March 8, 2010
Errata
NYTimes Corrections, courtesy of Gregg Easterbrook
New York Times Corrections on Fast-Forward: In the past six months, the Times has, according to its own corrections page, said Arizona borders Wisconsin; confused 12.7-millimeter rifle ammunition with 12.7 caliber (the latter would be a sizeable naval cannon); said a pot of ratatouille should contain 25 cloves of garlic (two tablespoons will do nicely); on at least five occasions, confused a million with a billion (note to the reporters responsible -- there are jobs waiting for you at the House Ways and Means Committee); understated the national debt by $4.2 trillion (note to the reporter responsible -- there's a job waiting for you at the Office of Management and Budget); confused $1 billion with $1 trillion (note to the reporter responsible -- would you like to be CEO of AIG?); admitted numerical flaws in a story "about the ability of nonsense to sharpen the mind;" used "idiomatic deficiency" as an engineering term (correct was "adiabatic efficiency"); said Paul Revere's Midnight Ride occurred in 1776 (it was in 1775 -- by 1776, everybody knew the British were coming); "misstated the status of the United States in 1783 -- it was a country, not a collection of colonies" (dear Times, please Google "Declaration of Independence").The Times also "misidentified the song Pink was singing while suspended on a sling-like trapeze;" confused the past 130 years with the entire 4.5 billion-year history of Earth (see appended correction here); misused statistics in the course of an article complaining that public school standards aren't high enough (see appended correction here); said Citigroup handed its executives $11 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses, when the actual amount was $1.1 billion (in the Citigroup executive suite, being off by a mere two zeroes would be considered incredible financial acumen); said a column lauding actress Terri White "overstated her professional achievements, based on information provided by Ms. White;" identified a woman as a man (it's so hard to tell these days); reported men landed on Mars in the 1970s ("there was in fact no Mars mission," the Times primly corrected).
This is the New York Times photo referred to in the correction -- that's a Plymouth Barracuda she's on -- and also, possibly, the greatest photograph of all time. The Times also gave compass coordinates that placed Manhattan in the South Pacific Ocean near the coastline of Chile (see appended correction here); said you need eight ladies dancing to enact the famous Christmas song when nine are needed; said Iraq is majority Sunni, though the majority there is Shiite (hey, we invaded Iraq without the CIA knowing this kind of thing); got the wrong name for a dog that lives near President Obama's house ("An article about the sale of a house next door to President Obama's home in Chicago misstated the name of a dog that lives there. She is Rosie, not Roxy" -- did Rosie's agent complain?); elaborately apologized in an "editor's note," a higher-level confession than a standard correction, for printing "outdated" information about the health of a wealthy woman's Lhasa apso; incorrectly described an intelligence report about whether the North Korean military is using Twitter; called Tandil, Argentina, home of Juan Martín del Potro, a "tiny village" (its population is 110,000); inflicted upon unsuspecting readers a web of imprecision about the Frisians, the Hapsburg Empire, the geographic extent of terps, and whether Friesland was "autonomous and proud" throughout the Middle Ages or merely until 1500; inexactly characterized a nuance of a position taken by the French Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (philosophy majors must have marched in the streets of Paris over this); confused coal with methane (don't make that mistake in a mine shaft!); on at least three occasions, published a correction of a correction; "misstated the year of the Plymouth Barracuda on which a model dressed as a mermaid was posed;" "mischaracterized the date when New York City first hired a bicycle consultant" and "misidentified the location of a pile of slush in the Bronx."
Too much fun. Other than that, as Taranto might say, "The Stor[ies were] accurate."
Hat-tip: Jim Glass at scrivener.net If you click, you get the "When was the mermaid on the Barracuda?" referenced...
You knew I'd bite on the Barracuda reference...
It's either a '67 or '68. I recognize the headlight bezels. That design was used on 67-69 models but their shape, and that of the front-center area of the hood, changed in '69. AND, it's a convertible! (Them's what don't know, my '68 Barracuda convertible is red.)
But in the big picture, you don't really expect the NY Times to be expert authorities on everything do you? That would require a super-human intelligence and omniscience on a par with government central-planners.
Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2010 8:39 PMOn closer inspection it looks like it is the '69. The ridge down the center of the hood is what that thin cushion is protecting the mermaid's "tail fin" from.
See, even someone who's always right sometimes has to make corrections! ;)
Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2010 8:42 PMMarch 2, 2010
Racism!
But in Washington Post-ABC News polls during his tenure, residents of the nation's southern states -- particularly whites -- have expressed broad doubts about the effectiveness of the stimulus package and Obama's leadership.
Peckerwoods! Support for the stimulus has fallen from 43 to 35% in six months.
In the South.
With a lot of white people.
Clearly, they can't handle the idea of an African American wasting a trillion dollars of their money. I'm frankly embarrassed.
Exactly the argument being made by the likes of Leonard Pitts, Jr. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/27/1503251/tea-party-fears-a-matter-of-race.html
If you want an exercise in contorted logic, this is a pretty good read.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 2, 2010 3:16 PMMmmmkay. But I defend the Miami Herald and Pitts as they are clearly presenting an editorial. My WaPo email leads today with this paragraph:
"In Washington Post-ABC News polls during his tenure, residents of the nation's southern states -- particularly whites -- have expressed broad doubts about the effectiveness of the stimulus package and Obama's leadership.."
I don't understand the phrase "particularly whites." The data displayed are not broken down by ethnicity. The WaPo story the WaPo blog post links to not only doesn't highlight race -- it says:
Republicans have significantly narrowed the gap with Democrats on who is trusted to deal with the country's problems and have sharply reduced several of President Obama's main political advantages, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
There is no justification for the racial remark except a lazy pathological bias on the part of the writer.
I mean, what other events could have precipitated a dip in the President's poll numbers? I can't think of anything.
Sure, but that's simply the narrative of the liberal left. Whether in news reporting or in opinion, they simply can't think of another logical reason, either.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 2, 2010 5:23 PMIt's refreshing to read that the establishment press version was predominantly bias-free. The honkey-bashing came from their blog, but what do you expect from a bunch of @#$*-ing bloggers?
Posted by: johngalt at March 2, 2010 6:35 PMFebruary 22, 2010
Pollywood on the Olympics
Very very interesting take on the Olympic coverage (which matches my views pretty closely).
A pretty fair take but I disagree on the figure skating judges. It does appear to the viewer that the outcome is preordained but I think that's attributable to NBC's ham-handed editing of the tape-delayed coverage. Last night while the Russians ice dancers were waiting for their scores the graphic read "96.whatever needed to medal" and not "109.whatever needed for gold." It was clear that the Russians were going to get the bronze.
Dagny and I have had no quarrel with the ranking of any of the skating competition results. And when has anyone ever been able to say that before!
Posted by: johngalt at February 23, 2010 11:38 AMGlenn Beck: Denyin' Deniers?
'Nother datum for those asessing Glen Beck. Yet another vicious attack from the l -- I mean right.
Anointed Leader Of Conservative Movement Glenn Beck Now Believes In Global WarmingThe stunning duplicity of Fox News host Glenn Beck has been exposed once again after the talk show host told USA Weekend magazine that he now believes in man-made global warming, after years of assuring his viewers that he was on the side of skeptics who questioned the science behind AGW claims.
In an article entitled Don't judge Beck by his cover, Beck tells interviewer Dennis McCafferty, "You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change."
Hat-tip: The ClimateGate Facebook page.
As the last guy on the planet without a solid opinion, how do I score this?
+5 points for heterodoxy and willingness to assert independence
-15 for calling those who disagree with him "idiots."
Sorry gang, after a nice bump for his speech yesterday, I think I am ready to come out as anti-Beck. Ann Coulter is very bright too and far better looking. Yet I tired of defending her bombast. I'm not seeing where I'll appreciate Mister Beck more.
There’s a surfeit of punditry and one can afford to be particular.
A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.
Let's do some more: "Seruh Paylyn's son Twig is Gwyn Bekk's secret love child!" Now, watch for this on HuffPo before the dinner hour.
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 2:41 PMNo, it's true -- I read it on the Internet!
I'll be the first to concede that it is not the most credible of sources (their profile picture is the Kool-Aid man). But do you have substantive proof for impugning their probity?
So far ... only my good sense.
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 8:36 PMo.
Here's another link and a critical whack at Beck from Mark Levin (whom I don't know either -- I really do need to get out more).
