their profit, which usually means charging the highest price markets can bear.But is that price gouging?
Because the demand for gasoline is what economists call inelastic, which means that people cannot quickly reduce their consumption when prices rise sharply, abrupt supply shortages lead to steep price increases without any immediate decline in sales.
The most common reason for such increases in gasoline prices is a steep increase in the price of crude oil. But crude oil prices are set in global markets, and even the biggest American or European oil companies are modest players compared with state-controlled oil companies in the Persian Gulf, Russia and Latin America.
Even the mighty Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which defines itself as a competition-limiting cartel, has only a limited grip on world oil prices. OPEC countries watched helplessly as oil prices plunged in the early 1980s and remained mired below $20 a barrel for most years (excluding the time of the Persian Gulf War in 1991) through the mid-1990s.
It seems hard to believe today, but world oil prices briefly drifted below $11 a barrel in 1998. Not surprisingly, few lawmakers in Congress took that opportunity to denounce “unconscionably excessive” price declines.
Kinda warms the heart. Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: Insty also has a YouTube of CNN bashing the Democrats for junkets. Tonight on FOXNews: "Was President Reagan really a weasel?"
May 1, 2007
Interesting Blog Concept
Registered usrers submit stories and vote on them; the most popular get posted onto the home page.
A project of Alex Singleton, who describes it in more detail on Samizdata.
It's very "Digg"-ish... or reddit-like.
Two things about those kinds of sites.
1) they require a critical mass or particpants
2) they can also be gamed.
Posted by: AlexC at May 1, 2007 6:21 PMBased on Digg. I had not seen or heard of it before.
I would say the Samizdata and Adam Smith Institute connections might bring it to critical mass pretty quickly, your second concern is worrisome.
I also wonder if it lacks a character or voice. I'm interested, though, I signed up for a login on the beta and plan to stick with it awhile and see what happens.
April 28, 2007
Western Media's Fifth Column
The observation that western media has a predominant leftist bias that leads to "news" reports critical of US and Israeli military and foreign policy is not new. Thomas Sowell wrote 'Western Media: Fourth Estate or Fifth Column' more than two years ago.
Whether the one-sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in the American defeat there used to be a matter of controversy. But, in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have themselves admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.
What is new is a Harvard University researcher publishes a paper that "describes the trajectory of the media from objective observer to fiery advocate, becoming in fact a weapon of modern warfare." And that researcher is none other than Marvin Kalb, a household name from his work on network news broadcasts in decades past. Like Bernard Goldberg, Kalb made his career as a member of the vaunted Fourth Estate he is now critical of.
The full paper can be downloaded here, and is replete with examples of internet and satellite TV enabled military espionage by middle east "news" outlets, and similar abetting behavior by western media:
Whether “sub,” “supra” or “trans” this fusion of radical, revolutionary politics and ultramodern communications technology, as witnessed in the Lebanon War of 2006, has come to define the very nature of asymmetrical warfare. A key consequence of this new warfare is that the role of the journalist in many parts of the world has been dramatically transformed—from a quest for objectivity and fairness to an acceptance of advocacy as a tool of the craft. If once the journalist aspired to honest and detached reporting, now it has become increasingly acceptable for the journalist to be an activist player and a fiery advocate. 24/7 cable news has placed a premium on provocative chatter, not on substantive discourse. Many journalists in the Middle East, born into a culture of submissiveness to centralized authority, have always seen themselves as players and advocates, but this has not been the norm in Europe or the United States, and this change is both noteworthy and disturbing. {Emphasis mine.]
The motto of the Scripps-Howard newspapers, still displayed prominently on the masthead of papers they publish (including Denver's 'Rocky Mountain News') reads: Give light and the people will find their own way. Consider in which direction the light now being given is intended to lead people.
Hat tip: Cox & Forkum with an appropriately selected cartoon from the South Lebanon war of 2006.
I think that's true, but I'm ok with it as long as we know it. And I think most people do know that the news isn't objective. Once it's determined that journalists are not objective, then you can start to arrest them for being an enemy combatant if that ends up being the case. And you can do it without listening to the argument that they're just trying to be "fair".
Posted by: Terri at April 28, 2007 2:37 PMI think you're right that most people who are paying attention know that the news isn't objective, but what about the other half (or more) who don't pay attention?
And if there were no market for objective news, Fox News wouldn't continue to use the motto "fair and balanced."
Bloggers have proven an effective counterweight to MSM misinformation. But when the dominant mass distributors of news information can be counted on to deliver consistently slanted reports consciously designed to support a particular dogma, how is that any different from state control of the media?
Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2007 12:24 PMDo I misread? The answer is coercive power and your comparison seems uncharacteristically relativist from jg.
The leftist media oligopoly is subject to corrective market pressure from FOXNews, blogs, and talk radio. The public school monopoly has nothing to fear.
Coercive power is AN answer, but not the one I'd choose. Instead I'm cautioning against thoughtful individuals being "ok with" ideological filters on news broadcasts which, by definition, are advertised as thorough and objective.
What is relativistic in the comparison between state control of media (which censors what threatens state control and embellishes what flatters it) and a dogmatic information oligopoly, which does exactly the same thing?
The LMO is subject to democratic market pressure. When the market is polarized and evenly divided ideologically then the market pressure you rely on evaporates. Particularly when individuals who disagree with the dominant paradigm are "ok with it."
Posted by: johngalt at April 30, 2007 2:53 PMI left a better comment on this subject over at Terri's blog:
"Fair enough - the news is a free-market business. However, I am particularly sensitive to the redefinition of the concept ‘reality’ that is driven by the philosophy of Pragmatism. Abdicating the principle that news must be objective and opinion must be on the editorial page is the civil equivalent of allowing a wartime enemy to capture your capital because defending civilian property “isn’t the army’s job.”
The progress and security of a free society is based upon individual choice of the best ideas amongst all available. When the available ideas are restricted by ideological censorship then freedom is in jeopardy.
Edward R. Murrow is turning over in his grave."
Posted by: johngalt at April 30, 2007 3:23 PMApril 26, 2007
Still the Bunny Blog
People come to ThreeSources looking for informed commentary on important issues, application of basic economic principles to politics, and a bit of internecine "clarification" of principles from our divergent viewpoints.
Nah, just kiddin'. Chocolate Bunnies keep us afloat. Here are the top 20 search strings for (a very busy) April (Getting that Easter peak...)
| Top 20 of 7509 Total Search Strings | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| # | Hits | Search String | |
| 1 | 1266 | 6.58% | chocolate bunny |
| 2 | 1114 | 5.79% | pepsi |
| 3 | 711 | 3.70% | chocolate bunnies |
| 4 | 238 | 1.24% | lance armstrong |
| 5 | 222 | 1.15% | easter bunny cartoon |
| 6 | 184 | 0.96% | cartoon bunny |
| 7 | 168 | 0.87% | chocolate bunny cartoon |
| 8 | 157 | 0.82% | scary easter bunny |
| 9 | 153 | 0.80% | liberal |
| 10 | 148 | 0.77% | cartoon bunnies |
| 11 | 139 | 0.72% | mugabe |
| 12 | 137 | 0.71% | chocolate easter bunny |
| 13 | 129 | 0.67% | evil easter bunny |
| 14 | 107 | 0.56% | five pillars |
| 15 | 97 | 0.50% | pillars |
| 16 | 90 | 0.47% | easter bunny cartoons |
| 17 | 72 | 0.37% | battle of normandy |
| 18 | 68 | 0.35% | cartoon rabbits |
| 19 | 66 | 0.34% | cartoon easter bunny |
| 20 | 62 | 0.32% | south park characters |
Sigh. Here it is.
Un-foxtrot-believable.
Posted by: johngalt at April 28, 2007 11:43 AMApril 24, 2007
THE WAR IS LOST!!!
Katie Couric's epic struggle to provide peace and stability to the CBS Evening News is floundering. And Dean Barnett shares one high level official who has dared to tell the public that it's over:
"The broadcast is an abject failure, by any measure," says Rich Hanley, director of graduate programs at the School of Communications at Quinnipiac University. “They gambled that viewers wanted a softer, less-dramatic presentation of the news, and they lost. It's not fair to blame Couric for everything, but she's certainly the centerpiece and deserves a fair share."
Must one more haircut be sacrificed to this futile effort?
April 20, 2007
NBC II
A friend sends a link to Mickey Kaus, who makes a well reasoned case for NBC's abstaining.
Isn't Michael Ledeen right--NBC shouldn't have shown that video. It seems less like an "ethical challenge" than a no-brainer. Why encourage other potential Cho's to try for a similar publicity bonanza? This isn't a Unabomber like case where publicizing a killer's electronic media kit might help identify him. We already know who did it.
It's well done but I remain unconvinced. The killer "got what he wanted" but he was very much too dead to enjoy it.
Mickster is right that l'Affaire Imus looks pretty silly against this but so what? That Imus coverage was overblown does not reflect on VT coverage.
UPDATE: Don Surber makes a better comparison than Cho - Imus: Cho vs. 9/11 vs. Katrina. The famous restraint that caused 9/11 pictures to disappear from the news stacks poorly against the broadcast of prurient images from New Orleans and the Cho video.
I'm a poor choice to defend the media. (Hat-tip: Insty).
Before I'm voted off the raft, let me make one point. FOXNews, unsurprisingly, set the news machine on 11 for this story. We had a logo and theme song the day it happened, the young man's picture was on every four minutes and any thread of information gleaned about him was cause for a news alert where they would break into coverage of the same story. This is how the business goes in 24x7 cable land. I'm not complaining but I choose not to watch. I fast forward through most of Brit Hume's show. They do not have 30 minutes of new information.
I digress, The point is that NBC's decision to air the killer's video does not strike me as morally inferior to another network's interviewing a guy who once sold him a pair of shoes ("He was a quiet kid, and he wore a 9C...") They're both "making him famous" and he is too dead to enjoy the coverage.
April 19, 2007
NBC and the VT Broadcast
One could have a thoughtful discussion of NBC's decision to broadcast the media received from the VT murderer -- but then you wouldn't make a good blogger. Hugh Hewitt suggests it might be The Single Worst Editorial Decision In The History Of Broadcast News?
The airing of the pictures and video is obviously a hurtful and destructive act, one that will prime many killing pumps in the years ahead, and one obviously made on the fly by individuals of almost no experience with or curiosity about the deranged mind.
I don't get it. Perhaps my blog brothers will put me right. I see it as a borderline case and I could have applauded restraint and discretion had they decided not to air it. But I cannot get into Hugh's high dudgeon.
Blaming NBC for the "next" shooting makes no more sense than blaming Smith & Wesson, or "society" or racism.
Capus and the other heads at NBC debated long and hard over whether to show the video.
WTF was the debate? How high will our ratings go and how much should we charge advertisers??
Was it a debate over doing the morally correct thing versus the morally reprehensible? (We can see which side won that debate,...)
As for me,...F**k NBC!! I used to watch the Today Show over breakfast (my little TV in the kitchen doesn't have cable), but no more!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 19, 2007 8:15 PMAny reason to not watch The Today Show is a good one, Trek.
The free market guy in me says that if the ratings were going to spike, that proves an interest in seeing it.
Were it a prurient look at the bodies or the murders, it would clearly be wrong. I just don't see what is clearly wrong with broadcasting this guy's "manifesto." I reject the assertion that it will encourage other mass murderers; I think that is a very singular deficiency.
April 15, 2007
Misc Blogging
Why I blog?
1) Pent up rage
2) A deep fountain of anger
3) Venom: $15 per barrel.
4) Trek Medic tags me with these things.
5) Spreading the love. JK, John Galt, Charlie, Mark.
Feelin' the love, but I think I'll break my link of the chain. (After all, there were no threats of impending mortal danger for failure to participate.)
Venom. Is that one of them 'ternative fuels? Fer 15 bucks I'll give it a try.
Posted by: johngalt at April 15, 2007 9:09 PMDistill it my friend. 101 Octane Fury is hard to beat. With Lead too.... so "it'll run good."
Posted by: AlexC at April 16, 2007 1:12 AMOhhh, my rage is creamier than your rage. Ever try the Vitriol blend?
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 16, 2007 9:46 AMI'll play. Beats work (which might be #5...)
There's really just one for me. I enjoy being forced to clarify and voice the things I believe in. You can yell at your family at a barbecue, but blogging forces you to articulate it clearly and defensibly.
April 9, 2007
Blog Redesign Awards
I give the gold to: A Second Hand Conjecture.
Not sure when the redesign was completed, but wow, it looks great.
Then again, I can't even type "redesign' (since corrected).
Wow! Thanks! Actually pretty much all of the credit should go to Lance, but thanks again for the plug.
Cheers.
Posted by: MichaelW at April 10, 2007 1:37 PMApril 6, 2007
Another Objective Reporter
A good friend of this blog sends a link to a CBS News "Public Eye" piece, where an intrepid and insightful CBS News reporter interviews an intrepid and insightful CBS News reporter. The fatuousness is too thick to read the whole thing, but if you scroll down, Rome-based CBS News Correspondent Allen Pizzey is asked to elaborate on his complaints about Senator McCain's upbeat visit to Baghdad:
Allen Pizzey: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story.Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour…and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized."
My emailer questions whether threatening signs are really that good a deterrent to terrorists.
If you can wade a little further, the next question is about media objectivity:
Brian Montopoli: There used to be a pretty vigorous debate about whether the media is reporting the war through an anti-administration liberal bias lens, though that has died down a bittle bit of late. How do you feel about that argument?Allen Pizzey: I dismiss that. Because I think the Bush administration in particular thinks that anything that doesn't wholly support everything they say is against them. And you don't have to support one side or the other. If the administration makes idiotic claims, or claims that are patently, to us on the ground, wrong, why should we not report that they're wrong? All we're doing is reporting what we can see and understand.
To recap: He didn't see McCain in the marketplace, but "if he did" it was staged and phony -- but he is completely objective!
This Instapundit post has video of General Patraeus's answering such complaints. I find him a little more credible than a Rome-based CBS correspondent who admits he never saw it.
UPDATE: A great comment from the CBS site:
Lots of references here to the "MSM." We in the military prefer to call them the "National Media Establishment," or, more precisely, by their acronym, the "NME." Say it fast, out loud - "N-M-E," and you'll get what I mean.
March 15, 2007
Allegedly...
No doubt this is good journalism and in keeping with the NYTimes Style Guide, but this grouchy hawk rolled his eyes at this Headline:
Suspected Leader of 9/11 Attacks Is Said to Confess
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, long said to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to them at a military hearing held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on Saturday, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon yesterday. He also acknowledged full or partial responsibility for more than 30 other terror attacks or plots.
We can't be sure, mind you -- it's just a rumor about something somebody might have said he might have said. Again, it is probably correct to phrase it this way. It just seems to me that the NYTimes is able to find its certain declarative voice on the important topics of the day, like Bush Administration malfeasance, gender discrimination at golf clubs, and the importance of shutting down Guantánamo and releasing all those innocent freedom fighters.
March 14, 2007
Contest
Here's your chance to take an all-expenses-paid trip with Nick Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times.This year, Nick will be traveling with two people, a student enrolled in an American college or graduate school and a middle school or high school teacher.
To enter you must write an essay no longer than 700 words explaining why you're the right candidate for this trip.
Second prize: Two trips with Pulitzer-Prize winning NYTimes columnist, Nick Kristof. I dunno, a night of cocktails with MoDo maybe, but carrying Kristof's luggage? Not me, man.
UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot the link.
March 12, 2007
Three Decades of Peretz's TNR
Martin Peretz gives a serious and honest summary of his tenure as owner of The New Republic. I have subscribed to the digital version for a few years now and had no idea he was the owner. I thought he was just some guy who wrote the best pieces in the book.
He admits (as the New York Times will not) that freedom has not been served by TNR's and its readers support of anti-Americanism up to and including Stalinism.
What is dogma to many of them is simply the historical and psychological assault on the United States. In the cold war, many Americans did not want the Soviet Union to lose. And that France has now become a heroic nation simply for resisting the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq is preposterous. After all, France is a closed-minded, prissy, rigidly class-bound, economically retarded, and nostalgic country. Nostalgic for its martial glory that goes back a century plus, and jealous of it, too, in resisting the reality that military might no longer belongs to the motherland. During my time at tnr, we've tried to guide liberalism away from such intellectual mush. To my regret, we haven't always prevailed.
Their Stalinist phase was before his day, but he still admits "there have been many times when I've hurled my own magazine against the wall in anger." It's a great and succinct piece, let me know if you can't get it and I'll email it. He defends Israel and provides a look at the UN that would be at home in The Weekly Standard, but that TNR readers need to hear:
Which brings us to the United Nations--a failing, bloated, corrupt, and unprincipled institution whose very foundations compel it not to act justly. It is functionally the captive of three cynical permanent members of the Security Council and the wild mob of illegitimate states in the General Assembly. The next decade will find us preoccupied with the issue of how democratic societies succeed in this overstructured and overdetermined world disorder.
Still no shortage of things to disagree with: why does he publish Jonathan Chait? How can they want US involvement in Darfur when they have withdrawn their support for Iraq? All the same, I wish there were a thousand more Martin Peretz's on "the other side" and a lot fewer Koses.
March 6, 2007
Personal Hype Machine Engaged
I submitted the "It's Alive" piece.
I believe this is my second. So in the ThreeSources Best of the Web submission contest, I am catching up to JK, who has three or four. Right?
Nicely done. I'm at three: one link to a serious piece on pharmaceuticals that I am very proud of and two jokes.
Posted by: jk at March 6, 2007 9:45 AMMarch 1, 2007
Happy Blogiversary
Cheers, Perry! Eidelblog: Two years later
I'm goin' on four, and I never met Larry Kudlow...
February 16, 2007
Broad Swath?
WaPo staff writer Paul Kane writes a by-lined news piece (I think this is a news article, not an opinion piece, who can tell anymore?) on the Republican Reps likely to support the Democratic non-binding resolution.
Broad Swath of GOP Defecting on Iraq VoteFrom the moderate suburbs of Delaware to the rural, conservative valleys of eastern Tennessee, House Republican opponents of President Bush's latest Iraq war plan cut across the GOP's ideological and regional spectrum.
Numbering a dozen or more, these House Republicans have emerged as some of the most prominent opponents of the plan to increase troop presence in Iraq. They admit to being a ragtag band, with no scheduled meetings and little political cohesion.
"We aren't organized at all," said Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), whose district includes suburbs of the Twin Cities. "It's about as diverse a group as is possible."