Posted by: jk at February 23, 2010 12:45 PMI'll believe Beck "believes in global warming" when I hear him say it himself. Instead, I've consistently heard the contrary. I read in the comments to the original link that the author making the claim had made the assertion himself based on various answers from Beck, i.e. if he doesn't deny that the average global temperature may have increased then, Q.E.D, he "believes in global warming."
Mark Levin (Rush calls him "F. Lee Levin") is a social conservative lawyer and Constitutionalist. I generally agree with him except when he insists that the Founders were all (or predominantly) true-believin' Christians and that America is a Christian nation.
Posted by: johngalt at February 24, 2010 2:47 PMFebruary 21, 2010
"Progressing Past" Glenn Beck
Here's how Salon.com chose to dismiss Glenn Beck's CPAC speech.
The recitation, and the whole speech, was captivating, it was a little scary, it was almost completely incomprehensible. It was, in other words, pure Glenn Beck. Watching him walk the audience through his absurd fantasies and his melodramatic bluster, you had to wonder what would have happened if he'd been on the CPAC straw poll ballot with the GOP's list of would-be presidents. All weekend long, there wasn't anyone else who held the stage with the presence -- or the craziness -- Beck did.
Pay no attention to the scary, crazy man. You can't understand him anyway. Just move along.
Incomprehensible to whom? The Salons at Salon (SaS)? (I've waited all my life for that joke...)
Beck is a Palinesue character (Gov. Sarah, not Michael) in that no shades of grey are allowed. You have to be willing to crawl over broken glass to obey his orders or contrive a time machine to prevent his grandparents' being born.
I thank you for posting the clip, it was helpful in my deciding which camp I am in.
I'd call the speech interesting and comprehensible. He's a captivating speaker and I appreciate his appreciation of history. I guess it is incomprehensible to the SaS to blame the Progressives and toast President Coolidge, but I do that 'round here every week.
I would subtract points for two stylistic flaws. A) Starting the speech with "I hate Woodrow Wilson!" I object to defining oneself as what you oppose. (Hilarity ensued on the FOXNewSunday panel yesterday when Juan Williams claimed that [CPAC? the GOP? I forget who] was "just anti-Obama, they don't stand for anything!" when Candidate Obama was never anything but the anti-Bush, but I digress...) B) I am guessing from the applause that the chalkboard is part of his show, but it subtracted from the speech rather than adding to it. He can't say the word "Progressivism?" He did not chart the p-shell of a carbon atom's tetravalence or draw a supply and demand curve. It made me feel talked-down-to. Professor Beck is telling you dumb kids a lot of stuff you don't know.
At the end of the day, though, I cannot disappoint my fans. I must respond to the attack on the big-tent and pragmatism. It's a great applause line to tell the true believers that ev'ybody gotta be true believers.
But the Constitution he and I so cherish is not conducive to the purity he demands. I respect his appreciation for history, but maybe he missed the bit where we've been evenly divided about something or another since 1800. Opposition to slavery could not attain electoral majority without appeals to other issues, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison traded elections over tariffs.
I'd think at least the Boulder ex-pats around here would respect the philosophical and electoral success progressivism enjoys. I am distinctly an outlier everywhere I go but ThreeSources. The idea that I am going to assemble a plurality of folks who think like me is pretty laughable.
I think Beck, and ThreeSourcers need to reach the party leaders and I think that TEA partiers need to hold leaders of both parties to Constitutional standards. But when you start throwin' guys out of the tent, you have fewer guys.
If this was the first time you've watched Beck it may have been a bit like drinking a bottle of Tabasco without tasting it first. Sorry.
I've watched him off and on throughout the TEA Party era and I'll submit the only thing he "demands purity" on is doing our best to comply with the Constitution.
And he doesn't want to throw people out of the party, just some ideas that are incompatible with a)liberty, b)capitalism, c)the Constitution. What's not to like (other than the bombast?) He sounded like a cross between Mike Rosen and the late great Billy Mays.) He's (slightly) more reserved on his TV show. I think he got carried away with the passion of the moment, having a face-to-face chance to tell the GOP to stop being Democrat Lite.
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 3:14 PM"...but it's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side."
Isn't this the sort of talk that frightens liberals? And it frightens a lot of GOP officials also: the idea that it's not enough for them to be "less bad" than Democrats.
For once, Beck said something I can applaud. Whether he really means it, well...but at least it's the very thing I have been pounding on for a good while now. Given the choice between the lesser of two evils, I choose neither. I'm not "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" -- quite the contrary. I'm demanding that "the good" be worthy of the name, that it's not some watered-down "compromise" that leaves me only partially violated.
"Less bad" should never, ever be mistaken as "good," particularly when we're talking about the rights of the individual. That's why, JK, I no longer can excuse the Constitution for giving permission to slavery just so we could assemble as a nation. It betrayed the whole thing Jefferson had written 11 years earlier about "all men are created equal." If we hadn't ratified the Constitution, what would have happened? Would the British have really said to themselves, "Oh look, they still have no strong central government" and invaded us again?
Once your opponents know you're at all willing to compromise, they have you. "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." You are accepting some bad because you aren't willing to fight for what is good. Look at what we did to Eastern Europeans, betraying them to decades of Soviet rule. Supposedly we needed Soviets on our side in World War II, and millions of slaves were supposedly price. But what were the Soviets going to do, not fight Germany?
If Republicans don't "compromise" with Democrats on health care, what options do Democrats really have? What will they do, force single-payer medicine on the country if Republicans don't go with a public option?
Children have been socially engineered for decades in public schools to think that "we compromise so that everyone gets part of what he wants," and they grow up to think that if a politician doesn't, he's "selfish" or "an extremist." Yes, I'm selfish, and I'm an extremist: I'm selfish about my personal liberty, because it's something no one else should have, and I'm an extremist in that I refuse to compromise on that.
Now on the "big tent" stuff: what good is having a plurality when you become the party of "Whatever"? As in, "Whatever you believe, join us." If the Republicans finally wise up and start throwing people out, why should the latter be missed?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 22, 2010 10:03 PMPerry, you bring up one of my favorite counterfactuals. We all venerate the founders, but would it have sucked so bad to be Canada South? I'd say in the 18h and 19th centuries, we may have been better off. I'm glad we escaped the post WWI Fabian Socialism, but it's an interesting position.
But let me go back to the alliance that ended slavery. This was not a collection of starry-eyed dreamers who hummed John Lennon songs and dreamt of a world without racism. It was a motley collection of corporate interests, unionists, and northern imperialists that teamed up with the abolitionists. If the impure were kicked out of that group, they'd have never raised a battalion.
Not sure if anybody believes I actually have any principles, but I do, I would NOT compromise on health care or Cap'n Trade or advise any GOP legislator so to do. I love the Goldwater quote "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
But Sen. Scott Brown voted for the jobs bill and posted a defense of the vote on his Facebook page. Are we going to kick the guy who saved heath care out of the GOP?
Perry, you bring up one of my favorite counterfactuals. We all venerate the founders, but would it have sucked so bad to be Canada South? I'd say in the 18h and 19th centuries, we may have been better off. I'm glad we escaped the post WWI Fabian Socialism, but it's an interesting position.I don't doubt for a second that we were better off seceding from British rule.
Several years ago, I posited that in an alternate timeline where the colonies failed to secede, Germany eventually ruled the world. The British had no interest in expanding west of the Appalachians, and it was the achievement of independence that allowed American innovation and ingenuity to flourish, so you wouldn't have had an industrial power called the United States capable of stopping Germany.
But let me go back to the alliance that ended slavery. This was not a collection of starry-eyed dreamers who hummed John Lennon songs and dreamt of a world without racism. It was a motley collection of corporate interests, unionists, and northern imperialists that teamed up with the abolitionists. If the impure were kicked out of that group, they'd have never raised a battalion.Well, I was talking about the fact that the federal government from the start gave sanction to owning other human beings, as "compromise," not how to end slavery. But on this topic, what happened with the colonials? Only a third of them wanted to be free from England: some were smugglers (certainly NOT a crime), some were businessmen, some were farmers. The one thing that united them was a desire for freedom, and they found a way to be strong enough to win.
If you never read it, Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a spectacular book on Lincoln in which he pointed out that slavery was kept alive only because it was supported by the government. In a free market, it would have died out because it wasn't as profitable as paid labor.