Borrowing time from House Democrats, these Republicans have gone to the floor to condemn the latest attempt at stabilizing Iraq, which they see as mired in civil war, and have vowed to support a Democratic-driven resolution condemning the buildup.
The article (and the email subhead) then points out that not all of these are from safe seats.
There are 202 GOP seats. A dozen is less than six percent. If a few of those are from safe seats, does this really constitute a broad swath? One hundred percent of the Democrats vote against victory, six percent of Republicans join them. I don't see it as bipartisan.
Senator Lindsey Graham has not been my favorite Senator, but he scored some points today with his assertion that "I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate."
UPDATE: Seventeen "White Flag Republicans" vote for the "rebuke." Hat-tip: Hugh
February 15, 2007
Nationalize The Media!
I guess the fairness doctrine has come to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.
A guest editorial by Steven Rattner, former NYTimes journalist and current managing principal at Quadrangle Group, LLC, issues the usual dire outlook on Newspaper readership:
Curiously, Rattner never mentions the word "bias." He seems concerned that everybody is just getting too stupid to appreciate all the wonderful journalism that's out there. Check out his list:
We should also bear in mind that for that sliver of America that seeks quality news, it is arguably more available today than ever before: There is this newspaper, now published six days a week; the national edition of the New York Times home-delivered across the country; the Economist (with its U.S. circulation of 600,000); the NewsHour, the BBC and Charlie Rose on public television; and for the true junkies, C-Span. Not to mention the more rarefied Internet precincts.
Holy Cow -- he forgot Al-jazeera!
He doesn't recognize bias, and he's not so hot on Schumpeterian Gales:
But for newspapers, the challenges are mounting, including advertisers fleeing not only to follow lost readers but also because they believe that newer forms of media can be both more cost-effective and just plain more effective. For example, classified ads, which can represent a third of a typical newspaper's revenue, can be delivered online faster (instantaneous), more conveniently (searchable) and cheaper (sometimes free via Craigslist). Not much imagination or boldness is required to predict that classifieds could completely disappear from newspapers.
So, a clever publisher could try to compete, or they could change their content to attract more readership. Or, we could just forget the market and have public financing of journalism:
Not-for-profit status might be one possibility. Instead of having billionaire moguls as proprietors, we could try to turn them into philanthropists who found nonprofit organizations to buy and operate their local papers. At least one such example exists: the St. Petersburg Times, owned by the Poynter Foundation as a result of a bequest by Nelson Poynter.Purchasing major newspapers would be costly and perhaps impractical, so a hybrid model may make more sense. We could create a pool of money (possibly from a license fee similar to how the BBC is funded). News organizations with an expensive but important project in mind could apply for funding, much the way producers in the public television world have for the last 40 years. Philanthropy could also play a role here, as Joan Kroc did when she left NPR a $200 million kitty.
We've had experience in the past -- the New York City subways come to mind -- with businesses that began as conventional, for-profit corporations, and, for one reason or another, were later rendered unprofitable while still being viewed as essential services. It's time to apply some creative thinking to newspapers and, for that matter, to serious journalism in other media. Then we need to convince Americans that they should pay attention to it -- and pay for it.
This is on the editorial page of the most market-friendly editorial page in the nation. And also, on the page of the one publisher that has successfully brought its product profitably online.
Proves they’re fair.
UPDATE: Free link
February 10, 2007
The First!
Glenn Reynolds gets off a good one.- His post links to an LATimes piece on how TV morning news shows are losing their coveted female 25-35 demographic. The mom in the piece compares these shows to reading People Magazine at the dentist office. Glenn sez:
Those shows' producers may be the first ever to go broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Also, the tv news folks have been going beyond their usual negativity and sensationalism by playing up the bad news even more to make Bush look bad, but judging from this story by doing that they're also chasing away their audience, which now finds their programs too depressing. Oops.
The market is self correcting. When it appears, as in network news, that a problem is intractable, time and competition should iron it out.
February 1, 2007
BLOCK THAT METAPHOR!
One thing I miss from reading Andrew Sullivan is his "Block that Metaphor!" feature. I'll play today.
Eve Fairbanks pens a piece in TNR called Fifty ways to leave your occupied country about the plethora (yes, I think you could call it a plethora) of Democratic House bills to end the Iraq war.
The column is pretty good.
It's a brutally competitive world out there for Democratic representatives with ideas on Iraq. Even though the leadership has decided to let the Senate make the first move (which will be a nonbinding resolution condemning Bush's plans), Iraq is a hot and fertile topic, and bills are sprouting in the House like mushrooms. Many of them seem, at first glance, strangely redundant: H.R. 508 calls for a full redeployment (within six months)--as do H.R. 455 (by December 31), H.J. Res. 18 ("at the earliest practicable date"), and H.R. 413 ("in a safe and orderly manner"). But the market is not yet saturated. Several other representatives, including Steve Israel of New York and James McGovern of Massachusetts, are considering putting out their own. "There's gonna be more," says a Democratic aide with a sigh.Why are so many Iraq bills flourishing? The atmosphere on the Hill is one of the freest for Democrats in memory: Many are experiencing being in the majority for the first time, and they're stretching their arms and whipping out the plans that had lain dormant under Republican rule. "Maybe [these bill-producing congressmen] had ideas before and their staff was like, 'No.' And now they're like, 'We can't stop them!'" explains an aide to a representative with a bill.
But this sentence red-lined the metaphor gauge:
[Susan] Sarandon was there to promo the Iraq bill put out by Woolsey, Waters, and Barbara Lee: As competing bills struggle to survive, these representatives were hoping that Sarandon would give legs to their bill so it would crawl out of the muck and walk in the sunlight.
Umm, yeah. Something like that.
Plenty of interesting turns of phrase in that story, but just how much may be twisted about and just how much may be Fairbanksing?
Yes, there are no shortage of political workers in the DC area that can supply any 'reporter' with any sort of quote that they want. Sad thing is, too many reporters seem to write their stories in advance and some have been known to imagine the anonymous quotes that make it into print.
The reporter you are quoting has a history of fabrication.
Posted by: Guy Montag at February 3, 2007 12:39 AMI had read that story about the "date" but did not remember the name or make the connection. Thanks for the reminder. Knowing Ms. Fairbanks is out there makes me even more glad that I am married.
I read TNR to try and connect with people who think very differently. Fear not, I sprinkle adequate grains of salt on everything they publish.
Actually, I think that first link is the best example of her 'work' rather than the story I was in.
Posted by: Guy Montag at February 4, 2007 8:13 PMJanuary 31, 2007
Sourcing
This is certainly good news...
In a landmark ruling in favor of bloggers and cyber journalists, a Santa Clara County Court defended the First Amendment rights of online journalists to protect their confidential sources, effectively giving web journalists the same protections afforded to traditional print journalists.
It's in a California court, so depending on where you are, your mileage will vary, but promising nevertheless.
(tip to Patterico)
January 28, 2007
Colorado Leads "The Pledge"
Last week JK brought us "The Pledge" not to support re-election of Republican Senators who may choose to vote with the pacifist or anti-Bush left in one of this week's non-binding resolutions on Iraq. At that time there were less than 8,000 signatures. Today there are over 28,000. It is also interesting to note on this US map of signers, Colorado is behind only California and Texas (barely) in number of pledges with 2000 plus. On a per capita basis this puts Colorado clearly in the lead. I attribute this to a higher per capita number of bloggers in Colorado who are informed of such things. (Or maybe we've just got more time on our hands from being snowbound.)
I went through the list of Colorado signers looking for names I recognized. There weren't many, but there were hyperlinks to names from towns nearby, like Brighton, Louisville and Longmont Several of them are bloggers who are, not surprisingly, like minded with the Three Sources way of thinking.
Check them out:
ithinkthereforeierr, Longmont - What HE says!
Optional G, Brighton - non binding
"wait… you hate the war? you hate bush? we had no idea… really… could you tell us again. and pass some legislation that says you hate george bush…"
Marcy's Musings, Brighton - Fight Back Against the Warner Resolution
Documenting Instanity, Louisville - The Not Greatest Generation
Some good stuff there.
Visitors may also be interested in Senatorial Surrender Monkeys, also related to non-binding resolutions in the Senate.
Posted by: johngalt at January 29, 2007 3:14 AMHey, thanks for the link!
I like your site and it's very cool that Colorado is up there with their pledges. Colorado worries me sometimes.
I'll be back to peruse more later!
January 23, 2007
Supporting The Troops
The Los Angeles Times way. You don't have to click, I have reproduced this editorial in full. You want to read it all at once:
LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.
They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles — Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).
OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth — because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?
Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?
Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes — lots of taxes.
Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.
Hat-tip: Hugh who provides the phone number to cancel your subscription.
January 21, 2007
Update Your Links
Looks like I will have to stop not reading Andrew Sullivan on Time, and start not reading him in The Atlantic.
Hat-tip: Insty
January 18, 2007
Hard to Beat
I nominated Coach Marty Shottenheimer for a 2007 ThreeSources You Suck Award.
Bad as he was, he doesn’t have a chance against blog brother AlexC's pick. On PAWaterCooler.com he more or less nominates the entire U.S. Senate. Senate Bill S.1. (That's right, before ethics or earmark reform, or whining about the war) seeks to register bloggers as K Street Lobbyists.
The Senate. I'd say nominations are closed.
Shottenheimer didn't lose the game. I suspect that you are just a bit upset and spiteful because your beloved Broncos choked down the stretch.
Posted by: Everyday Economist at January 19, 2007 9:37 AMHurt and upset I am. My original post noted that Broncos fans have been the beneficiaries of Shottenheimer's blunders over the years.
But I strongly feel that Mr. Shottenheimer took a superior team into that game and made no fewer than three blunders: 4th & 11, the "hail mary challenge," and using his final timeout at 2:16. Dale Barnett adds the undisciplined penalties that SD took.
You could debate most of these individually, but somebody has to assume culpability for losing at home with a superior team.
I wouldn’t really say “choke” for the Broncos either. This was not a year we belonged in the playoffs.
January 11, 2007
John Stossel
And they still let him co-anchor 20/20:
"The higher minimum wage is a feel-good law. A slight increase will pass because politicians and poverty activists will be able to say they have 'done something' for the poor, while the victims of the policy go unnoticed. Those who can't find jobs because they produce too little are not likely to blame the law or the politicians who tried to 'help' them. Then the resulting unemployment will justify expansion of the welfare state" -- ABC News' John Stossel.
Hat-tip: OpinionJournal Political Diary
Have Stossel google "Henry Ford+Minimum Wage+Middle Class"
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at January 11, 2007 8:42 PMDecember 31, 2006
Now they can finally come home, right?
What would the US military do without authoritative websites? From Australia's 'The Age:' US troop deaths in Iraq reach 3,000:
The number of US military deaths in Iraq has reached 3,000 since the 2003 US-led invasion, an authoritative website tracking war deaths says.
Authoritative? Here's what they say about themselves:
This site is maintained by amateurs. We have no affiliation with the government, think tanks, or news organizations. The site is maintained during the early morning hours, late at night, and during lunch breaks.This site is provided as a free service and is self financed with cost off set by user donations.
On the bright side, it's good to see a blog outfit recognized as a news source. Just wait 'til Three Sources hits the Mainstream!
US Army Specialist Dustin R. Donica of Spring, Texas, rest in peace. Your actions in life were part of something far greater than a macabre, anti-Bush milestone.
I don't understand this morbid fascination with round numbers and death counts.
Did 2,998 not count?
Did 1,733 not count?
Posted by: AlexC at December 31, 2006 4:39 PMWe lost 2500 on the first day storming Iwo Jima. We lost a total of over 7500 during the same campaign.
The Dems are pinning their hopes on this slow, drip-drip-drip of deaths to increase the sheeps' (um,..populace's)unease and fatigue with the GWOT in general.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at January 1, 2007 1:03 PMDecember 24, 2006
Defending the Blogosphere
One more wade into l'Affaire Rago. I mentioned that I thought Rago misses the point in his anti-blogging screed (you remember, "Written by fools to be read by imbeciles.")
For the most part, Methinks that the blogosphere hath protested too much. Taranto makes a case that the surfeit of vituperative attacks has done more to prove Rago's point than refute it.
I remain a fan of blogging, although no doubt much of my writing could be used to inculpate Rago's thesis, this sentence included. However, I am a Hayekian at heart and champion the competition of ideas in the free market. I'm also an Army-of-Davidser and a Long-Tailer. I celebrate the removal of barriers to entry in media production and distribution.
Rago fails to recognize the amount of superb writing out there. Dean Barnett offers many counter examples. Some of the best bloggers are professional journalists: Lileks, The Corner, Galley Slaves, and Rago's online editor and defender, James Taranto.
I offer a blog I just discovered: The Becker-Posner Blog maintained by Gary S. Becker, University Professor Department of Economics and Sociology Professor Graduate School of Business The University of Chicago and another intellectual lightweight, Judge Richard Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law at the Chicago School of Law.
I discovered this blog through The Everyday Economist. Josh linked to a discussion on the New York City ban of trans-fats. Posner starts by declaring the information cost of a person educating himself on trans-fats as being too high. Becker rebuts, not only with a freedom and choice argument, but also with suggestions that younger consumers expect pharmaceutical advances to help them before adverse effects materialize, and this gem:
If they value the taste of trans fats in their foods only by 35 cents per meal, the taste cost to consumers of the ban would be $70 million per year. Then the total cost of the ban would equal the benefits from the ban.
I ruin both pieces by paraphrasing. They are intelligent, well thought, and well written. (The Chicago Manual of style suggests the comma after thought, I use it in deference to the two Chicago academics). The comments, like Samizdata's are penetrating and well written. The two pieces and the comments combine to make a more serious and probing discussion of the issue than was presented anywhere by MSM.
Rago has seen some bad writing in the blogosphere. I'm shocked. He conveniently neglects the volume of serious thought and good discussion.
December 20, 2006
Chris Matthews
Hugh Hewitt blasted Matt Damon's performance on Hardball last night.
I expect nothing but vapid blather from another celebrity, I was struck by Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Do you think guys like Cheney—I love to pronounce his name correctly, by the way. Do you think guys like—it‘s like a Dickensian name, Cheney. Do you think he knew he was saying stuff that wouldn‘t turn out to be true, or was he just mad dogged to fight the war?DAMON: I‘d like to see him under oath.
MATTHEWS: I would, too. I‘d like to see him with you.
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: Do you think if you waterboarded Cheney, like in the movie, that you‘d get a different truth out of him?
Wow. Torturing the Vice President. Even worse, pronouncing his name in a nefarious manner. I'll bet the Vice President is distraught.
I was the world's biggest Hardball Fan, I bought two of his books, and, in case it comes up in a Trivia game, I was the first caller when he debuted "You Play Hardball," soliciting viewer statements (Tucker Carlson tried this as well).
But Matthew's, pari passu Andrew Sullivan, dropped from the top to the bottom by letting bad ideas take over his emotions.
UPDATE: ALa at Blonde Sagacity has video. Left out of the transcript: Matthews's calling DeNiro "ballsy" for taking on the CIA in a film. Oooh ya, that's pretty brave. Rodeo Drive is littered with the carcasses of big film directors who dared to take on the establishment.
jk,..I take it the movie doesn't paint the CIA in a very favorable light?
Fool to Imbeciles: Get a Life
I sometimes have to look hard for something on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page with which I disagree.
Sometimes, it's easy. Assistant Features Editor Joseph Rago lets loose at bloggers today.
Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .
And those would be the nice bits.
Blogs are a long-tail phenomenon, and Rago misses it. There are n million blogs out there and n - 0.05 are bad. Finding a circle of interesting blogs widens your worldview considerably.
I read Rago's employer's page second thing every day, subscribe to four print magazines and a couple digital-only. I agree that blogs should respect the foundation and infrastructure that the MSM provides. Yet I cannot imagine a day without hitting at least half of the blogroll.
Rago will be vilified by the blogosphere for this. I mentioned I read the WSJ second thing every day. First is DayByDay, and today Chris takes a whack at Rago.
I need a Life! I need a Life!
Posted by: Chris Muir at December 20, 2006 2:24 PMMuch better than life, you are a star my friend!
Posted by: jk at December 20, 2006 3:50 PMDecember 18, 2006
An Underutilized Business Model
Hugh Hewitt links to a publishers' site that carries an article How Magazines Can Survive
The cable TV business combines a multitude of huge and small media aggregators together in a solo purchased package to the consumer. My suggestion is to mirror the package deals of this medium. This will work excellently for both print and online. It uses the power and accountability of the online digital business with flexibility and creativity. And it can offer many creative business models within the plan.In the new model, we offer our customers a choice at all times. There's a "basic plan" publishing package offers the local newspaper and two magazines of your choice to be received in either digital format, printed format or both. The next step up offers the local newspaper and four magazines of your choice from a comprehensive list of offerings. We keep offering tiers of participation up until you get to the "platinum plan" that delivers the customer everything ever printed.
I think this is a perfect model for magazines and online content. The idea of including print versions in interesting, but more interesting to me is the idea of supporting an aggregation of online media and commentary on a subscription model.
I remain intrigued as well by employing this model in digital delivery of TV shows. Instead of 99 cents a show, sell a bundle that encourages a user to fork over 12.99 a month but to get more shows than he or she wants (like cable).
This brings the long tail to TV shows and will someday provide a market for a Firefly to circumvent network idiocy and be supported by its fan base.
December 7, 2006
Paper Strike
Mutually assured destruction may happen tomorrow at midnight.
- Philadelphia's two biggest newspapers could face their first strike since 1985 after talks between management and the newspapers' largest union stalled over the issue of pensions.
In a story posted on the newspapers' Web site Wednesday night, the president of The Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia was quoted as saying that strike could be authorized by the national union, the Communications Workers of America, "anytime after tonight."
The threatening tone was struck just hours after the sides finished 5 1/2 unproductive hours of negotiations.
The insistence by owner Philadelphia Media Holdings LLC that it freeze the Guild workers' pension caused the talks to grind to a halt, the union said. Two days earlier, after marathon talks over the weekend, the sides reached a tentative agreement on a sticky seniority issue.
Naturally neither side wants to strike.
In terms of the alternatives to the Inquirer/Daily News, there's a heck of a lot more of it out there than existed during the last paper strike in the 80s.
The Philadelphia Metro, a free paper, seems to be at every SEPTA train station and bus stop, so commuters are OK. The Evening Bulletin is on newsstands around the city and in the suburbs; and the suburban counties all have their own papers as well.
Morning news shows abound on broadcast TV, and where only CNN existed on cable, there's now MSNBC, Fox and Headline News.... speaking of which, Philly was late in the game to actually get wired for cable. I bet CNN wasn't even available in the city during the last strike.
KYW newsradio is already the top rated morning radio station.
Oh, and that internet thing is hanging around. Between picking up KYW podcasts, or loading up on news with your morning coffee in front of the computer, there are many many choices available to the media interested public.
In terms of the morning constitutional, it would probably require a stop to the printer, unless you have wireless internet.
At this point, a newspaper strike would be like the turnpike strike a few years ago.
People realized they can do without the toll collectors. Now they'll say, "hey, I don't need my paper."
There are so many other sources for biased untruths now...
I get such schadenfreude when the papers lose subscribers. I've thought that it was unjustified and that bloggers were stupid to bite the hand that feeds them. But the dailies have done such a bad job, I'm enjoying the show.
Well,..circulation is down on both papers (actually, IMN-SHO, they're they same paper, just marketed to different socio-economic groups) because they've gotten away with BS-ing the public for years without any competition.
Many people in Philly forget that the Inkwaster's editorial page pushed Kerry for President in 2004 for 21 STRAIGHT DAYS! Liberal bias? Not here, apparently.
Since no paper exists, absent the suburban papers and their provincial coverage, to challenge this, the Inkwaster and Birdcage Liner thought they could do it in perpetuity.
Ah,..but along came Fox News, and another side of the story emerged. Now, Tierney, a long-time Republican bulldog, is regretting not taking the reigns of the editorial board when he had the chance.
As for me,..I'm sticking with the Evening Bulletin (at 25 cents a bargain for the truth).
**That's My Opinion and You're Entitled to It!**
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at December 7, 2006 8:13 PMNovember 13, 2006
Kingmaker
This story scares me more than handing gavels to Reps. Conyers, Dingell, Rangel and Waxman. I cannot swear it is true but it is an interesting theory and has some verisimilitude.
Rusty Shackleford at Townhall.com compares Jon Stewart's influence in 2006 with Rush Limbaugh's in 1994.
But one phenomenon has been overlooked. One which I believe was a key if not the key to a Democratic victory. That is the phenomenon of faux news. And Jon Stewart is its banner bearer.Jon Stewart is an unlikely player in national politics. He's not a pundit, he's a comedian. As unlikely a candidate for Democratic kingmaker as he may be, he's a force to be reckoned with.
Ratings for The Daily Show's coverage of the '06 elections were second only to The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. 2.0 million Americans tuned into Comedy Central on Tuesday to follow election results. That's right, more people were watching a comedian talk about the news than an anchor on CNN.
And just who is it that is tuning into The Daily Show? Young people. Lot's of them.
In fact, in the 2004 election nearly as many young people cited The Daily Show as a source of news as any other source. And Jon Stewart's Daily Show audience has only grown since then.
I'm deeply disturbed by the faux news movement because, ultimately, it means people will get their news from Hollywood. I don't see that as a positive step.
I know we have some Colbert fans around here. I've laughed at some of his stuff but can't subscribe to this shift toward faux news. As a side, he did an impressive two-part a capella version of the national anthem with one of the incoming Democratic Congressmen -- did anybody see that? I turned on the TV and it was on. It was very good.
Read the Shackleford piece. Be very afraid.
Faux News? Ha! We on the right have been getting it 24/7 for years from the cable news network that dare not say it's name.
Actually, I would have thought that Colbert and Stewart would have numbed or jaded their viewers to politics in general.
Maybe they'll turn around and bash the Dems now that they're in charge.
Posted by: AlexC at November 13, 2006 12:22 PMYup, it is very hard to present accurate news without bias and it is hard to say that many have succeeded. To try and make it funny as well does not help.
As Shackleford points out, Stewart tries to skewer the Democrats as well but his heart is clearly not in it. I'm concerned because it shifts the news axis from Washington/NY (bad enough) to Hollywood. Yeah, both sides will get skewered but the stats will not favor free markets.
November 8, 2006
AP
The Associated Press knows why the Senate changed hands.
Jim Webb's squeaker win over incumbent Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq.
That may or may not be correct, but it strikes me as conjecture, opinion in a news piece, and an oversimplification. How can you describe the Webb victory without using the word "macaca?"
I believe that exit polls showed these to be the two most important issues with voters. I searched the AP site looking for documentation and found a story entitled, "
">Exit Polls: Scandals and Iraq Hurt GOP.
Surprisingly, I found no tabluation of polling data anywhere in the story. There are a few references to random findings, including this one:
"Middle-class voters who defected to the GOP in 1994 came back to the Democrats this year." Huh? The Democrat party is the traditional home of "middle-class" voters? Since when?
I agree with you JK. AP sucks.
In fairness though, I see no prohibition on editorializing in news stories in the "AP Statement of News Values and Principles." http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/wn_112905.html
Posted by: johngalt at November 9, 2006 2:06 PMThe leap from "corruption" and "Iraq" as important issues to "unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq" hit my sensitive ears a little coarsely. I picture a middle-aged couple saying "Dammit, we're so unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq, I think we'll vote Democrat this year."
No doubt there will be many more and worse abuses
October 31, 2006
Daily Rags Reads
Hugh Hewitt highlights newspaper circulation from around the nation.
In my corner.
- At The Philadelphia Inquirer, daily fell 7.5% to 330,622 while Sunday declined 4.5% to 682,214. Daily circulation at its sister pub, The Philadelphia Daily News, dropped 7% to 112,540.
In unrelated news, Inquirer/Daily News staff is threatening a strike.
It'd be refreshing the vaunted new "conservative" ownership would crack the whip, but I suspect not.
In the meantime, a Philly paper worth reading, The Evening Bulletin, will continue to truck on.
Update: It's intentional?
When I read that conservatives were actively buying up major dailies my heart fluttered. Then I recalled Ayn Rand's prediction [in The Fountainhead] of what would happen if newspapers ever progressed from printing doom and gloom and murder and rape to trumpeting the power and the glory of human achievement - circulation plummeted.
All told, however, this is the one Rand assertion I find least convincing. I still have more hope for humanity than this.
If nothing else the new owners are more likely to find ways to make the news business profitable again.
Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2006 3:20 PMMaybe they could start printing a section that serializes the bible as a comic strip ... you know, appeal to the uneducated red-neck Jesus freaks like me. At least we would think twice about descecrating it at every opportunity.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 31, 2006 6:54 PMOctober 17, 2006
Finally
This will get the DJIA back into the headlines!
The Dow industrials fell nearly 100 points Tuesday after a surprise jump in core wholesale prices. Intel fell after Goldman Sachs downgraded the company ahead of its earnings release after the close. 11:29 a.m
So close to 12,000, yet oh so far.
It'd be funny to see it his 12,000 for the first time around November 6th. It'd be headlines.
Posted by: AlexC at October 17, 2006 1:19 PMSeptember 29, 2006
Sustainability
I have to call a swing-and-a-miss for Peggy Noonan's OpinionJournal column today.
She appreciates the variety of new media and the freedom from liberal media oligopoly but she credits the competition with increased partisanship and lack of tone.
I spoke with a network producer a few weeks ago, an old warhorse who was trying to explain his frustration at the current ratings race. He wrestled around the subject, and I cut with rude words to what I thought he was saying. "You mean it's gone from the dictatorship of a liberal elite to the dictatorship of the retarded."Yes, he said. And it's not progress.
When liberals miss something in the media, that's what they should be missing. Not a unity that never existed but standards that were high. When conservatives say there's nothing to miss, they're wrong. We lost some bias, but we lost some standards, too.
An emailer inquires whether one of my favorite writers is dissing the long tail. Read closely, she's against truth, justice and the American way.
You encounter these pockets of excellence and quality in any media or artistic endeavor. Rather than looking back at Uncle Walter, I always wonder about the superb runs from NPR, PBS and the BBC. Were these supra-market phenomena high quality because they were outside the market?
Sting certainly thinks so. While I usually don't just take the bass player's word on anything, he is a serious fellow. BBC America used to run a PSA with the former Policeman saying that the view of the BBC news would not be jaundiced to appeal to a Corporation or Oil company. He hoped, the spot poignantly closed. He hoped.
I'm a market fan and I'll toe the line here. Yes the BBC delivered awesome TV programs for decades on microscopic budgets. Before I saw "Buffy," I held "Red Dwarf" to be the best show ever. Joss Whedon, studying over there, likely absorbed some of that quality. In the end, however, these organizations do great work because they have great people. They can sustain it only as long as they can attract and fund similar talent.
This is an opinion post but I have no compunction saying that BBC, PBS and NPR are all in a state of decline. And that without a market component, there is no mechanism to rectify their slide. The BBCAmerica satellite channel has some good programming, but it is usually ten or 20 years old.
NPR keeps the standards up but they have attracted a generation of activist listeners to take over and I think the inbreeding weakens. PBS? Oh man, is that still on? I watch every fourth of July...
Noonan misses the integrity and quality from Newsmen (pretty much all men) who cared about their craft. I think with 500 channels and the Internet, you get just as much quality and integrity, you just have to look a little harder sometimes. Yes, that's part of the Long Tail.
Many many things from 20 or 30 years ago are better than their counterparts today. O'Reilly reminded of Rowan and Martin's 'Laugh In' TV program last night. Compared to political humor today, it was much more intelligent and less vitreolic.
An important factor in modern civic and cultural decline is the inescapable fact that one thing the parent's of today's parents did NOT do well is educate their children. Now, those parents are poor citizens, poor parents and poor teachers. Evidence the popularity of tutoring web sites and phone centers, some even in India! (Blog post forthcoming.) Maybe this actually goes back more than one or two generations, but parents should be able to help their kids with any primary school subject.
Posted by: johngalt at September 30, 2006 10:00 AMSeptember 27, 2006
Media Bias
I contend that FOXNews is about equally biased as its competition, just in a different direction. Brit Hume presents both sides but anyone watching can tell what he believes.
FOX is in the headlines after the Clinton-Wallace contretemps. I think Wallace is great and I have squirmed many Sundays as I thought he was being too hard on my favorite Secretary of State or other administration official.
How can you measure bias? I have a thought which you good folks might refine. Last night's Special Report with Brit Hume basically portrayed the declassification of the April NIE report as exonerating the Administration and as a black mark against the New York Times.
Today the WaPo weighs in orthogonally. In another front page bylined story titled "Sobering Conclusions On Why Jihad Has Spread" they claim the exact opposite conclusion.
The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism. It depicts a movement that is likely to grow more quickly than the West's ability to counter it over the next five years, as the Iraq war continues to breed "deep resentment" throughout the Muslim world, shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and cultivating new supporters for their ideology.In describing Iraq as "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists," the document judges that real and perceived insurgent successes there will "inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," while losses would have the opposite effect. It predicts that the elimination of al-Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed after the estimate was completed in April, would probably leave that organization splintered into disparate groups that "for at least a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S. interests" than the current al-Qaeda structure.
As I posted, the WaPo ran with the leaked version last Sunday. This story even claims that the President agreed with the assessment. I saw several clips of the President (on that wicked FOX of course) and he was angry about the leak and stern in denying its assessment.
Get 10 people to read the report and grade each news feature? There seems a rare chance for a clear metric here, it has awakened some deep inner researcher in me. Ideas?
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt comes out on the exoneration side. He recounts a heated discussion with Jonathan Alter about the document before it came out. Alter said that no one had disputed the Times's account.
I hope lefties like Jonathan take the time to let the New York Times' "reporters" know that they don't appreciate being sent out to be embarrassed defending cut-and-paste stories that distort the facts and which, upon revelation of the true facts, support the foreign policy judgments and political positions of the Bush Administration.The democratic Party and its agenda journalist allies are campaigning for retreat from Iraq, a retreat that would be a decisive victory for the jihadists. Thus any vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
And that is the conclusion supported by the NIE, touted just 48 hours ago by the left as the key document of this political season.
September 21, 2006
No news here...
Instapundit links to a Yourish.com post which questions why 2000 protestors marching against the Iraq war gets covered, but 35,000 pro-Israel/anti Ahmadinejad protesters are ignored.
I checked AP. Nothing. Reuters. Nada. I checked Google News. Nothing. 1010WINS. Nothing. I checked WABC, NY1, all the New York media sites. Gridlock alerts are the only thing you can find about the march. After all, it’s not newsworthy. The fact that 2,000 people marched a day earlier to protest the Iraq war? Oh, yeah, that made the news.
How can this be anything but Bias?
Since newsmen know, excepting for union members, that only unemployed people participate in street rallies, one would expect them to be curious as to why such a large collection of people who "the economy left behind" are so worked up over the Iranian puppet-president.
Posted by: johngalt at September 21, 2006 10:21 PMAhhh,..I was looking for that source this morning! Thanx!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 22, 2006 9:54 AMSeptember 19, 2006
Perry: Unbiased MSM Was a Mirage
Perry at Eidelblog catches the media "making stuff up."
It's lunchtime, I'm catching up on the news, and Yahoo News' headline "Bush Says Stable Mideast Was a Mirage" made me immediately suspicious.
He reads (and reproduces) the entire article. No mention of mirage, no real mention of MidEast stability.
Then Yahoo and AP change the headline to "Bush appeals to Muslims in U.N. speech."
I repeat, we've always been at war with Eurasia!
UPDATE: I watched the speech last night (thank you TiVo) and must admit it was not a complete fabrication. President Bush said to those who thought that the push for democracy destabilized the Middle East that that stability was a mirage. They certainly should have dereferenced this in their story, however.
Orwell's boys have been tapping into your computer again, I see!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 19, 2006 8:42 PMI didn't see the speech, but last night I checked the White House website. The speech was finally put up, and I discovered the same thing you did. Yeah, Bush DID use "mirage," just not in the way the headline (not even the story!) implied. I updated my post to say as much.
You just can't believe a [bleep] thing in the MSM anymore. Jefferson once said, "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we
should soon want bread." Similarly, were we to rely on mainstream media for truth, we would marvel at snow on the ground and wonder why summer was lasting so long.
September 1, 2006
Times Writers Hardest Hit
Don't tell AlexC, but David Henderson at TCS Daily has accused the NYTimes -- and WaPo -- of, let's say, shading articles to make the economy look less robust than it is.
In the Times piece, "Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity," reporters Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt give the impression that workers are somehow doing worse and getting a raw deal from employers. Errors in the Times piece make the reporters' case appear stronger than it really is. But the even bigger problem is that the data are presented in a way that will surely leave an incorrect impression in their readers' minds. Indeed, their article is a model of how to write a news story to mislead your reader or, alternatively, a model of how not to write a news story if you want to inform your reader.
Shocking, I know, and difficult to believe. But Henderson claims a long list of cherry-picking and rounding errors (45.9 = 45 makes sense to the software developer in me, but not my inner economist). All of the errors, make the present economy look worse.
Take the lowest performing stat, wages not including benefits, and subtract the over-estimating CPI value of inflation, round badly and Voila! you have a by-lined NYT or WaPo story. Don’t try this at home kids, these guys are professionals.
August 26, 2006
Good WaPo Research
Samuel H. Preston and Emily Buzzell at the Washington Post answer a question that has been in the back of my mind but that I have been too lazy to research.
In short, there are a lot of young men and women serving our nation in Iraq. Every death is regrettable, but how many would die if they stayed home or went on spring break in Aruba?
Kudos to Preston and Buzzell for a nifty piece.
Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.
To give away the ending, that’s half the US average. But wait, that includes 95 year olds and people not in the good health of our men and women in uniform.
U.S. men 18-39 only face 39% of the risk, which seems closer to an intuitive estimate. But -- insert your own W.C. Fields joke here -- on the whole, it's better to be in Iraq than be an African-American in Philadelphia; the latter is 11% more risky.
"The death rate of American troops in Vietnam was 5.6 times that observed in Iraq. " (I blogged that we lost well over twice as many in a short while in WWII fighting for eight square miles of Iwo Jima).
In short, to post the number dead is specious. Kudos to Professor Preston and Ms. Buzzell for the perspective, and to the WaPo for printing it.
Hat-tip: Insty
I'll wager that civilian deaths in Iraq are a similar fraction of those in Vietnam and WWII. Despite the aggressive efforts of subversive elements to create humanitarian crisis there, far more "innocent" women and children died as a result of thousand-plane raids and B-52 carpet bombing missions. War is still hell, and should be waged as a last resort, but western ingenuity, skill and respect for life has dramatically reduced the scope of collateral damage. (To the point that Hezbollah had to STAGE atrocity scenes in their recent "stab the sleeping tiger" war with Israel.
Islamic terrorists claim to "love death like we love life." We love life so much we try to spare those of the wives, daughters and children of even these murderous bastards.
Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2006 12:29 PMAugust 22, 2006
A Day for Headlines
I was ready to give Professor Reynolds the prize for "Ham on Pork"
...then, I saw TNR's story on the masturbating judge: "The Long Arm of the Law."
July 30, 2006
BB'see' No Evil
JK's Saturday post on the Seattle "hate crime" shooting largely ignored by the MSM is an apt lead-in to reprint a post by WSJ Opinion Journal's James Taranto. I lifted the whole thing verbatim, though with attribution (first item.)
The BBC reports on one of the "prisoners" that "Hezbollah wants most" in its ill fated bid to arrange a swap by murdering and kidnapping Israeli border guards. BBC writes, "Israel will not exchange them for the prisoner Hezbollah wants most, Samir Qantar, who attacked a block of flats in Nahariha in 1979, killing a father and his daughter (the latter by smashing her head in)." The parenthetical gives barely a glimmer of the true inhumanity of his crimes.
Click continue reading to get the whole story...
Taranto writes:
"When Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers two weeks ago, provoking the current conflagration, the Shiite terrorist outfit apparently intended to use them as bargaining chips to demand the release of prisoners. Press reports often discuss this as if there were an equivalence between the Israeli soldiers, who committed no crimes but were simply defending their own country within its borders, and Arab terrorists. So it's worth pointing out just who the "prisoners" in Israeli hands are.According to the BBC "the prisoner Hezbollah wants most" is Samir Qantar. On April 22, 1979, Qantar murdered 28-year-old Danny Haran and his 4-year-old daughter and caused the death of another Haran daughter, age 2. Haran's widow, Smadar Haran Kaiser, describes the crime (she transliterates the murderer's name as "Kuntar"):
It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border.
Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer.
As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.
Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat.
They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.
As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.
By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.
The BBC gives a rather more sanitized account of the crime: "Qantar . . . attacked a block of flats in Nahariha in 1979, killing a father and his daughter."