Not sure if anybody believes I actually have any principles, but I do, I would NOT compromise on health care or Cap'n Trade or advise any GOP legislator so to do. I love the Goldwater quote "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."But you routinely talk about pragmatism and compromise. Sticking to a couple of things isn't enough. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, you know, but you're one of several friends I'm trying to nudge toward that real extreme of pure liberty.
But Sen. Scott Brown voted for the jobs bill and posted a defense of the vote on his Facebook page. Are we going to kick the guy who saved heath care out of the GOP?Considering the GOP has its own brand of big government, he's a perfect fit for that political party. He didn't save health care, he just postponed things a little until a "compromise" that moves us further along on the road to hell.
The people who need to dismiss him are not Republicans, but anyone who values true liberty. Were you really surprised that he did this? I figured the honeymoon would end badly for Republicans striving for limited government, just not quite so soon. The clock just hit midnight, and the joke is on the people who thought Brown was their Cinderella.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 23, 2010 10:47 PMFebruary 12, 2010
Calling All Pedants!
Ed Morrissey at HotAir: "More 'unexpected' economic news"
Reuters breaks out its favorite economic adverb again today, this time in its headline on consumer confidence. American consumers turned more pessimistic than forecasters predicted, which has been more or less the “unexpected” norm in economic reporting
I agree and cheer the ridicule of "unexpected" preceding bad economic news.
But I say "unexpected" modifies the noun news, not the adjective economic, and ergo, ipse dixit, res ipsa loquitor, quod erat demostratum, it be an adjective.
Smarter folks are encouraged to wade in.
You don't think Reuters considers "news" to be a verb?
Posted by: johngalt at February 13, 2010 1:44 PMHahahahaha! I'm sure you're tight! Yet the quote is from Ed Morrissey...
Posted by: jk at February 13, 2010 3:59 PMFebruary 11, 2010
Book Title of the Year
|
Fly Fishing with Darth Vader by Matt Lebash
Oh man, I love his Weekly Standard stuff -- and they have it for Kindle®. I veered of the Presidents to read (the superb) The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates. Hat-tip: Galley Slaves |
Klavan: Liberal Fantasies v. Reality
Andrew Klavan explains how culture in America has become an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically turned into liberal fantasies. From JFK conspiracy theories to murderous evangelical Christians, can you spot the difference between "culture" and reality? Watch & comment here: http://pjtv.com/v/3008
Now that I have a moment to excerpt, here's my favorite line (other than calling intellectuals and entertainers "ass hats"):
"And speaking of Avatar, it not only celebrates being at one with the sacred earth but portrays U.S. soldiers as evil sadists out to destroy native peoples. Can you spot the difference between Avatar and, say, Haiti? Where our old pal the sacred earth slaughtered innocent people in the thousands and the U.S. military turned out in a massive rescue effort."
This is a good one to forward to your liberal friends.
Posted by: johngalt at February 12, 2010 3:25 PMFebruary 5, 2010
Et tu, AP?
If he's lost the Associated Press, he's lost America!
AP - No, maybe he can't. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation's health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.
February 4, 2010
Y're Breakin' My Balls, Murdoch!
Sorry, I've been watching way too much South Park lately...
Wow, the Wall Street Journal has really tightened up what it gives away. I subscribed for many years, and then dropped it, honestly, when they started giving away all my favorite parts for free.
Rupert has turned the thumbscrews down and I cannot live without the only source of information I actually believe. I got a nice "Come home, jk, we miss you" offer for a $79 One year subscription.
Uncle!
February 3, 2010
Blog Post Heading of the Day
Martians and Bill O'Reilly -- John Stossel
The rest of the post is good, too. Captures my thoughts on Citizens United v FEC perfectly.
January 27, 2010
Divided We Stand!
Curious lede:
AP - Facing a divided Congress and a dissatisfied nation, President Barack Obama will unveil a jobs-heavy agenda in his State of the Union address Wednesday, retooling his message more than his mission...
Divided? Almost historic majorities? A filibuster-proof Senate for the first year?
January 20, 2010
Editorials I Never Started Reading
Thomas Frank today: "Cross of Gold: How the government could get even with right-wing cranks"
Not gonna click. Not gonna link. It's on the WSJ Ed Page if you have the stomach.
January 15, 2010
Democrats for Brown
No posts here on the MA senate race in 4 days... shameful! (Brown by 15 points?)
Public Policy Polling, the first to notice that Coakley was croaking, has some inside baseball on registered Democrats and their attitudes about healthcare reform.
In Massachusetts it's a similar story with Scott Brown up 61-24 with those folks, [Democrats who opposed the health care plan] which based on our current projection of likely voters accounts for 20% of Massachusetts Democrats. One of the keys to Democratic success in 2008, for all the bluster about the PUMA crowd, was a high level of party unity. Barack Obama held onto 89% of his party's voters. If health care creates bigger divisions within the party ranks than that this year it's just going to be one more strike against Democratic candidates in close races.
We voters are repeatedly chided that "elections have consequences." Looks like Democrats should have heeded the corollary: "Pissing on taxpayers has consequences."
UPDATE: From the "Pajamas Media/Cross Target" poll taken yesterday that shows Brown at 15%, a couple of choice questions:
1. Thinking about next Tuesday’s special election for US Senate. The candidates are Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley. If the election were today, who would you vote for? If Scott Brown press 1, if Martha Coakley press 2. If you are undecided press 3. 1. Scott Brown 53.9% 2. Martha Coakley 38.5% 3. Undecided 7.6%6. Thank you. Now for the last question. Do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or something else. If a Republican press 1. If a Democrat press 2. If something else press 3.
1. Republican 20.3%
2. Democrat 36.6%
3. Something else 43.1%
Registration may be 3:1 Dem but "consider yourself" is running closer than that.
They're sending in President Obama to campaign for Croakley. Brown should start measuring for draperies.
Posted by: jk at January 15, 2010 3:12 PMSeriously, I worry that he is peaking too soon. Presidents Clinton and Obama are airlifted in this weekend, the ACORN-brigades will fire up, the national Democratic fund-raising machine has kicked in. I'm glad it's a race but it is too soon to gloat over a GOP win in "The Commonwealth."
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2010 11:46 AMMy brother still expects Croakley to win but that a close contest there will make Dems nationwide back off from the O-genda. That's all I'm gloating over - for now.
Interesting that none of the TV talking heads or even Jason Lewis talked about the +15 poll last night. Do they not read RCP or do they think it's a junk poll?
Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2010 12:26 PMJanuary 11, 2010
Boston Herald Endorses Scott Brown
Aah, you know those right wing nutjobs at the Boston Herald Editorial Page.No surprise here:
Massachusetts voters have to ask themselves a serious question before they head to the polls next week: Are they content with the current state of affairs in Washington?Are they content with a sweeping health care bill, now being negotiated behind closed doors by principals from only one political party? (So much for a new era of bipartisanship promised by our president.)
And are they prepared for the impact that bill will have on the health care industry in our own state, where we already insure 97 percent of our population?
Amazing! Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: He's having a special fundraising day with a $500K goal and it's now pushing 750. I gave another $35. You guys have seen how I dress, I'm not a wealthy man. What's it worth to stop ObamaCare? Donate
UPDATE II: $1.3 Million -- I am going to share this information with Senator Michael Bennet today. Y'know it is almost like people hate socialized medicine and will mobilize against those candidates who support it...
UPDATE III:
Senator BennetI don't have a lot of money, but I did give $85 yesterday to Scott Brown in Massachusetts -- in hopes that we might stop this monstrous health care bill. I will donate $1000 to your opponent if you continue to vote for it.
I suggest you save me $1000 and save your Senate seat. You could still vote against this, citing the non-democratic methods used in the reconciliation process.
How 'bout it Senator? I've got much better things to spend $1000 on.
Respectfully yours,
John Kranz
Does the nation's 53rd largest newspaper, with a circulation smaller than the Nashville Tennessean, count as a mainstream media outlet? The other paper in town has nearly three times as many readers but the legitimacy conferred by this endorsement is inestimable.
And this big-media desertion of the Obama agenda comes just 8 days before the anniversary of his first year in office. Who'da thunk?
P.S. Have I told you I'll be running against Michael Bennet for the US Senate? ;)
Posted by: johngalt at January 12, 2010 3:21 PMI conflated the Herald with the NYTimes-owned Globe. Still cool but not quite the earthquake I'd thought.