July 29, 2006
If You Get Your News From Time...
Credit Time Magazine. They have found and promoted the two worst bloggers of all time. First, Andrew Sullivan moved his Daily Dish over there. Andrew was once my favorite blogger and it pains me to call him one of two worst. But he left the rational plane many moons ago, and seems to have only spiraled down. I visited his blog to get the link and the headline is: A New GOP Low.
Playing the anti-gay card against a promising Democratic candidate in Ohio ... because he and his wife have no children. What do you expect from the party of Rove?
I'm guessing he finds a new low everyday. But at least he is blogging and everybody knows who he is and what he does.
Insty reports "The end of days is near" when he links to 'Wonkette' named Time.com Washington editor
"You can only write three-sentence posts for so long before you start to crave the comparatively literary world of newsmagazines," she wrote in an e-mail message.Cox posted sarcastic and frequently foul-mouthed gossip and political commentary on Washington's elite and their underlings on the Internet under the pseudonym "Wonkette," from 2004 until earlier this year.
"I thought it'd be nice to work somewhere where my mom would not be embarrassed to tell her bridge club about," she wrote of her move to a prominent role in mainstream media.
I gave up on Time before I ever saw a blog, but have these people lost any concern for reputation?
When I saw Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the cover, I thought "People who get their news from Time probably consider this news." To give Ms. Cox this important -- and one might think serious -- position is more than I can believe.
Glad it works for Mom.
July 18, 2006
Now with 11% Less Bias!
The NYTimes will trim an inch and a half of its flagship papers' width to save costs, reports rival Wall Street Journal: New York Times to Shrink Width of Pages, Cut Jobs Minorities, Women hardest Hit, no doubt!
NEW YORK -- The New York Times plans to shrink the size of its pages in 2008, making them one-and-a-half inches narrower, the newspaper said in its Tuesday edition.
Despite their abysmal stock slump, revenues are reported up 1.6% (well, it's single digit) over last year but the gain is due to about.com, not the military secrets division on 42nd Street.
The Times reported that net income rose to $61.3 million, or 42 cents a share, in the second quarter, from $60.8 million, or 42 cents a share, a year earlier. The most recent quarter's results include an after-tax charge of four cents a share for costs associated with job cuts announced in September 2005, while the year-earlier period included a charge of four cents a share for staff reductions announced in May 2005.Revenue climbed 1.6% to $858.7 million from $845.1 million. About.com was again the star, with revenue at the online unit soaring 63% to $19.5 million. Revenue ticked up 0.5% to $800.2 million at the news media group, and rose 5.2% to $39.1 million at the broadcast division.
The Times said that Web sites in its news media group saw a 25% jump in advertising revenue, but noted that the New England media group continued to struggle amid "consolidation among important advertisers and by a continued challenging economic environment." Internet businesses account for just 7.7% of the company's overall revenue.
Maybe it they could trim the entire inch-and-a-half from the left...
July 10, 2006
Economic Gains Widen Pay Gap
I might give up my "You Write the Headline" features. Even though I have been amused, we're amateurs and they are professional journalists. How can you parody Economic Gains Widen Pay Gap? That's the teaser link to the WaPo Well-Paid Benefit Most As Economy Flourishes
Wages are rising more than twice as fast for highly paid workers in the Washington area as they are for low-paid workers, an analysis of federal data by The Washington Post shows.That means the spoils of the region's economic expansion are going disproportionately to workers who are already well-paid, widening a gap between rich and poor in a place where it is already wider than in most of the country.
Things are bad, bad, bad. Let's blame Schumpeter:
"Three years ago, we would have had to hire more people to handle all our new clients," said Joe Martin, a vice president. "Now, we rely on new technology to pick up that work."This is how the Washington Post reports good economic news. Yesterday, the New York Times complained (see How Could This Happen?) that the record revenues are coming from Corporations and not individual income tax.Such innovations help explain why, from 2003 to 2005, the average wage for people in the lowest pay bracket, with salaries around $20,000, rose only 5.4 percent in the Washington region -- not enough to keep up with rising prices. For the jobs that pay around $60,000, salaries rose 12.4 percent, well ahead of the 6.8 percent inflation in that period.
Keep in mind that this is a story of stronger than expected tax revenue and its capacity to lower the deficit. Now enjoy these quotes:
"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former White House economist under President Bush."The fact is that revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The long-term prognosis is still very, very bleak, and the administration doesn't have any kind of long-term plan.
To be fair, they did include a Pat Toomey quote claiming vindication for supply siders.
Any more good news, and we're all gonna have to kill ourselves.
July 9, 2006
How Could This Happen?
ThreeSources-friend Sugarchuck emails a link to this New York Times piece and asks why we all keep going back to the NYTimes when we know it will end badly. Click on over to "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit" and I think you'll agree.
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
[Graphic: Mixed Signals ]On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
Think of how big the revenues would have been with that stupid-ass tax cut! Wow! Who expected this? What a freakin' surprise.
We go back to the NYTimes, kids, because it is a quality product and we have trained ourselves to laugh at nonsense like this. It's so funny to me. "They" have NPR and The New York Times, which provide product of such quality that conservatives deign to be insulted just to use it. And they think our secret is FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh. In the right mood, I can find this humorous.
June 30, 2006
Unfit to Print
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page explains the decision of its news pages to publish details of the SWIFT tracking story for which the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are in so much trouble.
It's an interesting look at the story, the decisions, the difference between the two papers, and a speculation of how they would have handled the story. It's an interesting read and a free link.
The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.
Mr. Keller's open letter explaining his decision to expose the Treasury program all but admits that he did so because he doesn't agree with, or believe, the Bush Administration. "Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress," he writes, and "some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight." Since the Treasury story broke, as it happens, no one but Congressman Ed Markey and a few cranks have even objected to the program, much less claimed illegality.
Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.
"Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.
It's good that the WSJ has made their case. Pundits (notably Lionel) having been making hay that the Journal wasn't warned not to publish the story, but that the NY and LA Times were. At least there's a good reason to rebuke them.
Posted by: Charlie on the PA Turpike at June 30, 2006 10:59 AMYeah, I saw it first in the Journal and wondered why they weren't getting more disapprobation.
Posted by: jk at June 30, 2006 11:35 AMJune 27, 2006
Mooooovin' On Up!
ThreeSources's own AlexC was noticed at SantorumBlog and has now been invited to blog with Sixers on National Review Online "The Right Eyes on the 2006 Elections"
I will add Sixers to the blogroll. Very cool, bro'. Don't forget us.
Thanks, but I didn't go anywhere! I'm still here!
Posted by: AlexC at June 27, 2006 7:32 PMI meant after the inevitable fame, of course...
Posted by: jk at June 27, 2006 7:34 PMJune 20, 2006
Bush's Fault
The WaPo carries a story today that claims "Iraq War May Add Stress for Past Vets." PTSD claims at VA hospitals are up, and some think it may be triggered by war footage on TV.
Experts say that, although several factors may be at work in the burgeoning caseload, many veterans of past wars reexperience their own trauma as they watch televised images of U.S. troops in combat and read each new accounting of the dead."It so directly parallels what happened to Vietnam veterans," said Raymond M. Scurfield of the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast campus, who worked with the disorder at VA for more than 20 years and has written two books on the subject. "The war has to be triggering their issues. They're almost the same issues."
At VA, officials said the Iraq war is probably a contributing factor in the rise in cases, although they said they have conducted no formal studies.
I guess this is a legitimate news story although it seems pretty thinly sourced. A lot of "Experts say.." and "many believe..." I ask whether this bylined story is more appropriate than a story of troops rebuilding a school, or increased business activity. The WaPo and Times seem hard pressed to find room for stories like that.
June 15, 2006
Schadenfreude
The New York Times's weekly stock performance.
Hat-tip: Pajamas Media where PJM wonders if the family will buy the stock take the company private.
I never thought this chart would make me happy. The world’s greatest newspaper loses asset value and I laugh? This firm has so readily discarded its reputation to pursue partisan politics, I can’t help but cheer as they reap what they’ve sown.
The Media Enablers
To most this is self-evident.
Unless you're a member of the press.
- "Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."
The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.
The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.
A message not lost on the remains of Zarqawi and the remainder of his group.
All kinds of terrorist attacks take place in Baghdad, because that's where the cameras are.
Surprise!
June 12, 2006
Ink by the Barrel
President Clinton's best quote in two terms was "Never pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrel." The PR department at General Motors is learning this.
I don't believe I've ever used the word "Kafkaesque," but I challenge you to read this mail exchange and call it anything else.
The NYTimes publishes a Thomas Friedman OpEd that accuses GM of being on the side of the terrorists for promoting SUVs. GM responds to this attack and encounters the letter length police at the Times, ultimately boiling down to a fight over the phrase "What rubbish!"
Hat-tip: Everyday Economist, who points out 'The newspaper with 'all the news fit to print' apparently could not find room for the letter or an op-ed response."
The problem is not that the Times can afford more ink, but that GM wouldn't know what to do with it in the first place. Times editorialists are masters at deception, distraction and distortion. Poor little ol' GM only knows how to bend over backwards trying to please the environannies the Times caters to, only to be kicked in the teeth for their trouble.
See my comment above under AlexC's 'Cheap Oil' post. GM will have the last laugh (as long as they don't forget how to make cars that run on petroleum.)
Posted by: johngalt at June 13, 2006 3:06 PMJune 8, 2006
BUT
Great that we got Zarqawi, BUT
Spencer Ackerman at TNR online, finds The downside of Zarqawi's death
But it's also why, in a rather perverse sense, Zarqawi's death may in fact be a bad thing--carrying with it a potential downside for the United States and for Iraqis, and representing a windfall for Al Qaeda.
Ackerman's concern is that we've lost this larger-than-life figure on which we could blame everything. There are others cropping up everywhere.
AlexC, in a comment, links to a sort of scavenger hunt for specific memes
* Zarqawi wasn't that important.
* What took so long.
* Women, children, and/or endangered species were also killed. Good color commentary
* There will be lots more like him.
* The insurgency will be stronger now.
* Yeah, but what about Haditha?
* Yeah, but where is Osama?
* Zarqawi's death is a tragedy and Bush is to blame (I can't make this stuff up, folks)
* Zarqawi killing violated Executive Order forbidding assassinations, or Geneva Conventions.
* Zarqawi was alive but troops let him die or killed him a la Che
* They should have captured him
* Bush made Zarqawi a terrorist.
But my favorite reaction so far is on a TNR's "The Plank" blog. Michael Crowley writes that Senator Biden will come to regret sharing this as a happy moment with the President.
I guess I understand what he's saying, but I question its wisdom--and not just because it's bound to haunt him in the 2008 Democratic primaries if he runs for president. Rather, I think Biden has the equation backwards: In fact, political weakness is likely the only thing that can convince Bush to abandon his stubborn principles and consider different strategies in Iraq. And just what is the bold stroke Biden thinks Bush has hidden up his sleeve and is saving for a moment of strength?
Count on these guys to find the dark side.
June 7, 2006
Dick Cheney Authorized it!
CNN.com - Legal war as Brangelina pic leaked - Jun 7, 2006LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The celebrity magazine Hello! launched legal action on Wednesday against Internet sites that printed a leaked exclusive shot of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt with their infant daughter.
I fear I can never understand politics unless I understand people a little better. I don't give an owl's fart for celebrities (I hope the child is healthy and happy and all that) and the rest of the world doesn't care about the CA-50 special election.
Who cares!?!?
Posted by: AlexC at June 7, 2006 4:22 PMJune 3, 2006
Haditha: Comments
Personally, I'd like to see more like this on blogs:
"A Young Girl Reading" by Fragonard
"Alchemy" by Daniele Anjou (Not sure if this is copyrighted...if you find it is, tell me!!)
Two things stick in my head about Haditha:
1 - Whenever we (being Westerners) screw up in the Arab world, the news coverage is usually about all of the rioting that follows the incident. There wasn't any rioting in Haditha, even though its a "hotbed of terrorism."
2 - Al-Jazeera would never pass up an opportunity to make the West look bad, yet when this occurred, AJ was rathe silent. Why no 24/7 coverage of the allegations?
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 4, 2006 11:26 AMYeah. Twenty one dead today by a terrorist. Nobody involved will ever face ethics training or an inquest -- or, sadly, much disapprobation from the Western left.
I don't think any of us say this to excuse. If guilt is proven I hope punishment ensues. But the capacity for media to ignore perspective is disturbing.
Posted by: jk at June 4, 2006 11:35 AMHaditha
Michelle Malkin has a post about the reporting on the Haditha incident.
It's a must-read.
A reader of Michelle's site sent a letter to the UK Times, which makes some great points:
I read about your "mistake" on Michelle Malkin's website. Your photo shows bound and murdered people. The captions claims that the US Marines did the killing when those people were killed by the very terrorists that the US Marines are there fighting. While I would love to give you and the Times the benefit of the doubt (that it was a mistake), I can no longer do that. If it was a mistake at all, it was due to a willingness at least, and more likely an eagerness, to be used as a propaganda piece for the terrorists and to bash the US led war and pander to the anti-war crowd.Your "mistake" deserves front page coverage and all newspapers (especially those in the middle east) should be saturated with your apologies. Think about what your mistake does ---- creates anger, rage, and hatred (which is destructive enough in and of itself) that will probably be directed at those from the US (or West in general). Your story and photo and caption created a ripple that can and will destroy lives.
Too many mistakes and too much biased news --- you will be judged by your actions and will not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Sincerely, Gregory
And Mrs. Malkin links to a story of a massacre you will probably not hear about in the PC, anti-American media.
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraqi police on Saturday found eight [dead] north of Baghdad with a note indicating at least one of the men were killed in retaliation for the slaying of four Shiite doctors, authorities said.Five of the slain men were security guards at a hospital complex in the capital who had been arrested by Iraqi police on Thursday, Lt. Col. Adil Al-Zihari of the Diyala police said.
I highly recommend you go look at the pictures and read the AP story -- you need to know what we are up against; or remind yourself -- but it is gruesome. It's like what happened in Germany...
Your reading list is considerably different from mine, Cyrano. I have to ask a question: "Do sites like LGF, Jihad Watch, Michelle Malkin, and their ilk not have a lot in common with our enemies' intolerance?"
I don't want to draw moral equivalence between a riot and an angry blog screed. That is a huge difference of which I am always cognizant. But, like CAIR, these people always seem to be trolling for things to get angry about, righteous indignation being the default setting for their blogs.
Yup, we are WAAAY more tolerant than our adversaries. I accept and applaud that. And there are very few posts that I individually do not agree with at most of those sites.
Yet a huge portion of the right wing blogosphere is consumed with this. Cui bono?
Posted by: jk at June 3, 2006 5:10 PMWell, since 9/11, there is a lot to be angry about. Anger is normal, natural, and valid -- when appropriate. And 9/11, 7/7, and Islamofascism are appropriate reasons.
What were the conservative blogs like before 9/11? What were other blogs like before then, for that matter?
Maybe it's not a "conservative blog" thing, but a cultural thing. Maybe for proper contrast we need to go back to the 50's or 20's, when people in general were more benevolent and had better manners.
But I'd say an unequivocable "no" to your first question. LGF, JW, and MM have good reason to be angry, as I said above. JW, as the name applies, was formed to inform us of global jihad. LGF and JW would both be glad to publicize and celebrate "moderate Islam" which denounced terrorism. But there are few takers, so they don't report on that much. MM is a hard-hitting columnist, yes, but don't let the cultural context throw you off her scent and call her an angry nut-case. Once upon a time, as I said, she would have been called a hard-hitting columnist.
If there is a blog that reports on modern beauty and rational achievement, PLEASE let me know. I don't know of such a place. (And regardless, it is still absolutely crucial to keep detailed track of Islamofascism. It would be irresponsible not to.)
Posted by: Cyrano at June 3, 2006 6:19 PM
Let's see...beauty and rational achievement...that would be ThreeSources! Rational and aesthetic folks who recognize the physical and philosophical dangers of the enemy we face without needing to be "whipped up" by the latest batch of anti-Americanism.
:)
Posted by: Cyrano at June 4, 2006 12:35 AMAnd I'd like to see more things like the movies "Executive Suite," "Meet John Doe," "Deadline U.S.A.," "Brigadoon," and "Holiday Inn." GREAT movies. Though, having some plot to them, and therefore a conflict, there is necessarily some "anger" evoked by the movies. But the conflict is a foil for the good; the movie does not focus on evil or psychosis, as so many modern movies do.
"Deadline U.S.A." is a good Bogart film, in which he plays a newspaper editor, having a few good lines like 'we will fight tyranny, whether local or international' and 'we will fight wrongs, whether by predatory wealth, or predatory poverty.' I recommend the movie. If only we had more people like that working on newspapers today!!!
Posted by: Cyrano at June 4, 2006 12:45 AMMay 26, 2006
Conservative Rock Songs
John J Miller at NRO lists 50.
- What makes a great conservative rock song? The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values. And, to be sure, it must be a great rock song. We’re biased in favor of songs that are already popular, but have tossed in a few little-known gems. In several cases, the musicians are outspoken liberals. Others are notorious libertines. For the purposes of this list, however, we don’t hold any of this against them. Finally, it would have been easy to include half a dozen songs by both the Kinks and Rush, but we’ve made an effort to cast a wide net. Who ever said diversity isn’t a conservative principle?
Going through the list, I had a number, so I immediately collated them into a Conservative list on my iPod.
Some songs and bands were totally obvious as conservative, or in the case of Rush, Ayn Randian.... and course there were songs that I've (in my younger days) air guitared and lip sync'd to without regard of the content.
I've been trying to think of popular songs or artists that I could add to that list, but nothing comes to mind that hasn't already been covered by the list.
It's a good list, go take a look.
Heard about it this morning on talk radio. Definitely cool, but there's arguably room for more.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 26, 2006 7:32 PMMay 11, 2006
NEXT!
I have run through a lot of TV shows in the last few years. I was a HARDBALL-oholic from the day they found Monica's dress through "Shock and Awe." I finally gave up on The McLaughlin Group about the same time. I tried my luck with Joe Scarborough for a while.
I'm a junkie. I still like Larry Kudlow on CNBC (a lot!) and FOXNews's "The Beltway Boys" is well worth a watch on the weekends.
I had earned a little abuse for my latest routine: watching "The Situation with Tucker Carlson." But I can't take it anymore (the show, not the abuse).