RE JG2k10: I wish, brother. You go and I'll support. In the meantime: heh.
Posted by: jk at January 12, 2010 3:52 PMJanuary 6, 2010
Score One for the Internets!
I read and recommend Don Luskin's co-authored guest editorial in the WSJ today. I guess Democrats are in charge -- a tax on trading?
If you have not settled in yet, I suggest you read it on Luskin's site. WIthout the legacy requirements of paper, his version features several links to sources and additional information.
January 5, 2010
Bless the Blogosphere
Sure, I could spend an hour and crank out a second-rate blog post ridiculing David Brooks's elitism. But why? Will Collier hits it out of the park -- and I just gotta link!
Read the whole merciless pounding, but here's a taste:
First, David, until you can explain--without consulting Google--say, Bernoulli's theorem and how it relates to flight, don't bother passing yourself and your like-minded NYDC pals off as the country's sole "educated class." Out here in the hinterlands, we're well aware that you and your Ivy League buddies believe that you are the only actual educated people on the planet, but you ought to have learned somewhere along the way that belief in an idea does turn that idea into reality. Asserting as much, to borrow a line from the late John Hughes, just makes you look like an ass.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: Plus, a Title of the Day for "More Arugula From David Brooks"
Ah,how I long for the days of President Bush who would never have been caught in an Ivy League institution, or professionals like Michael Brown.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 10, 2010 12:26 PMJanuary 2, 2010
Naked Emporer Alert
I read this yesterday and did not think it was too big a deal. But Mark Tapscott says it is, and I am starting to see his side.
[Personal Democracy Forum's Tech President Micah] Sifry summarizes the difference between the truth and the myth at the outset of his post, noting "the truth is that Obama was never nearly as free of dependence on big money donors as the reporting suggested, nor was his movement as bottom-up or people-centric as his marketing implied.
"And this is the big story of 2009, if you ask me, the meta-story of what did, and didn't happen, in the first year of Obama's administration. The people who voted for him weren't organized in any kind of new or powerful way, and the special interests--banks, energy companies, health interests, car-makers, the military-industrial complex--sat first at the table and wrote the menu. Myth met reality, and came up wanting."
I did not believe anything else from the Obama campaign, but I must admit that I did buy in to grassroots, little-guy, small donation fundraising story. Naïf.
UPDATE: Link! (Thanks, jg!)
Did you mean to link?
So where did the big money come from? Let me guess:
Unions
George Soros
Trial lawyers
General Electric
Duke Energy
Pharmaceutical lobbyists
Environmental groups
Did I miss anybody?
Posted by: johngalt at January 2, 2010 1:10 PMDecember 9, 2009
I Do Love This Country
The subject line of the NYTimes wrap up today:
@Times: Top 5, Taylor Swift, Hanukkah Recipes and More
All that's fit to print!
November 30, 2009
May Need Cable After All...
Dear John,On December 8, Fox Business News' John Stossel will start taping Stossel, his new weekly show on libertarianism and economic freedom. John is a longtime Reason reader and friend, and we were thrilled when he tapped Reason's Nick Gillespie to appear on the very first edition of Stossel to discuss Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. The following week, John will draw from Reason.tv's award-winning video content as he takes on the healthcare debate.
If you will be in New York and would like to be part of the Stossel studio audience, please send an email to stosseltix@foxnews.com or call Fox News directly at (877) 369-8587. The shows will be taped at Fox Studios, 133 W. 47th Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues). Please be sure to include your name, the number of seats you need and an email address and phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. The following programs are scheduled:
WHEN: Tuesday, December 8th
SUBJECT: Atlas Shrugged and its meaning today
ARRIVAL TIME: 1:00 PMWHEN: Thursday, December 10th
SUBJECT: Global warming and the environment
ARRIVAL TIME: 10:00 AMWHEN: Thursday, December 17th
SUBJECT: Healthcare
ARRIVAL TIME: 10:00 AMThanks again for your support of Reason.
David Nott
President, Reason Foundation
November 24, 2009
ThreeSources Spin Meter Spin Meter
Gotta love the AP! There's a 2,000+ page healthcare bill out, it "reduces the deficit" by applying 10 years of revenue to six years of expenses, and by claiming Medicare reductions that no sentient being expects will not be rescinded by this or a future Congress.
Thankfully, the Associated Press has pulled a few resources off the Sarah Palin book to expose the disingenuousness of -- wait for it -- the GOP opposition:
WASHINGTON -- Republicans love to get their hands on the Democrats' health care legislation. They show it to the cameras at every opportunity, even piling one version on top of another to make a big pile look even bigger.Although they complain they don't have time to read all of it, they found the time to tape it together, page by page, so they could roll it up the steps of the Capitol like super-sized toilet paper and show how very long it is.
It surely is long. But, no, not longer than "War and Peace," as they claim.
Those wacky Republicans! What stunt will they dare try next?
This is perhaps the biggest pile of cow excrement I've ever read from the AP. Calvin Woodward evidently can be a little critical of Democrats to show "balance," but he's showing his true colors. Besides, he must ensure he won't be sent off to a future re-education gulag.
This deserves an Eidelbus fisking:
WASHINGTON – Republicans love to get their hands on the Democrats' health care legislation. They show it to the cameras at every opportunity, even piling one version on top of another to make a big pile look even bigger.If you didn't see the AP logo, you'd think you were reading the Huffington Post, Think Progress or Talking Points Memo. Sheesh.
Although they complain they don't have time to read all of it, they found the time to tape it together, page by page, so they could roll it up the steps of the Capitol like super-sized toilet paper and show how very long it is.Gee, how professionally written, and how absurd. Which takes more time and effort, to heft a single tome or to read through its thousands of pages?
It surely is long. But, no, not longer than "War and Peace," as they claim.
No one really expects brevity when reinventing something as complex and huge as the nation's health insurance system, which accounts for one-sixth of the economy. Indeed, legislation of comparable size was used to redefine an area of much more limited federal responsibility, education. That was the No Child Left Behind Act from the agenda of Republican President George W. Bush.See, see, that evil McChimpyBooshHitler did it, so it's ok for Democrats to do it even bigger!
Size only matters in the health care debate because Republicans have turned the length of the legislation into a symbol: Big, unwieldy bill means big, overreaching government. Even bigger when you display double-spaced copies with double-wide margins and large print.So if Republicans didn't oppose it, it didn't matter that it's a big bill by big, overreaching government to control a sixth of our economy.
As if he risked a hernia carrying it any other way, Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa was seen hoisting such a copy of the House Democratic bill on his shoulder, the package trussed in a sturdy rope. GOP Rep. John Culberson of Texas brought a copy to a Capitol Hill rally and threw its loose pages to the crowd, like meat to lions.See what I wrote above about the comparison to HuffPo et al.
During the weekend vote to bring the Senate health bill to full debate, five Republican senators displayed the massive legislation on their desks and one of them, Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, piled the House and Senate bills together to represent a nightmarishly bureaucratic double-whammy.So more irrelevancy, when the point is that it's absurd for the two halves of Congress to come up with such monstrosities.
The actual bill, which Senate Majority Leader Harry introduced last week, came in at 2,074 double-spaced pages, 84 more pages than the House version, which was already being ridiculed for its size.
"That's larger than the novel 'War and Peace,'" Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said of the Senate bill.
"Exceeding even 'War and Peace' in length," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said of the House bill.
Said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: "'War and Peace' — some people consider it the greatest book ever written, but most people recognize the novel because at 1,284 pages its length is often the butt of jokes. Now imagine trying to read something that long overnight."Mainstream media apologism in three, two, one...
Actually, Leo Tolstoy's tome is longer than either bill. Full translated versions are nearly twice as long.
The bill passed by the House is 319,145 words. The Senate bill is 318,512 words, shorter than the House version despite consuming more paper. Various versions of Tolstoy's novel are 560,000 to 670,000 words. Bush's education act tallied more than 280,000 words.Oh, that should make us feel so much better. Counting words, the two versions are "only" 57% as long as "War and Peace"...so let's see which members of Congress read 57% of the book overnight. Or in five days? That's how long Obama said he'll make a bill available for public view before he signs it, a promise he has routinely broken.
Another point of comparision: the bills, again counting words, are 40% as long as the King James Bible. No doubt, the very middle of each commendeth us to say, "Bless the Lord Obama, o my soul, and all that is prosperous within me, may he take away."