Carlson enjoys being the last live show on (11PM Eastern) and he makes a big deal of breathlessly hyping stories "just across the wire," that "everybody will be talking about tomorrow." Amusingly, these stories are NEVER anything. Tucker gives you the Conventional Wisdom 12 hours early -- is that valuable?
Last night it was the FISA telephone record database. "As a civil libertarian, it concerns me gravely," he said. "I have to learn more about it," he admitted. His regular guest, "The Outsider: Max Kellerman" said that "Bush is the gift that just keeps on giving." This not-too-political ESPN boxing host has tended to comment on culture matters but has lately become a Bush basher. Never substantive, just derision and the assumption that Bush is bad because his poll numbers are low.
Well, again, there's nothing really going on. Insty says "haven't we heard this before?" (Yes) and NewsBusters blog blasts the hype
Today’s article does not allege that any calls are listened in on. Indeed, as USA Today describes it, the program seems like a thoroughly innocuous database of the same information that appears on your phone bill, but with your name, address and other personal information removed. Given that another government agency — the IRS — maintains information on American citizens’ employment, banking, investments, mortgages, charitable contributions and even any declared medical expenses, this hardly seems like a major assault on personal liberty.And for all of the hype, there may not even be much “news” here. Last December 24, a few days after they spilled the beans about the NSA terrorist surveillance program, New York Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen disclosed how U.S. phone companies were helping the NSA by giving them “access to streams of domestic and international communications.”
This is a proverbial straw, not a big incident. I enjoyed the show's format, and the topics were interesting. But Carlson's kvetching from the right, counterpointed with Rachel Maddow or Kellerman kvetching from the left finally broke me.
I think JohnGalt might join me in a petition to CNBC to bring Dennis Miller back. Or have them give Kudlow & Co. two hours.
UPDATE: The blogosphere had not buzzed about this story, but it looks like the MSM did. I owe Carlson a micro-apology on that score. All the same, me and my TiVo have moved on.
I'd like to see Dennis again, but weekly would be enough. I loved the guy but even so, I didn't watch every night. Even with DVR! (Dish Network's TiVo)
Posted by: johngalt at May 12, 2006 2:52 PMMay 4, 2006
Wall Street Journal
Despite JK's insistance that we all subscribe to the Wall Street Journal online, I've been hesitant.
Why? Mostly sloth.
But here's WSJ's chance to convert me.
April 17, 2006
Sanctuary
Colorado, like many states, has a referendum process for creating laws that the people want even when our "representative" government doesn't. On this, the 92nd anniversary of National Democrat Day, I'm officially announcing my plan for the establishment of Colorado as a "Sanctuary State."
A ballot initiative will be drafted, with all the legal provisions and protections that can possibly be envisioned to protect the measure from court challenge, resolving that "Until the United States government reforms the income tax system to a flat rate consumption tax and ceases redistribution of individual wealth through its myriad agencies and department, any and all residents of the great state of Colorado shall be exempt from compliance with any and all federal income, medical, retirement or other such taxes are are now or may be levied in the future."
OK, so it needs a little work, but you get the idea. This is the seed. If Austin and Los Angeles and cities like them can be sanctuaries for 20 million illegal immigrants, Colorado can be a sanctuary for 5.5 million people to own their own property without threat of appropriation. If the cowards in San Francisco can officially disobey a non-existent federal law, we can show them how to disobey laws already on the books. Tax revolt? You bet. Let's get something done. NED knows if we leave it up to "representative" government the only interests that will be represented are, the government's.
(So who's the pragmatist now!)
Colorado also passed, by referendum, a "medical marijuana" statue not dissimilar to the Oregon law struck down in Raich v Gonzales.
How is this different from San Francisco refusing to prosecute immigration laws or Boulder refusing to enforce The Patriot Act (the city council is so brave) ?
Don't think that I do not like the idea. I am glad the marijuana provision is on the books and would not mind your law being on the books either.
Posted by: jk at April 17, 2006 5:49 PMI'm not sure I get your point JK. Care to elaborate. We've apparently not yet needled the lib contributors enough on this topic anyway.
Posted by: johngalt at April 18, 2006 3:04 PMMarch 5, 2006
Bloggers will be watching "COPS"
Not to put too much faith in an online poll but Will You Watch The Academy Awards? tracks at 91.17% no.
I voted no, as did Professor Reynolds (inline hat-tip). Are bloggers just above such minutia, completely out of touch or both?
February 24, 2006
Howdy From TX
Thanks JK! The name and password worked, and here I am. I'll be working in San Antone this weekend, so I'll see ya'll next week!!
Welcome aboard.
Posted by: jk at February 24, 2006 10:15 AMFebruary 10, 2006
I bet Rove could get it down further
Yahoo/AP Headline: Bush's Job Approval Stuck Near Bottom
But if you follow the link:
Bush's job approval is now at 40 percent and his approval on handling the economy at 39 percent. Those numbers haven't budged over the last month even with the public's confidence in the economy growing and the president delivering an upbeat State of the Union address.
Don't think of 39% as a bottom, Mr. President! -- show those right-wing b*stards at the AP you can do worse!
Whats even more f'd up is that the Democrats can't get it together!
Posted by: AlexC at February 10, 2006 5:01 PMFebruary 7, 2006
Rocky Mountain Blogger Bash
Looks like a great opportunity to meet the local hoi polloi of punditry -- who wants to join me?
Well, I know that I'm going to be there.
Posted by: zombyboy at February 7, 2006 2:32 PMFebruary 2, 2006
Poor, Elderly, and Students
I'm losing hope. The Republicans cut $40 Billion over five years in entitlement programs: pennies in DC terms. Conservatives are furious that the cuts are so small. How does the WaPo play it?
With its presidential signature all but assured, the bill represents the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans. Women on welfare are likely to face longer hours of work, education or community service to qualify for their checks. Recipients of Medicaid can expect to face higher co-payments and deductibles, especially on expensive prescription drugs and emergency room visits for non-emergency care. More affluent seniors will find it far more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-covered nursing care.
College students could face higher interest rates when their banks get squeezed by the federal government. And some cotton farmers will find support payments nicked. State-led efforts to force deadbeat parents to pay their child support may also have to be curtailed.
I just hope we can clone Dickens to write about the new workhouses that will spring up.
The Democrats cheered their defeat of Social Security reform. That they kicked the can down the road was held worthy of a standing ovation. Now a miniscule cut grabs the subhead "Poor, Elderly and Students to Feel Pinch" I just cannot see how this nation will avoid becoming France, with a new entitlement class that has the political power to keep the money flowing until the country cannot sustain it.
Don't worry JK. Now that Alito is on the SCOTUS the roundup of liberal "troublemakers" will begin.
Seriously... many pundits have said that the MSM is dead. Well not quite. They're just spirling around the drain. Once the shackles of the flow of information are truly broken, we'll know that the "Poor & Elderly" aren't going to die. Just like local cuts don't kill police and fire stations.
Oh, that and John Shadegg for House Majority Leader! He will save us!
Posted by: AlexC at February 2, 2006 11:30 AMAlexC is right. As you yourself have pointed out on these pages, JK, the Democrats' chicken little act isn't helping them win elections.
As for WaPo's lament, what I'd like to know is why the hell don't ALL cotton farmers find support payments nicked? And every other crop farmer too!
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2006 3:08 PMI hope you two are right. To support my malaise, I point out that tight-fisted Republicans have not been winning many elections of late either. Cutting is an uphill battle. The forces of darkness in the Democratic Party and the MSM are foresworn against.
Posted by: jk at February 2, 2006 3:24 PMJanuary 14, 2006
Bartley-Friedman Award
If I had money, I'd forget the Mercury and I would endow a "Robert Bartley-Milton Friedman Award," complete with a generous stipend. The award would be for those rare journalists whose reporting includes good economics.
The award would go to ABC's John Stossel for his work on 20/20. This is primetime, broadcast TV, not a right wing blog or cable show -- and Stossel frequently airs courageous stories. His New Year reprisal of myths is a good example: no, we're not drowning in trash, choking on chemicals, and dying of overpopulation.
But last night’s "Stupid in America" was the bravest, most honest, and most courageous thing I have seen on TV. Stossel suggests (Friedman-style) that revenue should follow the student and not the schools. He blasts government monopoly, sclerotic teachers; unions, and complacency for their parts in preserving this abysmal status quo.
I think that ThreeSources readers have heard all the arguments, but this was packaged up in a moving broadcast with video of children who won -- and lost -- a lottery to get a good education in a charter school.
Stossel doesn't join me in going back to John Quincy Adams, but he does ask us to go back to our youth and remember how things have improved with free-market competition: how the telecom industry blossomed when it was deregulated.
This show is a work of art. I will post if it is rerun, and if any of you would like it, I can make a DVD off my PVR. It's an outstanding program.
UPDATE: Stossel also compares US students’ achievement to Belgian students (hint: ours don't win) It reminded me of Michael Barone's "Hard America Soft America" The Belgians are given an outstanding and rigorous education for a dead-end life in a sclerotic socialist society; their American counterparts are given a substandard education and then thrown into a dynamic, opportunity-driven work culture. The Belgians seem to have Barone upside-down...
December 28, 2005
Great Paper, Great Reporting
I do love to beat up the MSM but admit that bloggers could not live without them. Open source media experiments show promise but I feel they will always be wikipedia to the NYTimes's Britannica. Great papers have reach, depth and a seriousness and honesty because the markets demand they uphold their reputations.
The NYTimes sponsors lunatics on its Editorial Page and features very biased reporting on its news page. They also feature Virginia Postrel. A search for "NYTimes" on ThreeSources reveals eight posts where I supplied approbation (still 1:2 vs. opprobrium). But I salute the great papers.
The Chicago Tribune shows itself to be a great paper today. Hardly in the Administration's pocket, the Trib publishes an important editorial today: "Judging the Case for War."
I'm not going to excerpt. The editorial asks and answers the assertion "BUSH LIED!" by combing through the early speeches, enumerating the reasons for going to war, and evaluating each of nine on "What was said." "What we know now," and "the verdict."
It is honest and comes out pretty substantively in the President's favor; I wouldn't have scored much if any more kindly.
I try not to say this, but read the whole thing.
December 8, 2005
TNR back to form
I have had nice words for TNR two days in a row, I can't let that go too far.
Today, John B. Judis defends DNC Chair Howard Dean:
There are, however, two very different questions to ask about Dean's statements on Iraq. The first is whether they are politic--whether they have advanced his own or his party's electoral chances. Probably not--I am no fan of Dean as a national politician or party chair; and I would certainly concede that a Democrat in Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska might not want to run on what he says.The second question, though, is whether his judgment on Iraq has been sound. And there I would say that it certainly has been. During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and during the invasion and occupation, Dean has been almost consistently correct in his statements. He has been the Democrats' and the nation's Cassandra--willing to reveal bitter truths about which Republicans and his fellow Democrats would prefer that he remain silent.
He continues to say that Governor Yeeeeahhh has been right all along about Iraq.
I have to call "broken clock twice a day" on Dean. More fairly, a Wall Street Bear. If you stand up everyday and say "everything's going to hell" you are gonna be right now and then. But, you're gonna miss all the opportunities to make money in the more prevalent Bull sessions.
Maybe TNR went too far with Byron York and Professor Stuntz, but rushing to defend Gov. Dean is a mistake for the DLC-centrist book.
November 26, 2005
Biased Economic Reporting
Rather than hijack AlexC's post onto a tangent, let me offer my own post.
Every decline in the stock market, every piece of bad economic news is tied to the President. Every good bit of news is ignored, downplayed, or attributed to sunspots.
Tigerhawk grabs this in a great post, "The rally in the stock market: It's Bush's fault."
The stock market hit a 4 1/2 year high on Friday (Pajamas Media round-up here). The fall rally reflects the muscular American economy, which managed to produce economic growth in the third quarter at almost triple the rate of the Euro zone. The comparative American strength was particularly impressive in light of the hurricanes: As I wrote a few weeks ago, not a single European city was destroyed this year (although I suppose Paris had a close call).Today's news also forces me to remember -- against my will, to be sure -- the tradition at the New York Times of linking short term swings in the financial markets -- at least when they are negative -- to the policies of the Bush administration. On April 16, 2005, for example, the Times ran a front page story with the headline "Stocks plunge to lowest point since election," suggesting that it was the election that had something to do with the "plunge."
We eagerly await the front page story with this headline: "Stocks soar to highest point since before September 11, 2001". We're fairly sure, however, that we won't see it in the Times.
The story I am waiting for is a report on strong retail sales for Christmas. Both online and brick-and-mortar stores are off to a good start. And after hurricanes and volatile fuel price, this is pretty big news. Pretty important news.
But to admit it, as I tried to spin the comment, would be to imply that tax cuts might have worked and we can't have that. We must raise taxes and return to Rubenomics immediately -- only then will good news make the front page.
Perhaps I am over-sensitive, but this AP headline blew me away: "Big Sales Lure Reluctant Holiday Shoppers." The implication is that consumers are "reluctant" to spend money in such turbulent times, and that steep discounts are required to pry these recalcitrant wallets open.
Clear implication, yes But the story is not about that at all. The lede is about some guy who didn't want to go shopping because of the crowds, a guy who just went to an outdoors store and bought a few presents.
[Richard] Lane didn't pick up a new iPod, laptop or plasma screen TV, but he knocked off a chunk of his shopping list with one visit to the Orvis outdoor store."When Orvis has a 50-percent-off sale, you can't ignore it," said Lane, who otherwise would likely have stayed home. "I never shop on this day."
By the end of lunch hour Friday, Lane stood outside and waited for his wife to pick him up. On the ground next him sat a new fly fishing rod, hip waders and a collar for his bird dog.
I wouldn't shop on Black Friday were they giving away guitars. But it would be disingenuous to cite me -- or Lane -- as an example shopper.
The sixth paragraph carries the buried lede; "Today, things look really good."
UPDATE: Irwin Stetzer's piece in the Weekly Standard is good as well:
THE WASHINGTON POST doubted that Americans would enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday, announcing on the morning of turkey day that 61 percent of Americans are "anxious about money." So anxious, in fact, that the very next day between 130 million and 150 million headed to the malls to spend a sum that exceeds the GDP of three quarters of the world's countries. Wal-Mart alone racked up some $2 billion in sales.
So basically Mr Lane indulged his outdoor sports hobbies.
Troubling times indeed.
Posted by: AlexC at November 26, 2005 1:49 PMHe is just preparing for the flooding of global warming.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 28, 2005 6:32 PMThis "Global Warming" crap is really making me ill. I heard on NPR yesterday morning that the city of Seattle is attempting to make it's transit system "greenhouse gas neutral" and one of the reasons for urgency is that "our local ski areas didn't have enough snow to open at all last season." Yeah, and that's because of buses and ferry boats burning diesel fuel downtown. Right. Meanwhile, back in the tax collectors office...
Posted by: johngalt at November 29, 2005 3:32 PMNovember 21, 2005
The Long Tail Comes to TV
After all the early jokes about "500 channels and nothing to watch," even the detractors must admit that choice has been great for TV quality. No, the sitcoms haven't gotten any better but they are sure easy to avoid. I watch clips during football games, which is just enough to remind me how bad they are.
Cable was the first Schumpeterian gale. Everybody paid attention. But the effect of TiVo has been underplayed. I now select from all the channels all week: a huge increase in choice.
When I watch a broadcast show, it's usually on DVD. People are talking about "Lost" and I just learned that David Fury is a writer; he was one of my favorite "Buffy" writers (dude wrote "Fool For Love" in Season Five!). If I watch, I'll probably just buy the DVDs (like everyone else seems to). I caught "Buffy" and "Firefly" long after they were off. Even though "Angel" was still on, I just waited for DVDs so that I could watch in order and uninterrupted.
This is "Long Tail" TV watching and the drawback is expense. Twelve seasons of Buffy and Angel at $45 or so, a rack of British Comedies and I have quite an investment in my entertainment cocoon. But this is going to bring individual control and choice without expense:
TiVo Plans to Allow Unlimited TV-Show Downloads to iPods (paid site, sorry!)
Since Apple introduced a new iPod that plays video last month, users of the device have been able to buy episodes from only five television series produced by just one media company, Walt Disney Co. Soon, virtually any show that airs on TV will be available for watching on an iPod, courtesy of TiVo Inc.TiVo Monday announced a plan to let users of its popular digital video recorders download any TV show stored on their TiVo boxes onto iPods. The move, which TiVo is making without Apple Computer Inc.'s involvement, has the potential to greatly expand the selection of shows iPod users can watch on their devices beyond such fare as "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost," the two hit series from Disney's ABC network that Apple is selling for $1.99 an episode through its iTunes Music Store. TiVo's plan is rankling some TV executives as the networks seek to habituate users to pay to download shows, beyond what they may already pay for cable or satellite-TV service.
Shares of TiVo rose Monday on the news, up 5.7% to $5.57 in morning trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
This will force more producers to offer legal digital versions of TV episodes at a reasonable cost. The medium will be further extricated from its reliance on schedule and the people will be able to buy lower down the tail, essentially freed from the shackles of popularity.
November 10, 2005
Truth Matter At All Anymore?
Media outlets have a sacred duty to demand honesty from politicians. Let them use loaded words and biased editing, but they should point out public untruths. This not only corrects the record, it also provides a deterrent effect: I better not make stuff up, folks'll find out.
I have always uses President GHW Bush as the example. He remarked that the supermarket scanner was amazing. And it is. After decades, after working with all the components that make it work. It is still amazing. Some of his opponents, propagated this as "He had never seen one! He's so out of touch! He was amazed at something everybody else sees everyday!" I am always disappointed when this is still -- and it is -- regurgitated as fact.
But I may have to change examples to Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV. Here is Jeff Goldstein in "Weapons Grade Bullshit" (Protein Wisdom is more comfortable with that kind of language than I, but It's descriptive.)
If the Wilson and Clarke scandals taught the left anything, it is that there are no real consequences—at least to their side—for making bad-faithed charge after bad-faithed charge. Hell, even Dan Rather is sticking to his story. And yesterday, the Senate minority leader went on TV and essentially accused the Vice President of the United States of treason—with absolutely no evidence, and after a recently completed special prosecutor’s investigation exonerated him.Reid went on to claim that that investigation concluded precisely the opposite of what it actually concluded (no one was indicted or charged with outing anyone)—yet Reid’s remarks were met with near universal approval from his fellow travelers on the left. Where were the angry newspaper op-eds denouncing such obvious falsehoods issuing from the leading Senate Democrat? Where is the outrage?