By now, the full draft of Reid's bill that had circulated in the corridors and landed so prominently on Republican desks has been published in the Congressional Record in the official and conventional manner.
The type is small and tight. No hernias will be caused by moving this rendering of the bill around. Unfurling it on the Capitol steps would not be much of a spectacle."The type is small and tight." Yes, and you can laser-etch the Declaration of Independence on the head of a pin. I routinely fiddle with font size and margins so that a memo can fit on a single page, so when it comes to Reid's feat, so f******** what?
Think about it: a single-spaced typed page is roughly 500 words, so if you somehow put the absurd quantity of 1000 words on each page, you'd still need well over 300 pages for either version. That's over 150 double-sided pages of fine print.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 24, 2009 12:00 PMFor Obama commendeth his love toward us in that, while we are yet greedy capitalists or the uninsured and oppressed, we can die for him.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 24, 2009 12:03 PMNovember 22, 2009
Al Gore Wishes he Never Invented the Internet
This whole post at Minnesotans for Global Warming is hilarious and biting, but here is the part I find most relevant to prior posts of my own:
The Global Warming Extremists controlled the argument for years by saying, it's only legitimate science if it's published in certain journals and peer reviewed, and if you control the Journals you control the science. But sadly with Al Gore's invention, the anointed few are losing control, much like the medieval church did with the invention of the printing press.
Cloture
The Associated Press spells it out for those for those who don't understand the arcane procedures of the US Senate:
WASHINGTON – A bruising debate on health care awaits the Senate after Thanksgiving now that the historic legislation has cleared a key hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.The bill would extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.
To be more fair than they, the fourth paragraph quotes Leader McConnell with some decent opposition, but he comes off sounding political now that we have laid down the facts: Democrats want to "pass historic legislation" that "extend[s] coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it," "crack[s] down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits" and "curtail[s] the growth of spending on medical care nationally"
Republicans are "eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama."
"APObama" is in fine form.
As for the "historic legislation" it is so much so that it wasn't even mentioned in an email update from one of my Colorado senators, Mark Udall.
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2009 7:14 am.
Subject: "Mark's Newsletter Update: Helping Small Businesses Grow, Honoring Our Veterans, Expanding Wilderness in the San Juan Mountains"
Worse than not even mentioning the health care bill he was poised to vote AYE on later the same day, he trumpeted a letter he wrote to the president because he's "looking out for Main Street - not just Wall Street." His arrogant self-deception disgusts me.
Posted by: johngalt at November 22, 2009 1:03 PMNovember 21, 2009
The "Prestige Press"
Sarah Palin calls them the "Lamestream Media."
Mike Rosen calls them the "Dominant Liberal Establishment Media."
Brother jk calls them <heavenly music>The New York Times.</heavenly music>
Climate change conspirast Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, calls them the "Prestige Press." This excerpt from one of the email thread archives that comprise Climategate definitely is one of the "things that make you go HMMMM."
Andrew Revkin to Michael Mann, Sep 29, 2009, 4:30 pm:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity. Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?
Michael Mann replies, Sep 29, 2009, 5:08 pm:
Hi Andy,I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of this, in Keith's absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
Revkin again, Sep 29, 2009, 5:18 pm:
thanks heaps.tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon. just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?
I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions made over at climateaudit.org.....
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks. peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?
One can almost see the "wink, wink" between the lines when Mann says, "...the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, RIGHT?"
The two of them certainly appear to be defending the standing of their sycophantic collection of science journals against any dissent - even from other peer-reviewed journals which may happen to be "discredited."
Well played, lads.
I think the "bombshell" of the "Climategate" emails is to underscore what I have bored y'all with for years: the pro-AWG side may not be evil, but they are not participating in the scientific process. You don't have to get a paper published to contradict a paper. Science moves along as gruesomely as the NFL playoffs. If you publish, your work will be attacked fairly and unfairly and you are expected to defend it.
I posted a link last September about this mentality:
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that +/- came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
The leaked emails highlight this contempt for Popperian discovery. At the end of the day, whether in the sainted NYT or lowly Australian Sun, I don't think they'll change anybody's mind. They'll feed the deniers' case but the process is too abstract and arcane to dissuade believers.
Posted by: jk at November 22, 2009 11:47 AM
TG has a point: there is no smoking gun here of Dr. Hockey Stick or the NYT reporter trying to extort or directly kneecap a critic. However, I only see a trace of scientific curiosity. I see two professionals spending most of their time spinning, packaging and smearing by association.
This upholds my main criticism of the 'science' arm of the AGW movement from nearly the very beginning. They long ago shucked science for politics, notoriety, and ideology. I feel vindicated in this at the Royal Danish Society's response to the attempt at - in effect - defenestrating Dr. Lomborg by several hundred Danish scientists, whose terse judgment upholding Dr. Lomborg's status and ideas, essentially said "you all say you have degrees?"
I've spent years in academic review settings, and never seen anything quite like this, nor any scientist so worried about what the press may or may not "fall for." If Dr. Mann were truly confident in his findings, surely he'd have the confidence that that the truth would out, yes?
I'm also quite shocked that Dr. Hockey Stick is still listened to by any institution that regards itself reputable in a scientific sense, as much as if I saw some institute still giving prominence to Drs. Pons or Fleischmann.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 22, 2009 5:53 PMFor what it's worth, "Lamestream media" was coined by Bernie Goldberg.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 23, 2009 1:04 PMThanks for that br. I knew Palin wasn't the first but I couldn't remember who was.
My favorite is still "Drive-By Media." It's such a perfect description of how they race in to shoot up a story however they like and leave it for others to come in later with the ambulance full of facts. Trouble is, the patient - in this case, objective reporting of the news - often dies anyway.
Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2009 3:05 PMAny Bernie fans around here? To be fair, I think of him as "our Andrew Sullivan." His two books "Bias" and "Arrogance" were incredible for their seriousness, quality, and explosiveness. Game changing admissions from an inside whistleblower.
Like Sullivan, it probably hurts to lose all your friends. His hyper-partisan screeds that have followed tarnish the reputation and seriousness of the two masterpieces.
Too harsh me?
Climategate Foretold...
“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.â€
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.
I guess that's why they're called "lamestream"
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times reports on environmental issues, "in print and on his blog, Dot Earth." At least, that's what his NYT bio page says. The day after Climategate exploded on the internet, Revkin wrote about it today.
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.
As one of the leading lamestream media voices, Revkin's seems to be spinning: Yeah, these guys were doing bad science but we're only talking about a handful of scientists. Well we're also only talking about a handful of reporters who tell us that the science is settled, and Revkin is one of them.
It turns out his name appears in the FOIA data dump emails. According to Dr. Tim Ball in the story linked as UPDATE 2 on yesterday's post,
They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy.
Paul Chesser at American Spectator wasn't so delicate:
Revkin has authored two global warming books and so has a lot to lose himself from this controversy, as his reputation is just as much at stake as the scientists.' Therefore his defense mechanisms are fully engaged. In his blog post yesterday about the revelations, he states that repercussions "continue to unfold" and "there’s much more to explore," but do you really think he can be counted on for follow-up stories about it this week?
For my part I have to ask, is Revkin a reporter, a blogger, or a co-conspirator?
I did chuckle at the 'graph you excerpted -- but that was pretty far down the post and I thought what came before it was pretty damning. Most significant was the jump from anti-DAWG organs and blogs to <heavenly music>The New York Times</heavenly musc>.
Not on the cover of The Nation yet, but it took a couple steps up with this admission.
Really JK,
do you need to ask I have to ask, is Revkin a reporter, a blogger, or a co-conspirator
His comment that "evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted" clearly points to him being a reporter (such as it is these days)!!
I think I'm right in stating that the majority Vox Populi is now against what Revkin has bought into, and the scientific community will continue to defy quantification.
Point of order: actually nb, this post is jg and not jk. I'm the attractive one, he's the good spellor.
Posted by: jk at November 23, 2009 10:46 AMNovember 11, 2009
Amazin'
Thomas "What's the Matter with Frank?" Kansas tries to fill Al Hunt's seat on the WSJ Editorial Page. As I've said, I have found him not quite up to the task, but I bet Al would be right with him on today's. Click on"
The Real Danger of 'One Big Regulator'
And read the subhead: "What if those in control don't believe in oversight?"
Yup, that's the problem, Mister Frank -- you put one guy in charge of the whole world and he might just sit around and never exercise his power. Clearly, that’s why Monroe fought for tripartite government and a bicameral legislature: to make sure somebody got off their ass and told somebody else how/what to do.
UPDATE: Don Boudreaux answers more substantively that I did.
Even if we can imagine a super-regulator operating in ways that increase the efficiency and stability of financial markets, the prospect that he or she will be either inept or dishonest is far too great to risk concentrating such enormous power in a single person or agency. In practice we must reckon on realities and not on fantasies.So in fact we must reckon on the allure of power to those who greedily crave authority over others; we must reckon on power’s corrupting influence; and we must reckon on the imperfections that mar even the finest individual’s knowledge and judgment. These unavoidable realities of the human condition will result in this “One Big Regulator” – whose hands, at best only loosely tied, will be on all of the nation’s financial levers – injecting into financial markets systematic risks far greater than those that already exist.
Hat-tip; John Stossel
October 30, 2009
Our Margaret
I stopped reading Peggy Noonan many moons ago, but the new WSJ navigation makes it difficult. Sometimes you click and it's too late:.
The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.
What happened to this woman? I don't mind a bit of twaddle on the Internet, but this if from somebody who was one of the great voices her generation.
UPDATE: Funny, Professor Reynolds links positively, highlighting a "going John Galt" angle to the story. If people "go John Galt" (or even "go JK") because they are disheartened, that is not it. People go John Galt because they are, or obviously will be, subject to public usufruct.
I won't endure any more by clicking the link but judging by your excerpt I can only describe her "insights" as insipid blathering.
The only connection between Noonan and Galt is that she's the type who would ask, "Who is John Galt?"
Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2009 3:21 PMOctober 28, 2009
Murdochavellian
Sturm and drang reigned when Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal. The guy whose cable TV network is not really even a news organization was buying a flagship national paper.
I think the results have been pretty uneventful. The news pages have not gone FOXNews. But I do claim that the editorial page photographs have gone a little NY Post. Gone are the romantic retro woodcut illustrations. They have been replaced by full color photos. And if the photo editor likes you, you do okay, Speaker Pelosi has a Nightmare-on-K-Street photo that repeats frequently, and a common photo of the President makes him look a little hectoring.
Today's photo of Pay Czar, however, is my new favorite. This is the guy who is telling you how much money you can make! Here he is seemingly caught in the act:
Now anybody who appoints, approves, or accepts a position of Pay Czar in the United States certainly deserves this and worse. I just find it funny. Less humor abounds in the attached Homan Jenkins, Jr. editorial:
Mr. Feinberg is an apt symbol indeed, for this gamble is built on the conceit that Washington can hector the recipients, whether auto companies, banks or homeowners, into behaving in ways that are "responsible." So far, however, human nature is proving a disappointment: Take the outbreak of tax fraud related to the government's emergency home-buyer's credit.Nor is the larger gamble looking so good either. Banks continue to fail at an alarming rate, the dollar is under assault, and Washington is looking at a future of trillion-dollar deficits. One might have guessed it would take a decade of Obamanomics to produce European welfare state levels of youth unemployment, but at 18.5% we're there.
But the picture is great.
I do miss those classy woodcuts. Much more gravitas than USA Today-style color photos.
Posted by: Keith at October 28, 2009 3:59 PMReally questionable from a branding perspective: you could recognize the WSJ from across the airport terminal thanks to those.
Posted by: jk at October 29, 2009 2:00 PMOctober 26, 2009
Come Home John, We Need You!
John Stossel, who used to work for an Executive Branch Certified Media Organization (look for the Obama -- FairNews® label!) hits an important point today that needs to be made to his old audience. And he quoted Milton Friedman to boot:
There are people going to jail for insider trading and I think it has been a great mistake. You should want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that.
Only the government could think it's a good idea to chase information out of capital markets. The market is there to direct capital to its best uses.
I can't begin to know what or how much regulation we should have because truth be told I just don't understand it enough. Unfortunately I think the same could be said for those in public office who are creating the regulations. Enron it seems to me (see caveat in first sentence) was more about simply keeping a fake set of books. Any insider trading may have profited the execs but had little effect on the overall loss of value.
Where I part ways with Gordon Gekko is the shift toward "greed is good". I may get hammered here for this, but I completely disagree. Greed tends to be a short term view, and here is where I see investors and the company they are investing in as not sharing the same goals. You can say that the investors are technically the company, but companies get swallowed up, sold off, and broken up, all of which can be very good for the investors and very bad for the company. The current mortgage mess has awoken people to the pyramid scheme style of complex market derivatives, but I contend that any time you make money without providing a good or a service it is deep down a house of cards just waiting to tumble. Is this where regulation steps in, or could you have prosecuted many in the industry with fraud if the right people had been paying attention? More regulators and less regulation, so we keep the regulation light and simple, but scrutinize the transactions closely for compliance with existing law? I think the complexity of the system overwhelmed not only the regulators, but many inside the system as well. But again with pressure for short term gains, long term prudence flies out the window.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 26, 2009 7:52 PMSilence, I would have to blame government meddling both for the short-term greed vs. long-term investment you oppose and the hypervolatility in derivatives.
Austrian Business Cycle Theory is based in large part upon the tradeoff of current production for future gains. Rational actors could make intelligent decisions about this but are forced to adapt to government regulation, GAAP accounting rules (and, let me say it for the others around here, fiat currency). I think you might agree that a good balance of short-term and long-term thinking is required. I think regulation forces short-term thinking more than evil ol' greed.
I may misread you, but I have to reject any suggestion that manufacturing a tire is fundamentally different from creating or investing in derivatives. Derivatives are useful for price discovery and invaluable for getting the risk in the hands of those best equipped to handle it. If you make cookies and sell them in Europe, you can hedge your positions on commodities and currency so that you are not wiped out when sugar rises or the dollar falls.
That has value and is no worse than betting your life insurance company that you're going to die. The derivatives you're concerned with were a problem because the asset behind them fell precipitously. Here I suggest mortgage backed securities and derivatives based on them were more volatile because of -- not in spire of -- government regulation.
But somebody has to make cookies. It's not the folks buying the sugar derivatives.
"because the asset behind them fell precipitously." That I have to disagree with. It was not the drop in housing values that caused the crash, but the crash that caused a drop in housing values. The derivative market had run through so many levels that no one knew the value of what they were buying. Once they hit the point where there was no one farther down the pyramid willing to purchase the debt (or insure against its default) the notes came due and the paper mountain crumbled. Once this happened the state your income easy credit vanished in a heartbeat and the mortgage takers couldn't keep refinancing to stave off balloon payments and high interest. Those folks were just as complicit in the whole scam, but it was the collapse of the financing system that caused foreclosures and fire sales that resulted in the big drop in value. I chicken your egg!
I will readily agree that the government's belief that everyone should be a homeowner and that owning a home automatically built wealth was the first push that got the ball rolling. I will also contend though that the ability to bundle and sell a mortgage, then sell derivatives of those bundles and on down the line effectively created a pyramid whose only value lay in the ability to add a layer underneath you. A lot of money changed hands without any good produced or real value service provided, thus the bailout required to put money back in the system.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 27, 2009 12:55 AMYou should have voted for my Buddy, Senator John McCain, last year -- he sees the crisis exactly like you.
I cannot prove mine but will point out that you are omitting the 800 lb. gorilla from yours: Fan & Fred. Imagine either of our scenarios without a government backed purchaser/securitizer of the mortgages, and poof! no more crisis. The government push for home ownership you speak of, and a negative real interest rate.
All three have the common thread of government and I would rank all of them as being significantly more important that "greed and corruption on Wall Street" (Send McCain in because "he's faced tougher guys than this..." I have to stop now, I'm getting ill.)
More importantly, I am not giving ground on the derivative versus the cookie lady. No she makes the sumptuous morsels, but she cannot stay in business without hedging her commodities or currency risk -- just like a store cannot continue without fire insurance. I disagree madly with the mercantilist mentality. To hit home, it places the manufacturer above the engineer -- you don't make nothin', pal, it's those salt of the earth guys who bolt your designs together.
True enough JK, at least you can compile your own code, without someone to produce my designs they are worth the paper they're printed on. Heck, I am even a manager now so I am even more a drain on society.