Wilson lied in his OpEd and lied in his book. This has been shown in a bi-partisan Senate Commission report. Yet this is never acknowledged by a media that suddenly has decided that he CIA is our nation's most valuable institution.
I'm outraged, Jeff! (I'm just clothed ands sober -- sorry!)
Nope. Just repeat the lie often enough and it will fill in for the truth. As the President said in his speech today (again) the Iraq war is the center front in the war on terror.
I agree on the George HW Bush supermarket scanner reference, but I file it right next to Al Gore inventing the internet. He did as a matter of fact write and champion a bill to expand funding for what would become the internet, seeing the importance of it long before his Senate colleagues.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 11, 2005 4:54 PMBernie Goldberg tells of a lazy media that loves stereotypes and both played into stereotypes. A diffident, disconnected GWHB and a VP Al Gore who stretched the truth on Love Canal, Love Story, and the Internet. He deserved more credit than he got on the Internet, but his quote was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That was clearly too far.
Gerald Ford was perhaps the most athletic president since TR and VP Qualyle was pretty bright for a U.S. Senator. Right or wrong, the media love to pigeonhole people.
November 8, 2005
Where Do You Get Your News?
So asks Larry Kudlow in his poll today.
Average weekday circulation at newspapers in the United States fell 2.6% for the six months ended September, according to the Newspaper Association of America, the Associated Press reported.
Of course, 2.6% fewer people will hear about this through the AP, but that's another story...
As I vote (the show will be over in a few minutes but the polls stick around) it's 60% Internet, 25% broadcast, and 15% newspaper.
A Stunning Exegesis
I can appreciate big media's reluctance to embrace bloggers, but I'll not sit still as bloggers are denigrated as partisan hacks without ideas, talent, or editors.
I'm a partisan hack without talent or editing, but I'm frequently amazed at the quality of thought and writing to be found from the ol' pajamas crowd.
Stephen Green's The Arm of Decision must be read coast-to-coast. Grab a cup of coffee, it's longer than a blog post.
I'm not going to excerpt it, though I must throw in "Were quality weapons and winning the Cold War related? You bet your macroeconomic ass, they were."
Green describes what won WWI, WWII, what won the Cold War, and what will be required to win the War on Terror.
It's brilliant. If it lacks editing, that's on purpose:
Finally, a personal note. I shopped this thing around to a couple magazines (one print, one web) while it was in the planning stages - but ended up withdrawing it from consideration. I'm no Bill Whittle, but I wanted to write this one my own way, ramble my own rambles, and get to my point on my own time. For good or ill, that's the power of the blogosphere, baby.
Amen.
Hat-tip: Insty, who also linked to the Kotkin piece in the WSJ, but I saw it saw it before. Still does make feel superfluous...
November 6, 2005
NYTimes: You can't handle the Truth
"I don’t regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq. It’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live, not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators, to do what they want with their lives. To me, that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark.” -- Marine Corporal Jeffrey Starr, killed in Iraq in April 2005 on his third tour of duty
This was in a letter to his girlfriend to be opened on his death. The New York Times, arbiter of what is fit to print, edited it to the following:
“I kind of predicted this. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.”
That seemed much more important to the Times than the young hero's belief in his mission and its objectives' being worth death.
Why are those poll numbers down again? Why have Americans turned against the war? How can we have a Democracy when people get such a jaundiced view?
If there's good news, it comes from the Wall Street Journal. Newspaper circulation is falling:
Gannett Co., the nation's No. 1 publisher with about 100 papers, says its daily circulation through Sept. 25, including its publications in the United Kingdom, was down 2.5% over year-ago levels. At No. 2 Knight Ridder Inc. -- whose largest shareholder has called for the sale of the company -- the daily drop was 2.9%.Tribune Co., publisher of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, among others, says its circulation as reported to ABC will be down around 4%. That estimate excludes figures for Newsday, of Long Island, N.Y., which has been censured by the ABC following a scandal in which it -- along with several other newspapers -- admitted artificially boosting circulation results. By mutual agreement, its circulation won't be released on Nov. 7.
Hat-tip (both, sorta) Instapundit
Predictable. Expected. Treasonous.
More of the same can be found in the new "war" film, 'Jarhead.' From WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110007517
"It may surprise a few Hollywood execs that this isn't an easy sell in a post 9/11 America. In the Brooklyn, N.Y., theater where I saw "Jarhead," viewers were streaming out of the theater even before the film was over. What the viewers were hoping for was a rousing film portraying U.S. forces as the good guys sacrificing for a worthwhile mission, or at least, a sense of joy in the victory. But it never came."
Posted by: johngalt at November 8, 2005 2:56 PMWhen I heard it was the "American Beauty" guy I figured it would be about as pro-war as Fahrenheit 9/11. Surprisingly, Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard said many will be disappointed that it is not the Bush-bashing, war-bashing movie they expect.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/301tzvqx.asp
Sorry the patriots stormed out. I can bet that they did not see the TV commercials, they'd know it wasn't John Wayne...
October 23, 2005
I Guess We Lost
I went out to breakfast today. Walking into the restaurant, I looked through the machine window at the Denver Post headlines, and I was surprised to read that the war had been lost in Iraq. The headline (rather small for such importance) read: "U.S. starts retreating from lofty Iraq goals" and the subhead was "Strategy for pullout outguns democracy"
Hmm, that doesn't look good, but I am not gonna give those commies at the Post a dollar of perfectly good money, so I read the article from home. It starts out pretty dire:
Washington - President Bush's goal of creating a united, peaceful Iraq that will serve as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East could take as long as a decade and cost thousands more Iraqi and American lives, administration officials say.A more modest objective is emerging for the near term, in which the security forces of an Iraq partitioned along ethnic and religious lines take over the war against a stubborn insurgency, allowing the United States to withdraw its combat forces.
Okay, is there news here? Who said we're retreating? What prompted this story? Reading on:
This scenario would leave a weakened central state apportioned into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite districts and bears its own risk: the possibility of a civil war that could spread into region- wide conflicts, analysts and government officials say.
Again, there is no news. This is a scenario most had long feared -- and a pretty good argument against cut and run. Who says we're pulling out? It seems Secretary of State Rice does:
"When you talk about the longer-term goal of a stable, democratic, multiethnic, unitary Iraq, that's going to take a long time," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate committee last week."The short-term goal is to make Iraqi forces capable enough of holding their own territory against insurgents so that there is not ... a threat to the political stability of the Iraqi regime," Rice said.
In an exchange with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Rice declined to quarrel with his definition of the short-term scenario as "a Kurdish north, a Shia (or Shiite) south and a disgruntled Sunni center that constituted a loose federation and was not engaged in all-out civil war but wasn't practicing the sort of democracy we enjoy here in the United States."
There you have it, Secretary Rice said it will be hard and take a long time (not news); and that the short-term plan was for a viable stable Iraq (is this news?); then, she failed to sufficiently correct a liberal Senator from the other party on a nebulous claim that didn't call for a specific rebuttal.
That's enough for The Denver Post! It's over! We're leaving Iraq to civil war and coming home -- you read about it here first!
No wonder everybody thinks we're losing. It's black-helicopterish of me to say this but such disinformation borders on treason.
If you ask why I believe Austin Bay and not the Post. That's fair, I would say that the progress I see with the Constitution, two successful elections, economic growth, &c. all match the more upbeat narratives I see online and do not match the MSM quagmire narrative.
Yes, almost 2000 brave men and women have given their lives for this cause. And the MSM is in full-tilt, macabre waiting for the 2,00th. It is not pointed out that that is in two years of combat. In two years, over 30,000 Americans have been murdered; more than 50,000 have died in traffic. In the two years the FDA diddled with the Erbitux application, 34,000 died needlessly from Colon Cancer. The Iraq casualty rate is not significantly higher than the normal rate for US Military training accidents!
The article continues with more worst case scenarios and more soi disant officials to give them currency. The Army is in bad shape, the economy is in a shambles, civil war would be bad (for those of you who need to read that in the paper, it appears that that might be quite unpleasant). No contrary position is offered, Nobody with a more sanguine assessment is quoted. It's a hit job, and half a million Denver area residents got it delivered to their door this Sunday morning.
October 19, 2005
jk gets insulted
I have been enjoying Tucker Carlson's "The Situation" on MSNBC. I find much to disagree with Mr. Carlson about but the show has a nice pace and style.
He claims that he responds to every question on his blog so I wrote this:
Q: I enjoy your show quite a bit - thanks! I also appreciate your principled, conservative disagreement to the war in Iraq. I disagree but appreciate your view. Yet I was very disappointed that the significant success of the recent elections did not warrant a mention on your show. You had time for the cancelled prom in the Hamptons, but a major strategic success of our nation in the war on terror did not even make it as far as the Cutting Room Floor. Disappointing.
-- John Kranz
True to form, he did answer:
A: I think you were in the kitchen getting another beer when we did our segment on the Iraqi constitutional referendum last night. We devoted a sizable amount of time to it, early in the show, and we did it despite the certainty (later proved true by overnight ratings) that a lot of viewers would change the channel the minute we started talking about elections in Iraq. The referendum struck me as a big deal, and we treated it that way. You are right that I didn't characterize the voting as a major strategic success for America. I honestly hope it was. It's just not clear yet.
That is so funny! I thought that I had seen the whole show. I was NOT getting another beer, I may have been helping some homeless people or been lost in a volume of Thucydides, I don't know...
It's a pretty good show if you haven't seen it, I'd check it out.
Maybe you SHOULD have been getting another beer.
What a putz that guy is. People who wear bow ties shouldn't insult other people who aren't physically present to give them a whuppin'. It's cowardly.
Posted by: Attila at October 22, 2005 8:17 PMJK, why didn't you tell "the bowed one" (and if my name were "Tucker" I'd be inclined to dress that way too) that you don't have to go to the kitchen for beer? You're kegerator is right there next to your La-Z-Boy!
"Beer is proof that God loves us." (Well, NED loves us anyway.)
Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2005 2:27 PMI don't know if you've seen the show but it runs live at 11pm Eastern, and his voice mail segment DOES feature a lot of folks who appear to have over-imbibed. So it's a running theme and I took it good-naturedly.
To be fair, I was sheepish when I learned that he had done a segment on the election, that I had missed it, and that I had accused wrongly. Folks deserve better treatment around here unless they're commies or hippies or weirdoes or somethin'
Fair enough. Consider my gratuitous pansy-bashing herewith retracted. (Anyone with the patience to share a soundstage with James Carville or Paul Begala deserves a medal in my book.) But I still stand by my defense of the virtues of beer! ;)
Posted by: johngalt at October 24, 2005 3:51 PMBeer makes men feel strong and women look beautiful, what's not to like? Ok, it makes men stupid too, how many of your best college stories start with "We were drinking on night...." As for Tucker Carlson I say anyone under the age of 40 who wears a bow tie is a pretentious nitwit. While I agree that I would not want to be in the same room with Carville or Begala (somehow balanced annoyance doesn't do it for me) if he wants my respect let see him invite Jon Stewart back.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 25, 2005 2:58 PMHarumph! Now you're bad-mouthing beer?! You've crossed the line from polite disagreement into hate-speech now, buddy boy. Your criticism is like saying cars are bad because, when driven 100 miles an hour into a brick wall, the occupants invariably die.
Really think beer "makes men stupid?" http://www.beer-lover.com/
Go tell it to Dave Berry, Ben Franklin and Plato, smart guy!
October 16, 2005
NYTimes Predictions
Dymphna at Gates of Vienna predicted the NYTimes headline on the Iraqi elections. Seeing that the turnout was better than 65 percent, he suggested “Over a Third of Iraqi Voters Stay Home Instead of Voting.”
Wrong! The real headline (as he updated): “Turnout Is Mixed as Iraqis Cast Votes on Constitution”
You really cannot make this stuff up, can you? Two thirds of Iraqi citizens risk death, walk miles in 100+ degree heat to vote on a draft constitution and that is "mixed" to the idiots at the nation's best newspaper. I weep for the republic...
Hat-tip: Instapundit
September 24, 2005
The MSM is Not Biased!
No, the MSM is lazy, arrogant, cowardly, and biased!
That's a joke but it's not. Bernard Goldberg is right to say that if you imagine a giant media cabal to distort the news for partisan advantage, you're wrong. And you come off as black-helicopterish.
The real problem is that media folk have many faults that just happen to augment their biases. The best example a guy could hope for is the current blog takedown of Petula Dvorak's WaPo piece, "Antiwar Rally Will Be a First for Many."
In this news piece, Dvorak discuses the appearance of one Patrice Cuddy, who will balance out the professional protesters at the Antiwar rally in D.C.:
Because of that sharp focus, they will be joined by novice protesters such as Patrice Cuddy, 56. Interviewed by phone yesterday, the former public school teacher in Olathe, Kan., said she had to pull off her gardening gloves each time a neighbor interrupted her yardwork to ask about joining the bus she had chartered to go to the nation’s capital.
You know, a middle-aged Kansas woman, who's not political, but Gosh Darn it! has decided she has to speak out against the war.
Fine. But as Spacecraft Blog finds out, with a few minutes on Google(r), This woman is a little more connected than the average retired Kansas schoolteacher: years of advocacy and an A.N.S.W.E.R. email address.
Assuming that the proxy servers at the Washington Post do not block Google, one can claim bias or laziness; I claim the dreaded combination.
I posit that Ms. Dvorak would check out a source who spouted wildly pro-Administration quotes. She would Google, check up to make certain that no Rovian stooge was leading her astray. Yet, a little laziness here helps the cause.
Stop The Bleating has access to this mysterious Google tool as well. He finds even more:
[S]he says openly, on her blog at Greater Kansas City Democracy for America: "I have been in the streets since the beginning of this war . . . " And she advises her readers at Kansas City IndyMedia (where she has been posting since at least February of '03) : "If you ever get an opportunity to go to one of these big rallies, DO IT! A Total rave thing without the drugs and alcohol."
[...]
From reviewing websites (and the Google caches of websites) to which Cuddy-Lamoree has posted messages, she comes across as, well, pretty "out there" from my perspective, but not a complete, raving, America-hating psychotic. Although there's plenty of typical, progressive, anti-Bush, anti-corporate rhetoric mixed in with her stuff, and she thinks Fahrenheit 9/11 was a "state of the art-documentary film!"
That's laziness and no small amount of arrogance directed at the bumptious, bucolic residents of Kansas. What about those other, scurrilous charges I made? Let's look at another story, and a takedown of the Associated Press Wire Service! The takedown comes from Protein Wisdom.
Jennifer Kerr of the AP writes under the headline "Thousands of Anti-War Demonstrators March in Washington, London; Rallies Planned in LA, Rome"
Jeff Goldstein starts with the headline. Yes 2,000 is technically "Thousands" but...
the phrase “rallied by the thousands” is suggestive of a bit more than the bare minimum at which “thousands” is even pluralized.
None of these stories, including Kerr's will tell you the roots of A.N.S.W.E.R. in the Stalinist Workers' World Party, or the extremely radical backgrounds of the organizers.
Two things happen in this section that are worth pointing out—first, that we’re not told a thing about Becker, nor are we told about International ANSWER, a hard-left group that supports the insurgency, other than they are “anti-war” and helped organize the day of “protest, song, and remembrance of the dead”; and second, Cindy Sheehan’s role in the protest is presented in a way that is curiously passive—a sure sign that her credibility and influence is finally waning. Kerr presents her as the grieving mother of a dead soldier, carefully avoiding any of the attendant controversy Sheehan’s public statements in the wake of her celebrity may have attached to the anti-war cause.
This is cowardice. They will NOT break from the groupthink of their 60's inculcated peers and publish inculpatory material about the antiwar crowd.
Lazy. Arrogant. Cowardly. Biased. The whole package.
September 14, 2005
Mental Maturity
In the comments of my 9/11 memorial blog Silence writes, "...I just don't see how it is possible to find all who would do us harm so as to mount a pre-emptive strike." This is his essential argument for choosing defense over offense in the "War on Terror." Why does it seem like I've answered this fallacy before?
Since we can't find all who would do us harm we should not pursue any who would? That's like saying, "Since we can't protect every terrorist target from attack we should not protect any of them." Which, not coincidentally, is another good argument for taking the offensive in this war.
It would also help if the Bush Doctrine were actually a real component of America's foreign policy.
Silence finished by mocking the idea of "some media blackout conspiracy" to obscure the outrages of 9/11. Answer this then: When, pray tell, was the last time you saw this photo anywhere other than the internet?
If it were up to me, I'd show it every day.
I think we are talking past each other a bit here johngalt. I am not suggesting a nothing approach as the choice in an all or nothing question. I am not sure where you got that impression. The interesting part is that is the response I have gotten from many conservatives, any questioning of our approach or strategy in the war on terror and I am immediately lumped in the do nothing hide under the desk liberal camp. I don't really believe this camp exists, but that is beside the point. My point of frustration is that the Republican party seems to have taken the shrewd(?) tactic that since their President is incapable of communicating complex thoughts that this is to be treated as a strength, and all who would speak of complexity or subtlety must be wishy washy Democrats. The trouble is, no matter how much you want to treat everything as black and white, all or nothing choices, they are not. To borrow a sports analogy for a moment, as JK was recently a bit despondent over the Broncos, which NFL team is successful spending their salary money only on offensive players? If you want to win, you have to have both. Arguing that we can't defend every possible target is a reason for going farther on the offensive doesn't make any sense either. Even defense is not enough, we have to spend money on response, something Katrina has shown us. I know it doesn't fit the macho image to spend money in an area where you are admitting that the terrorist will get through or beat you, but not doing it is (to grab another NFL analogy) tantamount to not running down and tackling a receiver after he has caught a pass deep in your territory.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 16, 2005 12:07 PMYes, and all the while we're talking about complexity, subtlety, defense, response, strength and other "shades of gray" matters, let's suppress the pictures of 9/11 since there are so many mental midgets in this country who might want to RESPOND to it, either individually or nationally. We'd best look out for them lest they do something rash (like vote for Republicans) and embarass us in front of our friends at the United Nations.
The point is that these images ARE being suppressed. We can argue about the effect of that, but not about the reality of it.
Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2005 3:48 PMI will agree that we are not seeing these images, but that is far different than suppression. The media, conservative and liberal, are not showing the images, but neither are their viewers clamoring to see them; this just sounds like market forces in action. I wonder actually about your desire to see these horrible images regularly. You seem to feel that absent a constant visual stimulus people are not adequately enraged to do something about terrorism. Sorry, but that seems a bit Orwellian to me or at least shades of Clockwork Orange where the public is forced to watch until the appropriate response is obtained, this response defined by the appropriate "more equal" people.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 19, 2005 3:23 PMIf market forces were the only thing determining what's reported in the news media then the only thing we'd ever see is, as JK dutifully pointed out once again... Natalee Holloway Pictures! Natalee Holloway Pictures!