I do have to give you the 800lb gorilla - I kinda fessed up and hinted at it already. But, (you just knew there was another but didn't you?) Mr. Banker could have kept his ethics high and required proof of ability to pay to secure a loan. The mortgage industry has a right to complain about Uncle Sam's heavy hand, but once the game was afoot they were more than happy to create a method to enrich themselves along the path to destruction.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 28, 2009 12:02 AMKumbaya, Silence, we are near complete agreement. AN economics professor offers an A to any student in his 101 class who can find a pro-business sentence in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
I love freedom and free enterprise -- those louts who profit from it tend to be rent seekers and price fixers -- just as Smith told us in 1776. Look at them lining up to be the last eaten in ObamaCare.
No, I don't love the banker (except for Perry) but I love the idea of derivatives: getting risk in the hands of those who can best handle it.
Posted by: jk at October 28, 2009 12:53 PMOctober 23, 2009
Quote of the Day
The role of Obama courtier may suit Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow just fine, but for any real journalist, being blessed as "legitimate" by a powerful politician is a challenge to prove one's independence. -- James Taranto
October 20, 2009
Quote of the Day
And yeah, it is also odd for Weisberg to denounce Fox's shrill tone while accusing them of trying to kill people because they hate America. -- Michael C. Moynihan
October 19, 2009
John Stossel's New Blog Home
And welcome to the blogroll:
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/
JK,
Just popping in this morning to say hola.
Three Sources = interesting mettle
Glad to see that John Stossel has a new blog home, I'll be checking it out.
And a bit off topic:
1) Afghanistan - Operation MRE is in hand and being enjoyed by all. Thanks for your generosity!
2) Just bought your CD and am looking forward to its arrival. We'll call it an early Christmas present. Just so happens that my wife and I share zero musical talent but love to dance (salsa/merengue) fortunately our three man cubs avoided the gene deficiency and are into music, the oldest is off to college and otherwise occupied though his fiancee is a nightingale, my 16 year old plays piano daily & my youngest is an accomplished, standout singer with multiple solo performances under his belt, he's now a part of a barber shop group...
Hope the stop over isn't an intrusion.
With Utmost Respect ~ Semper Fi, Hank
and may I ask? How did you first come across Devil Dog Brew?
p.s. Another common thread, my mother has MS, strange series of coincidences
Posted by: DevilDogBrew at October 20, 2009 11:54 AMDevil Dog Brew,
Five minutes later and you could have commented on your own post above.
We are honored by your presence and would love your thoughts on any topic.
I am glad for Stossel, but commented when he went to FOX that he is now preaching to the choir and the world lost one of it best voices for liberty. People would tune in to hear Barbara Walters interview some pop star and would be confronted by real thought and reason. Happy for Mr. Stossel, but sad that his voice is off ABC.
Cancel that PayPal order! That is an old out-of-print CD and I would be happy to send you a copy. I'd also encourage you to drop by the coffeehouse both to see my stuff and to encourage your kids to do guest videos.
Best to your Mom. It is tough sometimes, but I always feel there are "worse cards in the deck."
Posted by: jk at October 20, 2009 12:07 PMSeptember 23, 2009
Missing Al Hunt
I appreciate The Wall Street Journal's efforts to allow contrary views on its editorial page. Al Hunt used to exasperate me, but his columns were generally worth a read and some serious thought.
Thomas "Whassa Matta Wif Kansas?" Frank, conversely, leaves me completely cold. He seems separated from facts and reason. One might as well wander over to the Huffington Post -- the humor is much better. Today, he pens a column about those nutty Tea Party protesters who don't realize how great more government is. He actually calls for Democrats to engage, for which he deserves props. But the column is pretty pedestrian and adds little to the debate.
Why do I link, then? Rupert's revenge -- the article is accompanied by THE WORST, MOST HORRIBLY AWFUL picture of Speaker Pelosi that you will ever see. (Warning: don't let the kids see this, they won't sleep for weeks!)
What horror movie was that taken from?!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 24, 2009 9:15 AMAll Hail Harsanyi!
Well, we lost John Stossel to FOX, but at least Colorado has David Harsanyi. He's not any more impressed with our Science Czar's paternalism than I. I excerpt 'cause I do, but you have to read this one all the way through.
There is one question we all have to answer: What's more important? Negligibly reducing "carbon pollution" through coercive policies or protecting personal freedom and allowing real markets to work? That's the tradeoff. Parenting won't change the question.Remember when George W. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, claimed that the president saw the American people "as we think about a 10-year- old child"? His comment, understandably, caused much mockery and disdain.
The problem, apparently, wasn't the paternalist sentiment — it was the parent offering it. What we needed was a brainy, grown-up administration to harangue and regulate us into submission.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
September 17, 2009
When Cops Call 911
A police officer and Alice B. Toklas brownies? I'm thinking the real irony would have had something to do with pot-laden doughnuts.
The newsreader's facial expressions, by the way? Priceless.
Posted by: Keith at September 18, 2009 2:56 PMYup, her reaction is what makes it worth posting.
Forgot to hat-tip @michellebranch, one of two celebrity types I follow on Twitter.
Posted by: jk at September 18, 2009 3:36 PMSeptember 11, 2009
John Stossel
I am still on the 20/20 email list so that I can keep up with John Stossel.
ABC viewers may miss his masterful explanations of liberty and free markets, but they're still in good hands:
In her first in-depth interview since the death of her brother Michael Jackson, La Toya Jackson opened up exclusively to Barbara Walters about the family's grief.
The Republic weeps.
September 10, 2009
The last MSM liberty lover has turned out the lights
I wish a bright fellow good luck on his new gig, but the Republic weeps:
First on TVNewser: John Stossel, the longtime ABC News correspondent and co-anchor of "20/20," is leaving ABC to join Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network. TVNewser has learned Stossel will host a weekly, one-hour program for the 2-year-old business channel. He's expected to signed a multi-year deal with Fox which will include regular appearances on Fox News Channel during daytime and primetime. He'll also host four, hour-long specials on Fox News, much like the business/consumer specials he'd hosted for years on ABC.
Much like the ABC specials, except he'll be preaching to a much smaller choir and typical TV viewers will lose their last place to hear the benefits of Capitalism and liberty.
Hat-tip: @mkhammer
Sad day for America! Now the public sphere is polarized in toto. Am I the only one not scared by this?
Posted by: T. Greer at September 10, 2009 8:31 PMI was serious, if a touch overwrought with "the Republic weeps." Professor Reynolds echoed similar sentiments (well after ThreeSources...) and updates:
"A couple of readers wonder why I think the move is “too bad.†It’s because with Stossel at ABC, some viewers might be exposed to non-conventional (at ABC) views. I very much doubt that ABC will replace Stossel with someone of similar libertarian inclination, though I’d love to be proven wrong. Fox viewers, on the other hand, will appreciate the quality of his work, but it’s not likely to be the same kind of wake-up call it is to the Barbara Walters crowd . . . .Posted by: jk at September 11, 2009 12:42 PM
September 3, 2009
Good News / Bad News
GOOD NEWS: You're rich!
BBC: Online Politics Reserved for Rich
According to the report 35% of US adults on incomes of at least $100,000 (£62,000) participate in two or more online political activities compared to just 8% of adults on incomes of less than $20,000 (£12,000).
BAD NEWS:
Instapundit
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Eric Thompson writes: “Since when is 100 grand a year ‘rich?’ How about: Since Obama promised to only raise taxes on the ‘rich’.” Got it in one, Eric . . . .
Folks are focusing on the $100K == rich question, but I am more interested in the exact level of "Duuuuh!" (I suggest it's up to four u's and an exclamation point.) Those with more money have more interest, more time, and most importantly, more to lose in the political process. The good people at the Beeb show this as a digital divide scenario, but I would suggest all of politics is focused on higher activity at higher income levels.
August 25, 2009
Media and Blogging
Many serious journalists like to make light of bloggers. They like to compare the most marginal bloggers to the best professionals.
I can see both sides, but I don't see anybody in the MSM who did the work of Michael Yon or Michael Totten. Nor do they look at the bottom of the media. But I am.
Channel 31 is reporting the vandalism of a Denver Democratic Office, unapologetically giving the Democratic line, interviewing the office manager, who talked about heath care reform opponents and the quality of debate and yadda yadda...