Instead, when any anniversary of 9/11 rolls around, some news outlets deign to produce a "retrospective" piece on the "grave misfortune." These pieces ALWAYS include images and descriptions of suffering, shock, and sorrow, but NEVER include images or descriptions of outrage, indignation or "angry emotions and the pictures that engender them."
A deliberate selective presentation of the facts clearly constitutes suppression. And it doesn't require a "conspiracy theory" to explain why they do it.
Posted by: johngalt at September 20, 2005 2:34 PMAugust 31, 2005
Is that like Ethanol?
I like The Economist Magazine though I frequently disagree with my perceived slant of their coverage. This cover, however, set me aback:
Umm, guys, those would be the two countries (add India for good measure) who are GROWING! The rest of the world wants to settle for sclerotic, socialist-growth, they can use less energy.
And what countries are most likely to make other energy sources available? Just shooting from the hip, I'd guess an American firm doing some manufacturing in China.
There's a remarkable resemblance between this bloated "Uncle Sam" and United States Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), don't you think?
Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2005 9:43 PMAnd the Chinee dragon has a Sen Pat Leahy vibe as well...
Posted by: jk at September 1, 2005 11:06 AMMan that resmeblence to Ted Kennedy is amazing, didn't see it till johngalt pointed it out. Kinda sad I suppose that white hair and jowls looks like Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 1, 2005 3:17 PMAugust 21, 2005
Air Americsam
I've been mostly silent on Al Franken's woes. While it seems a lot worse than Rush Limbaugh's "little problem," I cannot imagine it will rise to the level of scandal in the MSM. Hell, these folks can't even report on the UNSCAM Oil-for-Food scandal, I can't imagine they'll get around to investigating Mr. Franken.
The New York Sun ahs done yeoman work on this, just as they did for Claudia Rosset's work on UNSCAM. PowerLine reports they have now set up a special web page with all of their stories. Good Stuff!
August 19, 2005
Who would think the economy good?
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page this morning carries the unsurprising news that Americans think the economy is bad because they've been told it's bad.
The middle editorial, Media Bears, quotes an MRC study that shows "negative full length TV news stories on the economy outnumbered positive stories by an overwhelming ratio of 4 to 1,"
To cite just one example, a CBS Evening News story on July 22 said that the economy is "very tenuous. It could fall apart at any moment. One piece of bad news, one additional terrorist attack, one negative corporate earnings, and it goes right down again." Contrast that funeral dirge with what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that same day: "The outlook is one of sustained economic growth." And this was after Dan Rather had departed Planet CBS.Media coverage of President Bush's tax cuts has been particularly slanted. During the 2003 tax-cut debate, three of every four major TV network news stories were negative. The favorite criticisms were liberal echoes that it would bust the budget and favor the rich. Earlier this year, a news story on National Public Radio announced that "as everyone knows, the primary cause of the budget deficit was the Bush tax cuts." No word yet on whom NPR is crediting with this year's revenue surge of $262 billion. Robert Rubin?
This is a great opportunity for bias in that they can just select the stories to present, the experts to cite, and write the headline. The economy is complex and partisan enough that you can always find somebody to say what you want.
August 15, 2005
Props to Hugh
I read Hugh Hewitt's blog everyday and I enjoy his work with the Weekly Standard / Daily Standard. I do not link that frequently. He is much more of a social conservative than I am, and we have substantive disagreements on culture, economics and immigration.
I have to give him props for the quality of his writing, and today I will highlight his humor. Ruminating on how various bloggers would handle imprisonment a la Judith Miller Hugh sez:
I think any of the Fraters would crack in a week given the lack of beer in such facilities. Ditto Bainbridge because of the wine. Lileks wouldn't budge, but he'd drive his jailers to plead with the court. MichelleMalkin would stay long enough to get a Dylan song written about her. I am not sure if Glenn would notice he was in jail. The Powerline lawyers wouldn't have lost the case in the first place.
Good stuff!
August 11, 2005
Claudia Rosett for Queen
Not Freddie Mercury and Brian May -- I am talking about journalism royalty. You cannot deny it exists, and that we have seen everyone swear fealty to the co-Kings, Woodward and Bernstein.
I hate to denigrate their achievements, Watergate was a good story and it changed the country. It changed it for the worse, but whatever.
Ms. Rosett has almost single-handedly exposed UNScam trough her tenacity and indefatigable reporting. This is a huge story, detailing the corruption at the United Nations and the proximity of this corruption to different governments' views and actions in the Iraq war.
You folks want peace, here was the chance: a non-corrupt UN whose leadership was not on the payroll of Saddam Hussein and one with fewer security council governments tied to Oil-for-food funds -- that organization could have held firm and provided a peaceful solution.
Rosett is still on the case, telling the story and still speaking plainly.
Thus do we come to the case of Benon Sevan, a longtime U.N. staffer, who according to the Volcker committee was having trouble in the mid-1990s simply managing his own household budget. With a wife who also worked at the U.N. and a combined household income of close to $200,000, Mr. Sevan was nonetheless overdrawing his bank account and running up high-interest debts on his credit cards. This was the man whom Kofi Annan--who had some acquaintance with money matters himself, having worked in the early 1990s as U.N. controller--picked in 1997 to run Oil for Food, the biggest relief program in U.N. history, administering tens of billions in oil sales and relief purchases by Saddam. Even then Saddam was notorious both at the U.N. and beyond as one of the kickback kings of the Middle East. It wasn't long before Mr. Sevan accepted what was effectively Saddam's offer to bail him out of his restaurant bills.What followed, on Mr. Sevan's end, was amateur hour, as Oil for Food money laundering went; but a highly efficient use of Saddam's graft money to corrupt the core of a huge U.N. program, tasked with the important job of supervising aid to Iraqis while preserving U.N. sanctions on Saddam's regime. Mr. Sevan collected cash in Geneva via an Oil for Food contractor on whose behalf he solicited lucrative deals from Saddam. And for about three years, starting in late 1998, Mr. Sevan made dozens of cash deposits, largely in $100 bills, into family bank accounts in New York.
Mr. Sevan's take, as far as Mr. Volcker was able to document, came to just over $147,000. Compared with the billions grafted out of Oil for Food by the true pros, this is a sum so low it suggests Mr. Sevan sold himself and the U.N.'s integrity for chump change. Indeed, if Mr. Volcker's figures are in the ballpark, then Mr. Sevan as head of Oil for Food collected less in bribes than Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, collected in payments from 1999 through 2004 from a major Oil for Food contractor, his former employer, as compensation for not competing with their business in West Africa.
If her peers really believed in the power of Journalism and not partisan protection, she would be held in the esteem of Woodsteen and Burnwood.
You blogged this more thoroughly than I had planned, JK. Kudos and gratitude to you.
Bullet-brains like me say "sanctions don't work." Well, here is one major reason why. And not until such corruption of high-diplomacy is wiped from the face of international relations will it ever be different. Got that, Cactus-heads? Your "dialog" with our enemies is the problem, not the solution.
Posted by: johngalt at August 11, 2005 2:38 PMAugust 6, 2005
Stunning Bias at the NYTimes
John Hinderocker at Power Line links to a NYTimes article that has to be seen to be believed.
The Times has internalized the fevered musings of the Democrats' weirdest precincts:
Senate Democrats remain divided about how hard to challenge the nomination, but some of them clearly worry that the gentlemanly Mr. Leahy, the leader of any nominal opposition, might prove too accommodating.
You might wonder: where on earth could the Times find someone who would call Leahy a "gentleman" and worry that he may be "too accommodating"? No problem. The Times found two sources: Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer! (Is this what they mean by the "two source" rule?)
It's one thing when they play with "ultra-conservative" labels and try to shift the mainstream left. But Leahy is a partisan attack dog, and everybody but writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg knows it.
No real crime in being an attack dog mind you, I wish that my beloved GOP had a few more in the Senate. But it is unconscionable to say this about Senator Leahy -- hell, the Times will probably get him in trouble with NARAL.
Leahy is a "gentleman" and Current TV is "cool." Does anyone else see the pattern here?
Posted by: johngalt at August 7, 2005 11:15 AMAugust 5, 2005
Tough Times in Liberal Media
Well, everybody deserves a voice, but the market seems to be telling VP Al Gore and SNL Host Al Franken that, just maybe, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, PRI, and most of the major dailies are enough.
Air America is involved in a funding kerfuffle with non-profits while ratings disappoint. (Maybe they should have given the Bronx Boys & Girls Club a network instead.)
VP Gore's "Current TV" network invites the cool kids to supply their own programming. I'm sure he didn't expect great reviews from the WSJ Ed Page, but you've got to admit there's some verisimilitude in this:
The stated premise of Current TV, the new channel co-founded by Al Gore, is that today's youth feel shut out by traditional media and yearn to be seen and heard on a station of their own. If its first few days on the air are a guide, however, Current TV has not yet discovered the magic recipe for sucking in the coveted 18-34 age group. Any adults who were worried that Mr. Gore and his Democratic partners might use their investment to indoctrinate and arm a generation can probably rest easy for now. Newsless, often clueless and usually dull, the new channel is a limp noodle.
[...]
The content pods, also repeated ad nauseam like CNN items on a foreign hotel-room TV, are thin stuff. Many offer little more than brief action shots of guys doing guy things like base jumping and skateboarding. Some simply showcase "hotties" like the L.A. model who crows: "Apparently, I have the perfect black butt." And then there's visiting "Mentor" Deepak Chopra, dispensing such gems as: "The best way to find out who you are is to ask yourself, 'Who am I?'"
[...]
Mr. Gore is said to be actively involved in programming decisions. With luck, he may figure out before it's too late that just because you call something "cool" doesn't make it so.
I certainly don't care for most of the right-wing talk radio, but admit that they have found a market and succeed with ratings and revenues.
Lefties have a tilt in all the media I listed above, and very strong Internet presences for partisan sites like Daily Kos (the biggest blog ion the web), democraticunderground, huffingstuff, and dare I include Slate.
I have watched their attempts to clone Rush Limbaugh with amusement. It's good to watch them waste their money (not Boys & Girls Clubs' money) on harmless things.
What Algore seems to have forgotten is that a prerequisite for any propaganda press entity is to outlaw all competition. Pravda and Izvestia didn't get where they did because of "pods."
Posted by: johngalt at August 7, 2005 11:01 AMThe saddest part is likely their genuine belief that a) Conservatives own the airways and b) there is real demand for what they are peddling.
Delusional.
July 20, 2005
This Just In...
For thsoe of you missing Taranto (as I am), I'll get this one. The top Headline in my Yahoo/AP news today:
Battle Over Nominee May Center On Abortion
You just can't get anything past those those guys...
July 18, 2005
Woodstein & Burnward
Loving politics gives a man no shortage of enemies. Plenty of folks to contravene, subvert, and oppose at every turn.
I don't think I am alone that I let it get a little too personal, but Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the great white President-hunters, were their sanctimonious selves on Meet The Press yesterday. I just have to bite down on a rolled up washcloth when I see those guys.
Russert asked, germane to the Rove-Plame-Wilson contretemps, whether Deep Throat was complicit in a crime.
Transcript for July 17 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com"W. Mark Felt violated FBI and Justice Department policies by sharing with reporters information about the Watergate scandal, but it's not clear whether he broke any laws, several former federal prosecutors said. ...The former prosecutors said if they were to look into Felt's conversations with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward they would examine whether he violated federal rules that keep grand jury matters secret, whether he disclosed other confidential material that was part of the Watergate investigation or broke privacy rules by revealing the names of people who had yet to be charged with a crime."
Do you think Felt broke the law?
MR. BERNSTEIN: There was a conspiracy going on at the time, run by the president of the United States to undermine the electoral process in this country. A criminal presidency...
MR. RUSSERT: But did Felt know that when he started? He started talking to you four or five days after the break-in when he didn't know there was a conspiracy going on.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Actually, he did know there was a conspiracy going on...
I'm gonna have to say it. I'll allow some of my better -educated blog brothers to correct me.
The takedown of the Nixon administration is certainly not an unalloyed good, and I question whether it was a net good. I have no love lost for Nixonian Republicanism, mind you, and he clearly exceeded powers, broke laws and stepped over the line many times.
But when I look at the post-Nixon period, I think of the fall of Saigon and the rise of the Church commission, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, boat people and the foundation for the Carter Presidency.
Let me run a counterfactual here: Nixon finishes his second term, damaged somewhat by investigations but not chased out (think Clinton with worse hair). Bernstein says that there was "a conspiracy to undermine the electoral process" but Nixon won 49 states to one. This was not won by a break in, this was a clear landslide against Senator McGovern's polity. So the electoral process was not successfully altered.
Nixon is a little stronger in his second term to negotiate a more secure peace in Saigon, with US management of the changeover. We still lose South Vietnam to the communists, but millions of lives are spared. The anti-war Senators do not feel their oats and dismantle the US security apparatus in the Church commission. Ford does not Pardon Nixon and wins a second term (more "WIN" buttons). No Carter and no Church Commission -- perhaps no 9-11.
So, "Shallow Tonsil," or whoever leaked Valerie Plame's soi-disant secret identity is a low-down, criminal, varmint -- but "deep throat" and his brave benefactors (did they mention they kept his identity secret for 33 years? Several times.) are national heroes. I don't buy it.
May 20, 2005
Santorum Kerfuffle
Senator Santorum said the following on the floor of the Senate...
- "Some are suggesting we're trying to change the law, we're trying to break the rules," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa). "Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine - the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago. And the audacity of some members to stand up and say, 'How dare you break this rule?' It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' "
Everytime Hitler or Nazism is invoked, it never looks good for the speaker. This is just another example of the stupidity of it.
That being said, the point he so clumsily was trying to make would have been the same if the Senator had said, "It's the equivalent of Saddam Hussein in 1991 saying: 'I'm in Kuwait City, How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city?"
Or, "It's the equivalent of Tojo in 1941 saying: 'I'm in Seoul, How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city?"
You can replace any leader with a year and an invaded city.
I probably would NOT have chosen Hitler and the Nazis, but that's the thrust of it. No. I'm not excusing it.
Now the Senator is already regretting it.
Predictably though the left wing of the blogosphere is a little upset.
DailyKos did some linking.
- Once upon a time an organziation called Move On (or probably Move On Pac, forget which) ran a little ad creation contest. The initial submissions, of which there were many, weren't really screened by the organization, and a couple of them admittedly crossed the line by making Bush/Nazi comparisons. Those ads were yanked immediately by the organization, but are nonetheless used to this day by the liberal media to smear Move On as an irresponsible "extremist" organization.
Now we have the junior Senator from Pennsylvania comparing the entire Senate Dem caucus to Adolf Hitler. Will the "Move On" standard of the liberal media still apply?
Steve Gilliard:
- Comparing Senate rules to this is like shitting on the WWII memorial. This isn't the equivilent of Hitler saying anything. The cheap use of history shows the Senator from Tyson's Corner needs to read his history closer. In between trying to murder people by pimping for Accuweather and dragging his dead fetus around for a bit of family show and tell, he wants to denigrate history and sacrifice as well. We all know Santorum wants to sit in the big house, but he's just another blowdried freak who thinks Jesus speaks to him personally and he's the lord's servant.
How easily he compared his collegues to oh, Nazis. You mean John Kerry and Tom Harkin are gonna show up to his house with some of their war buddies and toss hin into a van? He's gonna do slave labor for Micahel Moore? Clean Barbra Streisand's house? Exactly how are his Democratic collegues like the Nazis? Are they meeting at Greenbrier for the final solution of the Republican Party? Are camps being built in the Sonoran desert for Republicans and will they have their property stolen?
Santorum, like so many Republicans, forget that being a public official has responsibilities which go beyond party. One of them is to not unfairly malign the loyal opposition. That is a responsibility of goverrnment, of his office. And he seems not to get it.
- Did Rick Santorum really just say that?
Late Update: It seems he really did. Amazing.
- The man is clearly not well. It’s time for him to go.
It was bad enough when Bill Frist suggested yesterday that Dems want to “assassinate” Bush nominees, but Santorum’s Hitler analogy suggests Republicans have really lost all sense of perspective and decency.
Now, our good friend Rick Santorum, he who compared being gay to practicing beastiality, has compared Senate Democrats to... Adolf Hitler. Imagine, just imagine, the reaction if Harry Reid or Dick Durbin did this. We need to push this far and wide, and demand that the Media pays attention.
As Chuck Pennacchio says:
As an historian of Holocaust-era Germany, I find Rick Santorum’s comment to be offensive, divisive, and destructive. Rick Santorum should immediately issue a public apology, and then retreat with conscience to consider the lasting damage he has done to the United States Senate and to the memory of 12 million Holocaust victims.
His number is 202-224-6324. Call him tomorrow, and let him know how inappropriate his remarks were.
Casual followers of the filibuster debate will remember that this was not the first time that Nazism and Hitler were invoked.
Senator Byrd of West Virginia in March said the following...
- Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.
But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.
Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.
And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Given that Santorum had asked for a retraction of Byrd statement, it's even dumber for him to use a similar analogy. What was he thinking?
Out of curiousity, I went to google, and tried to find equivalent denunciations of or indignation at Senator Byrd's speech.
I searched for Byrd hitler and using the site: operator in google. The actual searches are linked, as well as links to early march posts (where available). I also searched those pages for any mention of Byrd.
Here's what I found:
Kos: byrd hitler had a lot of links... so I searched part of Byrd's speech. Nothing.
I could not find an archive link.
Atrios: Nothing of value on Google.
Even in his archives.
Steve Gilliard: Same.
His archives end in 2004.
Josh Marshall: Nothing.
Josh's archives.
The Carpet Bagger Report: More of the same. Nothing.
Archives? More of the same.
Youngphillypolitics: nothing.
Appropriate archive? Nothing again.
Obviously, if I can be pointed to the right post, I will link it with retraction.
For all of the sturm und drang (and I think rightly so) over Rick Santorum's dickstepping, there is very little comment about the former Klansman's comments just over three months ago.
And in a similar context.
Maybe he's just the old crazy drunk uncle they'd prefer to lock in the basement.
Or maybe it's just hypocrisy.
Addendum: The more I think about it, the more I think that if there were no Hitler mention, this would have been a pretty unremarkable statement.