I had my netbook out and Insty is already debunking it. Gateway Pundit reports that all is not as it appears,.
Saw the girly man's photo at JK's Gateway Pundit link. Reminds me of the Steve Miller lyric from The Joker:
"Some people call me Moe-reese"
And just what is "the pompitous of love anyway?"
Cool!
Posted by: johngalt at August 26, 2009 3:44 PMBlog Label of the Day
I'm thinking this is a new Award, but Ann Althouse grabs it. Call them Tags, Labels, Categories, whatever, this one is pretty good:
Labels: genitalia, Rush Limbaugh
August 6, 2009
The AP Again
Should move on, should move on, But
Acting with unusual haste, the Senate readied a $2 billion fill-up Thursday night for "cash for clunkers," the economy-boosting program that caught the fancy of car buyers and instantly increased sale...
Whiter whites and brighter colors!
I Withdraw
Nope, I could never write for the AP. I just don't have it in me:
WASHINGTON – Sonia Sotomayor stands on the verge of making history as the Supreme Court's first Hispanic justice, despite staunch opposition from Republicans who call her ill-suited for the bench.
See, I'd've said "racist Republican bastards;" that would have ruined the integrity of the piece.
It just frosts me everytime the MSM trumpets Sotomayor as historic, while failing to mention that the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada. But that was the game plan with Estrada all along. The Dems simply could not allow Republicans to have a "first" with Hispanics. Politics over country.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 7, 2009 12:09 PMHere's history for ya: Justice Alito will be the last white male to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court. The pull toward the next historic "first" will be too great. President Bush will go down in history for his "historic last."
Posted by: jk at August 7, 2009 12:35 PMAugust 4, 2009
Trenchant as Hell!
July 31, 2009
Bias?
Call me a partisan hack, but I don't remember stories like this when that feller from Texas was living in the White House:
Recession eases; GDP dip smaller than expectedWASHINGTON – The economy sank at a pace of just 1 percent in the second quarter of the year, a new government report shows. It was a better-than-expected showing that provided the strongest signal yet that the longest recession since World War II is finally winding down.
Happy Days are freakin' here again, eh?
Yup, you may recall that I've been pointing out that Aversa and Crutsinger are the AP's perma-bears...but only if a Republican is president. While Bush was in office, the AP's editors would whitewash stories that originally weren't pessimistic.
If this were a year ago, and especially during an election year, the story would have been:
No end in sight to recession
U.S. GDP declined by less than expected in the second quarter, marking just the latest quarter of the longest recession in seven decades...Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 31, 2009 12:51 PM
Amen -- plus some casualty figures from Iraq.
Posted by: jk at July 31, 2009 3:15 PMThat reminds me -- the military, I was reading somewhere, has a new policy of not reporting Afghani enemy deaths?
Some days you just can't win, even if you really are.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 31, 2009 4:48 PMJuly 22, 2009
Quote of the Day
And so early:
It is, of course, not outside the realm of possibility that Ezra [Klein], Young Turk, is possessed of a keener analytic mind than Greg Mankiw; I'm not opining here on substance, but only on the seemliness of career track. It's the realm of possibility, however, in which Spock has a goatee. -- Kenneth Anderson @ The Volkh Conspiracy
UPDATE: The professor seems to be tking things in stride: Whatever
July 18, 2009
Props for Facebook
It's increasingly popular for the media to run down Twitter and bloggers to run down Facebook. I remain a fan (as many of you know) for several reasons.
I follow mostly real friends on Facebook. Some are bloggers but I relate to them in that venue as friends and it is very unusual for me to post anything remotely political in that forum. On Twitter, I follow mostly political people. The few celebrities seem pretty vapid against a sea of journalists and bloggers and politicians.
An exception is that I became a fan of Lance Armstrong on Facebook. I am again glued to Le Tour and it is interesting to get an extra inside look at each stage. If you have not checked out his livestrong.com -- I highly recommend that as well.
The point is, and I don't know how many are following, in today's stage Lance's loyal lieutenant for all his stage victories, George Hincape, had a chance to lead the race and wear the yellow jersey for himself. Armstrong and Hincape are on different teams now, but -- as I wrote last year --- the race features a lot of cooperation among different teams to advance goals that they may share.
Hincape got out on a break. Armstrong's team, Astana, wanted to make sure that Hincape did not run up a big lead, AG2R needed to defend the yellow jersey but lacked the power to do it solo. Columbia wanted to get Hincape the yellow but had a second goal to keep Mark Cavendish close enough to get involved in any sprint at the end. Garmin and Columbia have a rivalry that extends into bad blood.
Enough pacing from the peloton kept Hincape's lead down to where he missed the yellow by five seconds. He was visibly shaken in an interview. A bit of gentlemanliness remains in the sport and he felt that Astana had paced the peloton too hard -- that his old buddy Lance Armstrong had churlishly deprived him of a great honor for no real purpose.
In Armstrong's interview, Lance blamed Gamin but it was unsettled.
The point, jk? You mentioned something about a point? Armstrong wrote on his Facebook page, to his 875,878 fans, that: "St14 done. Sounds like there's a bit of confusion over this one. No one and i mean no one, wanted George in yellow more than me." The point is that pre-FB and Twitter, there would be no way for an athlete or celebrity to get a message out like that.
Fair point, and other than stalking fears I've never had a bad opinion of Facebook.
I had a sports observation of my own today - Watching Fox Saturday Baseball coverage of Angels @ Athletics today we saw former Rockie Matt Holliday go 2 for 3 with a walk, 2 RBI, 2 stolen bases and a run scored through 6 innings after which his A's trailed 8-5. In the Angels half of the third inning, however, he caught a fly ball for the 2nd out and threw a pea to catcher Landon Powell that beat the tagged runner from third by 10 feet. Powell dropped it, leading to that plus 2 more runs scored in the inning. Making matters worse, Holliday recorded the 3rd out on a shallow fly ball to left, surviving a collision with shortstop Orlando Cabrera in the process. Oh, and Holliday is the subject of trade rumors approaching the deadline.
The point this time? I had to wonder if Matt wishes he'd signed the multi-year, multi-million dollar contract offer from the Rockies (49-41) instead of forcing a trade to the A's(38-50).
Posted by: johngalt at July 18, 2009 6:57 PMJuly 12, 2009
Was that not unprecedented?
Don't watch this more than 11 times:
From The Virgunian via Instapundt
I watched it 12 times. Now do I get 100 lashes with a wet noodle?
Posted by: jaafar at July 12, 2009 1:05 PMI think you're safe, jaafar, our enforcement division around here is pretty lax...
Posted by: jk at July 13, 2009 11:11 AMBesides, a guy can't really be blamed for finding this lamestream media faceplant so compelling as to watch it an unhealthy number of times.
Posted by: johngalt at July 14, 2009 11:24 PMBut-but-but, wasn't it unprecedented in its awesomeness?
Posted by: jk at July 15, 2009 10:33 AMPardon me: "unprecedented lamestream media faceplant..."
Posted by: johngalt at July 15, 2009 3:50 PMHeh. We are having too much fun now. That was a suggested quote for CNN's Don Lemon. But it works pretty well as you inferred as well!
Posted by: jk at July 15, 2009 4:27 PMJuly 9, 2009
HOPE AND CHANGE!
I'm not sure Professor Reynolds has been fair, highlighting bad economic data with "Hope and Change." No doubt they'd take a victory lap on good news -- and no doubt they're hurting, not helping, the economy. But, we are in a complicated global contraction and I don't think you can pin everything on President Obama.
That said, you have got to appreciate this AP story:
565K new jobless claims, lowest level since Jan.WASHINGTON – The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits last week fell to lowest level since early January, largely due to changes in the timing of auto industry layoffs.
Continuing claims, meanwhile, unexpectedly jumped to a record-high.
Happy days are freakin' here again, huh AP? I'm not sure I remember this rosy coverage when that Texas guy was living at 1600 Penn.
Limbaugh likes to say that bringing us hope for change is the only campaign promise Obama has delivered on. In the meantime, day by day, he lowers the bar for his 2012 opponent.
Posted by: johngalt at July 9, 2009 11:42 PMBack in 2001, every week it was pointed out that jobless claims over 400K meant a contracting economy.
Where is the same point made today? It's the same AP, Reuters and CNN "economics" writers.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 9, 2009 11:43 PMJune 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-à-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 win