Despite the fact that we take the "Third Estate's" built-in bias for granted, it is remarkable to see concrete evidence of their double-standard.
Thomas Sowell wrote a column once describing why judges (among others) toe the Politically Correct party line: Because they get validation of the quality of their character and judgement and humanity from, the Third Estate and it's liberal columnists.
It's no wonder that Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' featured a newspaper's editor-in-chief and socialite columnist as two of its lead characters. And when those characters recognized the error of their ways and tried to write positive stories about individual accomplishments, sales of the paper plummeted. As I recall, the message was, "the public wants mindless drivel and won't bother reading about the success of others." Just give them car wrecks, home fires, and the occasional celebrity trial.
In this regard, things haven't changed much since the '40s and '50s.
Posted by: johngalt at May 22, 2005 9:41 AMMay 4, 2005
Not Enough Taxes!
I usually avoid direct exposure to Mainstream Media. I read critiques in the blogs and catch the occasional glimpse, but I usually just think "imagine the poor people who have to read-watch-listen to that."
Hanging around in hospitals is the great equalizer. The rich occupy the same waiting rooms as the indigent (John Edwards would love it). And we all get stuck watching Katie Couric and reading the local rag.
In Boulder, that is "The Daily Camera." Imagine a bad newspaper in a small city. Then imagine how much worse it would be in Boulder, Colorado. It's a joke to me but a lot of folks believe it. A half-dozen copies are brought into the dining room every day, and I had ten minutes yesterday. The front page had a story about "Mothers Acting Up" and their march down canyon to promote all things that are good for children (no mention as to what legislation was good for kids and bad for parents). And the horror of horrors [young readers might wish to avert their eyes here] Coloradans don't pay enough taxes!
A ballot issue will go before voters in November that, if approved, would allow the state to keep $3.1 billion of the TABOR surplus over five years. Without that, the state would have to find places to reduce the budgets of its already thin departments and programs, including higher education and the judicial system, Mullis said.House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said the effects of low tax rates and TABOR have been "devastating."
"Colorado can never catch up to where we used to be," she said. "We used to have one of the best economies in the nation. Now we have one of the worst, because of TABOR."
The accompanying graphic shows Colorado’s rank among the five least taxed states. To the Camera, this is clearly an embarrassment.
TABOR (The Taxpayers' Bill Of Rights) is a bit of genius that was passed by referendum several years ago to limit growth of Government spending. The WSJ Ed Page credited TABOR with keeping Colorado out of the boom-bust trouble experienced by California.
People want to debate it, fine. Even Governor Owens has lobbied for breaking it (Bye bye Owens08). But to assert that our economy is threatened by lack of taxes, without any other view is just, well, um...really, ah.
I hope my wife comes home soon and I can restore my protective shield. I read TNR and much of the NYTimes Ed Page -- it's not that I never see an opposing view. But the jejune stupidity of the News page of a Daily is just , well, um...really, ah.
The Colorado State House changed to Democrat control last election. The new MAJORITY leader thinks that our economy has been ruined because our taxes are too low. That is just, well, um...really, ah...
Perhaps I should be offering to deliver good coffee and good news magazines to the hospital? We can't having you passing out in the hall due to decaffeination/liberal overload, I am just a cell call away.
Seriously, TABOR certainly has its pros and cons but I can only imagine the Camera's take on it. I would be in favor of amending to provide a rainy day fund, much like we taxpayers can keep to tide us over during an economic downturn, but building in the legal safeguards to keep the politician's greedy mitts out of that fund could be nigh impossible. The tough part is that a reduction in tax revenues during a downturn is not equally offset by a reduction in population or need to provide services. California's big problem was the referendum system that allowed voters to directly vote for costly projects without the need to go through the legislative process and provide funding. Seems we all want our pet programs and our tax money back.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at May 4, 2005 2:28 PMIt does not retract itself for recession, but it does control the growth rate during the good times so that the burn rate is lower when revenues fall.
I'll entertain some other thoughts, but I think that is the bigger difference between Colorado and California. They adjusted their spending up to boom levels and we did not, leaving us better prepared for the bust.
You have children, Silence. I wouldn't risk their dad getting shot smuggling "The Weekly Standard" into North Boulder. It's just not worth it, man, I'll read at home...
I went to Boulder last night, under cover of darkness, to help my sister-in-law move out of the dorms. I wore my "Red-state, Blue-state, This is My America" t-shirt, covered by my LAPD Ski Team sweatshirt. I'm such a revolutionary!
Seriously though, the "rainy day fund" for government expenditures is deficit spending. Anything else is just another piece of the General Fund.
Tabor itself was a referendum measure, and the idea of "no new taxation without voter representation" was appealing enough to prevail. A major factor in the current budget "crisis" is last fall's referendum mandating lavish spending increases for public education - no matter what. Unfortunately, that was appealing enough to prevail as well. Ah, piecemeal policymaking.
Posted by: johngalt at May 5, 2005 2:52 PMMay 2, 2005
Give Me a Break, Duluth
Having passively observed the Jennifer Wilbanks "runaway bride" saga last week and over the weekend, I now see that authorities are considering both civil and criminal charges against her.
The mayor of Duluth, Georgia, a niggling busybody if I ever saw one says, "We feel a tad betrayed and some are very hurt about it." Well boo hoo. "In addition to the potential for criminal charges, Duluth Mayor Shirley Lasseter said she is looking into the possibility of suing Wilbanks to recover the cost of the search that was mounted after her disappearance. Lasseter estimated the cost at $100,000."
Then there's the local DA Danny Porter. "Porter said Wilbanks could face a misdemeanor charge of false report of a crime or a felony charge of false statements. The misdemeanor carries a penalty of up to a year in jail; five years in prison is the maximum sentence for the felony. "If there's criminal responsibility, that's something I have to do something about," Porter said.
But who launched such a wide-ranging government search effort within 24 hours of her disappearance? Certainly not Wilbanks. No, that honor likely goes to whichever family member decided the national media needed to run semi-hourly updates on the status of her "abduction." And when Wilbanks finds out about the hullabaloo 3 days later (the typical waiting period before police will act on missing persons reports) and adds that to the sense of shame she feels for what she's done to her extended family, she makes up a false report of kidnapping that she recants only hours later. For this she could go to prison for 5 years? Get real people.
In typical western fashion, Albuquerque authorities are more circumspect. "We have discretion. We are human beings. We have feelings and we are professional at the same time," said Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Ahrensfield.
Less effort should be expended on investigating "the circumstances on how this was done" than figuring out the specifics of the intended nuptials. It has many hallmarks of an arranged marriage, and given our distant introduction to her fiancee, Mr. Personality, I can see why she'd have misgivings.
Thanks. jg, I was afraid the great minds of ThreeSources were going to be silent on this pressing topic...
Instapundit has asking why perpetrating a hate-crime hoax is not prosecuted as forcefully as a hate crime.
You can blame the family and the media all you want, but alleging a non-existent crime is going to cause outlays of government resources and I am all for throwing the book at the bride -- her book deal and Barbara Walters Interview will more than cover the fine.
Being hospital guy, I haven't seen any coverage but Yahoo. The hopeless romantic in me was touched that "Groom Still Wants To Marry Runaway Bride." Ahh, twoo love!
I suppose that is fair. All the outlays of government resources that occurred AFTER her panicked 911 kidnapping story late Friday, and BEFORE her recantation a couple hours later are her liability. The rest can be billed to 'Fox News Live!' (Probably CNN and MSNBC too but I wouldn't know. Did you say CBS news? Pppptht!)
Posted by: dagny at May 3, 2005 2:02 AMYou'd assume that this white, 40-something Conservative male would be a big FOXNews fan. But their love of these tabloid stories has completely turned me off.
I'm glad FOXNews exists, but I cannot watch it. I TiVo "The Belway Boys " and "FOX News Sunday" and watch both every week. I also record Brit Hume's newcast and watch it two or three times out of five.
But the rest of the lineup? Chandra Levy/Laci Peterson/Michael Jackson... Can't take it!
Posted by: jk at May 3, 2005 1:02 PMI have no sympathy for Wilbanks. The whole charade is the sort of thing a teenager would do - run away without any advance planning, then, when things get tight, make up some wild story instead of facing the truth. If she wanted to dump the guy that dramatically, there were a million better ways to do it. Did it occur to her that her fiance would be treated as a murder suspect? What if she had been pressed for a name when she phoned in her kidnapper story, and had blurted out some real person's name? And I'm sure that the situation was at least partially of her own making. I doubt that the groom was the party who insisted on a wedding with 600 guests.
Having said that, I don't really think there is a legal matter here. Yes, there was a search-and-rescue expense, but we have to accept a certain amount of that as social overhead; otherwise, all behavior with a non-zero risk would cease and that would be bad for all of us. The most I can see her facing would be a misdomeanor charge of filing a false report. But that should take place in New Mexico, where it actually happened. I don't know what grounds Georgia would have to file that charge, since she didn't make any report in Georgia.
Thanks for the comment, Cousin Dave! It's always great to see a little new blood around here -- maybe you can set some of them other guys straight...
Posted by: jk at May 3, 2005 5:38 PMI agree with Cousin Dave that Willbanks displayed poor judgement. And Cousin Dave agrees with me that there is no legal exposure for the woman.
Sure, Willbanks "should have" done many things differently. One thing she didn't do, however, was ask to be plastered all over television and newspapers. How many of us honestly expect that would happen to us if we decided to go 'walkabout' for three days?
I feel no sympathy for Willbanks for the embarrasment she feels in the eyes of her family, but the torrent of disdain, outrage, and just plain hurt feelings from government officials and media talking-heads is entirely undeserved.
[The earlier comment by 'dagny' in this thread was actually mine. Sorry Dag. :)]
Posted by: johngalt at May 8, 2005 10:20 AMApril 29, 2005
Video Games vs. Movies
Props for James Pinkerton. In his TCS column he quotes both Marx and Schumpeter effectively. I couldn't do that. No way.
More importantly, he digs deep into the news that video game revenues have now eclipsed movies.
First, studio execs as a group have never known anything about videogames, and can't ever be expected to learn. Movie makers, after all, think of themselves as being in the movie business, as opposed to being in the overall entertainment business. And so just as the railroads ignored the automobile -- because railroad men could not see that their business was transportation overall, as opposed to simply railroading -- and just as autos similarly ignored airplanes, so it is that movies are mostly clueless about the new entertainment platform, videogames. Long ago, management guru Peter Drucker made the point that a new technique would not be adopted until it was obviously and demonstrably ten times better than the old technique. Since then, much work has been done about the impact of "disruptive technology"; the general lesson seems to be that it's the rarest of companies that can make the jump from one way of generating profits to another.
I think this is a big story. The formulaic approach to movies has got to run out of steam someday. And I like the idea that young people would rather participate less passively in their entertainment.
I'm too old and dull for most movies and video games, but I cannot believe that the impulse is much different from blogging.
And, hey, when I was a touring musician I got quite good at "Tempest." Stop laughing!!!!
April 25, 2005
David Brooks
The (deservedly) much maligned NYTimes really does deserve props. A) C'mon, face it, it is an amazing newspaper. I wish they were fair, too. But it defines the news for the entire country and employs (face it again) the best writers. B) David Brooks was a great pick for token Conservative. He is a Conservative that doesn't frighten the NYTimes reader and that's good -- a little right-of-center thought for these folks is better than none.
Today he has a hilarious column on the CDC's "re-calibrating" obesity statistics.
The release of a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association indicating that overweight people actually live longer than normal-weight people represents an important moment in the history of world civilization. It is the moment when we realize that Mother Nature - unlike Ivy League admissions committees - doesn't like suck-ups.
[...]
If the report from researchers at the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is correct - and it is the most thorough done to date - then it seems that Mother Nature has built a little Laffer curve into the fabric of reality: health-conscious people can hit a point of negative returns, so the more fit they are, the quicker they kick the bucket. People who work out, eat responsibly and deserve to live are more likely to be culled by the Thin Reaper.
The whole piece is funny and smart. But I think the lede is correct. It is important. They were off by a factor of 14 and their basic premise was completely wrong. That will be remembered, and the expert's advice will be further discounted in the future.
Woo Hoo, donuts on me! With all the medical evidence of the power of genetics you would think the fitness folks would get a clue that was is good for one person may not work so well for another. By the way, if you are a fitness guru I am betting that your genetic makeup allowed you to have that body and that without it you could starve and crunch yourself to eternity and never get abs of steel. At least I feel there has to be some good from genetics, I have enough trouble remembering my own medical history without also that of my parents and siblings, not to mention those oh so comfortable phone conversations like hey big bro, how did that colonoscopy go, because it affects how soon I need one. My secret belief is still that they will discover that cancer is genetic in rats and it will throw out 30 years of research.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 25, 2005 6:28 PMMarch 23, 2005
The Campaign Finance Reform Scam
JK mentioned this story earlier, but I haven't seen the following questions asked...
- CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."
But don't take my word for it. One of the chief scammers, Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, confesses it all in an astonishing videotape I obtained earlier this week.
The tape — of a conference held at USC's Annenberg School for Communication in March of 2004 — shows Treglia expounding to a gathering of academics, experts and journalists (none of whom, apparently, ever wrote about Treglia's remarks) on just how Pew and other left-wing foundations plotted to create a fake grassroots movement to hoodwink Congress.
"I'm going to tell you a story that I've never told any reporter," Treglia says on the tape. "Now that I'm several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell this story."
Here's the story...
- "The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington," Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."
A few questions beg to be asked...
Who were the reporters and from which newspapers and television agencies are they from? This meeting took place a year ago, and as Ryan Sager points out, not a single one reported on it.
Why not?
The answer is simple. News agencies stand the most to gain from campaign finance reform. With limited commercials, limited campaign spending, there is no other source to turn to than the media for the issues, who have an unrestricted license to broadcast as much or as little about candidates and their positions as they desire.
Not to mention the monopoly on the audience that they would hold during the run up to an election.
If these "journalists" are really objective about their profession, why don't we know about this?
How can anyone conclude that the reporters sitting in the audience were part of the story, not part of the reporting?
With their now year long silence, how can we conclude anything but their tacit approval of this fraud?
Who were the academics? Who were the "experts?" Who were these people?
... and why are they in on the plan?
Cui bono? The incumbents and the media both benefit from "reform." Who made the most noise? Incumbents and media.
Three dark days for this great nation:
-- McCain Feingold passes
-- President Bush signs it (Breaking his oath to uphold the constitution)
-- SCOTUS blows it in McConnell v. FEC
March 18, 2005
Day By Day
It breaks my heart that Senator McCain, whom I admire as much as any living American, has dedicated his Senate career to stripping our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects porn dealers -- I can handle that. Yet somehow, it doesn't apply to political speech?
Chris Muir nails it.
But, then, everybody reads DayByDay everyday, right? He came back from his hiatus even stronger, I think. More political. A little harder-edged.
My suspicion is that he has given up on MSM syndication and is following his heart. He seems to be doing well on blog ads. I plan to place one for ThreeSources as a partial payment for his kind work on the cover of my last CD (and drum up interest in our pontifications). It would be great to see this model prevail -- have a talented guy avoid the bias of syndication firms and make it with a direct appeal to the people. Hello long-tail!
March 17, 2005
Freedom's Correspondent
In his Weekly Standard online column, Let Us Now Praise Claudia Rosett Hugh Hewitt says:
Bloggers and Internet columnists often find easy marks in the ranks of old media, so they ought to pause and hold up for admiration and emulation those who do the job that a free press was intended to do. Claudia Rosett is as "old media" as they get, and the single best advertisement for what journalism can be when practiced with skill and passion.
Whether or not the Pulitzer committee recognizes Rosett for her incredible contribution to freedom through her superb journalism over the past few years, those who follow the media know she is the standard setter.
It is odd that bloggers love to bite the ankles of the mainstream press, without which, there'd be no credible blogosphere.
Not that they don't deserve it, but cheers to Hewitt for reminding us of one that does it right for the right reasons.
The old Denver Post building had an inscription "O Justice, when expelled from other grounds, make this thy dwelling place." I grew up believing in the high ideals of journalism -- then ended up decrying its activists. But Ms. Rosett is freedom's correspondent. Thanks, Hugh, for the reminder.
March 3, 2005
Kill PBS Funding!
George Will writes an awesome column about PBS. It's a relic of the Johnson Administration, like an appendix it wavers between being irreverent and troublesome, but Will agrees with me that it is totally superfluous.
In 1967 public television did at least increase, for many, the basic television choices from three — CBS, NBC, ABC — to four. Not that achieving some supposedly essential minimum was, or is, the government's business. In today's 500-channel environment, public television is a preposterous relic.Not too long ago the Public Broadcasting Service tried an amazingly obtuse and arrogant slogan: "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?" What was the antecedent of the pronoun "it"? Presumably "culture" or "seriousness" or "relevance." Or something. But in a television universe that includes the History Channel, Biography, A&E, Bravo, National Geographic, Disney, TNT, BBC America, Animal Planet, the Learning Channel, the Outdoor Channel, Noggin, Nickelodeon, and scads of other cultural and information channels, what is the antecedent?
Best of all, a proposal for killing it will generate another decade of left-wing spam to "write your congressman to keep big bird on the air!"
Will ends his piece asking "Would it vanish without the 15 percent of its revenue it gets from government? Let's find out."
February 18, 2005
Great Headline
Isn’t that an odd headline for a story about a bad headline? Maybe I can get an editing job at Associated Press.
The headline reads: Bush Says U.S. Won't Attack Iran This disappointed me -- why would you take something off the table? What about the inaugural address? Is Sharansky out and Brzezinski in?
Turns out that was pretty much the opposite of what the President said:
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Friday the United States does not intend to attack Iran to crush its suspected nuclear weapons project but added that "you never want a president to say never." He expressed hopes that a European diplomatic initiative would persuade Tehran to abandon any such program.
They same folks did the same thing to Secretary Rice.
February 11, 2005
The Blogosphere Claims Another...
I hate to be this flippant. But Eason Jordan, like Dan Rather, would have "gotten away with it" without a blogosphere to hold him accountable.
Larry Kudlow notes that this story was driven exclusively by the blogs, yet somehow everybody knew it -- even US Senators!
The blogosphere has gained near immediate influence and credibility with its ability to widely disseminate alternative media coverage. (These days, “alternative” more often than not means “true.”) Powerhouse bloggers such as John Hinderaker, Glenn Reynolds, and Hugh Hewitt, among many others, have flexed their muscles and badly bruised CNN on this story.